[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING ONGOING FOREVER GI BILL IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-915 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman
JULIA BROWNLEY, California DAVID P. ROE, Tenessee, Ranking
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice- GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Chairman AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,
MIKE LEVIN, California American Samoa
MAX ROSE, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SUSIE LEE, Nevada JIM BANKS, Indiana
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina ANDY BARR, Kentucky
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR., DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
California STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota CHIP ROY, Texas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
Northern Mariana Islands
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
MIKE LEVIN, California, Chairman
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Ranking
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York Member
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JIM BANKS, Indiana
SUSIE LEE, Nevada ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION
SUSIE LEE, Nevada, Chairwoman
JULIA BROWNLEY, California JIM BANKS, Indiana, Ranking Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina CHIP ROY, Texas
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Page
Examining Ongoing Forever GI Bill Implementation Efforts......... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Mike Levin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity.................................................... 1
Honorable Susie Lee, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Technology
Modernization.................................................. 2
Gus M. Bilirakis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Oppurtunity.................................................... 3
Jim Banks, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Technology
Modernization.................................................. 4
WITNESSES
Dr. Paul R. Lawrence, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).......................................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 33
Accompanied by:
Ms. Charmain Bogue, Acting Executive Director, Education
Services Veterans Benefits Administration
Mr. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary, Office of Information
and Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No opening
statement......................................................
Accompanied by:
Mr. Robert Orifini Information Technology, Specialist
Architecture, Strategy, and Design Office of Information
and Technology
The Honorable Michael J. Missal, Inspector General, Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA).......................................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 36
Mr. Jay Schnitzer, MD, Ph.D., Vice President, Chief Technology
Officer, The MITRE Corporation................................. 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Veterans Education Success (VES)................................. 42
EXAMINING ONGOING FOREVER GI BILL IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS
----------
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.,
in Room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Mike Levin presiding.
Present: Representatives Lee, Brownley, Rice, Lamb,
Brindisi, Cunningham, Luria, Pappas, Bilirakis, Banks, Roe,
Bergman, Barr, Meuser, Watkins, and Roy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Mr. Levin. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. I
want to thank everyone for joining us today for this joint
hearing between the Economic Opportunity and Technology
Modernization Subcommittees.
Today, we will be reviewing the VA's implementation of the
Colmery Act, also known as the Forever GI Bill. It has been
almost 2 years since Congress passed the Forever GI Bill into
law. Questions remain about the Department's implementation,
particularly, of sections 107 and 501, which change the
allowance for housing benefits veterans would receive.
VA contracted with Booz Allen to make essential, major
modifications to its information technology systems that
process education claims and payments; however, in July 2018,
with just one month to go, it became clear that the August 1st
deadline would not be met. In the fall 2018 semester, student
veterans faced long delays in payments, with some news reports
stating that several student veterans were getting evicted from
their living situations because of the delays. Clearly, these
modifications have not gone smoothly.
In November 2018, the VA announced a reset of its
implementation efforts indicating that implementation would
occur by December 1st, 2019, for the spring 2020 semester. That
led to the VA signing a new contract earlier this year with
Accenture, since which time we have closely tracked
implementation, as we continue to do today.
In this committee's previous hearings regarding the
President's budget requests and our field hearing in San Diego,
we examined shortfalls in the Forever GI Bill execution.
Repeatedly, we have asked VA officials if the resources they
are allocating today and are requesting in the future are
sufficient to deliver our Nation's veterans the benefits they
have earned.
Both Ranking Member Bilirakis and I have expressed doubts
that the Department will be ready by its new deadline. While we
have received promises of confidence from the VA, it is this
committee's duty to exercise oversight authority over the law's
implementation. That brings us to today's hearing and our
witnesses, and I thank you all for being here.
We are fortunate to have experts with the VA, with the VA
Office of the Inspector General, and The MITRE Corporation. The
inspector general conducted its own assessment of the Forever
GI Bill and implementation, as well as requesting that MITRE
conduct an independent technical assessment. The IG's findings
were stark.
The VA lacked an accountable leader who could oversee
project delivery and I quote, ``Resulting in unclear
communication of implementation progress and inadequately
defined expectations, roles, and responsibilities of the
various VA business lines and contractors involved.''
Our opportunity here today is to see where things stand and
to learn from failures of the past. I look forward to hearing
the testimony from our witnesses to determine where we should
be focusing our efforts, and with that, I now recognize
Technology Modernization Subcommittee chair, Lee, for her
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SUSIE LEE, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chairman Levin.
I am pleased that we could hold this joint hearing today,
ensuring that student veterans get the benefits they have
earned and that the Department of Veterans Affairs has the
systems capable of delivering these benefits is at the heart of
both of our Subcommittees' work. The Subcommittee that I chair,
the Subcommittee on Technology Modernization, has a broad
mandate to look at the systems, big and small, and to conduct
oversight on how the VA is trying to modernize these systems.
One question I have is, what does the universe of legacy
systems look like? I want to try to get a handle on that answer
today.
I am also very concerned about the VA's ability to
successfully move from legacy to modern systems. This is not
just because the VA faces challenges like every Federal agency
with keeping up with the pace of technology and prioritizing
programs and budgets; it is because the VA seems to manage to
get in its own way time and time again. Leadership vacuums,
mismanagement, and an overreliance on contractors makes it hard
to succeed.
It is good to have lessons learned, but unfortunately you
had to fail to get here. Management has to lead, but in the
case of the Forever GI Bill implementation, management was
absent; no one was in charge. A lack of accountability, a lack
of governance, it is not just a Veterans Benefits
Administration issue, it is a whole of VA issue. I am troubled
by governance issue in IT implementation across the department.
It is especially concerning in one of VA's biggest IT
investments, the electronic health record modernization. We
have been asking repeatedly for VA and the Department of
Defense to provide information about their governance proposal
for months, but all we hear is crickets; meanwhile, the program
continues to move further down the track and millions of
dollars are being spent.
Building a house on a shaky foundation has real risks and a
lack of governance is going to be a problem down the line. I
hope the rest of the VA leadership will look at what happened
with the Forever GI Bill and see an opportunity to make
improvements to the way other IT programs are being implemented
and I hope that today's discussion will spur the VA to do more
to get a handle on this governance problem before we hear of
yet another IT failure at VA.
I am sure at the witness table you all are cognizant of
this, but I want to be clear, that IT failures don't happen in
a vacuum. These IT failures mean that if veterans don't get
their benefits, they get evicted from their home, and have
their education disrupted. These failures have real
consequences for our veterans.
I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, I yield.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Lee.
I now recognize Economic Opportunity Subcommittee Ranking
Member Bilirakis for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT GUS M. BILIRAKIS, RANKING MEMBER,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMC OPPORTUNITY
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it
very much. I am proud to be here today to be part of the
Subcommittee's continued review of the implementation of the
Forever GI Bill.
The Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity was the only
Committee on The Hill to hold any hearings on the
implementation of this law last Congress, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for continuing to examine this vital program.
As I mentioned at our hearing last week, the failure by the
VA to update their IT systems caused massive delays in
processing GI Bill claims for thousands of student veterans
last fall. For many student veterans, these payments are the
only source of income they have while they are in school. To
those who have tried to downplay the financial impact and
stress these delays placed on these veterans, I ask you to go
weeks, if not months, without a paycheck and see how that
impacts you.
As our Subcommittee hearing last week, Dr. Lawrence's top
deputy, Ms. Devlin, testified that she was completely confident
that VA has turned the corner and would meet their new self-
imposed deadline to fully implement sections 107 and 501 of the
Forever GI Bill by no later than December 1st, 2019. While I
certainly want to believe that the IT modification will be
ready, I know Mr. Banks has some specific thoughts and
questions on the system itself. I wouldn't be doing my job if I
wasn't just a bit skeptical of this promise by the VA; after
all, last year, these same types of assurances had been given
to this Subcommittee time and time again.
Now, I don't begrudge the VA staff working on this problem.
I know many of them are the most dedicated employees in the
department, but I do hope that our witnesses will testify about
the lessons they have learned and that they are ready to show
us why the results will be different this year.
Today, I am also looking forward to hearing from our
witnesses about what their plan will be on when and how to make
students whole, who were underpaid since August 1st, 2018, set
forth in the law. I agree with Dr. Lawrence's intention to
ensure these retroactive payments don't impact the processing
of current housing payments, but students should expect to be
paid as soon as possible, not just when it is convenient for
the VA and the schools.
I also look forward to hearing from VA's witnesses about
their plan for communicating how these IT modifications and
implementation of the law will impact students in schools.
Despite VA's best intentions last fall, many students were left
unprepared for the delays and still do not understand how the
changes will impact them and their monthly budgets of.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from Assistant Secretary
Gfrerer about what investments have and will be made to upgrade
aging IT systems for GI Bill processing. Many of the delays
last fall can also be linked to an ancient IT system not being
able to communicate with one another due to bandwidth or other
issues.
Mr. Chairman, the delays last fall were certainly not the
first time the VA has failed to provide GI Bill payments on
time, but we must do everything we can to ensure that such
delays never happen again. Our student veterans deserve better.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Finally, I recognize Technology Modernization Subcommittee
Ranking Member, Banks, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JIM BANKS, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The VA's struggle to implement the Forever GI Bill is not
primarily an IT story. This is a story about student veterans
pursuing their educations, paying their bills, and living their
lives. I know that is not lost on anyone in this room and my
colleagues have described this eloquently already.
But nonetheless, it is important to say before anything
else because IT problems in an organization as large as the VA
have real world consequences. These particular IT struggles
with LTS, VA-ONCE, WEAMS, and other systems concern me not
because they are unusual, but because they are so ordinary.
This disaster happened with two sections of the Forever GI
Bill, but it could have been any VA program.
What were the risk factors? Antiquated legacy systems,
complicated interdependencies between the systems, uncertain
requirements, many data feeds from different databases. That
could describe nearly every situation our Subcommittee has ever
examined.
Going forward, I think VA has to approach every project
with the assumption that it is high-risk. Any IT system on a
decades-old platform that has not had a major modification in
recent memory is going to be fragile. When you try to integrate
it with something new, it is probably going to break.
Let's go in with some of those assumptions. Let's do the IT
assessment at the very beginning when VA is figuring out its
business requirements that the IT systems are supposed to
support. I hope those can be lessons learned, but right now, VA
is facing another end-of-year deadline to modify LTS to
accommodate the housing-allowance changes.
We have the benefit of a year of trial and error, as well
as MITRE's independent technical assessment and the inspector
general's report. We have Under Secretary Lawrence as the
single accountable official. We have a streamlined team of VBA
and OIT professionals, and we have the attention and support of
the highest levels of the department, and that is all very
good, but we also have all the same legacy IT systems with the
same complicated interdependencies.
VA still has no end-to-end software testing process, test
data, or common platform to test the new code against the
various systems before putting it into production. The
contractor is going to write all the code in increments
according to the agile methodology.
That is good, but the testing environment will not be in
place, even under the best-case scenario until the very end,
and that is bad. Even though the code will have been written in
increments, it will have to be tested all at once and then put
into production quickly. There is no reason to doubt that will
happen, but it will be just in the nick of time.
In other words, VA has some of the ingredients and is
trying to get the remaining ingredients, but most of them are
not in the sequence the recipe actually calls for. I believe
the level of scrutiny this Committee has devoted to the Forever
GI Bill is absolutely warranted, given the importance of the
law and its impact on student veterans' lives. And I believe
the level of priority that the VA has given to this issue is,
in part, the result of that scrutiny. Our esteemed witness
panel here today is evidence of that.
We have the benefit of hindsight and some of the best minds
at work from industry and government. Let's make this time
different.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Now, I would like to turn to our witnesses. Appearing
before us today is Dr. Paul Lawrence, Under Secretary for
benefits, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, who is
accompanied by Ms. Charmain Bogue, acting executive director of
education services, at the Veterans Benefits Administration;
Mr. James Gfrerer, assistant secretary for the VA Office of
Information and Technology; and Mr. Robert Orifici, information
technology specialist for architecture strategy, and design, at
the VA Office of Information and Technology. We also have Mr.
Michael Missal, inspector general of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and Mr. Jay Schnitzer, vice president and chief
technology officer, of The MITRE Corporation.
Thank you all for joining us. As you know, you will each
have 5 minutes, but your full statements will be added to the
record.
Under Secretary Lawrence, you are now recognized to present
your statement.
STATEMENT OF PAUL R. LAWRENCE
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, and good morning, Chairs Levin,
Lee, Ranking Members Bilirakis and Banks, and Members of the
Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the positive progress VA is making on
implementation of their Forever GI Bill.
On November 28th, 2018, VA announced key changes in the
implementation of sections 107 and 501. Because of the
information technology difficulties VA experienced with
implementing these sections, Secretary Wilkie announced a reset
of VA's implementation efforts to give the Department time,
contracting support, and necessary resources to develop the
capabilities to process enrollments, in accordance with the
law, but December 2019.
Considering the IT challenges we faced in late summer, we
did not update the monthly housing rates in August, as would
normally occur. Within two weeks of the secretary's
announcement, we took swift action and updated the 2018 and
2019 academic year monthly housing rates for fall 2018. By the
end of January, we processed over 450,000 corrections. As a
result of this accelerated and aggressive timeline, over
322,000 individuals received additional funds they were owed.
I am also pleased to report that our pending education
claims went from a high of 200,000 claims in September of 2018
to the lowest it has been in months at under 65,000 claims on
April 22nd, 2019. Our pending inventory is slightly above
67,000 claims as of May 8th and our average current days to
complete is 25 days for original claims and 13 days for
supplemental claims. We are on track to meet or exceed our
fiscal year targets of 28 and 14 days for processing original
and supplemental claims, respectively.
In early fall, VA engaged MITRE to perform an independent
technical assessment of the capabilities necessary to meet
these requirements. MITRE provided 20 recommendations intended
to help us successfully implement the Forever GI Bill. We have
completed 10 of the 20 recommendations as of April 30th, 2019.
An additional 9 recommendations will be completed by June 30th
and the remaining recommendations will be completed on
September 30th. The approximate cost to conduct the ITA was
$232,000.
In December, VA, again contracted with MITRE to support and
address the recommendations set forth in the ITA as they
pertained to the Colmery Act program integration office. The
value of this one-year contract is approximately $5.2 million.
In preparation for the arrival of the software development
systems integration vendor, we established the PIO as the
formal entity within the department with assigned or aligned
government leaders, staff, federally funded research and
development center support, and contract support.
This governance structure, which is supported by The MITRE
Corporation is to serve as a decision authority for the
definition and enforcement of norms for executing program
activities and approval or disapproval of life cycle processes,
control gates, activities, funding, acquisition, resources, and
the systems required to achieve successful implementation.
MITRE also coordinates functional, technical, and programmatic
activities, capturing associated risk with these activities,
and developing mitigation plans and strategies to ensure we are
on schedule to meet the December 2019 implementation date.
On February 15, 2019, we awarded a contract to Accenture
Federal Services to provide systems integration to coordinate
planning, development, and integrated testing of all systems
associated with Colmery Act implementation. The approximate
value of that contract for fiscal year 2019 is $14 million. The
scope of their contract includes development of new software,
interface with legacy systems, system architecture, and
testing.
Accenture and VA started working on implementation efforts
the same day the new contract was awarded. Accenture has
already analyzed the code delivered by Booz Allen Hamilton
against the section 107 and 501 requirements, concluding it
will not be utilized as a starting point for Accenture's own
development efforts due to definition changes under these
sections.
Accenture, however, will evaluate the available code
delivered by Booz to determine if any portions of it can be
reused within Accenture's own development under a support
contract.
VA has made great progress in setting course for successful
implementation of the Colmery Act while reducing the claims
workload and improving timeliness to ensure our student
veterans are paid without delay. Last year, the regional
processing offices experienced significant latency issues that
impacted operations, so we increased bandwidth at all three
RPOs.
The increased bandwidth at Muskogee RPO resulted in an
increased capacity by nearly 50 percent. To further address
this latency issue at Muskogee, we replaced over 500 user
workstations to resolve issues with outdated network cards. In
addition, the benefits delivery network system performance was
improved by deploying a patch to 1,887 workstations.
We continue to work closely and collaborate with OIT on
technology improvements that support our field stations and our
staff processing education claims.
We also increased our efforts to communicate and
disseminate information widely. In this regard, we have
undertaken numerous initiatives to better serve and inform our
stakeholders, including emailing updates to approximately
700,000 veterans throughout December. We have also held a dozen
roundtables and webinars for veterans and schools throughout
December and January, reaching combined audiences in the
thousands.
We have begun holding more roundtables with schools,
veteran service organizations, state-approving agencies, and
other stakeholders to keep our partners aware of developments,
solicit suggestions, and help us communicate the upcoming
schedule. Each session includes emails afterwards communicating
what was done and FAQs.
Finally, from the beginning of this effort and throughout
the successful implementation of the Forever GI Bill, we have,
and will regularly and transparently, update our congressional
partners on our progress and our work. This includes holding
monthly briefings with the Oversight Committee, submitting the
90-day report, as required by public law, and continue to be
responsive to your questions and ask for information.
We welcome and encourage the additional opportunities to
share information with you and your staff and we look forward
to maintaining this cadence of communication. Thank you, we
look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Paul R. Lawrence appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Under Secretary Lawrence.
Inspector General Missal, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE MICHAEL J. MISSAL
Mr. Missal. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, Ranking Member Banks, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
Office of Inspector General's recent issued statement: Forever
GI Bill Implementation Challenges. My statement will focus on
the information we collected to respond to concerns from
members of Congress and the public about the implementation of
the Forever GI Bill requirements.
Last fall, VBA acknowledged implementation challenges with
sections 107 and 501 with the Forever GI Bill relating to the
housing allowance. These two sections fundamentally redesign
how VBA pays monthly housing allowance to veterans using the
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program. These adjustments
include a change in the base for the calculation of monthly
housing stipends to the location of the campus where the
student attends most classes, instead of the location of the
main campus of the institution.
VA's failure to properly implement these requirements led
to the delivery of inaccurate or delayed housing stipend
payments to eligible GI Bill recipients. The OIG examined VA's
early implementation actions and the impediments to meeting
Forever GI Bill implementation mandates. The OIG found that
VBA's implementation of the payment of the housing allowances
under the Forever GI Bill was hampered by the same two
underlying issues that have negatively affected VA's
implementation of other new policies and initiatives: lack of
functionality and inadequate program leadership.
Specifically, the OIG found that VBA failed to modify its
IT systems by the required implementation date to make accurate
housing-allowance payments. Additionally, VA lacked a single
accountable official to oversee the project, which resulted in
unclear communications to VA stakeholders of implementation
progress and inadequately defined expectations, roles, and
responsibilities of the various VA business lines and
contractors involved.
The OIG found that approximately 10 months passed from the
time the Forever GI Bill became law to when VA received the
initial software-development release and began testing the
system modifications to VA's long-term solutions application in
order to address sections 107 and 501. Once VA began testing
the software-development release, it identified defects that
required the development of additional versions availed to yes.
Based on interviews we conducted, the OIG team learned that
when user testing occurred, the test failed scenarios that VBA
did not account for when developing the business requirements.
The OIG found that VA's program offices held different
expectations from one another as to what they considered
complete and accurate business requirements.
In addition, VA's Office of Information and Technology and
VBA Education Service has divergent opinions of a deployable
solution. Without an accountable official, these differing
opinions and expectations were not mitigated or resolved and
became significant impediments to a successful and timely
implementation of the Forever GI Bill requirements. The OIG has
continually identified systemic problems that VBA needs to
address when implementing new initiatives and policies. These
include a lack of IT system functionality, poor planning and
communications, and inadequate program leadership. These same
systemic problems were significant factors in the delays and
disruption VA experienced while attempting to implement the
housing allowance requirements in the Forever GI Bill.
The OIG will continue to monitor VA's implementation
actions and is reviewing the plan provided to Congress under
the Forever GI Bill Housing Payment Fulfillment Act.
Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, and Members of the Subcommittee,
this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Michael Missal appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you Inspector General Missal.
Mr. Schnitzer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAY SCHNITZER
Dr. Schnitzer. Good morning, Chairman Levin, Chairwoman
Lee, Ranking Members Bilirakis and Banks, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on matters relating to the
implementation of sections 107 and 501 of the Colmery Act, also
known as the Forever GI Bill. MITRE very much appreciates the
opportunity to share our insight from our work on this critical
program.
My name is Jay Schnitzer. I am a vice president and the
chief technology officer with The MITRE Corporation. I would
like to make a brief statement and submit my full remarks for
the record.
MITRE is 501(c)(3), not-for-profit corporation. We are
chartered to operate in the public interests, which includes
operating federally funded research and development centers,
FFRDCs, on behalf of Federal agency sponsors. We currently
operate seven FFRDCs sponsored by a variety of Federal
agencies.
The Department of Veterans Affairs cosponsors one of these
FFRDCs, the MITRE-operated Center for Enterprise Modernization.
From our experience, I think it is important to stress to the
Committee right up front that the kinds of issues VA
experienced in implementing the Colmery Act last year are
common to agencies attempting to execute highly complex,
integrated-mission requirements and to modernize their systems
and processes to address new needs.
MITRE's involvement with the Colmery Act began on September
28th of last year when we were engaged by the Office of
Information and Technology, OIT, to perform an independent
technical assessment, ITA, of VA's implementation efforts.
The Colmery Act effort involves the implementation of a
major system, a long-term solution--LTS--as well as updates to
many other systems involved in administering GI Bill benefits.
The focus of the independent assessment was to identify issues
related to the delayed delivery of the LTS and to recommend a
resolution to the issues associated with completing and
deploying the required system updates.
The MITRE ITA team identified four systemic findings that
were preventing rapid integrated capability delivery under the
strategy then in place: First, technical and business leaders
were not fully empowered to address issues, due to a lack of
clear authority, priorities, and goals; second, work
priorities, resources, and authorities for execution were not
aligned for delivery; three, operations and processes within
and across the Veterans Benefits Administration and OIT were
not focused on the Colmery Act functionality; and fourth, data
and tools were not integrated across LTS and the legacy
systems.
To address these findings, these systemic findings, we
proposed 20 recommendations which VA fully accepted. As a
result, the following major changes have been implemented: VA
appointed the Under Secretary for benefits, USB, as the overall
accountable business leader, aided by the chief information
officer; VA chartered and established a new program governance
team reporting to the USB, with business owner and OIT
leadership; VA created a new program integration office
accountable to the program governance team and responsible for
definition, coordination, and management of functional,
technical, and programmatic activities across VA; and VA
selected an end-to-end systems integrator to coordinate
planning, development, and integrated testing of all systems
associated. As is typical for any complex integration effort,
the program is not completely without risk, given the many
systems and organizational components involved and the many
interdependencies.
But VA now has in place an integrated program team that is
deliberately managing to that risk by identifying the critical
path activities and the decisions needed to succeed and the
contingencies necessary to mitigate the risk and they are
acting proactively.
In closing, I would like to note that of MITRE's roughly
8,500 personnel, some 30 percent are veterans. There are few
duties that our employees consider more noble and consequential
than honoring, through our support for VA, the service and
sacrifice of our Nation's men and women in uniform.
On behalf of the entire MITRE team, I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to come before you today, and I look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jay Schnitzer appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Schnitzer. I will now recognize
myself for 5 minutes to begin the question portion of this
hearing.
Dr. Lawrence, you and other officials have testified while
VA will not seek reimbursement for veterans who overpaid
because of the implementation issues, you will retroactively
correct underpayments. What are the current efforts to
understand how many veterans were underpaid and by how much and
when is VA going to be able to make them whole?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir, that's correct. We are in the
process of implementing the solution that will go into places
on December 1st. When we have done that, we will have a better
estimate for who exactly we have to make whole and what that
number is. Right now, we are developing--and I believe we
shared this in the briefings we offered to your staff--the plan
to do that. Our intention is to do it, as exactly as members
have spoken already, as soon as possible.
We appreciate the situations veterans are in. We want to do
sort of a couple of things simultaneously; one, get the system
in place and do it right; two, get the spring going; and,
three, get everybody reimbursed the way you described. We will
have a plan in detail as this comes about and we will brief
your staff and you on it when we finalize it. It will include
communication and clarity so there are no surprises. It will be
intentional, and it will be the subject of our webinars and our
communication with everybody.
And we will need to do this because we will need the
schools to provide us information. We will need a lot of things
going in the right direction, but we appreciate the situation
and want to make sure it is done exactly the way I described.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Under Secretary Lawrence. You know, I
wanted to reaffirm that while the tone of these hearings
sometimes can get contentious, it is our intent to work in a
collaborative fashion with the VA and partner and serving our
veterans.
The lack of clear and forthcoming communication from the
VA, though, seems to indicate that the relationship may be
somewhat strained. My understanding is it took a lot of
cajoling for VA to provide documents related to the new
Accenture contract and although VA did finally provide those,
it did so 3 days before this hearing.
So, I wanted to ask you, sir, how can Congress better
partner with the VA to ensure success and what specific steps
will the VA take to be more clear and forthcoming with
Congress?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly. And we appreciate that and notice
the tone in this conversation, too. And, you know, to quote
somebody famous, we feel your pain, because this is the
situation, we are all in. Most of us are veterans up here. We
understand this, and ironically, the person who leads the MITRE
team that works with us day-to-day used the GI Bill and he has
very torn by that.
I think the example of providing the contract to you--I
looked into this one--is not representative of the
communication we are having with you. I am not an acquisition
person or a lawyer, sir, so I don't understand the
complexities. It frustrated me, too, when I heard about that,
because it was our intention. We knew going into the reset we
would have to be the most transparent we have ever been and
then some to re-win your level of confidence with us.
And so, the briefings, the communication, that is our
intention. Again, I think that was an exception, and to the
extent I wish I were responsible, I would apologize for it, but
I don't quite understand where that is. But we will try to do
everything we can, so you know about it and answer your
questions so that you feel informed.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
You may be aware, we had the principal deputy Under
Secretary testify before the Subcommittee, Ms. Devlin, and she
said with 100 percent certainty--so, we actually asked her on a
scale, I think we asked her on a scale of 1 to 10, she said 10
out of 10, certainty that this issue was going to be resolved,
that the IT-related issues, the correct payment of benefits,
the, you know, correct zip codes for our veterans, et cetera,
that would all be fixed by the end of the year. Again, she said
10 out of 10.
Do you share that opinion?
Mr. Lawrence. Absolutely.
Mr. Levin. That is good--10 out of 10?
Mr. Lawrence. Ten out of ten.
Mr. Levin. All right. I wanted to turn to the Accenture
contract. VA has spoken of the requirement that Accenture
produce a fully operational system. In some terms, it makes it
seem like all the risk is on Accenture. From a contractual
standpoint it may be, but ensuring that student veterans
receive the benefits they deserve require that VA also be
completely invested in the development, testing, evaluation,
and operation of the system.
Dr. Lawrence, how are you ensuring that this contract goes
well and what, if anything, are you doing differently than the
previous contract?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly. Well, several different things,
but let me answer your first question--first part of your
question first, which is the monitoring of the contract. So, we
work closely with our acquisition folks who run the acquisition
and to include monitoring the contracts. So, they are very kept
abreast of the activities they are required to do.
The contract was actually led by our colleagues in OIT. The
integration of this team, together, they watch and do regular
reviews, as well, as we do regular reviews as a broad team in
terms of the activity, the schedule, the scope, and the like.
We have not forgotten the lessons from the fall where, you
know, perhaps our inability to aggressively monitor the
contract came back and caused us problems. So, we certainly
don't want that to happen again.
More broadly, though, your question about what is
different--and I know this came up in a couple of the
statements already--I would point to three things that are
different than the past. One was, as everyone has pointed out,
the lack of an accountable official. So, now, we have a single
accountable official, a role that I asked the secretary to
appoint.
But there are two other things that are less subtle that I
want to draw your attention to. The first one, related to the
first point was, the accountable official enables crisp
governance--timely decisions, resolution of conflict,
realignment of things that are unaligned.
The second was hiring MITRE to be the program integrator.
This is, if you will, a super program manager to keep everybody
on track and dispute decisions where technical experts are,
perhaps, in conflict. MITRE's expertise as an FFRDC enables
them to bring vast knowledge of how other government programs
work, as well as technical expertise to this role. This is a
big difference.
And, finally, a hiring a world-class systems integrator and
software development firm, what were learned last time was it
was a systems integration discussion. The last statement by
Congressman Banks about the different systems is exactly what
we are talking about, which is why a systems integrator was
needed.
So, those three things give us a level of confidence that
we better understand the problem and our approach to it is on
track.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I have plenty more questions, but so
do my colleagues. I want to be respectful of them as well, so I
would now like to recognize my friend, the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Dr. Lawrence, one of the most comment complaints we
received last fall was that the VA was not appropriately
communicating with the schools and students regarding payment
delays. We also received complaints from schools over the last
of communication on how to expedite hardship claims for student
veterans who relied heavily for these payments to survive.
What lessons have you learned about communicating and you
can give me your opinion on what I just said, too, but what
lessons have you learned about communicating with students and
how do you plan to remain in touch with veterans whose monthly
housing allowance will draw up when payments are corrected to
follow the law on January 1st, 2020?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly. A lot of lessons, quite frankly.
The pain you experienced was the pain we felt, too, of people
communicating with us and explaining the financial hardship
situations they were in. We took a lot of steps to communicate
the numbers to call. We had regular phone calls with the VSOs.
But in many cases, it fell short, as you pointed out.
We intend to do more of that. Just so you know, part of
what I did last fall was I held a student roundtable at Texas A
& M, talked with students directly. I will go to Pittsburgh and
do the same thing at a community college in a couple of weeks
to better under that.
But we intend to do more. We intend it to be redundant and
a lot. But not only with the students, with the schools, we
understand their situation and we know what we are going to do
come December and beyond, is going to put requirements on them
to provide us information all the way back to August of last
year. So, we know we are going to have to communicate. We have
enlisted the VSOs. We have enlisted everybody to try to let
them understand where this will be and how it will play out for
them, how they can communicate situations that may cause
difficulties in their life and what we can do to expedite it.
We want to make sure that as we do the reset, everybody
understands their role and they should have none of these
problems. Now, that being said, yes, will somebody not get the
memo, not get the email. I can't guarantee it. I will probably
enlist the help of you and your staff. I know people have been
good about communicating to us through that--look in on this
and do some of these things.
So, we will try as hard as we can possibly imagine to use
the multiple forms of media, the multiple channels available to
us to let everybody know the situations they are in and what
they need to do.
Mr. Bilirakis. And then you need to communicate with the
members of Congress, as well, so we can get the word out.
Mr. Lawrence. Oh, yes, please.
Mr. Bilirakis. It is very important for--
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, thank you. We will do a lot of that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Dr. Lawrence, again, in the contract
documents recently provided to the committee, Booz Allen
Hamilton submitted a response to VA's request for information
associated with IT reset. In this response, they indicated they
could complete the IT modifications for sections 107 and 501 by
July 1st, 2019. They also indicated that VA's changes regarding
schools' zip codes would--and I quote, ``Not have the intended
impact of simplifying the implementation and that they believe
those rules had already been coded into LTS.''
What is your view of Booz Allen Hamilton's assertions?
Mr. Lawrence. I am unfamiliar with the document that you
are referring to and would very much appreciate a chance to
look at it in some detail to deal with it in detail. But I will
tell you it was a thoughtful analysis that went into the
decision to reset and the approach for it.
We had concluded that we needed, as I said a second ago, a
systems integrator to solve the problem of all the different
things and the software development, as just witnessed by what
we talked about. I repeatedly appeared before the Committee and
in Members' offices explaining we did not understand what date
we would ever be able to complete the software.
Repeatedly we came up short. The contractor was unable to
identify how we would ever get this resolved and I was, quite
frankly, embarrassed to sit in front of you in November of this
Committee of last year and not be able to provide a date when
it would be done. We were approaching the problem in the wrong
way and we needed a reset, which is what we did, and we needed
better expertise to help us, different expertise to help us
with The MITRE Corporation and with the world-class systems
integrator.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Chairwoman Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As the chair of Technology Modernization, I am looking at
the implementation of IT systems across the VA; most notably,
the largest implementation, the electronic health record
modernization.
As I said in my opening, lack of governance is a common
problem and I see stove piping happening where OIT has a piece
and the VHA has a piece, yet, the program office is supposed to
be the middleman between the two. But this isn't solving the
problems longstanding at the VA like the technical debt, the
outdated infrastructure, or change management among clinicians.
There is also stove piping in the case of the Forever GI Bill
implementation where both IT and VBA had a role, but no one
seemed to be in charge.
Mr. Gfrerer, have the problems with implementation of the
Forever GI Bill caused the VA to reevaluate its approach to
system implementation?
Mr. Gfrerer. Chairwoman, I will speak for myself and say
that those experiences absolutely have informed the process. As
we look at the lessons learned around Colmery, I can tell you I
was just talking with my head of development and operations
today and with Rob Orifici, our program manager, and he said we
are absolutely pulling those lessons learned from how this team
is working together across VBA with the systems integrator,
with MITRE, and with the vendor, with Accenture, and there are
a lot of good lessons learned and shared. And going forward, we
look to port those across to the other programs that you
referenced.
Ms. Lee. That is good to hear. Thank you.
MITRE has made some recommendations regarding how program
management should be structured, and I want to understand those
recommendations a little bit better and how the VA is
responding to them.
Dr. Schnitzer, you recommended that the VA establish this
Colmery Act champion to serve as a chartered and empowered
business leader across the VBA and OIT. What type of leader
should fill this role?
Dr. Schnitzer. Thank you for the question, Madam
Chairwoman. I think the type of leader is somebody who accepts
that responsibility and has the authority within the
organization to work across all of the different components and
be effective. The Under Secretary is a perfect example of such
an individual.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Dr. Lawrence, you have designated a champion?
Mr. Lawrence. I am that person, ma'am.
Ms. Lee. You are?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Do you believe--Dr. Schnitzer, you also
recommended creating an end-to-end chief system integrator.
What is the value of that role?
Dr. Schnitzer. So, the integration part of the project
addresses the problems that have been stated previously, which
is working on one piece of software in isolation without
understanding all the connections to it both, inputs and
outputs, and the mutual dependencies won't solve the problem.
So, having the contractor now as a systems integrator who is
looking at all of that in a cross- functional way is essential
for success, and that is a key difference for the program
today, as opposed to prior to the recent.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. You also have a recommendation to
create a lightweight governance counsel. I am a little--I would
just like some clarification about ``lightweight'' and, also,
can you explain how it should operate.
Dr. Schnitzer. So, lightweight just refers to the minimum
number of people on it that are necessary to get the job done
so that it is not overly bureaucratic and so that scheduling
meetings doesn't get overly complicated because you are trying
to bring in too many people into each meeting.
And then the effectiveness is measured on how fast can
issues that arise, as Dr. Lawrence mentioned, how fast can they
be adjudicated and move on. And I would say that from our
perspective, what we have seen in the past few months is that
issues that previously could take weeks or even months are now
being adjudicated and dealt with effectively in days and
sometimes hours, and that is exactly the outcome desired.
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you.
And I yield my time. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Meuser for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meuser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of you. It is nice to see all of you
again and, certainly, thank you for your service. I do have
some experiences in implementation of informational technology
systems, as well as with Accenture. I served as revenue
secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and we had
an over-one-hundred-million-dollar contract with Accenture, so
I have some experiences there, and I wanted to ask you about
that contract some.
Is the contract based upon Accenture gets paid for the work
accomplished, for the work that is performed, Dr. Lawrence?
Mr. Lawrence. So, by that, are you asking is it a time-and-
materials contract?
Mr. Meuser. Yeah, for accomplishing certain goals and
implementation of the--and the integration that takes place, do
they then get paid upon it being completed?
Mr. Lawrence. It is a fixed-price contract, so let's
establish that part.
Mr. Meuser. Okay.
Mr. Lawrence. And I am not exactly certain--again, I am not
versed in the details of how they get paid--
Mr. Meuser. All right.
Mr. Lawrence. --so, I am not--do you know, Rob?
Mr. Orifici. It is a firm fixed-price contract and it is
outcome-based. So, they will be paid based off of their
performance to meet the goals set forth to establish
functionality to implement Colmery sections 107 and 501 for
the--
Mr. Meuser. Okay. Great. And have they set such timelines
for you?
Mr. Orifici. We set up the initial timelines in terms of
our goals in reaching December 1st, 2019. They have provided
plans and they have provided their increments in order to
arrive at the dates and give us adequate time to have the
solution in place.
Mr. Meuser. How have they done so far?
Mr. Orifici. They have been doing very well so far and they
have been--brought the correct people to provide us with the
solution needed.
Mr. Meuser. And that was my next question. The best thing
that they provide is their human resources and they can give
you an ample amount. They can give you a higher amount, so as
we are assured that we hit the deadlines or they can lag
behind, which causes delays.
Where would you say you are as far as their human resources
allocation?
Mr. Orifici. Thank you for that question. In terms of their
resource's allocation, they have quickly brought, I would say,
very senior people to bear on this effort. From day one, as
soon as the contract was signed, they had resources onboard and
were meeting with us to arrive towards a plan for getting us to
a solution and they have surged very quickly, and we have been
onboarding very fast in terms of having the right people to
bear.
They have also brought people with former knowledge of the
solution into play, and so we are looking very good in terms of
their human resources allocation.
Mr. Lawrence. Sir, and if I might add, I meet weekly with
the managing director from Accenture who worries about this
contract and the broad VA portfolio. I have access to the chief
operating officer of their Federal practice who gave me his
card and phone number. I can call whenever if those things are
not--I am attuned to your concerns on that.
Mr. Meuser. Great, yes. I did have a very successful
relationship with them. I will also add, though, the
proverbial, squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I would also
suggest don't hesitate to go to the top. I mean, this is
obviously a high priority for them and a high priority for our
government and our country.
Mr. Missal. Congressman, I can assure you Dr. Lawrence and
I both were on the commercial side. We know those levers to
press.
Mr. Meuser. All right.
Mr. Missal. I wanted to reassure you on that.
Mr. Meuser. Very good. And in my remaining time, Dr.
Lawrence, Secretary Lawrence, the MITRE findings here, you
mentioned about the accountability, so that is terrific. And
these are not atypical findings, I wouldn't say, and they are
also curable. So, secondly, where he mentioned the respective
pieces were not--we are working independently, not working
together, would you say that is something that you feel
confident in bringing together?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, absolutely. I mean, part of the
conversation setting up the PIO was having an integrated team,
standalone entity in our organization, enlisting the resources
from OIT who are dedicated to working on this--not drawn in
different directions--focused on this. We have 21 FTEs from OIT
who work with us on this. It is clear focus about what they are
doing. Other assignments have been reduced or eliminated and
this is what we are working on.
From VBA, from the benefits, we have 10 people. This is
their full-time job. This is what we do. So, it is a very clear
focus. It is an integrated team. We spend a lot of time working
together. We are in the VBA headquarters building. This is what
they are doing.
Mr. Meuser. Yes, so, all involved need to feel ownership,
equal ownership, absolutely. That is very good to hear.
And, Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Meuser.
I now recognize Mr. Pappas. He has stepping out. It is your
turn.
Mr. Pappas. I will yield my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Levin. Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
I will now recognize Ranking Member Banks for 5 minutes.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Schnitzer, I am very concerned about the VA's inability
to test the software code that its contractors produce against
all of the relevant IT systems. Of MITRE's 20 recommendations,
the very last one that VA expects to implement is establishing
common development and testing environments.
Do you agree with that under ideal conditions that this
would be one of the first steps completed?
Dr. Schnitzer. So, under ideal conditions, it could be one
of the first steps completed. On the other hand, we live in the
real world where some things depend on sequences and you can't
change that, and this is one of those. So, there is no
practical or physical way to change the sequence presented
before us today. So, it has to be number 20, and we have to do
the best we can with that.
However, it can be mitigated. So, you are absolutely right,
the integrated test doesn't occur until the very end, but
individual tests along the way in other environments are
occurring all the time, and that reduces the risk of the final
test.
Mr. Banks. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Schnitzer. Agree with which?
Mr. Banks. And how important is that--do you agree with
what the gentleman just said and how important is that testing.
I believe they call it regression testing.
Dr. Schnitzer. Do I agree that--
Mr. Banks. No, I am asking Mr. Missal.
Dr. Schnitzer. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Missal. We agree that the testing MITRE did is very,
very important. We did not get into the technical side of this,
given that MITRE had already done that. But we have seen
similar issues with the testing in other systems that we looked
and other reports that we have done, including one on VBMS and
some other systems.
Mr. Lawrence. Congressman, if I might, one of the other
challenges--
Mr. Banks. I have got a lot of ground to cover. At some
point, I will get to you, I promise.
But Dr. Schnitzer, MITRE performed a review of Booz Allen
Hamilton's software code and found it to be generally high
quality. Is that an accurate characterization?
Dr. Schnitzer. Yes, it is.
Mr. Banks. Okay. In our last Forever GI Bill hearing in
November, the Booz Allen Hamilton witness insisted his company
had delivered good software code based on VA's requirements. VA
announced its intention to replace Booz Allen in less than a
month later.
Given the fact that VA still does not have pre- production
testing environments, can anyone say for sure whether Booz
Allen's code would have worked, Doctor?
Dr. Schnitzer. We have fairly good evidence that it would
not have because of the lack of integration. So, even though it
was good code, in the functional environment, it would not have
succeeded, and we are very confident of that.
Mr. Banks. Have you shared that evidence with the
committee?
Dr. Schnitzer. We have shared it with VA.
Mr. Banks. But not with the committee? We request that you
would share that with us, as well.
Dr. Schnitzer. Okay.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Mr. Gfrerer, Accenture is supposed to
determine what of Booz Allen's software code it should reuse.
How will they accomplish that and when?
Mr. Gfrerer. Congressman, they have access to the code, as
you have kind of established already. As was mentioned
previously, the contract vehicle is on a firm, fixed price, and
so there is ever incentive to use existing code where it would
be supported.
So, that code is the property of the Government. Accenture
has access to it. As they find that there is value in it, they
may use it.
One of the challenges around that, though, is the user
requirements and, you know, eliciting the right user
requirements, which I believe in MITRE's ITA, they found as one
of the problem areas. And so, it is really hard to reuse
substantial amounts of code when they may have been coded for
different user requirements.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Under Secretary Lawrence, I believe VA
learned lessons from last year and I think you now fully
understand the task in front of you, but the situation is not
any more favorable, in fact, it seems almost exactly the same
and you have less time than what you had before.
Would you agree that if VA is able to implement MITRE's 10
remaining recommendations by the deadlines that you set, that
that would give you just enough time to test Accenture's code,
correct any problems, and implement the remainder of the law
with minimal schedule cushion?
Mr. Lawrence. Generally, but I would push back on your word
``just,'' sir. I think the answer that you have gotten before
about how we are going to test en route is not just, but I
think your point is a good one. The timeline is short, and we
need to make sure that when we go into operation, it is tested
and ready to go.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I reserve
my following questions for the second round.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Banks.
I would now like to recognize Ms. Luria for 5 minutes.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, and thank you for taking the time to
update us on this today.
I want to follow up on Chairman Levin's question, because I
am a little bit confused after that question. I recall that in
November, Secretary Wilkie said that, ``Once the VA is in a
position to process education claims in accordance with the new
law, each and every beneficiary will receive retroactively the
exact benefits to which they are entitled under that law.'' So,
you have echoed that, that they will be getting appropriate
benefits. If they were overpaid, you won't be recouping the
amount.
But what I gathered from Chairman Levin's question and your
response is that there's really not a system that you are
tracking. Do you fully understand the scope of it? Do you have
a system to track the differential between what the students
received and what they should have received and the amount that
they are entitled to receive under the GI Bill? Do you know the
total price tag of that, how many students it is, and who they
are?
Ms. Bogue. Thank you. So, that is a two-part question. So,
first, there is section 501 of the law, which is dealing with
the DoD rates, the cap rates. Once we flip the switch on
December 1st, we will be able to know automatically how many
students are impacted from an overpayment standpoint.
But for the second part of that, for the section 107 piece,
as it relates to the monthly housing allowance of where the
student spends the majority of their time, that will be
dependent on the schools resubmitting enrollment documents. It
won't be until all schools have recertified students back to
August 1st of 2018, that we will really know or realize the
overpayments and underpayment situations associated with that.
Right now, we have asked schools to track students from
August 1st of 2018 to tell us exactly who may be in the
position of not attending the majority of their classes at the
main location, and when it comes time, we will allow them to
recertify those students after December 1st. But the first
phase is--
Ms. Luria. Really, December 1st is when you need the
schools to give you data. So, December 1st is not when
veterans, when our constituents can expect to actually have
this fixed if they go online?
Ms. Bogue. So, what will happen on December 1st when we
flip the switch, two things will happen. The first piece will
be the DoD rates will kick in; that will be the first piece.
All spring 2020 terms will be made whole from that perspective.
So, any enrollment that comes in for spring 2020, we process in
accordance with the section 107 and 501 rules. The piece that
we still need to work on, in coordination with schools, will be
the piece of going back to correct records from August 1st of
2018 up to December 1st of 2019.
Ms. Luria. Okay. So, just to summarize all of that, you
don't actually know the scope of the problem yet?
Ms. Bogue. We have a sense of the scope of the problem. We
are actually working with schools right now. I will say that we
are actually working with the top 10 largest GI Bill
beneficiary schools to figure out how many records will they
have to go back and correct come December 1st.
Ms. Luria. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Bogue. So, we are building a plan right now.
Ms. Luria. Okay. I don't want to repeat myself a third
time, but you really don't have any idea of how many students
this has affected at this point in time after the discussions
we have had on this? But you are fully confident that by
December 1st, that you are going to have it fixed?
Mr. Lawrence. I think you uncharitably described our
situation in your first part of your question. We understand
the number of students. We understand where they were enrolled.
We understand what the consequences are. We just can't give you
an exact number yet because we have to do the math and have to
have the system set up.
We know exactly what is going to happen and when that
happens, and Charmain tried to explain that. We will do the
recomputations. We will go back and adjudicate and communicate
as soon as we can. That is our intention to do that. We don't
have the precise number right now because the different
variables will have to be nailed down.
Ms. Luria. And so, will that require interaction by a
person, by a staff member of the VA with each student
individually? And if so, do you have adequate staff to address
that?
Ms. Bogue. So, there is multiple parts. One, we will have
to have interaction with the schools in order to recertify.
Also, we will need to work with students to make sure they are
educated about exactly what their benefits will look like, come
spring 2020.
So, we know the schools are the front lines, so we are
actually working with schools on a communications toolkit so
that way, they can be able to educate students about the exact
calculations of what they should expect to receive when spring
2020 rolls around.
Ms. Luria. Okay. Thank you.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Luria.
I now recognize Mr. Watkins for 5 minutes.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you. The President's budget for fiscal
year 2020 anticipates a drop in the number of direct employees
processing education claims, but you are expecting--the budget
also predicts an increase in the number of calls and claims.
So, how will this $6.1 million decrease in the education
services' account affect VA's ability to ensure timely response
and payment to veterans?
Ms. Bogue. So, there is no impact in terms of processing
claims right now when it comes to our President's budget. I
will say what we are looking at right now is the impacts of
going back to correct all records for section 107, in
particular, and the workload associated with that. And we are
working with leadership in terms of what additional resources,
if any, will be needed when it comes time to go back and
correct records.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under Secretary Lawrence or Ms. Bogue, whoever wants to
answer this, I just want to confirm. I think this is clear, but
if someone in my state of Pennsylvania is enrolled in Penn
State, and let's just assume for the purposes of this question
that the main campus at State College probably has higher
allowances than Penn State Beaver, which is a satellite campus
in my district. If they have been going to Penn State Beaver,
but getting the State College rate in 2018 and 2019 before
December 1st, are they going to be hit up for an overpayment
when December 1st happens?
Ms. Bogue. No, they will not. Anyone who, once we roll out
the system, any overpayments will be written off by VA, because
it is not the fault of the student.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure of that.
Do they know that? Has that been communicated to students?
Ms. Bogue. We have direct communication in terms of, we
have done email campaigns to students to let them know that
when the time comes for December 1st, they will not be
responsible for any overpayments associated with sections 107
and 501. And also when we flip the switch on December 1st and
we start sending out letters to students about their new
payments, we will have information in that particular letter
that will state that they are not responsible for the
overpayments as well.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. That is very useful.
I think one of the things that, at least we heard the most
about in my office when this happened last year, was, I mean,
people were frustrated by the glitch, but they were even more
frustrated, I think, by the lack of communication. Can you
spell out for us maybe a little bit more concrete steps that
you have taken to address that part of it.
Because, unfortunately, dealing with technology, this
probably won't be the last time this happens in some way, so
how has the VA addressed the ability to communicate in these
unexpected situations?
Ms. Bogue. Thank you for that question. So, I will state
that we have done several things since the past fall. And one
thing is we have done, like I said, email campaigns to
students, but also we have set up veteran webinars for
students, as well, so that way they can join in and we can talk
about what is coming down the pike, and we will continue that
dialogue.
Also, we understand schools are the front lines, so we are
trying to make sure that schools have the necessary information
to educate students earlier in the process versus waiting until
after December 1st for students to figure out what is going to
happen in the spring.
So, we are trying different modes in terms of communication
with students between the email campaign, between the letters
that we send out, as well as the veteran webinars, as well as
social media to educate students about the changes that are
coming down the pike.
The other piece that I would add is that we have the GI
Bill comparison tool. That tool is a very useful tool. It
actually displays schools, VA-approved schools on that tool and
it actually has a GI Bill calculator on that tool. Students can
actually enter in the location, the actual locations of the
campus they are attending, and they will actually see the rate
that they would receive in the spring of 2020 now.
Mr. Lamb. Excellent. Thank you for that.
And I know Dr. Lawrence, you mentioned that you are doing
some traveling to try to get the word out, too. I am thrilled
to hear that you are coming to Pittsburgh. So, please let our
office know if we can be of assistance in attracting folks
there.
I also just wanted to remind you that at our last hearing
together, we had talked a little bit about training for claims
adjudicators on the appeals modernization and my office sent
you a letter on April 12th, so just coming up on a month ago
with some pretty specific questions about the AMA
implementation training and how it affected our claims
adjudicators back home. So, I just wanted to remind you of
that, and we will be expecting a response when you can provide
one.
Mr. Lawrence. I appreciate that. And just so you know, I
went back and talked to the RO leader in Pittsburgh about your
exchange that we had and the information around the training.
So, I will look in onto the letter, too.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Lamb.
I now recognize Mr. Bergman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
you for being here.
We know that what you deal with is not just simple math or
easy. There is a lot of everything from changing technology to
bureaucratic tools that are in place that may or may not be as
efficient as we would like them to be when we are making our
decisions.
Dr. Lawrence or Mr. Gfrerer, I have a question about the
Accenture contract documents that VA provided to the committee.
Four companies provided--they submitted proposals. Accenture's
proposal was initially rated ``susceptible to being made
acceptable.'' VA allowed all four companies to revise their
proposals to correct any weaknesses and shortcomings in those
proposals and each of the companies did.
In the second round evaluation, Accenture's rating went up
to ``outstanding'' while no other company's rating changed. VA
awarded the contract to Accenture, despite it proposing the
highest price, which was a jump up from the original pricing;
in fact, two of the companies pretty much stayed at the same
pricing. One of the other companies bumped up a little bit, but
Accenture had the largest increase. But anyway, Accenture,
despite it proposing the highest price and having the worst
past-performance rating was awarded the contract.
Can you offer any explanation as to exactly what happened
there with Accenture being the only one to make the big jump
when I am guessing all four of the companies had the
opportunity to upgrade their proposals?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly. Mr. Gfrerer and I served as
technical advisors to the evaluation process. We were in no
decision-making role; merely, to be informed. We had two
interactions with the acquisition-decision authority, if you
will--the group who was running the process you just described.
The first interaction was when they shared with us the
scores for four companies, four entities--these were blacked
out--we knew them as A, B, C, D, and they revealed the scoring,
which as you indicated, that some were at a certain level--some
we are at a certain level. Their recommendation to us was that
we engage in a round of questions and answers with everybody to
provide them a chance to fix the proposal shortcomings they
had. It was a recommendation to us. They said, this is what we
would normally do, and do you have any questions? It was not a
decision for us to make. It was simply a recommendation of what
they were going to do in the next step, and they informed us.
They said it will take some more time, but this is what we
would normally do in an acquisition of this thing. So, we said,
sure. We don't have a decision. We understand. We appreciate
you telling us what it will do for the timeline we are under if
we do that.
What is likely to happen, we asked: Some will improve; some
will not; some will change their price. Exactly what you
described happened.
Mr. Bergman. Uniquely, the--and I don't know what the
relative norm here is--but let's say in this case, okay, there
could be an increase in price, but over 10 percent? What kind
of things change in that upgraded proposal, again, that made
them stand out as outstanding?
Mr. Lawrence. Sure.
Mr. Bergman. It is just interesting.
Mr. Lawrence. So, I understand your question. Neither Mr.
Gfrerer nor I will be able to answer that. We were not privy to
the information. We were privy to the scores at the end. I
can't recall--
Mr. Bergman. So, should we either convene a hearing for the
folks who made the decision or how do we find out? Again, my
Marine Corps background, military background as a commander
tends to--I look into the decision-making process to make sure
that we are using criteria across the board that does not
either, accidentally or on purpose, play any type of what could
potentially be construed as favoritism.
Mr. Lawrence. No, I don't think that existed in this
process. What the criteria was, and it was stated in the
request for information, as well as the request for proposal,
it heavily weighted the technical solution. So, at the end of
the question-and-answer period, the total compilation of the
score of the winner, in this case, Accenture, was greater than
the scores of the other.
I forget the details exactly--but perhaps this is in the
documents that you have--their technical part of their score
had increased so much more that it offset, I believe, their
lower past-performance score that you made reference to. The
net of it was, using the criteria the acquisition people ran,
their score was greater than the others, hence the award.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Veterans Affairs Committee, Dr. Roe, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last--first of all, I would like to thank the panel for
being here and, Dr. Lawrence, thank you for the work on the
board. I think the appeals modernization is going pretty well
from what I hear, and the way I can figure that out is if I
don't hear anything, that is probably a good thing.
So, last August, I was up in Springfield, Illinois, with
Congressman Davis and we were rolling out the GI Bill and we
had a group of educators around and at that point in time, we
thought that it was going to be able to roll out and all the
glitches at the--and we know the history of that--and,
obviously, it didn't.
And I met with the VBA team and the OIT team, along with
you in my office on the 13th of September of last year, and
where you thought the system would be ready to go in a matter
of weeks and--that was your conclusion at that point. I guess
your team had told you that in a few weeks you thought that
would be up and running.
But that is correct, I think, isn't it?
Mr. Lawrence. I think at that time you were frustrated with
me because I said I didn't know, but I might know in a few
weeks.
Mr. Roe. Okay. Well, let me ask--anyway, so we are on the
same page there.
The VA commissioned MITRE to do the independent technical
assessment on the 28th of September. Did you think that you had
a serious problem when you met with me or not and did something
happen in between that two weeks that made you realize that?
Mr. Lawrence. I think part of what we experienced was a
sense of not knowing the scope of the problem and, hence, the
desire to have MITRE bring expertise to better understand it. I
know it is always frustrating to sit in front of folks doing
oversight wanting to know exactly what is going to--and not
know. Getting MITRE involved was to better appreciate the
situation so that we could describe to you some facts, rather
than some unknowns and senses.
Mr. Roe. I think at the end of the day--and we are
obviously in an important year, because we understand that the
target date of full implementation is 1 December of this year.
That is only 7 months away.
What will be a good milestone to indicate that we are going
to meet that deadline? Because I think there are a lot of
people when young men and women enroll in college for the fall
semester, obviously, they are still enrolling under the old
system. So, when they start the spring of 2020, can we same
with some surety now? We are not that far away.
Ms. Bogue. So, we actually have two releases. So, we have
built one, and we are working towards build one right now, for
the solution that is supposed to be put in place for December.
Testing for that first build will be completed in the June
timeframe.
Then, there will be a second build. After the second build,
we will test a little bit--finish testing in the October
timeframe and then we will have a good sense early October,
whether that is ready for prime time for December 1st.
We wanted to make sure that we built in enough cushion so
that way, one, we can start really pushing out communications
to students after the 1st of October and then, two, so that we
could train schools on the new process for certification.
Mr. Roe. So, next month, there is one build out that will
be done and then in October, there will be a build?
Mr. Chairman, if we could, I would love to have the
Subcommittee follow up on that, because we certainly don't want
a January 15th, when most of the young folks go back to school,
hiccup, and it is not working. If we could have another hearing
or something, I would really appreciate it.
And Dr. Lawrence, can you provide us an update on the VTEC
and TEC program?
Ms. Bogue. So, thank you for that question. So, we are
happy to report that early February, we actually went live with
our VET TEC Web site, as well as our training provider
application. Since that time, we have had over 30 training
providers come in and apply for that program.
We have approved 4 programs to date and the other 4--we
have denied another 4 programs. The reason for those denials
are usually because they don't meet the 2-year requirement to
have a program in existence for two years.
The other piece of that, the other applications that are
remaining applications, they are in the works. They have
submitted an application, but it was an incomplete application,
so we are trying to work with those training providers to
finalize that other piece.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, about 3 weeks ago, we actually
did a soft launch of the veteran application. From that soft
launch, we had 300 veterans apply. We worked out some kinks on
the application. We did a live launch, actually, last week on
the veteran application, and since going with the live launch
last week, we actually had over 1,100 veterans apply for that
program. So, that is where we are right now with VET TEC.
Mr. Roe. So, it is moving pretty rapidly then?
Ms. Bogue. It has moved pretty rapidly, yes.
Mr. Roe. Eleven hundred applications for how many slots?
Ms. Bogue. So, we don't know exact slots. We know the
dollars that are allocated per year, and based off the dollars
allocated per year, we are estimating, based off the cost of
some of these programs, somewhere between 800 to 1,100 veterans
could potentially participate in this program per year.
Mr. Roe. So, literally, we have already had--I will yield
back in a second--we actually had more people apply than we
have money to provide for the slots?
Ms. Bogue. Potentially.
Mr. Roe. Potentially, okay.
Ms. Bogue. Potentially. One thing we noticed that some of
those folks who actually applied for the program, their
particular program that they applied for is not approved, so we
are reaching out back to those training providers to state,
Hey, this veteran is actually interested in participating in
your program under VET TEC, so we would love for you guys to
come in and be a training provider under the VET TEC program
and to tell them through the application process.
Mr. Roe. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Dr. Roe. And I would be happy to
discuss and accommodate that request. I think it is a good idea
to do another hearing and we can have our Committee staff work
with your staff to make that happen.
We do have time for a few more questions if that is all
right with your witnesses. I know a few of us have a few more
questions.
Under secretary--and I would like to recognize myself first
for 5 minutes--Under Secretary Lawrence, I wanted to go back to
your answer to Ms. Luria, where I think if I heard right, you
said that you knew how many veterans were impacted by some of
the IT issues, but you wouldn't specify how many. You wouldn't
give us a number. I was wondering if you could help us square
your statement.
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. I think what I took away from the
intent of her question was a sense of us not knowing exactly.
So, what I tried to clarify is we do know the universe of
veterans. We do know what happened. We do know what we intend
to do.
The precision around it, we still have to work out, as
Charmain was trying to explain. First, we roll into effect
December 1st, then we get the schools to do the information.
So, I just wanted to make sure we were communicating exactly
what we are doing, because I want to leave the impression that
we have a plan to have a plan. We intend to brief you on it. We
intend to describe it and we intend to communicate with the
students so they understand exactly how it is going to be paid
to them or written off. So, I just wanted to make sure that we
are clear on that.
Mr. Levin. But you don't know how many, specifically? You
know the overall universe, obviously, but you don't know how
many specifically were underpaid?
Mr. Lawrence. That's correct. That is where when we have
the things on December 1st going, then we will know.
Mr. Levin. Okay. Regarding the Accenture contract, what
specific milestones have you set for them and how are you going
to assess whether those milestones are met?
Mr. Orifici. Sir, thank you for that question. Our initial
milestones, as Charmain stated earlier, we have broken their
deliverable into two separate builds. The first one, which we
are starting testing in June, and so, we will be doing testing
around that, and we will evaluate that, based off the testing
results from that release.
The second part of that build is slated for October 1st, or
the first week in October, and we are looking at starting
testing in September and we will then evaluate those test
results against the requirements of the contract and then we
will work with them to determine whether they have completely
fulfilled those requirements.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
Mr. Missal, and, Dr. Schnitzer, I wanted to turn to you. As
you both know, the Forever GI Bill became public law August
2017. Directed VA to implement the provisions by August 2018.
VA was aware of the bill and its provisions prior to its
passage. It had nearly a full year after passage to provide
updates, request clarifications, extensions, and ultimately
implement those provisions. Few of those things happened,
however, and those that did were long after the VA repeatedly
missed deadlines, as had been promised.
Mr. Missal and Dr. Schnitzer, to both of you, in the
future, what should be some appropriate milestones for VA to
check in with Congress and report progress on their projects so
that this doesn't happen again?
Mr. Missal. I don't think there can be enough
communications to make sure that expectations are met. In our
issue statement, what we did is we put together a chronology of
events and one of the things that we identified, there didn't
seem to be the sense of urgency to get the project off the
ground. It took many months before they really got to the point
where they are doing the kind of work that you would expect
early on.
And I think what we have seen in other situations, the
communication and the expectation of when they can get
something done is sometimes not realistic. And I think in all
these situations, lessons should be learned, and hopefully
going forward, it will be better.
Mr. Levin. Any follow-up on that?
Dr. Schnitzer. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I
would agree with that, but I would add, also, that I think it
is important to pay attention to the critical path of one of
these complicated projects and identify all the items that are
in the critical path to success, know what that is up front,
have that broadly communicated, have the right governance, and
then have a systems-integrated approach to it, rather than
silos.
Mr. Levin. And my last question for the inspector general,
during the opening statements, there were a couple of comments
that sort of downplayed this, made it sound like, Well, you
know, these are big things to implement. These things happen,
kind of a normal course, ordinary course.
Do you agree with those characterizations?
Mr. Missal. We agree that any time they are doing a system
implementation, particularly on something as significant as
this, they need to make sure that they are properly planning,
they have the resources, they have the expertise,
significantly, that they communicate. Because one of the
concerns that we have is when you bring in a number of
different organizations involved that may not have worked
together well, you are naturally going to have communication
issues. You have to make sure everybody is on the same page.
What we found here is that they were essentially talking
different languages, because you had OIT, you had VBA, you had
a contractor, and they weren't all on the same page. So, in all
of the system integration they are doing--and VA has a number
of significant systems that they are involved in--you need to
have all of those going forward.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And I would now like to recognize Mr. Banks for another 5
minutes.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Schnitzer, your independent technical assessment
highlighted the inherent difficulties of VA's IT system
environment, the constant changing requirements, and lack of
organization. In your opinion, could any contractor have
succeeded in implementing sections 107 and 501 last year?
Dr. Schnitzer. So, the short answer is I don't know, and I
have no way of knowing, because we weren't involved at that
point and don't have all the evidence from that period of time.
But I will say that in general, if the requirements are
understood to be merely writing code and not doing a systems-
integration approach to a problem like this, then nobody will
succeed. And that is the shared lesson that I think we need to
bring forward, not just for this program, but for all existing
and future programs at VA.
Mr. Banks. Mr. Missal, do you have any follow-on advice on
that?
Mr. Missal. I think it, again, goes back to trying to be
realistic about when you think you can really deliver
something, and that, again, dealing with it with a sense of
urgency right up front, making sure that you have the right
expertise, and if there are doubts, making sure those doubts
are expressed so that you don't have a situation where there is
a surprise at the end.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Mr. Gfrerer, did the U.S. Digital Service
or VA Digital Service conduct any analysis of the Forever GI
Bill implementation and for so, when did this happen and was
there a report submitted?
Mr. Gfrerer. Congressman, I am not aware of any Digital
Service interaction to the type that you specify. I would have
to--given that it was likely if it occurred it was before my
arrival 4 months ago; I would have to defer to my business
partners if they have any knowledge of that.
Mr. Lawrence. I don't know of any.
Ms. Bogue. No, we don't. There was not one done by Digital
Service.
Mr. Banks. Great. That is all I have. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
I now recognize Chairwoman Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Dr. Lawrence, I would like to ask you just a few
questions about the Accenture contract. First of all, under the
contract, Accenture is required to provide bi- weekly reports
to the VA. Can this Committee receive those reports?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Can we receive any already-produced, as well
as into the future?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Secondly, the contract language states
that the base period of the contract is February 2019 to
February 2020 and there is a one-year option from February 2020
to February 2021; however, the contract also states that the
ultimate completion date is May 4th, 2021.
How do these dates track with the VA's statement that the
system is the going to be operational and then what activities
are contemplated during those optional periods?
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. The system will be operational refers
to December 1st of 2019. So, that is the first year covered by
this. The two-year contract had sort of the following vision:
first year, get Colmery 107, 501 going; second year, modernize
some of the systems problems you have heard described.
Theoretically, the vision was you would now be familiar with
what is going on, some of the piece parts, and that we could
have a different approach, much more of a world-class financial
institution, and that is what will take place in the second
year.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Gfrerer, I am just sort of coming
at this looking at, first of all, I can tell by the men and
women you have here, and knowing there are many men and women
in the VA who are working very hard trying to make sure we are
delivering these benefits to our veterans, and I thank them all
for their service. I feel like we get caught in this hamster
wheel. We have well-intending Congresspeople like ourselves who
pass legislation asking for benefits for veterans. You know, we
require the VA to implement it resulting in legacy systems, one
placed on top of the other. So, while you are trying to still
implement a legacy system from before, we layer something in on
top of you. So, certainly, I can understand the problems that
we encounter.
One question I have is, does OIT have an inventory of all
the legacy systems?
Mr. Gfrerer. Yes, Congresswoman, we do.
Ms. Lee. Would you be able to provide us with a list of
them, their function, and who in the VA is responsible for
them?
Mr. Gfrerer. Yes.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Great. Thank you very much.
And I yield my time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, Dr. Roe for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of very quick questions. We know the target
date is 1 December of this year, and maybe you answered the
question, but what would be a good milestone so that we know
that you are going to make that deadline? Is that the October
standup? Is that when we are really going to know, just a month
before?
Ms. Bogue. The October deadline is when we will know if we
are ready for deployment for December 1st.
Mr. Roe. And if we are not ready, then what happens in
January of 2020?
Mr. Lawrence. So, if we are not ready, well, first, we will
be communicating with you directly. As you know, we brief your
team monthly on what is going on, and we have very sensitive to
this issue, so certainly there would be no surprise. If we are
not ready, we are going to have a plan to be ready, but at a
minimum, students will continue to be paid under the rates we
are using now so that he we don't have the problem that we had
in the fall of 2018. So, everyone will be continued to be paid.
We will get the system ready, and then we will go back.
Mr. Roe. And they will still hold harmless, still?
Mr. Lawrence. Absolutely.
Mr. Roe. Okay. One other quick question and I will be done,
and this is for Dr. Lawrence, if I can find it here. Here we
go. Outside of the IT modifications, what do you see as the
biggest challenge that could impact full implementation by 1
December?
Mr. Lawrence. This is probably unfair, because I don't mean
it to sound like--our interactions with the schools and the
veterans is very, very important, so we depend on the schools
to get us information. So, we don't want veterans calling up
and saying, I haven't been paid, and come to find out that the
schools didn't send us the right thing. That would be
unfortunate. So, we are trying real hard to make sure that all
the people who are involved in the process of getting students
enrolled and paid are dealt with and we are communicating.
That is our issue, to communicate, teach, train, and
inform, but that is what we worry about, that if that doesn't
happen at the end, all the things we will have done
successfully and right, won't have happened and nobody will
know that unless they get paid.
Mr. Roe. You know, I know the veteran won't. They have got
a payment at the end of the month. They have got a light bill
or, you know, their rent is done or whatever. So, they are very
much needing that money. The colleges get paid on time. They
have a little more cushion, obviously, to take the student,
whereas, it is more acute for the student who has a bill at the
end of the month.
So, are they pushing you, the colleges pushing you to get
their money? Are they not getting it on time or are they
getting it on time? I don't know.
Ms. Bogue. So, there is no impact to the tuition-and-fee
piece of this. They are receiving their funds on time for the
colleges.
I will say the important piece with the schools is
basically making sure that we have accounted for all branch and
satellite locations so that way, when it is time to flip the
switch, that we are able to quickly pay students. So, we are
working closely with schools right now to make sure that we are
accounting for all of their locations where a student could
potentially be residing at and taking the majority of their
courses so that we can pay them on time when it comes December
1st.
Mr. Roe. And just out of curiosity, how many schools are
you all dealing with? How many separate institutions are you
all having to deal with?
Ms. Bogue. There are over 14,000 VA-approved schools.
Mr. Roe. Fourteen thousand?
Ms. Bogue. Correct.
Mr. Roe. Wow. Okay. Thank you I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
If there are no further questions, we can begin to bring
this hearing to a close. I want to thank Chairwoman Lee,
Ranking Members Bilirakis and Banks, and of course Dr. Roe, our
Subcommittee Members, and our expert witnesses who joined us
today to testify.
While things haven't gone smoothly with the Forever GI Bill
implementation, it is important to remember that we all share
the same goal, as has been said many times, and that is to
provide veterans with the benefits that they have earned. That
is why we are here.
One of the things that we learned is that in the last 18
months of implementation, that we have to take control of this
process, define targets along the way to prevent the same
mishaps from happening again. I am encouraged to the extent
that I have heard that that is occurring.
I am also encouraged to hear the Under Secretary reiterate
the comments of Ms. Devlin that you are 100 percent certain, 10
out of 10, that these issues will be rectified by the end of
the year. We will be following up to make sure that that is the
case.
I welcome Dr. Roe's suggestion of another hearing on this
matter and we will be following up, if we believe that to be
appropriate.
And my staff, along with the committee, will be reviewing
the Accenture contract, which I have heard is quite voluminous,
several thousands of pages, and will undoubtedly have more
questions as we read that contract and as our staff digs into
this for you, our witnesses.
So, I hope that the Department, along with the inspector
general and MITRE will remain responsive to us and available to
us and I am very grateful for that.
With that, I will say that all members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and to include
additional materials.
Again, I thank everyone for coming, and, without objection,
the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Dr. Paul R. Lawrence
Good afternoon Chairman Levin, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Members
Bilirakis and Banks, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the status of VA's
implementation of the provisions in the Harry W. Colmery Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (Colmery Act) or, as it is more
commonly referred to, the Forever GI Bill. My testimony will address
the re-setting implementation of sections 107 and 501 of the Forever GI
Bill; the establishment of a program integration office; and contractor
support in the areas of program integration, systems implementation,
software development, and communication efforts. Accompanying me today
are James Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology
and Chief Information Officer; Charmain Bogue, Acting Executive
Director of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA);
and Rob Orifici, Information Technology (IT) Specialist, Office of
Information and Technology (OIT).
Forever GI Bill ``Reset''
On November 28, 2018, VA announced key changes in the
implementation of sections 107 and 501 of the Colmery Act. These
sections dealt primarily with the calculation and processing of housing
payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Because of the information
technology difficulties VA experienced with implementing sections 107
and 501, Secretary Wilkie announced a reset of VA's implementation
efforts, to give the Department the time, contracting support, and
resources necessary to develop the capability to process enrollments,
in accordance with the law, by December 2019.
In the interim, VA will pay monthly housing allowance rates for the
Post-9/11
GI Bill at the current academic year uncapped Department of Defense
(DoD) Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates. For many students, this
DoD BAH rate will be equal to or higher than the rate they are due
under law. VA will also retroactively correct any underpayments
resulting from sections 107 and 501 implementation problems. If a
student was overpaid due to the change in law or because of VA's
challenges in implementing the law, VA will notify impacted students
individually with the amount VA intends to waive. Concurrently, VA will
review the debt to ensure it was incurred solely based on
implementation of sections 107 and 501. Upon confirmation, VA will
notify the student of the completed waiver. In this process, VA does
not require anything additional from the impacted student. . For the
2018 academic year and Fall 2019, VA will continue to pay housing
allowances based on the location of a school's main or branch campus,
rather than the physical location where a student attends the majority
of classes. This interim policy will terminate by December 1, 2019,
upon implementation of a fully developed IT solution for sections 107
and 501 of the law.
The Secretary took three actions to ensure the successful
implementation of these two provisions of the Forever GI Bill. First,
he appointed me as the single person responsible and accountable for
overseeing implementation of the Colmery Act. Second, he directed VA's
Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction to provide
acquisition support in the areas of contracting, program integration,
systems implementation, and software development. Third, he directed
OIT, and any other offices required to support this effort, to ensure
that adequate staffing, funding, and/or other necessary resources are
provided.
Independent Technical Assessment
In November 2018, OIT chartered MITRE to perform an Independent
Technical Assessment (ITA) of the capabilities necessary to meet the
requirements of the Colmery Act. The ITA focused on identifying issues
related to the delayed delivery of updates of the Long-Term Solution
(LTS) information system and recommending resolution to the issues
associated with completing and deploying the required system updates.
MITRE provided 20 recommendations intended to help OIT ensure that
adjustments to LTS are successfully tested and deployed in the near
future. VA completed 10 of the 20 recommendations prior to April 30,
2019. For example, VA identified and designated a Colmery Act Champion
and established an End-to-End Chief Systems Integrator. These defined
leadership positions provide more effective collaboration and
integration efforts within and across VBA and OIT to support Colmery
Act systems and processes, which increases the probability of
successfully developing and deploying Colmery Act systems that meet
cost, schedule, and performance requirements and constraints. VA also
established an end-to-end requirements process, and requirements lead,
for the Colmery Act that encompasses requirements for all systems
involved in processing education claims. An additional 9
recommendations will be completed by June 30, 2019, and the remaining
recommendation, which requires VA to establish common development and
test environments and processes, will be completed by September 30,
2019. The approximate cost to conduct the Forever GI Bill ITA was
$232,000. This effort included data collection (e.g., interviews of
stakeholders and contractors); document reviews, assessment,
recommendations, status briefings to the VA final report, accompanying
briefing; and post report questions and answers (Q&A) with VA.
While MITRE fulfilled its initial contractual obligation by
delivering the ITA on November 30, 2018, OIT has contracted MITRE to
fulfill the recommendations set forth in the ITA as they pertain to the
Colmery Act Program Integration Office (PIO). The value of the MITRE
contract, Colmery Act PIO, to address the recommendations from the FGIB
ITA is $5.2 million.
Program Integration Office
In preparation for the arrival of the Software Development and
Systems Integration vendor, VA formally established the PIO as a formal
entity within the Department with assigned and/or aligned Government
leaders, staff, Federally Funded Research and Development Center
(FFRDC) support, and contract support. The PIO also completed the
refinement and finalization of a comprehensive set of the user stories
capturing the business requirements for sections 107 and 501, developed
a draft integrated master schedule, is managing a program risk
register, and has rebooted the configuration control process.
The PIO is led by the Assistant Director, Modernization and Process
Improvement, Office of Business Process Integration. The Colmery
Program Executive Officer, Education Service, and the Program Manager,
Education, Claims Processing, Integration, and Consolidation (ECPIC),
OIT are part of the PIO leadership team. The Colmery Program Executive
Officer serves as the Product Owner for the Colmery Act ``solution''
and the Program Manager, ECPIC serves in the capacity of the IT
Portfolio Director and the receiving organization representative, per
the Veteran-focused Integration Process in use for OIT projects. The
Colmery Program Executive Officer and the Program Manager, ECPIC will
act together to define and approve the requirements for the Colmery
solution, define the Minimum Viable Product required to meet program
objectives, and accept the resulting solution.
In addition, VA established a program governance structure, which
is supported by the MITRE Corporation, to serve as the decision
authority for definition and enforcement of norms for executing program
activities, and approval or disapproval of lifecycle processes, control
gates, activities, funding, acquisitions, resources, and systems
required to achieve successful implementation. MITRE also coordinates
functional, technical, and programmatic activities, capturing
associated risks with these activities, and developing mitigation plans
and strategies to ensure VA is on schedule to meet the December 1,
2019, implementation date. This includes making recommendations on
these activities and maintaining governance structures along with a
change control board to allow for informed and structured decision-
making.
Contract Support
VA paid approximately $3.9 million to Booz Allen Hamilton under a
prior support contract in the second quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018
for their efforts toward implementing sections 107 and 501 of the
Colmery Act. Booz Allen Hamilton also received additional funding for
other work efforts associated with implementing section 112 of the
Colmery Act, which removes the time limitation for the use of
entitlement for certain individuals under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Direct
support costs for section 112 amounted to approximately $648,000, while
indirect costs in support of other activities totaled approximately
$6.5 million.
Booz Allen Hamilton's support efforts resulted in the development
and delivery of software to enhance the LTS to meet VA's initial
definitions of sections 107 and 501.
On February 15, 2019, VA awarded a new contract to Accenture
Federal Services (AFS) to provide systems integration support to
coordinate planning, development, and integrated testing of all systems
associated with Colmery Act implementation. The approximate value of
AFS' contract is $14 million for FY 2019, based solely on the work
related to sections 107 and 501. The scope of AFS' contract includes
development of new software, interfaces with legacy systems, systems
architecture, and testing. VA awarded this contract in less than 75
days. Representatives from AFS and VA started working on implementation
efforts the same day this new support contract was awarded, and
contractor onboarding is near completion. AFS analyzed the code
delivered by Booz Allen Hamilton against the sections 107 and 501
requirements and concluded it will not be used as a starting point for
AFS' own developmental efforts due to definition changes under these
sections. AFS, however, will evaluate the available code delivered by
Booz Allen Hamilton to determine if any portions of it can be reused
within AFS' own development process under its support contract. In
addition to work conducted on the Long Term Solution, AFS has also
started development and integration efforts on the Web Enabled Approval
Management System and VA Online Certification of Enrollment systems
which are critical components of the Colmery Implementation, but were
not part of the Booze Allen Hamilton scope of work.
Claims Processing
Education claims processing times vary throughout the year due to
multiple factors, including fall and spring peak enrollment periods and
IT issues that may affect production. For the Fall 2018 term, VA
experienced a higher than usual pending inventory count, which resulted
in increased processing times. This was caused by the delayed
implementation of the IT solution for sections 107 and 501, the fall
peak enrollment period, and IT latency issues.
In consideration of the expected deployment of the IT solution for
Sections 107 and 501, VA notified schools in early April 2018 to
suspend submitting claims where the potential existed that a student
was attending classes in multiple locations. This direction was
intended to lessen the burden on schools of the requirement to re-
submit enrollment certifications for impacted students after the IT
deployment. VA communicated that it would continue to accept claims
when a student was attending all of their classes at the school's main
campus.
On July 17, 2018, VA notified schools that the IT solution was not
ready, and advised them to submit all claims for processing. Following
the July 17 notice, VA experienced a large increase in submitted claims
that would have normally been received and processed over six months.
On September 14, 2018, Education Service reached its highest
pending inventory since 2012. I am pleased to report that our pending
claims went from a high of 200,000 claims to the lowest it has been in
months to under 100,000 claims.
Pending Claims: As of April 19, 2019, our pending
inventory is currently 72,176 claims with an Average Days Pending of
16.4 days for original claims, and 10.1 days for supplemental claims.
Completed Claims: As shown in the following table, we are
currently exceeding both timeliness targets of 28 days for original
claims and 14 days for supplemental claims for the month of April.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Days to Complete April 2019 Timeliness Target
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Claims......................................... 25.2 days 28.0 days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental Claims..................................... 13.9 days 14.0 days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we updated the monthly housing rates for Fall 2018 and
processed over 450,000 corrections by the end of January. We are on
track to meet or exceed our fiscal year targets of 28 and 14 days for
processing original and supplemental claims, respectively.
On March 11, 2019, Education Service began to centralize Work-Study
processing activities to the Muskogee Regional Processing Office (RPO).
The decision to centralize Work-Study processing was made based on the
findings of an internal review and an external study of the program.
Centralization will improve consistency and timeliness for these
claims, provide better customer service experiences for the
beneficiary, and reduce administrative costs. This initiative will have
an immediate positive impact on participants in the Work-Study program
and will have minimal impact to the employees at the Buffalo and St.
Louis RPOs who will no longer be processing Work-Study claims.
Muskogee Latency Issue
On November 14, 2018, VA testified at a hearing with this Committee
regarding the significant latency issues that impacted operations for
weeks during the Fall 2018 term. The impact at the RPOs were so severe
that increased bandwidth was deployed initially to Muskogee, and later
to the St. Louis and Buffalo RPOs. The increased bandwidth at the
Muskogee RPO, by upgrading a circuit, resulted in increased capacity by
nearly 50 percent. To further address the latency issue at Muskogee, VA
replaced over 500 user workstations to resolve issues with outdated
network card drivers. VA also updated application certificates to fix a
capture issue associated with The Image Management System. In addition,
the Benefits Delivery Network System performance was improved at
Muskogee by deploying a patch to 1,887 workstations. The latency issues
reported at Muskogee and the other RPOs have been resolved.
Stakeholders
VA has undertaken numerous initiatives to better serve and inform
our stakeholders. VA increased efforts to more widely disseminate
information, and to improve the quality of information communicated. We
have begun holding monthly roundtable discussions with schools,
Veterans Service Organizations, State Approving Agencies, and other
stakeholders to keep our partners aware of our development progress,
implement their suggestions, plan for any concerns they may have, and
to help us communicate the upcoming changes. Each session will include
different stakeholder representatives (for example, our first session
invited the top 25 GI Bill schools). All stakeholders will receive
follow up emails with notes and Q&As.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. My colleagues and I are
prepared to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Michael J. Missal
Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Bilirakis, Ranking Member
Banks, and members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) recent Issue
Statement, Forever GI Bill: Early Implementation Challenges.\1\ My
statement will focus on the information collected to respond to
concerns from members of Congress and the public about the
implementation of the Forever GI Bill requirements. It underscores the
challenges VA continues to face in developing the information
technology (IT) systems needed to effectively carry out its mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Forever GI Bill: Early Implementation Challenges, March 20,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OIG conducts oversight of VA programs and operations through
independent audits, inspections, reviews, and investigations. Our
oversight of the programs and operations of the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) has identified a lack of effective program
leadership and inadequate IT functionality as two recurring themes.\2\
These deficiencies have negatively affected current programs and the
implementation of new policies and initiatives, resulting in the
inefficient delivery of services and inaccurate benefits provided to
veterans. The OIG reported that these same issues negatively impacted
VA's efforts to implement the Forever GI Bill requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Other themes include deficient control activities and failures
to plan for the unintended impact of the national work queue. See the
Inspector General's statement from the November 29, 2018, hearing
before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, at
https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/statements/VAOIG-statement-20181129-
missal.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
VBA is responsible for delivering approximately $100 billion in
federally authorized benefits and services-including education
benefits-to eligible veterans, their dependents, and survivors. The
Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (Public
Law 115-48), also known as the Forever GI Bill, became law on August
17, 2017, and expanded education benefits for veterans, servicemembers,
families, and survivors. Among the Act's provisions is elimination of
the deadline to use benefits within 15 years for certain beneficiaries,
and changes to the formula for providing a monthly housing allowance.
In November 2018, VBA acknowledged implementation challenges with
two key requirements of the Forever GI Bill related to the housing
allowance (sections 107 and 501). The effective date of section 501 was
January 1, 2018, while the effective date for section 107 was August 1,
2018. These two sections fundamentally redesign how VBA pays monthly
housing allowances to veterans using the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program, including changing the base for the calculation of
monthly housing stipends to the location of the campus where the
student attends most classes, instead of the location of the main
campus of the institution. VA's failure to properly implement these
requirements led to the delivery of inaccurate and/or delayed housing
stipend payments to eligible GI Bill recipients.
During the fall of 2018, the OIG received multiple congressional
requests to review VA's actions to implement the housing allowance
provisions and to investigate allegations that VA planned to withhold
retroactive payments for missed or underpaid monthly housing stipends
for students under the Forever GI Bill. In response to these
congressional requests, an OIG team began reviewing VA's implementation
of the Forever GI Bill requirements. During this review, Congress
passed the Forever GI Bill Housing Payment Fulfillment Act (Public Law
115-422, January 3, 2019) mandating that VA report to Congress within
90 days on its plan to fully implement sections 107 and 501 of the
Forever GI Bill.
FOREVER GI BILL ISSUE STATEMENT
Given the seriousness of concerns raised in congressional requests
and the impact of delayed or incorrect payments on veterans, the OIG
examined VA's early implementation actions and the impediments to
meeting Forever GI Bill implementation mandates. The review team
created a timeline of significant events, which is attached as an
appendix to this statement.
The OIG found that VBA's implementation of the payment of the
housing allowances under the Forever GI Bill was hampered by the same
underlying issues that have negatively affected VBA's implementation of
other new policies and initiatives-lack of IT system functionality and
inadequate program leadership. Specifically, the OIG found that VBA
failed to modify its IT systems by the required implementation date to
make accurate housing allowance payments. Additionally, VA lacked a
single accountable official to oversee the project, which resulted in
unclear communications to VA stakeholders of implementation progress
and inadequately defined expectations, roles, and responsibilities of
the various VA business lines and contractors involved.
System Modifications
The OIG found that approximately 10 months passed from the time the
Forever GI Bill became law to when VA received the initial software
development release and began testing the system modifications to VA's
Long Term Solution (LTS) application in order to address sections 107
and 501.\3\ LTS is an IT application for automated processing of
Chapter 33, Post-9/11 Educational Assistance claims and is used to
establish eligibility, determine payments, or disallow claims.\4\ Once
VA began testing the software development release, it identified
defects that required the development of additional versions of LTS.
Based on interviews, the OIG team learned that when user testing
occurred, the tests failed scenarios that VBA did not account for when
developing the business requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ VA had to implement section 107 by August 1, 2018.
\4\ Chapter 33 of Title 38 of the United States Code provides the
framework for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA also learned of changes needed to the VA ONline Certification of
Enrollment program, a VA system that feeds necessary data to LTS. VA
eventually paused testing on LTS software for sections 107 and 501 in
August 2018 and reexamined the requirements. Subsequently, VA provided
several new LTS testing scenario updates to Booz Allen Hamilton, the
contractor tasked with modifying LTS.
Lack of a Single Accountable Official
The parties involved in the implementation were primarily the VA
Office of Information and Technology, VBA Education Service, VBA Office
of Business Process Integration, Booz Allen Hamilton, and various VA
leaders. Throughout planning and early implementation efforts, VA did
not have a single accountable official to oversee the project and
coordinate the roles and responsibilities of the many VA program
offices and contractors involved.
The OIG found that VA's program offices held different expectations
from one another as to what they considered complete and accurate
business requirements. In addition, VA's Office of Information and
Technology and VBA Education Service had divergent opinions of a
deployable solution. Without an accountable official, these differing
opinions and expectations were not mitigated or resolved and became
significant impediments to a successful and timely implementation of
the Forever GI Bill requirements.
In November 2018, Secretary Wilkie named Dr. Paul Lawrence, Under
Secretary for Benefits, as the official responsible for implementing
the Forever GI Bill.
MITRE Technical Assessment
As part of this review, the OIG considered the results of an
independent technical assessment conducted by The MITRE Corporation. VA
tasked The MITRE Corporation with performing an assessment to identify
issues related to the delayed delivery of LTS and to recommend a
resolution. The resulting report, dated November 30, 2018, included 22
findings and 20 recommendations to VA to help ensure that LTS is
successfully tested and deployed. The findings and recommendations
focused on issues of leadership and governance, the technical
environment, processes, requirements management, personnel authority
and responsibilities, and software code evaluation.
CONCLUSION
The OIG has continually identified systemic problems that VBA needs
to address when implementing new initiatives and policies, including a
lack of IT system functionality, poor planning, and inadequate program
leadership. These same systemic problems were a significant factor in
the delays and disruptions VA has experienced while implementing the
housing allowances requirements in the Forever GI Bill. The OIG will
continue to monitor VA's implementation actions and will review the
plan provided to Congress under the Forever GI Bill Housing Payment
Fulfillment Act.
Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, and members of the Subcommittees, this
concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Appendix
The timeline below represents activities that occurred from the
enactment of the Forever GI Bill in August 2017 to January 2019, as
reported to the OIG team by VA and Booz Allen Hamilton personnel.
According to the Forever GI Bill, the effective date of section 501 was
January 1, 2018, and the effective date for section 107 was August 1,
2018.
High-Level Timeline of Events
August through November 2017
VBA Education Service established a Program Executive
Office to monitor and coordinate all Forever GI Bill implementation
activities.
VA conducted internal analyses and found that 22 of 34
sections needed IT solutions at an estimate of $70 million, and that,
without IT changes, VA would need almost 1,000 new employees, including
more than 800 solely for implementing the requirements of sections 107
and 501.
VA's Office of Information and Technology committed to
providing a solution to sections 107 and 501, and decided to partially
redirect an already awarded contract with Booz Allen Hamilton to
conduct some of the work.
VBA Education Service staff began identifying
requirements for VA's LTS application with Booz Allen Hamilton.
December 2017 through May 2018
From December 2017 through April 2018, requirements
elaboration, software development, testing, and deployment to address
the requirements of section 112 of the Forever GI Bill were also
carried out.
Business requirements were loaded into an application
used to manage and track changes, and the process of clarifying the
requirements for sections 107 and 501 was started.
The previously awarded contract with Booz Allen Hamilton
was amended to include work on sections 107 and 501. Booz Allen
Hamilton started onboarding teams to address these sections.
According to Booz Allen Hamilton, its teams were fully
staffed for sections 107 and 501 work by March 2018.
Booz Allen Hamilton started software development on
sections 107 and 501, although requirements generation and
clarification were ongoing.
VA learned of changes needed to the VA-ONCE program, a VA
system that provides necessary data to LTS.
June through October 2018
Booz Allen Hamilton delivered the initial LTS release to
address sections 107 and 501 to VA for testing. As testing continued to
identify defects, additional versions of LTS were developed.
New VA-ONCE requirements to provide data to LTS were
identified.
VA paused testing on LTS software for sections 107 and
501 in August 2018 and reexamined the requirements.
VA provided several LTS testing scenario updates to Booz
Allen Hamilton.
Software testing continued. Booz Allen Hamilton and VA's
Office of Information and Technology determined that the VA-ONCE system
did not have the requirements needed to provide the necessary data to
LTS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As of November 2018, the anticipated completion date for
updates to VA-ONCE was estimated to be March 2019 or later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2018
Booz Allen Hamilton provided the most current version of
LTS to VA. VA assessed whether to deploy this version.
VA announced that, effective December 1, 2018, VBA ``will
reset its implementation efforts for sections 107 and 501 of the law to
give the department the time, contracting support and resources
necessary to develop the capability to process Spring 2020 enrollments
in accordance with the law by December 1, 2019. This includes
soliciting bids from contractors for support in the areas of program
integration, systems implementation, and software development.. Also,
for the current academic year (2018-2019), VBA will pay housing
allowances based on the location of a school's main campus, rather than
the physical location of the student.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/54520/post-9-11-gi-bill-
housing-payment-rates-update/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA released another statement clarifying that ``once VA
is in a position to process education claims in accordance with the new
law-each and every beneficiary will receive retroactively the exact
benefits to which they are entitled under that law.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5154
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of January 2019
VA issued a Request for Information for a contractor to
provide a fully functional and operational solution that fully
implements the Forever GI Bill, to include all software and software
development, integration, testing, maintenance, and training. VA was in
the process of developing a Request for Proposal.
Jay Schnitzer, M.D., Ph.D.
Chairman Levin, Chairman Lee, Ranking Members Bilirakis and Banks,
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittees on Economic Opportunity
and Technology Modernization, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today on matters relating to the implementation of Sections
107 and 501 of the Colmery Act, also known as the Forever GI Bill
(FGIB). These provisions impact all Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries in
receipt of a Monthly Housing Allowance (MHA), as they changed the way
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must pay MHA. The law amended
the location basis for the MHA and aligned MHA payments with the
Department of Defense's basic housing allowance (BAH) rates. As you
know, implementation of this legislation is a critically important
issue for untold numbers of Veterans. MITRE very much appreciates the
opportunity to share our insight from our work on this critical
program.
MITRE is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation. We are chartered
to operate in the public interest, which includes operating federally-
funded research and development centers, or FFRDCs, on behalf of
Federal agency sponsors. We currently operate seven FFRDCs sponsored by
a variety of Federal sponsors including the Department of Veterans
Affairs, which is a co-sponsor of MITRE's Center for Enterprise
Modernization (CEM). Our Center for Enterprise Modernization was
established in 1998 by the Department of Treasury's Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) and we have been proud to support many modernization
efforts under that FFRDC, including aspects of the VA's modernization
efforts. The other primary sponsors for which MITRE operates FFRDCs
include the Department of Defense; the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services; the
National Institute of Standards and Technology; the Federal Aviation
Administration; the Department of Homeland Security; and the U.S.
Courts - the latter being the only non-Executive Branch entity that has
created an FFRDC to date.
I mention these other sponsors because operating seven FFRDCs for
this wide range of agencies gives MITRE a truly unique vantage point
with regard to the execution of critical programs and modernization
challenges facing the Federal government. It also greatly informs the
advice we are able to provide to those whom we assist.
Given this context, I think it's important to stress to the
Committee right up front that the kinds of issues the VA experienced in
executing Sections 107 and 501 of the Colmery Act last year are not
unique to the VA. Indeed, they are challenges we have seen repeatedly
across the government as agencies struggle to execute highly complex,
integrated mission requirements and modernize their systems and
processes to address new mission needs.
MITRE's involvement with the Colmery Act began on September 28 of
last year, when we were engaged by the Office of Information and
Technology (OIT) to perform an Independent Technical Assessment (ITA)
of the VA's implementation of Sections 107 and 501 of the FGIB. As
noted above, these provisions made significant changes to Veterans'
education benefits by enhancing and expanding these benefits for
Veterans, servicemembers, families, and survivors. The set of systems
and processes involved in administering GI Bill benefits, then and now,
include a major system referred to as the Long-Term Solution, or LTS.
At the time MITRE was asked to conduct the ITA, LTS and other legacy GI
Benefits systems were being updated to provide the functionality,
processes, and datasets required to deliver the expanded benefits
required by the Colmery Act. However, the deployment of the requisite
Colmery Act capability originally expected to occur by July 2018 was
repeatedly delayed.
The focus of the independent assessment requested by OIT was to
identify issues related to the delayed delivery of LTS and to recommend
a resolution to the issues associated with completing and deploying the
required system updates. OIT and MITRE jointly developed a Terms of
Reference document to scope the work. Subsequently, MITRE was
contractually tasked to explore the following five assessment areas:
1.Leadership and Governance;
2.Technical Environment;
3.Process;
4.Requirements Management; and
5.Personnel Authorities and Responsibilities.
During the course of the ITA's execution, a sixth topic of concern,
Software Code Evaluation, was added to the scope.
The ITA team received and reviewed approximately 50 documents
related to the implementation of functionality supporting the Colmery
Act. It conducted site visits and interviews with the development
contractor and multiple OIT and Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
leaders and managers. The ITA team also performed a rapid software code
evaluation of the latest LTS code base.
After documenting observations from the interviews, site visits,
software code evaluation, and document reviews, the ITA team concluded
that the previous strategy for implementing the Colmery Act, consisting
of a distributed model with many leaders across multiple organizations
in charge of specific operational and oversight activities, with little
or no semblance of a tightly-coupled, integrated approach, was not
conducive to success. Analysis of the observations resulted in the
development of 22 findings and 20 recommendations, contained in our
technical report.
The ITA team's review of the observations, findings, and
recommendations across the assessment areas - informed by industry
benchmarks and best practices, insight from subject matter experts, and
experience with large-scale software intensive systems - enabled it to
identify four systemic findings that were preventing rapid integrated
capability delivery under the strategy then in place:
1.Technical and business leaders were not fully empowered to
address issues related to the Colmery Act due to a lack of clear
authority, priorities, and goals;
2.Work priorities, resources, and authorities for execution were
not aligned for the delivery of Colmery Act functionality;
3.Operations and processes within and across VBA and OIT were not
focused on the Colmery Act functionality, impeding the information flow
to leaders; and
4.Data and tools were not integrated across LTS and the legacy
systems, impeding delivery of the Colmery Act functionality.
The ITA team's recommendations spanned all five assessment areas,
as well as the software code evaluation. Many, but not all, of the ITA
recommendations directly aligned to and addressed one or more of the
four systemic findings highlighted above.
As noted, several key findings related not to technical
considerations, but rather to the assignment of responsibilities and
questions of alignment centered around governance, authorities,
priorities, and goals. Among other things, the ITA identified the need
to establish:
A single cross-organizational business leader and
champion for the overall effort;
New program governance structures, including a new Light
Governance Council to serve as the decision authority for definition
and enforcement of norms for executing program activities, as well as
the approval or disapproval of lifecycle processes, control gates,
activities, funding, acquisitions, resources and systems required to
achieve successful implementation;
A new Program Integration Office, accountable for
definition, coordination, and management of functional, technical, and
programmatic activities across the VA; and
An end-to-end systems integrator, to coordinate planning,
development, and integrated testing of all systems associated with
implementation of FGIB, including new software development, interfaces
with legacy systems, systems architecture, and testing.
I am pleased to inform you that these recommendations and others
were fully accepted by the VA leadership soon after our ITA was
completed and briefed to senior leaders in December. The restructuring
recommendations oriented around program oversight and management have
been implemented, and several of the technical recommendations have
been, as well. As you know, the Under Secretary for Benefits was
appointed to oversee overall implementation of the effort, aided by the
Chief Information Officer and supported by a Light Governance Council,
referred to as Program Governance, led by two Co-Chairs, representing
the interests of the business and the technical communities
respectively. The Under Secretary is actively leading a very focused
and fully integrated effort to address the remaining ITA
recommendations, which are currently in the process of being
implemented along a determined timeline with final delivery by December
2019.
Reporting to the Under Secretary for Benefits, Program Governance,
led by the Director, Education Service and the Education Product Line
Manager for the Office of Information and Technology, provides
technical and operational leadership, direction and broad guidance to
the Colmery program, and foster an environment where decisions can be
made that ensure the program meets objectives.
And reporting to Program Governance is a new Program Integration
Office (PIO), led by key leaders from the Education Service, Office of
Business Process Integration and OIT, who are responsible for
definition, coordination, and management of functional, technical, and
programmatic activities. MITRE is embedded within the Program
Integration Office.
This leadership team has been both highly integrated and extremely
proactive. As is typical for any integration effort, the program is not
completely without risk - given the many systems and organizational
components involved, there are multiple interdependencies - but the VA
now has in place an integrated program team that is deliberately
managing to that risk by identifying the critical path activities and
decisions needed to succeed and contingencies to mitigate the risk.
MITRE remains committed to the success of this initiative in
partnership with the VA leadership and the selected systems integrator.
We anticipate providing independent, conflict-free strategic advice and
guidance to the Program Integration Office through final delivery. Our
involvement thus extends to a broad range of activities that includes
program and technical strategy, systems engineering, requirements
engineering, test and evaluation engineering, acquisition, and cost
estimating in support of the planning, implementation, and deployment.
I should note that it is MITRE's intention to phase out its involvement
in the Department's program integration function following delivery of
the Colmery Act solution, but our goal is to assist the VA in
establishing an organic capability to perform this integration function
on its own in the future. We view the model set forth by the ITA, which
identified systemic findings that have been addressed by the VA,
systems integrator, and contract team in this instance, is a model that
is exportable to other complex integration and modernization efforts in
the VA's current and future portfolio of programs and projects, and the
VA leadership has expressed its intention to adopt this approach going
forward.
In closing, let me just note that of MITRE's roughly 8,500
personnel, some 30 percent are Veterans. There are few duties that our
employees consider more noble and consequential than honoring, through
our support for the VA, the service and sacrifice of our Nation's men
and women in uniform. On behalf of the entire MITRE team, I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today, and I look forward
to your questions.
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Veterans Education Success (VES)
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Veterans Education Success (VES) is a non-profit organization with
a mission to advance higher education success for veterans,
servicemembers, and military families, and to protect the integrity and
promise of the GI Bill and other Federal education programs.
In addition to research, providing free case work to students
having trouble with GI Bill or impacted by predatory schools, and
elevating the voices of students to share with policy makers both their
positive and negative experiences in higher education, we are focused
on addressing ways to increase the continued academic success of
military-connected students in their pursuit of their academic goals.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on the
continued efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
implement the Harry W. Colmery Educational assistance act of 2017
(Public Law 115-48) also known as the Forever GI Bill (FGIB).
Since the significant challenges faced by VA during its attempted
implementation of sections 107 and 501 of the FGIB during the Fall 2018
semester, we have seen continued efforts and commitment by VA to
institute a smoother implementation moving forward. While we remain
hopeful, we believe continued oversight by Congress is of the utmost
importance.
Recommendations Moving Forward
As such, Veterans Education Success makes the following
recommendations:
1.Continued Communication - We appreciate the work VA has done to
communicate with key-stakeholders and hope they continue to:
a.Communicate Proactively - Proactive communication to key
stakeholders, to include students, institutions of higher learning, and
military and veteran service organizations, is beneficial as we work to
support students who might be impacted by any potential delays or
challenges with implementation.
b.Communicate Transparently - Should there be signs that
implementation is not going as expected and as promised by VA to this
Committee, we ask that VA share this information so that necessary
precautions can be taken by those groups helping students and so
students can plan accordingly. This includes giving accurate deadlines
for implementation, even if they are not what we want to hear.
Transparency will make it easier to proactively address potential
challenges.
2.General Recommendations
a.Continued Engagement of Key Stakeholders - Among other things,
VBA has been hosting monthly meetings with military and veteran groups
to provide updates on the implementation process. We expect this to
continue.
b.Clear and Defined Timeline on When Students Will be Made Whole
and What That Process Will Look Like - From what has been communicated
to us during external stakeholder meetings with VBA, they have yet to
identify a timeline for how and when students will be made whole for
payments made for Monthly Housing Allowances (MHA) from August 2018 -
December 2019. Much of this had to do with the delayed implementation
of the contract with Accenture, the new IT contractor. While we
appreciate the cautious steps being taken to roll this out in a way
that will not have the same challenges VA had in the Fall of 2018, it
is paramount that VBA do it without delay for students, especially for
those graduating this month, to be able to know when and how much money
they will be receiving.
c.Enforce Mandatory Overtime When Needed-VA needs all hands on deck
to ensure students receive their MHA in a timely manner and endure no
more hardships.
d.Promptly and Thoroughly Address a Lagging IT Infrastructure -
There is clearly a significant issue with the existing education IT
systems. They are failing. Addressing this issue is mandatory.
We ask that members of Congress and VA continue to make it a
priority to address these issues in a timely and efficient manner.
While $30 million was allocated for an upgraded IT system, it is not
clear that this amount of money will suffice for the upgrade.
We also ask the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensures this money is
used specifically for what it is intended to do, build and enhance a
new IT system. The current outdated system is failing and has had too
many patches added to it to try and fix it. Like a boat, there can only
be so many patches before it risks sinking. This IT system has now
negatively impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands of veterans and
their families and must be addressed.
e.Conduct Study on Feasibility on Batch Payments - Unlike VA, the
Department of Education (ED) processes batch payments to schools prior
to the semester starting based on the enrollment of past years. This
process has been effective for both schools and ED, and we believe
there might be lessons learned for VA on ways to more effectively
process education benefit payments. In theory, this process could
alleviate the work of VA on the front end, so they can focus on
processing the MHA for students. While we understand there are many
variables between how VA processes payments and how ED processes
payments, we believe there might be potential for better streamlining
the current system at VA. Additionally, it would protect students from
being dropped from classes, charged late fees, and/or being prohibited
from registering for class for the following semester.
f.Provide Students Accurate Benefits Information - Create a
document, similar to a check stub, that students can use to show
landlords and other loan guarantors. This stub will confirm the amount
of money they will be receiving each month in their MHA and will help
them in securing housing, utilities, etc.
g.Oversee the Continued Implementation of the VetTec Provision - As
a pilot program, this provision could provide potential for some
students to get high quality credentials in technology. To provide a
strong return on investment for both the tax payer and the students, it
is imperative that oversight of these companies meet the Congressional
intent of the law, i.e. provide training that leads to strong
employment outcomes and incorporates substantive education for students
who are attending these programs.
We encourage VA to work with ED to get information and guidance on
topics such as ``regular and substantive interaction'' for distance
education and ``job placement'' standards they use to ensure quality
education. Additionally, we recommend that the 85/15 rule apply for all
four years the program is offered and not just for the first year. This
rule was implemented to protect student veterans from being preyed upon
for their education benefits and has proven to be a reliable
accountability metric.
h.Make Economic Opportunity a priority - The military and veteran
service community continues to stay committed to seeing the office of
Economic Opportunity become a priority within VA. The challenges VA
faced implementing the Forever GI Bill is a vital example for why the
community continues to advocate for a fourth administration. How the
Forever GI Bill is implemented moving forward will either reinforce to
the community why this change is needed or demonstrate to the community
the Office of Economic Opportunity is indeed housed in the appropriate
area within VA.
We appreciate the work VA has done to address these concerns and
hope these recommendations can provide helpful guidance moving forward.
Those who served our country and are using their hard-earned benefits
to attend school and ensure their civilian economic success deserve to
pursue their education with the peace of mind they will receive their
education benefits in a timely fashion.
We also appreciate the amount of time, effort, and attention the
Committee has dedicated to providing oversight of the implementation of
the Forever GI Bill.
Tanya Ang
Vice President
[email protected]