U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–212 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–539 

NOMINATION OF JOSEPH G. JORDAN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATION OF JOSEPH G. JORDAN TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

MAY 9, 2012 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

TROY H. CRIBB, Senior Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

CARLY A. COVIEO, Professional Staff Member 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

JULIE A. DUNNE, Minority Senior Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 11 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 21 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 23 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012 

Joseph G. Jordan to be Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 

Office of Management and Budget: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 28 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 40 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 41 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 82 

APPENDIX

Bay Citizen article, dated May 9, 2012, submitted for the Record by Senator 

McCain .................................................................................................................. 100 

Letter of support from Mark J. Crowley, Executive Director, HUBZone Contractors National Council .................................................................................... 102 

Letter of support from Stan Z. Soloway, President and CEO, Professional 

Services Council ................................................................................................... 103 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF JOSEPH G. JORDAN 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Begich, Collins, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning, and we will convene the 

hearing. 

Now, this truly adorable infant in the front row explains something to me. Normally when I walk by that door to head into the 

anteroom, I see the equipment of television reporters that has been 

left against the wall. Today, very pleasantly, there is a baby carriage. I am sure the mystery of this child’s identity will be clarified 

as the hearing goes on. 

Today, we welcome Joseph Jordan, nominated by the President 

to fill one of the most important management positions at the Office of Management and Budget, which is the Administrator for 

Federal Procurement Policy. The person who fills this position is 

responsible for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) 

and is charged with overseeing procurement policies across our 

government and promoting effective, cost efficient spending on contracts. This is a little known position with an enormous impact on 

the operation of our government and the spending of taxpayer dollars. 

Federal spending on contracts over the last decade has spiraled 

upward to exceed half a trillion dollars a year. Last year, the Federal Government spent over $536 billion, to be exact, on contracts 

for everything from office supplies to advanced weapons systems to 

information technology. 

Fiscal discipline is obviously always good policy, no matter the 

dollar amount. But in an economy such as ours that is struggling, 

when we are looking to significantly reduce the Federal deficit, and 

with $536 billion at stake every year, fiscal discipline and contract 

effectiveness are a must. The OFPP, in other words, really needs 

to double down on its oversight of contract spending. 

In February 2009, just a few weeks after he was sworn into office, President Obama invited a number of Members of Congress 

and others to the White House for a Fiscal Responsibility Summit, 

2 

which included a session on procurement that Senator Collins and 

I attended. It is a reflection of our probably distorted priorities, but 

let us say unconventional priorities—that is a better adjective— 

that we attended. And, it was quite a productive session. 

I have been pleased that the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have actually pushed out some of the reforms that we discussed at that summit. I look forward to Mr. Jordan’s ideas about some of those reforms and his plans, hopefully, 

to keep them going. 

Joseph Jordan has a wealth of experience in the private sector 

and government related to contracting and management. He currently serves as a senior advisor at OMB and from 2009 to 2011 

was the Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and 

Business Development at the U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA). Before joining the Administration, he was at the consulting 

firm of McKinsey and Company. 

So, we thank you for being here, thank you for your public service, and look forward to your testimony and the questions and answers. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Seldom has a nominee for the position of Administrator for the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy come before this Committee 

at a more critical time. OFPP plays a central role in shaping the 

policies and practices Federal agencies use to acquire the goods and 

services that they need to carry out their important missions. 

The widespread flouting of the acquisition rules by the General 

Services Administration (GSA) in connection with a lavish 2010 

conference, as documented by the agency’s Inspector General (IG), 

underscores the importance of adherence to these rules as a protection against the waste of taxpayer dollars. As the IG recently testified, GSA ‘‘committed numerous violations of contracting regulations and policies and of the Federal travel regulation.’’ The list of 

violations is long and growing as the IG continues to investigate. 

Among other findings, the IG found that for this ‘‘over-the-top’’ 

conference, the GSA failed to publish solicitations and to compete 

contracts for team-building exercises and audio-visual services, disclosed a competitor’s proposed price to a favored customer, revealed 

its maximum budget for one day of training—$75,000—and then 

agreed to pay the contractor that amount, and increased food and 

beverage spending at the hotel including a cocktail reception and 

a catered breakfast in return for the hotel honoring the government room rate. 

This is clearly outrageous. It raises a critical question: How does 

such a thing happen? 

The IG said that this situation raises ‘‘special concern’’ because 

GSA should be a ‘‘model’’ in contracting and managing travel and 

conference planning. I could not agree more. 

Ultimately, however, it is OFPP that has the obligation to ensure 

across government that the Federal acquisition system delivers the 

best value to taxpayers. OFPP must take action to ensure that 

such blatant violations of contract law and regulation will not be 

3 

tolerated, particularly as we face an unsustainable national debt 

burden. 

The Federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2011, acquisition spending by the Federal Government expanded by 140 percent, from $223 billion to 

$536 billion. Procurement actions are also becoming increasingly 

complex. Despite the increased workload and the complexity of procurement actions, the acquisition workforce has remained flat. This 

perfect storm has only increased the risk that there will be bad acquisition outcomes and that taxpayer dollars will be wasted. 

As President Reagan said, ‘‘personnel is policy.’’ It only makes 

sense that we will get the best acquisition outcomes if the workforce is top-notch. As the unfolding GSA scandal makes clear, 

training and accountability of our acquisition workforce must be a 

top priority. 

OFPP plays a critical role in addressing acquisition workforce 

challenges. It must ensure that we have a well trained acquisition 

workforce. This is crucial to keeping pace with the Federal Government’s increasingly complex procurements and ensuring good outcomes for taxpayers. 

The acquisition process must also be grounded solely on providing the very best value to American taxpayers, and that is why 

I have fought over the last 2 years to stop the Administration’s unfortunate efforts to inject politics into the procurement system. 

Last year, when word leaked that the Administration was considering an Executive Order that would require Federal agencies to 

collect information about campaign contributions by potential bidders as a condition of competing for Federal contracts, I opposed 

this effort, along with a bipartisan group of my colleagues. I also 

authored a provision that became law in last year’s Defense Authorization Act, and similar legislation was included in the omnibus appropriations bill to make abundantly clear that politics has 

no place in the procurement decisionmaking process. 

Incredibly, however, the Administration has proposed in its fiscal 

year 2013 budget to end the prohibition that Congress included in 

the omnibus appropriations bill just last year. No good can come 

from such an effort. Indeed, it would discourage contractors from 

participating in the Federal marketplace. 

I hope that we can get assurances from the nominee that he will 

actively oppose such an effort. 

I know that Mr. Jordan is relatively new to the area of Federal 

Government procurement. He has served in important roles at the 

SBA and OMB. I look forward to hearing from him today on how 

he would address the challenges faced by the Federal acquisition 

system if confirmed as the next OFPP Administrator. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

Let me now say for the record that Joseph Jordan has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered 

pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of the financial data, which are on 

file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan appears in the Appendix on page 25. 

Our Committee rules require, I think you know, Mr. Jordan, that 

all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony under 

oath. So I would ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to 

the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God. 

Mr. JORDAN. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

You may now proceed with your statement and introduce all of 

the adorable family members that you have with you. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH G. JORDAN 1 TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator 

Collins, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear 

before you today as President Obama’s nominee to serve as the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget. 

I am very grateful to have several members of my family with 

me this morning, supporting me today as they have throughout my 

life. And, with your indulgence, I would like to introduce a few of 

them briefly: My incredible wife, Sarah; my 10-month-old son, 

Carter—at least until Carter’s Cheerios run out, and then he will 

be making an exit; my amazing mother, Joan Jordan, representing 

my wonderful family; my mother-in-law, Victoria Carter; and my 

cousins, Ann and Kevin Woelflein. 

And, it is also very moving to see many other friends and colleagues from SBA, OMB, and elsewhere here to support me today. 

I am very blessed to have such a supportive and wonderful family and group of friends. 

I feel deeply privileged that the President has nominated me to 

lead the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It plays a critical 

role in helping make our government more efficient, effective, and 

affordable. With more than $500 billion going to Federal contracts 

every year—about $1 out of every $6 spent by the Federal Government—it is imperative that our acquisitions produce the best possible results for the American people. 

I have seen in both my private sector and public sector experiences what a positive effect improvements in the contracting process can have on an organization’s bottom line. 

As a taxpayer, I am pleased by the attention this Administration, 

this Committee, and Members of Congress have given to improving 

the acquisition system. I am equally heartened by the progress 

agencies have made over the past 3 years to get control of the 

unsustainable contract spending that has plagued our system for 

decades. 

I appreciate the work of this Committee to drive increased transparency, accountability, and savings in the acquisition process and 

also to develop and empower our acquisition workforce. We must 

ensure that the dedicated men and women of our acquisition workforce have the policies and tools they need to build upon and susVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:45 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 75212 PO 00000 Frm 000008 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\75212.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

tain this progress while consistently achieving the best value from 

our contract actions. 

If confirmed as Administrator, I intend to work with Congress 

and the agencies to immediately address the following three priorities: 

First, buying smarter. Agencies’ ability to meet their missions in 

a constrained budget environment requires that they take full advantage of proven and innovative strategies for cutting costs and 

getting better results. We must leverage the government’s buying 

power, increase competition, reduce high risk contracts, and continue to deliver higher quality goods and services to agency personnel. 

I am encouraged by several initiatives that the government has 

undertaken in the area of strategic sourcing, both at the governmentwide and agencywide levels, to secure better prices and reduce 

the proliferation of duplicative contracts for common needs, such as 

office supplies and overnight delivery services. We must accelerate 

the application of lessons learned from these experiences and augment them with private sector best practices so that agencies may 

increase savings for many of their other goods and services. 

Second, building the right supplier relationships. We must make 

it a top priority to do business with those contractors who are committed to delivering best value to the taxpayer. To this end, we 

must redouble our effort to document and share past performance 

information so that the intended benefit of motivating and rewarding good performance is fully realized. 

We must also continue our push to maximize contracting with 

small and disadvantaged businesses. Given my work over the last 

3 years at the Small Business Administration, I have a real passion for ensuring that the government improves our utilization of 

small businesses and allows agencies and taxpayers to benefit from 

the win-win that occurs when they contract with small businesses. 

Just as it is important to reward high performing businesses, it 

is also important to make sure taxpayer dollars are not put at risk 

in the hands of contractors who are not responsible sources. Our 

agencies must be prepared to give appropriate consideration to suspension and debarment to fight the waste and abuse of bad actors 

and maintain the public’s trust in our system. 

Third, strengthening the acquisition workforce. The acquisition 

workforce is the backbone of our acquisition system. Their skills 

and good judgment are inextricably tied to our government’s ability 

to buy needed goods and services and deliver effective results. If 

confirmed, I will work closely with agency Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives and our Federal training 

institutions to identify training needs and ensure that we are making the appropriate training investment in all of our acquisition 

professionals. 

This includes not just our essential contracting officers, but also 

contracting officers’ representatives, who are responsible for contract management, and program and project managers, who are instrumental in acquisition planning and the development of contract 

requirements. 

All of our efforts must be guided by an understanding that meaningful collaboration is the key to success. Improved interactions beVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:45 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 75212 PO 00000 Frm 000009 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\75212.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6 

tween Federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders allow the 

government to better understand the marketplace and contractors 

to perform the due diligence necessary to offer the best solutions 

to support agency missions. 

Finally, we must remain mindful of the relationship between 

Federal employees and contractors. Federal employees are the lifeblood of our government, and contractors bring important experience and innovation to support our employees in meeting their missions. We must maintain the right balance between the sectors 

that best protects the public’s interest and serves the American 

people in a cost-effective manner. 

Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today. If 

I am confirmed, I look forward to joining with the talented leadership of OMB and the dedicated staff of OFPP in partnering with 

this Committee and other Members of Congress to fulfill our 

shared commitment to an acquisition system that delivers the costeffective, timely, and quality service that our citizens need and deserve. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I will be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much for your statement. 

I will start now with the standard questions that we ask all of 

our nominees. 

First, is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. JORDAN. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Mr. JORDAN. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And finally, do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are 

confirmed? 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well done so far. We will start with the 

first round of questions, limited to 7 minutes. 

Mr. Jordan, as Senator Collins referred to in her opening statement, we have just come through this really infuriating episode of 

GSA misbehavior. It is particularly troubling, in what we know 

about the Western Regions Conference, because GSA obviously 

works closely with OFPP, which you have been nominated to head, 

and, therefore, is supposed to be setting a model for using contract 

dollars in the most efficient ways possible. 

One of the less salacious—but for us, as troubling—aspects of the 

story from the Western Regions Conference was that GSA actually 

violated a number of basic procurement rules in planning the conference. For example, one employee disclosed a competitor’s proposal to another contractor. There were violations of rules related 

to small business set-asides and inappropriate use of sole-source 

contracts. 

7 

In other words, there was, bottom line, a flagrant disregard for 

the rules that GSA and OFPP are supposed to be enforcing. 

I wanted to invite you generally to respond, to give us your reaction to the GSA scandal, and also to comment, if you will, on what 

I would imagine may be a crisis of confidence in other Federal 

agencies in their attitude toward GSA and what you, as the head 

of OFPP, think you can do about it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Absolutely. First of all, what happened with the 

Public Buildings Service Conference is totally unacceptable as is 

any waste of taxpayer dollars. It is my understanding that with regard to the inappropriate contracting practices that you reference, 

they are all currently illegal. 

So, what I would want to do from day one is partner with Acting 

Administrator Tangherlini in his top-down review of GSA because, 

as you said, OFPP and GSA have to be strong partners in a number of areas. I would also look into whether any additional guidance or legal clarification is needed to prevent these practices in 

the past. And then, I would use the OFPP Administrator position, 

if confirmed, to work with all the agencies to ensure that there is 

a culture of respect for taxpayer dollars and adherence to these 

rules. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will be following that closely, and I 

appreciate that answer. 

Let me go to a different side of your responsibilities. 

Last fall, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported 

to our Committee on the use of suspension and debarment procedures as a tool to keep Federal contracts out of the hands of bad 

actors. The results of the GAO inquiry were, frankly, disheartening. Over a 5-year period, a number of the major contracting 

agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

had taken no suspension and debarment actions at all, and most 

other agencies sent fewer than 20 names to the Excluded Parties 

List over that same 5-year period. 

On the eve of the hearing that our Committee held on suspension 

and debarment last November, OMB issued a memorandum to all 

agencies, outlining steps that it expected them to take to improve 

their suspension and debarment practices. 

I wanted to ask what you would do to follow up and make sure 

that agencies are taking these actions. Also, the memo did not give 

agencies a deadline for following through, and I wanted to ask you 

whether OFPP should follow up and impose a deadline for a response. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, as I said in my opening statement, I truly believe that suspension and debarment can be a very important tool 

in protecting taxpayer dollars when there is evidence of a bad actor 

or waste, fraud, and abuse. As evidence of that, when I was at 

SBA, we developed a three-pronged fraud, waste, and abuse prevention continuum, including up-front certification, ongoing surveillance and monitoring, and robust and timely enforcement that was 

actually praised as a best practice by the GAO. 

In that robust and timely enforcement category, my office worked 

very closely with our general counsel and our suspension and deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:45 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 75212 PO 00000 Frm 000011 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\75212.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

barment official to make sure that we were, as appropriate, referring firms for suspension and debarment and referring firms to the 

Department of Justice for prosecution. An outcome of that, for example, was the suspension of a very high profile government contractor, and it sent a signal that we were taking this very seriously. 

The very positive outcome of these things, secondarily, is that it 

moves you toward a place where we all want to be, which is not 

just punishing the bad actors, but preventing people from thinking 

they can try this in the first place. 

So, what would I do if confirmed? I would follow up with the 

agencies, especially on the point of naming a senior accountable official for suspension and debarment because I think that is important. You need the high level focus to make sure that this is happening and that it is viewed as a very important function. Then I 

would ask for further data on how they are looking at these actions 

and what considerations they are taking into effect when making 

or not making recommendations to suspend or debar. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is very important. To say the obvious, the rules are there for a reason. It sometimes can be awkward 

or inconvenient to enforce them, but if we do not enforce them, 

then it encourages the bad actors to continue and does not reward 

the good actors. 

I appreciate what you just said about trying to take action to prevent bad actors from getting contracts in the first place. 

One of the other things that GAO pointed out was that the past 

performance reviews that contracting officers are supposed to fill 

out are completed only for a small number of awards, and contracting officers do not always consult the reviews that have been 

filled out. 

I do not know if you are aware of that, but whether you are or 

not, I want to ask you for a response on what you think OFPP 

should do, if you are confirmed, to get that system of the past performance reviews to be the rule and not the exception. 

Mr. JORDAN. Absolutely. I think past performance is critical in 

making good pre-award decisions. I think there has been some good 

progress in the creation of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, but a database is only as good as the quality of 

data within it and people’s utilization of it. 

So, this is the training that I talked about, which I think we specifically need to push, to make sure contracting officers understand 

their duties at the end of a contract to enter in how that contractor 

did on that contract with fair, accurate, and honest evaluations. 

Then, pre-award, we need to make sure that contracting officers 

are going to that system and looking at offerers or potential awardees to make sure that they do not have any red flags, or looking 

for really good contractors to reward them for their great past performance. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. My time is up on this round. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the Chairman mentioned, the position as Administrator of 

OFPP is one that is not well known to the public at large, but it 

is in fact an extremely important leadership position within the 

9 

Federal Government and the Federal procurement system in general. It is crucial that the Administrator has a strong knowledge 

of and experience with the Federal procurement system. The leader 

of the office must also have credibility with a broad range of stakeholders. 

And, having followed procurement issues for many years, for 

even decades, I know how challenging this position is, and I also 

have personally known the last probably five, or even more, OFPP 

Administrators. I would mention that your most immediate predecessor had more than 20 years of experience in the Federal contracting world and had been a professor who actually taught procurement law. 

Now, some Senators have raised questions about whether or not 

you have sufficient experience for this job, particularly given the 

qualifications of the last five of your predecessors. So, that is an 

issue that I want you to address right off at this hearing, and that 

is: Despite obviously being a very bright individual who cares deeply about these issues and about serving government, what do you 

say to critics who question whether or not you are qualified for a 

position that requires a lot of technical expertise? 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, thank you for that question, Senator. 

I, too, share your respect and admiration for my predecessor, Administrator Dan Gordon. We had a great relationship while I was 

at the SBA, and I am honored to be nominated to succeed him. 

Why do I think I have the appropriate qualifications and experience for this job, especially at this time, which, as you note in your 

opening statement, is particularly crucial given all of the forces 

being brought to bear on the acquisition system? I think that my 

experiences in both the private sector and the public sector do 

make me uniquely qualified for the Administrator position right 

now. 

In the private sector, I worked with various companies, State 

governments, and other entities on procurement and supply chain 

management issues, specifically strategic sourcing and other ways 

to buy smarter and use data-driven analytics to lower costs and improve value. That is a big element that I think I can bring to bear 

here. 

I then was privileged to join the SBA and oversaw small business 

contracting for the entire Federal Government, running several of 

the set-aside programs that drove almost $100 billion in prime contracts to small businesses. We achieved the largest 2-year increase 

against our goal in more than a decade, as we were simultaneously 

reducing fraud, waste, and abuse. 

These are the types of things that I would want to drive, if confirmed. 

Also, at SBA, I led a team of several hundred acquisition professionals, both in the policy development side as well as on the frontline execution side with the contracting officers. So, I got to really 

know what makes good policy that is executable and what makes 

good operational incentives to get that policy executed on the front 

line. I also understand the challenges our contracting officers face 

and, more importantly, the solutions on how to overcome those 

challenges. 

10 

I worked in a collaborative and productive way with all the 

stakeholders. As you said, this position does have a key outwardfacing role, communicating with all the various stakeholders to 

make sure the system is fair, efficient, and effective. 

And last, I had a very positive working relationship with Congress, and even this Committee, whether it was passing the Small 

Business Jobs Act that provided all sorts of new and positive tools 

for small business contractors or coming up and working together 

with testimonies and briefings and all those sorts of things. 

So, I think that the amalgam of all of those experiences lends 

itself quite well to the Administrator of the OFPP position at this 

crucial time. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. I think that is a very helpful recitation to get on the record. 

I, personally, having studied your background, believe that you 

are qualified for the position. I am more concerned about some policy issues and what your position would be on those policy issues, 

but some of my colleagues have raised questions about your experience, particularly compared to your immediate predecessor. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am determined to do 

everything I can to protect the integrity of the Federal procurement 

system, and that is why I was so alarmed last year to see a draft 

Executive Order from this Administration that actually proposed to 

inject politics into the procurement system by requiring would-be 

bidders to disclose their political contributions. That was just astounding to me. 

It would have sent a message to contracting officials that somehow this should be a factor in their decisionmaking when they are 

awarding Federal contracts. After all, why else would you require 

it to be reported? 

It would also chill the constitutional rights of contractors to 

make political contributions. They would assume that if they are 

supporting Republicans and it is a Democratic Administration, or 

vice-versa, that they are somehow going to be disqualified from bidding. 

And, it would potentially shrink the number of contractors who 

are interested in even doing business with the Federal Government. 

So, what I am seeking from you today is a very clear statement 

that you will oppose any such efforts to require Federal agencies 

to collect political contribution information from government contractors. Will you oppose any such effort? 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, Senator Collins, I also appreciated your giving 

me the opportunity before the hearing to put down in writing and 

send to you my position, which is absolutely clear, I think—— 

Senator COLLINS. I will tell you I did not find that reassuring 

enough, so—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let me say here that—as clearly as possible— 

I believe there is no place for politics in the acquisition system. You 

have my full assurance that, if confirmed, I am fully committed to 

ensuring that the acquisition process is a meritocracy, that we are 

upholding integrity and transparency at all times, and that no political considerations are allowed to be brought to bear on Federal 

11 

contracting decisions at any point during the process, and you have 

my full commitment to that. 

Senator COLLINS. But will you oppose the issuance of an Executive Order that would seek to require that political contributions be 

reported as part of the bidding process? 

Mr. JORDAN. It is hard for me to comment on a hypothetical, having not—— 

Senator COLLINS. Well, it is not a hypothetical because the Administration was on the verge of doing just that last year. We have 

the draft Executive Order. 

Mr. JORDAN. I am not aware of any efforts to issue an Executive 

Order on this topic at this time. 

If asked for my counsel by the President, who issues Executive 

Orders, I would say that anything we do in this arena needs to 

have at the very top of the priority list, as an absolute cornerstone, 

the principle that politics cannot play a role; political influence cannot play a role in the acquisition process. And, I would say that 

very clearly, and I would advocate on behalf of that belief very 

strongly. 

Senator COLLINS. My time has expired. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

I agree totally with Senator Collins on this issue. Somebody may 

have thought that this would have brought the contributions into 

the light of day and somehow, thereby, purge the politics from the 

process, but I think it sent exactly the opposite message. I hope 

that Executive Order does not see the light of day, and I hope you 

will be effective in your advocacy to the White House on that point. 

Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, I am sorry that your son, Carter, is not here to hear your 

testimony and my questions. I am sure it would have been a memorable experience for him. 

Mr. JORDAN. I will make him watch online right before bedtime. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. Please do that, maybe several times. I guarantee it will put him to sleep. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I was going to ask you, Senator McCain: 

Have you ever slept like a baby? 

This is a running routine we do. 

Senator MCCAIN. I will not harass the witness with that old 

chestnut. 

Mr. Jordan, I am not involved in the issue that Senator Collins 

and Senator Lieberman just raised, but I think you have to be 

more definitive on this issue. It is a very important issue to us, and 

I hope you will consider a more definitive answer on it. And, I also 

understand the pressures that you are also experiencing. 

Senator Coburn and I objected during the stimulus package to 

the so-called wine train in California. Are you familiar with that 

issue? 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. I want to discuss with you a little bit about 

that issue and its implications in your new job. As you know, the 

12 

1The Bay Citizen article referenced by Senator McCain appears in the Appendix on page 100. 

wine train in Napa Valley was originally scheduled to cost $64 million. Now it is $79 million. 

Information has come out from those who were involved in it 

that, I guess in their words, the Napa Valley Wine Train continues 

to be a sinkhole, gone from $64 million to $79 million, and the people involved in it have now said that it was a gold mine for them 

because it was a no-bid contract. 

‘‘Allegations that the government overpaid by $10 million surfaced in pretrial testimony in the 2010 lawsuit, which involved a 

contract dispute between Suulutaaq and a construction management firm. Greg Poynor, former Suulutaaq CEO, testified that after 

the company had obtained the contract for the Wine Train job, it 

subcontracted heavy construction work to the Kiewat Corporation. 

The Kiewat officials concluded that a competitive bid would have 

been $10 million less than what the government had agreed to pay 

Suulutaaq.’’ 1

So, obviously, it is an outrageous rip-off of the taxpayers’ dollars, 

not to mention the project alone, but the cost escalation. 

In March 2011, you testified before the Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee that you were ‘‘proud’’ of the direction that the new regulations were headed. 

Unfortunately, GAO’s recent report uncovered problems with the 

SBA’s new regulations. For example, Alaska Native Corporations 

(ANCs) are now required to perform 40 percent of the work in the 

contract. GAO says SBA has no way of knowing if an ANC enters 

into a ‘‘joint’’ venture and subcontracts a majority of the work to 

a large non-Native corporation. 

GAO recommends SBA use a new database to track contract dollars to go to ANCs. SBA responded a new database might not be 

ready until 2013. 

In January, GAO said SBA had not updated its standard operating procedures for SBA district offices to implement the new regulations. Has that occurred yet? 

Mr. JORDAN. I am not aware, but I can check with my colleagues 

at SBA. 

Senator MCCAIN. GAO has called upon OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy, the very office that you are nominated to head, 

to amend Federal acquisition regulations to require Federal agencies to closely document compliance with the new SBA regulations, 

including how much work is actually performed by the ANC company and their non-Native subcontractor. 

Do you agree with GAO’s recommendations and will you implement them in a timely fashion? 

Mr. JORDAN. I have not seen those recommendations, specifically. 

That being said, I certainly agree that we need to make sure that 

the regulations that were created are being followed, and that is 

going to require looking at the data, making this part of 8(a) firms’ 

annual reviews, and things of that nature. So, I absolutely would 

commit to, if confirmed, partnering with SBA to ensure that is implemented. 

As you were talking, you raised several of the things that are on 

the priority list. In this time of flat and declining budgets, we have 

13 

to drive costs down, which means buying smarter and also, in certain instances, buying less. 

We have to increase competition. When I was at SBA during the 

Recovery Act, we issued industry class waivers in the 8(a) program 

so that agencies could both utilize that program and utilize competition. 

And, we have to increase transparency in our use of data. 

So, I do agree with all of those points. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I would like to hear from you, perhaps in 

writing, specifically what is being done about these ANCs. The 

money that is now going to them has increased to $4.7 billion in 

2010 alone, and they call themselves small business when it is $4.7 

billion compared to $500 million in 2000 and $2.1 billion in 2005. 

And, the thing that is egregious about this, Mr. Jordan, is the 

ANC represents fewer than 6 percent of all small businesses enrolled in the 8(a) program, but they receive almost one-third of the 

contract dollars. What that does, frankly, is squeeze out small businesses all over America on behalf of a group of Native American 

entities in Alaska. That is not right. That is unfair to small businesses all over America. 

Now, you are going to be involved in this in your new job. 

So, we are not talking about chicken feed here. This Wine Train 

scandal—and it is a scandal—is just, again, one of the most visible 

examples of what is going on here. 

One of the problems is that Federal contracting officers use the 

no-bid contracts for ANCs because they want to expedite a project 

and because it is a quick and easy way to meet small business contract quotas. Now, that is a mind-set that has to be changed. 

So, you were the top SBA official for government contracting, and 

you oversaw the SBA 8(a) contracting programs for ANCs—is that 

correct? 

Mr. JORDAN. That is correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. And, what are your conclusions? 

Mr. JORDAN. I think that it is critically important that the SBA, 

with OFPP’s help and partnership, executes and oversees the 8(a) 

program officially and effectively as intended by Congress. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you think they are doing that? 

Mr. JORDAN. I think that we have made strides. And, when I 

said I was proud of our progress, that is what I was referring to— 

the first comprehensive regulatory revision in more than a decade 

while I was there. We did tighten some of the loopholes around 

joint venturing and increase the reporting requirements to make 

sure that we had the information needed to do proper and effective 

oversight. 

But, as you note, first you have to give everyone the tools, and 

then you have to make sure that they are using them. That is not 

a one-time thing. That is an ongoing thing. 

So, you certainly have my commitment to work with SBA and to 

work through OFPP, if confirmed, with the entire community to 

make sure that the programs are being executed and overseen effectively and efficiently. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, also, you might draw a conclusion as to whether ANCs that got $4.7 billion in contract dollars qualify as 

small businesses. 

14 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator McCain. Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

As you can imagine, I take exception to the comments by my 

dear friend from Arizona. 

The ANCs always get picked on by a few Senators on a regular 

basis, which I would challenge. For example, an ANC that I met 

with today—1,000 employees in seven different States—52 percent 

of their employees are veterans, which I think is a pretty good 

thing, seeing that we have the highest unemployment of veterans 

from Afghanistan and Iraq and almost one out of three are unemployed. 

I hear about the claims—and there are situations. 

And, I think I remember a hearing you were at, and you were 

grilled—this is repeat two, to be very frank with you—on 8(a)s. You 

actually had a very good response. You talked about the new regulation that had been put in place, that had just been implemented, 

and how you were working with 8(a)s to ensure that they had the 

training and the knowledge of the new requirements. That is less 

than maybe a year old, maybe a little bit more. 

And so, you took something that actually the 8(a)s were asking 

for, for a decade or more, that is, for the SBA to actually do their 

job, to actually put resources into helping them identify and drive 

out the bad actors. You did that. You actually took it on. And, I 

commend you for that. 

And, I do not agree with this constant rant about ANCs, which, 

yes, represent 6 percent of the small businesses, but they also represent tens of thousands of people. 

I can go through the success. Why does the Army Corps of Engineers like the 8(a)s? Because they can rapidly deploy in an environment that most people do not understand, in developing work in 

Alaska, for example. 

So, I can go on for 50 minutes on 8(a)s and the success of them, 

how they have taken parts of Alaska, which are not supported necessarily by a lot of Bureau of Indian Affairs money—we get some, 

but not like the tribes in the lower 48—because they have become 

self-sufficient. They employ their own people. We have Harvard 

graduates and Georgetown graduates who come back to Alaska to 

work in small villages because of the success of the 8(a)s, and they 

actually make a livable wage rather than living in poverty or living 

on the government dole. 

This is my rant. I am venting to you because the other Senator 

has left the room. 

And, I want to make it very clear that you have tried to clean 

up the old battles at SBA. Am I incorrect on this issue of ANCs? 

You have actually tried to help rectify some of the concerns that 

I have since my 3 years here and they have had for the last decade 

or more. Is that accurate? 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, sir. I think everyone on both sides of the issue 

agrees that there is no room in that program for fraud, waste, or 

abuse, and bad actors. 

15 

Senator BEGICH. In any Federal Government program, like some 

of our big contractors that walk away with billions of dollars and 

then they get a slap on the wrist and get to do more contracting— 

I think that is the point that the Chairman and Senator Collins 

brought up, how some of these contractors get to come back for repeat business and rip off this government in the ‘‘gabillions.’’ And, 

that is my word. That is an Alaskan word. 

Mr. JORDAN. I had the privilege of visiting rural Alaska and seeing some of the communities. And, there is, as you well know, a 

difference between the individually owned 8(a) program—— 

Senator BEGICH. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. And the entity-owned 8(a) program. 

Senator BEGICH. Some people lack that understanding around 

this place, just so you know, but go ahead. 

Mr. JORDAN. And so, when it comes to the statutory provisions 

afforded to the Native 8(a) entities through the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act, that is subject to the will of Congress, but 

I think that the oversight and execution of the programs are absolutely our responsibility. 

When we did the regulatory revision for the 8(a) program, which 

was not exclusively focused on Native entities, it was focused on 

the program overall. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. We received more than 2,500 public comments, 

which were overwhelmingly supportive. SBA has now stood up 

those regulations and is in the process of executing them. It will 

be, like with any program, an ongoing process to make sure that 

they are operationalized and they are being executed and the program is being overseen effectively. 

And, as I said before, I am absolutely committed to continuing 

my work to make sure that program and any contracting program 

is executed and overseen absent fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Senator BEGICH. And there is no difference, for example, between 

the disadvantaged businesses, the veterans’ businesses, which have 

people who claim to be veterans who are not veterans, who take 

advantage of the program—I mean, we are big organization, the 

Federal Government, $3 trillion plus, and people are going to take 

advantage of it, big contractors and small contractors. 

And, part of the job that you have put on your list of priorities 

is to go after those guys, to make sure we have a better and more 

efficient system. Is that fair? 

Mr. JORDAN. That is absolutely true for all of the program. 

Senator BEGICH. I did not mean to get you in the crosshairs on 

the issue of 8(a)s, but let me ask you just in general. 

I mean, you understand the value of the 8(a) program. And, do 

you think it is successful overall, recognizing there are issues that 

come up off and on, across the board—when I say 8(a)s, they are 

not just ANC (8a)s; there are others. 

Mr. JORDAN. That is right. 

Senator BEGICH. But is that a fair statement, that it has increased the capacity for minority, disadvantaged businesses to participate? 

Mr. JORDAN. I think the 8(a) program is very valuable and has 

provided clear benefits to socially and economically disadvantaged 

16 

small businesses, both in the individual-owned category and the 

Native-owned category. 

Senator BEGICH. Anywhere in the program? 

Mr. JORDAN. I think like any program, we can improve, and I 

would be committed to helping SBA in improving that. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. I have a feeling you will be back 

here again, grilled on this, and I will find myself probably here 

talking about it, but let me ask you another question. 

I know one of the things you have put in your priorities is trying 

to create some efficiencies in purchasing. 

I know in Alaska we had a wholesale food supplier, Linford 

Wholesale Foods, and they warehoused and delivered the food for 

the military in Alaska. Now that has gone to, about 4 or 5 years 

ago, a general contract that services multiple bases around the 

country. 

With shipping products to Alaska, you cannot just do overnight 

in some cases. In the sense of fresh products, sometimes you can 

not get it out to some of the more remote base installations. 

How will you ensure not only efficient pricing, but the quality of 

the product so you do not have military folks getting product that 

is substandard because we have this general contract that has also 

cut out small businesses? 

Mr. JORDAN. I do think that the government needs to better leverage its buying power and get better pricing across the board, especially in commodity areas. But I also absolutely believe—and I 

have seen in the private sector and the public sector context—that 

this can be balanced with the other priorities, such as maximizing 

small business utilization. 

A great example, Congress, in September 2010, passed the Small 

Business Jobs Act, and Section 1331 of that Act says agencies can 

now do task order set-asides off of those larger multiple award contracts. So, you get the efficiency of having some of these requirements—— 

Senator BEGICH. Price guarantees. 

Mr. JORDAN. Exactly, but you can still make sure that small 

businesses are the ones getting those task orders when appropriate. 

In terms of making sure that you have the right efficiency and 

delivery, terms like those that you spoke of? Well, that is when you 

have to make sure that you are not just bundling a bunch of things 

together, but you are being strategic in the way that you are looking at those commodities and making the right multiple award contracts for that commodity or that group of commodities. 

Senator BEGICH. I am looking forward to having you appointed. 

I will be anxious to work with you in that regard and then also, 

obviously, the 8(a) issue. 

I am glad Senator Collins brought up experience. What I am 

looking for is someone who has a little ambition, someone who is 

anxious to move forward. Sometimes you get people who have been 

bureaucrats too long, and the result is nothing changes. 

What you did at SBA, people were talking about for a decade. 

You came in there in a very short period and made some changes. 

So, I know there are some that always want to see the big, thick 

resume. But to be frank with you, I want someone beginning their 

17 

career in a variety of fields, who is anxious, motivated, and wants 

to see things done. So, I am looking forward to supporting you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Just a few more questions, Mr. Jordan. 

As you know, when an agency hires a contractor through a costreimbursement contract, a part of what the government pays may 

go toward compensating the executives of the company. But there 

is a statutory cap on the amount that can go to executive compensation, and that cap is based on a formula tied to executive 

compensation in large publically traded companies. OMB, as I am 

sure you know, is required by statute to adjust the cap each year, 

using the formula. 

When Congress enacted the formula in 1997, I do not think we 

foresaw how sharply executive compensation would rise nor could 

we have dreamed that pursuant to the statute that now is law, the 

cap on contractor executive compensation has now risen to over 

$763,000 a year. 

Last year, as I am sure you know, the President proposed abolishing the formula and replacing it with a cap that is equal to the 

pay rate for the government’s most senior executives, which is 

about $200,000. Our Committee has heard some concern that this 

amount would make it hard for the government to attract some 

highly skilled firms, such as cyber experts, to work for the government. But obviously, the current statutory formula is totally out of 

whack and totally unacceptable to the public. 

So, I wonder if you have any thoughts about how we can work 

our way, in a sensible way, out of this dilemma. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, sir, absolutely. I think that contractors should 

be able to pay their employees whatever they want. It is just that 

the government should not have to reimburse them for levels in 

that amount. 

I fully agree with what Acting OFPP Administrator Lesley Field 

said recently when OMB was forced to issue those increases—that 

it was a begrudging, but statutorily required, act to increase the 

cap above $750,000. 

I am absolutely committed to working with you, this Committee, 

and Congress, if confirmed, to figure out what the right level is. It 

may be above the $200,000 level that was previously proposed. I 

think most people agree it should not be at $763,000. If exceptions 

are necessary for certain scientific and technical experts, I would 

be happy discussing and exploring that, but I share your concern, 

and you would absolutely find a willing partner in me to help figure out what the best solution is. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. If you are confirmed, we 

should work on that. 

It seems to me based on what you have said, and I agree with 

this, that we may want to set a much lower cap but create a process for seeking exceptions to that cap in particular cases, which is 

to say, have an appeal to be made to some central body in the government to make the case that in those cases the cap should be 

waived. 

I have a few more questions, but I am going to submit them for 

the record, and I will yield now to Senator Collins. 

18 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a couple more questions and will submit the rest of 

mine as well, especially since you covered some very important 

issues regarding debarment and suspension that our Committee 

has been following. I want to associate myself with the Chairman’s 

questions in those areas and hope that we can do a better job of 

ensuring that the government only does business with responsible 

bidders. 

I want to turn to the issue of interagency contracting. In September of last year, the former OFPP Administrator issued guidance on business case requirements for interagency contracting vehicles. At that time, he said that it is critical that the Federal Government leverage its buying power to the maximum extent as well 

as achieve administrative efficiencies and cost savings, but he went 

on to caution that too often agencies establish new overlapping and 

duplicative contracts for supplies or services because agencies have 

not adequately considered the suitability of existing interagency 

contract vehicles. 

What is your reaction to that? 

Do we have the right mix of interagency contracting vehicles? 

How can we avoid this kind of duplication? 

And, what do you see as OFPP’s role? 

Mr. JORDAN. Absolutely, I agree with everything that you relayed 

that Administrator Gordon had said. 

This is one of those areas where, in a private sector context, I 

absolutely can see how maximizing the use of interagency contracting is a no-brainer because you are going to better leverage 

the spend base of the entire government, drive prices down, and 

get better quality and service for the government. 

However, what I learned is that in its application within the government there are challenges because, yes, agencies are saying 

they want more use of interagency contracts, but they want their 

agency to be the lead on the interagency contract. So, you end up 

with, as you said, duplicative contracts in an area that should exist 

to reduce duplication. 

Senator COLLINS. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. When you look at just one agency, all too frequently 

we see a bunch of contracts for the same thing, even with the same 

vendor. So, we need to get agencywide, enterprisewide sourcing 

right. 

When you look across the government, there are a lot of commodity areas where we are all buying the same things, and we 

should be doing so in a thoughtful way and leveraging our buying 

power. But that does not mean everybody setting up their own contract available for interagency use. 

So, what I would do is take that business case process you talked 

about very seriously as well as I would like to inventory the interagency contracts across the government and hopefully post those in 

a place so that contracting officers and agencies very quickly and 

easily can see when there is a vehicle that already suits their 

needs. They do not need to go through the process of setting up a 

new one. 

19 

Then, that frees up their time to focus on the increasingly complex requirements for other contracts that both you and the Chairman referenced in your opening statements. 

Senator COLLINS. I think your idea for some sort of Web site that 

could easily be accessible so that agencies could, at a glance, see 

what is already out there would be very helpful. GSA supposedly 

does that, and the multiple award schedules in a way are part of 

that. 

Let me do one follow-up question on this whole multi-agency contract issue. In September of last year, I think in that same memorandum, OFPP required business cases for Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) for information technology (IT) to actually be submitted to OMB. But for other cases of Multi-Agency 

Contracts, such as blanket purchase agreements and agency-specific contracts, the OFPP memorandum states that OFPP reserves 

the discretion to require the agency to submit the approved business case to OMB for review prior to the solicitation process. 

Now, we asked you a pre-hearing question about this, and you 

stated that you would expect OFPP to follow up with an agency 

when it is clear that the agency has failed to consider the suitability of existing interagency vehicles and agency-specific contracts or when the agency has failed to describe the value that 

would be added by establishing a new contract because those would 

be warning signs of a wasteful investment. 

But, my point is, how are you going to know? 

OFPP generally does not see the agency’s business case unless it 

is exercising this discretion broadly or unless it is in the IT area. 

So, how would you know that an agency had failed? 

Mr. JORDAN. I am encouraged when you mention the GWACs in 

IT. That is $80 billion that flows through information technology, 

and so it is a critically important area that we reduce duplication, 

increase transparency, and lower cost. 

Senator COLLINS. And, it is an area where there has been failure 

after failure after failure. 

Mr. JORDAN. And so, in that area, working with our Chief Information Officer, Steve VanRoekel, will be incredibly important. I am 

very excited, since we already have a good relationship, to hit the 

ground running and partner with him in that area because that is 

a huge part of our shared responsibility in E-government and 

OFPP. 

When it comes to the other types of multiple award contracts, we 

have to think about what are ways that we can improve in an efficient way our oversight of the creation and management of those 

types of vehicles. 

So, that interagency contract directory type of system would be 

one place that we would be able to have visibility. 

Looking at the Federal Business Opportunities Web site and 

monitoring that so that we know when these are coming up is another. 

And then, third—and a place that I am very excited to engage, 

if confirmed—is OFPP convenes the agencies on a periodic one-toone basis in what are called Acquisition Status Updates (AcqStats), 

and I think this would be perfectly applicable to those types of conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:45 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 75212 PO 00000 Frm 000023 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\75212.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
20 

versations so, as you said, we get ahead of the knowledge curve 

and not clean up afterward. 

Senator COLLINS. I would like to suggest to you that—and I recognize what a small office OFPP is and how few staff you have— 

perhaps you should a couple of times a year just select an agency, 

a particular contract, and look at the business case and make an 

assessment, or partner with GAO and our Committee to do so. 

It just seems to me that it is one thing to have this memorandum 

that says that you are going to intervene when there is a failed or 

inadequate business case, but you do not see the business case. So 

how are you going to even know that it was failed unless the contract goes disastrously wrong? And then, it is after the fact, as you 

said. 

Mr. JORDAN. Right. 

Senator COLLINS. So, I would like to suggest a spot check, an 

audit, a random selection of a couple of contracts a year where you 

would really drill down and look at the business case. You might 

be worried about what you would learn from that, but I think it 

would be helpful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

Mr. Jordan, thanks for your testimony very much. Thanks to 

your family and friends for being with you. Thanks to your son, 

Carter, for his cameo appearance. 

I want to say for the record that his statements before he left 

made a lot of sense. [Laughter.] 

Senator COLLINS. What about his reaction to Senator McCain’s 

comments? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Also made a lot of sense. 

What I was teasing Senator McCain about was that I too often 

have been in his company when he said after the 2008 election that 

he was sleeping like a baby. He would sleep for 2 hours, wake up 

and cry, and he would go to sleep for 2 more hours. [Laughter.] 

And, I laugh at it every time for some strange reason. 

Well, the record of this hearing will be held open until noon tomorrow for the submission of any written questions or statements. 

We are attempting to move this nomination quickly because it is 

an important position and we want to get it filled. If all goes well, 

you will be on the markup of our Committee, which is tentatively 

scheduled for next week, and then hopefully, you will be out for 

consideration by the full Senate. 

But, I thank you for your interest in public service. 

And, with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(21) 

A P P E N D I X 


75212A.001
22 


75212A.002
23 


75212A.003
24 


75212A.004
25 


75212A.005
26 


75212A.006
27 


75212A.007
28 


75212A.008
29 


75212A.009
30 


75212A.010
31 


75212A.011
32 


75212A.012
33 


75212A.013
34 


75212A.014
35 


75212A.015
36 


75212A.016
37 


75212A.017
38 


75212A.018
39 


75212A.019
40 


75212A.020
41 


75212.044
42 


75212.045
43 


75212.046
44 


75212.047
45 


75212.048
46 


75212.049
47 


75212.050
48 


75212.051
49 


75212.052
50 


75212.053
51 


75212.054
52 


75212.055
53 


75212.056
54 


75212.057
55 


75212.058
56 


75212.059
57 


75212.060
58 


75212.061
59 


75212.062
60 


75212.063
61 


75212.064
62 


75212.065
63 


75212.066
64 


75212.067
65 


75212.068
66 


75212.069
67 


75212.070
68 


75212.071
69 


75212.072
70 


75212.073
71 


75212.074
72 


75212.075
73 


75212.076
74 


75212.077
75 


75212.078
76 


75212.079
77 


75212.080
78 


75212.081
79 


75212.082
80 


75212.083
81 


75212.084
82 


75212A.021
83 


75212A.022
84 


75212A.023
85 


75212A.024
86 


75212A.025
87 


75212A.026
88 


75212A.027
89 


75212A.028
90 


75212A.029
91 


75212A.030
92 


75212A.031
93 


75212A.032
94 


75212A.033
95 


75212A.034
96 


75212A.035
97 


75212A.036
98 


75212A.037
99 


75212A.038
100 


75212A.039
101 


75212A.040
102 


75212A.041
103 


75212A.042
104 

Æ 


75212A.043