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

53–844 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–277 

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY 

OF FEDERAL CONTRACTING DATABASES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING 

OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

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 PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARGARET DAUM, Staff Director 

MOLLY WILKINSON, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 1 

Senator Bennett ................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statements: 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 35 

Senator Bennett ................................................................................................ 37 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

William T. Woods, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 5 

Adam Hughes, Director, Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch ............................... 8 

A.R. Trey Hodgkins, III, Vice President, National Security and Procurement 

Policy, TechAmerica ............................................................................................. 10 

Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer and Administrator for Electronic Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and 

Budget ................................................................................................................... 23 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Hodgkins, A.R. Trey, III: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Hughes, Adam: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Kundra, Vivek: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Woods, William T.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator McCaskill ........................................................ 39 

Questions and responses submitted for the Record from: 

Mr. Kundra ....................................................................................................... 80 

(1) 

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND 

ACCESSIBILITY OF FEDERAL 

CONTRACTING DATABASES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

U.S. SENATE,

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire McCaskill, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators McCaskill and Bennett. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Good morning. We welcome the witnesses 

and everyone to the hearing this morning. 

This hearing will now come to order. We are here today to discuss the future of the Federal Government’s contracting database. 

I think I will start by stating the obvious. This is not a wildly 

exciting topic. We are not going to have banks of television cameras 

or eager crowds lined up to see what is happening at this hearing. 

I saw no linestanders. I saw no rush to grab a seat as the seats 

became available this morning. 

The idea of spending some time talking about FPDS, ORCA, 

CCR, PPIRS, or ‘‘Peepers,’’ and the IAE is enough to send most 

people screaming for the exits, but these acronyms are fundamental to the way government does business. In 2008, the Federal 

Government spent over $500 billion in contracts, with thousands of 

different companies, to acquire everything from pens to planes to 

people. 

Electronic systems and databases are used in every phase of the 

contracting process. Government employees use these systems to 

solicit requirements, review offers, evaluate vendors, and create 

and administer contracts. Companies use the systems to find and 

register for opportunities, track when and how and what the government is acquiring, and view their own performance. And, the 

public should use these systems to understand what the government is doing with their money. 

There are now more than a dozen Federal databases and systems 

with information relevant to Federal contracting. They are managed by at least five different agencies and supported by at least 

eight different contractors. 

2 

In recent years, these systems have been the subject of criticism 

from Federal auditors, members of the public and Congress for 

being difficult to use, containing incomplete records, for not being 

available or accessible to the public and for not containing the 

timely, accurate information necessary to both the government, 

vendors and the people who are paying the bills. 

In the last 2 years, the government has even created a whole 

new system, USAspending.gov, simply to try to translate information contained in older databases, to make it more accessible to the 

public. 

To address many of these problems, the Federal Government has 

moved forward with the creation of the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE). The IAE brought together eight systems under 

management of the IAE Program Management Office at GSA. This 

has already had significant advantages of streamlining. For example, the IAE has already brought all the help desk services together 

under a single contractor. 

The government now plans to award a contract called the Architecture Operations Contract Support (AOCS), to begin to consolidate the different databases into one system. When implemented, 

it is envisioned that the AOCS contractor will be responsible for designing a new enterprise architecture and then gradually moving 

each of the databases into the architecture. Vendors and the government will access the different services from one single entrance 

point. Members of the public will be able to access the system 

using a password. 

The AOCS contract does not—let me repeat—does not include 

improvements to the underlying database systems. Instead, the 

government will also award multiple contracts to improve and enhance the software throughout the life of the AOCS contract. 

The AOCS contract was supposed to have been awarded at the 

end of September. Last week, GSA pushed back the award date to 

the end of October. So we are still at the very early stages of the 

development of this project. Now is the time for us to look forward, 

to ask some tough questions, before the government gets embroiled 

in a costly contract that may not be the best way forward. 

We are here today to learn from representatives of the key users 

of these systems: Industry, the public, and government. We are trying to find out what the consolidated contracting system of the future should look like. 

We will also hear from Vivek Kundra, the President’s Chief Information Officer, about whether and how the new Integrated Acquisition Environment will improve the quality, transparency, and 

usability of acquisition information. 

We will discuss barriers to achieving a unified, simplified, publicly-accessible contracting system, like the technological hurdles 

presented by migrating legacy systems onto a new architecture and 

the government’s Byzantine management structure for the project. 

Wait until you see that chart. Talk about giving you a headache. 

I look forward to a constructive discussion of these questions 

today. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the 

new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Bob Bennett, 

who has a long record of trying to bring common sense and a business perspective to the way we spend the public’s money. I think 

3 

he will be an incredible asset to the work of this Contracting Oversight Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with him closely in trying to make government more responsive to the people, 

with a better sense of use of money from a business perspective. 

I now yield to Senator Bennett for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

both for your statement and your warm welcome. I appreciate it 

and look forward to the hearing and the opportunity to work with 

you to try to solve some of these problems. 

I also want to thank Senator Collins for her graciousness in welcoming me to the Committee and assigning me to this particular 

Subcommittee. I know that it was something that she enjoyed 

doing and was a bit of a sacrifice for her to give this one up, but 

I am delighted that she was willing to trust me with this responsibility. 

I have a formal opening statement, which I would like to submit 

for the record, but also a few personal comments in addition to 

that. 

There is a sense of deja vu for me, for two reasons. When I graduated from college, my first job was as a purchasing agent. So I 

was buying things and dealing with people who wanted to sell me 

things and realized the importance of having accurate information 

on both sides of the conversation. 

Since that time, I have run businesses and, during that period 

of time, watched them go through the agony of shifting from paperbased systems for information over to the digital age, and I cannot 

think of a single transition that was smooth or that was cheap. In 

both instances, there was a great deal of angst on the part of those 

who had to shift to something new, and there was a great deal of 

concern on the part of those who had to pay for the equipment and 

the software engineers and the writing of programs to the something new. 

And, always, in every one of those transitions, there was an understandable human reaction which is: Can we not put this off? 

Wait a minute. This is too hard. Can we not slow down and put 

it off? 

Of course, in the business world, the answer to that question is 

no, because your competitor is doing it whether you are or not, and, 

if you do not make the switch so that you have all of the power 

of IT on your side, you are going to lose customers, market share, 

and money. 

In the government, there is not quite the same pressure, and I 

have the feeling that there have been some silo kind of activities 

going on across the government, that: Well, this is too hard. Let’s 

slow it down a little. 

Then in another agency: Well, we want to do it our way, and it 

is also kind of hard, and we will try something else—so that you 

end up with what I think we are going to see when you put up the 

chart to which you refer, a situation that is opaque both for the 

vendor, who has no idea what he has got to deal with in order to 

sell his product, and with the buyer, who has no real underVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:23 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 053844 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53844.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4 

standing of everything that is out there from which to make a 

choice. 

That ends up costing the government money and, more important, costing the government value because I know from my 

State—and I am sure you do from yours—a number of companies 

who say: I just do not deal with the Federal Government. I do not 

even try to sell to the Federal Government because the process is 

so impenetrable, it is not worth it. 

Those hardy souls who say I will deal with the government are 

probably providing good products, but they are, in a way, competing in a restricted environment because some of the competitors 

who might be able to provide better value for the government are 

simply not playing, and the Federal contracting process is the reason. 

So what I am hoping for today, Madam Chairman, is that we get 

an understanding of exactly what the state of affairs might be right 

now. Then, we get a vision of who owns it and is willing to deal 

with it, so we can move toward the ultimate goal of transparency 

on both sides of the deal, that the vendors know what it is they 

are getting into and the buyers know exactly the wide range of 

products that are available. 

So I thank you for calling the hearing and appreciate the opportunity to be a part of it. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:] 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Bennett. 

Our first panel of witnesses brings three different perspectives to 

the issue that we are going to discuss this morning. Bill Woods is 

Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Adam Hughes is the Director 

of Federal Fiscal Policy at OMB Watch, and Trey Hodgkins is the 

Vice President for National Security and Procurement Policy at 

TechAmerica, representing a number of people who endeavor every 

day to do business with the Federal Government. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses 

that appear before us. So, if you do not mind, I would ask you to 

stand. 

Do you swear that the information that you will give before the 

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

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. WOODS. I do. 

Mr. HUGHES. I do. 

Mr. HODGKINS. I do. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. The witnesses have stated in the affirmative. 

We will be using a timing system today. We would ask that your 

oral testimony be no more than 5 minutes. Your written testimony, 

of course, will be printed in the record in its entirety. 

And, Mr. Woods, welcome to the hearing. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Woods appears in the Appendix on page 46. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. WOODS,1 DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION 

AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. WOODS. Thank you, Chairman McCaskill and Ranking Member Bennett. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning 

about the government’s contract data systems. 

Chairman McCaskill, you are absolutely right in terms of pointing out this is not a wildly exciting topic, but, nevertheless, it is 

extremely important. The government spends in excess of half a 

trillion dollars purchasing all sorts of goods and services to make 

the government run, and it is important that we know where that 

money is going and how it is being spent. 

There are a number of stakeholders that need to know that information, starting, of course, with the Congress. The agencies themselves need to know how they are spending their money. The oversight community, of which I am one representative, needs to know 

that as well. And, the general public has a stake in that answer 

as well. 

So it is extremely important that we get answers to the kinds of 

questions that you have both put on the table this morning. 

We have looked at a variety of systems. We have used many of 

the systems that you mentioned earlier, but we have not evaluated 

all of them in depth. There are three, however, that we have taken 

a close look at and which I would like to focus on this morning. 

Those three are: 

The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), the latest version of that is the Federal Procurement Data System Next Generation (PDS-NG), and you will hear a lot about that today. That is 

really the government’s primary contracting database. It is the 

backbone, if you will, of a number of other systems that use that 

system. For example, USAspending.gov relies on the information in 

the Federal Procurement Data System. 

The second system that I will cover today will be the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, which, for good or bad, 

goes by the acronym of PPIRS, and you will be hearing a lot about 

PPIRS as this session progresses. That is, as the name suggests, 

the central collection point for past performance information on all 

the government’s contractors. A number of systems feed into that 

PPIRS system. 

And, the third that I will focus on today will be the Excluded 

Parties List System (EPLS), and that is the system that keeps 

track of those entities that have been either suspended or debarred 

from doing business with the government. Of course, it is important that not only do we know about the past performance of contractors, but we need to know those that have been excluded to 

make sure that we do not inadvertently award contracts to those 

entities. 

Let me start with just an overall observation that the deficiencies 

that we have found in many of the systems that we look at fall basically into three categories. One is poor data quality, second is a 

lack of data submission, and the third are inadequate systems capabilities. Not all of the systems that we have looked at suffer from 

6 

those problems, but we have found that a number do, and it is a 

good way for us to keep track of what we are looking at. 

In terms of data quality, the system that everything relies on 

and that we rely on quite a bit as users is the Federal Procurement 

Data System. That system started in 1978, and since right after 

that system started we have repeatedly issued report after report 

after report, citing shortcomings in that system, in the data quality. 

What do I mean by data quality? Accuracy and timeliness are the 

two essential elements. And is the information reliable? Unfortunately, too often, the answer that we have found as users is no, the 

system is not reliable. 

We have issued recommendations over the course of many years. 

In large part, those recommendations have been implemented by 

the agencies, either the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

or the General Services Administration (GSA). And, to be truthful, 

the system is better now than it used to be, but it is still not where 

it needs to be. 

And, how do we know that? We know that because we get out 

and we pull contract files. We go to locations where the contracts 

are, and we compare the information that is in the contract file 

with the information that is in the Federal Procurement Data System, and we find mismatches. That is how we know that those systems are unreliable. 

What are the consequences for us as users of those systems? 

Sometimes we have to go to different sources of information, such 

as pulling contract files in order to complete the work that you, the 

Congress, have asked us to do. Sometimes we have to choose different methodologies in order to conduct the work. And then, there 

have been cases in the past where we simply have not been able 

to do the work that you, the Congress, have asked us to do. 

One example is we were asked to look at a pilot program to use 

simplified acquisition procedures at the Department of Defense, 

and we found that the data were so unreliable that we simply could 

not complete that. We could not answer that question. We could 

not tell you how that pilot program was being conducted. That is 

the consequence of having unreliable data in the system. 

As I said, we have made numerous recommendations. The system is better now for having implemented many of those recommendations and because of the hard work of those in the Executive Branch who are trying to make the system work. But problems 

remain, and I just want to cite one example. 

There are a couple of examples, cited in the testimony. Let me 

just mention one of them—time and materials contracts. We found 

in looking there at time and materials contracts, that some people 

are coding those as fixed-price contracts when they really are not. 

The labor rate may be fixed, but the total amount that the government is going to expend on that time and materials contract is not 

fixed. So it is not correct to code that as a fixed-price contract. 

Let me get to data submission problems, and here again we find 

problems with the Federal Procurement Data System. Just one example: This Subcommittee, or actually the full Committee, asked 

us to look at the Department of Homeland Security’s major systems, and the contracts related to those major systems. We tried 

7 

to use the Federal Procurement Data System to identify what those 

major systems were. Even though the Federal Procurement Data 

System has a field to identify the major system that a contract is 

associated with, many times we found that field was left blank. 

So we simply could not take the same approach that we would 

have. We had to go to the Department of Homeland Security and 

ask them to construct a list of their major programs. 

Now that was frustrating for us. It took us more time. But, more 

importantly, it imposed a burden on the Department. It is something that the Department did not have to do. So the Department 

had to divert resources, in order to allow us to perform the work. 

That is one of the consequences. 

There are other examples as well in terms of lack of data in the 

system. For example, we, at the Congress’s request—actually it 

was a statutory mandate—were looking at contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone wants to know: How many contracts are 

there? How much are we spending? Who is getting the money? We 

could not answer those questions using the Federal Procurement 

Data System. 

Let me turn to another system, the Past Performance System, 

and give you some examples of lack of information in that system. 

We issued a report in April of this year that found that only 31 

percent of contracts that were required to have past performance 

information in that system had the information, only 31 percent. 

We also found that a key piece of information, i.e., terminations 

for default were not routinely entered into that system. And, you 

will see in our statement we have one example where a huge contract was awarded to a contractor that had already defaulted on a 

previous contract and then went on to default on the contract that 

was subsequently awarded. That should have been discovered 

through use of the Past Performance System, and it was not. 

System capabilities: The system that I would like to cite there is 

the Excluded Parties List System. We looked at that system in 

depth in 2005 and identified what we thought was a serious deficiency, and that is that for the contractors that were listed in that 

system, there was no unique identifier; names only, but no unique 

identifier. So we recommended that the agency require as a required field that a number be entered. 

The Administration agreed with that recommendation. They implemented that recommendation. But, this year, we went back and 

looked again to see whether contractors that were on that list were 

nevertheless getting contracts, and we found that they were. And 

there were still some systematic deficiencies in the system. Let me 

just cite what I mean by that. 

The system primarily uses a word search system that requires 

the user to enter the name of the company. XYZ, Inc. Company, for 

example. But if you leave out the comma, you get a different result. 

So it is not designed to accommodate that sort of inadvertent error 

by the user. 

So, again, we are asking for GSA to take specific action in order 

to be able to address that. So far, what they have done is to add 

a pop-up warning to users of the system that reminds them that 

they need to enter the name exactly. We are hoping that they can 

do more in order to make that system more reliable, in order for 

8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes appears in the Appendix on page 55. 

users to be able to ensure that contractors that are debarred from 

Federal contract do not, nevertheless, get awards. 

Let me stop there, and I would be happy to take questions as the 

hearing progresses. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Woods. Mr. Hughes. 

TESTIMONY OF ADAM HUGHES,1 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL FISCAL 

POLICY, OMB WATCH 

Mr. HUGHES. Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member Bennett, 

my name is Adam Hughes, and I am the Director of Federal Fiscal 

Policy at OMB Watch, an independent nonpartisan watchdog organization. Thanks very much for inviting me to testify here today. 

OMB Watch was founded in 1983 to remove the veil of secrecy 

from the White House Office of Management and Budget and has 

spent over 25 years advocating for government accountability, 

transparency and access to government information and citizen 

participation in governmental processes. 

OMB Watch has a long history of developing transparency, easily 

accessible and intuitive systems for promoting and disseminating 

government data to the public. With the creation in 1989 of the 

Right to Know Network (RTKNet), a free searchable service of government about toxic chemical releases and environmental health 

hazards, to our work in 2006 creating FedSpending.org, a free online searchable web site that gives anyone easy access to Federal 

spending data, including contracts data, OMB Watch has been at 

the forefront of work to make Federal data more accessible and 

transparent. 

This hearing is being held at a pivotal time. Legislative reforms 

in the 110th and 111th Congress, increased interest and actions 

from the current Obama Administration, and additional committees and commissions investigating Federal contracting practices, 

all point to significant changes on the horizon in the Federal contracting process. 

At the same time, new technologies are allowing a variety of audiences to easily access, manipulate, and analyze data delivered 

through machine-readable formats, like RSS, ADAM and APIs. 

These new dissemination systems are slowly beginning to seep 

their way into the Federal Government, which is positioning itself 

to take advantage of this type of data-sharing, particularly with the 

launch of the new web site Data.gov. 

This confluence of increased interest in contracting reform and 

technology innovation should result in developing a state-of-the-art 

one-stop shop for contracting data and information. This system 

should ideally consist of distributed databases that contain quality, 

relevant, and timely machine-readable data about the entire contracting process, linked together in one intuitive interface. 

Unfortunately, this vision is a long ways off as there is a lot of 

work to do to fix the current system, which is disjointed, antiquated—at times, redundant—and extremely difficult to use. The 

menagerie of data systems do not deliver accurate, timely and useful information, and they create significant obstacles for use by 

government contracting officials and watchdog organizations. MakVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:23 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 053844 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53844.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9 

ing matters worse, there are problems with both the current structure, or lack thereof, of Federal contracting databases as well as 

the data contained within those systems. 

Based on our experience, OMB Watch believes that all Federal 

contracting data needs to be stored in a distributed database system that is linked together by machine-readable data, is web-accessible and fully searchable and is designed to meet the needs of contracting officials and oversight personnel while also providing public access to this information. The best option for achieving this is 

to build out the USAspending.gov web site interface to include 

other contracting data, including performance and evaluation data, 

suspension and debarment lists, and additional information related 

to the contracting process. 

USAspending.gov already has an open data architecture that allows for sharing and disseminating information in different formats 

including HTML, ASCII and XML. This architecture is what will 

allow for the development of new data analytic tools to be created, 

like the recently launched IT dashboard. A distributed database 

system would create a one-stop shop for contracting data and 

streamline many parts of the data collection process, simplify the 

job of contracting officials and oversight personnel, reduce redundant data and web site maintenance costs, and present a more cohesive, thorough picture of the Federal contracting process to the 

public. 

While the technology exists to support such a solution, there 

would still need to be considerable effort to streamline the contractor performance reporting system. Simply funneling performance data from multiple disparate systems that use different 

metrics to evaluate contractor quality to a single location does not 

solve all the problems. 

Particularly given the current implementation of yet another contracting database, required under the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, a standardized and more robust contractor performance data collection system needs to be developed. Perhaps an 

even larger problem will be to establish a reliable, publically-available, unique organizational identifier that can allow data from disparate databases to be easily combined and compared. 

The Federal Government currently contracts out the work of creating, assigning, and updating unique organizational identifiers to 

a private company, Dun and Bradstreet. Allowing a private company to provide such an important unique identifier for all entities 

receiving funds from the Federal Government is extremely problematic as it subjects that identifier system to the policies of a private company and its business needs. While not necessarily malicious, this arrangement can cause government data to be presented 

in misleading or, at times, incorrect ways or simply not made available to the public at all. 

As the government progresses to adopt new and emerging information technologies, including working to link disparate data systems together, there must be reliable, publically-available identifiers. OMB should head up an interagency task force to develop the 

schema for such identifiers, starting with organizational identifiers, 

and Congress should provide oversight to make sure this process 

proceeds expeditiously. 

10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hodgkins appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

There is a long way to go to overcome the many obstacles to creating a more efficient and effective government contracting data 

system, yet the Integrated Acquisition Environment provides the 

opportunity to deliver such a system if it is done correctly. In creating a contracting data system for the future, much more time 

and resources need to be spent on developing easy mechanisms for 

viewing, analyzing, exporting and sharing Federal contract data. 

This will take consistent attention and leadership from both Congress and the Obama Administration in order to make sure that a 

distributed database system can become a reality. 

Thanks very much for inviting me here, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Thank you. Mr. Hodgkins. 

TESTIMONY OF A.R. TREY HODGKINS, III,1 VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY, 

TECHAMERICA 

Mr. HODGKINS. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Bennett. My name is Trey Hodgkins. I am the Vice President for Procurement Policy and National Security at TechAmerica, 

which is a trade association representing approximately 1,500 companies and their millions of employees. 

I am pleased to bring to you the technology and IT sector perspective on Federal contracting databases. I am going to address 

those in three different areas: First, some general discussion topics 

about proposals that we have seen in the past and that are still 

out there, some comments about the existing databases and then 

a few recommendations. 

I would like to start with a generic statement, to say that to best 

use these databases we must focus on the goals that they serve, 

which is to inform the acquisition workforce decisions, improve the 

efficacy of the acquisition process and achieve best value for the 

taxpayer. 

Companies are primarily concerned that government contractor 

databases will reveal information about their products or services 

and how they bring those products or services to the market. Another concern is that unsubstantiated allegations of contractor 

wrongdoing will be published. 

Transparency that allows unrestricted public disclosure of proprietary or sensitive contracting data does not improve the acquisition 

process or inform the contracting workforce. Instead, these proposals risk disclosing source selection, intellectual property or proprietary data to global competitors, directly or indirectly exposing 

national and homeland security information, and using information 

out of context that would negatively impact the acquisition process 

and the competitive position of companies that do business with 

the government. 

For government, the negative impact on the acquisition process 

includes a reduction in competition. Many companies offering commercial or commercial off-the-shelf items would simply be unable 

or unwilling to accept the kinds of risks I just described. 

11 

In another example, posting an unredacted contract could identify the location where work is to be performed and reveal crucial 

components of our national and homeland security. If data about 

program capabilities were subject to public disclosure, adversaries 

could evaluate the supply chain, identify critical production components, and, by attacking that component, destruct our security. Aggregated data would also allow adversaries to discern and reverse 

engineer our capabilities and identify our weaknesses. 

From a corporate perspective, public disclosure of data would expose intellectual property, corporate sensitive and technical data to 

industrial espionage. Corporate competitors can aggregate data 

such as pricing methods and weaken the competitive posture of a 

company. 

Publishing mere allegations rather than final determinations of 

wrongdoings also undercuts the fundamental due process rights for 

contractors. Such proposals assume that contracting officers would 

have the knowledge to make an informed legal decision from the 

allegation. There is a substantial risk that negative decisions would 

be made based upon allegations that are later found to be without 

merit. 

It is worth noting that contractors did not oppose the Chairman’s 

amendment last year that was adopted as part of the final version 

of the Defense Authorization Act. That is because it struck a balance between sharing data, protecting proprietary information and 

setting reasonable expectations about the contracting community. 

In the same vein, TechAmerica does not oppose public disclosure 

as long as existing protections remain in force. These protections 

would include the Freedom of Information Act, the Trade Secrets 

Act, common law decisions and privileges regarding protection of 

sensitive information. 

I would like to turn now to existing databases and note that the 

government has an alphabet soup of databases capturing and 

tracking government contracting, and these databases support critical functions of government contracting like evaluating past performance and determining responsibility. 

Contractors generally find that these databases are inconsistent. 

They capture different data elements. They employ differing processes and rules and too frequently contain outdated, incomplete, or 

inaccurate data. 

An example of this is the recent uptick in report cards for periods 

of performance of more than 1 year ago. Contractors are worried 

they will not receive accurate ratings so long after the performance 

period. Or, worse, this will become a check-the-box exercise, and 

someone who may have no knowledge of the contract is completing 

the report card. 

The practical consequences of having outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate data is harm to the government from an unclear picture 

of bad actors in the contracting community and harm to good contractors whose performance goes unnoticed in evaluations for other 

work. 

Another concern expressed by companies is that data is collected 

using inconsistent criteria, that the results are evaluated using inconsistent metrics and that the score cards use inconsistent measurements. 

12 

Because of these issues, many government agencies have resorted to placing requirements on bidders to pay for a past performance report from a third party commercial vendor. Any effort 

to reform government contract databases should include a prohibition on this practice. 

Finally, my recommendations: TechAmerica commends current 

efforts related to the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE). It 

espouses goals that include consistency of data, uniform standards 

for greater interoperability, and consolidation of data and data 

sources. To ensure success, greater emphasis on implementing applications and systems with the IAE standards will be required. 

Finally, we must ensure that efforts to develop government contractor databases have a clear plan about how to analyze and use 

the data we collect in a meaningful way. We hope that as you deliberate this issue any proposals provide leadership and direction 

for data collection efforts that achieve the goals I outlined in the 

beginning of my testimony: To inform the decisions of the acquisition workforce, to improve the efficacy of the acquisition process 

and to achieve best value for the taxpayer. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Hodgkins. 

Let’s take a look at the lay of the land here as we begin. GSA 

is in charge of managing what has been called the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE). The IAE is made up of approximately 

eight different databases containing information on Federal contracting which GSA hopes eventually to bring under one roof. 

Now let’s look what the IAE currently includes and the alphabet 

soup of public and non-public information contained in these systems used by contracting officials, vendors, the business and contracting communities and, to a lesser extent, the general public: 

There is the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), where vendors wishing to do business must register. 

There is the Federal Agency Registration, FedReg, for Federal 

entities that buy from and sell to each other, which most people out 

there in the real world do not even understand that is actually 

going on. Actually, since I have been here, I have found instances 

where agencies are advertising to get other agencies to buy from 

them, all within the Federal Government, which is weird. And, 

they can make money doing that, which is even weirder. 

The Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), to identify parties excluded from receiving Federal contracts. 

The Online Representations and Certifications Application 

(ORCA), for vendors to enter representations and certifications regarding contracting records. 

The Past Performance (PPIRS), providing access for Federal acquisition officials to review past performance of contracts, on contractors. 

And, the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), which contains all Federal contracting data, supposedly, over $3,000 throughout the Federal Government—and that is a huge supposedly, like 

all capital letters, 15 exclamation marks. 

These are just some of the systems included in the IAE. The last 

one that I mentioned has been obviously the subject of a number 

of critiques, which Mr. Woods referred to, about its usability but 

13 

also about the reliability of the information that is contained in 

this. 

Would each of you describe which of these systems do you think 

does the best job and which of these systems do you think does the 

worst job from your perspective in terms of accountability and, obviously, in terms of your members and companies utilizing the 

databases? 

Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Well, certainly. We have not looked at all of these 

systems. So I really cannot respond to the question about which is 

the best and which is the worst. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Of the ones that you have looked at, the 

three you mentioned, which do you think is doing the best job in 

terms of reliability and access and which do you think has got the 

most ground still to cover? 

Mr. WOODS. Sure. The one that suffers the greatest, I think, is 

the Federal Procurement Data System, and that is the one that 

supports largely all the rest of the systems. It is the one that we 

use the most. So it is the one that we have the most user experience, and we know that it suffers from reliability issues. 

In terms of reliability, the suspension and debarment list, the 

Excluded Parties List System, of the three that we have looked at, 

probably does not suffer that same issue in terms of reliability. If 

you are able to utilize it, the information is there, but it is a question of the techniques and the methods for accessing that system. 

So I put those two at the ends of the extremes. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. You know it was interesting to me when 

you said that. I mean as somebody who takes advantage of the 

wide world of search capabilities now that are, frankly, amazing, 

and if you look back 10 years ago, when an average person wanted 

to search something on the internet, how difficult it was and how 

easy it is now. 

Have you had any kind of information from the Excluded Parties 

List (EPLS), why they have not refined the search capability? The 

idea that a comma would exclude from a search someone who has 

been found to be disbarred from doing business with the government, that is a big deal. 

Mr. WOODS. It is a big deal, and it is a bit surprising in this day 

and age because there are other approaches that are used in other 

contexts—you mentioned the other web system—that may not suffer from that same flaw. 

In our latest report, we made about half a dozen recommendations to the General Services Administration whose job it is to run 

that system. They said they agreed with all those recommendations, told us what they were doing, but when we really looked at 

their responses, we came away thinking that they really were not 

planning to do much more than they were already doing, and so 

we kept all of our recommendations open. We declined to close out 

any of the recommendations based on their responses. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. HUGHES. I do not want to say that there are not problems 

with FPDS, but if you cannot find something in FPDS you can find 

it on USAspending.gov. So I am not as concerned with the front 

14 

end problems with FPDS. So I would probably not say that is the 

worst. 

EPLS has, we have talked about, the search problems. In addition to the actual searches not working, you actually have to do two 

separate searches because any people, any companies that have 

been in EPLS and that now have come off the list are included in 

an archive section. But in order to search the archive section, you 

have to reenter your search. And, there is no reason why you cannot do one search and have a full results kicked back to you that 

says here are the active ones and here are the inactive ones. 

So the problem with the DUNS number and the name also requires another search. So you are actually talking about having to 

do four searches just to find whether one company has ever been 

listed in EPLS. 

On the other hand, it is public. So I think I have to hold it a little bit above the PPIRS system. 

I would say the PPIRS is doing the worst job. There is no public 

access, and even the people within the government who have access 

do not like it for a variety of reasons. So I think that is probably 

the worst on my list because of those reasons. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. Mr. Hodgkins. 

Mr. HODGKINS. Senator, first, I think you had it right when you 

mentioned in your opening comments that many of these were approached in a silo fashion. So, in some sense, we are comparing apples to oranges. They were not necessarily intended to share data 

between systems, and we are trying to make them do that. So 

there are some differences that those issues cause problems with. 

Generally speaking, our members are focused on PPIRS because 

that is where their past performance data is collected, and it serves 

as a repository. To my knowledge, they are happy with their ability 

to get in and view their records. They, of course, cannot see other 

companies’ records. They can make comments that become part of 

the record, about information that is put in there about them. And, 

in our opinion, we would prefer that database remain closed to the 

contracting company for the reasons I described earlier. 

Of the other systems, many of these we find to be useful in the 

same way that Mr. Hughes described. USAspending.GOV is the 

public face for FPDS and for our uses and our members’ uses because they do get in those databases and they look at the activities 

of their competitors. I think that there is, at this point, a lack of 

full data, but it is sufficient for us to find a lot of the things that 

companies are looking for. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. I find it interesting that the companies 

like PPIRS the best and Mr. Hughes says that in his estimation 

the people who use PPIRS in government do not think so much of 

it. Now that is a disconnect that is maybe more troubling than any 

average person’s ability to understand what the heck all that 

means. 

Mr. HODGKINS. If I may, Senator, its use is cumbersome, but the 

data it contains, that is visible and accessible by the companies. So 

from the point of view that it is visible, they can see what the government is collecting, they can observe it, they can add comments 

to it, it is helpful and useful for them. 

15 

How user-friendly it is, is a different issue, and they have told 

us that most of these systems are cumbersome and difficult to use. 

And, that is one reason we believe much of the data is incomplete. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. Mr. Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. 

I have a reaction, sitting here, coming to this issue brand new. 

If I were the CEO of this company, the first question I would ask 

is: Well, why has somebody not taken control of this? 

And, of course, the answer would be: Well, you are the CEO. You 

name somebody. 

So, if I can for three seconds be President of the United States, 

OMB should have ownership of this. It is the Office of Management 

and Budget. I understand that the M in OMB is basically silent, 

that they spend 95 plus percent of their time on the B and very 

little on the M, but this has very significant B consequences. 

Now, Mr. Woods, you are the government’s watchdog. Mr. 

Hughes, you are an outside watchdog. And, I guess, Mr. Hodgkins, 

you are the dog that is being watched, if I know how this works 

out. [Laughter.] 

What is your reaction to that—we will have the fellow from OMB 

later on—but the very firm statement at the highest level saying, 

OK, fix this, which means take ownership of the problem, and I do 

not have a sense that anybody governmentwide has ownership of 

the problem, and is there anybody other than OMB who should do 

it? 

Mr. WOODS. Senator Bennett, if I could speak to that, OMB certainly has a role to play here, a very prominent role, and in fact 

there are statutes that have dictated to OMB that they are to assume a leadership responsibility. 

However, one of the points that I make in our written statement 

is that there are so many actors involved here, that OMB or one 

of the offices within OMB, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, may set the policy for how systems are supposed to work. But, 

in terms of operationalizing those systems, they need to turn to the 

General Services Administration, to the Department of Defense. 

They need to rely on other agencies for input, and there are dozens 

and dozens of agencies that input into the various systems. 

So, unfortunately, we have a situation where OMB may have the 

responsibility for ensuring that these systems work, but, in terms 

of actually getting the work done, they need to rely on other agencies to make that happen. 

Senator BENNETT. That sounds like a lot of silos to me. Mr. 

Hughes. 

Mr. HUGHES. I agree with that assessment. I think I would add 

that it is not, that you certainly hit the problem on the head. It 

is that there is no one in charge or maybe the problem is that everyone is in charge. 

But I am not sure OMB can do it alone to fix the problem. They 

do have some abilities to be able to streamline and organize from 

the top, but I think there are two points that get to why they are 

not the end all and be all solution to this. 

The first is that a lot of the problems with the way that the current systems have been developed is that they were not developed 

with the end user in mind. They were designed to input vast 

16 

amounts of information, but they were not designed to export or 

use that data once it was in there. And, being OMB Watch, we 

kind of have a general reaction to letting OMB be in charge of 

stuff, which is, well, you should get people involved who are actually going to use these systems. Almost all the time, it is not going 

to be OMB staff who are using these databases. 

The second thing is that I think it might even need to be a higher priority than OMB because there has been a number of reforms 

proposed over the last couple of years. One, in particular, OFPP 

had an interagency task force in 2005 that recommended changes 

to the performance—— 

Chairman MCCASKILL. What is OFPP? 

Mr. HUGHES. Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. 

Mr. HUGHES. That recommended changes to the contracting performance databases, things like streamlining the evaluation process, those sorts of things—nothing even to the point of contention 

where is it public or not, just to get the internal systems working 

better. 

Their report was in 2005. It took almost 4 years to issue a proposed rule about implementing some of those changes, and this is 

all within the Executive Branch. This is not getting Congress to 

act. And, even when the rules were proposed last year and then 

this year, they did not capture really the essence of what the major 

recommendations were from the task force. 

So, even if we put OMB in charge, there is still lots of mechanisms and levers that need to be pulled at the right times—just 

like Mr. Woods said as well, to even move to proposed rule, final 

rule in the FAR and then beyond that into the actual implementation with contractors and GSA and others, the more mechanical aspects of it. 

So I think you are right, that someone needs to be in charge, and 

I think OMB probably is a good place to head up a more focused 

effort to move this forward, but I do think that they are not going 

to have all the powers and capabilities that will be necessary to 

achieve the right type of system. 

Senator BENNETT. I am interested that you think there is something higher than OMB. 

Mr. HUGHES. The President. I mean you mentioned yourself, if 

the CEO was here, should I appoint somebody? I think that is a 

good way to go, but it also would be a lot more effective if the CEO 

himself or herself came down and said, I want to know what has 

happened this week and this quarter to make this move forward. 

I think the Obama Administration has been willing to bring that 

type of, at least at this point, rhetoric to performance and data 

management and using systems that better help government do its 

job, but it needs to be a continual process. It cannot be something 

that you say in January and hope it gets done over the next 4 

years. 

Senator BENNETT. I agree with that, but, having served in the 

Executive Branch, I learned that there is nothing higher than 

OMB. 

Mr. Hodgkins. 

17 

Mr. HODGKINS. Senator, I too would agree with Mr. Woods’s evaluation that OMB serves a policy role but does not have many of 

the resources necessary to operationalize things. 

And, I would note that many of the problems we are faced with, 

in trying to make these systems more accessible and their data 

more consistent and interoperable, are cultural and policy issues. 

They are not technical issues. 

Senator BENNETT. Again, the shorthand word for that, again, is 

stovepipes or silos. 

Mr. HODGKINS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BENNETT. And, somebody has got to break down the 

stovepipes. 

Somebody has to say: We have the clout to say, OK, yes, we are 

going to listen to DOD. We are going to listen to GSA. They are 

the end users. But they are not going to develop their own system. 

We are not going to allow that because everybody ought to have 

some kind—there ought to be in the government some kind of common platform that there can be some interchange of information. 

If somebody is in charge of saying, well, you need to fix this and 

you need to fix that and you go ahead—no, you cannot do it without consulting them. But you have to create some kind of overall 

matrix, do you not, in order to have the whole thing work? 

Mr. HODGKINS. Yes, sir. Building, architecting the systems, 

architecting the data, what is going to be in it, what is not going 

to be gets to questions like does the comma count or not when you 

do a search. If you do not do that correctly on the front end, then 

you end up with systems that leave out results without a comma. 

I would say again, though, that this is a cultural issue. There are 

significant stovepipes, as the Senator has described and that would 

need to be overcome. 

But I would point to the standards that have been put in place 

at least since the beginning in the IAE. If agencies have a guidebook to follow when they are asked to develop new databases or 

improve the ones that are in place, then we can begin to see more 

consistent results. We can begin to see more interoperability between systems and the data they develop. 

This is not going to happen overnight, but if we can come up 

with a common set of standards and guides and issue guidance related to that, then we can move forward. 

Senator BENNETT. Well, it sounds to me like we are talking 

about a whole new system. 

Mr. WOODS. Senator, if I might, we are seeing some movement 

in that direction. Earlier this month, the Office of Management and 

Budget put a notice in the Federal Register about a new architecture that they are trying to create, that would bring together a lot 

of these systems. We have not looked at that proposal in any sort 

of depth, of course, but it does hold promise, and it does show that 

OMB is taking the reins and trying to break down some of the silos 

that you talked about. 

Mr. HUGHES. If I could add one thing. 

Senator BENNETT. Surely. 

Mr. HUGHES. You mentioned it sounds like it is a whole new system. I am not sure that is exactly right. I think when 

USAspending.gov was launched, I do not think that means that we 

18 

get rid of FPDS. I think the FPDS.gov web site is completely unnecessary, but the inputs that come through FPDS that funnel 

data through USAspending.gov, it is still the primary pipeline for 

data about contracting and spending data. 

So I think when you are talking about it, it is not necessary a 

whole new system. It is you have to get the databases and the data 

to be able to talk to each other. Once you do that, it is simple to 

put up a one-stop interface where all the data can be pulled to one 

place. 

It is just a problem because of the siloed nature of the development of these systems, like you talked about. They are not able to 

communicate with each other. I think OMB’s involvement is crucial 

to be able to make sure those kind of standard technologies can be 

developed, so that the systems can talk to each other. 

Senator BENNETT. I think the USAspending.gov, the CoburnObama Bill, was a very good step in the right direction. 

And, we can debate what constitutes a whole new system. I am 

not suggesting that we throw everything out, but let me say a 

whole new mindset on the part of the Federal Government that 

says: We are going to have a single platform. We are going to move 

whatever we have now that works around into that concept, and 

we are going to address it from the standpoint of the end users, 

whether it is DOD, GSA, or whatever. 

Or, the contractors because contractors are end users of this, and 

we have to keep in mind the concerns that Mr. Hodgkins has 

raised. The contractor says I am not going to get on that system 

if it is going to be used in this way. 

I come back to the comment I made in my opening statement 

that one of the things that is wrong with this whole business of 

Federal procurement is that a number of businesses simply will not 

play, not because they do not have something that the Federal Government could use. Indeed, they may very well have something 

that the Federal Government needs, that is better than what is 

being purchased now, but the procurement system is so broken 

that they will not play in that arena, and you end up with less 

than the best value and shutting out contractors. So when we talk 

about end users, we have to include Mr. Hodgkins’s constituency 

as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Let me just briefly talk about what OMB 

is about to do in terms of this contract that they are going to put 

out there, this architectural operations contract. It is a huge contract, 8 years in duration, massive scope, to try to build a platform 

to pull all these databases in. 

It could result in the elimination or consolidation of databases 

across the entire Federal civilian and Defense Department acquisition communities, but there is also great potential, great risk here. 

If we build an egg carton and just move the eggs, without ever 

busting the eggs and improving the input of the data and improving the ability to talk to one another, I do not know what we have 

accomplished. 

Your comments, Mr. Hughes, about being consulted, the end 

users. I mean IT 101 is you better talk to the people who are going 

19 

to use the system before you design the system as opposed to just 

having people design it in a vacuum. 

What I was very concerned about in preparation for this hearing 

was that I had heard from staff that none of you were of this contract before we began preparing for this hearing. Is that accurate? 

Mr. WOODS. Yes. I, personally, was not. That is correct. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Mr. Hodgkins. 

Mr. HODGKINS. Nor was I, Senator. That does not mean that 

some of my member companies would not have known about it and 

be pursuing that opportunity, but I was not aware of it. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Yes, well, that is kind of scary. I mean 

you are three major end users, obviously. As far as I am concerned, 

Mr. Woods, there is no bigger and more important end user of 

database information in government than GAO. As you said very 

accurately, you cannot do your work in a meaningful, effective or 

efficient way if the databases are not reliable and user friendly. 

Mr. WOODS. That is correct. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. And, Mr. Hughes, you cannot provide any 

outside oversight under the same situation. 

Now since you learned of this contract being let, do you have any 

opinions as to whether or not they are going the right way and the 

way we are doing this, this setting up an egg carton to move the 

eggs as opposed to trying to start with a brand new system that 

Senator Bennett alluded to? 

Mr. HUGHES. I do not. I have not. Even though I know that they 

are moving forward with that, I do not have a great deal of information about what exactly they are trying to achieve from a technical standpoint. 

Your description of it in your opening statement, though, sounds 

remarkably similar to what I wrote in my testimony. So, from at 

least a summary standpoint, it sounds like the vision for what they 

want to achieve is correct. My hesitation, however, is that the devil 

is always in the details with these things. 

The FPDS-NG contract was supposed to make it a user-friendly 

web site. That completely failed. It was not user friendly, and it is 

still not user friendly. So, even if the vision is in place, if you do 

not have the right mechanisms put together, you can still end up 

with your description of the egg carton. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Finally, Mr. Woods, let me ask you before 

we go to the representative from OMB and any other questions Mr. 

Bennett might have, do you have any advice or anything that we 

could do, because it is correct that OMB needs to be kind of in 

charge of setting the table? 

But, if people do not pull up to the table and participate, these 

databases are really not going to work. I mean they are only as 

good as the information that is put in. And, if there is not a culture 

that emphasizes the accurate input of data at the Pentagon or at 

the Department of Homeland Security or at HHS, then this is really an empty exercise. 

Have you seen anything as you have looked at these systems, 

that certain departments have done a better job? 

Does anybody get in trouble for not putting data in? Is there any 

sense that there is accountability at the trench level where this inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:23 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 053844 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53844.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
20 

formation has to be put into the system in order for it to be collated 

or used in terms of accountability? 

Mr. WOODS. Well, there are lots of different issues about why we 

are where we are in terms of the data. One is certainly the overtaxed acquisition workforce. We have fewer of them now than we 

used to, and now spending is far greater, and the number of contract actions is also far greater. So that is one place to look for 

why. 

But, in terms of your issue and how do we change the culture, 

I think the agencies need to realize the value that good information 

could have for them. If they became more aware of where they are 

spending their budget, who they are spending it with, they could 

take what is known as a strategic sourcing approach and consolidate buys where that make sense, to go to alternative sources 

where that makes sense, to look for competition opportunities 

where those present themselves. 

So, accurate data can be of benefit to the agencies. They can be 

the users of the data themselves. They should be the users of the 

data. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Yes, it would work better if it was their 

money they were spending instead of public money. 

Mr. HUGHES. Senator, if I could add one thing about the culture 

question. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Yes. 

Mr. HUGHES. It is a cultural issue within agencies, and I think 

to a large extent transparency is a great tool to be able to help facilitate a better culture and a more responsive culture. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. HUGHES. You asked, does anyone ever get in trouble? I think 

you want to flip that on its head. I think you want to reward folks 

for disclosing information, for filling out the evaluations, etc. 

I think the GAO report from April showed that not only is our 

acquisition workforce overtaxed and do not have time to fill out all 

these evaluations, but they do not see the value in it. They do not 

see how they can use the data to help them better do their jobs. 

So I think if we are able to develop the tools to be able to facilitate this. For instance, contract officers do not even have a good 

tool to figure out which contracts they have filled out evaluations 

for and which ones they have not. 

A lot of times agencies do not know what their percentage of contract evaluations filled out is. They have to have GAO come in and 

do an exhaustive study to figure it out. That should be a very simple statistic that is easy to track through a better contracting database system. 

I think if you put those tools in place and if you open it up, with 

the concerns about proprietary information addressed, you are 

going to see a more responsive workforce enter better data over 

time. It is not going to happen in a year, but, if you have the right 

systems in place, overall it will get better and better as we move 

forward. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. That is a good idea. OK. 

Mr. HODGKINS. Senator, if I may add, I noted in my written testimony that there are some of the software tools that contracting officers and acquisition workforce personnel are using today that are 

21 

linked into PPIRS, and there may be a way to expand upon that 

so that some of the work they are already performing—we are not 

adding to their workload—is feeding into these systems and 

populating some of these fields. 

It would still not do the follow-on evaluation. They need to go 

back and do that. But it may be a way to keep from adding to their 

workload but get more information into these systems as we look 

at options. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Anything else, Mr. Bennett, for these witnesses? 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. Mr. Woods, the AOCS RFP has been 

issued, but the contract has not yet been awarded. 

Mr. WOODS. That is my understanding, sir. 

Senator BENNETT. My question is could GAO take a look at the 

process of how it is being awarded and who is bidding and make 

a contribution to see to it that the contract goes to the right folks, 

or is that not yours? 

Mr. WOODS. Well, at some point, we may be able to do audit 

work looking at this particular procurement, but now is an extremely sensitive time. My understanding is we are in the source 

selection phase of that. GAO has a statutory function to entertain 

and decide bid protests. So if once that award is made, if anyone 

were to challenge that award, we would need to be in a position 

where our independence is not compromised and we are able to 

fairly decide that protest. 

Senator BENNETT. Just to satisfy my curiosity, who are the bidders and who is going to make the decision as to which bidder gets 

the contract? 

Mr. WOODS. I do not know who the bidders are. What I do know 

is that it is a General Services Administration procurement, and I 

do not know who the source selection official is. 

Senator BENNETT. So GSA will probably make the decision rather than OMB? 

Mr. WOODS. That is my understanding, sir. 

Senator BENNETT. OK. Madam Chairman, maybe we can find 

out. What kind of contractor would be bidding for this? 

You say you do not know who they are, but are we looking at 

McKinsey and Booz Allen Hamilton competing with each other or 

are we looking at big accounting firms? Are we looking at Microsoft? 

I have no idea. Who would be trying to do this? 

Mr. HUGHES. It is unknown. I mean I think maybe Mr. Hodgkins 

can comment. Like he mentioned earlier, there may be a great variety of companies bidding to get the contract, and then there are 

associated subcontractors that can provide different aspects of the 

RFP. I think it could be any and all of those companies or types 

of companies that you mentioned. 

I think particularly for IT procurements, there is the kind of big 

heavy-hitters that come in and say, we have a big network of subcontractors, we can do anything. There is the small, more boutique 

firms that have more of a niche in the IT sectors and what they 

can deliver. At this point, it is really, from my opinion, it is up in 

the air. 

22 

I think what we learned through the Recovery.gov 2.0 contract, 

about who was bidding and what types of firms banded together to 

be contractors and subcontractors. I think some of the names that 

came up, particularly Smartronix, I had never heard of, and they 

won this very large redesign contract. 

So it is really difficult to say. It is not the top three companies, 

and those are the only ones that are going to bid. But if it is not 

disclosed, so there is no way to actually know who is bidding. 

Well, someone knows. Someone at GSA knows. 

Senator BENNETT. Somebody is going to know because they are 

going to give it. 

Back to my earlier analogy, something as important as this, if I 

were the CEO, I would want to know even though I am not the one 

to make the final decision because I would delegate that to somebody whose expertise was greater than mine. I would, at least for 

something this important to the corporation, as the CEO, I would 

want to have a review. 

Again, this comes back to OMB. OMB is the president in terms 

of managing the Federal Government. As I say, I served in the Executive Branch, and I know that a cabinet officer usually, once the 

thrill of taking the oath of office in the Oval Office wears off, discovers that he works for a staffer at OMB. That is just kind of the 

reality of where we are. 

So we will raise this with this next witness. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. I want to thank all three of you for being 

here and for adding important information to this discussion on 

Federal contracting databases. The Subcommittee appreciates your 

being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Kundra. As I indicated before, it is the custom 

of this Subcommittee to do an oath, and I would ask you at this 

time: Is the information you are about to give this Subcommittee 

the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, 

God? 

Mr. KUNDRA. It is the truth, yes. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. Kundra was appointed as Federal Chief Information Officer 

of the United States by President Obama in March, 2009. Prior to 

joining the Administration, he served in Mayor Fenty’s cabinet as 

the CTO for the District of Columbia and in Governor Kaine’s cabinet as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Technology for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. He has also served in leadership roles 

in the private sector. 

He got the 2008 IT Executive of the Year for his pioneering work 

to drive transparency, engage citizens and lower the cost of government operation. He has been named to the Government Technology 

Magazine’s Top 25 Doers, Dreamers and Drivers. 

And, we need a doer, a dreamer, and a driver in this area of Federal contracting. 

Thank you for being here today. We look forward to your testimony. 

23 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kundra appears in the Appendix on page 74. 

TESTIMONY OF VIVEK KUNDRA,1 FEDERAL CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATOR FOR ELECTRONIC 

GOVERNMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. KUNDRA. Chairman McCaskill and Ranking Member Bennett, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s commitment to improving acquisition information systems and plans to promote greater transparency in Federal contracting. We recognize issues around data timeliness, accuracy and 

completeness, and also the usability of the various systems that 

were discussed earlier. 

The Federal acquisition process is complex and involves many 

stakeholders with different needs. Over the last decade, the acquisition community has led policy and system changes to streamline 

the complicated Federal acquisition environment. Moving forward, 

the Administration is committed to greater openness and transparency. Greater transparency in public procurement will enhance 

competition, promote citizen engagement and drive accountability 

that will lead to better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

Let me describe how earlier efforts have served as a foundation 

for today’s acquisition systems and discuss plans for the future. 

Consider three basic questions that the American people have a 

right to know: What contracting opportunities are available? What 

is the government buying and how? With whom is the government 

doing business? 

To address these questions, the Federal Government has undertaken a decade-long journey. In the early nineties, vendors interested in contracting opportunities had to subscribe to a daily print 

publication called the Commerce Business Daily. In 2002, the Commerce Business Daily was retired, and FedBizOpps became the 

central source for contracting opportunities. Today, over 100,000 

vendors have subscribed to FedBizOpps and about 2,000 opportunities are posted daily. 

Previously, information about what the government buys was 

provided in an annual paper-based report. The current Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS), established in 2003, captures 

up to 198 data elements per transaction, ranging from the type of 

contract to the money obligated. Last year, there were over eight 

million transactions in the system. 

Before the Central Contractor Registration system was made 

mandatory in 2003, vendors interested in doing business with the 

government mailed forms to individual contracting offices. Today, 

nearly 600,000 vendors are registered in CCR, and the government 

uses this information to pay vendors and to search for businesses 

in specific industries. Instead of contacting multiple government offices, vendors register only once. 

Over the nearly 8 years that the IAE has existed, electronic acquisition tools have been made public. They have been identified 

and developed for governmentwide use. Hundreds of standalone 

paper-based systems or agency-maintained systems were replaced 

by eight governmentwide systems that support over 40,000 conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:23 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 053844 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53844.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24 

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

tracting officials, 600,000 vendors, over $500 billion in annual procurement spending, and over 8 million transactions a year. 

Each of the IAE systems was developed independently, used different software and operated on different hardware platforms. Due 

to the fragmented ad hoc nature of procurement systems, cultural 

changes required in the agencies and resource constraints, improvements did not occur overnight. For example, fully implementing FPDS at a single agency took 3 years to complete. 

As a result, GSA is re-architecting and consolidating the IA Environment to develop the integrated procurement platform of the future. The success of these efforts depends on leadership in the acquisition community both at the Office of Management and Budget 

and at the agencies. 

The Office of Procurement Policy is setting the policy. The Office 

of E-Government and Information Technology at OMB is providing 

the technology leadership. GSA is responsible for program management. And, agencies are responsible for submitting timely, accurate 

and comprehensive data. 

Despite previous efforts to migrate from hundreds of systems to 

the eight that currently comprise the IAE, much work remains to 

address persistent issues discussed by the previous panel. We must 

continue to focus on improving data quality, increasing transparency and enhancing usability. 

In moving to the future procurement platform, the American people will have unprecedented access into how their taxpayer dollars 

are being spent. Vendors will be able to compete more efficiently 

through a streamlined platform, and oversight organizations and 

public interest groups will have improved access to procurement 

data. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Thank you very much, and we welcome 

you to the hearing. 

Let me just start with putting a slide up that is supposed to 

show the Integrated Acquisition Environment Governance Structure.1

I spent some time with this. I think what I am most worried 

about is this is the governance structure, and I cannot tell who is 

in charge. I understand this is a challenge because you have inputs 

from so many places, and you have to involve more than just the 

personnel at OMB, but I have to figure out who is going to pull the 

trigger on changing this architecture and who is the boss. 

Can you lend any—I mean that is kind of an embarrassing chart 

in that I think the idea in information technology is to make it simple, so everyone can understand it. It is very hard to understand 

that diagram, and it is the governance. So if you cannot understand the governance, all kinds of nonsense can happen. 

Can you illuminate the Subcommittee on who is in charge? 

Mr. KUNDRA. It is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy is 

driving the policy and the strategy when it comes to consolidating 

and creating a single platform across the Federal Government. 

25 

My office, the Office of E-Government and Information Technology is providing the technology leadership at OMB in terms of 

the architecture of the systems themselves. 

And, GSA is responsible for the operations of the Integrated Acquisition Environment. 

Senator BENNETT. GSA is not on this chart? 

Chairman MCCASKILL. GSA is not here in terms of governance. 

So is GSA just merely functioning as a pass-through and not in 

terms of governance? 

I see OFPP, and I see E-Gov and then two others, like there are 

four little squares at the top under OMB: OFFM, E-Gov, and RMO 

and then OFPP. Which of those four? 

If there is a horrible article on the front page of the Washington 

Post about how this integration contract has failed, who is Peter 

Orszag going to call first? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So, ultimately, this is being driven from a policy 

perspective at OFPP, from a business perspective, and we are providing support on the technology side. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. So if it is a failure of the systems, it 

might be you. But if it is the policy that is driving what you have 

designed, it would be OFPP. 

Mr. KUNDRA. Right, and in terms of the operations of this plan, 

of course, it is the GSA project management office in terms of managing this project and even, as you were talking about earlier, from 

a contracting perspective. GSA has the expertise and the PMO office in terms of managing the project itself, but the policy is being 

set out of OMB. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. I am glad of you because we really 

have not gotten until now anybody to admit who is in charge. So 

I would say the policy then is OFPP. You are helping them navigate the IT part of it, but the policy is being driven there. 

In terms of who is designing this, what is essential, is that OFPP 

in terms of what? I mean who would I look to for not talking to 

some of the most important end users, prior to this RFP being put 

out in the street? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So GSA is the entity that has issued the RFP. And, 

from my understanding, last year, there was actually an industry 

day, and also before they put out the RFP it was advertised widely. 

It is an open, competitive process for this entire contract. That was 

on FedBizOpps, available for anybody to compete on. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. This has been around. This plan really 

has been one that the previous administration did. It has been 2 

years in the making, my understanding. 

Mr. KUNDRA. With the community, yes, from 2007. 

And, the E-Gov office has been involved with GSA in terms of the 

architecture and thinking forward in terms of the new platform, 

and a big part of that is driven by the President’s agenda on transparency and open government. If you look at the changes that have 

been made in this Administration around USAspending and the IT 

dashboard, in a similar fashion, what we want to make sure is that 

this architecture—the underlying architecture—enables the American people to have access to procurement data and to ensure that 

this government is operating in ways that were not available before. 

26 

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. If you would show the next slide, please, 

this is the AOCS System Transition and Migration. Could you simply explain what this document is trying to show to someone that 

is trying to understand this process?1

How long is this going to take to combine these systems and 

move these eggs to a new egg carton? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So if we look, if we could step back a little bit, the 

systems that exist today—the eight various systems—actually have 

over a million codes, lines of code that actually make up these eight 

systems. 

And, what you are seeing here before you is a notional diagram 

that GSA has created that, one, first takes care of efficiencies 

around making sure there is a common help desk across these 

eight distributed systems. It makes no sense to have eight separate 

help desks, to have eight separate hosting providers. 

So step one is to consolidate and make sure that we are saving 

taxpayer dollars, so we are not replicating this eight times. So they 

have done that with the help desk. 

What they are moving forward with here is to actually first reengineer the whole architecture of these systems. So what we are 

not doing is essentially lifting up the systems and not really spending any energy rethinking about how does work get done within 

the Federal Government. How do you architect it and make sure 

that we are listening to the requirement? 

And, as the previous panel said, they may not have been consulted before. But part one of this contract, what GSA is asking is 

to make sure that there is requirements-gathering, that there is a 

broad array of people that are consulted ahead of time and that 

there are actually profiles created on the different types of users. 

And then, moving forward, what will happen is these systems 

will be moved to a consolidated hosting environment, after which 

the one million plus lines of code that I was talking about, part of 

what will happen is it will be reengineered to make sure that it is 

in line with the transparency objectives of this Administration. 

And also, making sure that we are looking at the entire ecosystem—what is it that the contracting officers need today that 

they do not have access to? What is it that the American people 

need access to that they do not have access to? 

And, how do we use newer technologies, whether it is around 

search, so that you do not have eight different search engines as 

you do today? In each of these eight systems, how do you get a unified search across all of these different databases? 

Chairman MCCASKILL. So you are envisioning that you are going 

to have a new search capability that will integrate all? It is not 

going to just be a platform where all these siloed systems are going 

to sit? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Absolutely not. That would be a waste of time, if 

all we did is just took eight databases and moved them to a single 

platform. 

The idea here is phase one of this is to rationalize the investments we are making, so we have them initially hosted centrally. 

Then phase two is to actually go out there and reengineer the enVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:23 Feb 23, 2010 Jkt 053844 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53844.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
27 

tire platform, so that it is not just a copy and paste because that 

adds no value. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. So you believe that when this is all said 

and done, and if you could guess how long it is going to take for 

me today, and then we are not going to have the comma problem 

in excluded parties anymore? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Actually, even with the comma problem, as late as 

last week, GSA was working on addressing that issue. So there are 

going to be a number of incremental changes that are going to be 

made as we move forward with this new platform. 

The notion here is to make sure that what we do not do is repeat 

some of the same problems that we did in the past, which was essentially just webify our current processes and essentially take the 

brick and mortar institutions and just put a web site in front of 

them. What is really important here in terms of the architecture 

of this new platform is to rethink and introduce game-changing 

technologies that will actually improve data quality, improve the 

timeliness and ensure that we have comprehensive data sets from 

an agency perspective. 

But I do not want to over-promise in terms of just the role of 

technology because a lot of this is also going to have to do with the 

cultural changes that are going to be made at the agency level. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. KUNDRA. But what technology can do is introduce steps up 

front, so people are not allowed to submit information that may be 

incomplete, so people are not allowed to enter information that is 

inaccurate. 

Right now, if you were to put in an address or vendor name, it 

is replicated eight different times. Whereas, in our consumer lives, 

if we are changing an address, the U.S. Postal Service allows you 

to auto-fill it and asks you is this the accurate address. It looks it 

up from a database. 

In the same way, the new architecture will introduce some of 

those architectural changes that ensure that you have a common 

service platform, so that you do not have to think about these in 

eight different ways. 

The approach historically has been, well, if you need to register 

as a contractor, you have got to have one system. If you need to 

look at past performance, you have to sign up for a second system. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. KUNDRA. If you need to look at the excluded parties list, 

there is a third system. 

And, this system essentially rationalizes those investments and 

makes sure there is a common platform. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Now how long do you think this is going 

to take? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So the notional architecture right now is 2 to 3 

years, but what is unknown is because the bids are not in as far 

as a contract is concerned it could be done as soon as a year and 

a half, or it could take 3 years. That is going to dependent on the 

responses that come in to the contract itself. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Well, you are going to go in the Hall of 

Fame of Dreamers, Doers, and Drivers if you do it in 3 years. 

28 

We just heard testimony that there was an interagency group 

that came together and made serious and substantial and helpful 

recommendations, and 4 years later we finally had some government policy that embraced those recommendations. Then, it was 

like it was very weak coffee by the time that they had actually embraced the recommendations of the panel. 

So, if it takes 4 years to do something like that, what you are 

really proposing to do here, if we accomplish what you say we are 

going to accomplish, it will be a great day because then you will 

be able to go to various places with one inquiry. I think that is exactly what needs to happen. So I wish you luck. 

It seems to me that one of the reasons this is occurring is who 

owns the codes and the controversy that these various databases 

have had with their contractors. When it is time to make changes 

and it is time to get responsiveness from the contractor, it has been 

an arm-wrestling match over the ownership of the codes. 

Are you confident that you have addressed the ownership of the 

codes in this new architectural effort you are making for these 

databases? 

Mr. KUNDRA. So part of the GSA contract itself is that there is 

a provision that the code will be open, meaning the government 

will own the code and, not only that, when modifications are made 

to the code itself, they will be transparent and everybody will be 

able to see how it was coded, so that if we do have to switch from 

Contractor A to B the government owns that intellectual property 

and not an individual contractor. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. Thank you. Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. 

My understanding is that GSA is probably doing a pretty good 

job of dealing with this, but again they are acting, as the chart 

showed, under the direction of OMB. So, while they are doing a 

good job executing, the vision is going to have to come out, again, 

from OMB. 

What is the Acquisition Committee for E-Government? Can you 

describe their role for us? 

Mr. KUNDRA. Sure, sir. The Acquisition Committee for E-Government is made up of stakeholders, whether that is at DOD or HHS 

or NASA, and they look, they serve as a change control board in 

terms of the changes that are made to the various systems. 

One of the best practices in technology projects is that you have 

to have a high engagement of the business owners and the technology folks. Otherwise, technology projects fail. 

And, history is littered in the Federal Government with massive 

IT failures because what ends up happening is the technology folks 

go out there and build the best, greatest, neatest thing, and the 

business people look at it and say, oh, what is this? We cannot 

even use it or it does not solve 99 percent of our problems. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. Can you say Social Security Administration? 

Mr. KUNDRA. There are a number of projects. 

So the ACE committee serves to ensure that the interests and 

the oversight is also there from a business perspective as GSA 

makes a lot of these changes, and we are getting constant input in 

terms of change management. 

29 

Senator BENNETT. Well, I keep going after the locus of the vision, 

and you have given us two agencies in OMB, both of which you are 

responsible for—the E-Government and the OFPP. 

Mr. KUNDRA. I am not responsible for OFPP. I am responsible for 

E-Gov, but we work very closely together. 

Senator BENNETT. You play a role in OFPP, do you not? 

Mr. KUNDRA. No, I do not. 

Senator BENNETT. You do not play any role there? 

Mr. KUNDRA. No. I am just in E-Government and Information 

Technology. 

Senator BENNETT. OK. So you told us earlier that the vision ultimately comes out of OFPP? 

Mr. KUNDRA. OFPP sets the policy. 

Senator BENNETT. I see, all right. 

Mr. KUNDRA. From a technology perspective and architecture, I 

am working closely with my colleagues at OMB. Just to give you 

an example of a couple of things that we have is if you look at the 

IT dashboard that we deployed. We were looking at $76 billion of 

IT spending, and for the first time what we did is we democratized 

that data to where you could see where we were on a specific 

project plan, on a monthly basis, and we are moving as close as 

possible to real time. 

Ultimately, this is driven by the President’s vision of a transparent and an open government where the default presumption is 

we will put information out there, release it, serving the interests 

of the public. 

I will be the first one to tell you that I do not think if you look 

at these eight systems that they were designed or architected from 

the ground-up with transparency, collaboration and open government in mind, and part of the vision here is to move the public sector in that direction. 

Senator BENNETT. OK. Well, the Chairman is a Senator from 

Missouri, and in that spirit I am trying to find where the buck 

stops, and I have not found it yet in terms of the setting the vision 

here. 

Now it is easy to say, well, the President has to set it. But, in 

reality, other than saying we have to solve this problem, the buck 

has to stop somewhere in here, and I am still fuzzy on it. Maybe 

it is my inability to understand quite what you are telling me. 

GSA has to have a vision articulated to them in very clear terms 

before they can really make an intelligent decision with respect to 

the RFP. OK. 

This is the contractor that is best equipped to fill the vision, and 

GSA reports that to OFPP. I understand the head of that office, 

that position is vacant at the moment. So there is an acting somewhere. 

Now you say the President has laid out a vision. I have a slight 

problem with what I hear of the President’s vision. I hear it over 

and over again—full transparency. Well, I am all for full transparency as long as the system works. But you can have full transparency in a system that does not work and say, yes, everybody 

knows that it does not work. 

So there has to be an additional part of this vision just other 

than, well, we are going to have the most transparent government 

30 

available. We have to have something that works. Who sets the vision that says, GSA, this is the vision of how this thing really has 

to work, this is our goal? 

And, if the goal is transparency above all else and you leave out 

the question of how does it work, you run the risk of getting the 

wrong contractor, and Senator McCaskill’s concern about 4 years 

will be fulfilled. You will spend the money, and 4 years later you 

will not have the problem solved. 

Mr. KUNDRA. And, I did not mean to imply that the vision is only 

full transparency. 

The vision is actually articulated as part of the strategy around 

making sure that, one, these systems obviously work as far as 

being transactional systems, whether it is for the 40,000 plus contracting officials or it is for the private sector that wants to compete and do business with the government—making sure that it is 

easy for the private sector to engage. We want to encourage new 

entrants. So we have Darwinian pressure in terms of making sure 

that we are getting the best product or services at the lowest cost, 

so we are producing value for taxpayers. 

Also, making sure that the open government agenda for the 

American people, they can see how their dollars are being spent 

around transparency. 

Ultimately, this is part of a management agenda that we are 

working with the Deputy Director of Management to drive this 

agenda across the Federal Government. 

Senator BENNETT. I agree with that goal. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. I know that the mission for IAE was defined back in October 2007. I have reviewed the mission, and there 

is nothing in there about transparency and access for the public. 

The mission was to simplify, unify, and streamline the acquisition 

process for government buyers and government sellers. 

What steps have you taken to try to reconcile the President’s 

transparency initiatives with the stated mission of the IAE and 

how do you reconcile that mission with the requirement of a password for the new system as it relates to access, especially since you 

do not need a password for USAspending.gov? 

Mr. KUNDRA. What is happening is, one, we are involved, OMB 

is involved, with the ACE community in making sure that we are 

baking these requirements into what the new platform is going to 

look like. 

Two, we are working very closely with GSA. But I think more 

importantly, as part of the architecture process itself, step one is 

to actually go out there and gather requirements. What is going to 

happen is post the award, GSA is going to be listening to not just 

internal Federal Government employees but OMB Watch, listening 

to TechAmerica, listening to the U.S. Congress, listening to the 

American people to make sure that those requirements are baked 

in because this is a huge opportunity, and it is a once in a decadelong opportunity to make sure that we get this right, once and for 

all. 

That is why we are leading with architecture. We are leading 

with making sure that we do not end up with where we are right 

31 

now. The analogy would be having eight different people with eight 

different visions going out there and building a building. 

For the first time, what we are saying is let’s step back. Let’s figure out what is it that the users really need, and that is why step 

one is to make sure that we award an architecture contract, so we 

can bake that into the operations of this new platform. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. To carry your analogy one step further, 

you are building a building that is going to have a huge, massive 

stadium representing the public surrounding it, that want to see 

right into that building. I mean through every wall and through 

every partition. That, obviously, is the challenge for you. 

I want to not leave this hearing without addressing one of my 

themes in contracting oversight, and that is contractors watching 

contractors, developing policies for contractors monitoring contractors. We have contractors overseeing contractors within the project 

and the management of IAE. In fact, the IAE Program Management Office has more contractor employees than it has government 

employees. 

Have you had an opportunity to get your arms around the massive use of contractors in the area of managing contractors and how 

we move away from what I do not think anybody has been able to 

demonstrate, a process that has actually produced any cost savings 

to the government? 

Mr. KUNDRA. My understanding from the GSA Project Management Office is that it is made up of about 15 Federal Government 

employees and 15 contractors. 

But what is really important here is that is why ACE is vital— 

the Acquisition Committee for E-Government which represents the 

government interests and the oversight that OMB is providing in 

terms of setting the policy direction, working closely with GSA. So 

GSA and the contracting community there is not just engineering 

all this on its own, but it is actually the Program Management Office. 

Not only that, but GSA has actually just hired a full-time contracting officer to oversee this contract, to make sure, given how 

important and vital this is to the public interest, that we are 

watching this contract and that it is the government officials that 

are calling the shots. Especially when you look at the specific migrations of these systems, it is going to be ultimately in the hands 

of the government in making those decisions, and especially the 

award decisions themselves. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. OK. I will be watching very closely on the 

award of this contract because I think it is very important that 

true competition is occurring. 

We had a very contentious hearing on the ANCs, and I do not 

want to revisit that topic today, but there are exclusions and exceptions to the need for competitiveness that are built into the law. 

But I hope that we are paying attention to competition because 

ultimately some of the massive IT failures that we discussed were 

about relying on one source of information, one person saying this 

is what you need and have to have, and pulling the trigger without 

enough input and enough competitive input into the process. That 

is one of the reasons that we have had the massive failures in so 

32 

many of the IT systems that we have gone about trying to implement. So I hope you are paying attention on that front. 

Mr. KUNDRA. And, on the cost side, that is one of the reasons this 

is a fixed-price, open, competitive contract, so we do not end up in 

an environment where we have cost overruns. 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Great. I do not think I have anything 

else. Senator Bennett, do you have anything else today? 

Senator BENNETT. Just a comment or two. Mr. Kundra, do you 

sit on ACE? 

Mr. KUNDRA. My team is represented on ACE. I have attended 

meetings of the ACE community itself. But, from OMB, I have 

folks who serve on that and attend those meetings regularly. 

Senator BENNETT. I think it vital that you do that, that you be 

involved in that because, yes, it is important that the end users all 

get there and say this is what we need. 

But, again, from my own business experience, one of the most 

catastrophic IT circumstances that I lived through with one of my 

clients is that when all of the folks who wanted the services said, 

well, can the computers do this and can the computers do that and 

can the computers do the other thing, and the answer was yes in 

every instance. And, they all got excited. 

No one asked the question, should the computers do this? There 

were some things that, quite frankly, the computer was less efficient than somebody who had a human brain, who could look at 

this and say, that is a dumb thing to do. But we can do it by computer. 

You are in the position to say, the computer is not all-knowing. 

The computer is an idiot. It only does what it is programmed to do, 

and it does not think. 

Hollywood movies to the contrary, the computer does not think. 

It only does what it is programmed to do, and there are some 

things that require humans to be there and make some human, intelligent decisions for which they will be held accountable. 

I think someone of your background and capacity should be there 

as people are saying, well, can you do this for me and, oh, great, 

let’s do all of this—and try to cut the human decisionmaking out 

in a way to make everything automatic. 

The company that had that experience no longer exists, and one 

of the reasons is because it tried to use the computer to do some 

things that intelligent human beings could do. And, many times, 

the intelligent human being can do it faster because this is a judgment call rather than an arithmetic analysis circumstance. 

I hope that gets into this overall restructuring of where we are 

going in government because I think if we were to drill down deep 

enough we would find examples of people relying on computers to 

make decisions that people ought to be making instead of machines. 

That is just an editorial comment that I would like to leave with 

you, as I salute you for your service and your expertise and thank 

you for your willingness to come into this mess. I know you could 

make a whole lot more money some place else. So we are grateful 

for your willingness to come here and help us out. 

Mr. KUNDRA. Thank you. 

33 

Chairman MCCASKILL. Yes, we do appreciate that. I think that 

what we are about to embark upon has great rewards potentially, 

but I think you uniquely understand, perhaps, the great risks that 

are also involved. 

Please tell all of your colleagues that are involved in this project 

and get word to the ACE council that this Subcommittee will continue to provide oversight in this process, and we will be looking 

to provide input as the process goes along. 

There are not very many people around here that understand the 

alphabet soup of the Federal contracting databases or all of the 

problems inherent in those databases. I think this Subcommittee 

does, and we will continue to try to be an active partner in doing 

the best job we can in producing a system that makes sense for the 

American taxpayers. 

We appreciate your service. I do not think we say often enough 

that people who make choices like you have made have decided 

that there is greater good to going to work for the public than getting a very big paycheck from many private entities that would be 

happy to pay you much more than we would ever dream of paying 

you. So I second Mr. Bennett’s congratulations to you in joining 

government, and we will look forward to continuing to work together and provide the kind of aggressive oversight that I know 

can be helpful to this project in the long run. 

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 


53844.001
36 


53844.002
37 


53844.003
38 


53844.004
39 


53844.005
40 


53844.006
41 


53844.007
42 


53844.008
43 


53844.009
44 


53844.010
45 


53844.011
46 


53844.012
47 


53844.013
48 


53844.014
49 


53844.015
50 


53844.016
51 


53844.017
52 


53844.018
53 


53844.019
54 


53844.020
55 


53844.021
56 


53844.022
57 


53844.023
58 


53844.024
59 


53844.025
60 


53844.026
61 


53844.027
62 


53844.028
63 


53844.029
64 


53844.030
65 


53844.031
66 


53844.032
67 


53844.033
68 


53844.034
69 


53844.035
70 


53844.036
71 


53844.037
72 


53844.038
73 


53844.039
74 


53844.040
75 


53844.041
76 


53844.042
77 


53844.043
78 


53844.044
79 


53844.045
80 

Æ 


53844.046