[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAKING IT A PRIORITY FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-427 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jimmy Gomez, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
Deb Haaland, New Mexico
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Wendy Ginsberg, Subcommittee Staff Director
Brandon Jacobs, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mark Meadows, North Carolina,
Columbia Ranking Minority Member
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jackie Speier, California Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands James Comer, Kentucky
Ro Khanna, California Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachsetts W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jamie Raskin, Maryland
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 4, 2020.................................... 1
Witnesses
Carol C. Harris, Director, Information Technology and
Cybersecurity,Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Anil Cheriyan, Director, Technology Transformation
Services,General Services Administration
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Bill Zielinski, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Information
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
Documents entered into the record during this hearing and
Questions for the Record (QFR's) are available at:
docs.house.gov.
* Rep. Meadows' written statement.
* Questions for the Record: to GAO Carol Harris; submitted by
Subcommittee Chairman Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to GAO Carol Harris; submitted by
Rep. Meadows.
MAKING IT A PRIORITY FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Gerry Connolly,
presiding.
Present: Representatives Connolly, Norton, Speier,
Plaskett, Khanna, Meadows, Hice, Comer, and Steube.
Mr. Connolly. Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
Statement and then I will call on the distinguished Ranking
Member.
Two years ago, I attended a White House roundtable on
modernizing government technology, where I met with White House
officials, including Matt Lira and Jared Kushner, who at the
time headed the Office of American Innovation. They discussed
the administration's plans to modernize the Federal
Government's legacy, information technology systems, and to
leverage emerging technology.
I found myself agreeing with many of the IT goals set
forward by this administration. Moving to the cloud, using
technology to improve customer experience, finding ways to
incorporate machine learning and improve agency processes, and
prioritizing cybersecurity to make our Nation more secure.
However, agreement with the administration's technology
modernization goals does not mean giving any administration
carte blanche to pursue those goals. The Federal Government
spends nearly $90 billion per year on information technology.
And as we've learned through the biannual FITARA scorecard,
many IT efforts go sideways because they lack proper leadership
and oversight.
Taxpayers deserve a government that leverages technology to
serve it, and also one that invests dollars wisely and
transparently. That has not always happened. In 2016, this
subcommittee, along with the then Subcommittee on Information
Technology held oversight hearings to examine whether 18F and
the U.S. Digital Services were fulfilling their missions.
18F was launched in 2014 to help agencies improve digital
services. What began as a 15-person startup, soon morphed into
an office of 185 people that were spending a million dollars
more per month than it was recouping in revenue. This
subcommittee is conducting oversight to ensure that other IT
modernization efforts don't have the same problems or develop
the same bad habits.
Across several administrations, the General Services
Administration has been tasked with operating programs designed
to facilitate the modernization of existing technology. The
Obama Administration launched the Presidential Innovation
Fellows and 18F to help agencies ostensibly tackle technology
challenges. More recently, the Trump Administration launched
the Centers of Excellence Initiative to help Federal agencies
move to the cloud, adopt artificial intelligence, and better
use data analytics, among other efforts.
What are the results of those efforts? Are they achieving
the Stated purpose? Are they providing services that can better
be delivered by the private sector? These are the questions we
hope to address this afternoon and they are not unique to this
administration.
Hearsay is also responsible for ensuring agencies have
access to the telecommunications and IT solutions that are
needed to meet mission requirements through the new Enterprise
Infrastructure Solutions or EIS contract vehicle. EIS is
critical to the Federal Government's IT modernization efforts
and will help facilitate major improvement, efficiencies, and
cost savings. However, to take advantage of the lower prices in
modern technology offered under EIS, agencies must move off of
Networx, that's W-O-R-X, the current and outdated
telecommunications contract.
This transition is easier said than done. GAO reported that
the previous transition to Networx was plagued with delays and
ended up taking 33 months longer than anticipated. These delays
eventually led to an increase of, of course, $66.4 million in
cost to GSA and an estimated $329 million in lost savings
because agencies continued to order services from a predecessor
contract, even after improved services were available through
Networx at generally lower prices.
I'm concerned and I know the ranking member is seriously
concerned that agencies are now repeating the same mistakes in
the transition to EIS, which will result in a greater cost to
taxpayers. GSA is also working to simplify certain government
purchases by establishing a program for all agencies to procure
commercial products through an online marketplace or ecommerce
portal, a requirement in the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense
Authorization Act.
The online marketplace could allow those with agency
purchase cards to use an online portal more efficiently to buy
office supplies and some information technology goods that are
under the micro purchase threshold of $10,000. While making
these types of transactions simpler is a shared goal, GSA must
work with agencies and stakeholders to ensure that we are not
introducing unneeded risk across the government.
Would an online marketplace make it easier for agencies to
purchase counterfeit goods, foreign manufacturer
telecommunications equipment that has been deemed a threat to
national security, such as 5G by railway or other IT goods with
inadequate cybersecurity protections? This subcommittee needs
assurance that GSA is appropriately considering the
consequences of letting agencies purchase cheap, potentially
counterfeit goods or products with supply chain risks. We must
ensure that GSA has a plan to mitigate those risks in the
development of a desirable plan, the online marketplace.
GSA plays a key role in helping Federal agencies modernize
their IT systems and leverage to deliver better services to our
taxpayers. I'm hopeful that the programs we are examining today
can achieve their promised savings and deliver a better
government to Americans. And with that I call upon the Ranking
Member, Mr. Meadows, for his opening Statement.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for
being here. Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing. This
has been a priority for you and because of that, it has been a
priority for me. And we have been able to work together in a
real way to hopefully address the $92-plus billion that we
spend annually on IT and make it more effective in attrition.
Certainly, GSA's willingness to help us with the technology
assistance and procurement process is vital in that effort. For
example, the Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions or EIS
contract represents a $50 billion contract to modernize the
agency networking communication system. And the EIS contract
needs to be successful for agencies to continue transitioning
from the old and often unsecured Legacy IT systems to a more
modern, secure, and cost-effective cloud solution.
If this is your first time hearing it, I can't imagine that
you've been around IT long because it is something that the
chairman and I fully agree. What I'm, I guess, to go off script
very quickly, what I'm frustrated with is we continue to spend
billions and billions and billions and make just very small
incremental changes in terms of what we're doing. I have found
that I spent less money than most departments, let alone
agencies and I had a much more robust IT system in the private
sector, just because I was able to be a lot more efficient with
it.
You are talking to someone in the chairman's seat who is a
real expert in this area. Whether it is dealing with
cybersecurity, everybody puts aside their security box there
and they say, OK, we are dealing with cybersecurity, until they
have a moment where they are not dealing with cybersecurity.
And so, for me, I think it is important that we actually do
actionable steps and so, for each one of you, I want us to say,
how can we take our--this is the way things have always been
done hat off and really look at this differently. And if it
requires legislation, and I have said this before, Ms. Harris
knows this, if it requires legislation and a fix, we are
willing to fix it.
I mean, there is only so long that you can spend $100
billion a year and not have the most remarkable IT system in
the world. I mean, it would be one thing if it was truly
groundbreaking. But I even find, even on the congressional
side, and this has very little to do with it, I have a hard
time sharing my calendar with my wife in a secure environment.
We can't even find--I mean, something so simple that we should
be able to do that, and yet we have all these obstacles that
are not there.
So, I am anxious to hear that from all of you. I will give
you my entire written Statement for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. Without objection.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you. I would ask--I want to introduce
the gentleman from Georgia. He is about to become the ranking
member on the Government Op--Operations Subcommittee. The
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice. So, welcome. Congratulations.
It is a promotion, just because you get to work with the fine
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Hice. Well, I recognize that part of the promotion and
otherwise, I do look forward to working with the chairman and I
appreciate the tremendous leadership of the ranking member and
a good friend. And I appreciate the opportunity to serve.
Mr. Meadows. And I will close with saying this. You have
been a dear friend. You have been someone who I have been
willing to not only listen to and take advice from, but I have
been--when we disagree, we are able to do that in a manner that
is not disagreeable. And it has been an honor to be your
ranking member. It was more of an honor to be your chairman,
but it is certainly an honor as we transition in some of these
roles. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the distinguished ranking member. And
I--let me first of all welcome Mr. Hice in his new role and I
look forward to that collaboration. But let me also
reciprocate. I--you and I have been friends and colleagues and
we will continue to be, at least through the end of this
Congress, and I think we have gotten a lot done. We have looked
for opportunities for common ground. Not everybody does that.
And we are, I suppose if you--people knew each other's
political background, we would be certainly an odd pairing.
Mr. Meadows. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And yet we have by listening to each other,
by respecting each other we have found common ground. And
certainly on this subject, we have, I think, moved the ball way
down the playing field because of that. And I really thank you
and I hope we will approach the remainder of this year in that
same spirit with the new ranking member. But thank you, Mark.
Thank you for your leadership.
With that, I want to introduce our panel. We have three
distinguished individuals who are going to testify before us
today. Carol Harris, who is the Director of Information
Technology and Cybersecurity at the Government Accountability
Office, with--welcome back, Ms. Harris.
Anil Cheriyan. Cheriyan? You get to be called properly your
name.
Mr. Meadows. And then I'll butcher it, but go ahead. It'll
be right and at least----
Mr. Connolly. So, Anil, how should I pronounce it?
Mr. Cheriyan. Cheriyan is great.
Mr. Connolly. Cheriyan. OK. Director of Technology
Transformation Services at GSA. And Bill Zielinski, Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Information Technology Category, also
at GSA. Welcome all three.
If you would rise and raise your right hands. We swear in
our witnesses customarily here at the Oversight and Reform
Committee. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record
show that all three of our witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
The microphones are sensitive, so I would ask you to pull
it close and speak directly into it. And without objection, of
course, your full written statements will be entered into the
record. We would ask now that you summarize those statements
and take five minutes or less in which to do so.
Ms. Harris, you go first.
STATEMENT OF CAROL HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AND CYBERSECURITY, GAO
Ms. Harris. Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to
testify today on GSA's Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions
Program. As requested, I'll briefly summarize the findings from
our draft report completed at your request on this important IT
acquisition.
GSA is responsible for contracts that provide
telecommunication services for Federal agencies, but GSA's main
telecom contract set to expire soon, EIS is intended to be
GSA's successor program. Transitions involving previous
contract experienced significant delays and the delays during
the transition to the current contracts, known as Networx,
resulted in an increase of $66.4 million in cost to GSA and an
estimated $329 million in lost savings at agencies.
Unfortunately, it appears GSA and its customer agencies will be
headed for another transition delay with EIS, unless corrective
actions are taken quickly.
This afternoon I'd like to highlight two key points from
our report. First, the current rate of transition to EIS by
agencies is too slow. The 19 customer agencies in our review
all reported plans to fully transition to EIS before May 2023,
when GSA expects extensions to its current contracts to expire.
However, 11 did not intend to do so by GSA's suggested
September 2022 milestone. The majority of the 19 agencies also
did not meet GSA's milestones for completing critical
contracting actions in 2019.
By waiting until close to the end of the current contracts
to finish the transition, these agencies are at risk of
experiencing service disruptions if any issues arise that
result in transition delays, such as inadequate staff resources
or the need to transition previously unidentified services.
Moreover, given agencies' poor performance during the last two
transitions and their lack of meeting GSA's critical EIS
milestones thus far, agencies are again at high risk of
experiencing delays during this transition. Further, they will
miss out on potential cost savings by delaying their
transitions to the new contracts, which generally have lower
rates for service.
Now to my second point. Agencies have not yet fully
implemented the established planning practices that can help
them successfully transition to EIS. We have previously
identified five planning practices that can help agencies
reduce the risk of experiencing adverse effects of moving from
one broad telecom contract to another. Based on commonly
accepted principals of project management, these practices
encompass a rigorous management approach, appropriate to a
complex contract transition.
Among other things, these practices include developing an
accurate inventory of services, conducting a strategic analysis
of telecom requirements, and identifying resources needed for
the transition. Of five agencies we analyzed in depth, all had
taken steps to address these practices, but none had fully
implemented them all. For example, all five had developed
telecom asset and service inventories, but none were complete.
Some agencies also planned to implement certain practices after
they issued their EIS task orders. The timing of the current
telecom transition has been known since the contracts were
first approved a decade ago and limited time remains to
complete the transition before the current contracts expire.
Further, inadequate project planning was a key factor that
contributed to the delays during the prior transition to
networks. Agencies that do not fully adopt the comprehensive
approach captured in these five practices will not make the
most of the opportunity for change and the potential to save
costs that such a major telecom transition provides. In light
of these issues, we are making a total of 25 recommendations to
those five agencies to fully implement these planning
practices. And that concludes my statement and I look forward
to addressing your questions.
Mr. Connolly. And thank you very much.
Mr. Cheriyan?
STATEMENT OF ANIL CHERIYAN, DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFORMATION SERVICES, GSA
Mr. Cheriyan. Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, good afternoon
and thank you for the opportunity to testify here. I welcome
the subcommittee's interest in two important programs in my
purview, Centers of Excellence and 18F. I am Anil Cheriyan,
Deputy Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Services and
Director of the Technology Transformation Services within GSA.
So, today I'd like to share with you insights into the
program's missions, approaches, and impact. While the CoE
approach is typically a top-down, agency-wide transformation,
18F takes more of a project-specific approach centered on one
key initiative.
So, starting with the Centers of Excellence. The CoE
approach was established in October 2017 as a top-down, agency-
wide transformation that leverages a mix of government and
industry talent, while centralizing best practices into
reusable centers. Since inception TTS has formed six centers.
In our view, these six capability areas are the focus areas
needed by an enterprise when driving IT modernization. To date
the CoEs have engaged six agencies. I'm happy to report that we
recently, as of yesterday, announced GAO as our seventh agency
and we're currently in discussions with several other agencies
on leveraging the CoEs.
While having been in existence for a little over two years,
the CoE program has already begun to show significant benefits
to agencies and the public. For example, USDA has avoided
significant costs by consolidating from 39 to 6 data centers.
Migrating 35 Contact Centers to 1 USDA and improving the
transparency into the loan application process for farmers.
Typically, the CoE engages early with industry and
transitions work back to the agency or its industry partner
during the later stages of implementation. From a financial
standpoint, the CoEs are fully cost recoverable and while more
than doubling the size of the team, increasing the agency
partners, and also adding a new AI Focus Center.
So, moving onto 18F. 18F was formed in March 2014, with a
mission to make government's digital services easier to use for
the American people. Since inception, 18F has worked on more
than 372 projects, with 109 governmental entities. However, in
the early years 18F suffered from growing pains typical of a
startup, which resulted in process control deficiencies. I'm
pleased to report that corrective action steps have been taken
to rectify those control deficiencies.
For example, the 18F work force has been right-sized to
meet program demand. At its peak, the staff levels were in
excess of 225. We're currently just under 100 staff. All of
this was done while continuing to drive impact for agencies and
the American public. A recent example is the
findtreatment.SAMHSA.gov site, where a new website was
developed to make it easier for people in crisis to find
substance abuse centers.
Similar to the CoE, the goal of the transition--of the 18F
is--is to transition responsibilities to agencies and industry
partners versus having a long-term role for 18F. From a
financial standpoint, 18F's gross margin has improved by well
over 3.5 million in the last year. We were nearly cost
recoverable in Fiscal Year 1919 and have plans for full cost
recovery in Fiscal Year 1920.
So, in conclusion, the CoE program has begun to build
momentum and sustainability. 18F has made strides in improving
performance, while delivering improved citizen experience.
Again, thank you and I look forward to the opportunity to
answer any questions.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Zielinski?
STATEMENT OF BILL ZIELINSKI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY, GSA
Mr. Zielinski. Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Bill
Zielinski and I'm the Assistant Commissioner of the Office of
Information Technology Category in GSA's Federal Acquisition
Service. I also serve as the Office of Management and Budget's
designated government-wide IT Category Manager. I am pleased to
be here today to discuss the important role that GSA plays in
the government's IT priorities.
My office helps agencies navigate the challenges and
opportunities presented by IT modernization, implementing new
security controls for the government supply chain and making IT
purchasing more efficient. Our focus is on maximizing the
government's mission effectiveness in a number of ways to
include providing agencies a suite of IT and telecommunication
solutions; supplying emerging technology and innovations
government, while fostering small business participation; and
reducing the number of duplicative contracts.
In Fiscal Year 1919 my office facilitated $26 billion in
government spend related to IT, with $1.59 billion in cost
savings for taxpayers. While my team in the GSA IT Category
brings significant capabilities, it is through the partnerships
across GSA with agencies government and with private industry
that we are able to deliver solutions for agencies at every
step of the IT lifecycle. I work in close coordination with OMB
to review Federal IT spend, determine where opportunities exist
to collaborate on the acquisition of IT products and services,
and implement IT Category strategies to improve outcomes and
get more value from IT dollars.
Across GSA, my colleagues in Policy, GSA IT, Assisted
Acquisition, and Technology Transformation together comprise a
high-performing team of IT experts. We are directing
significant efforts to deliver on Cross Agency Priority Goal
Number 1 in the President's Management Agenda to modernize IT,
to increase productivity and security. And on GSA's Strategic
Goal to improve the way agencies buy, build, and use
technology.
Technology is critical to how every agency serves the
public and accomplishes its mission. It is at the core of
running support operations, safeguarding critical information
and providing data to drive decision-maker. The 2017 Report to
the President lays out a plan to improve the security posture
of Federal IT by naming key initiatives and goals related to IT
modernization. As part of the Report, there are actions related
to the work GSA does to assist agencies in their efforts to
modernize and secure the government's IT systems.
The Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions contract helps
Federal agencies modernize through telecommunications,
infrastructure, and IT services. EIS is the backbone of the
Federal Government's IT modernization efforts and carries great
promise to facilitate improvements, efficiencies, and savings.
It is critical that agencies maintain focus on both
modernizing and transitioning their mission--their mission-
critical services off of the Legacy Telecommunications
contracts and onto EIS. Agencies are releasing solicitations
and issuing task orders against EIS and GSA is monitoring their
progress, providing extensive assistance in establishing
deadlines and milestones in order to accelerate the transition.
Additionally, Federal purchasing through online
marketplaces is rapidly increasing. GSA is working to establish
a government-wide program that will let agencies buy products
online through commercial ecommerce provides. We're launching a
proof of concept in 2020 and partnering with e-marketplace
platforms to deliver a solution. We expect to complete these
acquisition activities and launch this spring and will submit a
report to Congress detailing our implementation guidance at the
end of April.
GSA is also piloting emerging technology programs within
GSA and partnering with agencies using artificial intelligence,
distributed ledger technology, machine learning, and robotic
process automation to develop best practices and playbooks and
we're also educating agencies about the immense promise of the
next generation wireless capabilities and will soon release a
5G strategy that outlines activities and goals for adoption
across government.
In conclusion, the challenge of supporting, managing, and
securing the Legacy System significantly affects the ability of
agencies to meet current and evolving mission requirements. I
want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and to discuss GSA's priorities in 2020. I look forward
to answering any questions that you may have.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. All three of you are pros.
You did it within five minutes. Thank you.
The chair now calls on the distinguished gentlelady from
the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for five minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
certainly appreciate this hearing. Very intrigued by what we
are doing here today.
I have a question about what looks like a move to promote
efficiency when government agencies deal in the marketplace for
off-the-shelf items, where the national--the--our own National
Defense Authorization Act in 2018 said that essentially the
purchase of goods at $10,000 or under could be done through
this off--for off-the-shelf items through an online
marketplace. I suppose, Mr. Zielinski, I should ask you this
question. One, will this save taxpayers money, and two, as part
of that question, is there any evidence that lower prices would
result by off-the-shelf items being purchased individually in
this way?
Mr. Zielinski. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. Under
Section 846 of Fiscal Year 1918's National Defense
Authorization Act GSA is tasked with standing up a commercial
platform in order to allow agencies to utilize that marketplace
in order to purchase these commercial, off-the-shelf products.
As you--as you point out, what we're looking for within this
platform is a number of different things. One of them is to be
able to consolidate that buying power of the Federal agencies.
We know today that agencies are already using commercial
platforms, but what we are not doing is we are not actually
consolidating that buying power through----
Ms. Norton. How are you consolidating it now if each agency
can go on and order these goods?
Mr. Zielinski. Correct--correct, ma'am. And that's exactly
what's happening today. It's happening in a disaggregated
fashion today.
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Zielinski. But under the Section 846 legislation, we're
going to have a central marketplace----
Ms. Norton. I see.
Mr. Zielinski [continuing]. That would allow for us to
consolidate that buying--that buying power across government.
Ms. Norton. And therefore, you think the taxpayers will
earn the benefit of reduced prices?
Mr. Zielinski. Through--through the consolidation of that
buying power, correct, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Yes. I have to ask you about a concern about
counterfeit goods with the sellers like Amazon are not--who get
the information from the agency, is not supposed to use it. But
I know a quote from GSA that the government has limited ability
to proactively monitor and identify this behavior and, of
course, the behavior I am talking about is counterfeit goods
and knock-offs. What does that mean? So that you have limited
ability, is there no way to monitor this to tell whether or not
there is conformity with the law?
Mr. Zielinski. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. In
today's environment, as I mentioned, the agencies are currently
going to the commercially available platforms in order to
purchase these items and we as a government have limited access
to the information about what's being bought and the sources of
those. Under the Section 846 program, rather than those
commercial platforms we are looking to a business-to-business
solutions that will allow for us to place requirements into the
program, so that we would have that level of insight. That we
would have both the information----
Ms. Norton. So, the requirements will go--will be--will go
to whom? Who will be--who will these--who will have to abide by
these requirements?
Mr. Zielinski. So, under the program we have released a
solicitation to industries seeking qualified providers of these
platform solutions. And right now we're assessing proposals
that have been submitted. So, any offeror is subject to those--
those requirements under the program to provide us the data and
the information that we need in order to do that monitoring.
In addition to that, we're also seeking solutions from the
platform providers that would allow for us to readily identify
and remove any products that we believe that we don't have the
strength of knowledge or there's not a provenance known. And in
that way, reduce the risk posed in--in terms of counterfeit
goods or items being sold.
Ms. Norton. Now when will you have that ability? Beginning
when will you have that ability?
Mr. Zielinski. For the--for the program, we're actually
releasing the pilot, the first implementation will be this
spring, and we will start small and we will build from there.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much.
Chair now recognizes gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice?
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank each of you for being here today.
Ms. Harris, I was interested in your opening comment you
made a couple of statements, such as many of these agencies are
not meeting milestones, as we are approaching the May 2023. And
because of that, you suggested that their may be possible
service disruptions, amongst some of these agencies and that
you were expecting there to be some extension requests with all
of this. So, just to kind of get started here with my
questions, how likely is it that any of these agencies are
going to make a timely transition?
Ms. Harris. That's a great question. Based on past history
with the last two transitions, the agencies did not do very
well. In fact, many of them. For part of the--the reason why
the 33-month-schedule delay was, you know, was a result for
Networx. And so, unfortunately, based on the current trajectory
that we're seeing, it looks like a high number of agencies will
likely be in that same----
Mr. Hice. Will any agencies meet the May----
Ms. Harris. I think that some will meet them.
Mr. Hice. OK.
Ms. Harris. But the vast majority are currently behind.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Zielinski, would you agree with that?
Mr. Zielinski. Sir, we are concerned that agencies' need to
take the steps necessary in order to transition by that date.
The May 2023 final date is when those--when those contracts
expire.
Mr. Hice. Yes, I get that. We are all concerned about it.
My question is, are any of them going to make it?
Mr. Zielinski. Yes, we actually have a number or agencies
who have actually already moved to task order awards and are
already well into transition and will be executing before that
date. We have a lot of confidence. We actually provide an
ongoing update of exactly where agencies stand and we're
tracking----
Mr. Hice. So, what percentage are going to be on time?
Mr. Zielinski. I--I would have to be to get back to you
with a--with a specific number. I don't have that off the top
of my head.
Mr. Hice. OK. And again, I understand that's an estimate.
Everybody's guessing at this point, but I would like to have
some general idea of what we're looking at. If we have agencies
not meeting milestones in the process here and possible service
disruptions on the way, I mean, we kind of need to be aware of
that before we get to that point. So, it would be helpful to
have some of that information. Is there any degree of
punishment of negative consequences for agencies who do not
meet the deadline?
Mr. Zielinski. Sir, as a--as a result of the last
transition and some of the recommendations that was made by
GAO, we've actually adopted a very aggressive approach to where
beginning with March 31 of this year, we are actually going to
begin to descope the current sets of contracts. What we--what I
mean by that is that we begin to limit the use and availability
of the current--the current contract, so that agencies cannot
obtain new and additional services from the old contracts. And
in order to meet those needs, they will have to move to the new
contract, as--as one example. So, we're working with----
Mr. Hice. Would you consider that punishment or negative
consequence?
Mr. Zielinski. It--it is in the--it is in the sense that
it--it provides a disincentive to stay on the old contracts.
Mr. Hice. OK. So, what are--and I will come back, Ms.
Harris, to you. What are some of the characteristics between
the agencies that are going to make a timely transition and
those that are not? What is the bigger----
Ms. Harris. Those that are going to make the timely
transition will have adopted either the majority or all of
the--the best practices that we have identified for a rigorous,
structured management approach. And that's actually one thing
that GSA--actually, there are a couple things that GSA could do
to facilitate the--or accelerate the--the agencies into meeting
the--the 2023 deadline.
The first of which is encouraging agencies to fully
implement those practices. Right now, GSA's guidance and
template includes some of the aspects of these five practices
that--that we have endorsed, developing inventories,
establishing transition plans, but--but there are a whole host
of other sub-items or sub-activities that agencies can pursue.
The second of which is, GSA works directly with these
agency transition managers and they could reinforce the
transition----
Mr. Hice. But can--I have got less than 30 seconds. Let me
ask you one other question. And I want to--I want you to get
that to me. But I guess overarching to me, what other national
technologies or cybersecurity priorities or whatever, are
dependent upon this transition taking place?
Ms. Harris. Well, I mean, certainly cybersecurity is a--is
a top priority and--and ensuring that agencies move toward the
EIS contracts is a priority because they're currently on these
Legacy contracts and they need to move to more modernized,
secure systems and--and services. And I'm sure Mr. Zielinski
can elaborate further on--on the details of the security issue,
but that is a major incentive and reason why we need to move
off of the old networks contract.
Mr. Hice. Sounds like it. Thank you.
Mr. Zielinski, did you want to, in fact, elaborate on that,
as invited by Ms. Harris?
Mr. Zielinski. Certainly. Thank you, sir. I--I absolutely
agree with Mrs. Harris' assessment that there is--that there
are a number of--of--of technology sets that we are actually
seeing agencies move toward. So, for example, moving from old,
standard TDM over to Ethernet. Moving from--from current, old,
Legacy voice over into voice over IP. Moving to these more
modern telecommunications kind of pieces will allow for
better--for better security as well.
Mr. Hice. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Speier, for five minutes.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. Ms. Harris, your report
really is fairly critical of what is going on. That so much of
everything is delayed. Are there any agencies that we can look
to as being superstars in kind of complying with the
milestones?
Ms. Harris. Well, unfortunately not right now. I mean,
there are certain small agencies, like SPA, for example, who,
you know, they--they were expecting to issue one EIS task order
and--and they have completed that. But as far as the other more
medium-sized and larger agencies, they are behind at this
point. And is important to note that of the 19 that we
reviewed, there are 11 that do not plan to meet--or--or plan to
transition to EIS by September 2022, which is GSA's suggested
milestone for completion. And so, if--if these 11 agencies are
waiting, essentially, till the last minute to--to move onto
EIS, that--that's going to be a problem because, again, if
there are service disruptions or things that they aren't
anticipating, it will most likely push out that May 2023 date
to the right.
Ms. Speier. So, you referenced then in 2007 the transfer to
Networx caused something like $329 million in lost savings and
increased of 66 million. So, it sounds like we didn't learn any
lessons; is that----
Ms. Harris. No, we learned a tremendous amount of lessons.
And, in fact, I credit GSA for incorporating those lessons
learned from the Networx transition into their guidance in
disseminating those--those lessons to the agencies. And now the
onus is on the agencies to--to get their house in order and to
move quickly to ensure that they are moving onto EIS as quickly
as possible.
Ms. Speier. But based on what you have just told us, that
is unlikely to happen.
Ms. Harris. It--it is unlikely to happen, based on the----
Ms. Speier. So, what lessons are we learning this time
then? That there are not enough sticks out there to have these
agencies comply with the milestones or is it that we are
picking bad contractors?
Ms. Harris. I--I don't believe it's picking bad
contractors. I think it's ensuring that GSA is putting in place
the proper incentives and penalties to--to get the agencies to
move quickly.
Ms. Speier. So, if you were running GSA, what kind of
incentives and penalties would you put in place?
Ms. Harris. Well, encouraging agencies to fully adopt GAO's
Five Practices for a Rigorous and Comprehensive Management
Approach is, I think, is very important because we have found,
based on our work over the past two transitions that when
agencies adopt these practices, that they will transition
successfully and on time.
Ms. Speier. OK.
Ms. Harris. That's something that I--I believe GSA should
be really reinforcing with the agencies.
Ms. Speier. And when those agencies don't comply with those
best practices, what do you think should happen?
Ms. Harris. That's a good question. I mean, I--I don't
think that there's a--a one, right, silver bullet, per se,
but--but perhaps there are some penalties that agencies should
be having to--to experience in order to address these lessons.
Ms. Speier. I think what it underscores for me is that we
have no level of accountability. No one's head rolls if they
don't meet these deadlines and so, the fact that they don't
meet it for whatever reasons, is acceptable and then the costs
are borne by the taxpayers. So, I think we need to look at
holding these agencies accountable in ways that gets their
attention and it doesn't sound like we have done that yet.
Ms. Harris. Well, I--I--I think you're--you're right about
that. I also think holding hearings like this with the customer
agencies could also be very effective in holding these--these
agencies accountable and ensuring that they are--they are
pursuing a timely transition.
Ms. Speier. Well, do we have the time to do this with every
agency? Probably not. All right. One last--well, I am running
out of time, but the issue of this marketplace is very
appealing on the one hand, because I think we pay a premium
when it says U.S. Government on it, whether we are buying
paperclips or other kinds of equipments.
I am still not convinced that we have got the issue of
fraud and misuse and counterfeits dealt with. And maybe you can
answer that for the record because my time is now up.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Harris, you can answer that if you would
like and if there is additional material for the record, we
will welcome that as well.
Ms. Harris. Sure. So, in terms of the counterfeiting
compromised offerings that would be on this marketplace that
that's going toward supply chain risk management. And GSA will
need to take a long, hard look at how they insure that they're
doing everything they can to properly vet the offerings that
are on the platform. And at the same time, also, clearly
communicating to the agencies that these agencies have a
responsibility to ensure that what they are purchasing is also
not subject to counterfeit or--or compromise because they have
a legal obligation to--to do their own vetting as well.
Mr. Connolly. Can I just sneak in a piggyback question to
that, Ms. Speier? If the ranking member--you answered Ms.
Speier by saying, well, if USA had, in fact, taken into account
a number of recommendations. Now it is up to the individual
agencies to get their acts together and implement. But what's
the role of 18F? There are 185 people, who presumably are there
to help facilitate this kind of thing. Are they not available
to these agencies to help?
Ms. Harris. I think that's a question for Mr. Cheriyan.
Mr. Connolly. All right. I will hold off on that. But I
mean, I was really struck by your point about they're on their
own. I am thinking, well, but we have consulting services
within GSA, presumably to help with this kind of
implementation. I will hold off until my questioning, Mr.
Cheriyan, but think about the answer.
Chair now--thank you for your indulgence. Chair recognizes
the distinguished ranking member for his questioning.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Harris, I am going to come back to where my colleague
just left off because, you know, I am hearing words like
progress and we are making attempts and we have a few areas.
Obviously, then we haven't them see the light. The agencies
have not seen the light. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Harris. I would agree with that.
Mr. Meadows. So, if they haven't seen the light, what she
is talking about is, it is time they feel the heat. I mean, I
am with her. I think at this point I am just frustrated. We
continue to have these hearings and either they are
implementing your, you know, you say you have a five-step
criteria for them to implement. So, how many of the agencies
have implemented all five steps?
Ms. Harris. At this point, for this particular transition,
none have fully implemented.
Mr. Meadows. None. None. Is that correct?
Ms. Harris. That is correct.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So, at what point do we put the
five-alarm bell? At what point do we come off, you know, and
start pulling the bell and saying we have got a problem. I
mean, so if--other than SBA, is there any agency that we can
bring in here and say this agency has done a good job and this
one has done a terrible job?
Ms. Harris. Well, I'll--I'd have to get back to you on
that, sir.
Mr. Meadows. You would have to get back to me because
nothing comes to your mind that there is no one that has done a
good job and you are going to have to do some creative writing?
Ms. Harris. Well, the vast majority of agencies are behind.
They've missed the--the critical, suggested milestones that--
that, excuse me, that GSA has--has put out for 2019 and there
are 11 agencies that do not expect to fully transition before
2022. So, that's a major----
Mr. Meadows. And what are the consequences to them not
fully--I mean, are there any consequences, other than
embarrassment?
Ms. Harris. The consequences are missed savings.
Mr. Meadows. Well, no. I understand that. That is a
consequence to the American taxpayer. I doubt there is any
person at an agency is taking money out of their wallet, other
than their normal taxes and paying for any lost savings, isn't
that correct?
Ms. Harris. That is correct.
Mr. Meadows. Is money disappearing from their personnel
fund or any other--I mean, do they have any appropriations
consequences for their inaction?
Ms. Harris. Not that I'm aware of and part of the reason
why this is also happening is because agencies lack a--a formal
governance structure for this transition process. They've not
defined key roles and responsibilities for the people that are
responsible for the transition. And so, accountability at that
point is then defused, and it's hard to pinpoint a single
person, who when the transition slides to the right is----
Mr. Meadows. Well, here is--and I would offer for my
colleagues, this is one of those things where we really have to
put the pressure and meet with the Appropriations Committee
because I am tired of talking about it. And here is what I want
from each one of you. Is I want you to give me the three worst
offenders from missing the milestones and who is responsible,
what is the agency? And I don't care what it is. I want to know
that. And then maybe three that are making an attempt. That is
sad to say that they are just making an attempt, but the three
that are making an attempt.
So, which agencies have actually entered into contracts to
get this done? And so, we are in the process, but we have
entered into a contract. Mr. Zielinski?
Mr. Zielinski. So--so, I can point to the Small Business
Administration, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the
Social Security Administration, the EEOC, the National
Relation--National Labor Relations Board have all entered into
contracts. And there are others who are in the technical
review----
Mr. Meadows. All right. So, you have hit one of those. And
it is not to minimize all the others, but Social Security is
actually a decent-sized agency. So, what you are saying is they
have entered into a contract, they are taking it seriously, and
yet they are going to miss the milestone, but they are at least
taking it seriously; is that correct?
Mr. Zielinski. Sir, there's a series of milestones and
the--the milestone that I believe Ms. Harris is referring is
toward the end of the contract life we had set a September 2022
date by which the agency should have transitioned off of their
old services to provide adequate runway before the May 2023----
Mr. Meadows. Adequate runway? I have been here for eight
years. They have had eight years of runway and they haven't
transitioned off of it, so I am tired of the adequate runway.
And so, here is what I need from you, Mr. Zielinski. You know,
and I find it just incomprehensible that my good friend from
Georgia asked you about progress and who did not. Is that the
list that you just gave me? Because when he asked a question,
you said, well, you are going to have to get back with us, in
terms of who is in compliance and who is not.
Mr. Zielinski. No, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Did I misunderstand you?
Mr. Zielinski. That was a--I believe that was a different
question that----
Mr. Meadows. So, what was the question that you didn't have
the answer to there?
Mr. Zielinski. I--I'd have to----
Mr. Meadows. If it is different. I want you to answer his
question.
Mr. Zielinski. Yes, I--I--I would have to--I'm sorry. I'm
missing--I'm not----
Mr. Meadows. So, it may have been the same question?
Mr. Zielinski. I don't believe it was. It was----
Mr. Meadows. OK. She wrote it down. The lady with the green
pendant there. Yes. Yes. She wrote it down.
Mr. Zielinski. It was the percentage of agencies----
Mr. Meadows. And you don't know what percentage of
agencies?
Mr. Zielinski. I--I would--I would have to go back and look
at the exact number because there are hundreds of agencies.
The--the study that was conducted by GAO----
Mr. Meadows. But if you are keeping the score and you don't
know, I mean, why should we hold them accountable? Guys, let me
just say and some of you this is not your first--but the last
thing I hate are for people to come here and be unprepared and
not have it, especially when we're talking about this kind of
stuff. Ms. Harris knows this. I am not asking you to have the
answers, but what I am asking you is to have the facts. And
that should be a fact, so you can get that back to us within
the next 48 hours?
Mr. Zielinski. Certainly. We update that constantly. We can
do so.
Mr. Meadows. So, you update--can you have one of your staff
members go out and call and before this hearing is over we
maybe get that? Would they be willing to do that? She is
nodding her head. You can turn around. She is nodding her head
yes. OK. Yes, I just--I am just at the point we just got to get
serious about this. And what I want you to do is help the
Chairman and I get serious about this. And we are going to at
least make them feel the heat. OK?
I yield back. I thank you for your generous----
Mr. Connolly. Not at all. I thank you and I would
underline--I mean, this is the Committee of Oversight and
Reform. We wrote a Reform Bill, FITARA. We have been promoting
in this subcommittee and its predecessor with the Information,
Technology Subcommittee, you know, good government measures to
try to retire Legacy systems, consolidate debtor centers,
protect the site--the enterprise with cybersecurity measures,
and the like. And it is frustrating to us beyond words that we
are at the pace we're at and exposing ourselves sometimes, at
least to financial risks, if not technology risks. So, I
certainly underline what both Mr. Hice and Mr. Meadows have
said.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Khanna, for five minutes.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing on the Centers of Excellence. I appreciate your
doing that and I want to thank Ranking Member Meadows for co-
leading the Center for Excellence Bill, HR-5901.
The Centers for Excellence is a program that has
accomplished quite a lot to date, and I would love to hear, Mr.
Cheriyan, what you would think it has accomplished and what you
would like to see it accomplish moving forward?
Mr. Cheriyan. Great. And I thank you for that question. As
I had said in my opening statement, the Centers of Excellence
started back in 2017. We have now got seven agencies actively
using the Centers. The Centers are--there are six of them. I
can go into each one of them.
We have now driven a significant amount of change in one of
the large agencies, USDA, where we're much further along. Where
we've done a significant amount of work, in terms of Cloud
migration, data center reductions, consolidation of call
contact centers, improvement of the loan processing, and so on.
The next major agency that we're further along with is HUD.
At HUD we're in active discussions on the implementation
phases, where we're looking at Cloud solutions for--there about
1,000 forms that HUD uses. We're looking at streamlining that
whole process, automating that whole process with them, and
building several more customer-specific tools for HUD to use.
So, there's a significant amount of work in HUD and so on. So,
I can--I can go down each of the agencies.
Mr. Khanna. Can you give an example of money that has been
saved to the American taxpayers because of this program?
Mr. Cheriyan. There are--there are a significant amount of
cost avoidance. You know, each of the agencies has gone through
what their estimates are. I can get back to you on the
specifics of it. There are----
Mr. Khanna. That would be great. I mean, when you have a
few concrete examples I think that would be helpful. The--can
you also explain the difference between 18F and Centers of
Excellence and their role to support the technology
modernization in government?
Mr. Cheriyan. Sure. 18F is primarily what I call a user-
center, design-focused organization looking at the--the user
processes and streamlining the user processes. So, it's very
much of a taking a customer-centric view and streamlining those
processes. So, they're very--18F programs are very specific.
They're initiative driven. Building of a new website and
streamlining those processes, using, you know, for example, the
Idea Act to improve the whole citizen experience.
The Centers of Excellence approach is much more of a top
down, transformation approach leveraging the six competency
areas that we've built. AI, data and analytics, Cloud
migration, contact centers, and so on. So, we're leveraging
skills and capabilities that are typically needed to drive a
transformation. So, it's much larger in--in scope and there
could be multiple initiatives within a CoE program, whereas 18F
is program specific.
Mr. Khanna. And what can Congress do to be most helpful in
seeing the success for the Centers for Excellence?
Mr. Cheriyan. Well, I really appreciate having the
opportunity to talk to you here about this and, you know, this
shines the light on the good work that's being done, frankly,
by a lot of people, both in industry, as well as our teams. I
know you're in the process of creating a bill and we're happy
to provide you technical assistance there.
Mr. Khanna. What are the things in a bill that you think
would be most helpful to make sure this succeeds?
Mr. Cheriyan. We--we can certainly work with you on that
and--and work with your staff on--on what we believe are--are
the key components.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Khanna.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Comer, for five minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the
hearing on making IT a priority for the Federal Government.
Mr. Zielinski, Administrator Murphy recently wrote an
article in Fortune Magazine, where she said, and I quote, ``E-
commerce has revolutionized how people and organizations buy
and sell things. It's rewired the American economy and shifted
the purchasing process. However, the Federal Government has not
kept pace with these trends. The last major round of
acquisition reform was a generation ago.'' My question to you
is, explain how introducing e-commerce into the purchasing
process through this pilot program benefit the Federal
Government and, ultimately, the taxpayers?
Mr. Zielinski. Thank you, sir, for the question. Under
Section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act, we are
required to explore the utilization of various e-commerce
platforms and incorporation of Federal Government. In the pilot
that we're moving forward with, one of the clear benefits right
from the beginning is we're actually targeting a portion of
the--the market that is not currently providing services to the
Federal Government. So, for one, it's opening up a marketplace
that has not previously been there.
Number 2, again, as I mentioned earlier, we know that
agencies are currently using various e-commerce platforms in
order to conduct business and to buy common goods and products.
By moving it to a business-to-business platform, it allows for
us to have a lot more insight into exactly what is being
purchased, from whom that information--from whom those goods
and products are being purchased, as well as to provide us with
an opportunity to add additional controls in and around what is
being purchased and how it's being purchased.
Mr. Comer. OK. In that same article Administrator Murphy
noted that having a whole-of-government approach to procurement
will provide agencies with critical insight into their
spending, leverage the government's buying power, take
advantage of constantly evolving pricing to include sales and
bulk discounts, and ensure small business participation. Now
can you quickly explain those benefits to the taxpayers?
Mr. Zielinski. Absolutely. The--the--again, back to the
buying power today as agencies are making these purchases,
they're making them in a disaggregated way by working with a--a
kind of a centralized approach and strategy toward e-commerce
platforms and working with those providers, those portal
providers themselves, we're able to aggregate or to bring
together the buying power and consolidate that in order to
improve competition and get better prices on behalf of the
American taxpayer.
Mr. Comer. And I agree with everything you are saying. It
sounds great. But do you have confidence the Federal Government
will be able to pull that off?
Mr. Zielinski. I--I do, sir. I--I, you know, I believe
that--that the approach that we're taking as driven by the
legislation that provides for Number 1, a lengthened period of
market research at the beginning and a very considered approach
will allow for us to have a great chance of success with this.
Mr. Comer. Have many agencies expressed an interest in
participating in this program?
Mr. Zielinski. They have. We actually have met with quite a
number of agencies, that numbers well--well above a dozen, and
we actually have received commitment from agencies to work with
us to both drive those requirements and to participate in the
program.
Mr. Comer. OK. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Meadows. Was the gentleman yield----
Mr. Comer. Could I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Meadows. Yes. So, are you going to have the two
awardees by the end of this month?
Mr. Zielinski. I--we are--we're currently working through
those proposals and our plan is to be able to make that award
here, hopefully, by the end of this month, but--but certainly
here in this--in this spring window of time.
Mr. Meadows. So, is the deadline legislatively the end of
this month? So, you are going to miss the milestone?
Mr. Zielinski. Well, currently we do--we do have several
protests that we are working through that--that impact or
effect when we will be able to issue that award.
Mr. Meadows. And why are they protesting?
Mr. Zielinski. We received a number of protests in this
particular case. The three protests that--that remain are--are
asking us to reassess their proposals that were submitted. I--I
can't--I'm sorry, I can't----
Mr. Meadows. No, I'm not asking you, but so I guess, so
what is your internal timeframe for addressing that?
Mr. Zielinski. So, the--the protest periods, the standard
protest periods are--are what are driving those and--and they
will allow for us to award by the end of the month.
Mr. Meadows. Oh, so you do think you will be able to award
by the end of the month?
Mr. Zielinski. We are hopeful that we will be able to do
so.
Mr. Meadows. OK. So, worst-case scenario is by--probably
not? Is that what she just said?
Mr. Zielinski. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. I can read lips from way over here. So,
probably the end of April? I mean, you can turn around and ask
her. I mean, what are we thinking in terms of timeframe?
Mr. Zielinski. Sir, it's difficult to--to say exactly the
window of time that it will take to work through the protests,
but we do believe that it's in a--in a short window of time. If
not by the end of the month, shortly thereafter.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So, if you are running into a
problem that is going to last over 30 days, will you get back
with the chairman and let him know the progress?
Mr. Zielinski. We will do so, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I yield back. Thank you.
I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Connolly. Thank the gentleman.
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for five minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for being here. AbilityOne is a procurement
program aimed at increasing employment opportunities for
individuals who are blind or have severe disabilities. Under
current law, Federal Government purchase card holders are
required to buy AbilityOne products, such as pens, three-hole
punches, binders, such like that. Government officials are
prohibited from using their purchase card to buy items that are
essentially the same as AbilityOne products at a local
business. You are all--you are aware of that.
There are more than 1,000 items produced by people who are
blind or have significant disabilities and if compliance with
the AbilityOne program is neglected, thousands of hardworking
Americans will risk losing those jobs. Mr. Zielinski, I see you
nodding at this program. You are aware of it. Will the agency
purchase card holder still be required to comply with
AbilityOne restrictions when making a purchase card through the
online marketplace?
Mr. Zielinski. So, for the online marketplace, it does not
change or relieve agencies from their obligations under the
AbilityOne program. And as part of the requirements for the--
for the portal providers is to ensure that we have insight into
what is being purchased and that they are still able--that they
are specifically able to identify where and when a purchase
card holder is looking at items that are--that fall under the
AbilityOne program and ensure that they are made aware that
those--that those are items that are available through
AbilityOne. So, within the program itself, we have requirements
to ensure that--that agencies are able to continue to apply--to
comply with the requirements of the program.
Ms. Plaskett. So, they still will be unable to use the
purchase cards through that?
Mr. Zielinski. So, we are looking to have AbilityOne
providers to participate through the portal itself and be a
part of the e-commerce platform.
Ms. Plaskett. And how do you intend to make that available
to them?
Mr. Zielinski. The first part is--is in the requirements
for the portal providers. We actually provided those
requirements, so they are required to, as part of the
proposals, tell us how they would do so. There is a second
part, is that we will need to work very closely with AbilityOne
to ensure that their providers are aware of the program, that
they are fully participating as well.
Ms. Plaskett. And--OK. Great. What other procurement laws
and regulations are purchase card holders expected to heed when
making a purchase through online marketplace and how will GSA
enforce compliance with that?
Mr. Zielinski. The--again, I--I will say that the online
marketplace does not relieve or change the obligations of--of
agencies from complying with all current applicable laws. So,
those requirements are actually being built into the program
itself.
Ms. Plaskett. OK. Thank you. Can I ask something else about
the commercial platform pilot program, that GSA currently has
out for bid? How will its implementation provide government
contracting officers the ability to focus on more critical
mission focus activities?
Mr. Zielinski. If--if I understand your question correctly,
ma'am, what we're looking for is to help reduce the burden for
contracting officers and allow for the purchase of more
commonly purchased commercial goods and items and--and by
allowing the commercial platform to do those it relieves
contracting officers who would otherwise be encumbered by these
tasks and activities to work on other activities.
Ms. Plaskett. And those being those other critical mission-
based focus activities?
Mr. Zielinski. Correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And how will this program differ from GSA
Advantage?
Mr. Zielinski. So--so, there's a number of different ways
in which this differs from GSA Advantage. And in this
particular place, in this particular case, for the commercial
platform we're looking at items that are under that micro-
purchase threshold. Again, these are items that are not
currently, generally purchased in the marketplace. So, it's
bringing in a different set of providers.
Ms. Plaskett. OK. Thank you. And last question. So, the
White House signed an Executive Order aimed at preventing
counterfeit products from abroad from being sold to Americans
who shop online, right? The e-commerce platform that GSA
establishes do not have to comply with specific laws, like
trade agreements. How are you going to ensure that the online
marketplace complies with this White House Executive Order?
Mr. Zielinski. Thank you. That's a very good question.
There's--there's a couple of ways that I will--I will mention.
First and foremost, it goes back to the information and the
data that we will be able to collect through the commercial
platform that is currently not available. So, as agencies are
making these purchases online today, they don't currently--we
don't currently have access to information that allows for us
to test and to check.
The second thing is, is that we are actually looking to
utilize the commercial best practices, work with the Department
of Homeland Security and the recommendations that they have
made for e-commerce platforms, and actually incorporating
automation to where when there has been identified providers of
these--of these products that are counterfeit or barred or
removed, that the platform will be able to utilize that
information to prevent them from being available to customers.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Chair, just a followup question.
So, how will that interface between you and Homeland
Security work and has that been integrated now or is that
something for the future?
Mr. Zielinski. So, there's--there are actually mechanisms
that are controlled by GSA now when one of those companies has
been--has been--a product or a company has been barred that
that is recorded within a GSA system. So, there are mechanisms
for us to be able to--to do today that--which with we would
interface.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you for the indulgence. I don't know,
Mr. Chair, you might want to ask Ms. Harris if she believes
that that will comply with that, but thank you.
Mr. Connolly. The gentlelady could go ahead and ask that.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Ms. Harris, do you believe that there will be--the way in
which this is being rolled out now, do you believe that that
interface will take place to ensure that the online shopping
will not be done with counterfeit, since there's no specific
requirement to comply, although I understand that they are
trying to work together? How is the integration between the two
agencies working so that that would happen?
Ms. Harris. That's a great question. We haven't done any
work to examine it, but perhaps that's something that we should
moving forward. But based on my understanding of this approach
from Mr. Zielinski, I mean, going small and growing in
complexity is the way to go. Going with the pilot approach and
then--and then deploying. I mean, that is certainly consistent
with best practice.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, Ms. Plaskett.
Mr. Cheriyan, have you had time to think about the answer
to the question I put to you about--one way of looking at 18F,
you described it one way, but I guess my private sector
background would say it is a group of consultants who provide
technical services to client agencies. And given what Ms.
Harris said about, well, at this point they are kind of--it is
up to them now individually agency-by-agency to come to
compliance, why wouldn't you make 18F available to those
agencies, both to facilitate and expedite implementation?
Mr. Cheriyan. No, I mean, that's a--I have had time to
think about it. There--there is a--it's clearly an opportunity
that we can look at and figure out how to do it. We currently
are, as I mentioned before, 18F is primarily a group of experts
who deal with user center design, digital services, and that
type of work.
Our CoE work is all about digital transformation, AI,
Cloud, et cetera. We don't have right now in either one of
those groups' telecommunications or EIS expertise. I would like
to build that expertise or have that expertise or create that
capability in order to really provide this kind of assistance
to agencies. It's clearly an opportunity.
Mr. Connolly. So----
Mr. Cheriyan. But we don't currently--it's not in our--not
in our wheelhouse at this point.
Mr. Connolly. Not in your wheelhouse. How many people work
at CoE?
Mr. Cheriyan. I can get you that number. It's less than 40-
ish or so.
Mr. Connolly. Forty-ish.
Mr. Cheriyan. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And is the number 185 still accurate for 18F?
Mr. Cheriyan. 18F is slightly less than 100.
Mr. Connolly. Slightly less than 100 now? OK. The GAO
reported on cost recovery for 18F and I thought I heard two
different things here. The GAO reported previously that 18F was
required to have a plan for cost recovery. And yet has yet to
recover costs or project when it would fully recover costs and
meeting the deadline. I thought in your testimony you indicated
pretty much they are doing that now. Is that correct?
Mr. Cheriyan. Yes, as of Fiscal Year 1919 we were close to
cost recovery. We missed recovery by about a small amount of
money and that's fundamentally due to the lapse in
appropriations in early Fiscal Year 1919, where we had to wait
for some of our contracts to be signed. We----
Mr. Connolly. Because of the shutdown?
Mr. Cheriyan. Yes, at that time.
Mr. Connolly. Oh.
Mr. Cheriyan. And then as of--for Fiscal Year 1920, we have
full plans to be cost recoverable.
Mr. Connolly. OK. And you concur with that assessment, Ms.
Harris?
Ms. Harris. We do concur. Yes, we do. We are currently
waiting for some outstanding documentation that we have
requested.
Mr. Connolly. OK. Well----
Ms. Harris. However, we do--we have looked at the--the
plans that they have in place and--and we feel very confident
that we'll be closing that recommendation very soon.
Mr. Connolly. Good. Strike a blow for liberty. That is one.
The GSA Inspector General--your Inspector General reported that
18F disregarded fundamental GSA IT security requirements and
circumvented the CIO when acquiring IT products. Now FITARA
actually requires by law that the CIO have visibility in all IT
acquisitions. So, we've got a situation where according to the,
in 2017, the IG said, well they actually violated our own
protocols and procedures within GSA, but, of course, they are
also in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the law
in FITARA. Could you comment?
Mr. Cheriyan. Most certainly. As I joined in January 2019,
and one of my early readings were the IG reports and the GAO
reports and I certainly took them very seriously. Prior to
joining here, I was the CIO of a bank and I understand fully
the rationale behind driving that kind of compliance. So, as of
Fiscal Year '19 and Fiscal Year '20, all purchases of software
have been approved by GSA IT.
And all of the prior purchases, we've been working through,
through a risk-based approach to ensure that GSA IT has got
full approval on all of that.
Mr. Connolly. I would assume, Mr. Cheriyan, that coming
from the private sector, you can appreciate the logic behind
the bill, which was written by a number of us who came from the
private sector. That we want to empower the CIO to be able to
make decisions for, hopefully, all the good reasons and that
circumventing that thwarts our intent and we think jeopardizes
the enterprise.
Mr. Cheriyan. I fully understand the intent of the law and
it makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Connolly. OK. In addition to 18F, the Technology
Transformation Service, TTS, runs the Presidential Innovation
Fellows Program and the Centers of Excellence. What is the
difference among all of these programs? How do we kind of get a
cheat sheet to understand the differentiation and the rationale
for having them as separate programs?
Mr. Cheriyan. Yes, let--let me try and give you a high-
level view. I'm happy to give you more detail later. The CoE
program is fundamentally driving transformation, leveraging
centers of competency, Centers of Excellence and we have six of
those right now.
The 18F program is really a user-center design approach
focused on--very much on the user-center design approaches or
improving the--the citizen experience. The Presidential
Innovation Fellows, think of them as being mid-career
technologists who have come here to work in government for two
to four years and they are really sent into an agency to deal
with--typically, working with the CTO of the agency, dealing
with business or technology architectural issues.
So, there are some agencies where we have Presidential
Innovation Fellows providing guidance to a CTO, we have 18F
doing a particular project on user-centered design, and we
might have the CoE team driving a program across all of those.
Mr. Connolly. So, when I went to the White House to talk
about the innovation agenda with Chris Little and Mr. Kushner,
there were some Fellows, people seconded from the private
sector for a period of time to help design the architecture of
the initiative. Would those have been Presidential Innovation
Fellows, or might they have been?
Mr. Cheriyan. They might have been. I--I wasn't there, but
I'm assuming that that was the case. I have--I can get back to
you on specifically who they were, but----
Mr. Connolly. Right. The Fellows aren't limited to GSA?
Mr. Cheriyan. There are different Fellows. The Presidential
Innovation Fellows sit within my organization. Now there are
other Fellows, who I'm not--I'm not particularly aware of that
meeting. Happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Harris, you talked about the online
marketplace and some of the problems with implementation and
some of the risks. Presumably, I guess, some tripwire is not in
place, so we are not going to catch always, I don't know,
fraudulent products that may be purchased or cyber risk
technologies that we might otherwise purchase because we are
just not aware of it. Could you elaborate a little bit on that
and how well are we doing to take protective measures to avoid
those risks you outlined in your report?
Ms. Harris. Yes. Well, at GSA they are in the very early
stages of establishing a risk management program for their
information and communications supply chain. Right now, we have
ongoing work for this subcommittee and the full committee
associated with the--the 23 civilian agencies and where they
are relative to supply chain risk management processes. GSA, of
seven major missed practices, has not implemented any at this
time. There is some draft guidance that they have in place, but
there's nothing that has been institutionalized at the
organization right now.
And so, that is in combination with this deployment of an
online marketplace. And again, these--these management or risk
management practices are internal to GSA. So, these are what
GSA should be following as they procure their own goods and
services to ensure that they aren't counterfeit or compromised
in any way. But in order to vet offerings on this marketplace,
they should have a robust process. And so, if the internal
process is still in its--in its infancy, then there is, you
know, then--then we have to be very cautious as we move forward
with GSA deploying one--an online marketplace for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Connolly. So I, speaking for myself, Mr. Cheriyan, I
think the online marketplace potentially is an exciting concept
and has a lot of potential making us more efficient,
streamlining the process, save some money for taxpayers. But in
the public sector, it is different than the private sector. The
private sector, something goes wrong with it, the CEO can say
let's clean that up. We will move you over there and her over
here and we will start anew. Repackage it, give it a new name,
and let's do it again, and avoid the pitfalls of the past.
Not in the public sector. In the public sector, if we don't
get it right going into it, you will be hauled before a
committee like this to account for messing up. And there will
be a story in the press and so forth. And so it just seems to
me that it is worthy of heeding the advice of and the analysis
of GAO here to try to get this right at the ground level, so
that we can realize the potential I think it has. And
certainly, with your private sector background, you can see the
potential. But we can also see the pitfalls if we don't get it
right.
So, I--we are going to be very interested in that. We want
to be supportive of that, but we also want to make sure it has
more than a fighting chance once it takes off to be successful.
With that I have completed my questions for now, but I know
that you have some additional questions, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Just one little, followup.
Mr. Zielinski, I want to say thank you to you and your
staff for being responsive to the request. And so, I want to
make sure that I, for the record, said thank you. The fact that
you went out and made a phone call, whether I got the answers
or not, at least it made me feel better. And so, I want to just
say thank you. So, we will be looking for those answers if you
don't have them already.
The one cleanup area that I would like is, you know, you
talked about this portal and the fact that you think it is
going to save the taxpayers money. And you were very optimistic
in questioning from the gentleman from Kentucky. I am
concerned, just because I have seen so many great plans that we
were going to save money and not just on IT, but across the
agency. The minute the Federal Government gets involved we find
that we have real problems.
So, with this portal, the fact that you have protests, is
it a protest, without speaking to the specifics of the protest,
of access to the portal? Because here is--the only way we get
efficiencies is to allow the free flow of people to come in and
actually compete. If not, then it just becomes another
bureaucratic portal that says, well, if you have figured out
our maze and you are able to figure your way in, you actually
get in and what happens is prices don't go up, they actually--I
mean, go down, they actually go up.
So, you have a high degree of confidence that we're
actually going to create a portal that allows us to actually
not only say that we are buying online, but that we're actually
saving money?
Mr. Zielinski. Thank you, sir, for the question. We
actually, as part of the legislation, are required to provide
regular reports on the status of the portal.
Mr. Meadows. But on the plan, as I understand it?
Mr. Zielinski. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Meadows. But not on the results? And Winston Churchill
used to say, ``No matter how beautiful the strategy, we must
occasionally look at the results.''
Mr. Zielinski. So--so, sir. The--the next report that's
being submitted, Report Number 3, actually will provide an
outline of the measures of success and how we plan to measure
that success and--and kind of the metrics that are in and
around that. So, we actually do have it as part of that plan,
the development of the success metrics and those are--are to be
submitted with the next report.
Mr. Meadows. So, with the number 10 being the most
confident that the American taxpayer are going to see real
value and actually reduce costs, how confident are you that if
I go on and I am purchasing through this portal versus going
through and purchasing online through another portal that does
not require government approval, that I will be able to
purchase the same thing cheaper on the government portal than I
can if I go to some other online portal?
Mr. Zielinski. Sir, as we--we talk about, you use the term
cheaper. I--I would say that the metrics that we have----
Mr. Meadows. Well, let's put it for a $500 hammer. We
always hear about these 500 DoD hammers. I can go to ACE
Hardware and buy it a whole lot cheaper. So I guess, in
reality, that is what I am looking at. Cheaper means, in my
mind, cheaper.
Mr. Zielinski. Yes, so--so certainly one of the metrics is
price and cost. But as we also discussed here today, as we are
looking at supply chain risks and our ability to be able to
recognize and understand what's being bought and from which
sources, there's also metrics in and around those sorts of
qualities as well, sir.
Mr. Meadows. So, how do you put a value on that?
Mr. Zielinski. So, it----
Mr. Meadows. For the fact that I am comfortable with the
fact that I bought something, and it complied. How do you put a
numeric value on that?
Mr. Zielinski. So--so, as part of setting out that metric
plan, we will establish specific measures for----
Mr. Meadows. So, you are going to put a dollar amount on
that?
Mr. Zielinski. For--for those things that are related to
price, as opposed to those things----
Mr. Meadows. No, but you are hitting exactly my, you know,
it is the whole quality versus quantity issue. And what happens
is, is if I am paying $500 for a hammer, but you say, by gosh
it is a good hammer from a good place, and we don't have to
worry about Chinese counterfeits. I mean, there--we have got to
get to the point where you let common sense flow into this. And
I need a dollar amount on that because I can buy all the $500
hammers in the world and feel really good that I'm making a
good purchase, when a $50 hammer might work just fine. And I
guess what I am saying is how are we going to measure, where I
am not coming back and you have ended up--we are ending up
spending way too much of the American taxpayer dollars, but you
say, but we got really good quality.
Mr. Zielinski. And--and, sir, as part of our approach and
starting small, as Ms. Harris mentioned, utilizing those best
practices to start small and be iterative and make those
measurements and make adjustments, those are exactly the--the
questions that we're going to be answering as--as part of our
process to ensure----
Mr. Meadows. So, you give a letter grade on the things that
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands was talking about and
we get a dollar amount on the rest of it?
Mr. Zielinski. At--at this time, sir, I'm unable to tell
you exactly.
Mr. Meadows. But you will have that by the end of March?
Mr. Zielinski. But for our report--our Report Number 3 will
contain----
Mr. Meadows. And when is that due?
Mr. Zielinski. Is it April--I believe it's right at the
beginning of April, at the very end of March.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. I am reminded of the fact that this question
of quality, quantity, and price--one of the brand names of
men's clothing today that is considered a brand of excellence,
got its start selling shoddy uniforms to the Union Army in the
Civil War, that were notoriously shoddy, fell apart, and didn't
keep the men warm or protected. Today it is a quality brand.
So, there is hope.
Mr. Meadows. There is always hope.
Mr. Connolly. There is always hope.
I want to thank our witnesses for coming today.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit any additional written questions for the
witnesses. Send it through the chair. And we will--and they
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. I would
ask our witnesses to try to respond as promptly as possible
should there be additional questions for the record.
Hearing no other concerns, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]