Opinion ID: 392798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legislative Concern: ADP Procurement and the Need for Standards

Text: 3 In 1965, recognizing that increasing governmental expenditures for automatic data processing (ADP) equipment required immediate legislative attention, Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. Ch. 288, 63 Stat. 377 (codified in scattered sections of 40 & 41 U.S.C.). This amendment, known as the Brooks Act, 1 had as its avowed objective the economic and efficient purchase, lease, maintenance, operation, and utilization of automatic data processing equipment by Federal departments and agencies. 111 Cong.Rec. 22,823 (1965) (remarks of Rep. Brooks). To achieve this objective, Congress attempted to create a coordinated management program through which the Government (could) keep track of its ... investment and more wisely predict and control its future expenditures. Id. Pursuant to this program, management responsibilities were allocated among the General Services Administration, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Department of Commerce. 4 Under this allocation, the Secretary of Commerce was authorized to undertake necessary research and to provide scientific and technological advisory services relating to the use of automatic data processing in the Government. Id. at 22,824 (remarks of Rep. Reid). The Secretary also assumed the responsibility for submission of recommendations to the President regarding the promulgation of uniform federal standards in the field. 2 This latter responsibility reflected clearly Congress's perception that the creation of standards would permit greater compatibility among systems, foster competition, and thereby promote more effectively the goal of efficient management of the government's ADP resources. Automatic Data Processing Equipment: Hearings on H.R. 4845 Before the Subcomm. on Government Activities of the House Comm. on Government Operations, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 158-59 (1965) (statements of Rep. Brooks and Dr. William Eaton). 5 Since the passage of the Act, Congress has not only maintained this emphasis but has in addition more sharply defined its focus. The House Committee on Government Operations, for example, commented on the overall need for standards in its 1976 oversight report regarding the growing trend of noncompetitive ADP procurements by federal agencies. Urging that corrective measures be taken, the Committee suggested the following: 6 First and foremost is the development of meaningful hardware and software standards.... At the hearings, GAO expressed serious concern about the lack of progress being made by NBS in the development of standards. This concern of GAO was prompted, in large part, by its recognition that standards are essential to the achievement of full competition and to the saving of large sums of money by the Government. To date, NBS has only developed to a limited extent standards necessary to fully implement the Act, even though it acknowledged at its hearings that lack of standards seriously impedes effective competition. As the Computer Industry Association testified at the hearings, NBS has developed no meaningful hardware standards and only a relatively few software standards.... 7 H.R.Rep.No.1746, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1976). 8 Beyond this reiteration of the benefits arising from the promulgation of standards in general, however, Congress also identified specific areas in which particular standards would provide concrete advantages for government purchasing. One such standard was the input/output channel level interface standard (I/O standard). Input/output channels connect peripheral equipment such as display terminals, keyboards, and printers to the computer mainframe, which performs most of the computer's logical operations. The major computer manufacturers such as appellants and IBM offer their customers both mainframes and peripheral equipment, and it was from these systems manufacturers that federal agencies had usually purchased their ADP requirements. This practice, although more convenient for agency customers, was believed to be too expensive. Elmer Staats, Comptroller General, addressed this problem at hearings held by the Joint Economic Committee in 1970. At that time, he explained that the General Accounting Office (GAO) had determined in a recent study that more economical procurements could be made if some components were purchased from suppliers other than the mainframe supplier. According to the study, substantial savings could be achieved immediately through this procurement method because some of the components currently available were directly interchangeable, or plug-to-plug compatible, with those of the major suppliers. Where the components were not plug-to-plug compatible, however, this method of procurement could be utilized only if adequate interfaces between the mainframe and the peripheral components were developed. Economy in Government Property Management Procurement of Data Processing Equipment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Comm., 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 4-5 (1970) (testimony of Elmer Staats). Such development would permit government agencies to derive from this marketing strategy maximum benefits competition among components manufacturers and increased flexibility in the selection and use ... of those components best suited to achieve the desired objectives. Id. at 12 (statement of Elmer Staats).