[Senate Report 111-179]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 364
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-179
======================================================================
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT ENHANCEMENT AND WASTE
PREVENTION ACT OF 2009
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 920
TO AMEND SECTION 11317 OF TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE, TO IMPROVE THE
TRANSPARENCY OF THE STATUS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, TO
REQUIRE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COST OVERRUNS ON FEDERAL INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT PROJECTS, TO IMPROVE THE PROCESSES AGENCIES
IMPLEMENT TO MANAGE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, TO REWARD
EXCELLENCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
May 5, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kevin J. Landy, Chief Counsel
Adam R. Sedgewick, Professional Staff Member
Eric S. Hopkins, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and
International Security
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lisa M. Nieman, Minority Counsel
R. Justin Stevens, Minority Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for Legislation..............................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact.................................12
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................13
VII. Changes in Existing Laws, as Reported...........................14
Calendar No. 364
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-179
======================================================================
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT ENHANCEMENT AND WASTE
PREVENTION ACT OF 2009
_______
May 5, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 920]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 920) to amend
section 11317 of title 40, United States Code, to improve the
transparency of the status of information technology
investments, to require greater accountability for cost
overruns on Federal information technology investment projects,
to improve the processes agencies implement to manage
information technology investments, to reward excellence in
information technology acquisition, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 920 seeks to improve the federal government's management
of its information technology projects and investments. As it
stands now, the federal government spends more than $40 billion
annually on major IT investments, with the Government
Accountability Office estimating that nearly one-half of the
investments are poorly planned, poorly managed, or both.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\GAO-08-1051T Information Technology: OMB and Agncies Need to
Improve Planning, Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling
Billions of Dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these problems, this bill would establish an
improved process for agencies to manage and monitor progress of
large IT investments. It would require agencies to take
specific steps to show sufficient planning and oversight before
there is a significant investment in money; measure whether the
investment is achieving expected cost, schedule, and
performance targets; report to the Office of Management and
Budget and to Congress if a project is experiencing significant
problems; and terminate investments that fail to meet cost,
schedule, and performance targets.
II. Background and Need for the Legislation
Since 2006, the Committee's Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security has held several hearings on the
federal government's information technology acquisition
planning and management. These hearings, along with a number of
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, have shown that
it is difficult for stakeholders to stay informed of major
Federal IT investments, which total billions of dollars each
year. For instance, many agencies fail to define why an
investment is needed, provide incomplete and inaccurate
planning documents for the investment, and insufficiently
manage investments according to established standards and best
practices. In addition, many project managers lack the
resources and knowledge necessary to effectively plan and
manage complex IT investments.
This bill would establish reporting requirements to inform
agency senior managers, OMB, and Congress when an investment is
facing critical problems that could negatively impact the
success of the project. Furthermore, the legislation is
intended to give agencies help in properly planning and
managing projects, so that they can correct unanticipated
problems before a project fails.
An example of the type of project that would have cost less
and produced better results had this bill's provisions been in
law is the Census Bureau's investment in automating the 2010
Decennial Census. Automation of the 2010 Decennial Census was a
major acquisition project that required the purchase and
management of systems, equipment (including handheld
computers), and infrastructure for field staff to use in
collecting data for the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau
initially estimated it would cost $600 million for the
technology necessary to automate the project. However, the
automation project had to be significantly changed after
project managers realized the investment was not proceeding as
planned and would not meet its goals for cost and performance.
In 2007, the Census Bureau determined that it would not be
feasible to use the handheld computers in the non-response
follow-up (NRFU) portion of the 2010 Decennial Census, its
largest field operation, and that it would accordingly need to
revert to a paper-based system. The Bureau estimated that
reverting to a paper-based NRFU, but still using handheld
computers for address canvassing (which determines residences
to receive the Census questionnaire), would result in a cost
increase of the life-cycle cost of the 2010 Decennial Census of
between $2.2 billion and $3 billion in addition to the
previously reported estimate of $11.5 billion. Further, the
automation contract itself was renegotiated in the fall of 2008
and is now expected to total around $790 million nearly one-
third more than the original estimate. Despite this increase in
contract cost, the Bureau has reverted to a paper-based NRFU
and will be conducting some of the automation in-house, such as
the help desk, support, and some software development. Moving
these functions in-house is expected to cost the Bureau $97
million.
Had the IT Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste
Prevention Act of 2009 been enacted prior to the 2010 Decennial
Census automation contract, the project would have been
considered a core IT investment at the Census Bureau, and the
project would have undergone an independent cost estimate for
the full lifecycle of the project. Then, quarterly reports on
the project's cost, schedule, and performance would have been
required. With these additional planning and monitoring steps
in place, the Bureau likely would have identified these cost
and performance problems in time to prevent some of the
failures. These mistakes likely led to the need to pay an
additional $1 billion dollars to revert the 2010 Decennial
Census process to a paper-based system that will limit the use
of the handheld computers, reduce the accuracy of the Decennial
Census, and unnecessarily waste taxpayer money.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Testimony before the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform April 9, 2008. ``Progress
on the development of the Field Data Collection automation program and
the Decennial Response Integration System.'' Accessed December 10, 2009
at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/
20081219175944.pdft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO found that one of the major contributing factors to
federal IT investment failures is that agencies continually
change the originally planned price tag and delivery date for
IT investments, which essentially masks overall cost, schedule,
and performance problems.\3\ Under S. 920, agencies will have
to measure progress from the original cost, schedule, and
performance baselines to avoid situations where senior managers
and Congress are limited in their ability to fully examine the
life cycle cost of an investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive
Policies to Address Changes to Projects' Cost, Schedule, and
Performance Goals, GAO-08-925 (Washington, D.C.: July 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also requires each agency, in coordination with
OMB, to identify and report to Congress what it considers to be
its core IT investments. Core IT investments are defined as
investments that are a high-dollar value relative to the rest
of the IT investments undertaken by that agency, critical to
the successful mission of the agency, and/or incorporate
technologies that may be unproven or not fully developed. Once
core IT investment projects are identified, agencies must
report annually to Congress on the projects' primary business
case and key functional requirements. The bill also requires
the agency head to review the primary business case and core
functionality requirements quarterly and notify Congress of any
changes within 14 days of the end of each quarter. The agency
head must also provide an interim report notifying Congress of
how the changes will affect the cost and ultimate effectiveness
of the investment.
The bill creates two reporting thresholds that the
Committee believes will help inform Congress about major IT
investments that are experiencing serious problems. To do this,
the bill uses the earned value management system (EVM)\4\
developed by the American National Standards Institute, and
used throughout the industry to manage IT investments. An EVM
system is an index that takes into account cost, schedule, and
performance of an IT project. In S. 920, an investment is
considered to have crossed reporting thresholds if it: (1)
``significantly deviates'' from the original EVM baseline by 20
percent, or (2) ``grossly deviates'' from the original EVM
baseline by 40 percent. If an investment significantly
deviates, then the agency head will have to report to Congress
and GAO, providing information such as the date the deviation
determination was made, the amount of the cost increases and
the extent of schedule delays, as well as changes in the
project's requirements and reasonable alternatives to the
investment. If a project grossly deviates, the agency will have
to provide a more detailed report to Congress and GAO, conduct
specific project analyses, develop a new baseline for the
project, and designate the project as a core IT investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA 748-B), Copyright
(2007), Information Technology Association of America. All Rights
Reserved. Reprinted by Permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Legislative History
Senator Carper introduced S. 920 on April 28, 2009. The
bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking
Minority Member Collins and Senator Voinovich cosponsored S.
920.
The Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, Federal Services, and International
Security held a hearing on April 28, 2009, titled, ``Government
2.0: Transitioning America into the 21st Century and a Digital
Future.'' The Committee received testimony from the Honorable
Vivek Kundra, Administrator, Office of Electronic Government
and Information Technology and Federal Chief Information
Officer; David Powner, Director, Information Technology Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office; The Honorable Karen
Evans, former Administrator for Electronic Government and
Information Technology (OMB); and Phillip Bond, President and
Chief Executive Officer of TechAmerica. The witnesses focused
their testimony on the need for agencies to be more transparent
with their investments in order to better manage cost,
schedule, and performance. In addition, the witnesses agreed
that agencies need to better implement the principles of Earned
Value Management in order to reduce the risk of cost overruns
and schedule delays.
The Committee considered S. 920 on May 20, 2009, adopted
the Carper substitute amendment, and ordered the bill reported
favorably, both by unanimous consent. Members present for
consideration of both the substitute amendment and the bill
were Chairman Lieberman; Senators, Akaka, Carper, Pryor,
McCaskill, and Burris; Ranking Minority Member Collins; and
Senators Coburn, and Voinovich.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 designates the name of the Act as the
``Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and
Waste Prevention Act of 2009.''
Section 2. Findings
Section 2 states Congress' findings with respect to Federal
IT investments, including that agencies have struggled with
high risk and complex IT investments and that Congress has
historically been caught off-guard by IT investments that
seemed like they were on budget, but ended up costing taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars more than expected. The
findings also state Congress' belief that OMB can help better
inform Congress and the American taxpayers of the true costs
and status of IT investments through mechanisms that provide
real time project management information and force agencies to
improve the accuracy and reliability of project management
information.
Section 3. Real-time transparency of IT investment projects
Section 3 requires the Office of Management and Budget to
establish and maintain a website that will provide accurate
information on the status of all major IT investments. The
website, also known as a ``dashboard,'' will show current and
projected future cost, schedule, and performance information.
OMB and federal agencies can use the website to cost-
effectively satisfy the reporting requirements established in
the bill. Congress can also use the website to track progress
of major IT investments and identify when those investments may
be falling behind the cost, schedule, and performance
expectations of the project. It is the intent of the Committee
that, based on the successful implementation of the website,
OMB should expand the website to include information on other
major capital investments including, but not limited to,
weapons acquisitions, satellites, construction projects, and
environmental cleanup.
Section 4. IT Investments projects
Subsection 4(a) Significant and Gross Deviations
Section 4(a) amends Section 11317 of Title 40, United
States Code. The section-by-section analysis (subsections a
through f) below refers to the new Section 11317, as amended by
this bill.
Subsection (a) Definitions
Paragraph (a)(1) defines the term ``agency head'' as the
person within the agency primarily responsible for the
information technology investment.
Paragraph (a)(2) defines the ``ANSI EIA 748 B standard'' by
cross referencing a standard jointly established by the
American National Standards Institute and the Electronic
Industries Alliance. That standard lays out several best
practice guidelines that government project managers should
follow if an investment is to be delivered within an acceptable
cost and schedule. For example, the standard requires that
project managers break investments into smaller, more
manageable deliverables, and then, as the project progresses,
measure whether the investment is meeting the expected
deliverables. The standard is seen by project management
experts as one of the most effective ways to manage risk and
reduce cost and schedule overruns.
Paragraph (a)(3) identifies the congressional committees to
which the bill directs reports required under it.
Paragraph (a)(4) states that the Chief Information Officer
(CIO) at the Department level agency is primarily responsible
for the IT project under review.
Paragraph (a)(5) defines ``core IT investment project'' as
an IT investment project that the CIO, with approval of the
agency head, designates as such. The designation criteria,
further detailed in paragraph (b), include: the project's
criticality to the mission, high-dollar value, use of unproven
technologies and/or risk of a significant negative impact to
the agency if the project fails, relative to the other major IT
investments in the agency. The CIO and agency head are the
individuals most intimately familiar with the various IT
projects and mission of the agency, so they are in the best
position to determine which projects are most critical and
risky to their agency. Thus, the CIO and agency head are tasked
with the responsibility to identity these projects.
Paragraph (a)(6) states that the term ``Director'' refers
to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Paragraph (a)(7) defines the term ``Earned Value
Management'' (EVM) as the cost, schedule, and performance data
used to determine a project's status. The EVM for each agency's
projects must be developed in accordance with the ANSI EIA-748
B standard, defined above.
Paragraph (a)(8) defines the term ``grossly deviated'' as a
variance of 40 percent or more from the original cost and
schedule expectations. This means that if any major IT
investment project's EVM cost, schedule, or performance
indicators deviate 40 percent or more from its original
baseline, the project will be considered to have grossly
deviated, thereby triggering the remedial actions set forth in
section (e)(3).
Paragraph (a)(9) defines the term ``independent government
cost estimate'' to mean an examination conducted by a third
party not involved in the project and who provides a neutral
and nonbiased analysis of the IT investment. The independent
government cost estimate is intended to ensure that the agency
and the contractor take proper steps to plan, acquire, and
implement the investment appropriately.
Paragraph (a)(10) defines an ``IT investment project'' as
an investment that requires special management attention,
requires significant agency resources, is responsible for
obligating over $500,000 annually, or has significant program
or policy implications. This definition is consistent with
OMB's definition of a major IT investment. However, it is the
intent of the Committee that OMB shall develop a consistent and
uniform government-wide definition of information technology
that applies to investments that significantly incorporate
information technology hardware and software such as satellites
and weapons systems.
Paragraph (a)(11) defines the term ``life cycle cost'' to
mean the total cost of an IT investment, which encompasses
planning, research and development, modernization, enhancement,
operation, and maintenance.
Paragraph (a)(12) defines the ``original baseline'' as the
agreed upon cost, schedule, and performance parameters of an IT
investment. The original baseline, also known as a performance
measurement baseline or PMB should be developed at the
beginning of the project, using EVM standards and approved by
OMB. This original baseline shall be used through the course of
the project, unless there is a gross deviation. Following a
gross deviation, a new EVM baseline (also known as a
rebaseline) must be established, as required for remedial
action in section (e)(3). This new EVM baseline will, once
established after a gross deviation, be considered an original
baseline.
Paragraph (a)(13) defines ``significantly deviated'' as an
EVM variance that is at least 20 percent from the original
baseline. This means that if any major IT investment project's
EVM cost, schedule, or performance indicators deviate 20
percent or more from its original baseline, the project will be
considered to have significantly deviated, thereby triggering
the remedial actions set forth in section (d)(2).
Subsection (b). Core IT Investment Projects Designation
Subsection (b) requires the CIO, with approval from the
agency head, to designate those IT investment projects that are
most critical to the agency's mission as ``core IT investment
projects.'' The designation may be based on whether the IT
investment represents a higher dollar value relative to the
rest of the portfolio, is critical to the successful mission of
the agency, incorporates unproven or undeveloped technology, or
whether the project would have a significant negative impact on
the successful completion of the agency mission if the project
experienced significant cost, schedule, or performance
deviations.
Subsection (c). Cost, Schedule, and Performance Reports
Subsection (c) designates the reporting requirements for
agencies on all IT investments. The bill requires that the
project manager for the investment must submit, within 14
calendar days after each fiscal quarter, a descriptive report
to the CIO. This report should include the current cost,
schedule, and performance for all projects under the project
manager's supervision; a description of the original cost,
schedule, and performance benchmarks for the investment; any
variance in the cost, schedule, or performance of the
investment since the commencement of the project; and a
declaration of any known, expected, or anticipated changes to
the original or current baseline description. However, if a
project manager determines that an IT investment has deviated
according to definitions established in paragraph (a)(8) and
paragraph (a)(13) before the end of the fiscal quarter, then
the project manager must within 14 days of the determination
submit a descriptive report including the same information to
the CIO.
Subsection (d). Determination of Significant Deviation
Subsection (d) requires CIOs to report to Congress any
major IT investments which have ``significantly deviated,'' as
defined in paragraph (a)(13). A CIO makes this determination
based on a report from the project manager as described in
subsection (c). Upon the significant deviation determination,
the CIO must notify the agency head and issue a report to
Congress and GAO, which includes the date the CIO determined
the project deviated; the amount of the cost increase and
schedule delay for delivery; any change in requirements from
the original contract; the reason for the differences between
the project manager's, contractor's, and any independent
analysis estimated cost for the investment; the reasons why the
investment has deviated from cost, schedule or performance
benchmarks; and a summary of the plan of action to correct the
deviation. The agency head must submit this report to Congress
and GAO within 21 calendar days after the determination of a
significant deviation.
Subsection (e). Determination of Gross Deviation
Subsection (e) requires CIOs to submit a report described
in subsection (c) to Congress upon the project manager's
determination that the IT investment has grossly deviated, as
defined in paragraph (a)(8). If the project has not been
previously reported as grossly deviated then the agency head
must submit a report to Congress that includes the date the CIO
determined the investment had grossly deviated; whether the
project was previously reported as significantly deviated under
subsection (d) or grossly deviated under this subsection;
incorporation of all previous reports to Congress on the
investment by reference; updated information as required under
subsection (d); and a comprehensive plan of action to remedy
the gross deviation with milestones to control future cost,
schedule, and performance deviations in the future. In
addition, the agency head must submit to Congress a report that
describes the primary business case and key functional
requirements of the investment; any portions of the investment
that may be feasibly procured under a fixed-price contract; a
certification by the agency head that all technical
requirements have been reviewed and are aligned with the
primary business case; a description of any changes to the
primary business case or functional requirements since the
project's inception; and an independent cost estimate by an
entity approved by OMB. The agency must also submit to Congress
an analysis of the business goals that the project was
originally designed to address; an analysis of what project
deliverables remain to be completed to achieve the business
goals defined; the three most cost-effective alternative
approaches to achieve the business goals defined; a cost-
benefit analysis that compares the three most cost-effective
alternative approaches with the current investment; and a cost-
benefit analysis of termination of the project without choosing
any of the three alternative approaches; a new cost, schedule,
and performance baseline that is consistent with the
independent government cost estimate; and a designation by the
agency that the project is considered a core IT investment
under subsection (b).
The agency head must report the information required under
this subsection to Congress within 45 calendar days after the
end of the fiscal quarter or interim determination and ensure
the completion of the remedial actions as reported by the
agency within 180 calendar days. If the agency head fails to
complete the remedial action within 180 calendar days, then
additional funds may not be spent on the investment.
The bill allows an exception to the reporting and analyses
requirements, which states that the CIO, in coordination with
the agency head and OMB Director, may forgo completion of any
element of a report or analysis if it is determined that those
elements are not relevant to the understanding of the
difficulties facing the project or further continuation of the
project in a timely and cost-efficient manner. If the CIO
chooses to forgo such reporting or analysis, the CIO must
explain to Congress the basis for the CIO's decision to exclude
any element of the report or analysis not provided. The purpose
of allowing for such an exception is so that if an element of
the reporting or analyses required under this section does not
pertain to the IT investment project that has deviated and/or
whose inclusion would not be beneficial in bringing the project
back on track, the agency does not have to conduct work to
provide irrelevant information to Congress. The requirement
that the CIO must provide the basis for not including any
omitted element is intended to ensure that the CIO can
sufficiently explain why the information would not be
pertinent.
Subsection (f). Additional Requirements for Core IT
Investment Project Reports
Subsection (f) outlines additional planning requirements
for those IT projects designated as core IT investments by the
agency head. First, this section requires that an IT project
identified as grossly deviated under subsection (e) must be
designated as a core IT project, as defined under subsection
(b) in the next budget submission. In addition, those IT
investments that are listed as core IT investments must be
tracked by the agency head on a quarterly basis. The bill would
require the agency head to notify Congress within 14 days
following the end of the fiscal quarter if there are any
changes to the primary business case or key functional
requirements and explain the changes and impact the changes
will have on the cost and ultimate effectiveness of the
project. Further, if the CIO determines the core IT investment
would have deviated as defined under subsection (a) without a
change in the primary business case or key functional
requirements, then the agency head must fulfill and submit the
requirements under subsection (d) or subsection (e) depending
on the deviation.
Subsection 4(b). Inclusion in the Budget Submitted to
Congress
Subsection 4(b) requires agencies to include the reports
designated under subsection (f) of Section 11317 of Title 40,
as amended by this bill, in their annual budget submissions to
Congress.
Subsection 4(c). Improvement of Information Technology
Acquisition and Development
Section 4(c) amends Section 11319 of Title 40, United
States Code. The section-by-section analysis below refers to
the new Section 11319, as amended by this bill.
Subsection (a). Purpose
Subsection (a) explains the purposes of the section. The
purposes are that agencies will meaningfully examine current
internal processes used to plan, manage, and deliver IT
investments and consistently improve delivery of superior IT
products and services on time and within budget.
Subsection (b). OMB Guidance
Subsection (b) requires OMB to develop and oversee the
implementation of guidance established under this section
within 180 calendar days of enactment of this bill. It is the
intent of the Committee that OMB will, to the extent possible,
ensure agency programs are consistent government wide, but will
allow agencies enough flexibility to tailor programs to ensure
success.
Subsection (c). Establishment of Program
Subsection (c) requires each CIO, upon approval of the
agency head, to establish a program to improve IT processes
within 120 calendar days of enactment.
Subsection (d). Program Requirements
Subsection (d) specifies the requirements of the program
mandated by subsection (c). The Committee expects that if
agencies have not already done so, they will establish and
continually update a documented process for IT acquisition
planning, requirements development and management, project
management and oversight, earned-value management, and risk
management. Further, this subsection requires agencies to
develop metrics that can be monitored in near real-time through
an easy to understand ``dashboard,'' consistent with the goals
of Section 3 of this bill, appropriate for project management
and that appropriately monitor the process and development
status of IT investments, and achievement of stated program and
investment outcomes. In addition, the subsection recognizes
that there is a government-wide workforce shortage of key
personnel required to manage highly complex IT investments.
Therefore, the subsection requires agencies to develop a
process to ensure that key program personnel have the
appropriate level of experience, training, and education from
an institute recognized by the Director of OMB. Lastly, the
subsection requires that agencies develop an appropriate and
effective process for CIOs to intervene and stop funding of an
IT investment if the project is at risk of not achieving its
major milestones. It is the expectation of the Committee that
agencies will give CIOs clear and direct authority to intervene
or stop funding at any point in the process of planning,
managing, and delivering an IT investment.
Subsection (e). Annual Report to OMB
Subsection (e) requires agency heads to submit an annual
report to OMB. The report must include, among other elements, a
detailed summary of the program's accomplishments, the status
of implementation, and the metrics used to determine the
program's success.
Subsection (f). Annual Report to Congress
Subsection (f) establishes reporting requirements for OMB
and Congress to ensure agencies are appropriately and
efficiently implementing subsection (d).
Section 5. Major Automated Information System Programs
Subsection 5(a). Definitions
Subparagraph 5(a)(1) amends the section heading of Section
2445a of title 10 of the U.S. Code to read ``Section 2445a.
Definitions.''
Subparagraph 5(a)(2) and Subparagraph 5(a)(3) make
technical corrections to Title 10 of the U.S. Code that
harmonize, to the extent possible, the definitions and
requirements established by S. 920 for civilian agencies with
those requirements under Title 10 of the U.S. Code for the
Department of Defense. These subparagraphs also ensure that the
CIO continues to be the Department lead for overseeing IT
investments, avoiding duplicative efforts, preventing
capability gaps, and ensuring that older and newer systems are
compatible and interoperable.
For example, Subparagraphs 5(a)(3) requires the Department
of Defense to track IT investments with an appropriate EVM
project management system that shows accurate and reliable
cost, schedule, and performance information. If DOD finds that
investments deviate by 15 to 25 percent from the established
baseline based on the EVM system, then DOD will be required to
include information on troubled projects similar to civilian
agencies as required under section 4.
Subsection 5(b). Cost, Schedule, and Performance
Information
Subsection 5(b) mirrors subsection 4 and enhances current
Title 10 significant and critical change planning and reporting
requirements for the Department of Defense to make them
consistent with requirements S. 920 establishes for civilian
agencies.
Section 6. IT SWAT
Subsection 6(a) establishes the purpose of the IT SWAT
(Significant Waste Avoidance Team) as providing a resource to
assist agencies in avoiding deviations as defined in subsection
4(a) of the bill.
Subsection 6(b) directs the E-Government Administrator to
establish the IT SWAT within 180 calendar days after the
enactment of the act to carry out subsection 4(a). The
individuals on the IT SWAT shall be highly trained and
experienced program managers who are trained to the Senior/
Expert level according to the Federal Acquisition Certification
for Program and Project Managers, or who have comparable
education, certification, training, and experience to
successfully manage high-risk IT investment projects. The OMB
Director will determine the number of individuals who serve on
each IT SWAT.
Subsection 6(c) requires OMB to identify consultants
outside of government who have expert knowledge in IT program
and risk management. If OMB decides that a team of IT experts
is needed, OMB can hire on a limited-time basis consultants
from the private sector. However, the number of consultants
that are hired from the private sector cannot equal more than
20 percent of any IT SWAT. The remaining 80 percent of the IT
SWAT members must be federal government employees. Further,
consultants that have an established relationship with an
organization that is under review may not participate in the
assessment. This subsection gives the E-Government
Administrator the ability to enter into competitively bid
contracts with one or more qualified consultants.
Subsection 6(d) requires the E-Government Administrator to
determine whether an IT investment may deviate as defined in
Section 4 of the bill. If a project is reasonably suspected to
deviate in the future or lacks information that will allow the
E-Government Administrator to accurately assess the investment,
then the section directs OMB to recommend the assignment of one
or more members from the IT SWAT to assess the project. The
costs for the assessment would be paid for by the IT investment
project being assessed. The E-Government Administrator shall
monitor the progress being made by the IT SWAT.
Subsection 6(e) requires the E-Government Administrator to
recommend that the agency head take steps to reduce and avoid
any deviations in cost, schedule, and performance if potential
problems are found during the assessment under subsection 6(d).
The E-Government Administrator can recommend that the agency
provide training or mentoring to improve the qualifications of
the program manager; replace the program manager or other
staff; supplement the program manager with highly qualified
federal government employees or independent contractors;
terminate the IT investment; or hire an independent contractor
to report directly to senior management and the E-Government
Administrator.
Subsection 6(f) allows the OMB E-Government Administrator
to reprogram amounts within an agency to pay for an assessment
under subsection 6(d) and to notify the Congressional
committees on appropriations of any such reprogramming.
Subsection 6(g) requires the Director of OMB to include in
the annual E-Government report a detailed summary of the
composition and activities of the IT SWAT, including the number
and qualifications of individuals on the IT SWAT; a description
of the IT investment projects that the IT SWAT assessed and
worked on during the previous fiscal year; the major issues
that necessitated the involvement of the IT SWAT and whether
the issues were resolved; whether or not issues were resolved
and any plans the agency head has to resolve these issues; a
breakdown of the sources and amounts OMB and federal agencies
spent to support the activities of the IT SWAT; and a
determination of whether the IT SWAT was effective in reducing
the number of IT investment projects that deviate as defined in
Section 4.
Section 7. Awards for Personnel for Excellence in the Acquisition of
Information System and Information Technology
Subsection 7(a) requires the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management to develop policy and guidance for
agencies to recognize excellent performance by federal
government employees or teams of federal government employees
in acquisition of IT systems.
Subsection 7(b) requires that any award program developed
under subsection 7(a) should use, to the extent practical,
objective outcome performance measures and include procedures
for individuals to be nominated and evaluated.
Subsection 7(c) allows the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management and Director of Office of Management and
Budget to develop guidance policy to provide rewards for
federal government employees who receive recognition under
subsection 7(b).
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on
State, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains
no other regulatory impact.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
June 26, 2009.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 920, the Information
Technology (IT) Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste
Prevention Act of 2009.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
S. 920--Information Technology (IT) Investment Oversight Enhancement
and Waste Prevention Act of 2009
S. 920 would amend federal law regarding the oversight of
project plans for information technology (IT) systems. The
legislation would require chief information officers to
identify critical IT projects and would subject each IT project
to additional reporting, planning, and monitoring requirements,
including corrective actions for projects that fail to meet
applicable standards. In addition, the legislation would
establish a group of information technology experts,
administered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to
respond to problems with IT projects. Finally, S. 920 would
authorize agencies to provide awards (including cash) to
federal employees for excellence in IT acquisition, subject to
the availability of appropriated funds.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 920 would cost about $30
million per year, or $150 million over the 2010-2014 period,
primarily for the additional reporting requirements, subject to
the availability of appropriated funds. The bill would have no
effect on direct spending or revenues.
Most of the provisions of S. 920 would expand the current
practices of the federal government. Under the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996, agencies are required to analyze, track, and
evaluate the risks and results of major capital investments in
IT systems. To accomplish this, OMB uses a Management Watch
List to monitor and plan agencies' IT investments. OMB also
evaluates each agency's capability to manage its investments.
Based on information from OMB and various agencies, CBO
expects that complying with the reporting provisions of S. 920
would increase the administrative expenses of most federal
agencies, but because of the large number of agencies and
computer systems involved, we cannot precisely estimate the
likely total costs. According to the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), about $71 billion will be spent on IT projects by
the federal government in 2009. In addition, GAO has reported
that OMB and federal agencies have identified more than 400 IT
projects--costing $25.2 billion in 2008--as being poorly
planned, poorly performing, or both. CBO expects that the
legislation would require additional quarterly status reports
and detailed corrective action plans for a significant number
of those troubled IT projects. We estimate that implementing
the bill would increase the cost of such projects by a total of
$25 million a year over the 2010-2014 period.
Reporting costs over the 2010-2014 period would generally
come from agencies' salary and expense budgets. In addition,
there could be additional costs to implement and deploy the IT
response group and to provide for awards to IT employees. Those
costs also would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds, and we estimate that they would total around $5 million
a year, depending on the number of employees deployed or
awarded.
S. 920 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes in Existing Laws, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing
law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows:
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in [black
brackets], new matter is printed in italic, existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
TITLE 10--ARMED
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 144A--MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2445a. Definitions
(a) Major Automated Information System Program.--In this
chapter [10 USCS Sec. Sec. 2445a et seq.], the term ``major
automated information system program'' means a Department of
Defense program for the acquisition of an automated information
system (either as a product or a service) if--
(1) the program is designated by the Secretary of
Defense, or a designee of the Secretary, as a major
automated information system program; [or]
(2) the dollar value of the program is estimated to
exceed--
(A) $32,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 constant
dollars for all program costs in a single
fiscal year;
(B) $126,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 constant
dollars for all program acquisition costs for
the entire program; or
(C) $378,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 constant
dollars for the total life-cycle costs of the
program (including operation and maintenance
costs)[.]; or
(3) the Chief Information Officer, with the approval
of the Secretary of Defense, determines that the
program--
(A) delivers a capability critical to the
successful completion of the mission of the
Department of Defense, or a portion of such
mission;
(B) incorporates unproven or previously
undeveloped technology to meet primary program
technical requirements; or
(C) would have a significant negative impact
on the successful completion of the mission of
the Department of Defense if the program
experienced significant cost, schedule, or
performance deviations.
(b) Adjustment.--The Secretary of Defense may adjust the
amounts (and base fiscal year) set forth in subsection (a) on
the basis of Department of Defense escalation rates. An
adjustment under this subsection shall be effective after the
Secretary transmits a written notification of the adjustment to
the congressional defense committees.
(c) Increments.--In the event any increment of a major
automated information system program separately meets the
requirements for treatment as a major automated information
system program, the provisions of this chapter [10 USCS
Sec. Sec. 2445a et seq.] shall apply to such increment as well
as to the overall major automated information system program of
which such increment is a part.
(d) Other Major Information Technology Investment
Program.--In this chapter, the term ``other major information
technology investment program'' means the following:
(1) An investment that is designated by the Secretary
of Defense, or a designee of the Secretary, as a ``pre-
Major Automated Information System'' or ``pre-MAIS''
program.
(2) Any other investment in automated information
system products or services that is expected to exceed
the thresholds established in subsection (a), as
adjusted under subsection (b), but is not considered to
be a major automated information system program because
a formal acquisition decision has not yet been made
with respect to such investment.
(e) Definitions.--In this chapter:
(1) Chief information officer.--The term ``Chief
Information Officer'' means the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Defense, designated under
section 3506(a)(2) of title 44.
(2) Earned value management.--The term ``Earned Value
Management'' means the cost, performance, and schedule
data used to determine the status of a major automated
information system program that has been developed in
accordance with the ANSI EIA-748-B Standard.
(3) Independent government cost assessment.--The term
``independent government cost assessment'' means a
pragmatic and neutral analysis, assessment, and
quantification of all costs and risks associated with a
major automated information system program developed
and submitted by the Director of Independent Cost
Assessment.
Sec. 2445b. Cost, schedule, and performance information
(a) Submittal of Cost, Schedule, and Performance
Information.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
[Congress] the Office of Management and Budget, the Government
Accountability Office, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives
each calendar year, not later than 45 days after the President
submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year under section
1105 of title 31 [31 USCS Sec. 1105], budget justification
documents regarding cost, schedule, and performance for each
major automated information system program and each other major
information technology investment program for which funds are
requested by the President in the budget.
(b) Elements Regarding Major Automated Information System
Programs.--The documents submitted under subsection (a) with
respect to a major automated information system program shall
include detailed and summarized information with respect to the
automated information system to be acquired under the program,
and shall specifically include each of the following:
(1) The development schedule, including major
milestones.
(2) The implementation schedule, including estimates
of milestone dates, initial operational capability, and
full operational capability.
(3) Estimates of development costs and full life-
cycle costs.
(4) A summary of key performance parameters.
(5) A description of the primary business case and
key functional requirements for the program, including
an analysis of alternatives.
(6) An identification and description of any portions
of the program that have technical requirements of
sufficient clarity that such portions may be feasibly
procured under firm, fixed-price contracts.
(7) An independent government cost assessment for the
project provided by the Director of Independent Cost
Assessment.
(8) Certification by the Chief Information Officer
that all technical and business requirements have been
reviewed and validated to ensure alignment with the
reported business case.
(9) Any changes to the primary business case or key
functional requirements which have occurred since the
inception of the program.
(c) Baseline.--
(1) For purposes of this chapter [10 USCS
Sec. Sec. 2445a et seq.], the initial submittal [to
Congress] of the documents required by subsection (a)
with respect to a major automated information system
program shall constitute the original estimate or
information originally submitted on such program for
purposes of the reports and determinations on program
changes in section 2445c of this title.
(2) An adjustment or revision of the original
estimate or information originally submitted on a
program may be treated as the original estimate or
information originally submitted on the program if the
adjustment or revision is the result of a critical
change in the program covered by section 2445c(d) of
this title [10 USCS Sec. 2445c(d)].
(3) In the event of an adjustment or revision to the
original estimate or information originally submitted
on a program under paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Defense shall include in the next budget justification
documents submitted under subsection (a) after such
adjustment or revision a notification to the Office of
Management and Budget, the Government Accountability
Office, the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate,
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives [the congressional defense committees]
of such adjustment or revision, together with the
reasons for such adjustment or revision.
(d) Elements Regarding Other Major Information Technology
Investment Programs.--With respect to each other major
information technology investment program, the information
required by subsection (a) may be provided in the format that
is most appropriate to the current status of the program.
Sec. 2445c. Reports: quarterly reports; reports on program changes
(a) Quarterly Reports by Program Managers.--The program
manager of a major automated information system program or
other major information technology investment program shall, on
a quarterly basis, submit to the senior Department of Defense
official responsible for the program a written report
[identifying] that--
(1) identifies any variance in the projected
development schedule, implementation schedule, life-
cycle costs, or key performance parameters for the
major automated information system or information
technology investment to be acquired under the program
from such information as originally submitted [to
Congress] under section 2445b of this title [10 USCS
Sec. 2445b];[.]
(2) describes the cost, schedule, and performance of
all programs under the program manager's supervision;
(3) provides the original and current program cost,
schedule, and performance benchmarks for each program
under the program manager's supervision;
(4) for each program under the program manager's
supervision, any known, expected, or anticipated
changes to program schedule milestones or program
performance benchmarks included as part of the original
or current baseline description.
(b) Senior Officials Responsible for Programs.--For
purposes of this section, the senior Department of Defense
official responsible for a major automated information system
program or other major information technology investment
program is--
(1) in the case of an automated information system or
information technology investment to be acquired for a
military department, the senior acquisition executive
for the military department; or
(2) in the case of any other automated information
system or information technology investment to be
acquired for the Department of Defense or any component
of the Department of Defense, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
(c) Report on Significant Changes in Program.--
(1) In general.--If, based on a quarterly report
submitted by the program manager of a major automated
information system program pursuant to subsection (a),
the senior Department of Defense official responsible
for the program makes a determination described in
paragraph (2), the official shall, not later than 45
days after receiving such report, notify [the
congressional defense committees] the Office of
Management and Budget, the Government Accountability
Office, the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate,
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives in writing of such determination.
(2) Covered determination.--A determination described
in this paragraph with respect to a major automated
information system program is a determination that--
(A) there has been a schedule change that
will cause a delay of more than six months but
less than a year in any program schedule
milestone or significant event from the
schedule originally submitted [to Congress]
under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2445b(b)
of this title [10 USCS Sec. 2445b(b)];
(B) the estimated program development cost or
full life-cycle cost for the program has
increased by at least 15 percent, but less than
25 percent, over the original estimate
submitted [to Congress] under paragraph (3) of
section 2445b(b) of this title [10 USCS
Sec. 2445b(b)]; [or]
(C) there has been a significant, adverse
change in the expected performance of the major
automated information system to be acquired
under the program from the parameters
originally submitted [to Congress] under
paragraph (4) of section 2445b(b) of this title
[10 USCS Sec. 2445b(b)]; or [.]
(D) the Earned Value Management of the
program has changed by at least 15 percent, but
less than 25 percent.
(3) Notification requirements.--The notification
required under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the date on which the determination
described in paragraph (2) was made;
(B) the amount of the cost increases and the
extent of the schedule delays with respect to
such program;
(C) any requirements that--
(i) were added subsequent to the
original contract; or
(ii) were part of the original
contract, but were changed by deferment
or deletion from the original schedule,
or were otherwise no longer included in
the contract;
(D) an explanation of the differences
between--
(i) the estimate at completion
between the program manager, any
contract, and any independent analysis
and
(ii) the original budget at
completion;
(E) a statement of the reasons underlying the
program's significant changes; and
(F) a summary of the plan of action to remedy
the significant changes.
(4) Alternative significant changes determination.--
If the program manager determines, subsequent to a
change in the primary business case or key functional
requirements, that without such change the program
would undergo significant changes--
(A) the program manager shall notify the
Secretary of Defense of the significant
changes; and
(B) the Secretary of Defense shall notify the
congressional defense committees in accordance
with the requirements of this subsection.
(d) Report on Critical Changes in Program.--
(1) In general.--If, based on a quarterly report
submitted by the program manager of a major automated
information system program or other major information
technology investment program pursuant to subsection
(a), the senior Department of Defense official
responsible for the program makes a determination
described in paragraph (2), the official shall, not
later than 60 days after receiving such report--
(A) carry out an evaluation of the program
under subsection (e); and
(B) submit, through the Secretary of Defense,
to [the congressional defense committees] the
Office of Management and Budget, the Government
Accountability Office, the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate, the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report meeting the
requirements of subsection (f).
(2) Covered determination.--A determination described
in this paragraph with respect to a major automated
information system program or other major information
technology investment program is a determination that--
(A) the automated information system or
information technology investment failed to
achieve initial operational capability within
five years after funds were first obligated for
the program;
(B) there has been a schedule change that
will cause a delay of one year or more in any
program schedule milestone or significant event
from the schedule originally submitted [to
Congress] under paragraph (1) or (2) of section
2445b(b) of this title [10 USCS Sec. 2445b(b)]
or section 2445b(d) of this title [10 USCS
Sec. 2445b(d)], as applicable;
(C) the estimated program development cost or
full life-cycle cost for the program has
increased by 25 percent or more over the
original estimate submitted [to Congress] under
paragraph (3) of section 2445b(b) of this title
[10 USCS Sec. 2445b(b)] or section 2445b(d) of
this title [10 USCS Sec. 2445b(d)], as
applicable [; or]
(D) there has been a change in the expected
performance of the major automated information
system or major information technology
investment to be acquired under the program
that will undermine the ability of the system
to perform the functions anticipated at the
time information on the program was originally
submitted [to Congress] under section 2445b(b)
of this title [10 USCS Sec. 2445b(b)] or
section 2445b(d) of this title [10 USCS
Sec. 2445b(d)], as applicable; or [.]
(E) the Earned Value Management of the program
has changed by at least 25 percent.
(3) Alternative Critical Changes Determination.--If
the program manager determines, subsequent to a change
in the primary business case or key functional
requirements, that without such change the program
would undergo critical changes--
(A) the program manager shall notify the
Secretary of Defense of the critical changes;
and
(B) the Secretary of Defense shall fulfill
the requirements described in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of paragraph (1).
(e) Program Evaluation.--The evaluation of a major
automated information system program or other major information
technology investment program conducted under this subsection
for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(A) shall include an
assessment of--
(1) the projected schedule and an independent
government cost assessment provided by the Director of
Independent Cost Assessment [cost and schedule] for
completing the program if current requirements are not
modified;
(2) the projected schedule and an independent
government cost assessment provided by the Director of
Independent Cost Assessment [cost and schedule ]for
completing the program based on reasonable modification
of such requirements; and
(3) the rough order of magnitude of the cost and
schedule for any reasonable alternative system or
capability.
(f) Report on Critical Program Changes.--A report on a
major automated information system program or other major
information technology investment program conducted under this
subsection for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(B) shall include--
[include a written certification]
(1) a written certification (with supporting
explanation) stating that--
(A) [(1)] the automated information system or
information technology investment to be
acquired under the program is essential to the
national security or to the efficient
management of the Department of Defense;
(B) [(2)] there is no alternative to the
system or information technology investment
which will provide equal or greater capability
at less cost;
(C) [(3)] the new estimates of the costs,
schedule, and performance parameters with
respect to the program and system or
information technology investment, as
applicable, have been determined, with the
concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation, to be reasonable; and
(D) [(4)] the management structure for the
program is adequate to manage and control
program costs; and [.]
(E) all technical and business requirements
have been reviewed and validated to ensure
alignment with the reported business case; and
(2) a description of--
(A) the primary business case and key
functional requirements for the program,
including an analysis of alternatives;
(B) any portions of the program that have
technical requirements of sufficient clarity
that such portions may be feasibly procured
under firm, fixed-price type contract; and
(C) any changes to the primary business case
or key functional requirements which have
occurred since the inception of the program.
(g) Prohibition on Obligation of Funds.--
(1) If the determination of a critical change to a
program is made by the senior Department official
responsible for the program under subsection (d)(2) and
a report is not submitted to Congress within the 60-day
period provided by subsection (d)(1), appropriated
funds may not be obligated for any major contract under
the program.
(2) The prohibition on the obligation of funds for a
program under paragraph (1) shall cease to apply on the
date on which Congress has received a report in
compliance with the requirements of subsection (d)(2).
* * * * * * *
TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle II--The Budget Process
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1105. Budget contents and submission to Congress
(a) On or after the first Monday in January but not later
than the first Monday in February of each year, the President
shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the
following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget
message and summary and supporting information. The President
shall [include in each budget the following] include in each
budget--
(1) information on activities and functions of the
Government[.];
(2) when practicable, information on costs and
achievements of Government programs[.];
(3) other desirable classifications of
information[.];
(4) a reconciliation of the summary information on
expenditures with proposed appropriations[.];
(5) except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, estimated expenditures and proposed
appropriations the President decides are necessary to
support the Government in the fiscal year for which the
budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after that
year[.];
(6) estimated receipts of the Government in the
fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 4
fiscal years after that year under--
(A) laws in effect when the budget is
submitted; and
(B) proposals in the budget to increase
revenues[.];
(7) appropriations, expenditures, and receipts of the
Government in the prior fiscal year[.];
(8) estimated expenditures and receipts, and
appropriations and proposed appropriations, of the
Government for the current fiscal year[.];
(9) balanced statements of the--
(A) condition of the Treasury at the end of
the prior fiscal year;
(B) estimated condition of the Treasury at
the end of the current fiscal year; and
(C) estimated condition of the Treasury at
the end of the fiscal year for which the budget
is submitted if financial proposals in the
budget are adopted[.];
(10) essential information about the debt of the
Government[.];
(11) other financial information the President
decides is desirable to explain in practicable detail
the financial condition of the Government[.];
(12) for each proposal in the budget for legislation
that would establish or expand a Government activity or
function, a table showing--
(A) the amount proposed in the budget for
appropriation and for expenditure because of
the proposal in the fiscal year for which the
budget is submitted; and
(B) the estimated appropriation required
because of the proposal for each of the 4
fiscal years after that year that the proposal
will be in effect[.];
(13) an allowance for additional estimated
expenditures and proposed appropriations for the fiscal
year for which the budget is submitted[.];
(14) an allowance for unanticipated uncontrollable
expenditures for that year[.];
(15) a separate statement on each of the items
referred to in section 301(a)(1)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
632(a)(1)(5))[.];
(16) the level of tax expenditures under existing law
in the tax expenditures budget (as defined in section
3(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 622(a)(3)) for the fiscal year for which the
budget is submitted, considering projected economic
factors and changes in the existing levels based on
proposals in the budget[.];
(17) information on estimates of appropriations for
the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the
budget is submitted for grants, contracts, and other
payments under each program for which there is an
authorization of appropriations for that following
fiscal year when the appropriations are authorized to
be included in an appropriation law for the fiscal year
before the fiscal year in which the appropriation is to
be available for obligation[.];
(18) a comparison of the total amount of budget
outlays for the prior fiscal year, estimated in the
budget submitted for that year, for each major program
having relatively uncontrollable outlays with the total
amount of outlays for that program in that year[.];
(19) a comparison of the total amount of receipts for
the prior fiscal year, estimated in the budget
submitted for that year, with receipts received in that
year, and for each major source of receipts, a
comparison of the amount of receipts estimated in that
budget with the amount of receipts from that source in
that year[.];
(20) an analysis and explanation of the differences
between each amount compared under clauses (18) and
(19) of this subsection[.];
(21) a horizontal budget showing--
(A) the programs for meteorology and of the
National Climate Program established under
section 5 of the National Climate Program Act
(15 U.S.C. 2904);
(B) specific aspects of the program of, and
appropriations for, each agency; and
(C) estimated goals and financial
requirements[.];
(22) a statement of budget authority, proposed budget
authority, budget outlays, and proposed budget outlays,
and descriptive information in terms of--
(A) a detailed structure of national needs
that refers to the missions and programs of
agencies (as defined in section 101 of this
title); and
(B) the missions and basic programs[.];
(23) separate appropriation accounts for
appropriations under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) and the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.)[.];
(24) recommendations on the return of Government
capital to the Treasury by a mixed-ownership
corporation (as defined in section 9101(2) of this
title) that the President decides are desirable[.];
(25) a separate appropriation account for
appropriations for each Office of Inspector General of
an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978[.];
(26) a separate statement of the amount of
appropriations requested for the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and each program of the National
Drug Control Program[.];
(27) a separate statement of the amount of
appropriations requested for the Office of Federal
Financial Management[.];
(28) beginning with fiscal year 1999, a Federal
Government performance plan for the overall budget as
provided for under section 1115[.];
(29) information about the Violent Crime Reduction
Trust Fund, including a separate statement of amounts
in that Trust Fund[.];
(30) an analysis displaying, by agency, proposed
reductions in full-time equivalent positions compared
to the current year's level in order to comply with
section 5 of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of
1994[.];
(31) a separate statement of the amount of
appropriations requested for the Chief Financial
Officer in the Executive Office of the President[.];
(32) a statement of the levels of budget authority
and outlays for each program assumed to be extended in
the baseline as provided in section 257(b)(2)(A) and
for excise taxes assumed to be extended under section
257(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985[.];
(33) a separate appropriation account for
appropriations for the Inspectors General Criminal
Investigator Academy and the Inspectors General
Forensic Laboratory of the Department of the
Treasury[.];
(34) with respect to the amount of appropriations
requested for use by the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, a separate statement of the amount
requested for its program budget, the amount requested
for its administrative expenses, and of the amount
requested for its administrative expenses, the amount
requested for technology expenses[.];
[(33)] (35) (a) * * *
(h)(1) If there is a medicare funding warning under section
801(a)(2) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 made in a year, the President shall
submit to Congress, within the 15-day period beginning on the
date of the budget submission to Congress under subsection (a)
for the succeeding year, proposed legislation to respond to
such warning.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply if, during the year in
which the warning is made, legislation is enacted which
eliminates excess general revenue medicare funding (as defined
in section 801(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) for the 7-fiscal-
year reporting period, as certified by the Board of Trustees of
each medicare trust fund (as defined in section 801(c)(5) of
such Act) not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of such legislation[.]; and
(36) the reports prepared under section 11317(f) of
title 40, United States Code, relating to the core IT
investment projects of the agency.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 40--PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle III--Information Technology Management
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 113--RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACQUISITIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Executive Agencies
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11317. [Significant deviations] Significant and gross deviations
``(a) Definitions.--In this subchapter:
``(1) Agency head.--The term `Agency Head' means the
head of the Federal agency that is primarily
responsible for the IT investment project under review.
``(2) ANSI eia 748 b Standard.--The term `ANSI--EIA-
748-B Standard' means the measurement tool jointly
developed by the American National Standards Institute
and the Electronic Industries Alliance to analyze
Earned Value Management systems.
``(3) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
``(B) the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform of the House of
Representatives;
``(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate;
``(D) the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives; and
``(E) any other relevant congressional
committee with jurisdiction over an agency
required to take action under this section.
``(4) Chief information officer.--The term `Chief
Information Officer' means the Chief Information
Officer designated under section 3506(a)(2) of title 44
of the Federal agency that is primarily responsible for
the IT investment project under review.
``(5) Core it investment project.--The terms `core IT
investment project' and `core project' mean a mission
critical IT investment project designated as such by
the Chief Information Officer, with approval by the
Agency Head under subsection (b).
``(6) Director.--The term `Director' means the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(7) Earned value management.--The term `Earned
Value Management' means the cost, performance, and
schedule data used to determine project status and
developed in accordance with the ANSI EIA-748-B
standard.
``(8) Grossly deviated.--The term `grossly deviated'
means cost, schedule, or performance variance that is
at least 40 percent from the Original Baseline.
``(9) Independent government cost estimate.--The term
`independent government cost estimate' means a
pragmatic and neutral analysis, assessment, and
quantification of all costs and risks associated with
the acquisition of an IT investment project, which--
``(A) is based on programmatic and technical
specifications provided by the office within
the agency with primary responsibility for the
development, procurement, and delivery of the
project;
``(B) is formulated and provided by an entity
other than the office within the agency with
primary responsibility for the development,
procurement, and delivery of the project;
``(C) contains sufficient detail to inform
the selection of an Earned Value Management
baseline benchmark measure under the ANSI EIA
748-B standard; and
``(D) accounts for the full life cycle cost
plus associated operations and maintenance
expenses over the usable life of the project's
deliverables.
``(10) IT investment project.--The terms `major IT
investment project' and `project' mean an information
technology system or information technology
acquisition, excluding systems or acquisitions of the
Department of Defense, that--
(A) requires special management attention
because of its importance to the mission or
function of the agency, a component of the
agency, or another organization;
(B) is for financial management and obligates
more than $500,000 annually;
(C) has significant program or policy
implications;
(D) has high executive visibility;
(E) has high development, operating, or
maintenance costs;
(F) is funded through other than direct
appropriations; or
(G) is defined as major by the agency's
capital planning and investment control process
``(11) Life cycle cost.--The term `life cycle cost'
means the total cost of an IT investment project for
planning, research and development, modernization,
enhancement, operation, and maintenance.
``(12) Original baseline.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided under
subparagraph (B), the term `Original Baseline'
means the ANSI EIA-748-B Standard-compliant
Earned Value Management benchmark established
at the commencement of an IT investment
project.
``(B) Grossly deviated project.--If an IT
investment project grossly deviates from its
Original Baseline (as defined in subparagraph
(A)), the term `Original Baseline' means the
ANSI EIA-748-B Standard-compliant Earned Value
Management benchmark established under
subsection (e)(3)(C).
``(13) Significantly deviated.--The term
`significantly deviated' means Earned Value Management
variance that is at least 20 percent from the Original
Baseline.
``(b) Core IT Investment Projects Designation.--Except as
provided under paragraph (2), each Chief Information Officer,
with approval by the Agency Head, shall--
``(1) identify the major IT investments that are the
most critical to the agency; and
``(2) any project as a core `IT investment project'
or a `core project', upon determining that the project
is a mission critical IT investment project that--
``(A) represents a significant high-dollar
value relative to the average IT investment
project in the agency's portfolio;
``(B) delivers a capability critical to the
successful completion of the agency mission, or
a portion of such mission;
``(C) incorporates unproven or previously
undeveloped technology to meet primary project
technical requirements; or
``(D) would have a significant negative
impact on the successful completion of the
agency mission if the project experienced
significant cost, schedule, or performance
deviations.
``(c) Cost, Schedule, and Performance Reports.--
``(1) Quarterly reports.--Not later than 14 days
after the end of each fiscal quarter, the project
manager for an IT investment project shall submit a
written report to the Chief Information Officer that
includes, as of the last day of the applicable
quarter--
``(A) a description of the cost, schedule,
and performance of all projects under the
project manager's supervision;
``(B) the original and current project cost,
schedule, and performance benchmarks for each
project under the project manager's
supervision;
``(C) the quarterly and cumulative cost,
schedule, and performance variance related to
each IT investment project under the project
manager's supervision since the commencement of
the project;
``(D) for each IT investment project under
the project manager's supervision, any known,
expected, or anticipated changes to project
schedule milestones or project performance
benchmarks included as part of the original or
current baseline description;
``(E) the current cost, schedule, and
performance status of all IT investment
projects under supervision that were previously
identified as significantly deviated or grossly
deviated; and
``(F) any corrective actions taken to address
problems discovered under subparagraphs (C)
through (E).
``(2) Interim reports.--If the project manager for an
IT investment project determines that there is
reasonable cause to believe that an IT investment
project has significantly deviated or grossly deviated
since the issuance of the latest quarterly report, the
project manager shall submit to the Chief Information
Officer, not later than 14 days after such
determination, a report on the project that includes,
as of the date of the report--
``(A) a description of the original and
current program cost, schedule, and performance
benchmarks;
``(B) the cost, schedule, or performance
variance related to the IT investment project
since the commencement of the project;
``(C) any known, expected, or anticipated
changes to the project schedule milestones or
project performance benchmarks included as part
of the original or current baseline
description;
``(D) the major reasons underlying the
significant or gross deviation of the project;
and
``(E) a corrective action plan to correct
such deviations.
``(d) Determination of Significant Deviation.--
``(1) Chief information officer.--Upon receiving a
report under subsection (c), the Chief Information
Officer shall--
``(A) determine if any IT investment project
has significantly deviated; and
``(B) report such determination to the Agency
Head.
``(2) Congressional notification.--If the Chief
Information Officer determines under paragraph (1) that
an IT investment project has significantly deviated and
the Agency Head has not issued a report to the
appropriate congressional committees of a significant
deviation for that project under this section since the
project was last required to be rebaselined under this
section, the Agency Head shall submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees, the Director, and
the Government Accountability Office that includes--
``(A) written notification of such
determination;
``(B) the date on which such determination
was made;
``(C) the amount of the cost increases and
the extent of the schedule delays with respect
to such project;
``(D) any requirements that--
``(i) were added subsequent to the
original contract; or
``(ii) were originally contracted
for, but were changed by deferment or
deletion from the original schedule, or
were otherwise no longer included in
the requirements contracted for;
``(E) an explanation of the differences
between--
``(i) the estimate at completion
between the project manager, any
contractor, and any independent
analysis; and
``(ii) the original budget at
completion;
``(F) a statement of the reasons underlying
the project's significant deviation; and
``(G) a summary of the plan of action to
remedy the significant deviation.
``(3) Deadline.--
``(A) Notification based on quarterly
report.--If the determination of significant
deviation is based on a report submitted under
subsection (b)(1), the Agency Head shall notify
Congress and the Director in accordance with
paragraph (2) not later than 21 days after the
end of the quarter upon which such report is
based.
``(B) Notification based on interim report.--
If the determination of significant deviation
is based on a report submitted under subsection
(b)(2), the Agency Head shall notify Congress
and the Director in accordance with paragraph
(2) not later than 21 days after the submission
of such report.
``(C) Method of delivery.--Information
required under paragraphs (1) and (2) may be
provided through the Web site established under
section 11302(c)(1) in a manner consistent with
guidance from the Office of Management and
Budget to satisfy reporting requirements and to
reduce paperwork.
``(e) Determination of Gross Deviation.--
``(1) Chief information officer.--Upon receiving a
report under subsection (c), the Chief Information
Officer shall--
``(A) determine if any IT investment project
has grossly deviated; and
``(B) report any such determination to the
Agency Head.
``(2) Congressional notification.--If the Chief
Information Officer determines under paragraph (1) that
an IT investment project has grossly deviated and the
Agency Head has not issued a report to the appropriate
congressional committees of a gross deviation for that
project under this section since the project was last
required to be rebaselined under this section, the
Agency Head shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees, the Director, and the
Government Accountability Office that includes--
``(A) written notification of such
determination, which states--
``(i) the date on which such
determination was made; and
``(ii) an indication of whether or
not the project has been previously
reported as a significant or gross
deviation by the Chief Information
Officer, and the date of any such
report;
``(B) incorporations by reference of all
prior reports to Congress on the project
required under this section;
``(C) updated accounts of the items described
in subparagraphs (C) through (G) of subsection
(d)(2);
``(D) the original estimate at completion for
the project manager, any contractor, and any
independent analysis;
``(E) a graphical depiction that shows
monthly planned expenditures against actual
expenditures since the commencement of the
project;
``(F) the amount, if any, of incentive or
award fees any contractor has received since
the commencement of the contract and the
reasons for receiving such incentive or award
fees;
``(G) the project manager's estimated cost at
completion and estimated completion date for
the project if current requirements are not
modified;
``(H) the project manager's estimated cost at
completion and estimated completion date for
the project based on reasonable modification of
such requirements;
``(I) an explanation of the most significant
occurrence contributing to the variance
identified, including cost, schedule, and
performance variances, and the effect such
occurrence will have on future project costs
and program schedule;
``(J) a statement regarding previous or
anticipated rebaselining or replanning of the
project and the names of the individuals
responsible for approval;
``(K) the original life cycle cost of the
investment and the expected life cycle cost of
the investment expressed in constant base year
dollars and in current dollars; and
``(L) a comprehensive plan of action to
remedy the gross deviation, and milestones
established to control future cost, schedule,
and performance deviations in the future.
(3) Method of delivery.--Information required under
paragraphs (1) and (2) may be provided through the Web
site established under section 11302(c)(1) in a manner
consistent with guidance from the Office of Management
and Budget to satisfy reporting requirements and to
reduce paperwork.
``(3) Remedial action.--
``(A) In general.--If the Chief Information
Officer determines under paragraph (1) that an
IT investment project has grossly deviated, the
Agency Head, in consultation with the Chief
Information Officer, shall develop and
implement a remedial action plan that
includes--
``(i) a report that--
``(I) describes the primary
business case and key
functional requirements for the
project;
``(II) describes any portions
of the project that have
technical requirements of
sufficient clarity that such
portions may be feasibly
procured under firm, fixed-
price contract;
``(III) includes a
certification by the Agency
Head, after consultation with
the Chief Information Officer,
that all technical requirements
have been reviewed and
validated to ensure alignment
with the reported business
case;
``(IV) describes any changes
to the primary business case or
key functional requirements
which have occurred since
project inception; and
``(V) includes an independent
government cost estimate for
the project conducted by an
entity approved by the
Director;
``(ii) an analysis that--
``(I) describes agency
business goals that the project
was originally designed to
address;
``(II) includes a gap
analysis of what project
deliverables remain in order
for the agency to accomplish
the business goals referred to
in subclause (I);
``(III) identifies the 3 most
cost-effective alternative
approaches to the project which
would achieve the business
goals referred to in subclause
(I); and
``(IV) includes a cost-
benefit analysis, which
compares--
``(aa) the completion
of the project with the
completion of each
alternative approach,
after factoring in
future costs associated
with the termination of
the project; and
``(bb) the
termination of the
project without pursuit
of alternatives, after
factoring in foregone
benefits; and
``(iii) a new baseline of the project
is established that is consistent with
the independent government cost
estimate required under clause (i)(V);
and
``(iv) the project is designated as a
core IT investment project and
subjected to the requirements under
subsection (f).
``(B) Submission to congress.--The remedial
action plan and all corresponding reports,
analyses, and actions under this paragraph
shall be submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees and the Director.
``(C) Reporting and analysis exemptions.--
``(i) In general.--The Chief
Information Officer, in coordination
with the Agency Head and the Director,
may forego the completion of any
element of a report or analysis under
clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A)
if the Chief Information Officer
determines that such element is not
relevant to the understanding of the
difficulties facing the project or
further continuation of the project in
a timely and cost-efficient manner.
``(ii) Identification of reasons.--
The Chief Information Officer shall
include the reasons for not including
any element referred to in clause (i)
in the report submitted to Congress
under subparagraph (B).
``(4) Deadline and funding contingency.--
``(A) Notification and remedial action based
on quarterly report.--
``(i) In general.--If the
determination of gross deviation is
based on a report submitted under
subsection (c)(1), the Agency Head
shall--
``(I) not later than 45 days
after the end of the quarter
upon which such report is
based, notify the appropriate
congressional committees and
the Director in accordance with
paragraph (2); and
``(II) not later than 180
days after the end of the
quarter upon which such report
is based, ensure the completion
of remedial action under
paragraph (3).
``(ii) Failure to meet deadlines.--If
the Agency Head fails to meet the
deadlines described in clause (i)(II),
additional funds may not be obligated
to support expenditures associated with
the project until the requirements of
this subsection have been fulfilled.
``(B) Notification and remedial action based
on interim report.--
``(i) In general.--If the
determination of gross deviation is
based on a report submitted under
subsection (c)(2), the Agency Head
shall--
``(I) not later than 45 days
after the submission of such
report, notify the appropriate
congressional committees in
accordance with paragraph (2);
and
``(II) not later than 180
days after the submission of
such report, ensure the
completion of remedial action
in accordance with paragraph
(3).
``(ii) Failure to meet deadlines.--If
the Agency Head fails to meet the
deadlines described in clause (i)(II),
additional funds may not be obligated
to support expenditures associated with
the project until the requirements of
this subsection have been fulfilled.
``(f) Additional Requirements for Core IT Investment
Project Reports.--
``(1) Initial report.--If a report described in
subsection (e)(3)(A) has not been submitted for a core
IT investment project, the Agency Head, in coordination
with the Chief Information Officer and responsible
program managers, shall prepare an initial report for
inclusion in the first budget submitted to Congress
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code,
after the designation of a project as a core IT
investment project, which includes--
``(A) a description of the primary business
case and key functional requirements for the
project;
``(B) an identification and description of
any portions of the project that have technical
requirements of sufficient clarity that such
portions may be feasibly procured under firm,
fixed-price contracts;
``(C) an independent government cost estimate
for the project;
``(D) certification by the Chief Information
Officer that all technical requirements have
been reviewed and validated to ensure alignment
with the reported business case; and
``(E) any changes to the primary business
case or key functional requirements which have
occurred since project inception.
``(2) Quarterly review of business case.--The Agency
Head, in coordination with the Chief Information
Officer and responsible program managers, shall--
``(A) monitor the primary business case and
core functionality requirements reported to
Congress and the Director for designated core
IT investment projects; and
``(B) if changes to the primary business case
or key functional requirements for a core IT
investment project occur in any fiscal quarter,
submit a report to Congress and the Director
not later than 14 days after the end of such
quarter that details the changes and describes
the impact the changes will have on the cost
and ultimate effectiveness of the project.
``(3) Alternative significant deviation
determination.--If the Chief Information Officer
determines, subsequent to a change in the primary
business case or key functional requirements, that
without such change the project would have
significantly deviated--
``(A) the Chief Information Officer shall
notify the Agency Head of the significant
deviation; and
``(B) the Agency Head shall fulfill the
requirements under subsection (d)(2) in
accordance with the deadlines under subsection
(d)(3).
``(4) Alternative gross deviation determination.--If
the Chief Information Officer determines, subsequent to
a change in the primary business case or key functional
requirements, that without such change the project
would have grossly deviated--
``(A) the Chief Information Officer shall
notify the Agency Head of the gross deviation;
and
``(B) the Agency Head shall fulfill the
requirements under subsections (e)(2) and
(e)(3) in accordance with subsection (e)(4).''
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11319. Acquisition and development
(a) Purpose.--The objective of this section is to
significantly reduce--
(1) cost overruns and schedule slippage from the
estimates established at the time the program is
initially approved;
(2) the number of requirements and business
objectives at the time the program is approved that are
not met by the delivered products; and
(3) the number of critical defects and serious
defects in delivered information technology.
``(b) Establishment of Programs.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall--
(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, prescribe uniformly
applicable guidance for agencies to implement the
requirements of this section, which shall not include
any exemptions to such requirements not specifically
authorized under this section; and
(2) Take any actions that are necessary to ensure
that Federal agencies are in compliance with the
guidance prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1) not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
section.
(c) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days
after the enactment of this section, the Agency Head (as
defined in section 11317(a) of title 40, United States Code)
shall establish a program to improve the information technology
(referred to in this section as `IT) process overseen by the
Chief Information Officer.
(d) Program Requirements.--Each program established
pursuant to this section shall include--
``(1) a documented process for information technology
acquisition planning, requirements development and
management, project management and oversight, earned-
value management, and risk management;
``(2) the development of appropriate metrics for
performance measurement of--
``(A) processes and development status;
``(B) continuous process improvement; and
``(C) achievement of project outcomes;
``(3) a process to ensure that key program personnel
have an appropriate level of experience and training
and education, at an institution or institutions
approved by the Director, in the planning, acquisition,
execution, management, and oversight of information
technology;
``(4) a process to ensure that the applicable
department and subcomponents implement and adhere to
established processes and requirements relating to the
planning, acquisition, execution, management, and
oversight of information technology programs and
developments; and
``(5) a process for the Chief Information Officer to
intervene or stop the funding of an IT investment if it
is at risk of not achieving major project milestones.
``(e) Annual Report to OMB.--Not later than the last day of
February of each year, the Agency Head shall submit a report to
Congress that includes--
``(1) a detailed summary of the accomplishments of
the program established by the Agency Head pursuant to
this section;
``(2) the status of completeness of implementation of
each of the program requirements, and the date each
such requirement was deemed to be completed;
``(3) the percentage of Federal IT projects covered
under the program compared to all of the IT projects of
the agency, listed by number of programs and by annual
dollars expended;
``(4) a detailed breakdown of the sources and uses of
the amounts spent by the agency during the previous
fiscal year to support the activities of the program;
``(5) a copy of any guidance issued under the program
and a statement regarding whether each such guidance is
mandatory;
``(6) the identification of the metrics developed in
accordance with subsection (b)(2);
``(7) a description of how paragraphs (3) and (4) of
subsection (b) have been implemented and any related
agency guidance; and
``(8) a description of how continuous process
improvement has been implemented and the objectives of
such guidance.''
(f) Annual Report to Congress.--The Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall provide an annual report to
Congress on the status and implementation of the program
established pursuant to this section.