After months of discussion regarding how the government can avoid another healthcare.gov debacle, legislative proposals are starting to emerge in Washington. Last year, FITARA gathered steam before running into a legislative impasse. Today, a new draft bill introduced for discussion in the United House of Representatives proposes specific reforms that substantially parallel those made by the United Kingdom after a similar technology debacle in its National Health Service.
The draft bill is embedded below.
The subtext for the ‘Reforming Federal Procurement of Information Technology Act’ (RFP-IT), is the newfound awareness in Congress and the nation at large driven by the issues with Healthcare.gov that something is profoundly amiss in the way that the federal government buys, builds and maintains technology.
“Studies show that 94 percent of major government IT projects between 2003 and 2012 came in over budget, behind schedule, or failed completely, said Representative Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), ranking member of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, and co-sponsor of RFP-IT, in a statement. “In an $80 billion sector of our federal government’s budget, this is an absolutely unacceptable waste of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, thousands of pages of procurement regulations discourage small innovative businesses from even attempting to navigate the rules. Our draft bill puts proven best practices to work by instituting a White House office of IT procurement and gives all American innovators a fair shake at competing for valuable federal IT contracts by lowering the burden of entry.”
Specifically, RFP-IT would:
- Make the position of the U.S. chief technology officer and Presidential Innovation Fellows program permanent
- Create a U.S. Digital Government Office (DGO) that would not only govern the country’s mammoth federal information technology project portfolio more effectively but actively build and maintain aspects of it
- Increase the size of a contract for IT services allowable under the Small Business Act from $100,000 to $500,000
- Create a U.S. DGO fund supported by 5% of the fees collected by executive agencies for various types of contracts
“In the 21st century, effective governance is inextricably linked with how well government leverages technology to serve its citizens,” said Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee, and co-sponsor of RFP-IT, in a statement. “Despite incremental improvements in federal IT management over the years, the bottom line is that large-scale federal IT program failures continue to waste taxpayers’ dollars, while jeopardizing our Nation’s ability to carry out fundamental constitutional responsibilities, from conducting a census to securing our borders. Our RFP-IT discussion draft recognizes that transforming how the federal government procures critical IT assets will likely require bolstering ongoing efforts to comprehensively strengthen general federal IT management practices with targeted enhancements that promote innovative and bold procurement strategies from the White House on down.”
The legislative proposal earned qualified praise from Clay Johnson, former Presidential Innovation Fellow and CEO of the Department for Better Technology, whose advocacy for reforming government IT procurement and fixing the issues behind Healthcare.gov seemed to be on every cable news channel and editorial page last fall and winter.
“This, I think, really works well alongside FITARA, which calls for increased agency CIO authority,” wrote Johnson. “What will hopefully end up happening if both bills pass, is that good talent can get inside of government, and agencies that perform well can operate independently, and agencies that don’t can be pulled back in and reformed, while still having operational continuity (meaning: while that reform is happening, IT projects can still be done well, and run by the DGO).”
In 2014, digital government supports open government. What’s unclear is whether this proposal from two Democratic lawmakers can gain a Republican co-sponsor in the GOP-controlled legislative body or if a federal IT reform-minded Senator like Mr. Carper or Mr. Booker will take it up in the Senate.
This is singular bill isn’t a panacea, however, Johnson emphasized, pointing to the need to fix SAM.gov, the error-prone website for contractors to register with the federal government, and reforms to registration for “set-aside” business.
“We’re not sure how Congress writes a ‘stop throwing errors when a user clicks submit on sam.gov’ law,” wrote Johnson. “That’s going to take hearings, and most likely, a digital government office to fix. And we think this is a bill that complements Issa’s FITARA. Since this bill is at the discussion draft stage, perhaps soon we’ll see some Republicans jump on board.
On July 30, RFP-IT was officially introduced. (Full text of the bill, via Rep. Eshoo’s office): “The Reforming Federal Procurement of Information Technology (RFP-IT) Act, introduced by Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce, and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Energy Subcommittee, and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)”
Bipartisan federal IT reform bill (#RFPIT) officially introduced: http://t.co/hY5pGFFQGC Context: http://t.co/UfkNbFwQCI
— Alex Howard (@digiphile) July 30, 2014
Here’s the quick summary of revised RFP-IT Act:
1) It would officially establish a Digital Government Office within the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the U.S. CIO at its head as a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee, reporting to the head of the OMB, shifting from “electronic government” to “digital government.”
2) It would codify the Presidential Innovation Fellows program.
3) It would expand competition for federal IT contracting under a simplified process that would ease the regulatory and compliance burden upon smaller companies bidding, bumping the threshold for information tech projects up to $500,000.
4) Establish a digital service pilot program
5) Direct the General Services Administrator to conduct an in-depth analysis of IT Schedule 70.
6) Direct the Comptroller General of the United States to produce three reports to Congress within 2 years of the law passing, on 1) the effectiveness of the 18F program of the General Services Administration, 2) IT Schedule 70, and 3) “challenges and barriers to entry for small business technology firms.”
Its not going to work or help. DGO will just become another nattering bureaucracy complaining or yelling at other agencies (no one likes a Nanny). Each Agency is its own thing that answers directly to the Pres. and will not answer to some dashed line off to the side. Further DGO can fail only once, if they took a project away and failed – credibility gone. I could go on, but this won’t help anything. There is no IT SWAT team that can save IT project: only the people responsible for them must do it and be held accountable.
You are no doubt aware of the parallel to the UK Government Digital Services team, which looks like something of a model for this DGO. GDS is changing how services are bought, built and maintained. In other words, this approach seems to be working there. Why wouldn’t it work in the U.S. system of government?
size: the UK is about the size of California & their government Agencies are simply smaller and more self contained. If you look at the sheer volume of US Fed Spend and people involved in the bureaucracy it dwarfs the UK. Yes the UK has done some interesting stuff, but it should be compared to a large US state. Also UK offices have a different funding, org and control model where they can put one group in charge of xyz, cabinet offices are designed to be their own whole silo or ship.
“This approach seems to be working” – I live in the UK and haven’t noticed any improvement e.g. see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/09/universal-credit-it-writeoff-iain-duncan-smith for example. Key problem is political class think they can buy solutions to their woes by throwing money at them. Instead they should find out how to approach the issues by experiment and using cheaper alternatives (i.e. the lean approach). Of course, experiment and rational thinking might challenge ideology and we can’t have that, can we?
This could be done with far less cost if the approach was iterative and experimental, with careful rollout and testing. But that would require them to spend less on looking like their doing something, and more on finding out the facts.
Pingback: At 18F in GSA, U.S. seeks to tap the success of the U.K.’s Government Digital Services | E Pluribus Unum
Pingback: New study details technology deficit in government and civil society | E Pluribus Unum
Pingback: Thoughts on the future of the US CIO, from capabilities to goals | E Pluribus Unum