U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–197 PDF 2008

A REVIEW OF THE CENSUS BUREAU’S RISK

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR IT ACQUISITIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 11, 2007

Serial No. 110–60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

BILL SALI, Idaho

TONY HAYWOOD, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on December 11, 2007 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Janey, Cheryl L., president of civil programs, Harris Corp.; Judy Marks,

president, Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security Solutions; and

Tom Romeo, Director, Federal civilian agencies, IBM Global Business

Services .......................................................................................................... 55

Janey, Cheryl L. ........................................................................................ 55

Marks, Judy ............................................................................................... 60

Romeo, Tom ............................................................................................... 69

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census; David

Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; and Matthew Scire`, Director, Strategic

Issues, Government Accountability Office .................................................. 6

Kincannon, Charles Louis ........................................................................ 6

Powner, David ........................................................................................... 13

Scire`, Matthew ........................................................................................... 42

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 3

Janey, Cheryl L., president of civil programs, Harris Corp., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 57

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 8

Marks, Judy, president, Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security

Solutions, prepared statement of ................................................................. 62

Powner, David, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,

Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ....................... 15

Romeo, Tom, Director, Federal civilian agencies, IBM Global Business

Services, prepared statement of ................................................................... 71

Scire`, Matthew, Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 15

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 52

(1)

A REVIEW OF THE CENSUS BUREAU’S RISK

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR IT ACQUISITIONS

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Clay and Turner.

Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean Gosa,

clerk; Adam C. Bordes, professional staff member; Michelle Mitchell, legislative assistant, Office of Wm. Lacy Clay; and John

Cuaderes, minority senior investigator.

Mr. CLAY. The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and

National Archives of the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform will now come to order. Today’s hearing will examine the

Census Bureau’s planning and management of its key information

technology systems and infrastructure to be used in the 2010 census. We will hear from the Census Bureau and GAO on their activity concerning the risk management of agency IT acquisitions for

the upcoming census, as well as representatives of the key vendors

involved with these projects.

Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will

have 5 minutes to make opening statements followed by opening

statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

seeks recognition. Without objection, Members and witnesses may

have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement for these materials for the record.

I will begin with my opening statement.

Welcome to today’s hearing examining the Census Bureau’s planning and management of key information technology systems and

infrastructure for the 2010 census.

In October of this year, the GAO issued a report entitled, ‘‘Information Technology: Census Bureau Needs to Improve Its Risk

Management of the Decennial Systems.’’ The study found that of

the three acquisitions for the 2010 census, two were not on schedule and that the Bureau plans to delay testing certain

functionality. As a result, GAO offered four recommendations for

2

addressing the risk management problems related to IT for the

2010 census.

Last month, the Department of Commerce Inspector General

issued its semiannual report to Congress. During the review of this

technology, the IG observed several problems: the handheld computer functions frequently froze; the processing of large address

lists was slow; and help desk support for resolving users’ computer

problems was inadequate.

The problems cited are urgent and must be addressed immediately.

Today, we will examine the problems cited and recommendations

offered by GAO and hear from the Census Bureau and the IT contractors for the 2010 census about their efforts to effectively and

efficiently address the problems identified.

And let me add to that, that this is not a dog and pony show.

We are here for answers, and we want to hear what direction you

will be taking as far as how we make this a complete and accurate

census.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

3

4

5

6

Mr. CLAY. Right now, as is the policy for this committee, we will

swear in all witnesses, and I would ask you to stand and raise your

right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. I ask that each of the witnesses give a brief summary

of the testimony and to keep the summary under 5 minutes in duration. Your complete written statements will be included in the

hearing records, and Mr. Kincannon, welcome, and let us begin

with you.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR,

U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS; DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR,

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND MATTHEW SCIRE` ,

DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON

Mr. KINCANNON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

be here this afternoon to discuss the key information technology

systems under development for the reengineered short form 2010

census. Four major census IT systems illustrate the extent to

which our Nation lies at the heart of our 2010 operations: the

MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project [MTAIP]; the Decennial Response Integration System [DRIS]; the Field Data Collection

Automation program [FDCA]; and the Data Access and Dissemination System [DADS]. They are all critical to the success of the census, and I must say, the timing is critical to the success of these

programs.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize too strongly that we must

have the necessary funding to carry forward these projects to success. And we must have that funding at the time that we are going

to be able to use it to accomplish our tasks.

As you know, the recent 7-week delay in funding census programs resulted from the first continuous resolution passed at the

beginning of this fiscal year. This didn’t allow a planned increase

in census funding and forced us to delay and reduce the scope of

our dress rehearsal. I want to thank the committee for its help in

making sure that we got the funds that we needed, at least

through Friday, and we will all hope for things to continue in the

same vein.

Over the next 3 years, delays in funding are one of the biggest

risks that the 2010 census faces. Indeed, any additional delays will

put greater risk in the face of the successful Census Bureau.

Before I talk about what we are doing for 2010, I want to note

that there is nothing new about the Census Bureau employing and

developing new technology to improve the census. From the use of

automatic tabulating machines from the 19th century to the development of the TIGER data base in the 1980’s and our data capture

system in 2000, we have been a pioneer in development for the use

of technology to meet our needs. And the pattern of countries overseas following our lead in adopting the same technology has demonstrated that I think we are leading the way in a number of

areas.

7

From the 2010 census, the use of handheld computers represents

the most fundamental change in census operations in many years,

and they are the key to leveraging technology to improve the quality of census results and to control the costs.

I want to emphasize to the committee that this is a new program

for us. We have never done anything of this type on this scale before. Consequently, there are significant risks which are exacerbated by the strict time line that I mentioned earlier. It is possible

that we will not have enough time to incorporate all of the

functionalities that we have earlier planned. Adapting in this way

is one way that we can reduce risks and still meet our schedule.

I can report that the FDCA contractor, the Harris Corp., has provided a handheld computer that is functioning well in the initial

dress rehearsal address-canvassing operations. The device has

proved to be reliable, secure and user-friendly. We have successfully collected precise GPS coordinates for housing units and map

features; data has been transmitted effectively both by LAN lines

and by wireless technology. And our field workers are comfortable

with the devices.

As with any operation of this magnitude, the dress rehearsal is

also identifying challenges. This is not unexpected. In fact, meeting

these challenges is a fundamental step in the development of the

2010 systems and the very reason we conduct a dress rehearsal.

Looking toward nonresponse followup, in the nonresponse followup operational test in the dress rehearsal next year, we will continue to monitor user problems. We will work with the Harris

Corp. to assist handheld computer performance in terms of the fundamental objectives of the 2010 census.

Our other contracts are on time and on budget. It is imperative

that we test all of the interfaces between FDCA and our data capture system. After proving the functionality for nonresponse followup for the handhelds, this is the highest priority of our dress rehearsal.

We have weathered the storm caused by the first CR, but just

barely; the reason the GAO report on the status of census IT systems emphasized the need for an end-to-end systems test, both for

systems supplied by contractors and those developed by the government. Because of the CR and the elimination of most of the paperbased operation originally planned for the dress rehearsal, there is

an increased risk in the interfaces between these two sets of systems to mitigate the potential interface problems. We are considering additional testing in 2009.

Your continued support is vital as we proceed with the development of the IT systems, and I thank you again for this opportunity

to address these issues with you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Kincannon, for your testimony.

Our next witness will be David Powner. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER

Mr. POWNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on the 2010 decennial

census information technology acquisitions. The use of automation

will be critical to the success of the decennial. The Bureau estimates it will spend about $3 billion on information technology for

the 2010 census. However, these technologies can present enormous risks and challenges if not managed effectively.

With me today is Matt Stray, director of GAO Strategic Issues

team, who has been closely monitoring the mobile computing device

performance issues. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and

Ranking Member Turner for your early and frequent oversight of

these acquisitions.

In 2004, we started looking into the Bureau’s institutional IT

management capacity for you. We concluded from this review that

there was much room for improvement. In March 2006, we testified

before this subcommittee that neither the integration sytem nor

the field data system collection project offices have the full set of

capabilities needed to effectively manage these acquisitions.

At that period, we stated that incomplete management activities,

including those that required management, risk management and

contract monitoring, increased the risk that the acquisitions will

encounter problems in meeting costs and scheduled expectations.

At this subcommittee’s request, I will summarize our recent report on the status of four key acquisitions and discuss whether the

Bureau is adequately managing key acquisition risks.

In addition to the integration system in the field data collection

system, which includes the mobile computing devices, there are two

other major acquisitions, one to modernize data bases of addresses

in maps and another to tabulate and disseminate data.

The four acquisitions are showing mixed progress in meeting

their costs and schedule estimates. The data base acquisition has

been on schedule and within budget. The other acquisitions have

been experiencing delays and one has experienced cost increases.

Specifically, the dissemination contract has been awarded 2 years

later than originally planned. The field data collection system cost

estimate has increased several times due to poor cost estimation

and requirements, and we project additional cost increases.

In addition, both the field data collection system and the integration systems are deferring functionality to later bills, which typically results in the increased cost. In addition, deferring

functionality means that the operational testing scheduled to occur

during the dress rehearsal will not include the full compliment of

decennial systems and their functionality. This raises the significance of systems testing post dress rehearsal.

Given the relevant test plans were not completed, we recommended that the Bureau complete such plans, including end-toend testing to test the full compliment systems.

Turning toward the management of the decennial acquisitions,

the Bureau has identified mismanagement with its key acquisitions; for example, acknowledgement, which includes baselines, inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43197.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
14

creasing requirements and aggressive test schedules. Despite this,

we found three areas that could be strengthened: identifying risks,

establishing mitigation plans and reporting those risks to key executives.

For example, promoting mobile computer device performance

issues associated with slow and inconsistent data transmissions

had not been identified and tracked by the project office despite

problems arising during the dress rehearsal. Because these devices

are keystone to the reengineered census, it is essential that the Bureau perform the appropriate oversight of how the performance

compares to what is expected and ensure that all performance limitations are figuratively addressed.

We made a number of recommendations to the Bureau to approve the suspension activities, and to its credit, it is working on

a national plan to strengthen these areas.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the IT acquisition plans for the 2010

census will require continuous oversight. Although we are always

seeing moderate cost increases, to date, the delay and functionality

are a great concern because they will result in additional cost increases.

These delays also elevate the importance of system integration in

testing that will occur post dress rehearsal.

Going forward, it is important that the Bureau closely monitor

the cost schedule and function and delivery of its acquisitions; effectively manage its key risks associated with increasing requirements, system interfaces and mobile computing devices performance problems; and effectively plan and execute all systems testing,

including the tests in the interrelated systems.

This concludes my statement. Thank you for your leadership and

oversight.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner and Mr. Scire` follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Scire`.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SCIRE ́

Mr. SCIRE`. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I believe the statement that Mr. Powner made reflects my thoughts as

well.

I would just add that we believe that continued oversight is very

important at this critical point in time as we approach nonresponse

followup, and look forward to working with the committee.

Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that. And it is time to get to

the questioning.

Let me start with Mr. Kincannon.

Director, we have seen delays in both the FDCA and DRIS systems acquisitions that have required the Bureau the establish later

schedules for completing each project.

How is the Bureau managing the risk associated with delaying

key functionality for the 2010 census decennial IT system acquisition? And how will this impact the activities of the 2008 dress rehearsal?

Mr. KINCANNON. Mr. Chairman, the effects on the 2008 dress rehearsal are mixed with the CR and its effects on the dress rehearsal. But we believe that the slight delays in work on the DRIS

contract, which is in fact within budget, will not adversely affect

what we are doing here in the dress rehearsal.

We had to make those rearrangements because, although our

lifecycle estimates of the cost for the DRIS contract are still intact,

the opinion and advice of the contractor was that the spacing by

fiscal year was wrong. And we had to make some adaptations in

order to shift funding for certain projects sooner. And therefore,

other projects had to be delayed somewhat.

The delays both from the CR and other aspects for FDCA do affect what will be tested in the dress rehearsal. But the key

functionalities will be tested in the dress rehearsal. The integration

system itself and the ability of handheld analysis to address a canvas has already been tested. The functionality was demonstrated.

The problems were identified. And we will carry out later this

spring the nonresponse followup for the dress rehearsal using the

handheld, and then we will learn more about that test, I am sure.

But we believe that functionality will go forward as planned

starting in June.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Powner.

Mr. POWNER. I think the key is, the functionality is not being

tested going into the dress rehearsal. It needs to be tested after the

dress rehearsal. That has been our point all along. When you look

at the test plans that you would like to see in place, those currently

aren’t there. So the Census Bureau acknowledges those need to be

done, and I think Mr. Kincannon mentioned that there is key 2009

testing that needs to occur, and it is important that we have a plan

and we stick to that plan with the post dress rehearsal testing.

Mr. CLAY. How will the Census Bureau address that, Mr.

Kincannon? Will you have back-up plans?

43

Mr. KINCANNON. We have plans to begin testing in 2009 to make

sure that we cover all of the important functionalities.

It is not a function of the handheld computers, but it was a function of DADS, which was delayed in being awarded, of not being

able to test that with the dress rehearsal data. But we do plan to

produce the data using the old DAD system, and we plan to test

the new DAD system before 2010 with the data from the dress rehearsal passing through that system again and with data from the

2000 census to make sure that functionality is there.

Mr. CLAY. It is my understanding that the Bureau has engaged

with the MITRE Corp. to evaluate the systems under development

through a FDCA contract in order to test the reliability and effectiveness of the devices under development.

Can you summarize your findings of MITRE’s work for us, and

would you also please submit all internal documents regarding

MITRE’s evaluation to the subcommittee for our records?

Mr. KINCANNON. The work that MITRE has done with us on a

number of activities, not just FDCA but other activities in the planning for the 2010 census and for current activities of the Census

Bureau, have been very helpful to us. We have not had a formal

evaluation done by MITRE of the FDCA project, but they have reflected with us on certain activities, and we will be glad to provide

those documents to the subcommittee.

Mr. CLAY. And what was their summary of FDCA?

Mr. KINCANNON. They have some concerns about the match between capacity to get the work done and the amount of time left

to get the work done. And we are addressing that, and we will be

continuing to address that both with the Harris Corp. and with

MITRE and with our internal resources.

It may lead, as I have said in my testimony, to determining that

certain functionalities that were planned for the handhelds might

be handled in a different way. And although we have not decided

that, we are researching several areas to see whether there’s a

good way to handle those in an alternative way.

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask you this, Dr. Kincannon. Can you tell us

with confidence that there are no inherent risks within the FDCA

program that will require the Bureau to transition into contingency

plans for a paper-based census?

Mr. KINCANNON. I don’t see any—I don’t see any major risk that

we would have to transition into a full backup of a paper-based

census. I doubt that we have the resources to do that at this time,

and I don’t believe that it is necessary.

I believe there will be functionalities where we have to choose

different backup.

I’ll give you an example. In some hard-to-enumerate areas, there

are, typically in every census, high rise buildings, private apartments or housing developments that have high nonresponse rates

and require special action on our part. Optimally, we had planned

that we would use the handhelds to do that special kind of operation which we referred to as a blitz. Maybe that’s an exaggerated

term, but it gets people busy.

And, in fact, we have discovered them in the test in Queens

where we were conducting a blitz in such a building with the same

44

kinds of problems, that there were communications problems using

the electronic devices that we had then.

It is probably more practical in an isolated case like that to use

a back up that is paper-based. You give everybody a stack of questionnaires. They start at the top of the packet and work their way

down, or maybe go the other way around. And then you convert

those paper forms, as we will for all of the mail-in forms, by scanning them into the system. That is an example of the way of—

where we may well use a back-up system that is paper-based but

not drop the automation plans now and try to plan a complete census based on paper.

Mr. CLAY. I would like to ask about the DADS two systems that

will not be available for the 2008 dress rehearsal. What plans are

in place to develop and test this system in time for the 2010 census?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, the DADS system, the contract was recently just led on DADS to—as we referred to it, we have a lots

of names for things, and they make me dizzy sometimes. When I

am preparing for something like this, I have to ask repeatedly, now

what does DAD mean, and what does, you know, so forth and so

on. But you are experienced with this and not only at the census.

We will have a system in time for the 2010 census, and we will

have tested its functionality before 2010 by using the data from the

2008 dress rehearsal and also taking data from the 2000 census

and running that big volume of data through DADS 2. So I think

that is good.

The same company that did DADS 1 won the contract for DADS

2 in a pattern that is all too familiar, and I guess is our fate, so

we are confident that they will be all to produce the updated system that is necessary because of the aging of equipment and methods used to do that delivery of data.

Mr. CLAY. In order to strengthen risk management activities for

census acquisition, GAO made three recommendations to improve

the process in place. These included an end to system testing, processes to mitigate risk and including senior Bureau leadership into

decisionmaking activities.

Please discuss your actions to address each of these recommendations.

Mr. KINCANNON. We are committed to end-to-end testing, and we

have said that—what we are not able to test in the dress rehearsal,

we plan to find the resources, find the time to do this in 2009 so

we can be confident of all of those links between the different

paper-based and electronically based systems and make sure about

that functionality.

On risk identification mitigation, we have, as the GAO observed,

a number of provisions in effect and functioning in different offices,

but they had very good suggestions for where we can strengthen

that. I think it is basically true that we have agreed with their recommendations and are working to implement them.

The involvement of top management in decisionmaking, there is

pretty heavy involvement in the top management in the Census

Bureau’s top three layers of management in decisions about the operations and the procurement and the planning for the 2010 cenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43197.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
45

sus. And we would intend to strengthen that and make sure close

attention is paid.

I may have not done every bit of my duty here in my position

because I have been in this very odd position, never sure whether

October or November or December was going to bring release from

my current responsibilities, but I’m going to assume now that I am

going to be doing this for a while and will be paying close attention.

Mr. CLAY. You will be holding a place then.

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAY. One of the points that really stands out to me from

the GAO assessment is that the risk management plans are pretty

weak. And I want to know, is there any plans in place at this point

to address the points of GAO brought up about risk management?

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir. We transmitted to the GAO last week

an action plan that provided information about how we are addressing that, and we have not heard back, but if they think we

have missed some point, then I am sure we will hear further from

them. And I am sure GAO can provide that to you. We can provide

it.

Mr. CLAY. Let me find out from Mr. Powner.

Have you had an opportunity to look at——

Mr. POWNER. We have looked. There does appear to be a commitment, as I mentioned in my oral statement. There is a commitment

to putting national plans in place to more effectively manage risks,

and that includes, clearly, three things: An acknowledgment of all

of the risks. We saw some gaps. We think those gaps are closing.

Having mitigation plans in place and having the key executives

fully engaged in mitigating those risks going forward, and we have

seen a commitment from the Bureau on that.

Mr. CLAY. This committee would be happy to get your assessment of the plan as well as what was submitted to GAO.

Let me ask also Mr. Kincannon, the Bureau disagreed the GAO’s

recommendation with regard to performing end-to-end testing so

that a full compliment of systems is tested in a census-like environment. In response, you have told GAO that you plan to test all critical systems and interfaces during the dress rehearsal and later.

GAO tells us, however, the test plans are not complete.

When will they be completed? And doesn’t a decrease in the

number of dress rehearsal operations increase the need for end-toend systems testing between the dress rehearsal and the 2010 decennial?

Mr. KINCANNON. Our disagreement was—we weren’t disagreeing

with the principle, and we asserted we would be doing the end-toend testing in the dress rehearsal. Our commitment was based on

the approval of the President’s budget for the fiscal year, before the

CR in other words. It was not desirable to eliminate some of the

paper-based functionalities in it from the dress rehearsal test because it denied us the opportunity for an end-to-end test in realistic

census-like conditions. We cannot recreate fully those census-like

conditions, but we can assemble those components and test them

in 2009 in the event of a hot house kind of way to make sure the

functionality is there. We are committed to try to do that.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Powner, any response?

46

Mr. POWNER. I think it is fair to say, since our report was issued

and we went back and forth on that issue, that the Bureau is clearly more committed to testing. That is our perspective on that, and

I think a hearing such as this has helped with the situation here.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Mr. Kincannon, in 2005, GAO recommended that the Bureau define specific measurable requirements for the mobile computing devices and that they test the device’s ability to meet those requirements in 2006.

Again, in 2006, GAO recommended that the Bureau obtain validation and approval of baseline requirements for the FDCA project.

Have requirements been developed? If not, then why not?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, we now, from the address canvas, have

some baseline data about the performance capabilities of the

handhelds in field use. And we have discovered some problems and

are dealing with those problems, but we do have a base of data

about key aspects of their performance from which we can begin to

develop standards that will define not only what we expect from

the Harris Corp.’s devices but for what the productivity of individual and enumerators will be.

And we agree with the GAO with whether we have to use the

information derived from that activity as the basis for moving forward with practical, realistic goals, performance goals and measures so that we can set standards and then measure performances

against those standards.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Powner, any response? Or Mr. Scire`. Mr. SCIRE`. We have learned a little bit more about what the Bureau is doing in the area of measurement, and I think that we described it is that they have taken some first steps. We have learned

that the Bureau wasn’t even measuring average processing times,

as an example. But as you know, an average disguises a lot so we

would expect they could go beyond that, look at the distribution

processing times, establish performance metrics that are expressed

in terms of the percent of instances in which the handheld computers are meeting expectations.

So, for example, you might have a performance metric which

would say 95 percent of the time the handhelds are transmitting

information within 12 seconds. That is just an example. I don’t

know that should be the exact number.

But we would expect that the Bureau would then move in that

direction and develop performance measures which are much more

specific than simple averages. And that is a measurement of times.

There are obviously other areas of performance of the handheld devices that you would also expect to develop performance measures

that they could then use to hold Harris accountable for the work

that they are doing.

Mr. CLAY. Any response to what Mr. Scire` has said?

Mr. KINCANNON. Executive branch agencies complain about

GAO, and they are always nagging about this thing or the other.

But GAO has been quite helpful in this case in pointing out reasonable things that we need to do that will help make for a better census. And I think we are going to profit from that.

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask Mr. Scire` or Mr. Powner. Please describe

for us the major flaws inherent in the Bureau’s risk management

47

strategies for the decennial IT acquisition. Are the flaws based

upon lacking or ill-defined system requirements during the design

phase, or are there other contract management issues that contribute to the problem?

Mr. POWNER. Clearly, if you look at their risk management activities, some of the things you mentioned there, requirements,

management and contract oversight, those are a couple of key risks

and that is nothing new. That is something that we have been reporting and you have been asking questions for several years now

on.

When you look at their risk management activities, again, what

we saw was first of all, certain risks were clearly being made as

part of their formal risk management program. For example, system interfaces between the systems, that seemed to fall between

the cracks, having the appropriate mitigation plans in place, and

also we were looking for key evidence that the executives were engaged in mitigation of those risks.

So those were the key areas where they were lacking.

Mr. CLAY. And you think they have begun to address them?

Mr. POWNER. Yes. I mentioned the action plan that they sent

over to us just recently. That is a good start in the right direction

to more appropriately manage these risks, but going forward, there

is a lot of work because some of these are going to be around for

a while. Especially when you start looking at the requirements,

creating the remaining testing and pushing a lot out into the later

bill to try to get more development testing done in the later phases,

and that is difficult given the moveable deadline.

Mr. CLAY. GAO reported that the FDCA cost estimate has in- creased by more than $50 million and that additional cost increases

are expected. What are two reasons for the increase, and are the

cost increases correlated with deficiencies in the designs or incomplete definitions of system requirements and in the contracts

agreed to with the vendors?

Mr. POWNER. If you look at the cost increases to date, Mr. Chairman, clearly incomplete requirements and growing requirements is

one reason why we see increase in costs. Another key reason was

a poor estimate to begin with.

Mr. CLAY. So are you saying the Census Bureau did not exactly

know what they were purchasing?

Mr. POWNER. I think they knew what they were purchasing, but

when you have incomplete requirement definition up front—and

the Census Bureau isn’t alone in this. We see this commonly

throughout the Federal Government where you have incomplete or

not a complete cost estimate to begin with. I mean, we had a contract that we increased contract costs twice already. We actually

have a technique where we look at burn rates and project overruns.

We project additional ones going forward, and I think, with growing requirements, we will expect more increases.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Powner, for the viewing public, break that down

into I guess household terms. If we were purchasing something for

a household, give me an example of what went wrong here with the

$50 million overrun. How would we——

Mr. POWNER. Clearly, if you look at the reasons for the overrun,

it was increasing requirements and, of course, cost estimates. So if

48

you were building a house, you would have aspects of your house,

you know, in terms of square footage, you know, the features you

have learned in your kitchen and those types of things; you would

define those features going forward. That is what you would expect

in a border. So it is no different from a system.

With your system requirements, you would want to see specificity in terms of exactly what you want so that the contractor can

then carry out that plan.

As you start adding requirements to a system, it is the same

thing as when you start adding systems to your home. If you want

something more in the kitchen and want additional square footage

or this feature or that feature, you are going to start seeing the

cost go up, and that is exactly what is happening with that system.

Mr. CLAY. So if we wanted marble countertops, that would add

a little bit more to it.

All right. Thank you for that explanation.

Let me also ask you, GAO recommended that the Bureau perform end-to-end testing on its system. Why is this so important,

and what are your concerns in the Bureau’s plans in this area? Are

the Bureau’s reasons for resisting this idea reasonable?

Mr. POWNER. Today we are hearing that there is a receptivity to

the end testing, which is a good thing.

The important item here is, because not everything will be tested

during the dress rehearsal as originally planned, the inter relationships of these many systems, and there are many—we talked about

four major acquisitions today. There are legacy systems, and there

are a lot of interfaces here that need to work. So it is important

that we have the appropriate integration testing and testing to

make sure that not only the individual pieces work, but they work

as a whole.

What we did not see was the test plans in place to make sure

that this happens. There is a commitment to do the end-to-end

testing now, we are hearing, in 2009. And that is a good thing. But

that will also require continued oversight to make sure those test

plans are complete and that they are vigorously executed.

Mr. SCIRE`. If I can add to that, the importance I think is that

sort of testing be done under census-like conditions. As Mr.

Kincannon was saying, that is where you are going to see the limitations of the systems. And for the nonresponse followup to the

dress rehearsal, there’s a critical interface here that needs to be

tested then. It is not something that it could be tested later, and

that is the interface between FDCA and DRIS, and how that works

with late returns.

One of the arguments for introducing the handheld was a cost

savings that would accrue by doing this late mail return. That

gives you that capacity. So that is something where that interface

would be important to be tested during the dress rehearsal rather

than later.

Mr. CLAY. So those are some of the areas that this subcommittee

should continue to have oversight over.

Mr. SCIRE`. Absolutely.

Mr. CLAY. And leading up to the 2010.

So any other areas we need to possibly exercise oversight and

really pay attention to?

49

Mr. POWNER. I think if you look at the testing going forward,

that is a key one. In monitoring the cost and scheduling performance of these major acquisitions, clearly you want to do that and

then also to—the performance and resolution of the issues with the

mobile computing devices, that would be a third.

Mr. SCIRE`. If I could add to that, as far as looking at the computing device. I think it is true that we still don’t know the magnitude

of the performance issues that we and the IG and the census itself

observed during the address-canvassing dress rehearsal. So I think

it is something that deserves continuing oversight.

Mr. CLAY. And in your opinion, the top three acquisition risks

facing the Bureau between now and the 2010 census?

Mr. POWNER. I would say the increasing requirements, managing

the many interfaces and the remaining testing.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Kincannon, anything else to add?

Mr. KINCANNON. I had a long dry spell there, Mr. Chairman. But

I have two or three.

Mr. CLAY. We will always give you the opportunity to respond.

Mr. KINCANNON. It is true that we think also just about the most

important thing, well, the functionalities of the handheld in the

dress rehearsal will be tested, and that very important one of how

we deal with late rural returns is a big money saver. In the test

censuses in 2006, up to 14 percent of the receipts were late mail

receipts, and that translates into a lot of savings if we get that information immediately transmitted back to the handhelds in the

field so we don’t send people to knock on those doors.

In the old system with paper, we were never able to catch up so

we would have to knock on those doors again, those being irritated

a second time, and we have a second piece of paper and sent it in

and then it had to be duplicated. So that is very important, but we

are planning to test that in the dress rehearsal. We endeavored in

making our modifications to the dress rehearsal, as we deleted or

constrained things under the DRIS—under the CR, we tried to preserve the most important things that we really have to have good

knowledge about the functionality. We would have liked to have

had it all, but we couldn’t have it all.

We have mistakes and errors that we have made, but some of

them would have been avoided if we hadn’t gotten—by the CR.

Let me also say that, of these four contracts, three are essentially

on schedule. We have made some schedule modifications and within budget, but one of them is only just beginning. So that is not

a fair test, but all three of those have, as a characteristic, they are

things that we have done before with contractors. And so those

have worked very well because we had experience with them.

The problem with the FDCA was it was something that we have

not done before, and we did not do a good job of understanding

what the cost should be.

And so we did have to make a change both in the overall cost

and in the timing by fiscal year of funding this meeting.

I think that is a distinguishing characteristic.

The GAO report has some very handy little charts, sort of like

the consumer reports chart. You know you are going to buy a car.

They are the same thing. A little empty circle means you are not

doing it right, and a full circle means you are doing it right. And

50

I think you file consistently the processing order, so that No. 1 is

intake and so forth. Winding up with four being DADS. They have

been very logical. The intake really looks like the worst of it. It has

the most half circles and a couple of completely empty circles, and

yet it is on time and within budget. And that is not because we

shouldn’t be excused of doing these things, but it is because we understood the process and exercised good control even without following some of the proper procedures. But that makes it very important that we follow the proper procedures on FDCA.

Mr. CLAY. And you know, Mr. Director, you have with your tenure here in Washington, with your service at the Bureau and with,

I guess we would put it as your tentative stay at the top, and we

will get a successor for you; you have been through this before. You

know you cannot count on a CR that—we don’t know if you get a

CR, you get an appropriations bill, and you understand the work

of Washington, and that is why it is so important that we get this

right. And yes, there will be a dress rehearsal in 2008 but you don’t

get a dress rehearsal in 2010, and we need to get it right. And I

know you are aware of that, and under your stewardship, just keep

us on track for 2010 census.

Mr. KINCANNON. I will do my best, sir, thank you.

Mr. CLAY. I know you will.

And with that, I will dismiss this panel and call up the second

panel. Thank you all for your statements and testimony.

On our second panel, we have a highly distinguished group of individuals who are highly qualified to address the issues associated

with the four major IT acquisitions underway for the upcoming decennial census.

And beginning to my left is Ms. Cheryl L. Janey, who is the

president of the civil programs business unit of the Government

Communications System Division of Harris Corp. There she overseas the development and production of advanced communication

systems for agencies of the U.S. Government and their prime contractors.

And welcome, Ms. Janey.

Ms. Judy F. Marks, is president of Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security Solutions, A division of the Lockheed Martin

Corp. In this role, she manages three lines of business which focus

on advanced mission, critical information technology solutions, including Census Data Capture and Communications Netware Infrastructure Program.

Thank you for being here, too.

And Mr. Tom Romeo serves as the director of Federal civilian

agencies for IBM Global Business System Services. In this role, he

is responsible for all IBM services, business relationships and contracts throughout the Federal, Civilian agency community, including the Department of Commerce and Census Bureau.

And I welcome you all together.

And it is the policy of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses

before they testify. I ask you to stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

51

I will ask each witness to now give an oral summary of his or

her testimony and keep it under 5 minutes in duration. Bear in

mind that your complete written statement will be included in the

hearing record.

And without objection, I would like to submit the opening statement of my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Turner of Ohio.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]

52

53

54

55

Mr. CLAY. And we will now begin with Ms. Janey.

You may begin.

STATEMENTS OF CHERYL L. JANEY, PRESIDENT OF CIVIL

PROGRAMS, HARRIS CORP.; JUDY MARKS, PRESIDENT,

LOCKHEED MARTIN TRANSPORTATION AND SECURITY SOLUTIONS; AND TOM ROMEO, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL CIVILIAN

AGENCIES, IBM GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES

STATEMENT OF CHERYL L. JANEY

Ms. JANEY. Congressman Clay, my name is Cheryl Janey, and I

am the president of the civil business division for Harris Corp. I

am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the role of Harris in

supporting the Census Bureau in the 2010 decennial.

The Field Data Collection Automation [FDCA], program was

awarded to Harris in April 2006. Since the contract was awarded,

we formed a team of highly skilled professionals focused on successfully supporting the 2010 census. We are delighted with the

progress to date and are proceeding at an aggressive pace.

The FDCA program provides the automation support for the Bureau to collect quality data in an efficient and cost-effective manner

for the 2010 census. This includes the hardware, applications and

infrastructure necessary to support field activities.

We interact daily with the Bureau to manage the technical

schedule and cost risks of the program. Rigorous testing has been

conducted and will continue throughout the FDCA program.

The handheld device marks the first time enumerators will use

electronic means to collect and record data. This is a historic milestone for the Bureau and one which must be met with careful planning and testing to ensure the data remains secure, the process efficient, and ultimately that the decennial is accurate and complete.

In spring 2007, Harris delivered a secure, robust and reliable

system as part of the dress rehearsal address-canvassing field operation. During address canvassing, we successfully deployed nearly

1,400 intuitive handheld devices developed by Harris. Key FDCA

supported infrastructure were deployed, including the Network Operations Center, Security Operation Center, Data Processing Centers, and a help desk. Overall, the testing and the handheld reliability exhibited during the spring DRAC field operations was encouraging. Valuable information was gathered through the process,

which was the purpose of this early field evaluation.

When necessary, Harris utilized secure over-the-air software upgrade procedures to correct defects and maintain operational effectiveness. Some challenges surfaced, including issues with transmission speed and synchronization, but this is understandable at

this phase of a program of this size and complexity. Harris developed temporary fixes to the problems encountered and is actively

working toward permanent resolution in time for the planned operational tests.

Using the systems engineering approach, we established a lessons learned review board. This board prioritizes and reviews corrective action plans, including the testing process. Once fixes are

made and tested, they are integrated into the system and the system test is run to ensure they work to accomplish the desired reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43197.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
56

sults. We have followed this process with critical improvements to

transition, speed and synchronization time, among others, ensuring

they perform as designed in the upcoming operational tests.

The security of the collected data has been a paramount concern

to the Bureau and also of Harris. Multiple overlapping layers of security have been embedded in design and deployment of the

handheld devices. We have created security systems to protect Title

13 and other sensitive data during collection and transmission and

at any point throughout the process.

The Bureau recently commissioned an independent assessment of

the security measures. This assessment validated the technical and

procedure designs and risk mitigations that we have incorporated

into the program to safeguard data.

Given the unbending census date of April 1, 2010, we have limited time to incorporate any changes required as a result of field

integration and field testing. The recent period of reduced funding

during the first Continuing Resolution did have some impact on

timing and the scope of the planned NRFU dress rehearsal. Harris

is actively working with the Bureau developing a revised testing

approach for NRFU and all remaining operations that will meet

both the financial and timing limitations of the Bureau.

We have confidence in the capability and performance of the infrastructure and are moving carefully and thoughtfully through the

planning process to ensure reliability is not compromised and integrity is maintained.

Harris Corp. will continue to support the Bureau in managing

risks and will contribute in any way to make sure the 2010 decennial will provide the most accurate, complete and secure count of

our Nation’s population.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you

today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Janey follows:]

57

58

59

60

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much.

Ms. Marks, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JUDY MARKS

Ms. MARKS. Thank you, Chairman Clay.

My name is Judy Marks. I am president of Lockheed Martin

Transportation and Security Solutions. I appreciate the opportunity

to speak to this community. I am pleased to share the progress we

are making on the Decennial Response Integration System [DRIS],

program for the 2010 census. Today I will describe what the Lockheed Martin team has done and is doing to keep the DRIS program

pivotal to the success of 2010 on track.

First, I want to reassure this committee that we understand how

important the census is to our Nation. The constitutional mandate

is a weighty responsibility. Certainly one such as the census merits

special respect and consideration for the results touch every one of

us in this room, indeed touch every individual American.

To this end, I am pleased to report that, to date, 100 percent of

the DRIS program deliverables have been made on time and in full

compliance with the requirements. Together, Lockheed Martin and

the Census Bureau are on schedule and within budget for this core

system.

Our team supported the census in conducting the 2000 census,

the most accurate in our Nation’s history, and we have effectively

applied lessons learned from our 2000 experience. Lockheed Martin’s leadership program began in 2005 following a competitive proposal process. The responsibilities of the DRIS program include designing, building, testing, deploying, implementing, operating

maintaining, and securing the systems, infrastructure, staffing,

procedures and all of the facilities needed to successfully carry out

the 2010 census.

Through these activities, we provide assistance to the public

through the telephone. We will receive, capture and standardize

census data provided to telephone agents or through census forms,

and we will receive standardized data collected by the handheld

computers.

Following the conclusion of the census activity, we will also dispose of the systems and infrastructure associated with the census,

and finally, we will decommission the 2010 facilities and staff.

Lockheed Martin has remained within the original Census Bureau total lifecycle funding in addressing DRIS requirements, and

we remain committed to delivering DRIS solutions within the

planned lifecycle funding and on schedule.

Our role is distinctly separate from two other components of

2010 census represented on this panel, the FDCA program by the

Harris Corp. and the Data Access in Dissemination Program led,

too, by IBM.

I would like to now touch on some of the highlights of the DRIS

program to date.

First, we have completed system development for the upcoming

dress rehearsal system and are now in the midst of system integration test efforts. This system has been deployed and is currently

being tested and certified at the national processing center in Indiana.

61

And all of these activities prepare our team for the dress rehearsal in May 2008 where we will test the solution and identify

areas that still require refinement prior to 2010. We have already

demonstrated multiple functions of the 2008 dress rehearsal system to the Census Bureau and to other stakeholders, thereby continuing to reduce risk to this test. In the time that remains before

2010, Lockheed Martin and the Census Bureau will focus on the

following: We will continue to implement a comprehensive system

test approach which will drive performance, which will enhance

quality and which will reduce risk. We’re actively engaging in services of small businesses that can add value in the DRIS program.

Currently, our small business participation objective is 30 percent of our contract value, and I’m proud to say we’re on target to

surpass this objective. We’re continuing our proven record of

earned value management, scheduling management and risk management on the program to ensure that DRIS remains fully compliant as it is today and we’ll continue to operate as an integrated

highly cooperative government industry team from which we all

benefit. The census is absolutely critical to every American citizen.

The data the Bureau collects during the process helps foster our

democratic process. In order to achieve the success, the Census Bureau must rely on support from an array of people, processes and

technology. The DRIS program will use information technology and

automation to accurately securely and efficiently count this Nation’s population. We are accomplishing this by advancing a strong

foundation we’ve built in partnership with the Bureau, a collaborative team structure, proven risk reduction and program management practices, focus on inclusion of small businesses, and we continue to deliver the right capability on time and within budget. At

Lockheed Martin, we are committed to serving the U.S. Census Bureau with excellence and partnership to carry out this critical congressional mandate in 2010.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions on this statement and my written testimony. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Marks.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marks follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Romeo, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF TOM ROMEO

Mr. ROMEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Tom Romeo.

I’m the director of Federal services for IBM’s Global Services Business in the public sector. I’m here today to talk about IBM’s role

in supporting the Census Bureau for the 2010 U.S. census, especially focussing on those concerns identified in the GAO report on

October 2007. IBM has a long history of working with the Census

Bureau. The first automated census of 1890 was the inspiration for

the birth of the Hollerith card, the foundation of modern computing, which remained in use through the 1970’s. Herman Hollerith’s

company was one of the founding companies of the IBM Corp. In

more recent times, IBM supported the 2000 census as the prime

contractor for the first Data Access and Dissemination System

[DADS] contract, providing both data tabulation and Internet data

dissemination.

In 2005, IBM was proud to be part of the winning Lockheed Martin team on the 2010 Decennial Response and Integration System

[DRIS]. Our role in that contract was to provide the systems supporting both the telephony and Internet data collection channels

for the 2010 census. In September of this year we were awarded

the DADS II contract, and will again be providing data tabulation

and Internet data dissemination services for the 2010 census and

for other Census Bureau surveys.

The October GAO report identified various concerns regarding

the schedule and status of the programs with which we are involved. And we would like to comment briefly on these. With respect to the DADS II contract, although an earlier award would

have allowed us to begin development sooner, we do not believe the

delay is a significant risk to the timely tabulation of the 2010 census data. We should point out that the original DADS contract was

awarded in April 1997, only a few months earlier in the decade

than the new DADS II contract.

At that time there were no existing tabulation or dissemination

systems, so the risks were arguably higher than it is today. In addition, the proposed replacement tabulation system is built on the

same technology and architecture as the original tabulation system, so the upgrades required to make it ready for the 2010 census

are not as significant as was required to build the original system

for the 2000 census. Using the current tabulation system to support the 2008 dress rehearsal, although not ideal, is a completely

workable and low-risk approach to meeting current schedule constraints.

With respect to data dissemination, our system development

schedule is built around the launch of the new system in early

2011, and we believe the schedule will give us sufficient time to

achieve our objectives. The GAO report also mentioned that the

DRIS Telephone Questionnaire Assistance capability, that is the inbound calling functions, will not be developed in time to support

the 2008 dress rehearsal. The funding constraints from fiscal year

2006 through fiscal year 2008 described in the GAO report did require the exclusion of some telephone system functionality.

70

However, most of the functionality selected for exclusion from the

2008 system was part of the 2000 census, and was therefore a

lower risk for later deployment. The dress rehearsal telephony system focused instead on outbound calling functions that were not

implemented for the 2000 census. We do support additional possibly end-to-end system testing in 2009 that includes the full set

of telephony features, which is what the Census Bureau currently

plans.

In closing, we would like to express both our commitment to seeing the Census Bureau through a successful 2010 census and our

appreciation for the Census Bureau’s work today. In our long history of working with the Census Bureau, we have been thoroughly

impressed by their professionalism and dedication of both their employees and leaders and by their focus on continuous improvement

in technology innovation.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I’m happy to answer

any questions.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Romeo. And thank you all

for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Romeo follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Mr. CLAY. Let me start with Ms. Janey.

Significant concerns have been raised that Harris is scheduled

for deliverables, such as software and hardware, may not meet the

Bureau’s schedules for deliverables under FDCA. Can you assure

us that your schedules are in concert with the Bureau’s deadlines

and needs?

Ms. JANEY. I can, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the Bureau on a literally daily basis as well as with the GAO to ensure

that our delivery schedule matches the means needs of the Bureau.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Let me ask a question similar to what I asked Mr.

Kincannon earlier. Can you describe for us the role Harris played

in the FDCA evaluation conducted by MITRE Corp? What types of

information or data did Harris provide to MITRE for the evaluation? Can you summarize the findings of MITRE and its characterization of Harris’s work under the FDCA contract? And can you

state with confidence that there are no interests—inherent risk

within the FDCA program that will require the Bureau to transition into contingency plans for a paper-based census?

Ms. JANEY. Well, I will start with the end of that first. Any time

a new system is implemented, it’s a challenge and there are risks

to it. That’s why Harris, in conjunction with the Bureau and the

varying oversight agencies that are working with the Bureau, are

focusing so keenly on ensuring that we are sticking to a plan and

sticking to a schedule. I can’t speak specifically about the findings

that MITRE gave. I think I would direct you to the Bureau or to

MITRE themselves. Harris regularly provides significant amounts

of data both at the raw data summary level and everything in between. We did coming out of the dress rehearsal where there were

some synchronization challenges and timeframes, and have since

provided updated information back again to the Bureau and to

GAO. So I can’t speak specifically for the MITRE summary, but I

can tell you that Harris has provided any information that’s requested and——

Mr. CLAY. Has MITRE responded back to you all—to Harris with

a summary?

Ms. JANEY. No. I think MITRE was working with the Bureau.

Mr. CLAY. I see. OK. Thank you for that response. Let me go to

Ms. Marks. Apparently, Ms. Marks, the DRIS project has already

experienced one scheduling delay and has been altered to operate

at a reduced level of functionality. Can you explain why this is?

And was it solely due to inadequate system requirements, definitions from the Bureau?

Ms. MARKS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that opportunity to answer. The challenge that DRIS ran into when we were competitively selected in 2005 is the Bureau had done their best to identify

all of the program requirements that they could that they knew at

the time. For example, there are multiple forms used in the census.

For the purpose of running a competitive procurement, the Bureau selected one representative form to have both ourselves and

the competition bid. It turns out today there are 62 unique forms

and they continue to be defined as we go into 2010. All of those

forms will be tested on a paper basis at the dress rehearsal. So it’s

those kind of additional finite definition that happen as you conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43197.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
85

tinue to go through the decade and as you get closer to the census

that are to be expected.

So we are staying within the life cycle limit. We have stayed

within that funding profile and we do look forward to a successful

2010 census because of that.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response, Ms. Marks, because of

the delays in DRIS, the Bureau will not have a telephone questionnaire assistance system in place for the dress rehearsal. Normally

they would have these data capture centers complete by the end.

How will you seek to mitigate future system vulnerabilities that

arise between the dress rehearsal and the actual 2010 decennial

census?

Ms. MARKS. Well, Mr. Chairman, as we were defining what

would go into the dress rehearsal with obviously some of the

changes that were occurring, we prioritized functions in the following manner: If we had a function that worked—and we are very

proud to have been the 2000 census provider—if there was a function that worked, like the telephone questionnaire, we prioritized

that to be tested at a later date. What we wanted to test early were

the functions that had never been in use before. The most important function being the interface face with FDCA. We are testing

all of the primary interfaces with FDCA at the 2008 dress rehearsal, and we believe that is the most critical risk item to retire

between ourselves, the Harris Corp., and the Bureau. All of the

other functions, they are not going to be in dress rehearsal in 2008.

We have proposed, again, within that life cycle funding to the Census Bureau to do it in 2009, including the telephone questionnaire.

Mr. CLAY. And you are pretty comfortable with the telephone

questionnaire?

Ms. MARKS. We are. It worked successfully in the past.

Mr. CLAY. Let me go to Mr. Romeo. And thank you for your response. How will the late development of DADS II affect your ability to ensure that the system will be adequately integrated and

tested in time for the decennial? What challenges do you foresee

that what may require further scheduling delays or cost overruns?

And can you describe for us how you plan to test the full

functionality of DADS II while it is in development?

Mr. ROMEO. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the award was

a little bit later than we had hoped. So we didn’t get started as

soon as we had hoped. But the testing today—the plan for the testing is to use the existing DADS system for the dress rehearsal test

and then to retest with the newly developed system. The data in

the DADS system is the data collected by DRIS passed to the Census Bureau cleanse and then passed to DADS for analysis and

presentation to the public. And because of that schedule, it is a

later requirement in the system. The interfaces between DRIS and

the DADS system are very similar to the interfaces that we implemented for the 2000 census, and they are fairly limited. There’s

two interfaces. So we’re very confident that the test, using the existing system, will give us a great head start and the later test

with the new system will be adequate to ensure the functionality.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Let me ask a panel-wide question. We’ll

start with Ms. Janey and just move down the line.

86

Because the Bureau has delayed its schedule for FDCA, DRIS

and DADS II contract as well as delayed functionality of key system activities beyond the dress rehearsal, there are increased risks

associated with system integration and interoperability among all

four acquisitions. Can each of you please describe for us how you

are mitigating the risk associated with system compatibility and

interoperability prior to April 2010, and has the Bureau effectively

managed its enterprise architecture development activities to ensure its systems are fully interoperable and they’re integrated? I’ll

start with you, Ms. Janey and see if you can tackle that.

Ms. JANEY. Well, I liken it to a relay, Chairman Clay. Each individual runner in a relay can operate at his personal best, but that

relay team won’t win unless the handoffs are efficient. I think the

same can be true of the criticality of the interfaces between DRIS

and FDCA particularly in this census. I’m happy to tell you that

Harris is working with the Bureau, with Lockheed Martin to ensure that we test and rigorously test those interfaces as they developed. Is there as much time as we’d want? No. But I don’t think

there is ever as much time as we want. We are developing rigorous

testing plans at the Bureau’s direction and in cooperation with the

Bureau, with Lockheed Martin and with all of the contractors involved to ensure that we’ve tested it adequately far before the 2010

census.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thank you for that. Ms. Marks.

Ms. MARKS. Mr. Chairman, the DRIS system accepts data from

three sources. We either receive the paper forms, we receive inputs

via the telephone VRE call centers or we receive them electronically from the FDCA system. And then as Mr. Romeo shared, some

of that data after we submit all of this data to the Census Bureau,

they are the only people who cleanse it and then several of—some

of that data then goes to the DADS system.

So we have the ability to accept data in any one of three manners as a secure manner and we test each of those rigorously. We

have already started testing prior to dress rehearsal some files

coming to from FDCA to get basically an advanced start on testing

some of the interfaces. Again, all of those primary interfaces will

be tested in 2008, and we always have the ability to continue in

2009 in the end-to-end test that Director Kincannon spoke of this

morning.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. Mr. Romeo.

Mr. ROMEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the DADS system,

because of the similarities to the receipt of data from the 2000 system from the Census Bureau and that we will receive in the 2010

census, we’re very confident that the testing will be adequate to ensure that the system is fully functional.

Mr. CLAY. What is the current earned value management data

allowing regarding shelving, regarding constant schedule performance for the key acquisitions? Specifically, are you on schedule to

deliver on your schedule estimate, Ms. Janey?

Ms. JANEY. As was discussed earlier, requirements have continued to evolve with the FDCA system and we are experiencing a—

less than a 10 percent overrun on the project to date.

87

Mr. CLAY. Has the Bureau adequately defined specific requirements for the major system acquisitions that you are associated

with? Has it been clear what they’re purchasing?

Ms. JANEY. As Director Kincannon stated earlier, this is the first

time a handheld has been used. It’s involving a different part of the

Bureau, in the field operations. So not surprisingly, there is some

evolution to the requirements. That was not unexpected, but it’s

continued to go. What I’m pleased to tell you is that the Bureau

is actively working to get to a point in the very near future where

we lock down the requirements so that the requirements are set

and we are then moving forward to the date that we are constantly

reminded of.

Mr. CLAY. I know that the Harris Corp. has had several government contracts, I guess, in its history. And this is taxpayers’

money. So I mean, it’s not open-ended. And it ought to be guarded

and we should be good stewards of it, all of us.

Ms. JANEY. Absolutely, Chairman Clay. We have—75 percent of

Harris money goes to the government in one shape or form.

Mr. CLAY. All right. How about Ms. Marks, your earned value

management data, what is it showing?

Ms. MARKS. Our earned value management data shows us on

cost and on schedule within the life cycle budget for the DRIS program, and the Census Bureau has completed all requirements definition and they are firm.

Mr. CLAY. And that goes back to your history with the Bureau

in, I guess, the 2000 census?

Ms. MARKS. I think the fact that we have personnel who have

worked together, the fact that we have people who are skilled in

the census domain practice and the fact that those are the people

assigned to this project along with a wonderful team of subcontractors who are small and large businesses who all participated in the

2000 census helps us reduce risk and stay on schedule.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Mr. Romeo.

Mr. ROMEO. We also are on budget and on schedule.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

If anyone else has anything to add?

Ms. MARKS. No, sir.

Mr. CLAY. If not, let me thank you, thank the panel for their indulgence today. And that ends the testimony of this panel. And

without objection, the committee is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ