U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–162 

Calendar No. 288 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1550 

TO AMEND TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH 

ENTITIES TASKED WITH IMPROVING PROGRAM AND PROJECT 

MANAGEMENT IN CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

REBECCA N. NUZZI, Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Minority Chief Counsel 

TROY H. CRIBB, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 288 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–162 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

NOVEMBER 3, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1550] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 1550) to amend title 31, United 

States Code, to establish entities tasked with improving program 

and project management in certain Federal agencies, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends 

that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and the Need for the Legislation ............................................. 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 5 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 5 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 6 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 6 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 8 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 1550, the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act of 2015, seeks to improve program and project management practices within the Federal government by requiring the development of governmentwide standards, policies, and guidelines 

for program management, establishing an inter-agency Program 

Management Policy Council to focus on improving program management, and requiring clearer identification of skills and competencies necessary for effective program management. The legislaVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:10 Nov 05, 2015 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR162.XXX SR162

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–282, Defense Major Automated Information 

Systems: Cost and Schedule Commitments Need To Be Established Earlier (Feb. 26, 2015), 

available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-282; Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–14–231, 

Plutonium Disposition Program: DOE Needs To Analyze the Root Causes of Cost Increases and 

Develop Better Cost Estimates (2014), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-231; 

Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–290, High-Risk Series: An Update (2015), available at 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-290. 2See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–13–524, Information Technology: Additional Executive Review Sessions Needed to Address Troubled Projects (2013), available at http://gao.gov/ 

assets/660/655214.pdf; Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–290, High-Risk Series: An Update 

(2015), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-290. 3 Id. 

4Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–290, Healthcare.gov: Ineffective Planning and Oversight Practices Underscore the Need for Improved Contract Management (2014), available at 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665179.pdf. 5Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–290, High-Risk Series: An Update 44 (2015), available 

at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-290. 

tion builds upon existing guidance and would not affect current 

agency organization structure. S. 1550 will help ensure agency 

leadership focuses on improving processes that are critical to effective management of major government projects and programs. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Many Federal projects and programs are substantially over budget, significantly behind schedule, or fall short of meeting their 

original purpose, sometimes because they fail to utilize common 

best practices and standards acknowledged both within the government and the private sector.1 Many of these projects are terminated years after the program was implemented, wasting billions 

of taxpayer dollars.2

Below are just a few examples taken from Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of recent troubled or failed major 

projects at government agencies, specifically in the areas of information technology (IT). According to GAO, ‘‘these and other failed 

IT projects often suffered from a lack of disciplined and effective 

management, such as project planning, requirements definition, 

and program oversight and governance.’’ 3

• The Healthcare.gov Preparation and Launch: The administration spent $840 million on the creation of healthcare.gov and 

its supporting systems. According to GAO: 

CMS incurred significant cost increases, schedule slips, 

and delayed system functionality for the FFM [federally facilitated marketplace] and data hub systems due primarily 

to changing requirements that were exacerbated by oversight gaps. From September 2011 to February 2014, FFM 

obligations increased from $56 million to more than $209 

million. . . . Because of unclear guidance and inconsistent 

oversight, there was confusion about who had the authority to approve contractor requests to expend funds for additional work. . . . As a result, CMS launched 

Healthcare.gov without verification that it met performance requirements.4

• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Scheduling Replacement Project: Terminated in September 2009 after spending an 

estimated $127 million over nine years.5 Despite spending 

nearly a decade attempting to modernize the department’s 25 

year old outpatient scheduling system, the VA had not implemented any of the planned system’s capabilities and it was 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

6 Id. 

7 Id. at 37. 8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–506, Farm Program Modernization: Farm Service 

Agency Needs to Demonstrate the Capacity to Manage IT Initiatives (2015), available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-506. 11Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–546T, VA Construction: Actions to Address Cost Increases and Schedule Delays at Denver and Other VA Major Medical-Facility Projects (2015), 

available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-564T. 12Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–290, High-Risk Series: An Update 20 (Feb. 2015), 

available at http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/dod_weapon_systems/why_did_study#t=1. 13 Id. at 197–98. 

scrapped. VA began a new project for the scheduling system, 

which GAO warns is at risk due to ‘‘weaknesses in several key 

project management disciplines and a lack of effective oversight.’’ 6

• The Department of Defense’s Expeditionary Combat Support 

System: Canceled in December 2012 after spending more than 

$1 billion and failing to deploy within five years of initially obligating funds.7

• The Office of Personnel Management’s Retirement Systems 

Modernization Program: Canceled in February 2011 after 

spending approximately $231 million on the agency’s third attempt to automate the processing of Federal employee retirement claims.8

• The Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Border Initiative Network program: Terminated in January 2011 after obligating more than $1 billion to the program over six years, because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards.9

• The Department of Agriculture’s Modernize and Innovate the 

Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program: Canceled 

because the Farm Service Agency did not adequately implement key program management disciplines on MIDAS and 

‘‘lacks the capacity to effectively manage successor programs.’’ 10

Major Federal program and project failures are not just isolated 

to IT programs, however. Below are other recent major Federal 

projects that are failing or have failed due to project mismanagement: 

• Four medical centers at the VA (Las Vegas, Orlando, Denver 

and New Orleans) have realized cost increases that ‘‘range 

from 66 percent to 427 percent and delays range from 14 to 86 

months.’’ In the aggregate, these four projects will see cost increases of more than $2.4 billion.11

• Department of Defense (DOD) Weapon Systems Acquisition: 

According to GAO, ‘‘Congress and the DOD have long sought 

to improve the acquisition of major weapon systems, yet many 

DOD programs are still falling short of cost, schedule, and performance expectations. The results are unanticipated cost overruns, reduced buying power, and in some cases a reduction in 

the capability ultimately delivered to the warfighter.’’ 12 In 

2014, ‘‘the total acquisition cost of DOD’s fiscal year 2013 portfolio of 80 programs grew by almost $13 billion, or about 1 percent, from the previous year.’’ 13 The overall schedule to deliver 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

14 Id. at 198. 15Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–657, GPS: Actions Needed to Address Ground System 

Development Problems and User Equipment Production Readiness (2015), available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/680/672367.pdf. 16 Id. at 42. 17GAO has also reported that program managers face challenges beyond their control, such 

as funding instability and shifting agency priorities. See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO– 

14–332, Homeland Security Acquisitions, DHS Could Better Manage Its Portfolio to Address 

Funding Gaps and Improve Communications with Confressov (2014), available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-332. 18 Bernard Le Masson, Brian J. Moran, & Steve Rohleder, Coup D’e ́tat: Radically Rethinking 

Public Services, Accenture (Nov. 1, 2013), https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-outlook-radically-rethinking-public-services-government.aspx. 19 National Academy of Public Administration, Improving Program Management in the Federal Government, 6 (July 2015), available at https://www.pmi.org/***/media/PDF/Business-Solutions/improve-program-management-federal-government.ashx. 

initial capabilities to the warfighter grew by two additional 

months.14

• Air Force Global Position System (GPS) Next Generation Operational Control System: According to GAO, 

The Air Force has experienced significant difficulties developing the Global Positioning System (GPS) next generation operational control system (OCX) and consistently 

overstated progress to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compared to advisory independent assessments it received. It needs $1.1 billion and 4 years more 

than planned to deliver OCX due to poor acquisition decisions and a slow recognition of development problems.15

GAO also stated, ‘‘[a] combination of many factors, including 

technical challenges, poor contractor execution and program 

management, and ineffective acquisition oversight have all put 

GPS modernization at significant risk.’’ 16

While it is difficult to determine whether these failures could 

have been prevented if agencies followed the practices and standards established under this bill,17 they are indicative of a need to 

strengthen project management across the Federal government. 

Additionally, the portfolio reviews required by this bill will shed 

light on failing projects earlier in the process. According to a study 

by Accenture, ‘‘[t]he United States alone could save as much as 

$995 billion by 2025 by increasing public-sector efficiency by just 

1 percent a year.’’ 18 A 2013 survey sponsored by the Project Management Institute found that, ‘‘only 11 percent of government organizations (federal, state, and local) have a senior-level program 

management-related role (compared with 22 percent elsewhere on 

average), and only 37 percent of government respondents have a 

formal process for developing program management competency, 17 

percent lower than industry.’’ 19

According to the Project Management Institute, the following 

challenges remain for project and program management as a profession: 

1) Laws and policies have been developed over time to address 

specific problems and do not holistically address the challenges of program management; 

2) Program management is not consistently recognized as a management discipline that is essential to government performance, success and results; 

3) Agency executives and stakeholders do not clearly understand 

their roles and responsibilities; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

20 Id. at 9–12. 

4) There is no consistency across the government in the training 

and development of program managers; and 

5) Program managers lack a professional community within the 

Federal government that can provide support and a voice on 

issues affecting the development of program management.20

S. 1550 would address these challenges and improve the effectiveness of program and project management in the Federal government and save taxpayer dollars by establishing a leader within 

each agency focused on project management, creating an interagency Program Management Policy Council to help drive improvements to program management, requiring the development of a 

specific job category with distinct qualifications for project managers, and requiring the issuance of project management standards 

to be utilized government-wide. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Program Management Improvement Accountability Act was 

introduced June 10, 2015, by Senator Joni Ernst (R–IA) and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D–ND). The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

The Committee considered S. 1550 at a business meeting on 

June 24, 2015. Senator Ernst offered a substitute amendment, and 

an additional modification to the substitute, both of which were 

adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford, 

Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and Heitkamp 

present. 

Senator McCain offered an amendment to require the GAO to 

issue a report examining the effectiveness of the legislation on improving Federal program and project management in conjunction 

with the annual GAO High Risk list. The amendment was adopted 

by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, 

Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and Heitkamp present. 

The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably 

by voice vote en bloc on June 24, 2015. Senators present for final 

passage of the bill were Johnson, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, 

Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and Heitkamp. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 establishes the short title of the legislation as the ‘‘Program Management Improvement Accountability Act.’’ 

Section 2. Deputy Director for Management 

Section 2 adds additional functions for the Deputy Director of 

Management at the Office of Management and Budget related to 

program and project management. The additional functions include 

the adoption of government-wide standards for project management, project portfolio reviews, and other functions to improve 

project management at executive agencies. This section also sets a 

one-year deadline for the establishment of the standards. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

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

Section 3 establishes the Program Management Policy Council 

and requires agencies to designate a senior official as Program 

Management Improvement Officer, creating an accountable official 

for projects and programs agencywide. The policy council created 

under the bill is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management 

and is required to meet at least twice each year to share program 

management best practices and coordinate major projects governmentwide. 

Section 4. Program and project management personnel standards 

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

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

project management 

This section requires GAO to issue a report, not later than three 

years after the date of enactment and in conjunction with the release of the biannual GAO High Risk Report, examining the effectiveness of the provisions of the legislation in improving project 

and program management. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

SEPTEMBER 14, 2015. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1550, the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1550—Program Management Improvement Accountability Act 

Summary: S. 1550 would amend federal law with the aim to improve program and project management in the federal government. 

The bill would establish a council to be the primary interagency 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

forum related to program and project management. The legislation 

also would add additional responsibilities to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and require agencies to designate a senior executive as the Program Management Improvement Officer. 

Finally, S. 1550 would establish standards for program and project 

management personnel. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 1550 would increase the ad- ministrative costs of federal agencies by a total of $20 million over 

the 2016–2020 period; such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting S. 1550 could affect direct 

spending by some agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because they are authorized to use receipts from the sale of 

goods, fees, and other collections to cover their operating costs. 

Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because most of those 

agencies can make adjustments to the amounts collected as operating costs change, CBO estimates that any net changes in direct 

spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting the 

bill would not affect revenues. 

S. 1550 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 1550 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall primarily within budget function 800 (general 

government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016– 

2020 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................................................... 2 3 5 5 5 20 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................................................ 2 3 5 5 5 20 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1550 

will be enacted late in 2015 and that spending will follow historical 

patterns for similar activities. 

Some provisions of the legislation would codify and expand upon 

current project management efforts such as the General Services 

Administration’s Performance Improvement Council where federal 

agencies and OMB collaborate to improve the performance of federal programs. However, based on information from OMB and the 

cost of similar councils, CBO anticipates that the workload of the 

20 largest federal agencies would increase by as much as $500,000 

per year to meet the bill’s requirements to fund the council’s activities, prepare new reports, and conduct additional management 

training. CBO estimates that implementing S. 1550 would cost 

about $5 million annually after a phase-in period. Over the 2016– 

2020 period, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 

$20 million for additional personal and training expenses; such 

spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Pay-as-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. Enacting S. 

1550 could affect direct spending by some agencies (such as the 

Tennessee Valley Authority) because they are authorized to use reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:10 Nov 05, 2015 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR162.XXX SR162

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

ceipts from the sale of goods, fees, and other collections to cover 

their operating costs. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

Because most of those agencies can adjust the amounts collected as 

operating costs change, CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting 

the bill would not affect revenues. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1550 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 1550 as 

reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 503. FUNCTIONS OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT.— 

(1) REQUIREMENT.—Subject to the direction and approval of 

the Director, the Deputy Director for Management or designee 

shall— 

(A) adopt governmentwide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for executive 

agencies; 

(B) oversee implementation of programs and project management for the standards, policies, and guidelines established under subparagraph (A);. 

(C) chair the Program Management Policy Council established under section 1126(b); 

(D) establish standards and policies for executive agencies, in accordance with widely accepted standards for program and project management planning and delivery; 

(E) engage with the private sector to identify best practices in program and project management that would improve Federal program and project management; 

(F) conduct portfolio reviews to address programs identified as high risk by the Government Accountability Office; 

(G) not less than annually, conduct portfolio reviews of 

agency programs in coordination with Project Management 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

Improvement Officers designated under section 1126(a)(1) 

to assess the quality and effectiveness of program management; and 

(H) establish a 5-year strategic plan for program and 

project management. 

(2) APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—Paragraph 

(1) shall not apply to the Department of Defense to the extent 

that the provisions of that paragraph are substantially similar 

to or duplicative of the provisions of section 810 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 11. THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND 

PROGRAM INFORMATION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1126. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT OFFICERS AND 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POLICY COUNCIL 

(a) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT OFFICERS.— (1) DESIGNATION.—The head of each agency described in section 901(b) shall designate a senior executive of the agency as 

the Program Management Improvement Officer of the agency. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The Program Management Improvement Officer of an agency designated under paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) implement program management policies established 

by the agency under section 503(c); and 

(B) develop a strategy for enhancing the role of program 

managers within the agency that includes the following: 

(i) Enhanced training and educational opportunities 

for program managers that shall include— 

(I) training in the relevant competencies encompassed with program and project management 

within the private sector for program managers; 

and 

(II) training that emphasizes cost containment 

for large projects and programs. 

(ii) Mentoring of current and future program managers by experienced senior executives and program 

managers within the agency. 

(iii) Improved career paths and career opportunities 

for program managers. 

(iv) A plan to encourage the recruitment and retention of highly qualified individuals to serve as program 

managers. 

(v) Improved means of collecting and disseminating 

best practices and lessons learned to enhance program 

management across the agency. 

(vi) Common templates and tools to support improved data gathering and analysis for program management and oversight purposes. 

(3) APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—This 

subsection shall not apply to the Department of Defense to the 

extent that the provisions of this subsection are substantially 

similar to or duplicative of the provisions of section 810 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

(b) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POLICY COUNCIL.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Office of 

Management and Budget a council to be known as the ‘Program 

Management Policy Council’ (in this subsection referred to as 

the ‘Council’). 

(2) PURPOSE AND FUNCTIONS.—The Council shall act as the 

principal interagency forum for improving agency practices related to program and project management. The Council shall— 

(A) advise and assist the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget; 

(B) review programs identified as high risk by the General Accountability Office and make recommendations for 

actions to be taken by the Deputy Director for Management 

of the Office of Management and Budget or designee; 

(C) discuss topics of importance to the workforce, including— 

(i) career development and workforce development 

needs; 

(ii) policy to support continuous improvement in program and project management; and 

(iii) major challenges across agencies in managing 

programs; 

(D) advise on the development and applicability of standards governmentwide for program management transparency; and 

(E) review the information published on the website of 

the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 

1122. 

(3) MEMBERSHIP.— 

(A) COMPOSITION.—The Council shall be composed of the 

following members: 

(i) Five members from the Office of Management and 

Budget as follows: 

(I) The Deputy Director for Management. 

(II) The Administrator of the Office of Electronic 

Government. 

(III) The Administrator of the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy. 

(IV) The Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management. 

(V) The Director of the Office of Performance 

and Personnel Management. 

(ii) The Program Management Improvement Officer 

from each agency described in section 901(b). 

(iii) Other individuals as determined appropriate by 

the Chairperson. 

(B) CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget shall be 

the Chairperson of the Council. A Vice Chairperson 

shall be elected by the members and shall serve a term 

of not more than 1 year. 

(ii) DUTIES.—The Chairperson shall preside at the 

meetings of the Council, determine the agenda of the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Council, direct the work of the Council, and establish 

and direct subgroups of the Council as appropriate. 

(4) MEETINGS.—The Council shall meet not less than twice 

per fiscal year and may meet at the call of the Chairperson or 

a majority of the members of the Council. 

(5) SUPPORT.—The head of each agency with a Project Management Improvement Officer serving on the Council shall provide administrative support to the Council, as appropriate, at 

the request of the Chairperson. 

(6) COMMITTEE DURATION.—Section 14(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 

Council. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS