[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POST-9/11 GI BILL: IS THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
READY FOR AUGUST 1ST?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-871 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
GLENN C. NYE, Virginia
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
June 25, 2009
Page
Post-9/11 GI Bill: Is the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Ready for August 1st?.......................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Harry Teague................................................ 1
Prepared statement of Congressman Teague..................... 15
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 15
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration.. 3
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 16
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Background:
Executive Summary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Office of Inspector General's Report, entitled ``Review of
Interagency Agreement Between the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Department of Navy, Space Naval and Warfare
Systems Center (SPAWAR),'' Report No. 09-01213-142, dated
June 4, 2009 [The full report is being retained in the
Committee files.].......................................... 26
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Keith Wilson, Director, Office of Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, letter dated June 29, 2009, and VA
responses.................................................. 28
POST-9/11 GI BILL: IS THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
READY FOR AUGUST 1ST?
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:37 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Harry Teague
presiding.
Present: Representatives Teague and Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY TEAGUE, PRESENTING STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Mr. Teague. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA's) strategy for implementing the Post-9/11
GI Bill will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and that written
statements be made part of the record. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin asked me to Chair in her absence
today. We expect her to join us later this afternoon.
Today we will continue with our series of oversight
hearings on the VA's implementation plans for the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. It is important that we continue to provide the VA the
opportunities to update the Subcommittee on their
implementation efforts for the short-term and long-term
solutions.
This hearing will also give the VA the opportunity to ask
for Congressional assistance if it is required.
Since the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, many items of
concern have been raised about this very complicated program. I
am sure our Chair and Ranking Member will agree that this
Subcommittee will continue to seek answers to the
implementation, but also veteran outreach, university
partnerships, and other items of concern.
While there was tremendous Congressional support for the
passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, responsibility does not end
after a bill is signed into law. As our panelists know, this
Subcommittee will continue to work with the administration to
ensure that our veterans receive their educational benefit in a
timely manner.
I now recognize Ranking Member Boozman for any opening
remarks that he may have.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Teague appears on
p. 15.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe this is our fifth oversight hearing on VA's
progress toward implementing the new Chapter 33 GI Bill.
In our previous hearings, the Department has presented a
relatively optimistic appraisal of their progress toward
meeting the August 1st start date. Knowing that things seldom
go 100 percent as planned, I guess I would feel more
comfortable if VA came to us with problems. So, again, I want
to be sure and encourage you as things come up to let us help
you.
For example, in response to a request from Ranking Member
Buyer, the VA Inspector General (IG) investigated the working
relationship between VA and the Navy Space, Naval Warfare
Systems Center (SPAWAR). As a result, the IG has released a
report entitled, ``Review of the Interagency Agreement Between
VA and the Navy Space, Naval Warfare Systems Center,'' that to
put it mildly was highly critical of that relationship.
In general, the report found serious problems with
compliance with the interagency agreement by both agencies,
poor administration of the agreement in terms of how taskings
were tracked, a lack of cost controls to the point where VA was
unaware of the number and type of personnel being funded
through the interagency agreement, and a wide variety of other
deficiencies that suggest a serious lack of oversight by VA.
While the report contained only a smattering of information
specific to the Chapter 33 task of the interagency agreement,
the overall findings in the report does not inspire confidence
in the partnership's ability to implement the long-term
solution for the Chapter 33 program.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the VA IG's
report number 09-01213-142 be entered into the record of
today's proceedings.
Mr. Teague. So ordered.
[The VA's IG report will be retained in the Committee
files. The Executive Summary of the report appears on p. 26.]
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The question before us today is will VA start paying in
August and I believe that they will.
I also believe there will inevitably be issues that none of
us have anticipated, but I am less sure about the long-term
solution and I hope we will take a look at that as soon as our
schedule permits.
Given the tenure of the IG report as well as acquisition
and program management issues that have been brought before the
Subcommittee, I believe VA has serious challenges in meeting
the long-term strategy.
I would also note the June 19th press release that
announced the Department of Veterans Affairs has announced a
new information technology (IT) management approach department-
wide, new IT programs and projects at VA that must be
implemented using the project management accountability system
(PMAS).
PMAS is an incremental development approach with a rigorous
management approach that halts programs that fail to meet
delivery milestones that will ensure early identification and
correction of failing IT programs.
An analysis of 282 ongoing development programs that VA has
indicated, many of those programs exhibit at least one
characteristic that could indicate a failing program, either
significantly behind schedule, significantly over budget, or
showing deteriorating products released quality. And that's in
quotes.
I applaud Secretary Shinseki's initiative and look forward
to VA instituting a highly structured, disciplined approach to
project management.
Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Wilson and staff are working
hard to get the program up and running. The new GI Bill is very
complex and will be a challenge to administer for at least the
next couple of years until we get the bugs worked out. And I
invite the Department to help us move in that direction.
Finally, I want to compliment Mr. Wilson and Mr. Wilson's
staff for the hard work they have done to make the new GI Bill
a reality.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 15.]
Mr. Teague. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
I would like to welcome our panelists testifying before
this Subcommittee today. Joining us in our first panel is Mr.
Keith Wilson, Director of the Office of Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs; accompanied by Mr. Stephen Warren, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Information and Technology, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; and also Mr. Mark Krause, Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Program
Manager.
I thank all of you for joining us today.
Mr. Wilson, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EDUCATION
SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN W. WARREN, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND
TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND MARK
KRAUSE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PROGRAM MANAGER, SPACE
AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS CENTER ATLANTIC
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Teague, Ranking Member Boozman,
and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss VA's ongoing efforts and
implementation strategy for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Accompanying me today are Mr. Stephen Warren, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for VA's Office of Information and
Technology (OI&T), and Mark Krause, SPAWAR's VA Program
Manager.
My testimony will address the short- and long-term
strategies in developing information technology components for
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the progress VA has
made as requested by the Subcommittee.
Our short-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill
consists of a two-part IT solution, a back-end tool fiscal
payment system, which utilizes the existing benefits delivery
network to issue payments and a front-end tool (FET) for use by
education claims examiners to augment the manual process of
education claims.
OI&T is developing the functionality of the FET in three
phases. Phase one, which includes the capability to accept
applications and manually store eligibility entitlement
information, was successfully deployed on March 9th of 2009.
Phase two will add specific data elements for processing
claims under the transfer of entitlement provisions in the law,
provide the capability to perform payment calculations for
school enrollment periods, and contains additional field
validations. Phase two coincides with the planned production
availability of the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) fiscal
payment system, i.e., the back-end tool.
Teams of subject matter experts conducted user acceptance
testing of the FET phase two as well as the back-end tool and
the associated calculation tools from May 4th, 2009, through
June 19th, 2009. The functionality for phrase two is on track
and scheduled for delivery on July 7th of 2009.
Phase three will add the capability to perform calculations
for aggravating periods of active-duty service and determining
entitlement amounts and benefit levels. Currently the claims
examiners use a calculation tool separate from the FET to
perform these calculations. Phase three of the FET is expected
to become operationally ready in September of 2009.
Our long-term strategy to support delivery of Post-9/11 GI
Bill education benefits relies on a partnership with SPAWAR
Systems Center Atlantic to design, develop, and deploy an end-
to-end solution that utilizes rules-based industry standard
technologies.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill contains eligibility rules and
benefit determinations that will work well with rules-based
technology to reduce the need for human intervention.
VA is currently working with SPAWAR Atlantic on the long-
term IT solution and expects the deployment of this program to
be completed no later than December of 2010.
In accordance with VA's new IT management approach
announced on June 19th, 2009, VA's Office of Information and
Technology will continue its practice of incremental
development and strict management of milestones to ensure that
we successfully deliver the functionality needed to serve our
veterans. New functionality will be delivered in increments of
not more than 6 months.
On May 1st, 2009, VA began accepting applications to
determine eligibility to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We have
received more than 75,000 applications and the Regional
Processing Offices (RPOs) have fully processed approximately
35,000 of those claims.
On July 6, 2009, we will start accepting enrollment
certifications from school certifying officials and begin
processing claims for payment. The first payments will be
released by the U.S. Treasury on August 3rd, 2009.
Approximately 530 claims examiners have been hired under
term appointments to support the implementation of the short-
term strategy. All employees completed training of phase one by
June 15th. Phase two training started on June 8th and is
expected to be completed no later than July 3rd.
VA has authorized the RPOs to hire 230 additional claims
examiners. All of those employees are expected to be on board
by August 31st of 2009.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson, and a text version
of the slide presentation, appears on pp. 16 and 18.]
Mr. Teague. Thank you.
Next Mr. Stephen Warren.
Mr. Warren. With your acceptance, we would like to move
through a slide presentation, Mr. Chairman, which actually lays
out answers to specific questions on the short-term solution as
well as major program elements that lay out the long-term
solution.
Mr. Teague. Please go ahead.
Mr. Wilson. We have prepared a slide deck that covers both
implementation, operational issues, as well as status on short-
term and long-term IT implementation.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. The first issue I would like to cover is status
of the Yellow Ribbon Program. We have had a very robust
response, I believe, to the Yellow Ribbon Program within the GI
Bill, Post-9/11 GI Bill. We have Yellow Ribbon agreements in
place in all 50 of the States. We have a total of over 3,000
agreements in place from over 700 schools across the country.
As soon as we finish compiling our final list of Yellow
Ribbon Program agreements, we will have that information on our
Web site. We expect that to be completed by next week and up
and available for anybody that is interested in reviewing it.
Contribution amounts under those Yellow Ribbon agreements
range from $50.00 to over $34,000. If I could draw some broad
conclusions, generally speaking, schools are entering into
agreements that cover their entire share of the difference
between their tuition and fees and the highest in-state public
tuition and fees.
So the $50.00 to $34,000 may not represent anything
specific concerning how much money a veteran may have to pony
up in addition to Yellow Ribbon agreements. Fifty dollars could
be an estate, that that is the only difference between the
public and the private tuition. So, again, most of the
agreements are for the full amount.
Approximately 88 percent of the agreements are from private
institutions. Those come from both nonproprietary and
proprietary schools. The largest share are nonproprietary
schools, but proprietary are well represented as well. The
smallest category of schools that are represented are the
public schools.
I would like now to talk about the status of claims
processing. We have received as of this morning approximately
84,000 claims. We have completed processing on approximately
47,000 of those claims.
Initially our first week of productivity was not very good.
We were learning our way in many ways, had some minor technical
issues that we worked through fairly quickly.
Up until June 15th, we had a total of 120 claims examiners
that had completed training and were dedicated full time to
Chapter 33. So because of that limited number, our production
overall was low.
June 15th, we completed the training for most of our new
hires for phase two and the majority of those folks went into
production.
Over the last week, what we have seen is a fairly
substantial increase in our productive capacity and we are now
on average each day far exceeding the number, our production is
far exceeding the number of incoming claims that we are
receiving.
So we believe we have turned the corner on productive
capacity and we look forward to continued improvement in that
area.
As I mentioned in my testimony, VA has completed the hiring
of 530 additional individuals. Those individuals have completed
their phase one training. Phase two training is underway for
those individuals as well as our permanent staff right now. We
are in the process of hiring 230 additional claims examiners
and they will go through the same training as the rest of our
claims examiner staff.
There will be a third phase of training associated with
implementation of phase three of the interim solution. Phase
three will in essence give us the capability of processing
amended awards, supplemental award actions, such as reductions
in training time. So in addition to the phase one and phase two
training that has been completed or underway, we will have some
additional training for phase three.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. The next four slides go over key milestones in
our short-term IT development. If I could go directly to slide
nine, phase one is entirely complete. There are no other
actions that need to be completed to implement phase one.
Phase two is largely complete. There are a couple
additional pieces of information that we still need to
complete. One is publishing the full list of the Yellow Ribbon
participating schools, which will be on our Web site as I
mentioned next week.
And then our next key milestone is July 6th when we begin
accepting and processing the enrollment certificates from the
schools. That will be the trigger that will allow us to begin
calculating payment amounts. That will be coinciding with the
deployment of our phase two functionality, which provides the
payment structure that we need.
And then, of course, on August 1st, we will begin
implementing payments.
Phase three, we have completed basic work concerning
clarification of functional requirements that is needed for
phase three. As I have mentioned, there will be training needed
for all of our claims examiners in phase three. And we will
deploy phase three in the middle of September.
I would like now to turn it over to Mr. Warren who will
talk about the long-term solution.
Mr. Warren. So we have been very successful in terms of
deploying the tools, the interim solution that the Education
Services needs.
One of the comments made was about the PMAS effort, this
program the Department rolled out, brings all projects under
this management discipline of iterative development.
The Chapter 33 short-term solution has been one of the
models that we have used to develop the long-term program.
If we turn back to when we first had our first hearing or
second hearing, since that time, we have delivered 16 modules
or 16 pieces of functionality in a 10-month period. So the idea
of bringing systems online, bringing functionalities online
that the business side, the Education Service could use was the
model we used.
And for the interim solution, that short-term solution, we
have been very successful. So we have learned a lot in doing
this that we are now applying across the rest of the
Department's development programs. That same discipline is
being applied to that long-term solution with our partners at
SPAWAR.
We have structured this, and I will get into a schedule and
a schematic diagram about how we are going to phase this over,
we are looking at release on a 4- to 6-month interval. We will
continue that process of bringing functionality online and
cutting over from this interim solution into this long-term
solution. So bringing it over and bringing increased
functionality as well as reduced complexity to the Education
Service employees as we go forward.
Distribution application, again the idea, we are making
sure we are bringing all the tools to bear. Service-oriented
architecture is, a techie term for how do we move away from
monolithic solutions. How do we build things in modules in such
a way that support the business, moving that forward.
Agile methodology, this idea of you iterate. You do not sit
down and spend 3 years developing requirements and then build
something for 3 years such that the person you are building it
for is no longer remembering what you are doing it for.
So, again, small pieces. What do you need to do. Let us
bring it online, test it, make sure it works, and then move it
forward.
And, again, rules based, this idea of how can we take the
drudge work, out of that process and, allow the human, to do
good thinking, value-added work versus just moving pieces of
paper.
[Slide]
Mr. Warren. This diagram represents what the interim
solution looks like, the front-end tool or the FET and the
back-end tool. The front-end tool helps the Education Service
employee to do the processing. The back-end tool is the
financial system that actually moves the tape to Treasury,
which then cuts the checks.
The pink boxes are all the other things necessary to make
this happen. You can see the claimant or the veteran is on the
left-hand side, the veteran's claim examiner, the individual,
the employee who is doing this work is sitting there in the
middle, and the educational institutions that need to make it
happen.
These are all the different systems that we needed to
change to ensure the short-term solution happened. We also need
to make sure we integrate them in with the long-term solution.
So when we do our first phase roll-out for the long-term
solution, as you can see, we have taken the front-end tool out
and we have integrated it in with the pieces. We have also
taken the job aids out, which are add-ons that we need to put
in to make sure that the claims examiners could do what they
needed to go forward.
So as we go to release two and release three and release
four, it is going to change these pieces out such that there is
a rules-based process that will be utilized for the Chapter 33
processing when we hit December of 2010.
[Slide]
Mr. Warren. So, again, to give you a schematic diagram of
how we phase those in, this next diagram and lays out how do we
move those things in. We have talked about four releases. We
have broken them into functional pieces, adjudication of the
claim, how do we do that data exchange, and reports, processing
the payment.
And as you can see, we are bringing pieces of functionality
online as we move that through. So, again, it is bringing a
piece on, making sure it works, adding to it, such that in
December of 2010, we are done. We have a new system up. The
interim solution has been phased out and we are running in that
rules-based environment.
[Slide]
Mr. Warren. This is a cartoon that tries to show when we
reach that December 10th date how we will have modernized this
one component of the benefits delivery process at the
Department. It is using all the tools that we have been talking
about in these hearings and others; a rules-based engine, a
work-flow engine, service-oriented architecture in terms of how
do you break it down into discernible charts, how do we make
sure that we have a veteran facing a portal that has an ease of
entry as well as status reporting as individuals are filing
their claim, where is it in the process. So, again, a cartoon
of how the pieces fit together.
And then from a timing standpoint, this is to lay out that
iteration. The iterative development actually starts in August
of this year, so the fourth quarter is August and, again,
iterating. And by November of this year, we will have the
complete environment in place. And then as we move forward, we
are looking at second quarter, third quarter, fourth quarter,
and then final in December 2010.
So, again, to give you a sense of how we are moving it
through, how we are integrating it into the existing system and
phasing it out, the types of functionality we are bringing
online.
The new development program is functionality delivered in 6
month or less increments. Our intent, as we did with the short-
term solution, is to do 6 months, less than 6 months, and then
just keep moving it forward.
Those are my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman, Minority
Member, and glad to answer any questions.
I also have Mark Krause with us from SPAWAR, if there are
specific questions to that, available, sir.
Mr. Teague. Thank all of you.
Mr. Krause, did you have any additional comments or just in
association?
Mr. Krause. No, sir, not at this time.
Mr. Teague. You know, the Committee has heard concerns from
universities that there is not enough information provided to
answer specific findings and concerns. Some universities feel
that they are not receiving any information at all.
Have all the university officials across the country been
informed about how the new GI Bill process will work? Are VA
regional offices involved in briefing university officials? And
what information has been provided to colleges and universities
to prepare them for the new GI Bill?
Mr. Wilson. There are several things underway in that area.
We base our relationship with the school certifying officials
at the regional office level. Every summer, each of our
Regional Processing Offices have conferences for school
certifying officials. We have concluded two of those
conferences so far this year.
Of note, one of those conferences was held in conjunction
with a conference with the National Association of Veteran
Program Administrators because they are key to everything that
we do.
We expect when those conferences are complete to have had
in excess of 2,500 school officials at each of those
conferences.
We have also had a redundant approach in terms of the
discussions that we have had with them and the information that
we have provided to them.
We have had a series of conferences in conjunction with the
American Council on Education that were also very well
attended.
We are in the process now of providing training to VA's
education liaison representatives (ELRs) who are VA officials
in each of the States. And when that training is concluded, the
ELRs will be visiting directly with every school official to
ensure that they do have the information they need.
Additionally, a very key part of the information flow is
our relationship with State approving agencies who are also out
in the field with the schools and with our ELRs. And each of
the State approving agencies have been conducting very robust
outreach efforts to school officials.
Mr. Teague. Okay. Now, you have stated that the VA attended
over 30 conferences to better inform institutions of higher
learning about this GI Bill.
Do you believe that all of the institutions of higher
learning have been properly informed?
Mr. Wilson. I believe they have been informed. In addition
to the national conferences that we have had for the larger
States, we have attended local conferences such as Florida had
a school conference for schools in that State. There were over
300 individuals represented there.
In addition, what we have done is provided direct mailings,
a series of direct mailings directly to the schools and
provided them information on the benefit program as well.
I believe they have received information, but we want to
continue to work with those school officials to ensure that
they are comfortable that they have that information.
One way that we are reaching out again to the schools to
make sure that they have received the information they needed
is contracting with an organization that is going to go out and
survey the school officials to give us very clear information
concerning whether or not they are comfortable with the
information they have received and if they are not comfortable,
what VA can do to provide the information that will make them
comfortable.
Mr. Teague. Okay. Also in your written testimony, you
highlighted that the VA received approximately 75,000
applicants. Most of us had anticipated a larger pool of
applications. So I am pleased to read in your testimony that
you are working on developing new outreach efforts.
You might recall that with the leadership of Ranking Member
Boozman, Congress authorized the VA to conduct mass media
outreach services. As of today, I have not been made aware of
the VA using mass media as an outreach option.
Will you be using mass media such as television or radio to
advertise the new GI Bill benefit?
Mr. Wilson. We will. We have underway right now an
acquisition process to bring a professional media firm on board
specifically for that purpose.
Mr. Teague. If the long-term solution is not finished as
scheduled, how long can you keep the short-term solution
working?
Mr. Wilson. We have the authority to keep the term
employees on for a number of years. What we do not have is the
funding. We would be asking for additional funding if we need
those individuals to stay beyond an appropriate time once the
long-term solution is fully implemented.
Mr. Teague. What hardware and software purchases are you
looking at for the long-term solution?
Mr. Warren. For the long-term solution, there is a package
of items; can we go back to the slide set. Is it possible to
bring that up?
[Slide]
Mr. Warren. Great. Looking at this cartoon to try and
represent, there are some pieces we already have, and I will
not go into vendor brands. But a rules engine has already been
purchased for use. The work-flow engine we are looking at and
the underlying servers, we will need to buy those.
But all of those costs, whether we are going to be buying
them or leasing them, are in the resources that are
appropriated for this project. So those are already in the
funding stream. They are also part of the stimulus funding to
actually bring that system up and have it available.
I am not sure I am catching the sense of your question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Teague. How many purchases have been made with 30
percent off and 50 percent off and other discount amount; do
you know?
Mr. Krause. Sir, I am sorry. I did not understand the
question, 30 percent off, 50 percent off.
Mr. Teague. Yeah. At what discounts have certain purchases
been made? Do you have any information on that?
Mr. Krause. No. So far, we have put aside about $4.2
million to buy hardware for the long-term solution. We have
purchased approximately, I think last count was about $1.2
million of that so far.
We are thinking of using leased facilities, leased cloud
computing facilities that will allow us to deploy quicker,
faster, and maybe not buy so much hardware, but lease it until
we get everything online and get the configuration straight.
And then we can build, you know, we can eventually migrate to a
VA facility a few years from now.
So we are looking pretty strongly at the leasing option so
that we do not have to buy a lot of equipment or significant
equipment.
Mr. Teague. Okay. Thank you very much.
At this time I am going to defer to Ranking Member Boozman
for his questions, please.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess for me, the number one question is, is that with
the August 1st implementation date coming up, what are the
major challenges do you see lurking out there that we have to
overcome?
Mr. Wilson. Let me first provide, if I could, a summary of
the things that we feel very comfortable with.
As I have mentioned, we have completed user acceptance
testing for phase two. That includes having information
transmitted to Treasury. And Treasury has completed the work
that they need to validate that they can, in fact, cut checks,
payments based on the information that they receive from us. So
we feel very comfortable that we are in good shape in terms of
having the capability of generating payments.
We continue to have a challenge with the volume of new
employees obviously. Training will be an ongoing effort with
these individuals. We are looking at that very carefully. In
fact, we have completed our first initial quality review of
Chapter 33 claims that were completed. The quality level was at
92 percent overall, which I feel fairly good about, taking into
account how early on we are on this.
The errors that we did find were fairly benign. There was
some, for instance, 1 day off on calculating delimiting dates,
things like that. We had no situations where an individual was
determined eligible when, in fact, they were not or vice versa.
So we were 100 percent on eligibility determinations. But that
is something that we need to continue to keep our eye on and we
will.
The other thing that we need to continue to keep our eye on
is the volume of claims coming in. We projected based on what
we saw as the highest watermark. If everything were to line up
perfectly, what is the highest volume of claims that we would
expect to see in year one. That number ended up being 458,000
over a year. And based on historical enrollment patterns, that
would calculate out to about 328,000 in the fall semester.
What we are seeing now over the summer period will be
receipt of about 200,000 applications for certificates of
eligibility. We could see a spike later in the year.
But we could also be experiencing what could be situations
where veterans have made a conscious decision that they are
better off under the program that they are participating in
right now. For instance, Chapter 30. And they will be waiting
until later to apply for Chapter 33 benefits. But the workload
will continue to be an issue that we will look at and match our
resources accordingly to.
Mr. Warren. If I could add one thing to that.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir. Sure.
Mr. Warren. Your question was, what would worry us about 1
August? As a system provider in terms of the individual who is
building those systems and making sure the Education Service
folks have their systems, a legislative change that would
require implementation for the 1 August date would put 1 August
out of reach.
So, again, you are asking what would cause an issue with 1
August. A change in the requirements, a change in the systems
this late in the program would put that date at risk. I do not
know if you wanted to expand.
Mr. Wilson. Yeah. We have testified to that effect before.
And Mr. Warren is right in bringing that up again. That is
something we want to continue to be very careful about.
Mr. Boozman. Well, again, I know I am speaking for myself,
but also I think for the Chairman and Ms. Herseth Sandlin and
the rest of the Committee in the sense that we are totally
committed to helping any way we can.
We mentioned the figure of the 75,000, and that being
under. And my concern is that we are going to have a big--if
they are like I am, then you tend to put things off to the last
minute and then a big surge at the end.
Are we prepared for that? Have we made kind of a
contingency plan?
Mr. Wilson. I believe we are prepared for it. There are a
couple things at play, though, that we just do not have good
information on.
One is the volume of current Chapter 30 participants that
have made the conscious decision that they are better off under
the program that they are participating in now.
We do know that there are significant numbers that are
better off under Chapter 30 based on our understanding. For
instance, generally speaking, if an individual already has
other means where their tuition charges are being covered
separate from their Chapter 30 benefits, they could very well
be better off where they are at right now.
Another issue at play is the structure of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. Under that structure, individuals who use all of their
remaining entitlement under Chapter 30, then following that
entitlement being used can come back in potentially for 12
additional months of benefits under Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Based on the discussions, informal though they are, with
veterans, there is a sizeable number of veterans that are going
to pursue that approach.
Having said that, we do have the ability to prioritize our
work. For individuals, for instance, that come in for
certificates of eligibility but have not enrolled in school, we
can put to the front of the line those that have enrolled in
school.
Additionally, as I have mentioned, we are already out-
producing the incoming work. We expect that to only continue
more in the future.
And in order to continue to apply an abundance of caution
in our approach, we are authorizing the Regional Processing
Offices to hire an additional 230 people. We would like to hope
that they may not be needed, but those additional bodies would
help with the surge as well as helping with the very labor-
intensive approach that is going to be required and that we are
learning more and more about as we process the claims.
Mr. Boozman. One last thing, and we have got to go vote in
a little bit. But in your answer previously, you mentioned, if
things were changed, what that meant.
Will moving children, the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), as those killed on active duty, into Chapter 33,
would something like that cause delay in payment or----
Mr. Wilson. Any change, any legislative change increases
the risk to August 1st. There is no question about it. We would
not know the full impact until we could sit down and evaluate
exactly what the volume of individuals would be. Are there
going to be different nuances to the manner in which those
individuals are entitled or paid?
In terms of order of severity, right now my understanding
of what is in the NDAA is we are looking at increasing a
population. We are not changing a calculation. If that were to
be the case, then that would have less of a potential impact
than changing a calculation.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you very much. And, again, we do
appreciate your hard work in implementing this. I know it has
been a great challenge.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Teague. I would like to ask another question quickly,
if I could.
Can you explain what has been the concern from California
schools regarding tuition?
Mr. Wilson. The concern that comes from California and
other private schools within States has to do with the
relationship between public school charges and private school
charges.
The structure of the Post-9/11 GI Bill authorizes VA two
manners in which to pay tuition and fee amounts. On its base,
it requires VA to pay up to the highest in-State undergraduate
public tuition in any State, which in practicality means any
individual that is an undergraduate at a State institution is
fully covered period regardless of how many courses they take,
regardless of the charges, et cetera.
Overlaid on that is the Yellow Ribbon Program, which
creates a relationship between how much VA can pay schools that
charge more than the highest in-State public tuition and that
amount that is charged within the State.
The amount that is charged within the State varies wildly
across the country. So there are States where private
institutions are in essence fully covered because the public
tuition caps within those States are higher compared to other
States. And then there is the opposite in which we have States
such as California that charges a low tuition and fee amount,
but you have very high or potentially high charging private
schools within that State.
So there is a large delta to cover in some States under the
Yellow Ribbon Program or in other States, there simply is no
delta at all to cover. So it can be perceived as a disparity.
Mr. Teague. Okay. Thank you for that answer.
We are going to have to recess at this time so that myself
and Ranking Member Boozman can vote. We will be in recess until
after the vote.
For the benefit of time that we do not seem to have plenty
of, we are going to submit the rest of the questions in
writing. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Teague,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Today, we will continue with our series of oversight hearings on
the VA's implementation plans for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. It is
important that we continue to provide the VA the opportunity to update
the Subcommittee on their implementation efforts for the short-term and
long-term solution. This hearing will also give the VA the opportunity
to ask for Congressional assistance if it is required.
Since the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, many items of concern
have been raised about this very complicated program. I can assure our
panelists that we will continue to seek answers to the implementation,
but also veteran outreach, university partnerships and other items of
concern.
While there was tremendous Congressional support for the passage of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, responsibility does not end after a bill is
signed into law. As our panelists know, this Subcommittee will continue
to work with the Administration to ensure that our veterans receive
their education benefit in a timely manner.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon everyone.
Madam Chair, I believe this is our fourth oversight hearing on VA's
progress toward implementing the new chapter 33 GI Bill. In our
previous hearings, the department has presented a relatively optimistic
appraisal of their progress toward meeting the August 1 start date.
Knowing that things seldom go 100 percent as planned, I guess I would
feel more comfortable if VA came to us with problems.
For example, in response to a request from Ranking Member Buyer,
the VA Inspector General investigated the working relationship between
VA and the Navy's Space Naval Warfare Systems Center. As a result, the
IG has released a report titled, Review of the Interagency Agreement
Between VA and the Navy Space Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR)
that to put it mildly, was highly critical of that relationship. In
general, the report found serious problems with compliance with the
interagency agreement by both agencies, poor administration of the
agreement in terms of how taskings were tracked, a lack of cost
controls to the point where VA was unaware of the number and type of
personnel being funded through the interagency agreement, and a wide
variety of other deficiencies that suggest a serious lack of oversight
by VA. While the report contained only a smattering of information
specific to the chapter 33 tasks in the Interagency Agreement, the
overall findings in the report does not inspire confidence in the
partnership's ability to implement the long-term solution for the
chapter 33 program. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the VA
IG's report 09-01213-142 be entered into the record of today's
proceedings.
The question before us today is will VA start paying in August and
I believe they will and I also believe there will inevitably be issues
that none of us have anticipated. But I am less sure about the long-
term solution and I hope we will take a look at that as soon as our
schedule permits. Given the tenor of the IG report as well as
acquisition and program management issues that have been brought before
the Subcommittee, I believe VA has serious challenges in meeting the
long-term strategy.
I would also note the June 19 press release that announced,
``The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced. . . .
a new IT management approach department-wide . . . new IT
programs and projects at VA must be implemented using the
Project Management Accountability System (PMAS). PMAS is an
incremental development approach . . . with a rigorous
management approach that halts programs that fail to meet
delivery milestones . . . [that] will ensure early
identification and correction of failing IT programs. An
analysis of 282 ongoing development programs at VA has
indicated that many of those programs exhibit at least one
characteristic that could indicate a failing program; either
significantly behind schedule, significantly over budget, or
showing deteriorating product release quality.'' I applaud
Secretary Shinseki's initiative and look forward to VA
instituting a highly structured and disciplined approach to
project management.
Madam Chair, I know that Mr. Wilson and his staff are working hard
to get the program up and running. The new GI Bill is very complex and
will be a challenge to administer for at least the next couple years
until we get the bugs worked out and I invite the department to help us
move in that direction. Finally, I want to compliment Mr. Wilson's
staff for the hard work they have done to make the new GI Bill a
reality. So, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and I
yield back.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson,
Director, Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman,
and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on-
going efforts and strategy for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
(Chapter 33 of Title 38, United States Code). Accompanying me today is
Mr. Stephen Warren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the VA
Office of Information and Technology (OI&T), and Mark Krause, SPAWAR's
VA Program Manager.
My testimony will address the short and long-term strategies in
developing information technology (IT) components for implementation of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and the progress that has been made to date, as
requested by the Subcommittee.
Short Term Strategy
Our short-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill consists
of a two-part IT solution; a ``Back End Tool'' fiscal payment system
which uses the existing Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) to issue
payments, and a ``Front-End Tool'' for use by Education claims
examiners to augment the manual processing of education claims.
We are using internal IT staff to build the needed payment
processing and delivery mechanisms within the fiscal payment system of
BDN. This functionality will allow for the entry of all payment types
to include recurring payments (housing allowance), audit trail
capability, and the ability to generate reports that will meet our
finance and budgetary requirements.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill Front-End Tool (FET) will augment the manual
process by providing additional automated support that is accessible by
claims examiners in each Regional Processing Office (RPO), and VA
Central Office. This automated tool will provide functionality that is
not included in the BDN fiscal payment solution. The FET and associated
calculation tools are intended to support the calculation of payments,
track the use of entitlement, store the claimant's education award
history, and provide basic statistical reports. The FET will be the
primary tool used by claims examiners in preparing and processing
education awards. The Post-9/11 GI Bill Back End Tool (BET) will modify
VA's Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) to allow for recurring payments to
individuals.
OI&T is delivering the functionality of the FET in three phases,
based on VA priorities and the capabilities and resources available
from OI&T. Phase 1, which includes the capability to accept
applications and manually store eligibility and entitlement
information, was successfully deployed on March 9, 2009. Phase 2 will
add specific data elements for processing claims under the Transfer of
Entitlement provision of the law, provide the capability to perform the
payment calculations for school enrollment periods, and contain
additional field validations. Phase 2 coincides with the planned
production availability of the BDN fiscal payment system, i.e., the
BET.
The BET of the short-term solution allows for input of multiple
fiscal transactions to pay tuition and fees and Yellow Ribbon Program
payments to schools, as well as recurring housing allowance payments,
books and supplies stipends, and various other Post-9/11 GI Bill
payments to students.
Teams of subject matter experts conducted User Acceptance Testing
of the FET, BET, and the associated calculation tools from May 4, 2009,
through June 19, 2009. The functionality for Phase 2 is scheduled to be
delivered on July 7, 2009.
Phase 3 will add the capability to perform calculations for
aggregating periods of active duty service and determining entitlement
amounts and benefit level. Currently, the claims examiners use a
calculation tool to perform these calculations. Phase 3 of the FET is
expected to be operationally ready in September 2009.
It is important to remember that this IT approach is an interim
solution that we expect to retire by December 2010, when the new long-
term replacement system is fully deployed in cooperation with our
partners at SPAWAR.
Long-Term Strategy
Our long-term strategy to support delivery of Post-9/11 GI Bill
education benefits relies on a partnership with SPAWAR Systems Center--
Atlantic to design, develop, and deploy an end-to-end solution that
utilizes rules-based, industry-standard technologies. The Post-9/11 GI
Bill contains eligibility rules and benefit determinations that will
work well with rules-based technology to reduce the need for human
intervention. VA is currently working with SPAWAR--Atlantic on the
long-term IT solution, and expects the deployment of this program to be
completed no later than December 2010. In accordance with VA's new IT
management approach announced June 19, 2009, VA's Office of Information
and Technology will continue its practice of incremental development
and strict management of milestones to ensure that we successfully
deliver the functionality needed to serve our Veterans. New
functionality will be delivered in increments of no more than 6 months.
Applications for Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits
On May 1, 2009, VA started accepting applications to determine
eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We have received more than
75,000 applications, and the RPOs have fully processed approximately
35,000 of these claims. On July 6, 2009, we will start accepting
enrollment certifications from school certifying officials for Post-9/
11 GI Bill claims and begin processing claims for payment. The first
payments will be released by the U.S. Treasury Department on August 3,
2009.
Hiring at the Regional Processing Offices
Approximately 530 claims examiners have been hired under term
appointments to support the implementation of the short-term strategy.
All employees completed training on Phase 1 of the short-term solution
on June 15, 2009. Phase 2 training started on June 8, 2009, and is
expected to be complete no later than July 3, 2009.
VA authorized the RPOs to hire 230 additional claims examiners. All
of the employees are expected to be on board by August 31, 2009.
Project Review and Milestones
To meet the effective date of August 1, 2009, VA has assigned
project oversight duties, established milestones, and instituted
frequent oversight reviews.
VA Education Service established a Program Executive Office (PEO)
to manage the development of the overall process for administering the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. This office is responsible for monitoring and
coordinating all Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation activities. In
addition to the PEO, VA contracted with the MITRE Corp., a Federally
funded research and development center, as well as SPAWAR, to develop
the long-term IT solution and associated business processes.
VA met two critical milestones in November 2008, completing
development of the business requirements and IT functional requirements
for the short-term payment solution. The next critical milestone for
the short-term solution was completion of the Phase 3 requirements.
These requirements were finalized on June 18, 2009.
Outreach
VA mailed approximately 2 million letters to Veterans to inform
them of the benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We are also working
with the Department of Defense to inform service Members about Post-9/
11 GI Bill education benefits. For example, we sent a letter to all
service Members prior to the May 1, 2009, application acceptance date.
This letter informed service Members how to apply for the benefit and
where to go for more information.
One of the main resources available is the VA GI Bill Web site. VA
is currently redesigning this valuable resource to improve its
functionality, navigation, and content delivery. We anticipate the
revised Web site will be available in July 2009. Additionally, we
developed a Post-9/11 GI Bill Facebook page that contains useful links
and information to better reach the demographic population that the
Post-9/11 GI Bill is likely to serve. We also plan to contract with a
marketing firm to conduct an integrated national marketing campaign.
To better inform institutions of higher learning (IHLs), VA
attended over 30 conferences on the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and plans to
attend several more before August 1, 2009.
Yellow Ribbon GI Bill Education Enhancement Program
The Yellow Ribbon Program established by the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2008 created a matching contribution
program between VA and IHLs to assist eligible Veterans in covering
tuition expenses that exceed the highest public in-state undergraduate
tuition rate. Schools may enter into an agreement with VA to cover up
to 50 percent of the additional tuition that the Post-9/11 GI Bill
would not otherwise cover, with a match of up to 50 percent from VA.
Regulations and guidelines have been established for schools to follow,
and their participation has been solicited via surveys, e-mail, press
releases, and web-site postings.
VA sent a letter to approximately 6,000 IHLs on June 3, 2009,
thanking those institutions who decided to enroll in the Yellow Ribbon
Program, and asking those who have not enrolled to consider
participating. The letter also provided contact information for
questions regarding the Yellow Ribbon Program and an overview of the
benefits provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the Yellow Ribbon
Program. VA approved approximately 2,229 Yellow Ribbon Program
agreements. All agreements were due on June 15, 2009, and a list of
participating institutions can be found on our Web site at
www.gibill.va.gov. We are also utilizing the State Approving Agencies
to determine the highest in-state tuition and fees for the 2009-2010
academic year. We anticipate posting the updated tuition and fee rates
on our Web site by August 1, 2009.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
__________
[Text Version of Presentation]
Post-9/11 GI Bill Implementation
June 2009
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Education Service
Washington, DC
__________
Agenda
Yellow Ribbon Program
Chapter 33 Productivity
Chapter 33 Hiring and Training
Chapter 33 Implementation
Key Milestones
Long Term Solution
Yellow Ribbon Program: Agreements by State
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.001
Yellow Ribbon Program: Summary
Over 3,000 agreements expected *--final list will be
compiled by 6/30/09
50 States represented
Contribution amounts range from $50 to $34,260 per
student
Approximately 88% of agreements are from private schools
* NOTE: The number of agreements does not equal the number of
participating schools--schools may submit multiple agreements for
multiple academic programs.
Post-9/11 GI Bill Claims Processing
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.002
Additional Staffing and Facilities
All 530 Term FTE trained on Phase 1
Hiring of additional 230 Veterans Claims Examiners
authorized in support of chapter 33
u Additional 230 FTE authorized, will be on board by 8/31/09
Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New employees Initial Training
Began 2/1/2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing and new employees Introductory Began 7/31/08
Chapter 33
Eligibility and
Entitlement
Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1 procedures Completed 6/15/09
and
associated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 procedures Began 6/8/09
and
associated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 3 procedures TBD
and
associated systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Solution Key Milestones
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.003
Phase 1 Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established Ch. 33 PEO and October 30, 2008
governance structures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finalized Ch. 33 business December 16, 2008
requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drafted and published proposed December 23, 2008
regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developed Risk Management Plan and January 2009
established Risk Review Board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Acceptance testing completed February 11, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete hiring of 530 term March 1, 2009
employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ch. 33 Contingency Plan finalized March 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deploy Interim Solution Phase 1 March 6, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Ch. 33 Phase 1 employee March 6, 2009
training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ch. 33 Phase 2 Requirements locked January 23, 2009
down
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final regulations published March 30, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin accepting applications for May 1, 2009
Certificates of Eligibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solicit schools for Yellow Ribbon May 15, 2009
agreements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Ch. 33 Phase 2 training June 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full occupancy of new space (4 RPOs) June 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Interim Solution Phase 2 June 29, 2009
testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publish full list of participating Yellow June 30, 2009
Ribbon schools on GI Bill Web site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Accepting Enrollment Certifications July 6, 2009
from Schools
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deploy Interim Solution Phase 2 July 7, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin administering Ch. 33 benefits August 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 3 Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed clarification of chapter April 10, 2009
33 Phase 3 Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Chapter 33 Phase 3 training TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Interim Solution Phase 3 testing September 14, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deploy Interim Solution Phase 3 September 17, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Solution
The Chapter 33 long-term solution will deliver an end-to-end
solution to support the delivery of Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. The
long-term solution will be:
Released in 4-6 month intervals, delivering incremental
capability
Developed in a distributed application architecture
framework
Supportive of a service oriented architecture
Developed using an agile methodology
Rules-based to ensure reusability and flexibility
Chapter 33 Interim Solution Complexity
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.004
Chapter 33 LTS Complexity--REL1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.005
Solution Release Functionally
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.006
Vision Diagram--System View
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.007
Chapter 33 Long Term Solution Milestones
Iterative development begins--4QFY2009
Complete solution development environment--1QFY2010
Solution Release Schedule
Chapter 33 Long Term Solution Release 1--2QFY2010
Chapter 33 Long Term Solution Release 2--3QFY2010
Chapter 33 Long Term Solution Release 3--4QFY2010
Chapter 33 Long Term Solution Release 4--December
2010
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General
``Review of Interagency Agreement between the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Department of Navy, Space Naval and Warfare Systems Center
(SPAWAR)''
June 4, 2009, Report No. 09-01213-142
Executive Summary
Introduction
At the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Ranking
Minority Member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we
conducted a review of the Interagency Agreement (IAA) between the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Information and
Technology (OI&T), Office of Enterprise Development (OED), and the
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARSYSCEN), hereinafter
referred to as SPAWAR.
The IAA was entered into in November 2007, under the authority of
the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1535, to provide ``government employee
and contractor technical support for analysis, planning, program review
and engineering services for Information Management/Information
Technology (IM/IT) initiatives.''
Although the IAA does not include specific requirements or
deliverables, VA obligated and transferred $2.5 million to SPAWAR when
the agreement was executed. According to the IAA, this was the total
estimated funding needed for Fiscal Year 2008. Since the agreement was
executed in November 2007 funding has increased from $2.5 million to
$66 million. Twenty-two (22) amendments supporting 30 projects have
been issued against the IAA. Sixteen (16) of the 22 amendments,
totaling $25,695,066, were issued in September 2008. Currently, there
are 26 projects in the pipeline to be issued which will add an
additional $73 million to the IAA. VA obligates the funds to the IAA at
the time each amendment is executed. The amount obligated represents
the amount identified in the Independent Government Cost Estimate
(IGCE) contained in the accompanying Statements of Work (SOW).
Results
We found that the IAA was entered into without an adequate analysis
to determine that the ``use of an interagency acquisition is in the
best interest of the government'' as required by FAR 17.503. We also
found that neither VA nor SPAWAR has complied with the terms and
conditions of the IAA. We found that the SOW and the IGCEs that VA was
supposed to develop were actually developed by SPAWAR and SPAWAR
contractors. We also found that the SOW were often broad and general in
nature and lacked specific deliverables. We also identified amendments
that were outside the scope of the IAA as well as unauthorized work
being performed on projects that were not within the scope of the
amendments.
Problems with the implementation of the IAA are due to poor
administration by both OED and SPAWAR. OED was not performing adequate
oversight to ensure that funds were spent appropriately. For example,
VA was unaware that SPAWAR contracted out approximately 87 percent of
the work requested through the IAA. OED could not tell us who was
performing the work under the IAA, how many people were providing
services, or where they were located. Although the amendments to the
IAA indicate that SPAWAR anticipated employing the services of 295 FTE,
the resource roster prepared by SPAWAR shows that only 217 FTE are
providing services. Of the 217 FTE, 22 are SPAWAR employees and the
remaining 195 FTE are working for contractors and subcontractors. The
IAA does not address the issue of management fees paid to SPAWAR for
providing services under the IAA and OED was unaware of the fees being
charged by SPAWAR. Also, SPAWAR was unable to provide justification or
authority to charge a 10 percent management fee.
We also attribute problems with the administration of the IAA to
insufficient technical and legal reviews conducted by the Office of
Acquisition, Logistics & Construction (OAL&C) and the Office of General
Counsel (OGC), respectively. These reviews should have identified that
amendments were outside the scope of the IAA and that the SOW did not
include specific tasks or deliverables or were inconsistent with the
corresponding amendment. We concluded that OED has relinquished its
oversight role of financial performance and work performed under the
IAA to SPAWAR.
In addition to problems with VA's failure to properly administer
the IAA, we also identified deficiencies on the part of SPAWAR. We
determined that SPAWAR did not ensure that VA paid fair and reasonable
prices for the services provided. SOW for task orders that SPAWAR
issued to contractors did not identify specific tasks or deliverables.
We also found that SPAWAR contractors were subcontracting the work to
other SPAWAR contractors at the direction of SPAWAR. This practice
unnecessarily increases the cost because VA must pay an additional
layer of management fees and overhead. In reviewing contracts that
SPAWAR issued to vendors performing services under the IAA, we found
that SPAWAR executed an option year more than 6 months prior to the
expiration of the contract's base year. Because the option year prices
were higher, VA unnecessarily incurred higher costs for the work
performed by this contractor.
Neither the IAA nor any of the task orders issued by SPAWAR to its
contractors that we reviewed contain the VA required system security
and privacy requirement clauses for: Information Security, Cyber
Security, and Privacy Policy. Absence of these requirements places VA
systems and information at risk by SPAWAR and its contractors.
In addition, an amendment that required SPAWAR to purchase IT
equipment and software contained a provision requiring SPAWAR to comply
with OI&T established policy requiring the use of NASA SEWP IV
contracts for all IT acquisitions and that waivers must be requested
and approved through the IT Tracker approval process. Amendment 20 to
the IAA struck the requirement that SPAWAR use the SEWP contract.
However, no one in VA was able to provide any documentation that a
waiver was processed.
Suggestions
We suggest that VA take steps to re-evaluate the IAA and determine
whether it is in the best interests of VA to continue obtaining
services through this type of agreement. If it is determined to be in
VA's interest to continue with an IAA to obtain services to support
OED, we suggest issuing a new IAA that complies with the requirements
of Information Letter (IL) 001AL-09-04, dated March 23, 2009. The IL
establishes VA policy for Managing Interagency Acquisitions, and
incorporates requirements contained in guidance issued by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy in a Memorandum dated June 6, 2008, titled
``Improving the Management and Use of Interagency Acquisitions.''
We also suggest that:
The restructured IAA should emphasize training of VA
personnel to better manage OED programs and operations and to learn to
develop SOW and monitor contractor performance. It should also require
VA personnel to actively participate in the development, award, and
administration of contracts to third parties to provide services under
the IAA.
OAL&C contracting officers and OGC need to implement
processes to improve their technical and legal reviews of the IAA,
amendments or modifications thereto, and the SOW.
VA should be required to prepare the SOW with specific
tasks, deliverables, defined delivery dates, and performance measures.
OED should be required to develop IGCEs as a method of
determining the reasonableness of proposed cost estimates. The IGCEs
should identify labor hours and labor categories by task. OED in
conjunction with OAL&C should determine, on a task basis, whether it is
in VA's best interest to enter into firm fixed-price contracts with
third parties versus cost-reimbursement or time and materials
contracts.
OED should require SPAWAR, or any other government entity
that is party to an IAA, to provide financial reports that identify the
hours worked by labor category and task, and indicate whether the
employee is a government or contract employee.
All amendments and SOW should identify VA program
managers who are actually performing those duties and responsibilities,
and are accountable for the outcomes.
VA should establish policies and procedures for program
managers to certify that they have reviewed monthly SPAWAR financial
documents and progress reports and have concurred with them.
VA should establish a single point of contact within OED
to warehouse all documents and deliverables required under the IAA and
amendments. In addition, all VA program managers and project officers
should be required to maintain all documents provided by SPAWAR under
the IAA and amendments.
Costs associated with Program Management Support provided
by SPAWAR should be proposed and reported under a separate amendment.
VA should cease issuing amendments with multiple
unrelated projects and multiple amendments for the same project/work.
Previously issued amendments can be modified to add additional tasks,
and such tasks can be tracked and reported by SPAWAR.
(original signed by:)
MICHAEL GRIVNOVICS
Director, Division B
Office of Contract Review
[Copies of the full report can be obtained from http://www.va.gov/oig/
52/reports/2009/VAOIG-09-01213-142.pdf.]
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
June 29, 2009
Mr. Keith Wilson
Director
Office of Education Service
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed deliverables
I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity ``Post-9/11 GI Bill: Is the VA Ready for August
1st?'' on June 25, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Monday, July 10, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
June 25, 2009
Post-9/11 GI Bill: Is the VA Ready for August 1st?
Outreach
Question 1: What have been the main concerns from university
officials as we near the August 1st deadline?
Response: The feedback the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
received from school officials focuses on the impact the Post-9/11 GI
Bill might have on scholarships, State tuition assistance, and Federal
grants. This includes the potential impact on scholarship disbursements
to individuals who also receive a tuition and fee payment under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. Recent legislation exempts all VA education benefits
from consideration when determining title IV aid. Officials are
concerned about financial awards above the cost of attendance in light
of the generous Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
Question 2: When is the best time for universities to send a
veteran's bill to the VA? How concerned should universities be about
veterans adding/dropping classes for proper billing purposes?
Response: VA began accepting enrollment certifications for the
Post-9/11 GI Bill from institutions of higher learning (IHL) on July 6,
2009. IHLs should submit enrollment certifications when its State has
determined its maximum tuition and fee charges for the 2009/2010
academic year.
Since VA's current enrollment adjustment process will not change
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, IHLs should see little impact on its
billing procedures. VA will handle a change in enrollment under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill in the same manner as the other VA education
programs.
Question 3: What role do you expect the State Approving Agencies to
play with the new GI Bill?
Response: State approving agencies (SAA) will continue to support
VA by performing necessary duties for the inspection, approval, and
supervision of courses, programs, and tests pursued by Veterans and
eligible persons under all education benefit programs, including the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. SAAs will also assist VA in training school
certifying officials and will expand their outreach activities to
include information on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA recently asked the
SAAs to verify its States' highest in-State public school tuition and
fee rates for the 2009/2010 academic year to support the Post9/11 GI
Bill.
Question 4: How often do you brief Senators and their staff about
your progress and problems with the new GI Bill?
Response: The Education Service Director meets monthly with staff
Members of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. These
meetings typically involve briefing the Committee on implementation of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In addition in April 2009, VA hosted an open
forum for Members of Congress about the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Question 5: You state that you have received 75,000 applications
for the new GI Bill. Is this higher or lower than expected?
Response: VA projected receiving as many as 328,000 Post-9/11 GI
Bill applications for the fall semester. As of September 1, 2009, we
have received over 227,000 applications and over 21,000 enrollment
certifications for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
IT Strategy
Question 6: How much money has been spent so far on the short-term
solution?
Response: As of September 1, 2009, the Office of Information and
Technology (OIT) has outlaid $8.1M on the short-term solution.
Question 7: How many people have been migrated from the short-term
solution to work on the long-term solution?
Response: OIT Program Management Office (PMO) is an integrated team
involved in both the short-term solution as well as being heavily
engaged in the long-term solution (LTS) strategy and requirements. The
main focus to date has been on the short-term solution. The focus will
gradually transfer to the LTS as components of the short-term solution
are deployed. Therefore, no staff Members have migrated from the short-
term solution to LTS.
Question 8: Do you expect to stay within budget for the long-term
solution?
Response: Yes, VA expects to stay within budget for the long-terms
solution. System development costs for the short-term solution and the
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) part of the LTS are
covered under the Chapter 33 Supplemental fund and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 fund. The cost for interfaces so
that the LTS will correspond with existing VA systems is under
development as part of the fiscal year (FY) 2010 execution plan and
will be tracked accordingly. VA anticipates some emergent requirements
will surface and is identifying topics and estimated costs for these
requirements. VA processes will be followed to identify funding within
existing VA appropriations.
Question 9: What percentage of SPAWAR personnel are contractors?
Response: As of September 1, 2009, staffing for the Post-9/11 GI
Bill LTS consists of 27 Federal government employees and 113
contractors. Contractors represent approximately 80 percent of the
team.
Question 10: What percentage of work is being done by SPAWAR and
what percentage is being done by contractors on the long-term solution?
Response: One hundred percent of the Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS work is
being accomplished by an integrated team of SPAWARSYSCEN employees and
contractors. Contract personnel comprise approximately 80 percent of
the team. SPAWARSYSCEN is the lead system integrator responsible to VA
for providing the inherently governmental elements of a program to
include: program management; systems engineering; and fiscal
accountability for the Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS. SPAWARSYSCEN supplements
VA personnel with industry leading experts in the various disciplines
required to execute the program. Via performance-based contracting, the
Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS team is composed of approximately 80 percent
contract personnel.
Question 11: Do you expect to have all your systems ready on August
1st for the short-term solution?
Response: All systems scheduled for completion were implemented by
the August 1, 2009, deadline. Phase 3 of the front-end tool (FET) is
scheduled to be released on November 9, 2009.
Question 12: In your testimony you state that new functionality
will be delivered in increments of no more than 6 months. What does
that mean?
Response: The incremental delivery of the Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS
will support reusable functionality and flexibility of the system
inline with the program management accountability system (PMAS), which
has a 6-month incremental delivery requirement. The Post-9/11 GI Bill
has been planned from its inception using iterative development with
incremental releases. The program has been run in full collaboration
with the business unit.
Question 13: You expect Phase 3 of the front-end tool to be ready
in September 2009. Will this affect your ability to deliver benefits?
Response: Phase 3 of the interim solution was to be released
September 17, 2009. Due to unforeseen requirements and complexity, the
September completion date was delayed and will be released on November
9, 2009. Phase 3 of the FET will not affect VA's ability to deliver
benefits. Phase 3 of the FET will enhance the functionality of the
current solution, supporting the process of amended awards.
Question 14: According to your written testimony the VA announced a
new IT management approach on June 19, 2009. Can you elaborate on this
new approach?
Response: OIT's new management approach, PMAS, has been implemented
to address recent project issues. PMAS will better empower OIT's
project managers and teams to meet their mission. Projects can count on
more leadership oversight and support, which will provide better
insight into resource issues and potential implementation obstacles.
Upon mandating PMAS, VA will pause projects meeting specific failure
indicators. The program plans will then be re-planned for incremental
release. Within 1 year, all VA IT programs and projects will be PMAS
compliant. Using this new management approach, all projects will be
managed rigorously to schedule. Projects will be halted on its third
missed customer delivery milestone. Once halted, substantial changes
must be made before the project can restart, including the assessment
of priority, approach, commitment, resources, and design. The revised
program plan must be approved by the Assistant Secretary for IT before
the project can move forward.
PMAS offers a multitude of benefits to VA, including: the
elimination of significant program/project failures, near term
visibility into troubled programs to avoid long term failures, access
to early assistance, and increased insight into scarce resources.
Frequent deliveries of functionality will ensure the project is on
track and fulfilling business objectives. Ultimately, the goal of PMAS
is to enable the success of all OIT initiatives.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was planned using iterative development with
incremental releases and is therefore fully PMAS-compliant.
Question 15: How certain are you that the long-term system will be
fully deployed by SPAWAR on December 2010?
Response: The LTS will deliver an end-to-end solution to support
the delivery of Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. The LTS will be released in
4-6 month intervals in order to deliver incremental capability and
developed in a distributed application architecture framework using an
agile methodology.
Based on the current requirements provided by Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA), OIT is very confident that the LTS will be fully
deployed by December 2010. It is important to note that changes to
legislation or discovery of unstated requirements would result in
amending the schedule beyond December 2010.
Question 16(a): During the Hearing on June 25, 2009, Mark Krause
indicated that the VA and SPAWAR is leasing and buying equipment for
the use of the IT long-term plan. Why is there a need to lease
equipment?
Response: On June 25, Mark Krause testified the LTS team was
``thinking of'' using leased facilities and leasing options. The LTS
project manager (PM) has decided to purchase hosting services from a
commercial data center/hosting facility to support a development and
test environment for the LTS.
Question 16(b): How much equipment has been bought and how much
equipment is being leased?
Response: As a result of the decision to purchase commercial
hosting services, no equipment has been or will be leased for the Post-
/11 GI Bill LTS.
Question 16(c): From what companies are you leasing the equipment?
Please provide a list.
Response: Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS will not be leasing equipment.
Question 16(d): Where is the purchased equipment and leased
equipment located?
Response: To date, approximately, $1.424M of IT infrastructure
equipment and laptops have been purchased for Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS.
The purchased equipment resides at New Orleans, Charleston, Norfolk,
and Washington, DC, where Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS work is being
conducted.
Question 16(e): Will they remain there permanently?
Response: The planning for where and how Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS will
host and support is still underway. The long term plan is to migrate
the Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS back to a VA data center a few years after
full operational capability is achieved.
California ``Tuition'' and ``Fees''
Question 17: Who does the California tuition problem affect?
Response: Unlike other States, California residents were not
charged ``tuition'' when attending public institutions until recently.
They were charged various fees instead. In other States, resident
students are charged for both tuition and various fees. The problem
potentially affected only students attending private schools, students
in graduate programs, and students charged out-of-State tuition.
A recent change in the way California charges tuition and fees
resolved the problem. California established one of its fees as an
``educational/tuition fee.'' The ``educational/tuition fee'' equates to
$287 per credit hour. As this fee is for tuition, VA will determine
Post-9/11 GI Bill payments for students in private schools, graduate
programs, or students charged out-of-State tuition based on the maximum
credit hour charge of $287.
Question 18: If California universities were to align their cost of
attendance to the rest of the State from ``tuition'' to ``fees,'' would
it present a problem to VA?
Response: California recently changed its billing procedures. A
maximum of $287 per credit hour is now charged for an ``educational/
tuition fee'' with a maximum for other fees of $2,165.25. VA accepts
California's ``education/tuition fee'' as tuition for purposes of
determining payment under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Thus, the initial
problem has been resolved.
Question 19: There is much concern that California students will
get no tuition money. Can you assure this Subcommittee that all
veterans attending public institutions will be covered?
Response: All students eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill who
enrolled in an undergraduate program in California at a public
institution were fully covered. Although California resident students
will now be charged an ``educational/tuition fee,'' these students will
remain fully covered by the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Miscellaneous
Question 20: In total you will be hiring 760 claim examiners. Will
that be enough to process claims or will you need more claim examiners?
Response: The hiring of term Veterans claim examiners to process
Post-9/11 Gl Bill claims is part of VA's short-term solution. These are
temporary measures being taken until OIT's LTS is available. The LTS
will introduce applications that are rules based and require less
manual processing. There are 1,113 claims examiners assigned to the 4
regional processing offices. Of those, 736 are term employees--534 were
hired with funds from the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 and
202 were hired with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. Based on the current IT systems and the expected delivery
dates of additional functionality, VA believes the additional 760
claims examiners, 736 of whom have already been hired, are enough to
handle the workload.
Question 21: According to your testimony, the VA instituted
frequent oversight reviews. What type of oversight review have you
conducted?
Response: VA has conducted two quality reviews of eligibility and
entitlement determinations for cases processed since May 2009.
Preliminary findings show an accuracy rate above 90 percent among all
regional processing offices. Post-9/11 GI Bill payments begin August 1,
2009; therefore, regularly scheduled quality reviews on payment
accuracy will begin in the fall of 2009.
VA conducts routine compliance surveys to ensure that schools and
training establishments are in compliance with all applicable
provisions of the laws administered by VA. In addition, SAAs approve
programs of education and training on behalf of VA, supervise approved
schools and job training establishments, and furnish other services as
requested by VA to ensure compliance with the requirements of the law.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill IT solution underwent an extensive review
associated with OIT's transformation-21 initiative, which included
analysis of eight key program attributes. In addition, the Post-9/11 GI
Bill IT solution integrated project team (IPT) meets weekly to conduct
a review and status of the initiative. These IPT reviews include
participants from development, infrastructure, engineering, and VBA.
VA maintains frequent oversight of the SPAWAR contribution to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill initiative through daily conference calls and
multiple weekly meetings concerning requirements, architecture, and
software development.
Question 22: Between now and August 1st what item(s) could
potentially stall implementation of the GI Bill?
Response: VA implemented the Post-9/11 GI Bill on August 1, 2009,
on schedule.
Question 23: The Committee has been made aware that a test of the
payment system revealed some issues that may threaten the timely
payment of the living stipend and tuition and fees. What is the status
of the short term IT work needed to process payments?
Response: Payment processing for tuition and fees has been
successfully installed. Testing of the recurring monthly housing
payment for the short-term solution has been successfully completed.
VBA reviewed and validated test versions of the electronic funds
transfer (EFT) and check payment files for the recurring housing
payments. Those files were sent to the Department of Treasury and are
completely certified. On August 21, VBA executed the recurring housing
payments in a production environment and produce monthly payments.
Question 24: Please detail what services and staffing SPAWAR will
provide for all Chapter 33-related amendments to the VA-SPAWAR
interagency agreement.
Response: SPAWARSYSCEN is a Level III complaint CMMI system
engineering center. CMMI Level III certification requires
implementation of standard processes, procedures and data compilation
to properly manage and document projects/programs. SPAWARSYSCEN will
provide for all Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS related amendments to include:
project management, VA's PMO support, governance establishment,
engineering support, infrastructure development and management,
information assurance, configuration management, requirement and
release management, data integration, application development, testing,
training and operations.
Question 25: Please provide an organization chart for the
development project for the long term software solution for Chapter 33.
In addition, I ask that you include the qualification of the program
manager(s) at VA and SPAWAR to include a list and dollar value of all
the programs they have managed.
Response: An organization chart depicting key program personnel is
enclosed. The VA and SPAWAR program managers and their qualifications
are listed below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1871A.008
Mr. Don Oswalt, SPAWARSYSCEN Health Service Director, has 17 years
direct IT experience (design, installations, strategic planning,
enterprise architecture, sustainment, network operations centers,
network security centers, information assurance, wireless, servers,
hosting/data centers, software, program/project management, earned
value management, metrics, planning, programming, and budgeting).
Previous programs with estimated dollar values:
1. Health systems program director/mission area team chair ($300M)
2. Military health systems program manager ($100M)
3. Tri-service infrastructure program office (TIMPO) program
manager ($60M)
4. TIMPO information assurance project manager ($10M)
5. NAVAIR network protection manager ($8M)
6. IRS network assessment scans ($1M)
7. DMS firewall manager ($800K)
8. Project engineer network protection site installations ($1.5M)
Mr. Mark Krause, SPAWAR VA Program Manager, provides program
management oversight to VA Project Manager (PM) and LTS team, he has a
Masters of Science IT management degree from the Naval postgraduate
school, a Bachelor of Science (BS) in operation system analysis/applied
math from the U.S. Naval Academy, and a Master of Arts in educational
administration from the University of North Florida. He is a certified
information systems security professional, Department of Defense
certified chief information officer (CIO)--National Defense University
and holds defense acquisition workforce improvement act (DAWIA) PM
level III. Previous programs with estimated dollar value:
1. Commanding officer, SPAWAR systems center (SSC) New Orleans
($90M annually)
2. Chief information officer Navy Reserve, directed IT support for
88,000 member organization ($3.2B annually)
3. Chief technology officer Navy Reserve Forces Command, managed
Navy Reserve IT programs ($100M)
4. Directed the implementation of Navy Marine Corps intranet for
Navy Reserve ($85M)
5. IT director for Navy Air Logistics Office, managed joint air
logistics program ($10M)
Ms. Lucy Colangione, the SPAWARSYSCEN Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS Program
Manager, is DAWIA Level III certified in system planning and DAWIA
Level I certified in project management. She also has extensive
experience in research development and system engineering as well as
production and manufacturing management. She has a BS in electrical
engineering from Mississippi State University and is working on a
Master's in PM, and is PM certified by the Keller Graduate School.
Previous programs with estimated dollar values include:
1. VA benefits delivery network mapping ($1.2M)
2. Securing 2800 unsecure Navy (N1) pay and personnel legacy
application data interfaces ($1.3M)
3. Chief engineer reconstruction of SPAWAR SSC New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina ($30M)
4. Director of security/chief security officer SPAWARSYSCEN New
Orleans ($113M FY 2006)
5. Senior systems architecture/security engineer for Navy
standard integrated personnel system (NSIPS) ($248M)
6. Senior systems engineer for Lockheed Martin on the NSIPS
program ($248M)
7. Senior quality assurance engineer for APOGEN Inc. on Defense
integrated military human resource system ($1B)
8. Procurement quality engineering manager for TYCO Health Care
Systems ($95M)
9. Procurement quality assurance engineer for ST Microelectronics
($150M)
10. Process control electrical engineer for Motorola Wafer Power
Fabrication Plant ($70M)
11. Electronics engineer for U.S. Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division ($12.5M)
Question 26: Please itemize the actions the VA is taking to address
the problems cited in the Office of Inspector General investigation
report of the Interagency Agreement with SPAWAR?
Response: VA has taken and is taking a number of steps to improve
and provide more rigorous oversight of all processes and organizational
entities in accordance with the newly issued Office of Federal
Procurement Policy guidance. By implementing these policies, VA
continues to work to address the issues cited by OIG with the SPAWAR
IA. VA has:
Established a consolidated, secure repository for storing
all administrative documentation;
Strengthened the statement of work format for increased
specificity;
Strengthened independent government cost estimate to
increase specificity for labor, travel, materials;
Ensured efforts to strengthen the knowledge, skills, and
abilities of the VA staff;
Initiated the use of performance work statements to
improve specificity and better manage outcomes of relationship with
SPAWAR;
Revised monthly financial reports to break down financial
analysis by amendment to facilitate PM review and approval;
Implemented certificate of compliance and acceptance of
deliverables to record receipt, inspection and acceptance of
deliverables and certification of compliance with contractual
specifications; and
Reviewed the scope of all amendments for separation of
unrelated requirements.
Question 27: Does the VA intend to submit draft legislation to
amend Chapter 33 and if so, when can we expect to receive the draft
legislation?
Response: VA currently is working on legislative proposals for
changes and technical amendments to the Post-9/11 GI Bill for potential
submission in future budget cycles.
Question 28: Will the long term solution be directly integrated
with VETSNET or since VETSNET is comprised of nearly 20 year old
technologies, will the long term solution provide the basis for a
replacement for VETSNET?
Response: The LTS is not intended to be a replacement for VETSNET.
At this time it is not known whether the LTS will interface with
VETSNET. One of the reasons we are using service oriented architecture
with the LTS is to eliminate dependencies on a specific system.
Question 29: If the VA determines it will be necessary to extend
the contracts of the term employees, what event will trigger that
decision and what will be the cost estimate?
Response: VA hired term employees under a 13-month authority that
can be extended up to 4 years. After 13 months, VBA can retain the term
employees on a month-to-month basis if necessary up to a total of 2
years. Term employees are part of the VBA's short-term solution until
OIT's LTS is available. VBA will base the decision to retain term
employees on system functionality within the LTS. The cost to extend
term employees will depend on the number of employees retained and the
additional time they remain with VBA. However, VA does not anticipate
the need to extend these contracts, since we expect to have the LTS up
and running on schedule.