U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

23–484 PDF 2017

18F AND U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE OVERSIGHT 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2016 

Serial No. 114–115 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

TROY D. STOCK, Information Technology Staff Director 

SEAN BREBBIA, Senior Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

WILL HURD, Texas, Chairman 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Ranking Member 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

TED LIEU, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 10, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Mikey Dickerson, Administrator, U.S. Digital Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Phaedra S. Chrousos, Commissioner, Technology Transformation Service, 

U.S. General Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Mr. David Powner, Director, IT Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. A.R. ‘‘Trey’’ Hodgkins, Senior Vice President, Public Sector, Information 

Technology Alliance for Public Sector, Information Technology Industry 

Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 60 

Mr. David Leduc, Senior Director of Public Policy, Software and Information 

Industry Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 68 

APPENDIX 

Ms. Chrousos-GSA Hearing Follow-up .................................................................. 96 

Mr. Dickerson-USDS Response to Questions for the Record ............................... 98 

Mr. Shive-GSA Response to Questions for the Record ......................................... 102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

18F AND U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE OVERSIGHT 

Friday, June 10, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, JOINT

WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Will Hurd [chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Information Technology] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hurd, Meadows, Farenthold, Walberg, 

Walker, Jordan, Blum, Buck, Carter, Grothman, Chaffetz (ex officio), Kelly, Connolly, and Maloney. 

Mr. HURD. The Subcommittee on Information Technology and the 

Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

Good morning, y’all. The IT and Government Operations subcommittees have constantly highlighted a need for IT reform at 

large and the waste, fraud, and abuse that comes along with it. For 

real reform to happen, the Federal Government needs talented, experienced people to work on IT projects that are bigger than themselves. 

There is no question that there’s a need to reform outdated laws, 

and the current procurement structure prevents the proverbial two 

guys or two gals in a garage from selling technology to the Federal 

Government when often their product may be cheaper and more innovative than another solution. It should be much easier for 

startups and small companies to sell to and work with the Federal 

Government. 

We need fresh ideas and an outside-the-box thinking to permeate 

all levels of government. 18F was launched just over 2 years ago 

with 15 staff members. Today, 18F has 185 staff members and 

growing and has transformed into an entirely new division within 

the GSA, complete with its own commissioner and budget. 

How did that happen? What was its original mission? What is its 

current mission? Is it achieving its stated purpose to make the government’s digital services, simple, effective, and easier for the 

American people? If not, what can we change to ensure it does? Because that is the goal I think all of us are here today to support. 

Additionally, I have concerns about the funding mechanism with 

which 18F is supported. As the GAO notes, 18F is to recover costs 

to the Acquisition Services Fund and is required to have a plan to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

achieve full costs recovery. Recent report suggests that it may be 

doing just the opposite. 

Today, I hope that we can gain a more transparent view of 18F’s 

mission and its full scope of their activities. The United States Digital Service was formed in the wake of a failure of the launch of 

healthcare.gov to procure the outside talent—tech talent that was 

needed to make the Web site operational. The stated mission is to 

improve and simplify the digital experience that people and businesses have with their government. 

I’m concerned with potential duplication and overlap. This committee is well aware of the costs associated with the duplicative 

and overlapping programs. And let me assure you, we don’t need 

two more. 

This committee has held numerous hearings this Congress with 

agency CIOs as witnesses primarily focused on the state of IT and 

cybersecurity at agencies and the implementation of FITARA, and 

we will continue to do so and hold agency CIOs accountable. 

FITARA is important because it will give CIOs greater budget authority and empower them to make bold decisions. But with the 

power also comes accountability. We will hold CIOs accountable for 

their decisions. 

Under FITARA, nothing of any significance related to IT should 

be happening at agencies without the involvement and signoff of 

agency CIOs, period. I’m concerned by reports that USDS teams 

may parachute into an agency, fix whatever they perceive was the 

problem, and then leave without the full buy-in and involvement 

of the agency CIO. That should never happen. It is contrary to the 

entire purpose of FITARA. 

I hope to hear today concrete steps USDS is taking to ensure 

they involve agency CIOs from the beginning when working on a 

project at an agency. As usual, Mr. Powner and GAO have done 

great work in this area, and I would highly advise both 18F and 

USDS to implement GAO’s recommendations. 

As I’ve said before, taxpayers deserve a government that 

leverages technology to serve them rather than one that deploys 

unsecured, decades-old technology that places their sensitive and 

personal information at risk. They also deserve a Federal Government that is transparent. We can harness power of the cloud. We 

can upgrade our legacy systems. We can get smart people to come 

work for the Federal Government. We can do all this because, despite our problems, America is still a country of innovators. If 18F 

and USDS can help us achieve an efficient and transparent government worthy of its people and do so in a way that is clear, costeffective, measurable, and appropriate for a government role, then 

I’m very open in supporting them. However, these conversations 

will help give us a clearer view and inform us on whether they 

need to be restructured, reformed, or restricted. 

And I thank the witnesses for being heard today and look forward to their testimonies and hearing specific ways we can bring 

cutting-edge technology and technology talent into the Federal Government. 

I now would like to recognize my friend, the gentlewoman from 

the great State of Illinois and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Information Technology, for her opening. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Ms. Kelly, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Hurd, for holding this important hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for taking the time 

to be here this morning. 

As we all know, the Federal Government relies on information 

technology in countless ways. Most importantly, Americans rely on 

IT to access services and connect with the government, from signing up for health care to applying for student loans to securing veterans’ benefits. And when the government’s IT services aren’t 

working, the government is isn’t working. We’ve learned this from 

our experience with healthcare.gov and other recent IT challenges. 

Although the Affordable Care Act is much more than a Web site, 

we saw what happened when we try to implement good policy without the underlying IT structure to support it. That’s why the administration created the U.S. Digital Service and 18F. 

The stated goals of USDS and 18F are to improve and modernize 

government IT operations and help the government become better 

at procuring, developing, and sharing IT going forward. These are 

worthy goals. And the USDS and 18F have made great strides toward reaching them. 

For example, USDS has helped the Department of Homeland Security launch an online immigration review process. This is the 

project that DHS has been working on for nearly a decade at a cost 

of $1 billion. 18F is in the process of developing a new IT acquisition process that will make it easier for Federal agencies to contract with vendors that provide agile software development services. 

I look forward to hearing more about these and other success stories today. One of the greatest achievements of the Digital Service 

and 18F has been the ability to attract and recruit incredible talent 

from the tech industry into the Federal Government. 

At almost every hearing we hold, I ask agency heads to list some 

of their greatest challenges, and without fail, we hear about the 

challenges of recruiting and retaining a talented IT workforce. I 

have been impressed by 18F and USDS’ ability to open the door to 

public service in one of our fastest growing industries. These employees are using the knowledge, skills, and experience they’ve 

gained in the private sector to help improve Federal IT. 

In addition to recruiting the best and the brightest in tech talent, 

we need to continue leveraging the resources and expertise, that of 

our partners in the private sector. They are eager to help bring 

Federal IT into the 21st century. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and how the mission of these offices differs from what the private sector offers 

through government contracts. What value added do these programs bring? How are your roles changing? And what limitations 

do you face? But in order for the Digital Service and 18F to fully 

realize their potential, they need to be transparent about the good 

work they are doing. They should also continue to engage stakeholders and Congress so we can all understand the important role 

they play in modernizing Federal IT and help shape the role going 

forward. 

Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being here and to my colleagues for holding this important hearing. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

I yield back. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you. And I’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written 

statement. 

I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. 

I’m pleased to welcome Mr. Mikey Dickerson, Administrator of 

the U.S. Digital Service. 

Thank you for being here, sir. 

Ms. Phaedra Chrousos, a Commissioner of the Technology Transformation Service at the Government Services Administration. 

Thanks for being here and thank you for the information you and 

your staff have provided us in advance of this hearing. Very important to understand what y’all are doing and help us with our oversight role and make sure we can support y’all on the activities. So 

that kind of back-and-forth is really important. 

Mr. A.R. ‘‘Trey’’ Hodgkins, senior vice president, Public Sector, at 

the Information Technology Alliance for the Public Sector. 

Thank you for being here. 

And Mr. David LeDuc, senior director of policy—public policy at 

the Software and Information Industry Association. 

Appreciate you being here. 

And, last but not least and number one in our hearts, Mr. David 

Powner, Director of IT Management Issues at the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. 

Always a pleasure to have you here today, sir. 

Welcome to you all. 

And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. 

So please rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, I would appreciate if y’all 

would limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of the record. 

Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Dickerson for your opening 

statement. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MIKEY DICKERSON 

Mr. DICKERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly, Chairman Meadows, 

Ranking Member Connolly, and all members of the subcommittees, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Millions of people interact with the United States Government 

every day, relying on digital products such as Web sites, online 

forms, and mobile apps to access and understand government services. Americans are accustomed to the high standards of service set 

by the private sector, but outdated technology and complicated user 

interfaces can sometimes make interactions with the government 

frustrating and inefficient. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Americans deserve simple, effective digital services. We are in a 

new era of technology and innovation in the U.S. Government, and 

we are using the latest technology to deliver better services, engage 

Americans, and tackle tough challenges. President Obama 

launched the United States Digital Service less than 2 years ago 

as a means to improve our Nation’s most important public-facing 

digital services. The U.S. Digital Service, or USDS, is a collaboration between our country’s top technical talent and product design 

and software engineering and the government’s brightest leaders 

and civil servants who work in partnership to apply private sector 

best practices to our digital services. 

In 2014, the small team of technologist initially planned to focus 

on three projects, but with additional funding and support of Congress starting in fiscal year 2015, the size and scope of the USDS 

has increased. Today, the USDS has small teams working on highpriority projects with a number of agencies across the government. 

The work of USDS is centered on four main goals. First and foremost is to transform critical services. The USDS is focused on improving our Nation’s most important public-facing services. The 

team helps to manage technology projects working alongside civil 

servants and IT contractors. 

The second goal is to rethink how we build and buy digital services. The USDS is working to modernize procurement processes 

and practices for the digital era by developing training programs 

and tools that enable Federal contracting officers to apply industry 

best practices to digital procurements. By increasing the technical 

knowledge and expertise of contracting officers, the Federal Government can partner more effectively with the IT private sector 

who will continue to deliver the majority of the government’s digital services just as they do today. 

Our third goal is to initiate the development of common platforms and standards. The USDS is working to identify pilot opportunities for common platforms that can improve services needed by 

multiple agencies. 

And our fourth goal is in support of the others, is to bring to 

bring top technical talent into public service. In support of these 

goals, the USDS plans to bring 200 digital service experts into the 

Federal Government by the end of 2017. 

The long-term goal is to build and sustain institutional capacity 

within agencies while simultaneously encouraging a tradition of 

public service in the tech professions. 

In the short amount of time that USDS has been operating, we 

have seen success in many projects, especially under the following 

circumstances: when the USDS team is small and focused on a 

high-priority project; when agency leadership is engaged and supportive; when the USDS team is tightly integrated with existing 

contractors and career staff; when the project has a hard decline; 

and when the project has crossed agency dependencies or many 

stakeholders across the government. 

While the USDS is still a very new program, we’ve already seen 

early results in improving services for the public. For example, 

vets.gov is a single unified digital experience to provide veterans 

access to the information they need about the VA’s benefits, such 

as educational assistance, health care, and economic opportunities. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

We are also pleased with the college scorecard, a tool that helps 

students and their families make better decisions about where to 

go to college by publishing comprehensive, reliable data on students’ employment outcomes and success in repaying their student 

loans. 

By applying the best practices in technology and design to the 

Federal Government, the USDS helps enable delivery of more reliable and effective digital services to the American public. Through 

the recruitment of top technology talent from one of the most competitive industries in the world, the USDS is inspiring a tradition 

of public service in the tech professions which will help the Federal 

Government continue to deliver crucial services. 

I thank the committee for holding this hearing and for your commitment to providing top notch digital services to the American 

people. I am pleased to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Dickerson follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 23484.001

Embargoed until Delivered 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WASHINGTON, DC 20503 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb 

TESTIMONY OF MIKEY DICKERSON 

ADMINISTRATOR OF U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

June 10,2016 

Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and 

Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Done right, digital reform is government reform 

Millions of people interact with the United States government every day, relying on digital 

products such as websites, online forms, and mobile apps, to access and understand government 

services. Americans are accustomed to the high standards of service set by the private sector, but 

outdated technology and complicated user interfaces can sometimes make interactions with the 

government frustrating and inefficient. Americans deserve simple, effective digital services. We 

are in a new era of technology and innovation in the U.S. Government, and we are using the 

latest technology to deliver better services, engage Americans, and tackle tough challenges. 

Creation of the U.S. Digital Service 

President Obama launched the United States Digital Service (USDS) less than two years ago as a 

means to improve our Nation's most important public-facing digital services. The USDS is a 

collaboration between our country's top technical talent in product design and software 

engineering and the government's brightest leaders and civil servants, who work in partnership 

to apply private sector best practices our digital services. In 2014, the small team of technologists 

initially planned to focus on three projects, but with additional funding and the support of 

Congress starting in FY 2015, the size and scope of the USDS has increased steadily. Today, the 

USDS has small teams working on high-priority projects with a number of agencies across 

government, such as the Departments of Veterans Affairs, State, Education, Homeland Security, 

Health and Human Services, Defense; the Internal Revenue Service; and the Small Business 

Administration. 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 23484.002

Embargoed until Delivered 

The work of the USDS is centered on four main goals: 

• Transform Critical Services. The USDS is focused on measurably improving our 

Nation's most important public-facing services. The team helps to manage technology 

projects, working alongside civil servants and IT contractors, relying on (I) a usercentered design framework that prioritizes the needs, wants, and limitations of users; and 

(2) agile software development practices that enable iterative development and the ability 

to rapidly respond to change and feedback. 

• Rethink How We Build and Buy Digital Services. The USDS is working on 

modernizing procurement processes and practices for the modem digital era. For 

example, the USDS has developed training programs and tools to enable federal 

contracting officers to apply industry best practices to digital procurements, and serve as 

expert advisors to their C!Os on procurements. Improving procurement processes and 

practices with our partners in the IT contracting community will remain a critical element 

of modernizing our government, as skilled contractors will continue to deliver the 

majority of the government's digital services, just as they do today. 

• Initiate the development of common platforms and standards. The USDS is working 

to identify pilot opportunities for common platforms that can improve services needed by 

multiple agencies. 

• Bring top technical talent into public service. In support of these goals, a specialized 

talent acquisition team is working to recruit and place over 200 Digital Service Experts 

by the end of2017, to join the government for term-limited tours of duty with the USDS, 

during which they will work with civil servants inside agencies. Since the launch of our 

online application in January 2015, thousands have applied to join the USDS, with more 

than 150 currently serving. The long-term goal is to build and sustain institutional 

capacity within agencies while simultaneously encouraging a tradition of public service 

in the tech industry. 

In the short amount oftime that the USDS has been operating, we have seen success in many 

projects. especially under the following circumstances: 

The USDS team is small, and focused on a high priority project. 

• Agency leadership is engaged and supportive. 

• The USDS team is tightly integrated with existing contractors and career staff. 

• The project has a hard deadline. 

• The project may have cross-agency dependencies, or many stakeholders across the 

government. 

While the USDS is still a very new program, we are already seeing early results in improving 

services for the public. For example: 

• Building a single unified digital experience for all veterans accessing programs at 

the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs- Together with the VA, the USDS built a 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 23484.003

Embargoed until Delivered 

new website- Vets.gov- to provide a simple, easy-to-use platform for veterans to access 

the information they need about the VA's benefits, educational assistance, economic 

opportunities, and additional tools. 

• Helping students choose the right college- With the Department of Education, the 

USDS built a new tool The College Scorecard- to help students, families, and their 

advisers make better decisions about where to go to college. The tool includes the most 

comprehensive, reliable data published on students' employment outcomes and success 

in repaying student loans. More than 1.4 million people have visited the College 

Scorecard, and the data powering the College Scorecard has been accessed over 9.4 

million times in 7 months. 

• Saving small businesses time and money- The USDS assisted the Small Business 

Administration in establishing an agile procurement to modernize technology to 

streamline the certification process. The newly launched Certify.SBA.gov saves small 

businesses time and money, and provides small businesses access to federal contracts and 

capital more efficiently. 

Conclusion 

By applying the best practices in technology and design to the Federal government, the USDS 

helps enable the delivery of more reliable and effective digital services to the American public. 

Through the recruitment of top technology talent from one of the most competitive industries in 

the world, the USDS is inspiring a tradition of public service in the tech industry similar to 

traditions of service we see in other sectors, such as law and medicine which will help the 

Federal government continue to deliver crucial services. 1 thank the Committee for holding this 

hearing, and for your commitment to providing top-notch digital services to the American 

people. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
10 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Dickerson. 

Now, Ms. Phaedra Chrousos, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PHAEDRA S. CHROUSOS 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairmen Hurd and Meadows, Ranking Members 

Kelly and Connolly, and members of the committee. Thank you for 

inviting me to speak with you today. I left the private sector 2 

years ago to join the Federal Government’s efforts to improve the 

public’s experience with the government. Having founded and successfully led to two Internet companies prior to joining public service, I am particularly excited to speak with you about 18F, an organization that is helping bring government closer to the technology 

practices and methodologies of the private sector. 

As you know, GSA’s mission includes providing the best value 

and technology to the Federal Government and the American people. The work of 18F is a vital part of that mission. 

In March 2014, recognizing that too many of our government’s 

digital services are not designed to meet the needs of the people 

who use them, are not delivered on time, and are often over budget, GSA launched 18F, a 15-person startup within its agencies. In 

the last 2 years, 18F has grown to 185 people, attracting cuttingedge technologists from both the industry and the public sector and 

has worked on more than 150 projects with 63 Federal entities. 

The organization has also evolved its service offering to respond to 

the technology needs of its agency customers. This 2-year-old startup is making progress towards its mission of making the government’s digital services simple, effective, and easier to use for the 

American people. 

I would like to highlight just one example of 18F’s work. In June 

of 2014, 18F signed its very first interagency agreement with the 

Federal Election Commission that asked for help in making the 90 

million records they housed more readily accessible to the public. 

It was the first time FEC had worked with an agile user-centered 

team like 18F, and our work has transformed the way they approach technology today. In the words of our partners at FEC: We 

got so much more than a Web site. We had a complete culture 

change about how to do user-centered design in agile. This product 

embodies the way 18F works: a focus on data, a close partnership 

with stakeholders and users, building in the open, and the opportunity for the transformation of practices and processes within our 

customer agencies. 

Early on, during engagement such as this one with the FEC, 18F 

recognized that a team of in-house technologists and governments 

simply cannot on its own rebuild the Federal Government’s vast information technology systems. We also needed to partner with the 

private sector. 

One of 18F’s first joint efforts with GSA’s Federal Acquisition 

Service was the creation of the Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement, 

a new contract vehicle designed to provide 18F and their agency 

customers access to the innovative technical talent that exists in 

the private sector today. 18F’s partnership with the private sector 

is integral to the success of its efforts and is crucial for scaling this 

organization’s impact across the Federal Government. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
11 

The promise of 18F’s work aside, I recognize that this young organization has room to improve its operations significantly. 18F 

was launched as a startup in government 2 years ago, and the organization is learning while it scales and matures. The insightful 

analysis and recommendations put forward by the Government Accountability Office will contribute to our learning and help 18F become a stronger organization. We value transparency and welcome 

continued oversight of all of our efforts from GAO, the GSA inspector general, and this committee. 

I would like to close by emphasizing that the scale and scope of 

the technology challenges facing Federal agencies is larger than 

18F could ever address on its own. As the committee noted in a recent hearing, the need for the Federal Government to improve its 

technology is imperative to creating a government that’s transparent, effective, responsive, and secure. Addressing the challenges 

we face in this area demands continued leadership and close partnership with the Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies, and the private sector, which will continue to play a critical 

role in delivering technology solutions that agencies need. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Chrousos follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 23484.004

STATEMENT OF 

MS. PHAEDRA CHROUSOS 

COMMISSIONER 

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFORMATION SERVICE 

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

AND 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

"18F AND U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE OVERSIGHT" 

June 10, 2016 

Good morning Chairmen Hurd and Meadows, Ranking Members Kelly and Connolly, 

and members of the Committee. My name is Phaedra Chrousos, and I am the 

Commissioner of the Technology Transformation Service (TTS) at the U.S. General 

Services Administration (GSA), which includes 18F. Thank you for inviting me to this 

hearing concerning 18F's efforts to improve the way government uses information 

technology. GSA's mission includes providing the best value in technology services to 

government and the American people, and the work of 18F is a vital part of this mission. 

What is 18F? 

18F is a fee-based digital consultancy inside GSA's Technology Transformation 

Service. 18F's mission is to make the government's digital services simple, effective, 

and easier to use for the American people. GSA recruits cutting-edge technologists and 

designers from industry and the public sector to help drive efficiency and transparency, 

deliver cost savings, and help federal agencies buy, build, and deploy technology the 

way the private sector does today. Launched in March 2014 with a team of 15 staff, 18F 

has grown to more than 185 software engineers, designers, and other innovation 

specialists and support staff as demand for services has increased. 

What does 18F deliver? 

18F is working with agencies to change the way the government approaches 

technology in the following ways: 

1. We partner with agencies to build prototypes, web applications, and 

software that model ways to use modern technology methods and 

practices used by top technology companies. For example, we partnered with 

1 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 23484.005

the Federal Election Commission to transform its legacy website with dense 

information and navigation difficulties. 18F launched beta.FEC.gov, a new 

website with an improved interface that provides better access to the public to a 

wide variety of data. This project embodies the way 18F works: a focus on data, 

a close partnership with stakeholders and users, building in the open, and the 

opportunity for the transformation of practices and processes with our partner 

agencies. 

2. We provide acquisition services to help our agency partners become 

smarter buyers of private sector technology services and products. 18F has 

partnered with GSA's Federal Acquisition Service to award the Agile Blanket 

Purchase Agreement (BPA), a contract that connects 18F and our agency 

partners to vendors, including a number of small businesses that specialize in 

agile delivery services. 18F is working closely with the BPA vendors to continue 

to use innovative approaches to improve the acquisition process for vendors and 

agencies alike to deliver results for our agency partners. 

3. We build shared technology platforms that can be used across the 

government to address common challenges. For example, we are developing 

cloud.gov, a platform built on an industry-backed, open-source solution that helps 

our agency partners access cost-effective vendor-supplied cloud infrastructure 

services. 

4. We provide agency partners with education, workshops, training, outreach, 

and communication tools to help them develop core capacities for building 

and managing digital services in the government. For example, in two days, 

our consultants worked with a team at the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour 

Division to take the printed Field Operations Handbook and create an internal 

prototype of an online, searchable version. 

To date, 18F has worked on more than 150 projects with 63 federal entities. Our work to 

date shows that the application of modern technology approaches is helping agencies 

spend more wisely and improve interactions between the American people and their 

government. 

2 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 23484.006

The Path Forward 

18F was launched as a start-up in government, and as is the case with start-ups in the 

private sector, we are learning to scale, mature, and improve 18F as an organization. 

We value transparency and welcome continued independent oversight of all our efforts. 

The scale and scope of the technology challenges facing federal agencies are larger 

than 18F will be able to address on its own. Addressing the challenges we face in this 

area demands continued leadership and close partnership with the Office of 

Management and Budget, including the Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer, 

other federal agencies, and the private sector, which will continue to play a critical role 

in delivering the technology solutions agencies need. 

GSA has often been the first to take the innovative lead when it comes to technology in 

the federal space, just as we were one of the first agencies to put the internet on every 

desk 20 years ago, and the first agency to move to the cloud five years ago. We look 

forward to continuing to provide cutting-edge technology support to our partner 

agencies and bringing the government's digital services in line with the best private 

sector services. 

The American public deserves a government that is transparent, effective, responsive, 

and secure. As we continue to find ways to improve the way the federal government 

delivers, buys, uses, and shares technology and digital services, 18F, and all of GSA, 

will continue to play a strong role in improving and modernizing the way we do so. 

GSA appreciates your interest in and oversight of this important program, and I will be 

happy to answer any of your questions. 

3 
15 

Mr. HURD. Thank you. 

Mr. Powner, you are recognized now for 5 minutes for your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER 

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Kelly, and members of the subcommittees, thank you for having us testify on our 

ongoing work looking at GSA’s 18F and OMB’s U.S. Digital Services. For each of these organizations, I will provide a brief overview, positive developments, and areas that we believe need improvements. 

Starting with 18F, it was established in March 2014. Its mission 

is to transform the way the Federal Government builds and buys 

digital services. Agencies come to 18F for their services and pay for 

these services since 18F is funded out of revolving fund within 

GSA. Therefore, it operates on revenue generated from its business 

instead of an appropriation. Their plan is to start having full cost 

recovery in 2019. 18F has over 170 staff and has worked with approximately 20 agencies on more than 30 projects. These projects 

include building secure Web sites, obtaining cloud services, and 

providing consulting and training on agile practices. 

18F has worked on some major IT projects like the U.S. immigration transformation and the VA benefits delivery system. They also 

have two initiatives where agencies will be able to quickly access 

agile and cloud services. Our customer satisfaction survey showed 

that most customers were pleased with their services. 

We think they could do a better job on defining outcome-oriented 

goals and performance measures. During the course of our review, 

they developed these goals and measures. Some of these are good, 

like saving $250 million and having a 90-percent customer satisfaction score, but others, like growing their staff to over 200, are not 

outcome-oriented. We also think there should be measures and targets for full cost recovery. 18F acknowledges that these goals and 

metrics need further development. 

Now turning to USDS, it was established in August 2014. Its 

mission is to transform the most important digital services for citizens. USDS typically goes to agencies, and they do not charge 

agencies for their services because they have an appropriation. For 

fiscal year 2016, they plan to spend about $14 million. 

USDS has about 100 staff within OMB. It has worked with approximately 11 agencies on about 15 projects. These projects include information security assessments, system stabilization, and 

software engineering. 

USDS has worked on seven major IT projects, including U.S. immigration transformation and SSA’s disability case processing. A 

much higher percentage of their work is associated with large IT 

acquisitions when compared to 18F. Our customer satisfaction survey showed that all customers that responded were satisfied with 

their services. 

Similar to 18F, USDS could do a better job defining outcome-oriented goals and performance measures. During the course of our 

review, these goals and measures were developed. Some are good, 

like measurably improving five to eight of the government’s most 

important citizen-facing services, but others, like increasing the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

quality and quantity of technical vendors, are not outcome-oriented. 

We also think USDS’ continued focus on the highest priority Federal IT projects that are to be identified quarterly to the Appropriation Committees is important. 

Finally, as USDS establishes agency digital service teams, it is 

critical that these relationships with—is consistent with CIOs and 

what is currently in FITARA and all the oversight that your subcommittees have performed to strengthen CIO authorities. We have 

concerns about some of these agency teams doing an end-around 

the CIO organizations. 

In conclusion, it is important that these two organizations clearly 

demonstrate their value by improving performance measures. 18F 

needs to continue to work toward full cost recovery while USDS 

needs to ensure that agency digital service teams do not undermine 

the CIO authorities that are being bolstered with FITARA. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 23484.007

Highlights of GA0-16-73~T •. a teStimony 

befqre the, SubcommitteeS on Gov~mment 

Operations and Information, TechnOlogy, Comm~ on Oversight and Government 

Reform, ,House of ,Representatives 

Why GAO Did .This Study 

In an effortto Improve IT across the 

federal government, In March 2014 

GSA established a team, knOWt) as 

18F that provides IT services .to 

agencies. In addHion, in August 2014 

the. Administration established usos, 

\IIIlich aims to improve the federal IT 

services provided to citizens: OMB 

also required ~gencies to establish 

their own digital service taams. 

GAO.was asked to summarize its draft 

report that (t) describes 18F and 

USDS. efforts to address p.roblems wtth 

IT projects and agencies' views ot services proylded, (2) assesses these 

progra111s' efforts against practices for 

performance ll1easurement and project 

prioritization, and (3) assesses agency 

plans toestab§sh their own digital 

sel'l(ice teams .. ln Preparing the draft 

report on which this testimony is 

based, GAO reviewed 32 18F projects 

and 13 USOS projecis that were 

unde.rway or completed as of August 

2015 and surveyed agencies about 

these ~rojects; revieweci18F. and 

USDS in key performance 

measurement and project prioritization 

practices; reviewed 25 agencies' 

efforts to establish digital se!Vice 

teams; and revieWed documerytation 

from four agencies, which were chosen 

based on their progress mede in 

establishir9. digttal.se!Vice teams. 

Vlfhat GAO.Recommends 

GAO's draft report includes tWo 

recommendations to GSA and three 

recommendations to OMS to improve 

goals and performance measurement. 

ln addition, GAO's draft report is 

recommending that OMB update 

USOS policy to define the relationships 

between CIOs and digttal se!Vices 

te:ams. 

View GA0~1S..7~3i. For more infomlation, 

=rd~~:o~g:Vown<>r at (202) 512·92!l6 or 

DIGITAL SERVICE PROGRAMS 

Assessing Results and Coordinating with Chief 

Information Officers Can Improve Delivery of Federal 

Projects 

What GAO Found 

In a draft report, GAO determined that the General Se!Vice Administration's 

(GSA) 18F and Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) U.S. Digital Se!Vice 

(USDS) have provided a variety of seiVices to agencies supporting their 

information technology (IT) efforts. Specifically, 18F staff helped 18 agencies with 

32 projects and generally provided development and consulting se!Vices, 

including software development solutions and acquisition consulting. In addition, 

USOS provided assistance on 13 projects across 11 agencies and generally 

provided consulting se!Vices, including quality assurance, problem identification 

and recommendations, and software engineering. Further, according to GAO's 

su!Vey, managers were generally satisfied with the se!Vices they received from 

18F and USDS on these projects (see table). 

Results of GAO Survey on Satisfaction with Digital Services Projects 

Program 

18F 

U.S_ Digital 

Service 

Very 

satisfied 

16 

Moderately Neither satisfied nor Moderately 

satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied No respons~" 

7 3 5 

Source GAO survey of agency PfOJ!:lC! managers that engaged Wlth 16F and USOS 1 GA0-16-733T 

Both 18F and USDS have partially implemented practices to identify and help 

agencies address problems with IT projects. Specifically, 18F has developed 

several outcome-oriented goals and related performance measures, as well as 

procedures for prioritizing projects; however, not all of its goals are outcomeoriented and it has not yet fully measured program performance. Similarly, USDS 

has developed goals, but they are not all outcome-oriented and it has established 

performance measures for only one of its goals. USOS has also measured 

progress for just one goal. Further, it has not fully implemented its procedures for 

prioritizing projects. Untii18F and USDS fully implement these practices, it will be 

difficult to hold the programs accountable for results. 

Agencies are beginning to establish digital service teams. Of the 25 agencies 

that requested funding for these teams, OMB has established charters with 6 

agencies for their digital service teams. In addition, according to the USDS 

Deputy Administrator, USDS plans to establish charters with an additional 3 

agencies by the end of the fiscal year-the Department of Education, as well as 

the Social Security Administration and Small Business Administration. For the 

remaining 16 agencies, as of April2016, 8 agencies reported that they plan to 

establish digital service teams but have yet to establish charters with USOS. The 

other 8 agencies reported that they do not plan to establish digital se!Vice teams 

by September 2016 because they did not receive requested funding. Further. of 

the four agencies GAO selected to review, only one has defined the relationship 

between its digital service team and the agency Chief Information Officer (CIO). 

This is due, in part, to the fact that USOS policy does not describe the expected 

relationship between CIOs and these teams. Until OMB updates its policy and 

ensures that the responsibilities between the CIOs and digital se!Vices teams are 

clearly defined, it is unclear whether CIOs will be able to fulfill their statutory 

responsibilities with respect to IT management of the projects undertaken by the 

digital se!Vice teams. 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 23484.008

GAO u.s. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

441 G St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, 

and Members of the Committees 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on the 

General Services Administration's (GSA) 18F and the Office of 

Management and Budget's (OMS) U.S. Digital Service (USDS) programs. 

Information systems are critical to the health, economy, and security of 

the nation. To support these systems, the federal government plans to 

invest more than $89 billion on information technology (IT) in fiscal year 

2017. However, prior IT expenditures too often have produced failed 

projects-that is, projects with multimillion dollar cost overruns and 

schedule delays measured in years, with questionable mission-related 

achievements. In light of these ongoing challenges, in February 2015, we 

added improving the management of IT acquisitions and operations to our 

list of high-risk areas for the federal government.' 

In an effort to improve federal IT management, in March 2014 the 

General Services Administration (GSA) established 18F.' a team that 

provides IT services (e.g., develop websites and provide software 

development training) to federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. 

Similar to 18F, in August 2014 the Administration established the U.S. 

Digital Service (USDS) within the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMS), which aims to improve the federal IT services that citizens rely on 

the most. In addition, the President's Budget for fiscal year 2016 

proposed funding for agencies to establish their own agency digital 

service teams. 

As requested, this statement summarizes key preliminary findings based 

on our draft report reviewing 18F and USDS, as well as agency digital 

service teams, that (1) describes 18F and USDS efforts to identify and 

address problems with IT projects and agencies' views of services 

provided, (2) assesses these programs' efforts against practices for 

performance measurement and project prioritization, and (3) assesses 

agency plans to establish their own digital service teams. The draft report 

1GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GA0-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015). 

2The name of the 18F program references its office location: Northwest Washington, D.C., 

at 18th and F Streets 

Page1 GA0-16-733T 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 23484.009

is currently out for comment with selected agencies. We anticipate issuing 

the report in July 2016. 

In that report, for our first objective, we reviewed 32 projects across 18 

agencies for which 18F provided services to agencies, 3 and 13 projects at 

11 agencies for which USDS provided services. To identify the projects, 

we obtained the list of completed and ongoing projects at agencies for 

which 18F and USDS provided services, as of August 2015 and removed 

projects without agency customers (e.g., internal projects and 

development of guides for other agencies). We then analyzed information 

obtained from the projects describing the services each of the selected 

projects received from 18F and USDS. We also conducted a customer 

satisfaction survey of the managers of all selected projects to determine 

their level of satisfaction with the services provided by USDS and 18F. 

Although the survey responses cannot be used to generalize the opinions 

and satisfaction of all customers that receive services from 18F and 

USDS programs, the responses provide data for our defined population. 

To address the second objective, we compared 18F and USDS policies 

procedures, plans, and practices to leading practices identified by federal 

law and GAO on performance measurement' and project prioritization. 5 

To address our third objective, we administered a data collection 

instrument on plans to establish digital service teams to the 25 agencies 

not review projects associated with the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, 

which is administratively housed within 18F but largely operates as a separate program. 

4

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, 5 U.S. C. § 306, 31 U.S. C.§§ 1115-1116 & 1120-

1124; GAO, Executive Guide.· Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C .. June 1, 1996); and Designing 

Evaluations. 2012 Revision, GA0-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2012). 

5

GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity (Supersedes AIMD-10.1.23), GA0-04-394G (Washington, 

D.C .. March 2004) 

Page 2 GA0-16-733T 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 23484.010

with funding proposed in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2016. 6 

Additionally, we reviewed USDS's plans-to include interviews with 

USDS officials-for providing assistance to agencies that planned to 

establish a digital service team in fiscal year 2016. 

In addition, we selected four agencies as case studies to review the 

relationships between agency Chief Information Officers (CIO) and 

agency digital service teams. To choose these agencies, we identified the 

three agencies that had established a charter with USDS as of January 

2016-the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and State. We 

also selected the Department of Veterans Affairs because, as of January 

2016, it had the most staff of any agency digital service team.' For these 

agencies, we evaluated agency policies and procedures to determine the 

extent to which agencies had documented the relationships between 

digital service teams and agency CIOs. We also conducted interviews 

with the CIOs of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and 

State, as well as the Veterans Affairs Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Information and Technology' More information 

on our scope and methodology can be found in the report we are issuing 

next month. 

The work upon which this testimony is based is being conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

6The 25 major departments and agencies with funding proposed for digital service teams 

in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2016 are the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, 

General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National 

Archives and Records Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Personnel Management. Small Business Administration, Social 

Security Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development. 

7

1n May 2016, VA established a charter with USDS for its digital service team. 

8

We requested an interview with the Veterans Affairs Assistant Secretary for Information 

and Technology, who is the CIO for the department In lieu of meeting with the CIO, the 

department instead made the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Information and Technology available for an interview. 

Page3 GAQ.16·733T 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 23484.011

Background 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Investments in IT can enrich people's lives and improve organizational 

performance. During the last two decades the Internet has matured from 

being a means for academics and scientists to communicate with each 

other to a national resource where citizens can interact with their 

government in many ways, such as by receiving services, supplying and 

obtaining information, asking questions, and providing comments on 

proposed rules. 

However, while these investments have the potential to improve lives and 

organizations, some federally funded IT projects can-and havebecome risky, costly, unproductive mistakes. We have previously testified 

that the federal government has spent billions of dollars on failed and 

troubled IT investments, 9 such as 

the Office of Personnel Management's Retirement Systems 

Modernization program, which was canceled in February 2011, after 

spending approximately $231 million on the agency's third attempt to 

automate the processing of federal employee retirement claims; 

the tri-agency10 National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System, which was stopped in February 2010 by the White 

House's Office of Science and Technology Policy after the program 

spent 16 years and almost $5 billion;" 

9

GAO, Information Technology: Additional Actions and Oversight Urgently Needed to 

Reduce Waste and Improve Performance in Acquisitions and Operations, GA0-15-675T 

(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2015). 

10The weather satellite program was managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

11See, for example, GAO, Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites: With Costs Increasing 

and Data Continuity at Risk, Improvements Needed in Tri-agency Decision Making, 

GA0-09-564 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2009) and Environmental Satellites: PolarOrbiting Satellite Acquisition Faces Delays; Decisions Needed on Whether and How to 

Ensure Climate Data Continuity, GA0-08-518 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2008). 

Page4 GA0-16-733T 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 23484.012

Digital Service Teams Are 

Intended to Improve the 

Federal Government's IT 

Efforts 

the Department of Veterans Affairs' Scheduling Replacement Project, 

which was terminated in September 2009 after spending an estimated 

$127 million over 9 years; and 

the Department of HeaHh and Human Services' (HHS) Healthcare.gov 

website and its supporting systems, which were to facilitate the 

establishment of a health insurance marketplace by January 2014, 

encountered significant cost increases, schedule slips, and delayed 

functionality. In a series of reports we identified numerous planning, 

oversight, security, and system development challenges faced by this 

program and made recommendations to address them. 12 

In light of these failures and other challenges, last year we introduced a 

new government-wide high-risk area, Improving the Management of IT 

Acquisitions and Operations. 13 

18F and USDS were formed in 2014 to help address the federal 

government's troubled IT efforts. Both programs have similar missions of 

improving public-facing federal digital services. 14 

12See GAO, Healthcare.gov: CM$ Has Taken Steps to Address Problems, but Needs to 

Further Implement Systems Development Best Practices, GAO~ 15-238 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 4, 2015); Heafthcare.gov: Actions Needed to Address Weaknesses in 

Information Security and Privacy Controls, GA0-14-730 {Washington, D.C .. Sept. 16, 

2014); and Heafthcare.gov: Ineffective Planning and Oversight Practices Underscore the 

Need for Improved Contract Management, GA0-14-694 (Washington, D.C .. July 30, 

2014). 

13GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GA0-15-290 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2015). 

140MB defines digital services as the delivery of digital information (data or content) and 

transactional services (e.g., online forms and benefits applications} across a variety of 

platforms, devices, and delivery mechanisms (e.g., websites, mobile applications, and 

social media). 

Page 5 GA0-16-733T 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 23484.013

18F's Mission and 

Organization 

18F was created in March 2014 by GSA with the mission of transforming 

the way the federal government 15 builds and buys digital services. 

Agencies across the federal government have access to 18F services. 

Work is largely initiated by agencies seeking assistance from 18F15 and 

then the program decides how and if it will provide assistance. According 

to GSA, 18F seeks to accomplish its mission by providing a team of 

expert designers, developers, technologists, researchers, and product 

specialists to help rapidly deploy tools and online services that are 

reusable, less costly, and easier for people and businesses to use. In 

addition, 18F has several guiding principles, to include the use of open 

source development, 17 user-centered design, and agile software 

development. 18 

18F is an office within the Technology Transformation Service within GSA 

that was recently formed in May 2016. 19 18F is led by the Deputy 

Commissioner for the Technology Transformation Service, who reports to 

the service's Commissioner. Prior to May 2016, 18F was located within 

the Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies and reported 

to the Associate Administrator for Citizen Services and Innovative 

February 2016, GSA announced the creation of the 18F State and Local Government 

Practice to assist federal agencies that provide grants to state and local programs 

According to GSA, it decided to expand its services after a pilot project with the State of 

California through HHS. As of May 2016, 18F has yet to engage in any other projects with 

state or local programs. Additionally, 18F officials stated that GSA was working with VVhite 

House counsel to determine the extent to which 18F can receive payment directly from 

state and local governments. Once this decision has been made, 18F officials told us that 

they will determine the key responsibilities of its State and Local Government Practice. 

161n March 2016, GSA created an office within 18F that is responsible for, among other 

things, marketing and sales to agency partners. 

17 Open source software is publicly available for use, study, reuse, modification, 

enhancement, and redistribution by the software's users. 

18Agile development calls for the delivery of software in small, short increments rather 

than in the typically long, sequential phases of a traditional waterfall approach. 

19The Technology Transformation Service was created in May 2016 and is intended to 

transform the way government builds, buys, and shares technology. It is responsible for, 

among other things, designing, building, and operating technology products and services 

for federal agencies consulting with federal agencies on technology and the recruitment of 

staff with related expertise; designing, building, and operating government-wide 

technology products and platforms; and educating federal agencies on modern technology 

design, development, operations, and procurement methodologies. 

Page6 GA0-16-733T 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 23484.014

Technologies. In March 2016 GSA created a new organizational structure 

for 18F that centers around five business units20 

Custom Partner Solutions. Provides agencies with custom 

application solutions. 

Products and Platforms. Provides agencies with access to tools that 

address common government-wide needs. 

Transformation Services. Aims to improve how agencies acquire 

and manage IT by providing them with consulting services, to include 

new management models, modern software development practices, 

and hiring processes. 

Acquisition Services. Provides acquisition services and solutions to 

support digital service delivery, including access to vendors 

specializing in agile software development, and request for proposal 

development consultation. 

Learn. Provides agencies with education, workshops, outreach, and 

communication tools on developing and managing digital services. 

To provide the products and services offered by each business unit, 18F 

relied on 173 staff to carry out its mission, as of March 2016. The staff are 

assigned to different projects that are managed by the business units2 ' 

According to18F officials, the program used special hiring authorities for 

the vast majority of its staff: Schedule A excepted service authorities were 

used to hire 162 staff. 22 These authorities permit the appointment of 

qualified personnel without the use of a competitive examination process. 

GSA has appointed its staff to terms that are not to exceed 2 years. 

According to the Director of the 18F Talent division, after the initial 

appointment has ended, GSA has the option of appointing staff to an 

additional term not to exceed 2 years. 

March 2016 18F officials told us that the GSA order on 18F's organization would be 

updated to reflect this new structure by May 2016. 

21 Most staff are also assigned to one of five branches of 18F's Chapters division, 

engineering, products, experience design, change strategist, and acquisition specialists. 

22For 33 of these staff members, GSA relied on authority provided by the Office of 

Personnel and Management to use Schedule A authority for digital services expert 

positions, 79 Fed. Reg. 44,474 (July, 31, 2014). Regarding the other 129 staff, GSA relied 

on authority provided to agencies by OPM in 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(r). 

Page 7 GA0·16·733T 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 23484.015

GSA funds 18F through the Acquisition Services Fund-a revolving fund, 

which operates on the revenue generated from its business units rather 

than an appropriation received from Congress." The Federal Acquisition 

Service is responsible for managing this fund and uses it to invest in the 

development of 18F products and services that will be used by other 

organizations. 24 18F is to recover costs through the Acquisition Services 

Fund reimbursement authority for work related to acquisitions and the 

Economy Act reimbursement authority25 for all other projects. According 

to the memorandum of agreement between 18F and the Federal 

Acquisition Service, 18F, like all programs funded by the Acquisition 

Services Fund, is required to have a plan to achieve full cost recovery. 26 

In order to recover its costs, 18F is to establish interagency agreements 

with partner agencies and charges them for actual time and material 

costs, as well as a fixed overhead amount. Table 1 describes 18Fs 

revenue, expenses, and net revenue for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. 

Table 2 describes 18F's projected revenue, expenses, and net revenue 

for fiscal years 2016 through 2019. 

Table 1: Reported Revenue, Expenses, and Net Operating Results for 18F, Fiscal 

Years 2014 and 2015 

Fiscal year Revenue Operating expenses 

2014 ---------::$::;0,.----'--~$8'"',5"'6"'3-.:. 7"'00;:--· ($8,649,450) 

2015 $22,262.000 $31,760,000 ($9,498,000) 

Source. GSA documenta~oo usect as part of the fmanc1a1 statement$ for tti&Acqulsltlor\ Services Fund 1 GA0-16-733T 

8

According to 18F officials, although the program generated $1,388,887 million in revenue during 

fiscal year 2014, the Federal Acquisition Service, which administers the Acquisition Services fund, 

decided to account for this revenue in fiscal year 2015. 

§ 321 

24GSA reported that the Acquisition Services Fund had an unobligated balance of 

$2.074,000.000 a1 the end of fiscal year 2015. 

2531 U.S C.§ 1535. 

26GSA, Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Acquisition Service And Office 

of Citizen Services, Innovative Technologies, and 18F (June 2, 2015} 

Page 8 GA0-16-733T 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 23484.016

USDS's Mission and 

Organization 

Table 2: Projected Revenue, Expenses, and Net Operating Results for 18F, Fiscal 

Years 2016 through 2019 

Projected net 

Fiscal year Projected revenue Projected operating expenses operating results 

2016 $33,518,000 $48,450,000 ($14,932,000) 

2017 $62,381 ,000 $74,764,000 ($12,383,000) 

2018 $91,872,000 $91 ,999,000 ($127.000) 

2019 $101,697,000 $100,552,000 $1,145,000 

Sowce 1SFdocumentalloo jGA0-16-733T 

As shown in table 2, according to its projections, 18F plans to generate 

revenue that meets or exceeds operating expenses and cost of goods 

sold beginning in fiscal year 2019. 

In May 2016, the GSA Inspector General reported on an information 

security weakness pertaining to 18F.27 Specifically, according to the 

report, 18F misconfigured a messaging and collaboration application, 

which resulted in the potential exposure of personally identifiable 

information (PII). 28 18F officials told us that, based on the preliminary 

results of their ongoing review, information such as individual's first 

names, last names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers were made 

available on the messaging and collaboration platform's databases, which 

are managed by that application's vendor. Those officials also stated that 

based on the preliminary results of their ongoing review, more sensitive 

Pll, such as Social Security numbers and protected health information, 

were not exposed. They added that they are continuing a detailed review, 

in coordination with the GSA IT organization, to confirm that more 

sensitive Pll were not made available. 

According to the Administration, in 2013 it initiated an effort that brought 

together a group of digital and technology experts from the private sector 

that helped fix Healthcare.gov. In an effort to apply similar resources to 

27 GSA, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Inspections and Forensic Auditing, 

Management Alert Report: GSA Data Breach, JE16-004 (May 12, 2016). 

28P!I is any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identitysuch as name, date, and place of birth, and Social Security number-or other types of 

personal information that can be linked to an individual-such as medica!, educational, 

financial, and employment information. 

Page9 GA0-16-7331 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 23484.017

additional projects, in August 2014 the Administration announced the 

launch of USDS,29 to be led by an Administrator and Deputy Federal CIO 

who reports to the Federal CI030 According to OMB, USDS's mission is 

to transform the most important digital services for citizens. USDS selects 

which projects it will apply resources to and generally initiates its effort 

with agencies. 

To accomplish its mission, USDS aims to recruit private sector experts 

(e.g., IT engineers and designers) and partner them with government 

agencies. With the help of these experts, OMB states that USDS applies 

best practices in product design and engineering to improve the 

usefulness, user experience, and reliability of the most important publicfacing federal digital services. As of November 2015, USDS staff totaled 

about 98 individuals. Similar to 18F, USDS assigns individuals directly to 

projects aimed at achieving its mission. 31 

USDS has used special hiring authorities for the vast majority of it staff. 

Specifically: 

Schedule A excepted service. According to USDS, as of November 

2015, 52 USDS staff members were hired using the schedule A 

excepted service hiring authority. 32 According to the USDS 

Administrator, appointments made using this authority are not to 

exceed 2 years. At the end of that period, staff can be appointed for 

an additional term of no more than 2 years. 

29Accord!ng to OMB, USDS is part of the implementation of the May 2012 strategy for 

digital govemment, Digital Government: Building a 21rst Century Platform to Better Setve 

the American People. 

30The Federal CIO is the presidential designation for the Administrator of the OMS Office 

of E~Government. 

31 USOS also assigns staff to one of four communities of practice: Engineering, Design, 

StratOps, and Talent. 

32Under its authority to except positions from competitive examination requirements, in 

June 2014, OPM approved OMS's request to use Schedule A authority for up to 34 digital 

service expert positions. 79 Fed. Reg. 44,474 (July 31, 2014). In December 2015. OPM 

approved OMS's request for to increase the number of positions that could be filled using 

this authority from 34 to 85. 

Page 10 GA0-16-733T 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 23484.018

Agency Digital Service Teams 

Intermittent consultants. According to USDS, as of November 2015, 

39 USDS staff members were intermittent consultants-that is, 

individuals hired through a noncompetitive process to serve as 

consultants on an intermittent basis or without a regular tour of duty. 33 

The USDS Administrator explained that some of these staff are 

eventually converted to temporary appointments under the Schedule 

A authority. 

According to its Administrator, USDS does not generally make permanent 

appointments for its staff because it allows the program to continuously 

bring in new staff and ensure that its ideas are continually evolving. 

USDS reported spending $318,778 during fiscal year 2014 and 

approximately $4.7 million during fiscal year 2015. For fiscal year 2016, 

USDS plans to spend approximately $14 million, and the President's 

fiscal year 2017 budget estimated obligations of $18 million for USDS. 

In an effort to make improvements to critical IT services throughout the 

federal government, the Presidents' Budget for fiscal year 2016 proposed 

funding for the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, 34 as well as the 

National Archives and Records Administration, to establish digital 

services teams. USDS policy calls for these agencies to, among other 

things, hire or designate an executive for managing their digital services 

teams. According to USDS policy, the digital service team leader is to 

report directly to the head of the agency or the deputy. 

Additionally, USDS has established a hiring pipeline for digital service 

experts-that is, a unified process managed by USDS for accepting and 

reviewing applications, performing initial interviews, and providing 

agencies with candidates for their digital service teams. According to 

33Pursuant to 5 U.S. C. § 3109, an agency may contract for an expert or consultant to fill 

an intermittent or temporary position if that agency is authorized by an appropriation or 

other statute. See also 5 CFR Part 304. 

3431 U.S.C. § 901{b). The 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies are the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, 

General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National 

Science Foundation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel 

Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and U.S. 

Agency for International Development. 

Page 11 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 23484.019

Roles and Responsibilities 

for Overseeing IT 

Investments 

OMB, before using this service, agencies must agree to a charter with the 

USDS Administrator. 

Over the last three decades, several laws have been enacted to assist 

federal agencies in managing IT investments. For example, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that OMB develop and 

oversee policies, principles, standards, and guidelines for federal agency 

IT functions, including periodic evaluations of major information 

systems." In addition, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, among other 

things, requires agency heads to appoint CIOs and specifies many of 

their responsibilities'' With regard to IT management, CIOs are 

responsible for implementing and enforcing applicable government-wide 

and agency IT management principles, standards, and guidelines; 

assuming responsibility and accountability for IT investments; and 

monitoring the performance of IT programs and advising the agency head 

whether to continue, modify, or terminate such programs. 37 

Most recently, in December 2014, IT reform legislation (commonly 

referred to as Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act or 

FITARA) was enacted, which required most major executive branch 

agencies to ensure that the CIO had a significant role in the decision 

process for IT budgeting, as well as the management, governance, and 

oversight processes related to IT.38 The law also required that CIOs 

review and approve (1) all contracts for IT services prior to executing 

them and (2) the appointment of any other employee with the title of CIO, 

or who functions in the capacity of a CIO, for any component organization 

within the agency. OMB also released guidance in June 2015 that 

3544 U.S. C.§ 3501-3521. 

3640 U.S. C.§ 11101-11318. 

37 40 U.S. C.§ 11315. 

38Federallnformation Technology Acquisition Reform provisions of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. 

L No. 113-291, div. A. title VIII, subtitle D. 128 Stat. 3292, 3438-3450 (Dec. 19, 2014). 

Page 12 GA0-16-733T 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 23484.020

18F and USDS 

Provided a Variety of 

Development and 

Consulting Services 

Supporting Agency 

Technology Efforts 

and Agencies Were 

Generally Satisfied 

with the Programs 

reinforces the importance of agency CIOs and describes how agencies 

are to implement the law. 39 

OMB plays a key role in helping federal agencies address these laws and 

manage their investments by working with them to better plan, justify, and 

determine how much they need to spend on projects and how to manage 

approved projects. Within OMB, the Office of E-Government and 

Information Technology, headed by the Federal CIO, directs the policy 

and strategic planning of federal IT investments and is responsible for 

oversight of federal technology spending. 

As part of our ongoing work, we determined that 18F and USDS have 

provided a variety of development and consulting services to agencies to 

support their technology efforts. Specifically, between March 2014 and 

August 2015,40 18F staff helped 18 agencies with 32 projects and 

generally provided six types of services to the agencies, the majority of 

which related to development work. In addition, between August 2014 

and August 2015,41 USDS provided assistance on 13 projects at 11 

agencies and provided seven types of consulting services. 

Further, agencies were generally satisfied with the services they received 

from 18F and USDS. Specifically, of the 26 18F survey respondents, 23 

were very satisfied or moderately satisfied and 3 were moderately 

dissatisfied. For USDS, all 9 survey respondents were very satisfied or 

moderately satisfied. 

40As discussed in more detail later in this statement, these projects were the subject of our 

customer satisfaction survey 

41As discussed in more detail later in this statement, these projects were the subject of our 

customer satisfaction survey. 

Page 13 GA0-16-733T 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 23484.021

18F Has Provided a 

Variety of Products and 

Services; the Majority of 

Projects Were 

Development Work 

Between March 2014 and August 2015, GSA's 18F staff helped 18 

agencies with 32 projects, and generally provided services relating to its 

five business units: Custom Partner Solutions, Products and Platforms, 

Transformation Services, Acquisition Services, and Learn. In addition, 

18F also provided agency digital service team candidate qualification 

reviews in support of USDS. 

Custom Partner Solutions. 18F helped 11 agencies with a total of 

19 projects relating to developing custom software solutions. Out of 

the 19 projects, 12 were related to website design and development. 

For example, regarding GSA's Pulse project-a website that displays 

data about the ex1ent to which federal websites are adopting best 

practices, such as hypertex1 transfer protocol over Secure Sockets 

Layer (SSL)/ Transport Layer Security (TLS) (HTTPS)42-18F 

designed, developed, and delivered the first iteration of Pulse within 6 

weeks of the project kick-off43 According to the GSA office 

responsible for managing the project, the first iteration has led to 

positive outcomes for government-wide adoption of best practices; for 

example, between June 2015 and January 2016, the percentage of 

federal websites using https increased from 27 percent to 38 percent. 

As another example, officials from the Department of Education's 

college choice project stated that 18F helped develop the College 

Scorecard website, which the public can use to search among 

colleges to find schools that meet their needs (e.g., degrees offered, 

location, size, graduation rate, average salary after graduation).44 

18F also helped two agencies, HHS and the Department of Defense, 

on two projects to develop application programming interfaces-sets 

of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications that 

specify how software components should interact. 

42The HTTPS protocol is defined as hyper text transfer protocol-an application protocol 

that allows the transmitting and receiving of information across the Internet-over 

SSUTLS. SSUTLS provide socket-layer security, encrypting a!! communication over a 

particular session without altering it. Through SSUTLS, HITPS supports authentication, 

confidentiality. and integrity of data sent between the endpoints. The secure http protocol 

encrypts http and was developed to allow the authorization of users and secure 

transactions. In June 2015, OMS required agencies to generally use https for existing 

websites and services by December 31, 2016. 

43https:/!pulse.cio.gov/. 

44https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/. 

Page 14 GA0·16·733T 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 23484.022

Acquisition Services. 18F helped seven agencies on seven projects 

relating to acquisition services consulting'' For example, 18F 

provided the Department of State's Bureau of International 

Information Programs with cloud computing services•• offered under 

a GSA blanket purchase agreement (BPA)-specifically, cloud 

management services (e.g., developers, testing and quality 

assurance, cloud architect) and infrastructure-as-a-service.47 

According to the Department of State, the department was able to 

deploy its instance of the infrastructure service only 1 month after it 

executed an interagency agreement with 18F. According to Social 

Security Administration officials, 18F helped the agency to 

incorporate agile software development practices into their requests 

for proposals for their Disability Case Processing System. 

Learn. 18F provided services to four agencies on four projects 

regarding training, such as educating agency officials on agile 

software development'' For example, 18F conducted training 

workshops on agile software development techniques with the Social 

Security Administration and Small Business Administration. In 

addition, according to the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour 

Division officials, 18F conducted a 3-day workshop on IT 

modernization. 

seven agencies and projects relating to acquisition services, three agencies and 

projects also received services relating to the Learn business unit. These three agencies 

and projects are the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division consulting project, 

the Social Security Administration's Disability Case Processing System project and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Master Data Management project. 

46According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, cloud computing is "a 

means for enabling on-demand access to shared and scalable pools of computing 

resources with the goa! of minimizing management effort or service provider interaction,fl 

47 According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the infrastructure~as-a 

service model is used when an agency has the capability to provision processing, storage, 

networks, and other fundamental computing resources and run its own software, including 

operating systems and applications_ The agency does not manage or control the 

underlying infrastructure but controls and configures operating systems, storage, deployed 

applications, and possibly, selected networking components (e.g., host firewalls}. 

48As previously mentioned, three of four projects are also related to Acquisition Services: 

the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division consulting project and the Social 

Security Administration's Disability Case Processing System project, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Master Data Management Program project 

Page 15 GA0-16-733T 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 23484.023

Transformation Services. 18F assisted two agencies on two 

projects to help acquire the people, processes, and technology 

needed to successfully deliver digital services. For example, 18F 

assisted the Environmental Protection Agency on an agency-wide 

technology transformation. According to an official within the office of 

the CIO, 18F assisted the agency withe-Manifest-a system used to 

track toxic waste shipments. The official noted that 18F provided 

user-centered design, agile coaching, prototype development 

services, and agile and modular acquisition services. Further, the 

official stated that 18F helped turn around the project and significantly 

decreased the time of delivery for a-Manifest. 

Products and Platforms. 18F helped two agencies on two projects 

related to developing software solutions that can potentially be 

reused at other federal agencies. For example, according to GSA 

officials responsible for managing GSA's Communicart project, 18F 

provided the agency with an e-mail-based tool for approving office 

supply purchases. 

Agency digital service team candidate qualification review. 18F 

worked with USDS to recruit and hire team members for agency 

digital service teams. According to 18F officials, it provided USDS with 

subject matter experts to review qualifications of candidates for 

agency digital service teams. 

Of the 32 projects, 6 are associated with major IT investments. 49 

Cumulatively, the federal government plans to spend $853 million on 

these investments in fiscal year 2016. Additionally, risk evaluations 

performed by CIOs that were obtained from the IT Dashboard50 showed 

that three of these investments were rated as low or moderately low risk 

and three investments were rated medium risk. Table 3 describes the 

49According to OMB, "major IT investment" means a system or an acquisition requiring 

special management attention because it has significant importance to the mission or 

function of the government significant program or policy implications; high executive 

visibility; high development, operating, or maintenance costs; an unusual funding 

mechanism; or is defined as major by the agency's capital planning and investment 

control process. 

50The IT Dashboard is a website maintained by OMB that displays federal agencies' cost, 

schedule, and performance data for over 700 major federal IT investments at 26 federal 

agencies. 

Page 16 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 23484.024

associated investments, including their primary functional 

planned fiscal year 2016 spending, and CIO rating as of May 2016. 

Table 3: Major Investments on which 18F Provided Assistance 

Investment's planned 

fiscal year 2016 CIO assessment as 

Investment name Agency Primary functional area spending of May 2016 

Transportation Security 

Administration Information 

Technology Infrastructure Department of Homeland Provide and maintain IT 

Program Security infrastructure $368,664,000 Moderately low risk 

United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Immigration and 

Transformation Security naturalization $175,781,000 Medium risk 

Benefits 21st Century 

Paperless Delivery of Department of Veterans Veteran benefits and 

Veterans Benefits Affairs services $259,091,000 Moderately low risk 

Office of Government 

Contracting and Business Small Business Business and industry 

Development SBA One Administration development $5,383,000 Low risk 

Disability Case Processing Social Security 

System Administration Social security benefits $40,795,000 Medium risk 

Environmental Protection Environmental waste 

eManifest Agency management $3,241,000 Medium risk 

Source lnformahon Technology Dashboard I GA0-16-733T 

18F is also developing products and services-including an agile delivery 

service blanket purchase agreement (BPA), cloud.gov, and a shared 

authentication platform: 

Agile delivery service BPA. 18F established this project in order to 

support its need for agile delivery services, including agile software 

development. In August and September 2015, GSA awarded BPAs to 

17 vendors. The BPAs are for 5 years and allow GSA to place orders 

against them for up to 13 specific labor categories relating to agile 

software development (e.g., product manager, backend web 

developer, agile coach) at fixed unit prices. 

51Accord1ng to OMS's annual budget guidance, agencies are required to map each IT 

investment to a functional category. These categorizations, known as a primary function, 

are intended to enable OMS and others to analyze investments with similar functions, as 

well as identify and analyze potentially duplicative investments across agencies. 

Page 17 GA0-16-733T 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 23484.025

The BPAs do not obligate any funds; rather, they enable participating 

vendors to compete for follow-on task orders from GSA. In cases 

where 18F determines that it should use the agile BPA to provide 

services to partner agencies, GSA anticipates that 18F will work with 

that agency to develop a request for quotations and the other 

documents needed for a competition with agile BPA vendors. 

In March 2016 18F released its first request for quotations under the 

agile BPA for a task order relating to building a web-based dashboard 

that would describe the status of vendors in the certification process 

for FedRAMP-a government-wide program, managed by GSA, to 

provide joint authorizations and continuous security monitoring 

services for cloud computing services for all federal agencies. GSA 

anticipates that the time required to complete the process from 

releasing a request for quotations to task order issuance will typically 

take between 4 to 8 weeks. 

The initial BPAs were established under the first of three anticipated 

award pools-all of which are part of the "alpha" component of the 

Agile BPA project. 18F officials stated that they planned to establish 

BPAs for the other two pools in June 2016. They also anticipate a 

future beta version of the project that could potentially allow federal 

agencies beyond 18F to issue task orders directly to vendors. 

Officials stated that they expect to have a plan for the next steps of 

the beta version of this project by December of 2017. 

18F officials have also expressed interest in creating additional 

marketplaces, such as those relating to data management, developer 

productivity tools, cybersecurity, and health IT. As of March 2016, 

18F did not have time frames for when it planned to develop these 

additional marketplaces. 

Cloud.gov .18F also developed cloud.gov service, which is an open 

source platform-as-a-service" that agencies can use to manage and 

deploy applications. 18F initially built cloud.gov in order to enable the 

52The National Institute for Standards and Technology defines a platform as a service as a 

cloud computing solution wherein the service provider delivers and manages the 

underlying infrastructure (i.e., servers, software, storage, and network equipment), as well 

as the platform (i.e., operating system, and programming tools and services) on which the 

consumer can create applications using programming tools supported by the service 

provider. In the case of cloud.gov, 18F uses Amazon Web Services as the underlying 

infrastructure-as-a-service cloud platform (i,e., the basic computing infrastructure of 

servers, software, storage, and network equipment). 

Page 18 GA0·16·733T 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 23484.026

group to use applications it developed for partner agencies. In 

creating the service, 18F decided to offer the service to other 

agencies because, according to 18F officials, cloud.gov offers a 

developer-friendly, secure platform, with tools that agencies can use 

to accelerate the process of assessing information security controls 

and authorizing systems to operate. According to 18F, the goal of 

cloud.gov is to provide government developers and their contractor 

partners the ability to easily deploy systems to a cloud infrastructure 

with better efficiency, effectiveness, and security than current 

alternatives. 

According to a roadmap for cloud.gov, 18F plans to receive full 

FedRAMP Joint Authorization Board approval for this service by 

August 2016. Once available, the group anticipates requiring 

agencies to pay for this service through an interagency agreement 

with 18F. 

Shared authentication platform. In May 2016, 18F announced that it 

was initiating an effort to create a platform for users who need to log 

into federal websites for government services. According to 18F, this 

system is designed to be each citizen's "one account" with the 

government and allow the public to verify an identity, log into 

government websites, and if necessary, recover an account. As of 

May 2016, 18F plans to conduct prototyping activities through 

September 2016 and did not have plans beyond that time frame. 

In addition to developing future products and services, 18F created a 

variety of guides and standards for use internally as well by agency 

digital service teams. These guides address topics such as 

accessibility, 53 application programming interfaces, 54 and agile 

software development. 55 

53https:/Jpages.18fgov/accessibiHty/. 

54 https://github.com/18f/api~standards. 

55https:l/pages.18f.gov/agile/. 

Page 19 GA0·16-733T 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 23484.027

USDS Provided Seven 

Types of Consulting 

Services Aimed at Helping 

Agencies Improve IT 

From August 2014 through August 2015, USDS provided assistance on 

13 projects across 11 agencies. The group generally provided seven 

types of consulting services: quality assurance, problem identification and 

recommendations, website consultation, system stabilization, information 

security assessment, software engineering, and data management. 

Quality assurance. Three of the 13 projects related to providing 

quality assurance services. For example, regarding the Social 

Security Administration's Disability Case Processing System, USDS 

reviewed the quality of the software and made recommendations that, 

according to the agency, resulted in costs savings. Additionally, for 

the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense Service Treatment 

Record project, USDS provided engineers who identified and resolved 

errors in the process of exchanging records between the two 

departments, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Further, for the HHS Healthcare.gov system, the group performed 

services aimed at optimizing the reliability of the system, according to 

HHS. 

Problem identification and recommendations. USDS identified 

problems and made recommendations for three projects. For all three 

projects, it performed a discovery sprint-a quick (typically 2 week) 

review of an agency's challenges, which is to culminate in a clear 

understanding of the problems and recommendations for how to 

address the issues. For example, it performed a discovery sprint for 

the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service that 

focused on three areas: authentication of taxpayers, modernizing 

systems through event-driven architecture,'• and redesigning the 

agency's website. USDS delivered a report to the Internal Revenue 

Service with recommendations and also suggested that work initially 

focus on taxpayer authentication. Consistent with these 

recommendations, the group and the agency decided to initially focus 

on authentication, to include re-opening of the online application 

GetTranscript.57 

'°Fve,•t-ddve.n architecture is a software architecture framework that promotes the 

production, detection, consumption of, and reaction to events. 

57 Get Transcript application allowed taxpayers to obtain a viewable and printable 

transcript on the agency's website. The application was taken offline on May 21, 2015, 

because of significant security problems. 

Page 20 GA0·16-733T 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 23484.028

For the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation's 

National Incident Based Reporting System, according to USDS, the 

program performed a discovery sprint and made several 

recommendations for accelerating deployment of the system. 

Website consultation. USDS provided consultation services for three 

agency website projects. For example, for the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative's Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreements 

website, USDS provided website design advice and confirmed that 

the agency had the necessary scalability to support the number of 

anticipated visitors. 58 Additionally, it consulted with the Office of 

Personnel and Management (OPM) on the design, implementation, 

and development of a website for providing information on reported 

data breaches'' 

System stabilization. For the Department of State's Consular 

Consolidated Database, 5° according to USDS, it helped stabilize the 

system and return it to operational service after a multi-week outage 

in June 2015. 

Information security assessment. USDS helped with an information 

security assessment regarding Electronic Questionnaires for 

Investigations Processing, which encompasses the electronic 

applications used to process federal background check investigations. 

Software engineering. For the Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Transformation project,61 

USDS's software engineering advisors provided guidance on private 

sector best practices in delivering modern digital services. According 

to the department, the group's work has supported accomplishments 

such as increasing the frequency of software releases and improving 

adoption of agile development best practices. 

58https://ustr.gov/tpp/ 

59https://W1NW.opm.gov/cybersecurity. 

60The Consular Consolidated Database is used to, among other things, assist consular 

officers review and complete visa adjudications. 

61 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processes millions of applications for persons 

seeking to study, work, visit, or live in the United States. The agency has been working 

since 2005 to transform its outdated systems into an account-based system with 

electronic adjudication and case management tools that wm allow applicants to apply and 

track the progress of their application online. 

Page 21 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 23484.029

Data management. For the Department of Homeland Security Office 

of Immigration Statistics. USDS helped to develop monthly reports on 

immigration enforcement priority statistics. According to the 

department, USDS supported the development of processes for 

obtaining data from other offices within the department and generating 

the monthly reports. According to the department, after 7 weeks of 

working with USDS, it was able to develop a proof of concept that 

reduced the report generating process from a month to 1 day. 

Seven of the 13 projects are associated with major IT investments. 

Cumulatively, the federal government plans to spend over $1.24 

billion on these investments in fiscal year 2016. Three investments 

were rated by their CIOs as low or moderately low risk and four 

investments were rated as being medium risk. Table 4 describes the 

associated investments, including their primary functional areas 

planned fiscal year 2016 spending, and CIO rating as of May 2016. 

Table 4: Major Investments on which U.S. Digital Service Provided Assistance 

Primary functional Investment's planned CIO assessment as 

Investment name Agency area fiscal year 2016 spending of May 2016 

Defense Travel System Department of Defense Customer services $37,900,000 Low risk 

Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services Federally 

Facilitated Marketplace 

U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

Transfonnation 

Enterprise Infrastructure and 

Operations 

Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Department of Stale 

Benefits 21st Century Paperless Department of Veterans 

Delivery of Veterans Benefits Affairs 

Federal Investigative Services Office of Personnel 

Systems Transformation Management 

Disability Case Processing Social Security 

System Administration 

Source Jnforma11011 Techoology Dashboard ! GA0-16-733T 

Access to care $365.236.000 Moderately low risk 

Immigration and 

naturalization $175,781,000 Medium risk 

Border and 

transportation 

security $329,893,000 Medium risk 

Veteran benefits 

and services $259,091,000 Moderately low risk 

Credential ISSuance 

and management $38,228,040 Medium risk 

Socia! security 

benefits $40,795,000 Medium risk 

In addition to helping agencies improve IT services, USDS has developed 

guidance for agencies. For example, it developed the Digital Services 

Playbook to provide government-wide recommendations on practices for 

Page 22 GA0·16·733T 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 23484.030

building digital services. 52 The group also created the TechFAR 

Handbook to explain how agencies can use the Digital Services Playbook 

in ways that are consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation63 

Further, USDS, in collaboration with 18F, developed the draft version of 

U.S. Web Design Standards, which includes a visual style guide and a 

collection of common user interface components. 54 With this guide, USDS 

aims to improve government website consistency and accessibility. 

In addition to developing guidance, USDS, in collaboration with OMS's 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy, used challenge.gov65 to incentivize 

the public to create a digital service training program for federal contract 

professionals. The challenge winner received $250,000 to develop and 

pilot a training program. Additionally, the Deputy Administrator for USDS 

stated that 30 federal contract professionals from more than 10 agencies 

completed this pilot program in March 2016. According to OMB, the 

program is being revised and transitioned to the Federal Acquisition 

Institute, where it will be included as part of a certification for digital 

service contracting officers. 

62https://playbook.cio.gov/ 

63https://playbook.cio.gov/techfar/. 

64https:flplaybook.cio.gov/designstandards/getting-started/. 

65https://www.challenge.gov.This website is a listing of challenge and prize competitions, 

all of which are run by more than 80 agencies across federal government These include 

technical, scientific, ideation, and creative competitions where the U.S. government seeks 

innovative solutions from the public 

Page 23 GA0-16-733T 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 23484.031

A Majority of Surveyed 

Agency Project Managers 

Were Satisfied with 

Services Provided by 18F 

and USDS 

In response to a satisfaction survey we administered to agency managers 

of selected 18F and USDS projects,•• a majority of managers were 

satisfied with the services they received from the groups.67 Specifically, 

the average score for services provided by 18F was 4.38 (on a 5-point 

satisfaction scale, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied) and 

the average score for the services provided by USDS was 4.67. 68 Table 5 

describes the survey results for 18F and USDS. 

Table 5: Results of GAO Survey on Satisfaction with Services Provided by 18F and 

U.S. Digital Service to Agency Projects 

Neither No 

Very Moderately satisfied nor Moderately response 

Program satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied to survey 

~,~S~F~--------~1~6--------~~--------~----- 5' 

USDS 4 

Source GAO survey of agency project managers that engaged wrth 16F aru:! USDS 1 GA0-16-733T 

8

This includes one project manager who responded to the survey but selected the «no responseH 

survey option. 

~his includes one project manager who responded to the survey but did not answer the question 

regarding satisfaction wlth USDS services. 

In addition to providing scores, the survey respondents also provided 

written comments. Regarding 18F, five factors were cited by two or more 

respondents as contributing to their satisfaction with the services the 

program provided: delivering quality products and services, providing 

good customer service, completing tasks in a timely manner, employing 

staff with valuable knowledge and skills, and providing valuable education 

to agencies. For example, one respondent stated that 18F has an expert 

staff that helped the team understand agile software development and 

incorporate user-centered design into the agency's development process. 

previously mentioned, we selected 32 18F projects and 13 USDS projects. 

67We received a response rate of 82 percent-84 percent for projects that obtained 

assistance from 18F and 77 percent for projects with assistance from USDS. 

68SpecificaUy, we asked survey respondents to rate their organization's satisfaction using 

the following scale: 5 is ~very satisfied," 4 is umoderately satisfied," 3 is "neither satisfied 

nor dissatisfied," 2 is "moderately dissatisfied,n and 1 is "very dissatisfied." 

Page 24 GA0-16-733T 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 23484.032

USDS and 18F Did 

Not Fully Measure 

Performance and 

Prioritize Projects 

With respect to USDS, four factors were cited by two or more 

respondents as contributing to their satisfaction with its services: 

delivering quality services, providing good customer service, completing 

tasks in a timely manner, and employing staff with valuable knowledge 

and skills. For instance, one respondent stated that USDS responded to 

the agency's request in a matter of hours, quickly developed an 

understanding of the agency's IT system, and pushed to improve the 

system, even in areas beyond the scope of USDS's responsibility. 

A~hough the majority of agencies were satisfied, a minority of 

respondents provided written comments describing their dissatisfaction 

with services provided by 18F. For example, six respondents cited poor 

customer service, four respondents cited higher than expected costs, and 

one respondent stated that 18F's use of open source code may not meet 

the agency's information security requirements. 

In a written response to these comments, 18F stated that it has received 

a variety of feedback from its partners and had modified and updated its 

processes continuously over the past 2 years. For example, with respect 

to higher than expected costs, 18F stated that project costs sometimes 

needed to be adjusted mid-project to address, among other things, higher 

than expected infrastructure usage or unexpected delays. To address this 

issue, 18F stated that it uses the assistance of subject matter experts to 

estimate project costs, and wrote a guide to assist with, among other 

things, better managing the budgets of ongoing projects. Regarding 18F's 

use of open source code, it stated that it has worked with its partners to 

discuss the use of open source software and information security 

practices. 

To assess actual resu~s. prioritize limited resources, and ensure that the 

most critical projects receive attention, entities that provide IT services, 

such as USDS and 18F, should establish and implement the following key 

practices. 

Define outcome-oriented goals and measure performance. Our 

previous work and federal law stress the importance of focusing on 

outcome-oriented goals and performance measures to assess the 

actual resu~s. effects, or impact of a program or activity compared to 

Page 25 GA0·16-733T 
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 23484.033

18F Has Goals and 

Procedures for Prioritizing 

Projects, but Needs to 

Fully Define OutcomeOriented Goals and 

Measure Performance 

its intended purpose•• Goals should be used to elaborate on a 

program's mission statement and should be aligned with performance 

measures. In turn, performance measures should be tied to program 

goals and demonstrate the degree to which the desired results were 

achieved. To do so, performance measures should have targets to 

help assess whether goals were achieved by comparing projected 

performance and actual results. Finally, goals and performance 

measures should be outcome-oriented-that is, they should address 

the results of products and services. 

Establish and implement procedures for prioritizing IT projects. 

We have reported that establishing and implementing procedures, to 

include criteria, for prioritizing projects can help organizations 

consistently select projects based on their contributions to the 

strategic goals of the organization.70 Doing so will better position 

agencies to effectively prioritize projects and use the best mix of 

limited resources to move toward its goals. 

In our draft report, we determined that 18F has developed several 

outcome-orientated goals, performance measures, and procedures for 

prioritizing projects, which it has largely implemented. However, not all of 

its goals are outcome-oriented and it has not yet measured program 

performance. 

Define Outcome-Oriented Goals and Measure Performance 

At the conclusion of our review in May 2016, 18F provided 5 goals and 17 

associated performance measures that the organization aims to achieve 

by September 2016 (see table 6). 

695 U.S.C. § 306, 31 U.S. C.§§ 1115-1116 & 1120-1124; GAO, Executive Guide: 

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D. C.: June 1, 1996); and GAO, Designing Evaluations: 

2012 Revision, GA0·12-208G (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2012). 

70GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing 

and Improving Process Maturity (Supersedes AIMD-10.1.23}, GA0·04·394G (Washington, 

D.C .. March 2004). 

Page 26 GA0-16-733T 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 23484.034

Table 6: 18F Goals and Performance Measures 

Goal 

Continuously improve how 18F works 

Grow 18F to 215 staff while sustaining a 

healthy 18F culture 

Demonstrate that 18F has saved at least 

$250 million in government digital spending 

while achieving 90 percent customer 

satisfaction 

Deliver two different government-wide 

platform services to 10 different agency 

partners 

Sign and begin two Transformation 

Services engagements 

Sourt:e. 18F dowmenlatlon 1 GA0-16-733T 

Performance measures 

Establish and track success me tries and goals for each team. Develop cadence and 

metr!cs for demonstrating performance against performance measures at org~ 

management- and unit level. 

Establish and track success metrics and goals for every engagement. 

Establish metrics and goals for improving 18F's capacity management. 

Establish metrics and goals for improving 18F's internal information flow. 

Replace 18F's hourly pricing with weekly. biweekly, and/or other less granular 

pricing approaches. 

Onboard 47 new hires 

Establish retention goals for current 18F staff and meet or exceed the baseline. 

Establish metrics for employee satisfaction and meet or improve current baseline. 

Estimate the ~but-for" cost of every past and current 18F project 

Between completed Custom Partner Solutions and Acquisitions projects, 

demonstrate $200 million in past savings versus "but-for" costs. 

Deliver on Custom Partner Solutions and Acquisition projects in April 2016 through 

September 2016 that together save another estimated $50 million. 

Develop and implement a partner satisfaction metric to be measured continuously 

during and upon completion of all engagements. 

Design and implement procedures to address partner dissatisfaction. 

Deliver cloud.gov services to 10 agency partners 

Deliver a prototype of the shared authentication platform with two participating 

agency partners 

Sign interagency agreements with two agencies to engage with the Transformation 

Service, with agreement to all client prerequisites and establishment of success 

metrics and goals. 

Kick off both engagements per plan. 

To 18F's credit, several of its goals and performance measures appear to 

be outcome-oriented. For example, the goal of delivering two 

government-wide platform services and the associated performance 

measures are outcome-oriented in that they address results--that is, 

delivering services to partner agencies. 

However, not all of the goals and performance measures appear to be 

outcome-oriented. For example, the goal of growing 18F to 215 staff while 

sustaining a healthy culture and its associated measure of hiring 47 staff 

do not focus on results of products or services. Further, not all of the 

performance measures have targets. For example, seven of the 

performance measures state that 18F will establish performance 

indicators, but 18F has yet to do so. Moreover, 18F does not have goals 

Page 27 GA0-16-733T 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 23484.035

and associated measures that describe how it plans to achieve its 

mission after September 2016. 

In addition, although 18F is required to have a plan to achieve full cost 

recovery, it has yet to recover costs and its projections for when this will 

occur have slipped over time. Specifically, in June 2015, 18F projected 

that it would fully recover its costs for an entire fiscal year beginning in 

2016; however, in May 2016, 18F provided revised projections indicating 

that it would recover costs beginning in fiscal year 2019. Those 

projections also indicated that, in the worst case, it would not do so 

through 2022, the final year of its projections. Establishing performance 

measures and targets that are tied to achieving full cost recovery would 

help management gauge whether the program is on track to meet its 

projections. However, 18F has not established such performance 

measures and targets. 

Finally, 18F has yet to fully assess the actual results of its activities. 

Specifically, the group has not assessed its performance in accordance 

with the 17 performance measures it developed. 18F's then-parent 

organization assessed its own performance quarterly beginning in the 4th 

quarter of fiscal year 2015, including for measures that 18F was 

responsible for. However, this review process did not include or make 

reference to the 17 measures developed to gauge 18F's performance, 

and thus do not provide insight into how well it is achieving its own 

mission. 

In a written response, GSA stated that 18F performance is measured as 

part of the Technology Transformation Service's goals and measures and 

that these goals and measures should form the basis for our review. 

However, the Technology Transformation Service's goals and measures 

do not describe how GSA aims to achieve the specific mission of 18F. 

Until it establishes goals and performance measures beyond September 

2016, ensures that all of its goals and performance measures are 

outcome-oriented, and that its performance measures have targets, 18F 

will not have clear definition of what it wants to accomplish. Additionally, 

without developing performance measures and targets tied to achieving 

full cost recovery, GSA will lack a fully defined approach to begin 

recovering all costs in fiscal year 2019. Further, untii18F fully measures 

actual results, it will not be positioned to assess the status of its activities 

and determine the areas that need improvement 

Page 28 GA0-16-733T 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 23484.036

Establish and Implement Procedures for Prioritizing IT Projects 

18F has developed procedures, including criteria, for prioritizing projects 

and largely implemented its procedures. Specifically, according to the 

Director of Business Strategy, potential projects are discussed during 

weekly intake meetings. As part of these meetings, 18F discusses project 

decision documents, which outline the business, technical and design 

elements, as well as the schedule, scope, and resources needed to fulfill 

the client's needs. Using these documents, 18F determines whether 

proposed projects meet, among other things, the following criteria: (1) the 

project is aligned with the products and services offered by 18F, (2) it can 

be completed in a time frame that meets the agency's needs and at a 

cost that fits the agency's budget, and (3) the project's government 

transformation potential (e.g., impact on the public, cost savings). These 

documents are used by the business unit leads to make a final decision 

about whether to accept the projects. 

18F has largely implemented its procedures. To its credit, with respect to 

the 14 projects that 18F selected since establishing its prioritization and 

selection process, 71 18F developed a decision document for 12 of the 14 

projects. However, 18F did not develop a decision document for the 2 

remaining projects-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Master Data 

Management project and GSA's labs.usa.gov project. 

With respect to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Master Data 

Management project, 18F officials explained that this project only required 

staff from one division; as such, that division was able to independently 

prioritize and select this project. Additionally, regarding the GSA 

labs.usa.gov project, 18F officials said the Associate Administrator for 

Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies directed 18F to 

provide assistance. 

If 18F consistently follows its process for prioritizing projects, it will be 

better positioned to apply resources to IT projects with the greatest need 

of improvement. 

its process for prioritizing projects in March 2015. 

Page 29 GA0-16-733T 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 23484.037

USDS Has Goals and a 

Process for Prioritizing 

Projects, but More Work 

Remains to Define 

Outcome-Oriented Goals, 

Measure Performance, 

and Implement Its Process 

for Prioritization 

As part of our ongoing work, we determined that while USDS has 

developed a process for prioritizing projects and program goals, it has not 

fully implemented important program management practices. 

Define Outcome-Oriented Goals and Measure Performance 

In response to our inquiry, in November 2015 USDS developed four goals 

to be achieved by December 2017: (1) recruit and place over 200 digital 

service experts in strategic roles at agencies and cultivate a continually 

growing pipeline of quality technical talent through USDS, 72 (2) 

measurably improve five to eight of the government's most important 

services, (3) begin the implementation of at least one outstanding 

common platform, and (4) increase the quality and quantity of technical 

vendors working with government and cultivate better buyers within 

government Additionally, USDS established a performance measure with 

a target for one of its goals. Specifically, it has a measure for its first goal 

as it plans to measure the extent to which it will hire 200 digital service 

experts by December 2017. 

To its credit, several of the goals appear to be outcome-oriented. For 

example, improving five to eight services is outcome-oriented in that it 

addresses results. However, USDS has not established performance 

measures or targets for its other goals. In addition, the program's first 

goal-recruit and place over 200 digital service experts in strategic roles 

at agencies and cultivate a continually growing pipeline of quality 

technical talent through USDS-does not appear to be outcome-oriented. 

Further, USDS has only measured actual results for one of its goals. 

Specifically, for the goal of placing digital service experts at agencies, as 

of May 2016, USDS officials stated that they had 152 digital service 

experts. However, USDS has not measured actual results for the other 

three goals. 

conclusion of our review in May 2016, the USDS Administrator stated that the 

group amended its original goal of placing 500 digital service experts at agencies to 200. 

The Administrator explained that the goal as originally written reflected staff from 18F and 

the Presidential Innovation Fellows, which are outside the scope of USDS. That official 

added that goal of placing 200 digital service experts addresses OMB resources as well 

as staff at agency digital service teams. 

Page 30 GA0-16-733T 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 23484.038

USDS officials provided examples of how they informally measure 

performance for the other three goals. For example, for the goal of 

measurably improving five to eight of the government's most important 

services, the USDS Administrator stated that approximately 1 million 

visitors viewed the Department of Education's College Scorecard website 

in the initial days after it was deployed. 

However, USDS has not documented these measures or the associated 

results to date. Until USDS ensures that all of its goals are outcomeoriented and establishes performance measures and targets for each 

goal, it will be difficult to hold the program accountable for results. 

Additionally, without an assessment of actual results, it is unclear what 

impact USDS's actions are having relative to its mission and whether 

investments in agency digital service teams are justified. 

Establish and Implement Procedures for Prioritizing Projects 

USDS has developed procedures and criteria for prioritizing projects. To 

identify projects to be considered, USDS is to use, among other sources, 

a June 2015 OMB report to Congress that identifies the 10 highest-priority 

federal IT projects in development" To prioritize projects USDS has the 

following three criteria, which are listed in their order of importance (1) 

What will do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the 

greatest need? (2) How cost-efficient will the USDS investment be? and 

(3) What potential exists to use or reuse a technological solution across 

the government? Using these criteria, USDS intends to create a list of all 

potential projects, to include their descriptions and information on 

resources needs. This list is to be used by USDS leadership to make 

decisions about which projects to pursue. 

73The explanatory statement for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2015, directed the Executive Office of the President to identify the 10 highest priority 

IT investment projects that are under development across federal agencies and report 

quarterly to Congressional committees on the status of these projects. 160 Gong. Rec. 

H9736 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2014). The explanatory statement for the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, includes a similar requirement; in particular, the statement calls 

for USDS to provide quarterly reports to Congress describing the status of current USDS 

teams and projects including the top 10 high priority programs, a list of USDS 

accomplishments, and agency project proposals. 161 Gong. Rec. H10137 (daily ed. Dec 

17, 2015). 

Page 31 GA0·16·733T 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 23484.039

To its credit, USDS created a list of all potential, ongoing, and completed 

projects, which included project descriptions and resource needs. 

Additionally, USDS has engaged with 6 of the 10 priority IT projects 

identified in the June 2015 report, 74 including the Department of Health 

and Human Services' healthcare.gov project and the Department of 

Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Transformation. Additionally, according to a USDS staff member, USDS 

considered the remaining 4 projects and decided not to engage with them 

to date. 

However, USDS has yet to develop a quarterly report on the 10 high 

priority programs, which it was directed by Congress to develop. 

Specifically, in December 2015, Congress modified its direction for the 

Executive Office of the President to develop the reports regarding the top 

1 0 high priority programs and specifically called for USDS to do so on a 

quarterly basis. 

According to a USDS staff member, a second top 10 high priority 

investment report has been drafted and will be finalized prior to the 

issuance of our report. However, the second top 10 report will address 

the former congressional direction for the Executive Office of the 

President to develop reports and OMB did not have a time frame for when 

USDS would begin to develop reports that address the modified 

congressional direction. Until USDS develops a time frame for the report 

on the top 10 programs, develops the report within that time frame and on 

a quarterly basis thereafter, and considers the programs identified in 

these reports as part of its prioritization process, USDS has less 

74The 10 projects identified in this report are Department of Commerce's Census 2020, 

Department of Defense's Healthcare Management System Modernization, Department of 

Education's Federal Student Aid Systems, Department of Health and Human Services' 

healthcare.gov, Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Se!Vices Transformation, Department of State's Consular Systems Modernization, 

Department of Veterans Affairs' Electronic Health Records Veterans Health Information 

Systems and Technology Architecture, Department of Veterans Affairs' Medical 

Appointment Scheduling System, Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans' Benefits 

Management System, and Social Security Administration's Service Modernization. The 

OMB Office of E~Government and Information Technology and USDS developed criteria 

to identify these programs, including (1) broad public impact, (2) criticality to agency 

mission, (3) large scale and/or cost, (4) national security or health and safety impact, (5) 

challenging past performance, (6) congressional interest, and (7) current or anticipated 

USDS engagement. 

Page 32 GA0-16-733T 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 23484.040

Agencies Have 

Begun to Establish 

Digital Service 

Teams, but OMB Has 

Not Taken Steps to 

Ensure CIO 

Coordination 

assurance that it will apply resources to the IT projects with the greatest 

need of improvement. 

To help agencies effectively deliver digital services, the President's 

Budget for fiscal year 2016 proposed funding for digital service teams at 

25 agencies-the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, as well as the 

National Archives and Records Administration. According to USDS policy, 

agencies are to, among other things, hire or designate an executive for 

managing their digital services teams. In addition, USDS has called for 

the deputy head of these agencies (or equivalent) to, among other things, 

agree to a charter with the USDS Administrator. 75 After agreeing to a 

charter, according to USDS, agencies can use USDS's hiring pipeline for 

digital service experts. 

Of the 25 agencies that requested funding to establish teams, OMB has 

established charters with 6 agencies for their digital service teams-the 

Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, the Treasury, State, and Veterans Affairs. The charters establish 

the executives for managing digital service teams and describe the 

reporting relationships between the team leaders and agency leadership. 

In addition, according to the Deputy USDS Administrator, USDS plans to 

establish charters with an additional 3 agencies by the end of the fiscal 

year-the Department of Education, the Social Security Administration, 

and Small Business Administration. For the remaining 16 agencies, as of 

April 2016, 8 agencies reported that they plan to establish digital service 

teams but have yet to establish charters with USDS-the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 

General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, National 

Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Office of 

Personnel Management. The other 8 agencies reported that they do not 

plan to establish digital service teams by September 2016 because they 

did not receive requested funding-the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, and Transportation; and 

USDS Franchise Agreement (Nov 2015) 

Page 33 GA0-16-733T 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 23484.041

the U.S. Agency for International Development Table 7 summarizes 

agency and OMB efforts to establish digital service teams. 

Table 7: Summary of Agency and the Office of Management and Budget Efforts to Establish Agency Digital Service Teams, as 

of April2016 

Established charter for Agencies with which OMB plans to 

digital service team establish a charter by September Agencies for which OMS has Agencies that do not plan to establish a 

with OMS 2016 yet to establish charters team by September 2016 

Department of 

Defense 

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services 

Department of 

Homeland 

Security 

Department of 

State 

Department of Education 

Small Business Administration 

Socia! Security Administration 

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

General Services 

Administration 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Energy 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Justice 

Department of Labor 

Department of Transportation 

U.S. Agency for International 

Development 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Department of the 

Treasury 

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration 

National Archives and 

Records Administration 

National Science 

Foundation 

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Office of Personnel 

Management 

Source· GAO analySIS of responses from agency offiCJals 1 GAQ,16-733T 

OMB Did Not Ensure That 

Agencies Defined the 

Relationship between the 

Digital Services Team and 

CIOs 

Congress has recognized the importance of having a strong agency CIO. 

In 1996, the Clinger-Cohen Act established the position of agency CIO 

and, among other things, gave these officials responsibility for IT 

investments, including IT acquisitions, monitoring the performance of IT 

programs, and advising the agency head whether to continue, modify, or 

terminate such programs. More recently, in December 2014, FITARA was 

enacted into law. It required most major executive branch agencies to 

ensure that the CIO has a significant role in the decision process for IT 

budgeting, as well as the management, governance, and oversight 

processes related to IT. The law also required that CIOs review and 

approve (1) all contracts for IT services associated with major IT 

investments prior to executing them and (2) the appointment of CIOs for 

any component within the agency. OMB also released guidance in June 

Page 34 GA0~16-733T 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 23484.042

2015 that reinforces the importance of agency CIOs and describes how 

agencies are to implement FITARA.76 Further, according to our prior work, 

leading organizations clearly define responsibilities and authorities 

governing the relationships between the CIO and other agency 

components that use IT. 77 

Only one of the four agencies we selected for review-the Department of 

Homeland Security--defined the relationship between the executive for 

managing the digital services team and the agency CIO. Specifically, the 

Department of Homeland Security established a charter for its digital 

services team, signed by both the Administrator of USDS and the Deputy 

Secretary, which outlines the reporting structure and authorities for the 

digital services executive, including the relationship with the CIO. For 

example, according to the charter, the digital services executive will report 

on a day-to-day basis to the CIO, but will also report directly to the Deputy 

Secretary. 

However, the other three agencies we reviewed-the Departments of 

Defense, State, and Veterans Affairs-have not defined the role of 

agency CIOs with regard to these teams. Although they have established 

charters for these teams, which describe the reporting structure between 

the digital services executive and senior agency leadership, 78 the charters 

do not describe the role of the agencies' CIOs and they have not 

documented this information elsewhere. 

The Department of Defense CIO and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Information and 

Technology told us that they work closely with their agency digital service 

team. However, while these officials have coordinated with the agency 

760MB, Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology, Memorandum M15-14 (Washington, D.C .. June 10, 2015). 

77 GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Role in 

Information Technology Management, GA0-11-364 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2011); 

and Library of Congress: Strong Leadership Needed to Address Serious Information 

Technology Management Weaknesses. GA0-15-315 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31. 2015). 

78The Director of the Defense Digital Service team is to report to the Chief of Staff, the 

head of the State Digital Service team is to report to the Deputy Secretary for 

Management and Resources, and the Veterans Affairs Digital Service Executive is to 

report to the Deputy Secretary. 

Page 35 GA0-16-733T 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 23484.043

digital service teams, the roles and responsibilities governing these 

relationships should be described to ensure that CIOs can carry out their 

statutory responsibilities. 

In contrast to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, the State 

CIO told us that he has had limited involvement in the department's digital 

services team. 79 He added that he believes it will be important for CIOs to 

be involved in agency digital services teams in order to sustain their 

efforts. 

In written comments, OMB acknowledged that the Department of State's 

charter does not describe the role of the CIO, but stated that the 

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs digital service team 

charters at least partially address the relationship between digital service 

teams and agency CIOs. Specifically, with respect to the Department of 

Defense, OMB stated that the charter calls for senior leadership, including 

the department's CIO, to ensure that digital service team projects proceed 

without delay80 Additionally, according to OMB, the charter for the 

Veterans Affairs digital service team calls for the team to be located in 

and supported by VA's CIO organization. However, these requirements 

do not address the specific responsibilities or authorities of the Veterans 

Affairs' CIO with regard to the digital service team. 

The lack of defined relationships is due, in large part, to the fact that 

USDS policy on digital service teams does not describe the expected 

relationship between agency CIOs and these teams. As previously 

mentioned, USDS policy calls for the digital service team leader to report 

directly to the head of the agency or its deputy; however, it does not 

describe the expected responsibilities and authorities governing the 

relationship of the CIO. 

Until OMB updates the USDS policy to clearly define the responsibilities 

and authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and digital 

79 According to the Department of State CIO, he has attended meetings pertaining to 

information security with the digital services team. 

800ur analysis did not find this statement in the Department of Defense charter. Instead, 

our analysis identified this requirement in a January 2015 memorandum regarding the 

Defense Digital Service from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretaries of the Military 

Departments. 

Page 36 GACJ.16-733T 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 23484.044

services teams and ensures that existing agency digital service team 

charters or other documentation reflect this policy, agency CIOs may not 

be effectively involved in the digital service teams. This is inconsistent 

with long-standing law, as well as the recently enacted FITARA, and 

OMB's guidance on CIO responsibilities, and may hinder the ability for 

CIOs to carry out their responsibilities for IT management of the projects 

undertaken by the digital service teams. 

In summary, by hiring technology and soflware development experts and 

using leading soflware development practices, both 18F and USDS have 

provided a variety of useful services to federal agencies. Most surveyed 

agency project managers that partnered with 18F and USDS were 

satisfied with the services provided. 

It is important for USDS and 18F to establish outcome-oriented goals, 

measure performance, and prioritize projects, particularly since these are 

valuable management tools that could aid in the transfer of knowledge 

when critical temporary staff leave these organizations and are replaced. 

To their credit, both 18F and USDS have developed several outcomeorientated goals and procedures for prioritizing projects. However, the 

goals and associated performance measures and targets were not always 

outcome-oriented. Additionally, they have not fully measured program 

performance. As a result, it will be difficult to hold the programs 

accountable for results. Moreover, without documented measures and 

results for USDS, it is unclear whether investments in agency digital 

service teams are justified. Further, by delaying the date for when it 

projects to fully recover its costs and not having associated performance 

measures, 18F is at risk of not having the information necessary for GSA 

leadership to determine whether to continue using the Acquisition 

Services Fund for 18F operations. Finally, USDS has yet to develop a 

quarterly report on the 10 high priority programs, meaning that it may be 

applying resources to investments that are not in the most need of their 

assistance. 

Although OMB has called for agencies to establish digital service teams, 

USDS policy does not require agencies to define the expected 

responsibilities and authorities governing the relationships between CIOs 

and digital service teams. To fulfill their statutory responsibilities, including 

as most recently enacted in FITARA and reinforced in OMB guidance, 

and ensure that CIOs have a significant role in the decision making 

process for projects undertaken by the digital service teams, such defined 

relationships are essential. 

Page 37 GA0-16-733T 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 23484.045

Accordingly, our draft report contains two planned recommendations to 

GSA and four to OMB. Specifically, the report recommends that GSA: 

ensure that goals and associated performance measures are 

outcome-oriented and that performance measures have targets, 

including 

performance measures and targets tied to fully recovering 

program costs; and 

goals, performance measures, and targets for how the program 

will achieve its mission after September 2016; and 

assess actual results for each performance measure. 

The draft report also includes recommendations for OMB to: 

ensure that all goals and associated performance measures are 

outcome-oriented and that performance measures have targets; 

assess actual results for each performance measure; 

establish a time frame for developing the report identifying the highest 

priority projects, develop the report within that established time frame 

and on a quarterly basis thereafter, and consider the highest priority 

IT projects as part of the established process for prioritizing projects; 

and 

update USDS policy to clearly define the responsibilities and 

authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and the digital 

services teams and require existing agency digital service teams to 

address this policy. In doing so, the Federal Chief Information Officer 

should ensure that this policy is aligned with relevant federal law and 

OMB guidance on CIO responsibilities and authorities. 

If GSA implements our recommendations, it will be better positioned to 

effectively measure performance. Additionally, OMS's implementation of 

our recommendations will position it to effectively measure performance, 

prioritize USDS resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in 

agency digital service teams. 

Chairmen Meadows and Hurd, Ranking Members Connolly and Kelly, 

and Members of the Committees, this completes my prepared statement. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this 

time. 

Page 38 GA0-16-733T 
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 23484.046

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(100907) 

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this testimony. please 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. 

Other key contributors include Nick Marinos (Assistant Director), Kavita 

Daitnarayan. Rebecca Eyler. Kaelin Kuhn, Jamelyn Payan, and Tina 

Torabi. 

Page 39 GA0-16·733T 
57 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Powner. 

Mr. Hodgkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF A.R. ‘‘TREY’’ HODGKINS 

Mr. HODGKINS. Good morning. 

Chairmen Hurd and Meadows, Ranking Members Kelly and 

Connolly, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives regarding the U.S. Digital Service 

and the General Services Administration’s 18F and their efforts to 

improve government’s approach to information technology. 

My name is Trey Hodgkins, and I am the senior vice president 

for the Public Sector at the Information Technology Industry Council where I manage our public-sector-facing practice called the IT 

Alliance for Public Sector, known as ITAPS. 

The tech sector has for some time been leading the focus on 

evolving the way the government acquires and manages information technologies, moving them from practices, processes, and protocols too often rendered in an era that predates the Internet to the 

21st century. Our members believe such a transformation is necessary to fully apply today’s technologies to government missions. 

Early in the current administration, industry helped develop 

goals to kick-start such an evolution. USDS and 18F embodies 

some of those pursuits, including bringing about cultural and process change. These include using agile instead of waterfall development methodologies, designing system space on end user needs in 

the context of the agency mission, and leveraging a 

multigenerational workforce. In many ways, 18F and USDS are positioned to be key enablers in the efforts to achieve a digital government. 

ITAPS regularly advocates for institutional disruption in the way 

the government buys and manages IT, and we embrace 18F and 

USDS as disrupters in the Federal space. They also manifest what 

the tech sector has been saying for some time: breaking out of the 

old processes allows innovation to flourish. Contractors do not have 

that same flexibility in today’s market with strict contract requirements, static funding cycles, and a rigid compliance structure. If 

contractors were to suggest innovative and perhaps time- and 

money-saving solutions, their bids would be deemed nonresponsive 

because they did not follow the requirements and essentially be 

disqualified. Both of these programs have demonstrated how innovation can be injected into government if you peel away the layers 

upon layers of rigid process now in place. Imagine what could be 

accomplished if we were to permit companies to think outside the 

box in the same fashion. 

We believe that these initiatives, like any new startup, faces pitfalls and obstacles. In the remainder of my comments, I will offer 

recommendations on areas to focus practices to adjust and outcomes to illuminate in order to sustain them into the next administration. 

People do not always embrace change, and disruption can also 

expose programs to risk. We believe the risk facing these programs 

can be grouped into three categories, which are people, management, and technology. And I provide greater detail on these in my 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

written testimony. These programs should address these risks and 

mitigate for them. 

Based on our discussions with vendors and government personnel, there is a general lack of clarity and understanding about 

these programs. What are they doing? What are they not? And how 

can they be expected to operate? This opaqueness has created a degree of uncertainty, concern, and suspicion. 

To address and counter these perceptions and to ensure that 

these programs can be sustained into the future, attention should 

immediately be paid to creating a very transparent and open operating environment. Furthermore, applying comprehensive metrics 

will provide oversight to ensure the interests of the taxpayers and 

to demonstrate that these programs are not wasteful of time and 

resources. 

The committee also included the formation of the Technology 

Transformation Service, TTS, in today’s discussion. As the operational arm of a list of OMB initiatives and policies, GSA needs to 

clearly explain how these new roles and responsibilities relate to 

their mission and to the broader industrial base and how and with 

whom they will engage. 

GSA should also clearly explain how the entity is to be funded, 

where their authorities and personnel come from, and whether 

these activities must be authorized by statute. Leaving these and 

other questions unaddressed will expose 18F and GSA itself to 

challenges from uninformed stakeholder communities. ITAPS believes that a number of adjustments should be made to the programs to best position them for a clear trajectory into the next administration. Each program should clarify their mission. 18F in 

particular has expanded the reach and scope of their activities and 

created a condition where 18F acts as both the buyer and the seller. This is a conflict of interest, and such authorities should not be 

added to their portfolio at this time. 

Both 18F and USDS should remain focused on the original delivery models. Both programs in the TTS should immediately embark 

on an effort to become transparent in their operations and to ensure that stakeholders have clarity of purpose for the programs and 

understand how they can engage. Further, we believe that until 

the recommended transparency can take hold and effective assessment and analysis can occur, GSA should postpone formalizing 

TTS. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Finally, both programs must find ways to effectively and robustly 

partner and not compete with new and existing government vendors to deliver better solutions. 

The technology industry wants to incubate a transformation in 

the Federal IT market that brings about new ways to fund, develop, procure, deliver, manage, and sustain innovative technology 

solutions. We support 18F and USDS and believe that they can enable elements of such a transformation. We also want this transformation to improve the technological experience for everyone: 

constituents and citizens, taxpayers, government employees, and 

vendors. ITAPS remains committed to working with our government partners to achieve such success. 

With that, I conclude my remarks, and I’m happy to address your 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hodgkins follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 23484.047

IT Alliance for Public Sector Testimony on 18F and U.S. Digital Service 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

June 10,2016 

Page2 

Introduction 

Chairmen Hurd and Meadows and Ranking Members Kelly and Connolly, thank you for the opportunity to share our 

perspectives regarding the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and the General Service Administration's (GSA) 18F and their 

efforts to improve government's approach to information technology. My name is Trey Hodgkins. I am the Senior 

Vice President, Public Sector, at the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), where I manage our public sector 

facing practice called the IT Alliance for Public Sector (ITAPS). 

!TAPS is an alliance composed of leading information technology (IT) companies building and integrating innovative 

technologies and solutions for the public sector market. With a focus on the federal, state, and local levels of 

government, as well as on educational institutions, !TAPS advocates for improved procurement policies and 

practices, while identifying business development opportunities and sharing market intelligence with our industry 

participants. Our parent organization, IT!, is the global voice of the tech sector, celebrating its lOOth year in 2016 as 

the premier advocacy and policy organization for the world's leading innovation companies. In both the U.S. and in 

countries around the world, ITI navigates the relationships between policymakers, companies, and nongovernmental organizations, providing creative solutions that advance the development and use of technology 

around the world. You can learn more about both by visiting www.itic.org and itaps.itic.org. 

The Tech Sector Supports Efforts to Identify New Ways of Procuring and Managing Federal Information 

T ethnology Assets 

For quite some time now, the tech sector has been leading the focus on evolving the way the government acquires 

and manages information technologies (IT), moving them from practices, processes, and protocols too often rooted 

in an era that pre~dates the internet, to the 2Pt Century. Such a transformation is necessary in order to fully apply 

today's technologies to government missions. 

Early in the current Administration, industry worked with the first Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) to develop 

recommendations to kick~start such an evolution presented in a report titled the Government Technology 

Ooportunitv for the 21st Centurv. which was a template for the Office of Management and Budget {OMB) 25-point 

Plan. Although pursued under different names, the same basic recommendations are still being implemented. 

USDS and 18F seem to embody some of those pursuits, including bringing about cultural and process change. 

Aligned with the cultural changes these recommendations proposed, 18F and USDS are using agile~ instead of 

waterfall- development methodologies, designing systems based on end-user needs in the context of the agency 

mission, and leveraging a multi-generational workforce. Regarding some of industry's process change 

recommendations, these groups are working to identify means to more appropriately apply the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (FAR} to technology transactions, enable rapid prototyping contracting and procurement opportunities, 

and map out options to move away from legacy systems. In some ways, l&F and USDS are positioned to be key 

enablers in these efforts to achieve a digital government. 

!TAPS is committed to working with government stakeholders to see these initiatives succeed now and into the next 

Administration as part of the overall effort to reform the identification, acquisition, investment and management of 

IT in the federal government. We believe, however, that these initiatives, like any new start~up, face pitfalls and 

obstacles that could increase the risk of failure in the long run and my comments are meant to offer 

recommendations on areas to focus, practices to adjust, and outcomes to illuminate in order to sustain them into 

the next Administration. 

Follow us on Twitter @ITAlliancePS I Learn more at itaps jtic org 

IT Alliance for Public Sector 111.01 K St. NW; Suite &io I Washington, DC 20005 
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 23484.048

IT Alliance for Public Sector Testimony on 18F and U.S. Digital Service 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

June 10, 2016 

Page 3 

18F and USDS Can Be Disrupters for Good 

ITAPS regularly argues that we need institutional disruption in the way the government buys and manages IT, and 

18F and USDS are positioned to be disrupters to help achieve that goal. They have the potential to bring cultural 

change and business process re-engineerlng to agencies that have struggled with change. They offer new ways to 

think about IT in a process-bound system, offer quick deployment of new ideas for agencies to incorporate into 

programs, and they can help build the organic IT skill set by transferring their knowledge to the career government 

workforce. They can also help identify and bring new government offerors into the market to increase competition, 

expand innovative solutions from existing players, and inject private sector perspective into solving government 

problems. 

USDS and 18F also manifest what the tech sector has been saying for some time- that if we could break out of the 

old processes, innovation can flourish, and the companies in the industrial base are prepared to deliver that right 

now. Evidence of this can be found in a blog post by USDS founder, Mikey Dickerson, here. In it, Mr. Dickerson 

talks about how USDS created a new job tool at the Department of Veterans Affairs and how they shaved both time 

and $14 million dollars off the project. But they did that by being permitted to think outside the box and outside 

the confines of the existing hide-bound acquisition processes. Contractors do not have that flexibility ln today's 

market with strict contract requirements, static funding cycles, and a rigid compliance culture. If contractors were 

to suggest innovative and perhaps time and money saving solutions under those circumstances, they would be 

disqualified in almost every competition because they did not follow the requirements. Both of these programs 

have demonstrated how innovation can be injected into the government if you peel away the layers upon layers of 

gunk that now corrode and distort the acquisition process. Imagine what we could accomplish in the government 

market if we were to permit all companies to think outside the box to solve government mission challenges. 

But people do not always embrace change, and disruption can also expose programs to the risks that could lead to 

failure, These categories of risk involve people, management and technology. 

the risk of bureaucratic atrophy if career employees are left with the impression that they've failed; 

the risk of alienating the workforce by not empowering them with enhanced skills through knowledge 

transfer to address long term IT challenges; 

• the risk of undermining workforce innovation by pitting generations against each other; 

Management 

• the risk of failure by giving people the impression they can "fix" a "broken" project; 

• the risk of failure to capitalize on existing institutional knowledge; 

the risk of unwanted oversight by giving appearances that the rules do not apply or process does not 

matter; 

the risk of alienating policy stakeholders by engaging in policy formulation in a way that seem self-serving; 

Technology 

the risk that non-18F and USDS IT programs are perceived as "non-innovative;" 

• the risk of alienating partners who can effectively scale solutions by insinuating that contractors are the 

problem 

• the risk of project failure because data is not created and maintained under the control of the CIO; 

and, the risk of threatening business models and product offerings by not following OMB guidance on tech 

neutrality. 

Follow us on Twitter @lTAUiancePS I Learn more at jtaps jttc.org 

IT Alliance for Public Sector 11101 K St. NW, Suite 610 I Washington, DC 20005 
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 23484.049

IT Alliance for Public Sector Testimony on 18F and U.S. Digital Service 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

June 10, 2016 

Page4 

!TAPS would like to see efforts to mitigate these risks as part of an approach to sustain these activities going 

forward. 

Transparency and Data Can Demonstrate Success 

Based on our discussions with vendors and government personnel, and on the availability of public records on their 

activities, there is a general lack of clarity and understanding about these programs; what they are, what they are 

not, and how they can be expected to operate. This opaqueness in the operations of these programs has created a 

degree of uncertainty, concern, and suspicion. For example, the activities of USDS and 18F are reported to be 

focused on assisting agencies and their career personnel in making better decisions about IT and IT investments. 

Instead, we have repeatedly been told that intervention by 18F and USDS is not a welcome experience, leaving 

agency and contractor personnel feeling that they have failed, and without any sense of shared knowledge or 

experience after the team departs. Moreover, from time~to~time, the apparent lack of institutional memory and 

understanding of the process by 18F and USDS personnel has led to skepticism of their utility. 

To address and counter these perceptions, and to better understand the programs and ensure that they can be 

sustained into the future, attention should immediately be paid to creating a very transparent and open operating 

environment. These new, transparent operating environments should provide: 

Specific and detailed information on all of their past and current orojects. Such data should be published on 

public dashboards or websites and provide a clear and full accounting of the effort; 

A detailed account of their hiring authorities and practices. including information demonstrating that they 

are ensuring there are no conflicts of interest inherent in the personnel they hire and how that might 

influence products and services chosen as part of solutions; 

Detailed information regarding their funding authorities and an accounting of the funds they have collected 

and expended; 

A detailed value assessment based on a comprehensive methodology that includes, not only benefits, but 

also all direct and indirect costs; 

Their procurement authorities and what thresholds apply; 

A dear statement of their adherence to the practice of tech neutrality in their search for solutions for 

agency customers; 

Clarity around the use of competition to select products and services for use both internally and externally 

as part of solutions; 

Demonstrated adherence to government standards and requirements for everything from procurement to 

security. 

While some may complain that requirements of this sort would constrain the intentionally unconstrained nature of 

these programs, comprehensive metrics, such as these, are the only yard stick the government currently has to 

assess the health of a program, to appropriately provide oversight to ensure the interests oft he taxpayers and to 

demonstrate that these programs are not wasteful of time and resources. 

Operations that Support their Activities 

18F is housed at the GSA and USDS is housed as part of the White House. Both are offshoots of the Presidential 

Innovation Fellows (PI F), also now housed at GSA. GSA has increasingly been directed to operationalize a number of 

Follow us on Twitter @ITAlliancePS I learn more at itaps.itic.ore' 

IT Alliance for Public Sector ]ll01 K St. NW, Suite 610 I Washington, DC 20005 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 23484.050

IT Alliance for Public Sector Testimony on 18F and U.S. Digital Service 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

June 10, 2016 

Page 5 

programs originating from policy pronouncements by OMS. GSA created a new service, called the Technology 

Transfer Service (TTS) to house 18F, the PIF and a variety of other activities. Unfortunately for these projects 

housed there, GSA and OMB did not socialize these plans with stakeholders and impacted parties, including within 

GSA, and the effort is left without a clearly identified purpose and stakeholders are unclear on shifting roles and 

responsibilities. To their credit, leadership from GSA is seeking to establish a dialogue and is reaching out to groups 

like !TAPS for feedback. 

Socialization and communications efforts by senior GSA leadership must address both internal and external 

stakeholder concerns. The internal concerns regard roles and responsibilities of personnel focused on IT, in 

particular the IT offered through the multitude of GSA contracting vehicles in the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) 

and the IT offered by 18F. Part of the announcement for the TTS included the provision of procurement authority 

for IT at TTS, something previously confined only to FAS at GSA. This apparent expansion of procurement authority 

has spawned a round of questions about the roles of the GSA workforce at FAS, how the new service fits into the 

current GSA model, how these services are intended to interact to drive a better experience for the government 

customer, and whether GSA is embarking on a previous centralization effort that failed and was repealed. 

The external communication must first address the vendor community, which is now unclear on where and how to 

invest to ensure their goods and services remain available to potential government customers. Is it with FAS, with 

TTS, or both? If it is with TTS, or both, how can vendors make those investments and to whom should they initiate 

discussions? 

Finally, as the operational arm of a list of OMB initiatives and policies, GSA needs to clearly explain how the new 

roles and responsibilities relate to the broader industry base, and where and with whom they should engage. GSA 

should also clearly explain and communicate other elements of their operation, like how the entity is to be funded, 

where will their authorities and personnel come from, and whether these activities must be authorized by statute. 

Leaving these and other questions unaddressed will expose the programs and GSA itself to challenges from 

disaffected stakeholder communities opposed to these changes. 

Right-Sizing 18F and USDS 

ITAPS believes that a number of adjustments should be made to the programs to best position them for a clear 

trajectory into the next Administration. 

Mission and Puroose 

First, as noted above, it is unclear that either program has developed a mission statement and clearly explained 

what their respective programs does and does not do. Each should clarify such a mission statement and share them 

with the public and stakeholders. Both programs should also take steps to ensure that their mission does not 

conflict or create redundancies with the missions and responsibilities of other agency officials, or with other 

programs that exist in government. 

~ 

18F, in particular, has expanded the reach and scope oftheir activities to include, among other things, direct 

procurement of technology and engagement in the state public sector market. Taking on direct procurement 

authorities is very different from helping a government customer understand requirements, identify market activity, 

conduct market research, and other forms of advising on an IT investment. The announcement of the creation of 

TTS included that FAS would be detailing procurement personnel to TTS for this purpose, but 18f and TTS have no 

Follow us on Twitter @ITAlliancePS I learn more at itaps.itic oq: 

IT Alliance for Public Sector 11101 K St. NW, Suite 610 1 Washington, DC 20005 
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 23484.051

IT Alliance for Public Sector Testimony on 18F and U.S. Digital Service 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

June 10, 2016 

Page6 

inherent acquisition experience or knowledge and taking on this responsibility clearly establishes a duplication and 

possible conflict with the procurement responsibilities of other government agencies and activities, including GSA 

itself. Further, creating a condition where 18F acts as both the buyer and the seller is a conflict of interest and 

should be avoided. As such, these authorities should not be added to their portfolio. likewise, because it is unclear 

that the program has established a sustainable level of success in the federal market, it is unclear why expanding 

into a far more challenging and diverse, multi-jurisdictional marketplace is not a diversion of resources and focus 

from the federal efforts. 18F should remain focused on their original delivery model of user~centric development of 

digital and web services, and should forego other activities that are redundant and duplicative and have the 

potential to become a quagmire of varying jurisdictional challenges. 

Transparency 

As noted above, it is our recommendation that 18F and USDS should immediately embark on an effort to bring 

needed transparency to their operations and to ensure that all interested stakeholders have clarity of purpose for 

the program and understand how they can engage. 

A Pause 

Until the recommended transparency can take hold and stakeholders and oversight entities can effectively assess 

and analyze the activities, including direct and indirect costs and the value the programs deliver, the Administration 

should postpone formalizing TTS at GSA. Such a pause would better ensure that these programs, their activities and 

the value they can deliver are best positioned for a Presidential transition and sustainment into the next 

Administration. 

Partnership 

Both of these activities must find a way to effectively and robustly partner, and not compete, with new AND existing 

government vendors to deliver better solutions. The government industrial base includes a multitude of talented 

and innovative companies that can and do deliver cutting-edge capabilities on a daily basis. Both programs should 

share best practices on how government can unlock this potential. Also important is the fact that the existing 

government vendor base understands, and has made an investment in, compliance with the myriad of governmentunique requirements and can be a bridge over these government barriers as partners with new non~traditional 

companies. 

Change is Needed for Success 

According to press reports at the time, USDS was begun in the wake of the failure of the Healthcare.gov website as 

a way to capture the technology talent that was assembled to correct that project and direct it to other technology 

problems within federal government missions, and 18F was a government start-up that would bring a user-centric 

focus for the development of digital and web services. From the beginning, it was always difficult to discern exactly 

what the mission and objectives for each of these entities was, and time has not helped bring them into focus. 

Instead, both missions remain vague and their activities opaque, and that vagueness and opaqueness is contributing 

to an inability to gauge success. It has also never been clear to stakeholder audiences where these activities fit 

alongside the federal government's technology community and the myriad community of vendors who offer 

services that are the same, or very similar to, what both entities claim as their purview. tn other words, it is hard to 

tell how these activities are different from what is already being done, and if they are demonstrably better. So far, 

it is just different. 

Follow us on Twitter @ITAlliancePS I Learn more at jtaps jtic.org 

IT Alliance for Public Sector 11101 K St. NW, Suite 610 I Washington, DC 20005 
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 23484.052

IT Alliance for Public Sector Testimony on 18F and U.S. Digital Service 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

June 10, 2016 

Page 7 

More important to this conversation is that this lack of clarity makes it hard to see these programs surviving a 

Presidential transition. Start~ups, like these, without clear definition, mission, and sound funding, have a much 

more difficult time in an environment where priorities are shifting and agencies are recasting themselves for new 

political leadership. If the value USDS and 18F can bring to this technology transformation is to survive the 

Presidential transition, changes have to occur in both programs to clearly define their mission and their place in the 

broader federal technology landscape. Maintaining business as usual in these programs, instead of implementing 

needed transparency and developing comprehensive data to demonstrate these activities offer a path to a better 

federal technology environment would not position them well for future success. 

The technology industry wants to incubate a transformation in the federal IT market that brings about new ways to 

fund, develop, procure, deliver, manage, and sustain innovative technology solutions. It also wants this 

transformation to improve the technological experience for everyone- constituents and citizens, taxpayers, 

government employees, and vendors. !TAPS remains committed to working with our government partners to see 

that transformation succeed, including sustaining a focus on these objectives into the next Administration. 

Follow us on Twitter @ITAlliancePS J.learn more at itaps itic.or~: 

IT Alliance for Public Sector 11101 K St. NW, Suite 610 1 Washington, DC 20005 
66 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LeDuc, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LEDUC 

Mr. LEDUC. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman Hurd, 

Chairman Meadows, and Ranking Member Kelly. On behalf of the 

Software & Information Industry Association, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on oversight of the U.S. Digital Service 

and 18F. 

SIIA is the principal trade association for the software and digital content industries. SIIA commends the Obama administration 

for its work to update and enhance the Federal Government IT 

framework, which has strived to evolve Federal IT to become more 

modular, agile, and cloud-focused, and we support much of the core 

missions of both the USDS and 18F to help agencies buy and share 

efficient and easy-to-use digital services. 

But we have reservations with respect to several aspects of the 

18F program. 

First, 18F’s focus on ‘‘build custom’’ departs from the longstanding reliance on a ‘‘buy, not build’’ IT procurement policy. The 

‘‘buy, not build’’ or commercial off-the-shelf, COTS, first approach 

is a longstanding critical proponent of Federal IT policy. This approach is underscored in the revised Circular A–130 and sharedservices policies put forward by this administration. 

Choosing vendor-supported solutions recognizes that agencies 

often lack and are challenged to maintain consistent and necessary 

IT management staff. They also benefit from economies of scale, 

among other advantages. When choosing vendor-supported off-theshelf solutions, vendors are in the best position, working with their 

agency customers, to provide relevant updates, assurances of security and performance. However, 18F is focusing on a ‘‘build custom’’ 

approach to develop new solutions that are likely to require sustained, meaningful, and experienced support plans, which are not 

necessarily available as part of the solutions provided by 18F. The 

importance of ongoing support for agency solutions cannot be overstated, and agencies cannot afford for this to be overlooked. 

Competition from 18F can only be expected to grow stronger over 

time for private IT vendors, particularly affecting small businesses. 

Second, 18F has the ability to operate outside of the traditional 

procurement process with the dual role of design agency procurements and to compete for the opportunity to provide the solutions 

without sufficient transparency and oversight. 18F combines policymaking functions, operations, and promotion of their own products 

and services sales. This is an area where there are many questions 

about the operation of 18F and not many answers. 

It appears that 18F could be deployed to design acquisition plans 

and RFPs and then have an opportunity to respond to that RFP, 

essentially as a sole-source consultancy. This end result is not likely to achieve the best value for agencies, and it can ignore innovative ideas from the government—outside the government. 

Private sector IT solution providers doing business with Federal 

agencies must demonstrate their compliance with critical security 

requirements such as business security certifications or the often 

onerous Federal approval process. 18F should face no less rigorous 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

standards and scrutiny and not be prioritized over offerings because of its address at 18th and F Street. 

Additionally, a particular concern to this committee mentioned 

by Mr. Powner earlier, the risk is that 18F could negate the steps 

taken to establish appropriate agency CIO oversight established in 

FITARA. 

Third, 18F must be required to cover its costs in offering agency 

IT services, but transparency is currently lacking in this area as 

well. 18F should be required to provide a detailed assessment of 

services provided as well as revenues and expenses to demonstrate 

whether they are covering costs. And if they are not, they should 

be required to provide a plan for cost recovery in the near future. 

Without a sufficient transparency mechanism in this area, it is 

difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between 18F services and the private sector services. 

Fourth, the unanswered questions and lack of transparency are 

particularly concerning given the expansion and recent GSA reorganization of 18F. 18F launched in March 2014, as we know, as a 

15-person team of innovators and has grown today to a total of 183 

personnel across four nationwide offices. We are concerned the administration is moving very quickly to embed and make permanent 

the 18F program without seeking input from Congress or working 

with other agencies and without addressing the issues we have 

identified. 

As an internal government IT consulting service, 18F should undergo the traditional oversight and scrutiny by both Congress and 

the administration to ensure that it will stay within a well-defined 

designated lane. 

In closing, following our three recommendations, we offer to help 

guide 18F towards the well-intended goals of the organization: 

first, greater transparency on costs and process; second, adherence 

to the current ‘‘buy first’’ approach of commercial off-the-shelf products, consistent with Federal Government IT policy; and, third, a 

requirement to function by the same rules as other IT vendors, 

needing to provide for the same level of scrutiny and comparisons 

on cost. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 

forward to answering any of your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. LeDuc follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 23484.053

Chairman Hurd and Chairman Meadows, Ranking Members Kelly and Connolly, and 

members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Software and Information Industry 

Association (SIIA), thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today to discuss 18F 

and U.S. Digital Service (USDS) Oversight. 

The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) is the principal trade association for 

the software and digital information industries. The more than 700 software companies, 

data and analytics firms, information service companies, and digital publishers that make 

up our membership serve nearly every segment of society, including business, education, 

government, healthcare and consumers. As leaders in the global market for software and 

information products and services, they are drivers of innovation and economic strengthsoftware alone contributes $425 billion to the U.S. economy and directly employs 2.5 

million workers and supports millions of other jobs. 

Introduction 

SIIA Commends the Obama Administration for its work to update and enhance the Federal 

Government IT Framework, which has strived to evolve federal IT to a more modular, agile, 

cloud-focused approach, and we support much of the core mission of both the USDS and 

18F. 

For many years, SIIA has been a strong supporter of the Obama Administration's efforts to 

modernize federal IT. From early initiatives to open Federal data, to having federal 

agencies use, buy and share cutting-edge solutions, and continue the significant progress 

we have seen over recent years to enhance the way government uses technology to serve 

the American public. 

SIIA supports the goals of 18F to help agencies buy, and share efficient and easy-to-use 

digital services. For instance, SIIA supports 18F's core objectives and efforts to take a 

flexible, customer-centric approach, where federal IT acquisitions can be faster, cheaper, 

and produce better results. 18F is potentially well suited to help agency customers identify 

and use innovative technology, where they can apply technical advice to help agencies 

develop new requests for quotation for IT services. 

For instance, 18F is well served to work with federal agencies to help write agile, modular, 

and user-centered design into agency requests for quotations, the development of a 

marketplace for Federal agencies to buy IT services using modern techniques, as well as 

their work with agencies to provide data sets for the public to search, understand, and 

share government data. 

These are just a few examples of how 18F is able to help federal agencies through its 

innovative, customer-centric approach. However, we also have several questions and 

concerns about 18F, such as 18F's "build custom" IT approach, their ability to operate 

outside of the traditional procurement process, the lack of transparency surrounding cost 

2 
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 23484.054

coverage and the recent reorganization of 18F within the Technology Transformation 

Service (TTS). These questions and concerns are highlighted below, along with 

recommendations to help guide 18F towards the well-intended goals of the organization. 

1. 18F's focus on "build custom" departs from the longstanding reliance on a "buy, not 

build" IT procurement policy, presenting both unnecessary competition with the 

private sector and the risk of a legacy of "government-off-the-shelf solutions." 

At the May 25th hearing before this Committee on Legacy IT, Federal CIO Tony Scott 

reiterated the Administration's commitment to rely on the "buy, not build" approach, 

saying, "we're encouraging the buying of services rather than developing them 

themselves." 

This "buy, not build," or COTS-first approach is a long-standing, critical component of 

Federal IT policy. For instance, the Administration's Shared Services Strategy 

emphasized the key role of commercial organizations in providing the actual IT shared 

service to agencies, in the context of growing use of commodity IT, modularity, and 

"open solutions," while reducing duplicative support. The issue goes deeper than that 

one policy, however. As the update to Circular A-130 clearly puts it to agencies, "All IT 

systems and services operate only vendor-supported solutions, and planning budgeting 

activities incorporate migration planning and resourcing to accomplish this 

requirement."1 Why? As OMB has said consistently, choosing a vendor-supported 

solution avoids the risk of agencies pursuing "government-off-the-shelf" solutions, and 

recognizes that agencies often lack (and are challenged to maintain) consistent and 

necessary IT management staff. They also benefit from economies of scale, among 

other advantages, when choosing vendor-supported commercial-off-the-shelf 

solutions. Vendors-whether the IT product is proprietary or open source-are in the 

best position, working with their agencies customers, to provide relevant updates, 

assurances of security, and performance. 

However, 18F has taken a different fork in the path, focusing on a "build custom" 

approach to develop new solutions that are likely to require sustained, meaningful and 

experienced support plans, which are not necessarily available as part of solutions 

provided by 18F. The importance of ongoing support for agency solutions cannot be 

overstated, and agencies cannot afford for it to be overlooked. 

As a result, U.S. technology companies face direct competition from a governmentbacked entity. Private sector providers, who in many cases may be capable of 

providing a better, more secure product at a cheaper price, run the risk of being 

effectively excluded from 18F initiatives. Competition from 18F can only be expected 

to grow stronger over time, and this particularly affects small businesses. 

1 OMB. Proposed update to Circular No. A-130. Managing Information os a Strategic Resource. Oct. 21, 2015. 

3 
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 23484.055

Additionally, 18F expanded its consulting and acquisition services earlier this year to 

assist federal agencies that provide grants to state and local programs, essentially 

offering the same consulting and acquisition services to states and local governments 

as it does to federal agencies. This expansion of services beyond the Federal 

Government raises a serious question about the role of the Federal Government in 

picking technology winners and losers, and in some cases is likely to present 

competition with private sector vendors who already invest heavily in the state and 

local market. 

2. 18F has the ability to operate outside of the traditional procurement process, with a 

dual role to design agency procurements, and to compete for the opportunity to 

provide agency solutions, without sufficient transparency and oversight. 

18f has largely been marketed as a solution to agencies looking to update and 

modernize their outdated IT, particularly where agencies are hamstrung by outdated 

procurement policies. In their own terms, 18F has been characterized as "passionate 

about 'hacking' bureaucracy to drive efficiency, transparency, and savings for 

government agencies." 2 

As I said at the outset, the objectives to modernize IT to more modular, citizen-centric 

solutions, are widely shared. But in many cases it is the policies themselves that are in 

need of fixing, rather than a new federal consulting entity with the ability to sidestep 

(or interpret as convenient) the regulations and policies that IT vendors are forced to 

comply with. 

Perhaps most concerning, 18F combines policy-making functions, operations and 

promotion of their own product and service sales. As currently structured, 18F has a 

unique role working alongside agencies to help them craft RFPs and purchase 

agreements. This is an area where there are many questions about the operation of 

18F and not many answers due to the lack of transparency around 18F to date. 

Indeed, it appears that 18F could be deployed to design acquisition plans and RFP's, 

and then have an opportunity to respond, often before the RFP's may even be 

announced. There appear to be no restrictions on 18F from being engaged by agencies 

to address specific problems with IT projects, essentially a sole source consultancy. 

This multi-purpose structure enables 18F to both influence the expansion of their own 

services while charging the agency who is paying for these 18F implementation 

services, ultimately eliminating competition by self-selecting their own people and 

2 18F. "Hello, world! We ore 18F." March 19, 2014. 

4 
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 23484.056

mapping their own capabilities and technology preferences to an agency's digital 

delivery goals. The end result is not likely to achieve the best value for agencies, and it 

ignores innovate ideas from outside government. 

Private sector IT solutions providers doing business with federal agencies must 

demonstrate their compliance with critical security requirements, such as FISMA 

security certifications or the often onerous Fed RAMP approval process. For instance, 

the Federal Government has moved to ensure that federal cloud service providers are 

required to obtain Fed RAMP certification in order to compete for government 

business. The Fed RAMP certification process is long and expensive for cloud service 

providers (CSPs) averaging more than 12 months and costing millions of dollars. 

But there is a lack of clarity, and potential oversight, around 18F's development and 

offering of cloud services as a CSP. Their Platform as a Service (PaaS) solution, 

Cloud.gov, was recently announced as "Fed RAMP Ready," a step that indicates a CSP is 

ready for agency or Fed RAMP Program Management Office (PMO) detailed reviews 

required to become "Fed RAMP Compliant" and gives agencies the confidence that the 

SSP documentation meets the Fed RAMP PMO's quality and security standards that are 

necessary to initiate the assessment and authorization process with the Joint 

Authorization Board (JAB). 3 Given the substantial challenge the FedRAMP approval 

process poses to private sector CSPs, the review of Cloud.gov should be an 

independent process, no less rigorous and not be prioritized over private offerings 

because of the proximity and close working relationship of 18F and Fed RAMP within 

GSA. 

There is also the broader question of why 18F chose to create Cloud.gov when there 

are already other commercial-off-the-shelf platforms available? According to the 

Cloud.gov project lead, "18F is going to be a model CSP in the federal space," and 

"Cioud.gov is only part of the equation."4 

Additionally, of particular concern for this Committee is the risk that 18F could negate 

the steps taken to establish appropriate agency CIO oversight established in the 

Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA). As directed by OMB, 

FITARA seeks to "Strengthen the agency CIO's accountability for the agency's IT cost, 

schedule, performance, and security" and establish "common baselines" for roles, 

responsibilities and authorities of agency CIOs. 5 Yet, in many respects, it appears that 

18F operates outside these parameters, ones which this Committee spent years 

defining and establishing through statute. 

3 Fretwell. "Cioud.gov gets Fed RAMP ready." Govfresh. June S'h, 2016 4 1bid. 

5 OMB. "Memorandum for Heads of Executive Deroatments and Agencies." Management and Oversight of 

Federal Information. June, 2015 

5 
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 23484.057

3. 18F must be required to cover its costs in offering agencies IT services, but 

transparency is currently lacking in this area. 

Services provided by 18F, which are provided on a fee-for-service basis, charged to 

agency customers, not only pose direct competition with existing private sector 

services, but they are currently lacking transparency on whether costs are fully 

recovered. In the absence of transparency in this area, 18F is operating outside of 

parameters that are required for private sector vendors doing business with federal 

agencies. 18F should be required to provide detailed assessment of services provided, 

as well as revenues and expenses to demonstrate whether they are covering costsand if not, they should be required to provide a plan for cost recovery in the near 

future. The private sector IT providers with which 18F competes with are forced to 

document their cost and expenses and ultimately must cover their costs. 

Without sufficient transparency in this area, it is difficult to make an apples-to-apples 

comparison between 18F's services and private sector entities who provide similar 

solutions. 

4. The unanswered questions and lack of transparency are particularly concerning given 

the expansion and recent GSA reorganization of lSF. 

18F launched in March 2014 as a 15-person team of innovators, designers and 

developers recruited from the private sector to improve the government's digital 

services. Since then, the unit has grown to a total of 183 personnel across four offices 

nationwide. 

The Administration is moving to embed and make permanent the 18F program quickly, 

without seeking input from Congress or working with other agencies, and without 

addressing the issues identified above. Just last month, GSA announced the creation of 

the TTS, a new unit composed of 18F, the Office of Citizen Services and Innovative 

Technologies and the Presidential Innovation Fellows program.6 The new organization 

was described by GSA Administrator Denise Turner Roth as a "launchpad to set us up 

for the next big expedition for the federal government in technology." 

This is highly concerning given the unanswered questions about process, cost and 

competition. 18F should undergo the traditional oversight and scrutiny by both 

Congress and the Administration to ensure that 18F will stay within a well-defined, 

designated lane as an internal government IT consulting service. 

Further - 18F, the Office of Citizen Services, USDS & PIF - are serving as a model for 

agencies throughout the government. There is an opportunity to provide oversight, 

6 Moore. "GSA Announces New Governmentwide Tech Unit that will House 18F." Nextgov. May, 2016 

6 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 23484.058

and perhaps give direction to how these organizations should be implemented and 

managed. 

Conclusion 

There is no question the federal government needs to update and modernize systems, and 

there is value for the Government to maintain a cadre of technical experts who can assist 

agencies in developing their plans and 'common baselines', but these objectives should not 

come at the cost of competing with private sector providers who operate in a competitive 

environment. Nor should 18F be able to operate without adequate transparency and 

oversight. 

The establishment of a federal digitization team is a good idea for agencies, but there is an 

open question about the boundaries and the necessary oversight and the ability to ensure 

that 18F does not in fact raise costs to the Government or result in products that lack 

sufficient support. GSA should be able to better explain the value of an internal 

government consulting service and product sales function that operates through a 

competitive fee-for-service business model. 

In closing, following are three key requirements to help guide 18F towards the wellintended goals of the organization: 

• Greater transparency on cost and process, 

• Adherence to the current "buy first" approach of commercial-off-the-shelf 

products, consistent with Federal government IT policy, 

• Requirement to function by the same rules as other IT vendors, needing to provide 

for the same level of scrutiny and completion on costs. 

7 
74 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. LeDuc. 

I would like to now recognize Mr. Connolly for his opening remarks. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I’m sorry I’m late. Mr. Meadows and I were in a postal reform working group meeting for the committee. 

This hearing is exactly the type of oversight, it seems to me, that 

we can agree on on a bipartisan basis. Today’s hearing gives us the 

opportunity to hear from the administration about two programs 

that are playing an important role in the administration’s efforts 

to modernize and improve IT, Federal IT. The Federal Government spent, of course, $80 billion in IT in 

2015. Mr. Powner, you testified before the full committee just 2 

weeks ago that agencies are spending up to 70, 75 percent of that 

money on legacy IT systems. GAO’s high-risk list includes management of IT acquisitions and operations. Agencies need to modernize 

their systems and their way of thinking about IT investments. The 

creation of the U.S. Digital Service and 18F in 2014 brought some 

critical focus to those issues. 

In 2014, Congress passed, of course, the FITARA legislation, the 

Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, better 

known Issa-Connolly. One of the most important changes of that 

bill was to provide agency CIOs with the authority to make spending decisions related to IT in a more streamlined and efficient manner. The law also requires CIOs to certify progress on ongoing IT 

investments. Congress gave CIOs that authority and responsibility 

for a reason. It’s imperative that 18F and Digital Services coordinate with CIOs to ensure that the agencies have a sense of accountability for their investment decisions and also ensure agencies 

adopt and institutionalize best practices and share them. 

There are many success stories over the last 2 years that we look 

forward to, Ms. Chrousos and Mr. Dickerson highlighted in their 

testimony. It was refreshing to see that the GAO found positive 

customer satisfaction with both 18F and Digital Service. 

I’m proud to cosponsor the Information Technology Modernization Act, which would create a revolving fund for updating outdated IT systems under the bill. 18F would use its expertise to ensure that agencies have used best practices such as agile development. 

As Mr. Powner testifies today, there are some areas where both 

18F and the U.S. Digital Service can improve and should improve 

their communications, transparency, coordination, and outreach. I 

know those are concerns in the private sector, which looks at 18F 

maybe with a mixed and jaundiced eye. 

GAO found in its review of these programs that the U.S. Digital 

Service and agencies could do a better job of incorporating the 

agency CIO into the work of Digital Service terms. We are interested in hearing from the witnesses today how 18F and the Digital 

Service can improve communication with stakeholders and work 

with the private sector to ensure that the work of those programs 

is transparent and that the Federal IT portfolio is as effective and 

as efficient as possible. 

I appreciate the commitment the employees of 18F and Digital 

Service have made to this government. They are bringing the lesVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:17 May 16, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\23484.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

sons they have learned from the companies and organizations they 

come from to improve Federal IT management procurement. Just 

as technology has led to private sector job growth, it can also inspire Federal Government recruitment of the best and the brightest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

Mr. HURD. I’d like to now start our questioning portion of this 

event. And we’re going to start with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Farenthold. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Chairman Hurd. 

As a former computer consultant and Web designer, I guess, on 

a very small scale, I did some of what 18F and USDS did. So it’s 

an issue that I’m passionate about. 

I do want to start off with the ‘‘buy, not build.’’ Again, even from 

my days in the ’90s, it was always cheaper to buy, not build. 

Mr. LeDuc criticized 18F for not—for building not buying. And 

I wanted to give Ms. Chrousos 30 seconds if she wanted to respond 

to that. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that. 

One thing that was clearly highlighted in the testimony of my 

fellow witnesses is that we haven’t done a very good job of communicating what 18F does. Over the last 2 years, we have been very 

responsive to our customer agencies, and we absolutely take a buyfirst approach. We have one service line that builds out prototypes 

and lite Web services, but that’s done not in competition with the 

private sector but as a way to showcase modern methodologies and 

practices to agencies. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Now, you indicated you came out of the private 

sector and into government. I want to ask another broad, general 

question here. There’s a very different mindset, especially in the 

startup world in California or even working in a big company like 

Google, you know, where you have these big campuses with bicycles everywhere and free meals. How does the government compete 

for IT talent against that? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. In one word, it’s patriotism. So all of the people 

that come and join us are very mission-oriented, and they are leaving behind cushier environments, let’s say, to come and work on 

projects that impact the American people. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And you look at the technology and startup 

world, and there’s a mentality of risk taking, and there’s a huge 

push—the buzz word is ‘‘disruption.’’ You change, fundamentally, 

the way things are done. 

Now, obviously, the government is not in a position to take risks. 

And I think you can do technology without risks. Banks indicated 

that. I can do my banking on my phone now and feel relatively safe 

about it. 

But how do you bring into the government a culture of disruption 

if that’s how we really are going to fundamentally transform how 

things are done? And I’ll let you answer that, Ms. Chrousos, and 

then I’d also like to hear from Mr. LeDuc on that. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Thank you. I think that’s the delicate balance 

that we’re always trying to balance. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

How do you bring innovation but still make sure that it complies 

with all of the government policy is something that I personally 

think about every day as the Commissioner of Technology Service 

and as I try and mature my organization. 

I think 18F faces this. The Digital Service team and agencies 

face this. The innovation labs and agencies face this. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And so do you think that’s the reason it takes 

so long to get something done in government IT? Is that the primary reason? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. The balance? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Yeah. Trying to—yeah, basically that. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Yeah. I believe it’s a delicate balance. Even in 

the private sector, large companies in the private sector haven’t figured that out either. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. 

Mr. LeDuc did you want to—I’m sorry to rush you. I only have 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LEDUC. No. I mean, I think that makes a lot of sense. We 

are supportive of the goals of 18F, you know, and their approach 

to, as they say, hack the bureaucracy. You know, that’s necessary 

in many areas, and we want to see more innovation, and we want 

to see more small startups brought in. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. Great. 

And then, so, Mr. Dickerson, Ms. Chrousos, can you each tell me 

what you consider to be your group’s biggest success story? You 

know, just 10, 15 seconds there. 

Mr. DICKERSON. Sure. It’s very difficult to pick just one, but one 

success story that we’re proud is of vets.gov, which is a unified experience where veterans can get access to services that they need. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. What about 18F? What do y’all consider your 

biggest success? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Our biggest success is the Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement, which is bringing in agile talent from the private 

sector into government. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So, Mr. Dickerson, you talked about vets.gov. 

Your top 10 priorities include electronic health records for Veterans 

Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture—that’s 

VistA—a Medical Appointment Scheduling System, and Veterans 

Benefit Management System. 

I have had countless hearings, and my number one source of 

complaints from my constituents is poor service from the VA, many 

of which are IT related. Even—you know, even to the point of suicide calls going to voicemail. Where are we going on that? Why 

can’t we get that done faster? And what are y’all doing to fix it? 

Mr. DICKERSON. Thank you. We are completely sympathetic and 

also feel just as acutely as you do the opportunities for improvement in all those services at the VA. 

I have a small focus team at the VA as we speak today working 

on a few targeted opportunities in the service space. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. That doesn’t sound like it’s big and bold 

enough to solve the problem. So I would urge you to—is 18F doing 

anything with the VA at this point? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

Ms. CHROUSOS. We had worked in partnership with the VA Digital Service team about a year ago, and we worked on a small component of their bigger picture. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, I think we need to sit down 

with the VA and you guys to see if we can get y’all working together. Because, again, I think the poor performance of the VA is 

a national disgrace. It needs to be addressed. 

I have a lot more I could do, but there are a lot of people here, 

and I am out of time, so I’ll yield back. 

Mr. HURD. I would like to recognize the ranking member, Ms. 

Kelly, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Two weeks ago, the full committee held a hearing on the Federal 

Government’s use of outdated legacy IT systems. We learned that 

the Federal Government spent about 80 million on IT last year, 

most of which was spent on these old systems. 

Clearly, we need to find a better path forward, and that’s where 

the Digital Service and 18F come in. 

Mr. LeDuc, in your written statement you said, and I quote: ‘‘We 

support much of the core mission of the both USDS and 18F.’’ 

What role do you think the Digital Service and 18F can play in 

the Obama administration’s efforts to modernize Federal IT? 

Mr. LEDUC. Thank you for that question. 

As I mentioned, we’re very supportive of the different thought 

process that 18F brings and their goal bringing in innovative IT 

companies, small IT businesses, and integrating that into agency 

solutions, working alongside of agencies to help them in designing 

their procurements and deciding what types of technology they 

need. We think 18F can be particularly helpful in that role, consulting two agencies to help them obtain the right technology. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Does SIIA believe that the Digital Service and 

18F are having an overall positive impact on modernizing the IT 

acquisition process? 

Mr. LEDUC. Yes. I think we could say, you know, overall positive. 

But, as I mentioned in my testimony, we just want to make sure 

that, you know, it stays within—you know, a well-functioning lane 

to assist the agencies. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Hodgkins, in your written statement, you said, and I quote: 

‘‘In some ways, 18F and USDS are positioned to be key enablers 

in these efforts to achieve a digital government.’’ In what ways do 

you think the Digital Service and 18F can enable the Federal Government to move into the digital age? 

Mr. HODGKINS. Well, they are already serving as disrupters, as 

we just discussed, around the cultural change that is necessary. We 

actually had to change the thought process of the bureaucracies 

and how they look at technology, and then that translates into how 

they buy it. And they are a leading edge on many of the elements 

of those different equations that have to be changed before we can 

fully incorporate technologies. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Does ITAPS believe that the Digital Service and 18F are having 

an overall positive effect on modernizing the IT acquisition? It is 

the same question. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

Mr. HODGKINS. I think in certain areas, yes. I think that, in 

some areas, as we discussed, it’s hard to tell because of the opaqueness of some of the things they are doing. And then there’s still a 

lot of stuff left on the table that we can all continue to focus on. 

Ms. KELLY. Thanks. 

Ms. Chrousos, 18F’s mission has always been to promote efficiency and innovation in the way Federal Government approaches 

IT. Can you provide a few examples of how the agile development 

is leading to more innovation and cost savings in government? I 

know you did one, but we want more than one. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. We want more than one. That’s wonderful. 

We worked on the veterans—sorry. We worked on the Department of Education’s College Scorecard, which—which unleashed 25 

years of data that had never been seen before by the public. Today, 

it’s being used by people going into college to make informed decisions about both what college they go to from an academic perspective but also how much they spend on college from a budgetary perspective. 

That was an example—that was a very small lite build that took 

over—that took 3 months, and it showcased agile development, 

user-centered design, open data, the usage of APIs to the Department of Education, allowing them to get a better idea of what that 

looks like so that when they go out to vendors and the procurement 

community, they can actually talk about these things and weave 

that into their RFPs. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. And what are some of the steps you are taking 

to advance agile development across the government? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. We showcase agile methodologies with lite prototypes and discovery sprints when we work with agencies hand in 

hand. That’s when an agency hasn’t done it before. So we absorb 

that first-mover risk of taking a leap into a new technology methodology. 

We also are developing procurement vehicles. One—the first one 

is the agile development BPA, which used code review by our engineers to evaluate agile vendors. These are now prequalified, 

precertified vendors that we can access to work on projects and 

agencies can also access to work on projects. 

Ms. KELLY. And two questions. What are some of your biggest 

successes, and can you identify some of the failed IT projects that 

18F has helped to turn around? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. One of the—one of our biggest successes is a 

turnaround, in my opinion. We worked with HHS to rewrite an 

RFP for a child welfare platform. We believe that the platform was 

going towards a large kind of waterfall singular buy, and we were 

able to break that down, insert modern technology methodology 

like agile user-centered design, 2-week sprints, open data, open 

code into the RFP. We hope that this yields savings for HHS, and 

we hope this also yields savings for others that can take this RFP, 

which is out in the open, and can use it for themselves. 

Ms. KELLY. For Mr. Dickerson and Ms. Chrousos, what do your 

agencies bring to the Federal IT innovation that can’t already be 

accomplished by the private sector? 

Mr. DICKERSON. I think the most valuable role that the USDS 

brings into the government is the ability to coordinate and work 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

across all of the organizational boundaries to solve what are often 

very complicated problems with a lot of stakeholders that involve 

a lot of the parts of the agency. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. And I believe that we act as an ecosystem where 

talented people from the private sector can come in and learn how 

to adapt their practices to government and then show government 

how to do that. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. And thanks for the extra time. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HURD. Now I am honored to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the panel. 

Ms. Chrousos, as you indicated in your testimony, in 2 years, 18F 

has grown from 15 employees to 185, some significant growth. You 

also indicated part of 18F’s mission is to help Federal agencies buy, 

build, and deploy technology the way the private sector does today, 

hopefully with efficiencies that the private sector does in many 

cases. 

Can you describe the scope of work anticipated by 18F and how 

that work overlaps or duplicates capabilities present in the private 

sector or are being performed by the agencies themselves? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that 

question. 

I think we need to do a better job of explaining our service offerings to both our stakeholders and the private sector. We do not intend and we do not—in my opinion, we do not compete with the 

private sector. We offer five service offerings to agencies today, and 

we will be constantly iterating on those to respond to the needs of 

our customer agencies. 

The first is to lightly prototype or build small builds to be able 

to showcase modern methodologies to agencies, which often yields 

in those agencies going out to the private sector to hire agencies— 

to higher developers that work like us. We offer acquisition assistance where we add an engineer or subject-matter, technical subject-matter expert to the table next to the contracting officer to 

help them rewrite request for proposals so that agencies can buy 

smarter. We offer some lite guides and workshops that help agencies understand how to practice modern technology methodologies 

in the government. We offer consultation services to CIOs who 

want to deploy to the cloud. These are the kinds of things that we 

offer, and I believe that our vantage point from bringing in private 

sector individuals into the government and explain to them how 

the government works and adapting those technologies out is 

where we play in this space. 

Mr. WALBERG. Going from that, with the rapid growth that 

you’ve had, who are you hiring? Are you hiring programmers, program managers, acquisition staff? Who are the hires? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Technical folks, engineers, design thinkers, 

usability experts, definitely product managers that can help product manage teams that are coming in through the Agile BPA. 

Those are the types of hires that we’re hiring. 

Mr. WALBERG. Where do they come from? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

Ms. CHROUSOS. They come from both private and public sector. 

So we looked across our organization. I actually sign off on every 

hire, and we have seen people come from Microsoft, come from 

Twitter, come from Booz Allen, come from some like foundations. 

Mr. WALBERG. What’s their average tenure? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Their average tenure, well, we hire using Smarter IT authority, which is a 2-year fellowship with 2 additional 

years—a 2-year term, sorry, with 2 additional years. The average 

tenure in the private sector in this field is around 13 months, to 

give you an idea of what this kind of workforce—how this workforce moves around. So we don’t have—I don’t have the average 

tenure right now on hand, but I suspect that it’s around 2 to 4 

years. 

Mr. WALBERG. So significantly more than in the private sector? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I’m sorry. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can 

work with your staff to get you the numbers. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. 

Mr. LeDuc, are there concerns in the software industry about 

how agency CIOs are being given information to make informed 

choices about who to turn to for help with IT concerns? 

Mr. LEDUC. Yeah. I mean, as we understand, I mentioned this 

in my testimony, obviously, the structure put in place by FITARA 

and the goal for the CIOs to be able to monitor and determine the 

technologies to be used, the process that 18F could take in going 

to some of their services provided to agencies can very well go beyond this process and not effectively provide CIOs the opportunity 

to necessarily choose the technologies that they want to use. So we 

think that could be a real challenge area. 

Mr. WALBERG. What’s your biggest concerns about how the two 

agencies, 18F and USDS, have evolved in the past couple of years? 

Mr. LEDUC. I think, as I mentioned, the biggest concern is about 

an evolution and a rapid growth of an entity like 18F that’s not 

necessarily really visible in how they are behaving, you know, if 

they are making technology decisions quickly outside the traditional mechanisms. While that can be a really good thing, you 

know, as a goal of 18F to be modular and flexible—and we support 

that—rapid growth in this area without significant oversight and 

transparency could really lead to just a bunch of single-handed decisionmaking that could not provide agencies with the best solutions. 

Mr. WALBERG. I yield back. 

Mr. HURD. The gentleman yields back. 

Now, I would like to recognize my friend from the Commonwealth Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Powner, can you help us understand, because I think Mr. 

Walberg’s line of questioning overlaps my anticipated line of questioning, which is, what is the value proposition here? Why do we 

have 18F and USDS? What is the value to the government, and 

how does it avoid competing directly with the private sector? Why 

not just issue our fee for these services like we normally do? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, you could clearly do that. I think when I look 

at 18F and you look at where you could go procure really quick 

agile services and consulting in that, there’s some value in that, no 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

doubt. Having agencies innovate on a small-scale basis and expand 

it, that makes a lot of sense with 18F. 

Mr. Dickerson, we’ve always supported a SWAT team out of the 

White House that could parachute in, help save, help 

healthcare.gov. And we know there are a lot of problems with large 

acquisitions. There’s a top 10 list that goes to the Appropriations 

Committee. You guys got an updated report yesterday. We need to 

fix those large projects. There’s a lot of opportunity there. The legacy side of things, not just acquisitions, but swapping out these old 

legacy, where we have a lot of data conversion, application conversion, that’s where USDS could really help the Federal Government. 

Our concern, these groups, if done right, make a lot of sense. We 

want to make sure they are transparent; they demonstrate value; 

and we have cost recovery taken care of with GSA; and then, with 

USDS, that it’s consistent with what we’re trying to do with the 

CIOs. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Under FITARA? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Under FITARA, correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’ll come back to that. Mr. Hodgkin’s, do you accept that explanation from the private sector point of view, that 

this is sort of a bit of a carve out. It’s not a direct threat. Not intended that way. And it’s to give us some more, you know, fast response time capability within the Federal Government with some 

kind of presumably limited scope? 

Mr. HODGKINS. I think that to some degree I agree with that answer, although I would share that many of our members continue 

to, again, because of the opaqueness of the operations, they’re not 

entirely clear that this isn’t directly competing with activities that 

they believe they can deliver. And as I referenced in my testimony, 

there’s a great degree of frustration about the narrative of brining 

in new companies because we want innovation. 

Our members are frustrated because they feel that the government-unique acquisition process has tamped down their ability to 

deliver that innovation rapidly in agile ways. They do that for their 

commercial customers. They have those that are governmentunique, or solely in the government space, have counterparts in the 

commercial marketplace who do that, and so to my point in my testimony about unshackling the Federal Government industrial base, 

those companies believe that they can also deliver capabilities to 

the government market in the ways that these entities are doing 

it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So do you see it as direct competition, or at least 

down the road? 

Mr. HODGKINS. I think that we have to figure out how to break 

these molds that are out there. That we, you know—for some of 

them are decades old, and I think this is a great way to start doing 

that. But I think we also have to spend a lot of time and attention 

on taking the best practices they create and translating that, because as I’ve noted, a lot of what they’ve done has been to help 

frame frankly relatively smaller projects. 

There has not been necessarily the attention to the really big 

projects which we believe the kinds of 56-year-old systems this 

committee exposed are also going to end up being. They’re going to 

take some time, and they’re going to take some resources. And we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 

have to figure out how to take the good work that these groups are 

doing in bringing in those capabilities and then translate that into 

that scale we need. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ironically apparently we have mastered how to 

maintain such 56-year-old systems in the Federal Government. We 

just don’t know how to replace them, so we’re going to need help 

from the private sector, no question. 

Mr. Dickerson, Mr. Powner in his testimony said, or raised a concern, that the lack of clearly defined roles between CIO’s that we’re 

trying to strengthen, streamline the decisionmaking under FITARA 

legislation, and digital service teams, actually may be inconsistent 

with the intent of the law under FITARA. Could you respond? 

Mr. DICKERSON. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. I believe that all of the USDS activity is completely in compliance with 

both the spirit and the letter of FITARA. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, you’re going to have to do better than that. 

Yes. Yes, officer I believe I was completely in compliance with 

speeding laws, even though you have stopped me. GAO thinks otherwise or has at least suggested it could be a concern. 

I’m asking you, are you aware of that concern, and besides just 

defending USDS, what are you doing to ensure that you, in fact, 

are in compliance with the terms of what is now the law, FITARA. 

Mr. DICKERSON. May I have a minute to respond? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course. With the consent of the chair. 

Mr. DICKERSON. Yes, you’re right. There are important oversight 

and control mechanisms imbedded in FITARA, such as a significant role for the CIO in making decisions that affect IT at the 

agency. 

The CIO is always part of the set of agency leadership that we 

talk to before we embark on, or go into, a project and decide how 

to execute it. We operate completely within the authority to operate, or ATO mechanism, and also the CIOs retain the control over 

the contract decisions, which is specified by FITARA. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I hope we get 

to pursue that just a little bit more. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Powner, do you have any comments on that last 

question? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POWNER. I do think, the reason we raised the concern is we 

talked to four CIOs where there were digital service teams established. DHS, we felt pretty good about that; DOD and VA, fairly 

good. State Department, the CIO told us initially that they were 

not involved with the selection nor the projects being chosen at 

that agency. We don’t think that’s appropriate. They ought to be 

working with each other in that situation. 

Now, since the State Department kind of backed off of their initial comments, but when you read our report, that’s an issue, and 

the question is how many of those departments and agencies, we 

just want to make sure we’re in sync. We actually think that if the 

digital service teams at the agencies coordinate with the CIOs, 

they’re going to be welcomed more into those agencies to work on 

the big problems and everything. 

As an example, at DOD, Terry Halvorson—the travel system at 

the Department of Defense has been a mess for years. We haven’t 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
83 

been able to deliver on it. So he said, yeah, I want the digital service team to try to tackle that. That’s great. They agree on what 

they’re working on, and they agree that that’s a priority system 

that we’ve had a lot of problems, and that’s where Mr. Dickerson 

can really help move the ball forward with those troubled projects. 

We just need to tighten it up a little more. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, sir. I’d like to now recognize the distinguished gentleman and scholar from North Carolina, my friend, 

Mr. Walker, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I 

think I’m going to stay right here on this line of questioning. I had 

another area I wanted to go to. If I have time, I’ll come back to 

that. I want to dig it just a little bit deeper. Mr. Powner, are the 

charters being established between USDS and Federal agencies accounting for the role agencies, the CIOs, are required to perform 

pursuant to FITARA? 

Mr. POWNER. We think that those charters could be clearer in 

terms of the relationship with the CIOs. 

Mr. WALKER. When you say they could be clearer, can you be just 

a touch more descriptive or specific for me. 

Mr. POWNER. Yes. So if you say that we’re going to establish a 

digital service team that reports to the agency head or the dep secretary and that will also work in conjunction with the CIO, and 

those teams will be established consistent with FITARA. That’s 

what I’d like to see. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. What role would the CIO play in coordinating with the USDS and the OMB to establish the agency digital 

service teams? 

Mr. POWNER. I think when you—clearly these CIOs, they should 

know what the priority acquisitions and the priority legacy conversions are. In working with those CIOs, the most important problems they have, they should be working with these digital service 

teams so the digital service teams can help them solve the most 

complex things. 

These guys are pretty smart that have come in. Okay? Mr. 

Dickerson knows how to fix problems clearly. We want to focus on 

the big problems that we have in this government because there’s 

a lot of them in the IT world. 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. Absolutely. Who is responsible for making 

sure these CIOs know? You said they should know. Who is responsible? Whose job is it to make sure that’s communicated? 

Mr. POWNER. Well I think the CIO’s. Clearly Tony Scott plays a 

role in that as the Federal CIO. But when you look at what we’re 

doing with FITARA, if the CIO is to capture all IT spending in a 

department and then be responsible for the execution of this spending, that would include what we’re doing with the digital service 

teams. 

That’s under the umbrella. That’s what we’re trying to fix with 

FITARA, that there’s not a lot of rogue operations going on, and 

I’m not saying we know that’s happening with other services that 

are being acquired at agencies. We want to get our arms around 

the IT spent, and we want to get the appropriate governance over 

there so we’ve got the right security and the right delivery. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 

Mr. WALKER. All right. So when a USDS team comes into an 

agency, who do they report to; CIO, Mr. Dickerson, Tony Scott, 

someone else? Who is it? 

Mr. POWNER. I think there are multiple options that could work. 

I mean, you could actually have them, you want to elevate their position, have them report to the dep secretary, fine. But we got some 

CIOs that don’t report to the dep secretary. So I don’t think that 

would be appropriate. As long as they’re both reporting at least 

equally, or there’s multiple arrangements that could work. We just 

don’t want to have, we don’t want to undermine the authority of 

the CIOs. 

Mr. WALKER. All right. I appreciate your frankness on that. Mr. 

Dickerson, you touched on this a little bit earlier, and I want to get 

back to it if I have time here. Do you think the charters adequately 

account for the laws established by FITARA? 

Mr. DICKERSON. Our charters have evolved over time as we are 

learning how best to document and set up these teams. I completely embrace Mr. Powner’s recommendation that we make it 

more clear and explicit going forward. Our later charters, as noted 

in the GAO report, are more explicit about that we interact with 

the CIOs on a day-to-day basis. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. GSA funds 18F through Acquisition Services 

Fund, which operates on the revenue generated from the GSA’s 

business units and not appropriations from Congress. Either Ms. 

Chrousos or Ms. Powner, can you give me a list of these business 

units? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. At GSA, sir? 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Business units include the business units under 

the Federal Acquisition Service, like ITS and GSS. It also includes 

18F. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. Annually can you tell me how much these 

units produce for the ASF? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I can only tell you the numbers for 18F unfortunately, but I can work with your staff to get you that information. 

Mr. WALKER. And maybe a couple weeks, can you have it, as long 

as there’s nothing else happens in your life? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Yes. I will work with your staff to make sure we 

get it to you in time. 

Mr. WALKER. Fair enough. What are the statutory authorizations 

to collect such revenue outside of the appropriations process? 

That’s something, we talk about the incredible expansion in the 

last 2 years, something obviously as the American people see more 

and more bureaucracy expanding, so from an accountability standpoint, somebody explain to me, Ms. Chrousos, Mr. Powner, the statutory authorization to collect this revenue. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Well, GSA’s mission is to provide the best value 

in real estate acquisitions and technology, and GSA uses this reimbursable fund to invest in programs that can support that mission 

and ultimately can support agencies in their mission. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. I’ve got 20-something seconds. Let me ask 

you this way. Do you think it’s intentional to have this revenue 

placed outside of congressional jurisdiction, control and oversight? 

Is it intentional, or why is it? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
85 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I don’t believe it’s intentional. I don’t believe it’s 

intentional. 

Mr. WALKER. Then what do you think it is? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I’m sorry. I’m not familiar with the origins of the 

fund. I’m just familiar with my own finances. I apologize. If you 

have an answer? 

Mr. WALKER. With that, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HURD. The government’s messed up. All right? The way we 

buy IT goods and services is messed up. We have difficulty getting 

smart people that have the technical skills to solve the problems 

of the future is difficult. And what I think should ultimately be 

happening is everybody that’s sitting at this table right now, you 

all should be holding hands and working together, because you all 

ultimately have the same goal. 

Because the only way that we are going to get a digital infrastructure within the Federal Government that is, that the American people deserve, is if we break some things on the inside, all 

right, and that we utilize the talents of the private sector as well. 

But the mentality of, the startup mentality in the Federal Government where it comes to disruption it is important, but the Federal Government doesn’t have the appetite for the level of risk that 

the startup community has or the venture world has, all right. And 

so that’s the one thing that doesn’t transfer between, you know, 

with that narrative. And we have a responsibility to all of our constituents, which is the American people, that we’re using their 

money wisely and smartly. I think these programs conceptually are 

great programs. 

And my first question, and maybe we start with you, Mr. 

Dickerson, how do you decide what projects you work on? 

Mr. DICKERSON. It’s a very complex process. I will try to make 

it brief. I spend a tremendous amount of time, and my other members of the leadership team spend a tremendous amount of time 

gathering information from all over the government. The agency 

leadership, stakeholders everywhere—— 

Mr. HURD. Can I make a suggestion? That work is already being 

done. There’s a GAO high-risk report. That high-risk report identifies some of the key projects that are a billion dollars or more that 

are having issues. All right? 

Under FITARA, we have established a number of areas. Data 

center consolidation, something as simple as that. We have seen 

four agencies realize $2 billion in savings. You know, a man and 

a team of your talents would go a long way. 

The CISO of the Social Security Administration needs a whole lot 

of help, all right, and this is an entity, they should be able to say, 

hey, when they get grilled here at this committee about not following some of the basic practices of good digital system hygiene, 

they should be able to reach out to you, or you all should be able 

to call them the next day. 

Is that concept, is that not—grade my paper. Does that make 

sense? Is that, you know, the flexibility and the way that you all 

could be used? 

Mr. DICKERSON. As you say, the OMB and the office of the Federal CIO conduct broad portfolio oversight of all those programs 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
86 

across the entire government, and we absolutely rely on that information as much as we can. 

Mr. HURD. There’s nobody in the Federal Government that understands this better than Tony Scott, all right, and Tony Scott 

knows where the problems are and should be able to direct you all. 

But when I look at some of the lists of, you know, successes, as 

somebody said earlier, these aren’t the tectonic changes that we 

likely need in order to see our government get into the current century, let alone the next century. All right? Ms. Chrousos, do you 

have an opinion. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. About our prioritization process? 

Mr. HURD. Uh-huh. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. 18F is a demand-driven, fee-for-service organization. So our prioritization process uses a prioritization rubric that 

looks at both impact and viability, but we cannot parachute in, or 

we cannot kind of pull in customers. They have to come to us and 

want to work with us. When we look, when things come into our 

organization, we look at impact, which for us is number of people 

it impacts as well as potential cost savings, and then we look at 

viability. For example, is this something better done by the private 

sector? Is this something that we have the talent for? Is it something we should send to the Federal Acquisition Service or back to 

that agency’s CIO? That’s how we prioritize. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a second? 

Mr. HURD. I would. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just by way of followup to your point, but, Ms. 

Chrousos, okay, great, and Mr. Dickerson. But the chairman was 

asking, but we already have a list of very high priorities, from 

GAO’s high-risk list, and some of the priorities we set out in 

FITARA. Do you also look at those priorities as you’re looking at 

the projects you’re going to get involved in? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. The projects that we get involved in are usually 

small reference products, like Mr. Hodgkins referred to, that showcase modern methodologies to agencies, and then they go and procure a larger team to actually tackle the big problems. So we don’t 

look necessarily at that GAO high-priority list. We don’t believe 

that’s our function. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HURD. Let’s talk a little bit about IT procurement. IT procurement is something I’ve spent a lot of time talking about. And 

I’ve said on a number of occasions IT procurement is not a sexy 

topic. 

IT procurement, you’re not going to hold a rally for IT procurement or a parade. However, you know, this agile delivery service, 

blanket purchase agreement concept is a concept that I think could 

change this, right? And if we fix this, Ms. Chrousos, I will hold a 

parade on IT procurement, and you will be the grand marshal. 

But can you please expand on this agile delivery service and its 

use of blanket purchase agreements with vendors? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Yes. If you had told me as well that IT procurement was something I’d be passionate about 2 years ago, I would 

have told you you were crazy. 

Mr. HURD. Ms. Chrousos could you move this closer—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
87 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Oh sorry. But I personally believe it’s the single 

most impactful way to impact what we’re trying to do in the government and to move the government forward in technology. 

The Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement shows a lot of promise 

because for me it shows what happens in terms of breaking down 

some of the procurement barriers that Mr. LeDuc and Mr. Hodgkins spoke of, when you put an engineer next to a contracting officer and you let them speak and you let them get their minds together. We took engineers from 18F and contracting officers from 

the Federal Acquisition Services, and we put them together, and 

we gave them a problem. Can you find us a way to access really 

innovative, modern technical talent? And they said, yes, if we look 

at this and say, instead of asking for pages and pages of documentation and past history, but instead we ask businesses to submit live code in an open hub repository and then we have engineers 

look at that code and assess it, we’ll be able to get to better talent. 

Mr. HURD. So take us through how you choose the vendors. How 

many vendors are there, and how does 18F work with agencies to 

choose one of these vendors? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. The blanket purchase agreement is like a 

preselection of vendors, so we work with engineers and contracting 

officers to go through the documentation the way that you would 

with any procurement vehicle. That vehicle, you can then put task 

orders against that vehicle. Right now agents, we can access the 

Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement. We actually issued a task 

order this week to a small business, and agencies can use the Federal Acquisition Service to access this same blanket purchase 

agreement. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Powner, does this exist in other parts of the Federal government? Is this unique? Look, the VA would benefit from 

this ability. I’m sure the organizations that are part of Mr. Hodgkins’ and Mr. LeDuc’s association would love to be able to participate in these things. Your opinion on this? 

Mr. POWNER. So clearly, I think, you know, this is tied to 

FITARA, to your grades on incremental development. Agile is one 

way of going really small. Right? These vehicles if done right and 

were inclusive of the people who should be doing this, I think could 

really work. I mean, talking about shock the system, we need more 

agile development. This could actually help a lot. 

I actually think, and I’ve said this at times on incremental development, I think Congress and OMB, if you want to fix this big 

bang waterfall approach, don’t fund anything unless you deliver 

within the year, and have a waive-out process. You know what; 

that would change a lot. You’re not going to get funding either 

through the OMB process or through the appropriation process. We 

talked to appropriation committees about this. If you want to really 

fix it, if you want to go small fix it, that’s the way you would do 

it. This would help. 

Mr. HURD. Ms. Chrousos, if all of the agencies that had a D or 

an F on the agile development, within our FITARA score card, 

came to you and said, hey, help us figure out how to do this, is that 

a project that you all would take on? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I believe so. We have been asked by other agencies to help them build out their own Agile Blanket Purchase 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
88 

Agreements. We’re not trying to hoard that information. Our documentation is actually out in the public on GitHub, so you can build 

your own agile BPA at your agency if you so desire, or you can 

come through our organization. And that’s something we welcome. 

Mr. HURD. I hope all the CIOs that got a D or an F on their 

FITARA score card in this area are hitting that Web site as we 

speak. I have gone over my time. I know Mr. Farenthold has additional questions. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up 

on the blanket purchase agreement. Can you tell me just in broad 

general, what type of services are these? I mean, you’ve got 17 vendors. What type of services? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Seventeen vendors is for one of the pools. We’re 

authorizing two more pools. And software development, DevOps, 

our key design thinkers, those types of thinkers that can work on 

agile development, user-centered products. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So how does this help and not create 

another barrier? So I’m a software developer, I want to build a, I 

don’t know, make it simple, an app for the phone to tap into some 

Federal agency. Is getting certified through that, how does that 

help me and how does that not create another barrier to entry? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. We’re trying to create smarter bridges between 

the government and the private sector by putting engineers and 

contractors together. We just think this is a smarter bridge. We’re 

also at the same time working with the Federal Acquisition Service 

to try and lower the barriers to entry. We have had a really interesting project with Schedule 70 where we’re looking at creating 

plain language roadmaps and lowering the time it takes at Schedule 70 significantly. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So Mr. Hodgkins, is this helping 

your members, or is this just another hurdle? 

Mr. HODGKINS. Thank you for the question. We’re supportive of 

the agile development approach. One of the challenges that we 

think of this particular BPA is that it’s only accepting applications 

of companies who are willing to code in open source. So all of the 

companies who have intellectual property in their products are not 

eligible to compete on this particular BPA, and so they’re not offering their solutions in an agile fashion, and that’s something we 

think that, you know, we can open that up. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I’m a huge advocate for open source. I actually 

do think that’s the way the government can address some security 

issues as well as make stuff available across government lines. You 

also talked, though, about unique government needs. What are the 

unique government needs that the private sector doesn’t have? You 

need good user interface. You need good price. You need good security. What are the unique government needs? 

Mr. HODGKINS. The government has a lot of unique needs in 

scale. It has a lot of unique needs in compliance, and it has a lot 

of unique needs regarding the way the company is expected to operate and shape its business model. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Ms. Chrousos, do you want to talk about what 

unique government needs are as well are? Because I think they’re 

not as unique as people want to make them to be, other than size. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
89 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I don’t think the government’s needs are that 

unique, and I actually don’t think agency’s needs or subagency’s 

needs are necessarily that unique as well. I think if you look 

across, and we have been trying to see patterns coming in of incoming requests. 

We see patterns of common technical components that are needed throughout government. It’s an area that we should have smart 

people looking at and looking at how to leverage efficiencies. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I mean, that’s traditionally the GSA’s role, is 

to take advantage of the size of government to make things cheaper. Having used the TSA Web site, I don’t know. 

Is there a way to expand something like these blanket purchase 

agreements to say, all right, this is certified and secure so we don’t 

have every CIO doing the same evaluations of very similar software or the same needs in software. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I believe so. We’re a young organization. We’re 

2 years old, and this was our first collaboration with the Federal 

Acquisition Service. One of the reasons we created the Technology 

Transformation Service is to bring some of these ideas and some 

of these people together at GSA to do exactly what you’re talking 

about. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I think that creates a level of expertise and bureaucratic kind of a CYA, oh, this is GSA certified. I don’t have to 

be afraid to buy this and go through a lengthy purchase process. 

I did have one other. I think it was your group that was working 

with the census. We had a hearing on the census. Can you talk a 

little bit about what your role was and what value you feel you provided to the Census Bureau? That’s another agency within this 

committee’s direct jurisdiction. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I’m so sorry to disappoint you. I actually don’t 

know enough about that to speak to it today, but I’m happy to get 

you that information. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. It was just on your list of things, and 

I would be interested to do that. That’s basically all I’ve got for 

right now. So I yield back. 

Mr. HURD. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Connolly, you’re recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. I want to follow up on just one aspect 

of, the question of the role of the CIO. Mr. Powner, you gave an 

example of the State Department CIO not being cognizant or fully 

aware of what USDS team was doing within the State Department. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. POWNER. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Dickerson, does that make sense from a good 

management point of view? I mean, in the private sector it’s almost 

inconceivable to me that anyone could hire a private IT team and 

come in and do some work in the corporation without the CIO’s 

knowledge and approval. I mean, that would be tantamount to saying you might as well move on because we don’t have any confidence in you. 

How is it possible in the public sector that we’re a team, your 

team in this case, would be operating in an agency without the 

knowledge or express approval of the CIO? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
90 

Mr. DICKERSON. So I believe, Mr. Powner, after making a comment about the State Department CIO also followed up by saying 

that they brought those comments back a little bit under discussion. I looked into this with my team a little bit, and to the best 

of my knowledge, the CIO at the State Department was a participant in several meetings in the earlier stages of our work at the 

State Department. Now that being said, there’s absolutely a spectrum among the CIOs that we work with of the amount of time and 

the interest that they have in the digital service-type projects, 

given all their other statutory responsibilities. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well would you agree, and Ms. Chrousos, please 

comment as well, generally speaking, it’s a pretty good management practice to make sure that your team, or your team, is operating with the full knowledge and consent of the CIO? 

Mr. DICKERSON. I certainly agree that it’s an excellent management practice for the CIO and the rest of the agency leadership to 

all be aware of what we’re doing. 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I agree with Mr. Dickerson. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, aware of and giving consent? 

Mr. DICKERSON. And giving input and consent, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah okay. Ms. Chrousos? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I agree. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Powner, any last comment on that, because 

I—remember in FITARA what we’re trying to do without doing it 

by fiat, is we’re trying to evolve to a system where there is a hierarchy and that the CIO is empowered to make decisions, and 

streamline, and monitor procurement, and pull the plug when it 

goes bad and look at things in more bite-sized manageable pieces 

and make sure the other things we’re talking about, legacy systems, data center consolidation, going to the cloud, trying to tap 

into the domain expertise of the private sector, where we don’t 

have it in the public sector, all those things are being encouraged. 

What we didn’t do is say there should be one CIO, but that is 

clearly, what we’re kind of hoping is that there will be one premier 

CIO, who is aware of what’s going on and the various moving 

parts. 

Mr. Powner, final word on that issue. 

Mr. POWNER. Well, I think we’re heading in the right direction. 

Look, we know from many of your hearings, we have a few CIO organizations that are a bit dysfunctional. They really don’t have the 

right authorities in the cultures that they grew up in, and there’s 

some agencies where we really need to tighten that up and fix it, 

so I think there’s a lot of wheels here going at the same time. But 

the long-term solution is fixing the CIO problem. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. And potentially these two programs can be 

tools for them actually to strengthen that, but we just don’t want 

to have rogue operations that actually unwittingly detract from the 

broader goal we’re trying to achieve in FITARA. I thank the chair. 

Mr. HURD. I would like to recognize Ms. Kelly. 

Ms. KELLY. Just quickly, Mr. Dickerson and Ms. Chrousos, what 

makes your agencies different from each other in funding in the 

projects you do take on, or what are the differences? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. We’re a fee-for-service, demand-driven digital 

consultancy. And as such, we have a separate, very separate intake 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
91 

and prioritization process. We offer support services. We do view 

the CIO as our most sophisticated customer. We try and meet their 

needs by offering support services from the ground up. 

Mr. DICKERSON. USDS is not cost recoverable. We operate off of 

an appropriation from Congress, so we go directly to where we’re 

needed as quickly as possible, which means that we are often useful and best applied in cases where there are unanticipated needs. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HURD. Ms. Chrousos, aren’t you required to achieve full cost 

recovery now, and why is it going to take until 2019? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that 

question. As the TTS commissioner, this is something I think about 

and work with my team quite a bit. I work with the 18F management team as well as the CFO, and we look at key performance 

indicators on a weekly basis to try and iterate the operations of our 

business to get to full cost recovery. 

Mr. HURD. So are you required to have full cost recovery right 

now? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. We’re committed, we are required to have a plan 

for full cost recovery, and we’re committed to achieving full cost recovery by 2019. 

Mr. HURD. Will you plan on sharing publically 18F’s accounting 

for cost recovery to include cost structures and project charges in 

instances where 18F came in below expected costs or above? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. I’m happy to work with the CFO’s office, and as 

long as that’s allowed by GSA, I’m very happy to share that with 

you. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Powner, is 18F supposed to achieve full cost recovery now? 

Mr. POWNER. I believe that there’s a requirement for a plan to 

get there. Obviously we want to do it as soon as possible. I do think 

that when you have a startup, there is some, you know, you need 

to build up to it because the payout is actually lagging what they’re 

doing. 

Mr. HURD. Is GAO receiving the information that you need in 

order to determine that they’re on a path to full cost recovery? 

Mr. POWNER. Yes, we have received that. I think by 2019, that’s 

the plan. I mean, they got a worst case, best case, most likely case. 

There’s some good numbers there, and that is the most likely case 

to recover by 2019. I think our report says the worst case is around 

2022. 

Mr. HURD. Good copy. Mr. Dickerson, the USDS is directed to 

provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations, in 

both the House and Senate, describing current USDS teams and 

projects that include the top ten priority programs. Has that been 

provided to the Appropriations Committees? 

Mr. DICKERSON. Our most recent top ten project report was 

transmitted yesterday, I believe. 

Mr. HURD. Copy. Now, is that the same document that we received, titled Report to Congress, Ten High Priority Programs? 

Mr. DICKERSON. That’s right. 

Mr. HURD. Is that for OMB, or is this directly for USDS? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
92 

Mr. DICKERSON. The reporting direction from Congress changed 

between the last 2 years’ appropriations, and so what you’re seeing 

here is kind of the last production under the joint OMB, USDS 

oversight. So you see some projects that USDS is involved in and 

some that we are not. 

The new direction from Congress with the most recent appropriation is that USDS report on these projects going forward, and that 

is our plan. 

Mr. HURD. Good copy. Do you know what the Joint Legacy Viewer is? 

Mr. DICKERSON. In passing familiarity, yes. 

Mr. HURD. Is that true interoperability? 

Mr. DICKERSON. I think it’s an excellent first step. It’s certainly 

a better place to be that you’re able to see records from two different systems together in the same place. My understanding is 

that that is found very valuable by the clinicians that are trying 

to serve those veterans. There is certainly farther to go. More interoperability would still be better. 

Mr. HURD. And what is USDS’ role in the interoperability between VA and DOD? I know you mentioned something earlier, but 

I’d love to hear a little bit more robust answer. 

Mr. DICKERSON. It’s a very big problem, and we have bitten off 

some pieces of it that we think we can have a really strong impact 

on. One of those is the transmission of the service treatment record 

between the DOD and the VA at the end of a veteran’s Active Duty 

service. 

Mr. HURD. Copy. My last question is to everybody, and please answer in like 20 seconds. What is your key takeaway from today? 

Mr. Powner, let’s start with you. You’re the most experienced 

witness at the table. 

Mr. POWNER. Let’s continue to fix the CIO problem. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Dickerson? 

Mr. DICKERSON. I am very gratified to hear unanimity on the 

point that 18F and USDS have an important role to play in improving our overall government services. I certainly take away the 

point that there are many parts to this problem, and all of us have 

an important role to contribute to it, and I am happy to embrace 

the recommendations from GAO. 

Mr. HURD. Ms. Chrousos? 

Ms. CHROUSOS. The key single takeaway is that we cannot do 

this alone. It’s a very ambitious and important goal that we all 

share between us and that more information sharing is better. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. Hodgkins? 

Mr. HODGKINS. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for letting us 

be here. 

The takeaway for us is that we support these programs. It’s good 

to hear they are on a good trajectory. We want to keep them that 

way so that these activities can be sustained into the next administration, but this is a big problem, and they are part of a solution, 

but they are not the whole solution. 

Mr. HURD. Mr. LeDuc, you get the last word. 

Mr. LEDUC. We’re delighted that these subcommittees are committed to their oversight role. We’re very happy about this hearing 

today. We’re delight that GAO has done a very thorough review in 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
93 

their work, and we believe that combined these two things together, can really help to focus 18F and USDS. 

Mr. HURD. I’d like to thank our witnesses, especially Mr. 

Dickerson and Ms. Chrousos. You all are testifying for the first 

time before Congress. I appreciate all you all taking time to appear 

before us today. If there’s no further business, without objection, 

the subcommittees stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(95) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 23484.059

July 13, 2016 

Ms. Phaedra S. Chrousos 

Commissioner 

Technology Transformation Service 

U.S. General Services Administration 

Hearing Follow-up 

1) Congressman Walberg-- What's the average tenore of the employees working at 18F? 

!SF's employees are hired for a 2-year term, with the ability to have their term extended for an 

additional (not to exceed) 2-years. 

Since !SF has been in existence for just over 2 years (!SF started in March 2014), many of the 

longest-serving employees have just hit, or are just coming up on, their initial 2-year term 

expiration. Of all !SF employees hired from 2014 to date, the average tenure is 12 months. 

We will continue measuring these numbers for updates and trends. 

2) Congressman Farenthold -- Please provide more details on I SF's work with Census, and 

what value 18F brought to their IT issues. 

!SF has provided technical expertise, mentorship, and code enhancements to the Primus team. 

Primus is the Census-built version of the citizen-facing component of the 2020 Internet data 

collection application. 

Specifically, !SF partnered with the Primus team to enhance the application using technical best 

practices in a variety of areas. 

Improvements to the maintainability of the code: 

• Code and design optimizations. 

• Redesigning the server side code structure to make future changes easier. 

• Streamlining the initialization process to improve restart times. 

• Doubling the number of automated tests to provide confidence new bugs would not 

be introduced when future code changes are made. 

• Improving security by centralizing access controls into easily maintainable modules. 

• Breaking status monitoring tools into smaller, more easily maintainable modules. 
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 23484.060

• Working with the Primus team on how to write more comprehensive automated tests 

to prevent, catch, and eliminate bugs. 

• Reduced time and complexity of initializing new development environments that 

mirror the production environment, reducing likelihood of bugs making it into final 

deployments. 

ISF helped to make Primus deployable in flexible cloud environments by: 

• Adding support for twelve-factor portability to eliminate possibility of human error 

during deployments. 

• Greatly increasing the testability of the application on different database 

technologies, allowing us to quickly and easily determine which technology will give us 

the best performance. 

• Reworking the database migration and deploy processes to follow faster and safer 

rollback practices if a database error occurs. 

• Creating an automated A WS deployment of Primus and corresponding informational 

videos 

In addition, ISF is beginning work on a project with Census to demonstrate the ability to use 

modern cloud infrastructure and open source tools to support big data/ data science projects. 

2 
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 23484.061

Questions for Mr. Mikey Dickerson 

Administrator 

United States Digital Service 

Questions from Chairman Will Hurd 

June I 0, 2016, Hearing: "l8F and U.S. Digital Service Oversight" 

I. Please provide a list and a description of each project US Digital Service (USDS) has 

worked on, in any capacity, that is related to the Office of Management and Budget's list of 

top ten highest priority IT investment projects. For each project please include details of 

the services provided, when USDS services began, and indicate ifUSDS services are 

completed or, if they are ongoing, the anticipated date of completion. 

Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Department of State 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

• HealthCare I Web 

Portal and Support 

• HealthCare Website 

Development 

2014 Ongoing 

Please see the Office of Management and Budget's report to Congress "Top Ten High Priority 

Programs" submitted on June 9, 2016 for additional information on each of these projects. 

2. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) accounts for three ofthe top ten high priority 

IT projects at the federal government identified by the Office of Management and Budget. 

Please provide a list and a description of each project USDS has performed at the VA. 

For each project please include details of the services provided, when USDS service 

began, and indicate if USDS services are completed or, if they are ongoing, the 

1 
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 23484.062

anticipated date of completion. 

Please see the Office of Management and Budget's report to Congress "Top Ten High Priority 

Programs" submitted on June 9, 2016 for additional information on Electronic Health Records 

(EHR) Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA). At a high level, the 

U.S. Digital Service at VA (DSVA) has worked closely with the Board of Veterans' Appeals to 

develop a new system that tracks and processes paperless appeals, called Casejlow. In addition, 

in November 2015, the VA launched vets.gov: a new wayfor Veterans to discover, apply for, 

track, and manage their benefits. Design and development of vets.gov is led by the DSVA. 

a. Please describe the role the V A's Chief Information Officer has in management 

and oversight of the USDS team. 

As with all CIOs, the VA CIO is an important stakeholder in establishing the digital service team 

and its continued effectiveness. The CIO of the VA has a significant role in the decision process 

for planning, programming, budgeting, and execution decisions, related to reporting 

requirements and reports related to information technology; and the management, governance, 

and oversight processes related to information technology. 

3. Please provide a list and a description of each project USDS has performed at the Census 

Bureau. For each project please include details of the services provided, when USDS 

service began, and indicate if USDS services are completed or, if they are ongoing, the 

anticipated date of completion. 

In 2015, the USDS team, together with the General Service Administration's 18F team, engaged 

with the technical leadership at Census on the acquisition strategic plan related to several digital 

services components that will be included in the 2020 decennial census. The USDS engagement 

on this project is complete. 

4. Products in use by the federal government must be compliant with federal security 

standards. What is the process USDS follows to ensure the products developed by USDS 

2 
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 23484.063

are compliant with these security standards? Has USDS ever requested waivers to any 

federal security standards? 

USDS develops products in partnership with federal agencies in accordance with agencies' 

existing processes and procedures. Such products must comply with the federal security 

standards required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISlidA), 

and USDS has not requested a waiver of these security standards. 

5. Does USDS envision its role as being an entity that fixes single, identifiable IT problems 

at an agency or helping agency IT personnel learn how to manage and fix their IT 

problems themselves? 

The USDS has seen success principally when: 

• The USDS team is small, and focused on a high priority project. 

• Agency leadership is engaged and supportive. 

The USDS team is tightly integrated with existing contractors and career staff 

• The project has a hard deadline. 

• The project may have cross-agency dependencies, or many stakeholders across the 

government. 

The USDS therefore generally focuses on well-defined, high priority projects. 

6. Are USDS service teams envisioned to be a permanent presence at certain federal agencies? 

If so, which agencies? 

Today, the USDS has charters established with the Departments of Veterans Affairs, State, 

Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Defense, Justice; and the Department of the 

Treasury. We anticipate being able to provide project support at each of these agencies and will 

continue to assess need for support. 

7. When a digital service team is working with an agency, who has management 

responsibility over that team? What is the minimum level of CIO responsibility and 

involvement established in the charters agencies' sign before working with USDS? 

Once the USDS has established a charter with a particular agency, the charter specifies 

immediate supervisory authority over the relevant digital service team, which is typically at the 

Deputy Secretary level. The CIO of an agency is always an important stakeholder in 

establishing a digital service team and its continued effectiveness. The USDS's partner agency 

C!Os have a significant role in the decision process for planning, programming, budgeting, and 

execution decisions, related to reporting requirements and reports related to information 

technology; and the management, governance, and oversight processes related to information 

technology. 

3 
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 23484.064

8. What is USDS's organizational approach to the "buy don't build" approach to addressing 

IT problems at federal agencies? 

The USDS is working on modernizing procurement processes and practices for the digital era. 

For example, the USDS has developed training programs and tools to enable federal contracting 

officers to apply industry best practices to digital procurements, and serve as expert advisors to 

their CIOs on procurements. Improving procurement processes and practices with our partners in 

the IT contracting community will remain a critical element of modernizing our government, as 

skilled contractors will continue to deliver the majority of the government's digital services, just 

as they do today. 

4 
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 23484.065

Questions for Mr. David Shive 

Acting Commissioner, Technology Transformation 

Service General Services Administration 

Questions from Chairman Will Hurd 

June 10, 2016, Hearing: 

"18F and US. Digital Service Oversight" 

1. Please provide a list and a description of each project 18F has worked on, in 

any capacity, that is related to the Office of Management and Budget's list of 

top ten highest priority IT investment projects. For each project please 

include details of the services provided, when 18F services began, and 

indicate when 18F's services were completed or, if they are ongoing, the 

anticipated date of completion. 

• Census 2020 

o Census Digital Transformation 

• Status: Ongoing 

• Period of Performance: 10/7/2015-9/25/2016 

• Details of Service: 18F has provided technical expertise, 

mentorship, and code enhancements to the Census team 

working on Primus, which is the Census-built version of the 

citizen-facing component of the 2020 Internet data collection 

application. 

• Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) Transformation 

o MyUSCIS 

• Status: Completed 

• Period of Performance: 5/1/2015-4/30/2016 

• Details of Service: MyUSCIS helps users more easily 

navigate the immigration process. 18F helped to reimagine 

and modernize immigration and visa processes by building 

tools that improve the applicant process, providing clear and 

simple information to the public, and creating new tools that 

make the processing of immigration forms faster and more 

efficient. 

o USC IS Identity, Credentialing, and Access Management (ICAM) 

Development 

• Status: Completed 

• Period of Performance: 7/8/2014-5/1/2015 

• Details of Service: USC IS Public I CAM is a login and 

identity-verification system for people wanting to interact with 
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 23484.066

USCIS. Built with industry-standard tools and using modern 

practices, it uses USCIS and the State Department's own 

information to verify immigrants' identities. Currently and 

primarily serving immigrants renewing their Green Cards, the 

system has over half a million users. 18F was called in to 

partner with USC IS on the development of the system to 

ensure the timely launch the project, allowing hundreds of 

thousands of immigrants the ability to renew their Green 

Card online. 

o USC IS Infrastructure as a Service (three total IAAs for this project) 

• Status: Completed 

• Period of Performance: 5/1/2015-6/12/16 

• Details of Service: Provided access to, and consolidated 

billing for, infrastructure services, platform services, and 

software services and other tools that may be labeled 

generally as being part of "cloud services." 

• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Management 

System (VBMS) 

o Veterans Affairs VBMS Software Development Kit 

• Status: Completed 

• Period of Performance: 7/22/2015-7/20/2016 

• Details of Service: VA engaged 18F to build one or more 

Ruby "gems" to interface with the existing VBMS Application 

Programming Interface (APis). Ruby is a computer 

programming language. A Ruby gem is a self-contained 

Ruby program that can be easily reused and redistributed. 

The requested gem provides a single point of 

communication with the three VBMS services in order to 

streamline the development process of creating applications 

that process veterans' benefits claims. Such applications 

retrieve and store documents related to specific disability 

claims, and perform other related business processes 

related to claims, such as moving a claim to appeals. 

• Social Security Administration, Disability Case Processing System 

(DCPS) 

o Disability Case Processing System Agile Acquisition Consulting 

• Status: Completed 

• Period of Performance: 10/27/2014-9/30/2015 

• Details of Service: 18F provided agile coaching and 

acquisition consulting services to support the DCPS 

program's transition from waterfall to agile practices. We 

conducted agile training sessions. delivered an assessment 

of the overall program and provided recommendations for 

maturing program and product delivery, and produced an 

2 
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 23484.067

agile solicitation in alignment with those recommendations. 

2. The Department of Veterans Affairs accounts for 3 of the top 10. Please 

provide a list and a description of each project 18F has worked on at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. For each project please include details of 

the services provided, when 18F services began, and indicate when 18F's 

services were completed or, if they are ongoing, the anticipated date of 

completion. 

o Veterans Affairs VBMS Software Development Kit 

• Status: Completed 

• Period of Performance: 7/22/2015-7/20/2016 

• Details of Service: VA is engaging 18F to build one or more 

Ruby "gems" to interface with the existing VBMS Application 

Programming Interface (APis). Ruby is a computer 

programming language. A Ruby gem is a self-contained 

Ruby program that can be easily reused and redistributed. 

The requested gem provides a single point of 

communication with the three VBMS services in order to 

streamline the development process of creating applications 

that process veterans' benefits claims. Such applications 

retrieve and store documents related to specific disability 

claims, and perform other business processes related to 

claims, such as moving a claim to appeals. 

o Veterans Affairs Cloud Migration 

• Status: Ongoing 

• Period of Performance: 8/31/15-8/30/16 

• Details of Service: 18F provides Infrastructure as a Service 

(laaS) cloud computing and engineering support for the 

creation and launch of Veterans.gov. 18F provided the 

procurement vehicle to allow VA to migrate to a 

commercially provided laaS vendor. 

3. Please provide a list and a description of each project 18F has worked on at 

the Census Bureau. For each project please include details of the services 

provided, when 18F services began, and indicate when 18F's services were 

completed or, if they are ongoing, the anticipated date of completion. 

o Census Digital Transformation 

• Status: Ongoing 

• Period of Performance: 10/7/2015-9/25/2016 

• Details of Service: 18F has provided technical expertise, 

mentorship, and code enhancements to the Census team 

3 
105 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 23484.068

working on Primus, which is the Census-built version of the 

citizen-facing component of the 2020 Internet data collection 

application. 

4. Does 18F envision its role as being an entity that fixes single, identifiable IT 

problems at an agency or helping agency IT personnel learn how to manage 

and fix their IT problems themselves? 

Over the last two and a half years, 18F has grown from a small team focused on 

building prototypes and web services to an organization with five business units: 

• Custom Partner Solutions. Provides agencies with custom application 

solutions. 

• Products and Platforms. Provides agencies with access to tools that 

address common Government-wide needs. 

• Transformation Services. Aims to improve how agencies acquire and 

manage IT by providing them with consulting services, to include new 

management models, modern software development practices, and hiring 

processes. 

• Acquisition Services. Provides acquisition services and solutions to 

support digital service delivery, including access to vendors specializing in 

agile software development, and consultations on developing requests for 

proposals. 

• Learn. Provides agencies with education, workshops, outreach, and 

communication tools on developing and managing digital services. 

18F's ultimate goal is to transform the way the government builds, buys, and 

shares digital services. We accomplish this mission by providing teams of digital 

services experts (designers, engineers, researchers, product specialists) using 

modern methodologies (agile software development, developer operations 

practices, user-centered design) to help agency customers rethink the way they 

deliver services online. 

Our end goal of transformation ensures that the focus isn't solely on creating or 

buying software, but rather delivering a solution in partnership with an agency 

that meets the needs of the user first and leaves that transformation capability 

behind at the agency. It is imperative that we work hand-in-hand with our 

customer agencies so that we ensure modern methods are learned by our 

customers, not simply bought. We will continue to adapt to our customers' needs, 

and look forward to a future where all agencies work in the manner that delivers 

the best quality results for the public: in the open, putting users first throughout 

the development cycle, and iteratively in short cycles to minimize risk. 

5. Why did 18F choose to build cloud.gov, a Platform as a Service (PaaS) 

4 
106 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 23484.069

rather than pursuing an existing, open source, commercially available 

PaaS solution? 

Cloud.gov does use an existing, open source, and commercially available PaaS 

solution. 18F customized a mature open source PaaS, called Cloud Foundrv, 

and is deploying it on our commercial Infrastructure as a Service (laaS) provider, 

in this case, Amazon Web Services. 

As 18F matured, we found that we needed a PaaS that would serve the 

extensive compliance requirements of Federal teams. We took the Cloud 

Foundry project and built onto it to fit the specific needs of Federal technology 

development and procurement. 

The core goal of cloud.gov is to radically reduce the time and labor it takes for 

Federal teams to gain Authority To Operate (ATO) for applications. Cloud.gov is 

an open-source project that other commercial providers can borrow from and 

reuse. 

a. Is the cloud.gov service FedRamp compliant? 

Cloud.gov is going through the FedRAMP compliance evaluation process. 

We received "FedRAMP Ready" status in May 2016, and we hope to 

receive FedRAMP Joint Authorization Board (JAB) Provisional Authority to 

Operate (P-ATO) in November 2016. 

6. Ms. Chrousos testified that 18F has one service line that builds prototypes 

and light web services, but this service does not compete with the private 

sector. Rather the service is a means to showcase modern methodologies 

and practices to agencies. What process does 18F follow in order to 

determine when 18F should build a service and when the service should be 

purchased from a private sector service provider? 

18F is committed to delivering solutions that best meet the needs of our agency 

customers' user base. The first step in evaluating a partner's needs is a 

thorough exploration of the challenges facing the agency and their users. This 

period of "discovery" generally entails getting to know the end users, better 

understanding stakeholder needs, and honing in on what problem we can help 

solve. Often times it is clear from the outset that our acquisitions unit will help 

the agency rethink what is needed in a procurement, and help draft a modern, 

modular-based procurement request. Sometimes, the result of this discovery 

process determines the need for custom software. When this is the case, the 

evaluation team first considers any low-cost buy options, then considers the 

reuse of open-source code. If these options do not exist, the team considers the 

creation of custom software. As Federal employees ourselves, we recognize the 

value in not creating custom software for challenges easily solved with a 

5 
107 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 23484.070

commercially available option. 

7. The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires 

agencies to assess the effectiveness of their information security controls 

and OMB Circular A-130 requires that agencies assess and authorize their 

systems before placing such systems in an operating environment. This 

end result of this process is typically for an IT system to receive an 

Authority to Operate (ATO). Does 18F have current ATOs in place for its IT 

systems? What is the process for 18F ATOs? 

18F does not currently have ATOs for all of their systems. There are known 

shortcomings in the coordination of the ATO process between GSA IT and 18F, 

and we are working next steps to resolve any gaps. GSA IT and 18F are 

currently coordinating so that 18F is following the overarching agency guidance, 

GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 06-301

, to receive ATOs. Additionally, TTS is 

appointing an infrastructure lead that will manage the technical strategy for the 

organization, in accordance with GSA technology policies. This includes 

coordinating ATOs with the Office of the Chief Information Security Officer within 

GSA IT. 

8. When 18F acquires free open source software, what process or security 

protocols/updates are implemented to ensure the software is secure? 

When 18F acquires external software for use in processing agency data or 

production data, it is subject to security review by 18F and GSA IT during the 

Authority to Operate process, whether open source or proprietary in nature. 

While the software 18F produces itself is almost entirely open source, 18F 

acquires a mix of free open-source software and proprietary software to 

accomplish its mission. Because software being open source does not carry any 

inherent security risks in comparison to proprietary software, it is treated 

identically during security reviews. 

a. Does 18F consider costs of modifying the free open source 

to ensure it is compliant with all applicable security 

standards? 

Yes, 18F does consider costs of modifying the free open source to ensure 

it is compliant with all applicable security standards. 

b. If 18F does calculate these costs, does 18F then compare the 

1 GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 06-30 is included as an appendix to our response. Please note that 

this guide is an internal GSA document and is for OFFICIAL USE ONLY. This Guide cannot be shared, 

published, or distributed on the internet or to people that do not have a need to know. 

6 
108 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 23484.071

modification costs to the costs of commercially available 

products or services that are compliant, out of the box, with 

applicable security standards? 

18F considers the cost of any modification or configuration it may need to 

perform when acquiring software in order to meet Federal security 

standards or GSA/18F policies, whether proprietary or open source. Open 

source software is not inherently less compliant with Federal security 

standards than proprietary software. 

9. Products in use by the Federal Government must be compliant with federal 

security standards. What is the process 18F follows to ensure the 

products developed by 18F are compliant with these security standards? 

18F is working with GSA IT to follow GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 06-30, 

which is included as an appendix to this response, in order to better assess 

systems in accordance with Federal security standards, as well as receive 

approval from the Chief Information Security Officer and 18F's Executive 

Director, prior to release. 

18F, like all organizations in GSA, is expected to adhere to Federal and GSA 

IT security requirements. 

a. Has 18F ever requested waivers to any Federal security standards? 

18F requested a waiver for sub-domains related to the Domain Name System 

Security Extensions (DNSSEC) security requirement. GSA IT granted this 

waiver request. 

10. At the hearing, Congressman Walker requested a list of GSA's business 

units that generate revenue for GSA's Acquisition Services Fund. Please 

provide a list of these business units, along with each individual unit's 

projected revenues or deficits by year for the next five years. 

The Acquisition Services Fund (ASF) is organized around four major business 

portfolios and three initiatives that deliver solutions to partner agencies. The 

projections below align to the revenue projections for fiscal year (FY) 2017 

presented in the FY 2017 GSA Congressional Justification, which is formulated 

18 months prior to release. The out-year estimates include the same 

assumptions used for the FY 2017 revenue projections. 

GSA is in the process offormulating the FY 2018 Congressional Justification, 

which will include revised numbers for FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 from 

7 
109 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 23484.072

$inOOO's 

those that are projected in the table below. We anticipate a variance from plan in 

FY 2017. ASF projected total operating results after replacement cost pricing 

(RCP), before reserves, that is between 1-2 percent of total revenue. We are 

happy to share those updated numbers when they are finalized and released in 

the FY 2018 Congressional Justification. 

Operating Results (After RCP, before Reserves)• 

FY2016 Request FY2016 Forecast FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 

1 Assisted Acqu-n Serv~es (AI'S) 9,655 11,907 14,079 19.842 26,514 29.432 

2 General Supplies and Services (GSS) -17422 24,012 6,702 25,285 37.476 45,400 

3 Integrated Technol>gy Serv~es (ITS) 26,767 43.023 40,985 54.087 66,180 74,632 

4 Travel, Mo1orVeh~le and Card SeMCes (TMVCSJ 2,600 40,447 17,852 -12,662 -10,240 -9,959 

5 Integrated Award EnVironment (IAE) -13 963 -46091 -14,728 -14.432 -14,038 -13,736 

6. FAS Systems Transformation (FAS-STJ .1}78 -9,050 13,042 14,982 17,343 19,524 

7 18F 4,361 "17,658 21,493 22,142 22,165 22.076 

Total 10,220 .u34 99,425 109,244 145.400 161,3691 

'The ASF is authorized to retain earnings to cover the cost of replacing fleet vehicles 

(RCP).This table includes operating results after taking RCP into consideration. The ASF is 

also authorized to retain earnings for funding certain anticipated operating needs, also known 

as reserves, specified by the Cost and Capital Plan. Please note- the table below does not 

show reserves amounts 

8