H. Rept. 113-359 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)
February 25, 2014, As Reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 113-359 - FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION REFORM ACT




[House Report 113-359]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-359

======================================================================



 
         FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION REFORM ACT

                                _______
                                

 February 25, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Issa, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1232]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1232) to amend titles 40, 41, and 
44, United States Code, to eliminate duplication and waste in 
information technology acquisition and management, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     2
Section-by-Section...............................................    27
Explanation of Amendments........................................    33
Committee Consideration..........................................    33
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    33
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    33
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    33
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    33
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    34
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    34
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    34
Earmark Identification...........................................    34
Committee Estimate...............................................    34
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...    34
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported.............    37

                     Committee Statement and Views


                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    Information technology (IT) plays a pivotal role in the 
efficient operation of government. Without modern IT systems, 
government is incapable of providing basic services, curtailing 
waste, fraud and abuse, or managing internal operations.
    Starting in the 112th Congress, the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee (``Committee'') began a detailed 
examination of the basic framework by which the government 
acquires and deploys IT assets. Our oversight hearings\1\ 
confirmed that despite spending more than $600 billion over the 
past decade, federal IT investments, too often, run over 
budget, behind schedule, or never deliver on the promised 
solution or functionality.\2\ Indeed, industry experts have 
estimated that as much as 25 percent of the annual $80 billion 
spent on IT is attributable to mismanaged or duplicative IT 
investments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Transparency and Federal Management IT Systems: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on 
Oversight and Government Reform, 112 Cong. (2011); On Frontlines in 
Acquisition Workforce's Battle Against Taxpayer Waste: Hearing Before 
the Subcomm. on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and 
Government Reform, 112 Cong. (2011); How Much is Too Much? Examining 
Duplicative IT Investments at DOE and DOD: Hearing Before the Subcomm. 
on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and 
Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 
112 Cong. (2012); Government 2.0: GAO Unveils New Duplicative Program 
Report: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 112 
Cong. (2012); Wasting Information Technology Dollars: How Can the 
Federal Government Reform its IT Investment Strategy?: Hearing Before 
the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 113 Cong. (2013); Time 
to Reform Information Technology Acquisition: The Federal IT 
Acquisition Reform Act: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and 
Government Reform, 113 Cong. (2013).
    See below ``Oversight by the House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee'' under the ``Background and Need for Legislation'' section 
for further details.
    \2\See Vivek Kundra, Department of Homeland Security, 25 Point 
Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 
Management, at 1 (2010), available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/publications/digital-strategy/25-point-implementation-plan-to-
reform-federal-it.pdf.
    \3\The Technology CEO Council, One Trillion Reasons, at 4 (2010) 
(estimating that at least 20-30% of IT spending could be eliminated by 
reducing IT overhead, consolidating data centers, eliminating redundant 
networks, and standardizing applications), available at http://
www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/
TCC_One_Trillion_Reasons_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These failures directly impact progress towards improving 
citizen services and conducting effective oversight. As such, 
they impact the entire $3.5 trillion of annual federal 
outlays.\4\ For example, without state-of-the-art IT and the 
oversight capability it brings, the government cannot tackle 
the $108 billion lost to improper payments in fiscal year 2012 
alone.\5\ Furthermore, in terms of potential cost savings, some 
in the industry have estimated that more than one trillion 
dollars could be saved over the next ten years if the 
government adopted the ``proven'' IT best practices currently 
in use by the private sector.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Time to Reform Information Technology Acquisition: The Federal 
IT Acquisition Reform Act, Hearing Before H. Comm. on Oversight and 
Government Reform, 113 Cong. (2013) (Statement of Rep. Darrell Issa, 
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform).
    \5\Payment Accuracy, About Improper Payments, http://
www.paymentaccuracy.gov/about- improper-payments (last visited May 22, 
2013) (explaining that in fiscal year 2012, federal agencies reported 
government-wide improper payment rate of 4.35%).
    \6\The Technology Council, supra note 3, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The existing legal framework for IT acquisition and 
deployment is now 17 years old,\7\ a virtual eternity in terms 
of the evolution of technology. While government stands by, 
industry is experiencing tectonic shifts in IT, such as the 
transition to cloud computing; the shared services model of IT 
delivery; and the need for data center optimization. Although 
modest revisions have been made to the procedures used to 
acquire and deploy modern IT, increasingly, the management 
structure and acquisition procedures currently in place are 
causing the government to fall further behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 
679 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act 
(FITARA) addresses this rapidly changing landscape by 
addressing key underlying issues.
    First, it creates a clear line of responsibility, 
authority, and accountability over IT investment and management 
decisions within each agency. Perpetuation of collective 
failure and obscure accountability must stop and be replaced by 
a culture of transformative leadership and a recognition of 
success or failure.
    Second, it creates an operational framework to drastically 
enhance government's ability to procure commonly-used IT 
faster, cheaper, and smarter. The majority of IT needs, such as 
infrastructure or back office systems and applications, are 
common throughout the government and could be met by 
commercially-available solutions. Any meaningful IT 
transformation must first target such common and expensive 
problems.
    Third, it strengthens the IT acquisition workforce. No 
matter how many laws we pass, the effectiveness of our federal 
acquisition system ultimately depends on a vital human 
component--the acquisition workforce. Each failed IT 
procurement that a better-trained acquisition professional 
prevents will save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. 
If IT contract overspending is reduced just one percent, the 
taxpayers will save more than $800 million each year.
    Title I of FITARA increases the responsibility, authority, 
and accountability of the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) for 
each of the major civilian federal agencies by providing them 
with budget and personnel-related authority over IT investments 
within the entire agency. Currently, CIOs in most agencies lack 
the necessary authority or even visibility over how the 
agency's IT budget is allocated and executed. Many large 
federated agencies, such as Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) and Department of Commerce, have numerous CIOs at their 
component organizations with little or no accountability to the 
central agency CIO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\E-mail from Patty Figliola, Specialist, Internet and Telecom 
Policy, Cong. Research Serv, to Eric Cho, H. Comm. on Oversight and 
Government Reform (Oct. 17, 2012, 11:39 EST) (on file with recipient). 
According to the research conducted by the Congressional Research 
Service (CRS), there are currently more than 240 CIOs in 24 major 
departments and agencies that are subject to the Chief Financial 
Officers Act. The Department of Transportation alone has 35 CIOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result, the primary role of agency CIOs has been 
typically limited to policymaking and infrastructure 
maintenance. The Committee believes an agency CIO should play a 
central role in all aspects of IT within the entire agency. 
CIOs must be able to design and deliver transformational 
enterprise-wide IT solutions that support the mission and 
business function while overcoming bureaucratic impediments and 
parochialism. The Committee also expects, along with increased 
stature and authority, for each CIO to be accountable for the 
success or failure of the agency's overall IT management. As an 
extension of this intra-agency leadership, FITARA expands the 
role of the CIO Council to encompass a more active role in 
cross-agency shared services and collaboration.
    Title II of FITARA is designed to optimize the usage and 
efficiency of federal data centers. As of the most recent data 
reported in May 2013, the 24 CFO Act agencies have a combined 
total of 3,133 data centers.\9\ Operating such a large number 
of centers is a significant cost to the Federal Government; 
including costs related to hardware, software, real estate, and 
cooling. According to the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), the electricity cost alone is about $450 million 
annually.\10\ The Committee recognizes that there is an on-
going Administration initiative to consolidate data 
centers.\11\ FITARA requires greater emphasis on performance 
and savings, rather than merely focusing on the number of data 
centers closed or consolidated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-627T, Data Center 
Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight Needed to Achieve Billions of 
Dollars in Savings (2013), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/
654604.txt.
    \10\Id. at 2.
    \11\See Memorandum from Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information 
Officer on Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative, Office of 
Management and Budget (Feb. 26, 2010), available 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/
federal_data_center_
consolidation_initiative_02-26-2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FITARA's use of the term ``optimization,'' rather than 
``consolidation'' is to make this important distinction. As 
required in the bill, there should be appropriate consideration 
of utilizing commercially owned data centers where appropriate. 
The government IT managers must evolve from the mindset of IT 
hardware ownership to outcome-based citizen service delivery.
    Title III of FITARA aims to eliminate wasteful duplication 
in IT assets, processes, and contracts. Unnecessary 
duplications and unaccounted or underutilized IT assets cost 
the government money and administrative effort. This not only 
redirects resources away from other needed investments; it 
hampers the adoption of new and innovative solutions. The bill 
requires an inventory of IT assets with particular focus on 
software licenses. It directs the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to reshape government web strategy to facilitate 
the creative use of government data by the public. The 
Committee recognizes that commercial cloud computing services 
may offer a critical part of such consideration. The 
flexibility offered by cloud technology necessitates 
appropriate re-consideration of how government should consume 
and pay for needed software and services while keeping pace 
with technology upgrades.
    Title IV of FITARA focuses on acquisition operations. 
Recognizing that there currently is and will continue to be a 
shortage of skilled IT acquisition personnel in the foreseeable 
future,\12\ the government must better leverage its current IT 
acquisition capabilities while strengthening the IT acquisition 
workforce. Experts from both government and industry have 
pointed out that particular weakness exists in IT program 
management.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See Time to Reform Information Technology Acquisition: The 
Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on 
Oversight and Government Reform, 113 Cong. (2013) (Testimony of Daniel 
I. Gordon, Associate Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies, 
George Washington University Law School); id. (Testimony of Stan 
Soloway, President and CEO, Professional Services Council).
    \13\See id. (Testimony of Richard A. Spires, CIO, Department of 
Homeland Security).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Almost all major IT acquisition failures stem from poorly 
drafted requirements\14\ and federal agencies often pursue 
individualized approaches for common problems, without building 
upon collective knowledge and experiences. Mandatory 
centralized acquisition, however, may hamper a specific 
agency's need to support its mission and may inappropriately 
dilute its ownership of its own acquisition decisions. 
Therefore, the bill takes a balanced approach by creating 
central acquisition resources and capabilities for common IT 
requirements that give individual agencies the choice to 
utilize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-7, Information 
Technology: Critical Factors Underlying Successful Major Acquisitions 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most notable IT waste and duplication exists in the 
area of infrastructure and common IT systems and business 
applications.\15\ For example, in the fiscal year 2011 budget 
submissions, agencies reported 622 separate investments or $2.4 
billion in human resource management systems, and 580 
investments or $2.7 billion in financial management 
systems.\16\ Considering most of these back office systems 
perform similar functions, there are opportunities to 
consolidate them into smaller, more manageable numbers within 
each major agency, and even share services across multiple 
agencies.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See Memorandum from Jeffrey D. Zients and Steven VanRockel on 
Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: Strengthening Federal IT 
Portfolio Management, Office of Management and Budget (Mar. 27, 2013) 
(on file at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ 
memoranda/2013/m-13-09.pdf). The memo defined commodity IT as services 
such as: ``IT infrastructure ([meaning] data centers, networks, desktop 
computer and mobile devices), enterprise IT systems ([meaning] email, 
collaboration tools, identity and access management, security and web 
infrastructure), and business systems ([meaning] finance, human 
resources, and other administrative functions.).'' Id. at 1 n. 2.
    \16\Wasting Information Technology Dollars: How Can the Federal 
Government Reform its IT Investment Strategy: Hearing Before the H. 
Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 113 Cong. (2013) (Testimony 
of David A. Powner, Director of Information Technology Management 
Issues, Gov't Accountability Office).
    \17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FITARA aims to eliminate unnecessary duplication and 
streamline IT acquisitions by first targeting numerous, 
commonly-used IT commodity-like investments such as these. 
FITARA requires establishment of a Federal Infrastructure and 
Common Application Collaboration Center (Collaboration Center) 
to serve as a focal point for the program and to provide 
technical expertise necessary for coordinated IT acquisition 
best practices. In developing such common requirements, it is 
imperative that the Collaboration Center keep its focus on 
``common''--the so-called 80 percent solution required by all 
agencies--and not non-standard or non-commercial features 
desired by each individual agency. This Collaboration Center 
will be funded by existing interagency acquisition fees, 
without the need for any additional appropriation or agency 
expense.
    With respect to the formation of specific contracts for 
commonly-needed IT, the Committee recognizes that individual 
agency contracting personnel often lack the relevant experience 
and knowledge of market conditions to get the best value for 
taxpayer dollars. FITARA, therefore, provides for OMB to 
designate fee-for-service Assisted Acquisition Centers of 
Excellence (AACEs) to promote expedient, best value procurement 
practices. By engaging in repeated acquisitions of the same IT 
requirement, the contracting personnel in the AACEs will 
develop a keen acquisition expertise and market awareness that 
can benefit multiple agencies while promoting demand 
aggregation where possible and appropriate.
    The Committee expects that AACEs will ultimately be able to 
expedite the acquisition cycle for common IT requirements to a 
matter of months rather than years. When used properly, an 
individual agency should be able to obtain a well-constructed 
IT requirement ``template'' from the Collaboration Center, 
customize it to meet its specific needs, and then avail itself 
of expert contracting support from an AACE. This would enable 
the agency to fulfill its procurement needs by leveraging 
acquisition expertise and resources it does not alone possess.
    Between fiscal years 2002 and 2012, acquisition spending by 
the Federal Government expanded by 95 percent, from $264 
billion to nearly $514 billion.\18\ While contract spending has 
risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals did 
not keep pace. Moreover, a significant portion of the current 
acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire over the next 
decade. Statistics from the Office of Personnel Management show 
that there are seven times as many IT workers in government 
over 50 as under 30--the diametric opposite of the commercial 
world.\19\ While many have pointed out dire statistics and 
expressed serious concerns over the past decade concerning the 
acquisition workforce, a question remains as to whether any 
meaningful government-wide strategy or leadership currently 
exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See USA Spending, USASpending.gov (Last visited May 23, 2013); 
Time to Reform IT Acquisition: the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act: 
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 113 
Cong. (2013) (Testimony of Rep. John L. Mica, Member, H. Comm. on 
Oversight and Government Reform).
    \19\Id. (Testimony of Stan Soloway, President and CEO, Professional 
Services Council).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The complexities and challenges in rebuilding the 
acquisition workforce under the current budget-constrained 
environment make an acquisition workforce plan essential. 
FITARA directs OMB to prepare and implement a five-year 
strategic plan, to be accompanied by annual implementation 
reports to Congress and GAO verification and to ensure utmost 
and consistent attention to this critical subject.
    Title V of FITARA makes additional reforms to improve 
acquisition practices and transparency. The Committee reaffirms 
that government IT managers must maintain technology neutrality 
and should fairly consider open source solutions, alongside 
proprietary ones, when making procurement decisions. There are 
many instances where the use of open source software and its 
attendant business model would greatly benefit the government 
while promoting transparency and engagement with and by the 
public.
    The Department of Defense (DoD) is an enormous user of the 
government-wide acquisition resources that are at the heart of 
the FITARA legislation. The Committee believes the bill would 
therefore significantly enhance DoD's acquisition capabilities.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Government's wasteful practices with IT

    Federal Government IT procurements have been a perennial 
source of problems for the Federal Government for many 
years.\20\ As noted by OMB, ``IT has transformed how the 
private sector operates and has revolutionized the way in which 
it serves its customer. The Federal Government has largely 
missed out on these transformations, due in part to its poor 
management of large [IT] investments.''\21\ The FY 2014 budget 
request indicates that the Federal Government plans to invest 
over $82 billion in IT during fiscal year 2014.\22\ The 
practices by which IT is acquired have been heavily criticized 
by GAO for their lack of efficiency and size of redundancies 
and overlap.\23\ GAO has repeatedly identified broad waste and 
unnecessary duplication in the government's IT investments, 
both within and across the agencies.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-7, IT: Critical 
Factors Underlying Successful Major Acquisitions 1 (2011), available at 
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d127.pdf. ``As we have previously 
reported, federal IT projects too frequently incur cost overruns and 
schedule slippages while contributing little to mission-related 
outcomes.'' Id. at 1; see also Senator William Cohen, Subcomm. on 
Oversight of Gov't Mgmt., Computer Chaos: Billions Wasted Buying 
Federal Computer Systems (1994), available at https://acc.dau.mil/adl/
en-US/22163/file/2121/Cohen %20Computer%20Chaos%201994.pdf. (The 
seminal report describing the broken federal IT acquisition system 
based on hearings and research of the House Oversight Comm. and Senate 
Governmental Affairs Comm., Subcomm. on Oversight of Gov't Mgmt.).
    \21\Memorandum from Vivek Kundra, supra note 2, at 11.
    \22\Office of Mgmt. and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of 
the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2014, at 349 (2013), available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/
spec.pdf.
    \23\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-241, IT: Department of 
Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments, 
at 1 (2012).
    \24\See U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-297T, Information 
Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to Fully Implement Major Initiatives 
to Save Billions of Dollars, at 11 (2013); U.S. Gov't Accountability 
Office, GAO-13-627T, Data Center Consolidation: Strengthened Oversight 
Needed to Achieve Billons of Dollars in Savings (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A noticeable example of IT waste and duplication is the 
staggering number of common back office support systems or 
business applications in the Federal Government. In the fiscal 
year 2011 budget submissions, agencies reported 777 separate 
investments or $3.3 billion in supply chain management IT; 622 
investments or $2.4 billion in human resource management IT; 
580 investments or $2.7 billion in financial management IT; 444 
investments or $5 billion in health IT; 372 investments or $1.6 
billion in general science and innovation IT; 358 investments 
or $9.3 billion in defense and national security IT; 301 
investments or $800 million in administrative management IT; 
and the list continues.\25\ Considering most of these back 
office systems perform similar functions, there are 
opportunities to consolidate them into smaller, more manageable 
numbers within each major agency and perhaps even share 
services across multiple agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Wasting Information Technology Dollars: How Can the Federal 
Government Reform its IT Investment Strategy: Hearing Before the H. 
Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 113 Cong. (2013) (Testimony 
of David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 
Gov't Accountability Office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the waste and duplication of IT systems 
throughout the government, the government's priorities in terms 
of IT spending often perpetuate the use of obsolete and 
outdated IT systems. Of the approximately $80 billion federal 
agencies spend in IT each year, about 69 percent or $54 billion 
is spent on the operations and maintenance of existing systems 
(so-called ``legacy IT systems,'' commonly referred to as 
``steady state investment'').\26\ GAO has determined that 
several major agencies, namely Department of Treasury, 
Agriculture, Energy, and State, spend well over 80 percent of 
their IT budget on operations and maintenance of potentially 
obsolete legacy systems.\27\ Maintaining outdated IT systems 
may be necessary and the risks of a technology transition can 
be very high. However, agencies are supposed to be undertaking 
operational analysis to stay ahead of the technology curve, and 
many are not. This indicates that potentially up to two thirds 
of the annual $80 billion IT investment is being spent without 
sufficient transparency and at a sub-optimal efficiency.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-87, Agencies Need to 
Strengthen Oversight of Billions of Dollars in Operations and 
Maintenance Investments, at 1 (2012).
    \27\Id. Given the size and significance of these steady state 
investments, it is essential that agencies, in accordance with the OMB 
guidance, perform annual operational analysis to verify performance 
indicators such as cost, schedule, and performance are being met. If 
such reviews reveal deficiencies, investments should be reevaluated or 
terminated to allow for better use of the funds.
    \28\Id. GAO has found that several major agencies, such as DoD, 
Treasury, and VA neither had developed a policy nor had performed 
required operational analyses, resulting in billions of dollars of 
questionable spending each year. To address this problem, GAO 
recommended that the OMB require agencies to report on the IT Dashboard 
the results from the operational analyses of their steady state 
investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data center optimization

    Over the past few decades, the Federal Government's 
increasing demand for IT has led to a dramatic increase in the 
number of federal data centers\29\ and a corresponding increase 
in operational costs. According to OMB, the Federal Government 
had 432 data centers in 1998, more than 1,100 in 2009, and 
3,133 by the latest count.\30\ According to the Department of 
Energy, data center spaces can consume 100 to 200 times more 
electricity than a standard office space.\31\ The EPA estimates 
that the cost of electricity alone to operate federal data 
centers is $450 million annually.\32\ Information collected by 
OMB also shows relatively low utilization rates of current 
infrastructure and limited reuse of data centers within or 
across agencies.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Memorandum from Steven VanRoekel on Implementation Guidance for 
the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative, Office of Management 
and Budget, at 2 (2012) (stating that under the FDCCI a data center is 
defined ``as a closet, room, floor or building for the storage, 
management, and dissemination of data and information. Such a 
repository houses computer systems and associated components, such as 
database, application, and storage systems and data stores. A data 
center generally includes redundant or backup power supplies, redundant 
data communications connections, environmental controls (air 
conditioning, fire suppression, etc.) and special security devices 
housed in leased (including by cloud providers), owned, collocated, or 
stand-alone facilities. Under this revised definition, neither square 
footage nor Uptime Institute tier classifications are required to 
define a facility as a data center.'').
    \30\U.S. Gov't. Accountability Office, GAO-13-378, Data Center 
Consolidation: Strengthening Oversight Needed to Achieve Cost Savings 
Goal, at 2, 5 (2013). Under the latest OMB definition, the 24 CFO Act 
agencies have identified 3,133 data centers. Id. at 5.
    \31\Id. at 3.
    \32\Id.
    \33\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In February 2010, OMB announced the Federal Data Center 
Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) with a goal to reduce costs, 
increase overall IT security posture, and shift IT investments 
to more efficient computing platforms and technologies. 24 
agencies established plans to close 40 percent of their data 
centers (1,253) by 2015, resulting in an estimated $3 billion 
in cost savings.\34\ As of December 2012, participating 
agencies reported having closed 420 data centers and are 
planning to close an additional 548 centers by the end of 
2015.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Id. at 5.
    \35\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, after more than three years into the FDCCI, 
agencies' consolidation and savings goals continue to be built 
on incomplete inventories and plans. According to GAO, only 
three of the twenty-four agencies have submitted complete 
inventories and only one submitted a complete plan.\36\ More 
significantly, OMB has neither measured agencies' progress 
against its cost savings goal nor provided agencies with a 
consistent and repeatable method for tracking cost savings.\37\ 
In light of the challenges and slow progress, GAO has stressed 
that it is important for OMB to establish a mechanism to ensure 
that the established responsibilities of designated data center 
consolidation oversight organizations are fully executed and 
extend the time frame for achieving cost savings related to 
data center consolidation beyond the current 2015 horizon. This 
will allow time to meet the initiative's planned cost savings 
goal.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Id. at 8. For example, 13 agencies do not provide a full master 
program schedule and 21 agencies do not fully report their expected 
cost savings.
    \37\Id. (highlights).
    \38\Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent attempts to provide greater oversight of IT investments by OMB

    In June 2009, OMB deployed an IT Dashboard, a transparency 
tool designed to provide near real-time information on the 
cost, schedule and performance of all major federal IT 
investments.\39\ In January 2010, OMB began using this 
Dashboard as one of several tools to identify troubled 
investments. Problems with the IT Dashboard quickly appeared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Federal IT Dashboard, http://www.itdashboard.gov/ (last 
accessed May 23, 2013). The Dashboard website displays data for over 
700 major federal IT investments at 27 federal agencies that represent 
about $40 billion or half of the $80 billion budgeted for IT. The 
Dashboard visually presents color-coded (Green/Yellow/Red) performance 
ratings for agencies overall and for individual investments using 
metrics. It also identifies the name of the responsible agency CIO and 
his/her picture for added accountability. Unfortunately, the dashboard 
is often out-of-date and missing key data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee was surprised, for example, that not one 
single major IT investment in the DoD dashboard was identified 
as being ``high'' or ``moderately high'' risk when GAO reviewed 
them in October 2012.\40\ Thus, according to DoD, none of their 
IT development projects were significantly behind schedule, 
over cost, or late in delivery. Yet at the same time, multiple 
occurrences of fundamental program failures were being reported 
in the press, such as the Air Force's cancellation of the 
Expeditionary Combat Support System, with a waste of over $1 
billion in lost taxpayer funding.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-98, Information 
Technology Dashboard: Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency and 
Oversight of Investment Risk at Select Agencies, at 15 (2012).
    \41\Sean Riley, Air Force's $1 billion IT system has `negligible' 
capability, comptroller says, Federal Times, Apr. 19, 2012, available 
at http://www.federaltimes.com/article/2012 
0419/DEPARTMENTS01/204190302/Air-Force-s-1-billion-system-has-8216-
negligible-capability-comptroller-says.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These troubled investments have become the focus of joint 
OMB-agency TechStat Accountability Sessions (TechStats)--
evidence-based reviews intended to improve investment 
performance through concrete action plans. In December 2010, 
OMB claimed that these sessions resulted in $3 billion in 
reduced life-cycle costs and subsequently incorporated the 
TechStat model into its 25-point plan for reforming federal IT 
management.\42\ According to GAO, some agencies have already 
experienced collateral benefits and management results from 
their risk evaluations in the IT Dashboard.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-98, Information 
Technology Dashboard: Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency and 
Oversight of Investment Risk at Select Agencies, at 1-2 (2012).
    \43\Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet the TechStat process appears to have lost momentum and 
focus. OMB held approximately fifty-nine TechStat meetings in 
2010, five in 2011, and six as of September 2012,\44\ 
indicating considerable slow-down of the pace and increasing 
reliance on TechStat sessions at the department level. It is 
the Committee's understanding that TechStat was created, in 
part, because agencies did not appropriately manage their IT 
investments, and yet, less than two years later OMB seems to be 
returning back to relying upon individual agencies. The 
Committee believes continuing focus from OMB and agencies on 
how to accurately portray and derive value from the ratings and 
the associated TechStat processes could maximize the benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\See David Perera, Fierce Government, IT FOIAs OMB TechStat 
meeting info for 2011 and 2012, FierceGovernmentIT (Dec. 2, 2012), 
available at http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/
fiercegovernmentit-foias-omb-techstat-meeting-info-2011-and-2012/2012-
12-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oversight by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

    FITARA is the outgrowth of oversight by the Committee 
concerning the means and methods by which the Federal 
Government acquires critical resources--IT systems essential to 
its operation. Starting in the 112th Congress, the Committee 
and its subcommittees, began a detailed inquiry into the 
organizational structures and processes that continue to impede 
the implementation of this critical infrastructure.
    On July 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on Technology, 
Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement 
Reform examined the issue of the duplicative and wasteful 
procedures currently in effect for the acquisition of IT by the 
Federal Government. In a hearing entitled ``Transparency and 
Federal Management IT Systems,'' the Subcommittee examined how 
federal agencies used their financial management IT systems, 
highlighted best practices, and explored ways to improve 
efficiency.
    On November 16, 2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``On the Frontlines in the Acquisition Workforce's 
Battle against Taxpayer Waste.'' This hearing examined the 
critical role of federal government acquisition professionals, 
who are charged with ensuring that government procurements are 
competitive and effectively overseen so as to avoid waste, 
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. This hearing highlighted the 
obligations and challenges of the acquisition workforce in the 
face of the evolving complexities of the current acquisition 
system.
    On February 17, 2012, the Subcommittee focused on 
duplication and waste in Department of Energy (DOE); DoD, and 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The hearing entitled 
``How Much Is Too Much? Examining Duplicative IT Investments at 
DOE and DOD'' showcased a contemporaneous report from the 
GAO.\45\ The GAO report examined 810 IT investments made by 
DoD, DOE, and DHS. Based on the description of the IT 
investment, GAO determined that 31 IT investments of DoD were 
potentially duplicative while six IT investments at DOE were 
duplicative.\46\ For example, GAO found five similar contract 
management IT systems at the Air Force, four similar 
acquisition management systems at the Navy, and four personnel 
assignment IT systems at the Navy.\47\ At DOE, GAO found three 
overlapping back-end infrastructure investments, as well as 
three similar electronic records and document management 
systems.\48\ GAO did not identify any potentially duplicative 
investments at DHS and noted that DHS has consolidated or 
otherwise eliminated several duplicative investments in recent 
years.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-241, IT: Department of 
Defense and Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments 
(2012).
    \46\Id. at 2.
    \47\Id. at 18.
    \48\Id.
    \49\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While these IT duplication numbers may seem relatively 
small, these assessments were made by outside analysts not 
intimately familiar with the programs' mission or the specific 
IT systems. Moreover, these three agencies made more than 3,000 
investments; thus, more than two thirds of IT spending of these 
agencies was not reviewed. The report suggests that the CIOs 
are not effectively managing these portfolios.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, GAO found a lack of precision in the IT 
investment classification taxonomy--the vocabulary that is 
designed to describe business function and sub-function areas, 
as well as related services that are performed within and 
between federal agencies. GAO identified 22 investments as 
incorrectly categorized. GAO stated that until agencies 
correctly categorize their investments, they cannot be 
confident that their investments are not duplicative.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following this subcommittee hearing, a full committee 
hearing on waste and duplication occurred on February 28, 2012. 
This hearing was entitled, ``Government 2.0: GAO Unveils New 
Duplicative Program Report.'' The full committee hearing 
examined duplication and overlapping programs in government, 
and evaluated ways to save money and increase efficiency in 
federal programs.
    The full Committee continued its oversight of IT 
acquisition and investment practices in the 113th Congress by 
holding two additional hearings entitled ``Wasting Information 
Technology Dollars: How Can the Federal Government Reform its 
IT Investment Strategy?'' on January 22, 2013, and ``Time to 
Reform Information Technology Acquisition: The Federal IT 
Acquisition Reform Act'' on February 27, 2013.
    These hearings established the need for significant IT 
acquisition reform. They reinforced that at a time of fiscal 
austerity, it has never been more important for the Federal 
Government to drive efficiencies and cost-savings through its 
acquisition and deployment of IT. In order to achieve cost 
savings, government IT must be acquired in such a way as to 
maximize return on investment, reduce operational risk, and 
provide responsive services to citizens.

                     LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY HISTORY

Increased authority of Chief Information Officers over IT--Agency-level 
        CIOs

    The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-106) requires 
the 24 major agencies specified in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 901 to have a 
Chief Information Officer (CIO).\52\ Pursuant to the Act, CIOs 
are to provide information management and policy advice to 
their agency heads; develop, maintain, and facilitate 
information systems; and evaluate, assess, and report to their 
respective agency heads on the progress made developing agency 
information technology systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 was originally enacted as the 
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Divisions D and E 
of P.L. 104-106). The law was renamed the Clinger-Cohen Act by Pub. L. 
104-208,110 Stat. 3009-393 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, Clinger-Cohen requires that the CIO and Chief 
Financial Officer (CFO; or a comparable official) of each 
agency develop an accounting, financial, and asset management 
system which is reliable, consistent and timely. The Clinger-
Cohen Act also designated CIO pay at Executive Level IV, or the 
same rate of pay provided to many agencies' assistant 
directors, CFOs, or general counsels.\53\ Pursuant to the 
legislation, agency CIOs are required to report directly to 
agency heads.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\5 U.S.C. Sec. 5315 (2012).
    \54\Clinger Cohen Act Sec. 5125(c)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the statutory establishment of CIO positions within 
federal agencies in 1996, Congress and the executive branch 
have debated the proper extent of CIOs' authority and 
jurisdiction. In private sector organizations with CIOs, this 
person may often serve as a senior decision maker, providing 
leadership and direction for information resource development, 
procurement, and management, with a focus on improving 
efficiency and the quality of services delivered. In federal 
agencies, however, the missions, responsibilities, and powers 
bestowed on CIOs both by law and in practice may be less clear. 
For example, although the CIO responsibilities delineated in 44 
U.S.C. Sec. 3506 suggest that federal CIOs are the primary 
officials in charge of planning and maintaining IT resources in 
their respective agencies, the act does not explicitly identify 
federal CIOs as having any budgetary control or authority over 
IT resources.
    On August 8, 2011, Jacob J. Lew, then-Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) Director, released a memorandum stating the 
Administration's position on the authorities of agency-level 
CIOs. The memorandum construed the authorities so as to change 
the role of CIOs from ``just policymaking and infrastructure 
maintenance, to encompass true portfolio management for all 
IT.''\55\ The memorandum laid out responsibilities in four 
primary areas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, U.S. Office of Management and 
Budget, Chief Information Officer Authorities, at 1 (Aug. 8, 2011), 
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
memoranda/2011/m11-29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
  Governance--CIOs are to ``have responsibility 
over the entire IT portfolio for an Agency'' and work to 
``ensure IT portfolio analysis is an integral part of the 
yearly budget process of an agency.'' This component of CIO 
responsibilities was to be measured by a ``goal of terminating 
or turning around one-third of all underperforming IT 
Investments by June 2012.''\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
  Commodity IT--CIOs are to ``focus on eliminating 
duplication and rationalize . . . IT investments.'' Among the 
services to examine are: data centers, networks, desktop 
computers, mobile devices, e-mail, collaboration tools, web 
infrastructure, human resources systems, and finance systems. 
CIOs are directed to ``pool their agency's purchasing power 
across the entire organization to drive down costs and improve 
service.'' The CIOs will be required to ``show a preference for 
using shared services . . . instead of standing up separate 
independent services.''\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Id. at 2. The Obama Administration's interest in shared 
services in this context appears to be in contrast with another Obama 
Administration initiative that explicitly removed a Bush Administration 
requirement that agencies use shared services for core financial 
operations. See Memorandum from Peter R. Orszag, Director, U.S. Office 
of Management and Budget, Immediate Review of Financial Systems IT 
Projects (June 28, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m-10-26.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
  Program Management--CIOs are charged with 
``identifying, recruiting, and hiring top IT program management 
talent.''\58\ The CIOs are also required to ``train and provide 
annual performance reviews'' for employees in charge of major 
programs as well as lower-level CIOs. According to the 
memorandum, CIOs ``will be held accountable for the performance 
of IT program managers based on their governance process and 
the IT Dashboard.''\59\ The memorandum does not indicate how 
those accountability standards are to be applied.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, supra note 55, at 2. For 
additional information regarding pay for the IT workforce, see ``Report 
on Strengthening Program and Project Management Performance (Section 
312).''
    \59\Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, supra note 55, at 2. The IT 
Dashboard is ``a website enabling federal agencies, industry, the 
general public and other stakeholders to view details of federal 
information technology investments.'' See ``IT Dashboard FY2014 
Edition,'' http://www.itdashboard.gov/ (last accessed Jan. 14, 2014).
    \60\See Memorandum from Jacob J. Lew, supra note 55, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
  Information Security--CIOs, or other designated 
agency officials who report to the CIO, are required ``to 
implement an agency-wide information security program and to 
provide information security for both the information collected 
and maintained by the agency, or on behalf of the agency, and 
for the information systems that support the operations, 
assets, and mission of the agency.'' The Department of Homeland 
Security is directed to examine security implementation. 
Continuous monitoring and oversight of security is intended to 
``allow for the development of immediate remediation plans to 
address any vulnerabilities.''\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to the memorandum, the requirements outlined in 
the four areas above would allow OMB to hold agency CIOs 
``accountable for lowering operational costs, terminating and 
turning around troubled projects, and delivering meaningful 
functionality at a faster rate while enhancing the security of 
information systems.'' In addition, CIOs are expected to 
``reduce the number of wasteful duplicative systems, simplify 
services for the American people, and deliver more effective IT 
to support their agency's mission.'' CIOs ``are required to 
play a cross-agency portfolio management role through the 
Federal CIO Council.''\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appointment of agency-level CIOs

    Under the current law,\63\ nearly all federal agencies CIOs 
are required to be appointed by the head of that individual 
agency.\64\ Currently the only statutorily mandated 
exception\65\ is the CIO of DHS. The DHS CIO must be appointed 
by the President with advice and consent of the Senate 
(PAS).\66\ In addition, several agency CIOs are concurrently 
serving in positions designated as PAS appointed.\67\ These 
individuals include the Department of Labor Assistant Secretary 
for Administration, the Veterans Affairs Assistant Secretary 
for Information and Technology, the Environmental Protection 
Agency Assistant Administrator, and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Deputy Executive Director for Corporate 
Management.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\See Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 
Stat. 163 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506 (2012)).
    \64\Memorandum from Wendy Ginsberg, Analyst, and Michael Greene, 
Information Research Specialist, on Designation Authorities for Fed. 
Dept. and Agency Chief Information Officers, Cong. Research Service, to 
Eric Cho, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (May 31, 2013) (on 
file with recipient) (noting of the 24 CIOs covered in 31 U.S.C. 
Sec. 901(b) only 1 is statutorily not appointed by the agency head).
    \65\See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 
Sec. 103, 116 Stat. 2035 (2002).
    \66\Memorandum from Wendy Ginsberg, supra note 64, at 2.
    \67\Id.
    \68\Id. (in addition, the memorandum notes that the Office of 
Personnel Management, in job listing for the CIO position, classified 
it as a position within the Senior Executive Service, which would make 
it an agency head appointment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal CIO

    Among its provisions, the E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 
107-347; 116 Stat. 2902) established the Office of Electronic 
Government within OMB, headed by an administrator, who is 
appointed by the President without Senate confirmation. The 
law, besides a brief reference in the preamble, does not 
provide the title of Federal Chief Information Officer to the 
Administrator of the Office of E-Government.\69\ The position, 
however, is assigned a range of information technology 
management and advisory responsibilities that many would 
associate with such a title. In announcing Vivek Kundra as his 
selection to serve in this position, President Barack Obama 
referred to Mr. Kundra as the Federal Chief Information 
Officer. According to the press release, the position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Mark Forman Named 
Associate Director for Information Technology and E-Government (June 
14, 2001), available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/
pubpress/2001-13.html. To help lead and carry out President George W. 
Bush's information technology efforts, OMB announced, on June 14, 2001, 
the appointment of Mark Forman to a newly created position: the 
Associate Director for Information Technology and E-Government. As 
``the leading federal e-government executive,'' the new Associate 
Director was to be responsible for the eGovernment fund, to direct the 
activities of the CIO Council, and to advise on the appointments of 
agency CIOs. The Associate Director also would ``lead the development 
and implementation of federal information technology policy.'' Where's 
the CIO? The Role, Responsibility and Challenge for Federal Chief 
Information Officers in IT Investment Oversight and Information 
Management: Subcomm. on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 
108th Cong. (2004) (testimony of Karen Evans, Administrator, Electronic 
Government and Information Technology). Ms. Evans described the role of 
a CIO as ``a strategic thinker and coordinator, not a technical 
implementer,'' and added that a CIO is ``a service provider working 
across the agency to use IT to resolve business problems.'' Id. at 15.

establishes and oversees enterprise architecture to ensure 
system interoperability and information sharing and ensure 
information security and privacy across the Federal Government. 
The CIO will also work closely with the Chief Technology 
Officer to advance the President's technology agenda.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Press Release, White House, President Obama Names Vivek Kundra 
Chief Information Officer (Mar. 5, 2009), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-names-vivek-kundra-
chief-information-officer.

    On August 4, 2011, President Obama announced his intent to 
appoint Steven L. VanRoekel as Mr. Kundra's replacement as 
Federal CIO.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\Press Release, Office of the Press Sec'y, White House, 
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts (Aug. 4, 2011), 
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2011/08/04/
president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead coordination role of Chief Information Officers Council

    On July 19, 1996, President Bill Clinton issued Executive 
Order 13011 which, among other actions, established a Federal 
Chief Information Officer Council (CIO Council) chaired by 
OMB's Deputy Director for Management.\72\ On December 17, 2002, 
President George W. Bush signed into law the E-Government Act 
of 2002.\73\ The legislation enacted into law the CIO Council 
originally established by Executive Order 13011. The CIO 
Council is composed largely of agency CIOs and carries out both 
coordination and advisory roles for the agency-level CIOs. 
According to the law, the council serves as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Federal Information Technology, 61 Fed. Reg. 37, 657 (July 19, 
1996).
    \73\E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 
(2002).

the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices 
related to the design, acquisition, development, modernization, 
use, operation, sharing, and performance of Federal Government 
information resources.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Id. Sec. 3603 [what does this refer to--the E-gov act??]; U.S. 
Chief Information Officer, About, https://cio.gov/about/ (last accessed 
Jan. 14, 2014). According to the CIO Council's website, the council 
``keeps the public informed about how our Government is working to 
close the technology gap between the private and public sectors'' by 
``showcasing examples of innovation, identifying best practices, and 
providing a forum for Federal IT leaders.'' Id. According to a 
September 2012 GAO report, the responsibilities of the CIO Council are: 
developing recommendations for information and IT management policies, 
procedures, and standards; sharing management best practices; and 
working with the Office of Personnel Management to assess and address 
the needs of the federal government's IT workforce. See U.S. Gov't 
Accountability Office, GAO-12-782, Electronic Government Act: Agencies 
Have Implemented Most Provisions, But Key Areas of Attention Remain, at 
9 (2012), available at http://gao.gov/assets/650/648180.pdf. In 
addition, the act requires the CIOs of each of the 24 agencies to 
participate in the functions of the council and monitor the 
implementation of information technology standards for the federal 
government developed by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce, including 
common standards for interconnectivity and interoperability, 
categorization of federal government electronic information, and 
computer system efficiency and security. Id.

Inventory of information technology assets

    On October 24, 2012, Jeffrey Zients, Deputy Director for 
Management, OMB, wrote on the White House blog about 
PortfolioStat--a coordinated effort by agencies to ``scour 
their IT budgets to find unnecessary IT spending and develop a 
plan to root out waste.''\75\ Mr. Zients wrote that the 
initiative will save $2.5 billion over three years ``through 
consolidating duplicative systems, buying in bulk, and ending 
or streamlining off-track proposals.''\76\ According to the 
blog post, since May 2012, agencies have ``collected and 
analyzed baseline data on 13 specific types of commodity IT 
investments'' to find the ``most significant opportunities for 
reducing waste.''\77\ Agencies found ``98 opportunities to 
consolidate or eliminate commodity IT areas.''\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Jeffrey Zients, PortfolioStat: Saving Billions on IT Spending, 
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, (Oct. 24, 2012), available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/10/24/portfoliostat-saving-
billions-it-spending.
    \76\Id.
    \77\Id.
    \78\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finding ways to eliminate waste and duplication using an 
inventory of existing technology assets is not a new idea. In 
2004, Congress included provisions in the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 
2005\79\ that required DoD to, among other things, identify 
business systems information in its annual budget submission. A 
GAO study of DoD's compliance with the NDAA's information 
systems survey found that ``[b]udget submissions included some, 
but omitted other, key information about business system 
investments, in part because of the lack of a reliable, 
comprehensive inventory of all defense business systems.''\80\ 
Moreover, according to the GAO report, DoD ``has not included 
all business system investments in its fiscal year 2013 budget 
submission, due in part to an unreliable inventory of all 
defense business systems.''\81\ GAO determined that the 
inventory was incomplete by comparing two different DoD 
databases: one used to generate DoD's budget and the other to 
develop an IT portfolio repository. DoD told GAO that it sought 
to integrate the two databases and make each databases' 
information more robust and reliable, but a shortage of 
resources and time has inhibited such actions.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, 332, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004).
    \80\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-685, DoD Business 
Systems Modernization: Governance Mechanisms for Implementing 
Management Controls Need to Be Improved, at 15 (2012), available at 
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591330.pdf.
    \81\Id. at 17.
    \82\Id. at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Kingdom model for software licensing and use by the Government

    The UK government is substantially revamping its software 
use policy. It is moving away from issuing individual software 
licenses provided to each department by commercial off-the-
shelf software (COTS) publishers to establishing one software 
license that is assigned to the Crown and reusable across the 
public sector. This approach adopts a ``pay as you go'' model; 
that is, paying only for consumption or use of services.\83\ 
While difficulties negotiating agreements with software 
companies have arisen, this ``[s]oftware licensing optimization 
has delivered over 
7m (approximately US$11 million) 
of savings to date through license transfer and renegotiation 
of terms.''\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\HM Gov't, Gov't ICT Strategy: Smarter, Cheaper, Greener 10 
(2009) (U.K.), available at http://ctpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/
ict_strategy4.pdf.
    \84\Gov't Procurement Service, ICT, http://
gps.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/i-am-buyer/categories/ict (last visited April 
3, 2013) (U.K.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The UK government is in the process of developing the 
``Government Cloud'' (G-Cloud), a collection of virtual data 
centers linked to the public sector by secure connections 
provided through a single point.\85\ These data centers 
eventually aim to include all software used across the public 
sector to eliminate the purchase of multiple versions of the 
same commercial software that require separate support plans 
across the public sector. The UK government is anticipating 
that consolidating software in these datacenters and bringing 
the G-Cloud into full operation will result in a savings of 

3.2 billion per year ($5.4 billion at $1.51 to 

1 conversion rate).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\HM Gov't, Gov't Cloud Strategy, at 3-4 (2011), available at 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/266214/government-cloud-strategy_0.pdf (U.K.).
    \86\HM Gov't, supra note 83, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Website consolidation and transparency

    On June 13, 2011, Mr. Zients, the Deputy Director for 
Management of OMB, released a memorandum to agency heads that, 
among other requirements, froze the creation of new federal 
executive branch domains, required an update of .gov domain 
guidelines, and required the elimination of outdated or 
duplicative domain sites.\87\ In his memorandum, Mr. Zients 
wrote that the Federal Government had nearly ``2,000 top-level 
Federal .gov domains. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\Memorandum from Jeffrey Zients, Office of Management and 
Budget, on Implementing Executive Order 13571 on Streamlining Service 
Delivery and Improving Customer Service (June 13, 2011), available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-
24.pdf (released in response to Executive Order 13571, Streamlining 
Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service).

        [W]ithin these top-level domains, there are thousands 
        of websites, subsites, and microsites, resulting in an 
        estimated 24,000 websites of varying purpose, design, 
        navigation, usability, and accessibility. This 
        duplication not only can cause confusion, but also 
        wastes taxpayer dollars.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\Id. at 3.

    Federal CIO Steven VanRoekel said he is observing a similar 
website consolidation initiative in the United Kingdom (UK), 
which took six years to complete and culminated in the creation 
of a single UK government-wide web portal.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Press Release, U.K. Cabinet Office, Clamp Down on Government 
Websites to Save Millions (June 24, 2012) (U.K.), available at http://
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/clampdown-on-government-websites; Joseph 
Marks, British Government's Massive Website Reduction Took Years, 
NextGov, (June 30, 2011), available at http://www.nextgov.com/health/
2011/06/british-governmentsmassive-website-reduction-took-years/49331/.
    Molly Bernhart Walker, United Kingdom Commits to 1 Government 
Website, FierceGovernmentIT, (Oct. 25, 2012), available at http://
www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/united-kingdom-commits-1-
governmentwebsite/2012-10-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In July 2011, Mr. Kundra, then-Federal CIO, announced the 
creation of a task force to assist in reducing the number of 
federal .gov domains in the executive branch and to update 
policies on creating new websites and domains.\90\ The task 
force has not publicly released a report or guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\Joseph Marks, Kundra Names Task Force to Consolidate Federal 
Websites, NextGov (July 12, 2011), available at http://www.nextgov.com/
technology-news/2011/07/kundra-names-task-force-to-consolidate-federal-
websites/49388/; .gov Reform Task Force, State of the Federal Web 
Report (2011), available at http://www.usa.gov/webreform/state-of-the-
web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 16, 2011, the .gov Reform Task Force released 
its State of the Federal Web Report.\91\ After surveying 34 
agencies, the task force found that, in many agencies, 
decisions to create or eliminate domains and websites were 
decentralized across agency units. Some agencies had ``clearly 
set web policies, while many agencies [were] still working to 
develop more formal web guidance and governance policies.''\92\ 
The task force also reported that agencies acknowledged that 
consolidating web domains could be beneficial, but ``that 
integration may come at a cost.''\93\ In short, some agencies 
noted that the costs of migrating information to fewer websites 
would exceed short-term or even medium-term savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\.gov Reform Task Force, supra note 91.
    \92\Id. at 22.
    \93\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The process of reducing domains was further clarified in 
the Obama Administration's ``Digital Government Strategy,'' 
released May 23, 2012.\94\ According to the directive:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\Exec. Office of the President, Digital Government: Building a 
21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, (2012) 
([hereinafter Digital Government]), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/
digital-government.html.

          Under the principle of ``no new domains,'' criteria 
        for approving new second-level domains will be 
        strengthened and new domains will only be granted on an 
        exception basis. For example, an agency may be granted 
        a new single domain to host consolidated content 
        previously spread across multiple domains, thus 
        streamlining the customer experience and reducing 
        redundant infrastructure. Domains will be approved or 
        renewed only if they to [sic] comply with web-related 
        federal standards, guidance, and regulations[.]\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Id.

    In addition to restricting the creation of new federal 
domains, the ``Digital Government Strategy'' also listed as one 
of three primary objectives a goal to ``[e]nable the American 
people and an increasingly mobile workforce to access high-
quality digital government information and services anywhere, 
anytime, on any device.''\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\Id. Sec.  Strategy Objectives.

          Putting the customer first means quality information 
        is accessible, current and accurate at any time whether 
        the customer is in the battlefield, the lab, or the 
        classroom. It means coordinating across agencies to 
        ensure when citizens and employees interact with 
        government information and services, they can find what 
        they need and complete transactions with a level of 
        efficiency that rivals their experiences when engaging 
        with the private-sector.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\Id. Sec.  Strategy Principles: Customer Centric.

    As of January 11, 2013, the Federal Government reported it 
had 1,354 executive branch domains.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\See Data.gov, https://explore.data.gov/Federal-Government-
Finances-and-Employment/Federal-Executive-Agency-Internet-Domains-as-
of-11/ku4m-7ynp? (last accessed May 23, 2013). The database generates 
domain counts and states it contains federal executive agency domains. 
The database, however, also includes domain counts for Amtrak (a 
corporation not expressly defined as an executive agency), the 
Smithsonian Institution (created by congressional charter, and not 
expressly defined by statute as an executive agency), and the U.S. 
Capitol Police (a legislative branch entity). Without those three 
domains included in the count, the executive branch reported 1,351 
executive branch domains as of January 11, 2013. Federal .gov domain 
counts can be generated at data.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transition to the cloud

    Cloud computing is a new name for an old concept: the 
delivery of computing services from a remote location, similar 
to the way electricity and other utilities are provided to most 
customers. In some ways, cloud computing is reminiscent of 
mainframe computing; allowing users to share the resources of a 
central computer, the way most users acquired computing 
services before the advent of the personal computer. What is 
new, however, is that cloud computing is far more powerful and 
useful than previous generations of remote computing due to the 
advance in ubiquitous network connectivity.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\Eric A. Fischer and Patricia Moloney Figliola, Cong. Research 
Serv., R42887, Overview and Issues for Implementation of the Federal 
Cloud Computing Initiative: Implications for Federal Information 
Technology Reform Management, at 1 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Government, through the Federal CIO, is 
responsible for achieving the potential significant cost, 
agility, and innovation benefits of cloud computing as quickly 
as possible. In February 2011, then- Federal CIO Vivek Kundra 
released the Federal Cloud Computing Strategy (FCCS).\100\ This 
document stated that ``the Federal Government's current 
Information Technology (IT) environment is characterized by low 
asset utilization, a fragmented demand for resources, 
duplicative systems, environments which are difficult to 
manage, and long procurement lead times.''\101\ To help address 
these challenges, the strategy is designed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\Vivek Kundra, Office of the U.S. Chief Information Officer, 
U.S. Federal Cloud Computing Strategy (2011), available at https://
cio.gov/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2012/09/Federal-Cloud-Computing-
Strategy.pdf.
    \101\Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
  ``Articulate the benefits, considerations, 
        and trade-offs of cloud computing;
        
  Provide a decision framework and case 
        examples to support agencies in migrating towards cloud 
        computing;
        
  Highlight cloud computing implementation 
        resources; and
        
  Identify Federal Government activities and 
        roles and responsibilities for catalyzing cloud 
        adoption.''\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the FCCS, ``[c]loud computing has the 
potential to play a major part in addressing . . . 
inefficiencies and improving government service delivery. The 
cloud computing model can significantly help agencies grappling 
with the need to provide highly reliable, innovative services 
quickly despite resource constraints.''\103\ For the Federal 
Government, ``cloud computing holds tremendous potential to 
deliver public value by increasing operational efficiency and 
responding faster to constituent needs.''\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\Id. at 1.
    \104\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    About half of all federal agencies have adopted cloud 
computing in some way--21 percent are already moving forward 
with cloud adoption and 29 percent are in the early 
stages.\105\ Adoption, however, is not occurring more rapidly 
for a number of reasons. The Government Accountability Office 
and InformationWeek Government conducted assessments in July 
and October 2012, respectively, of the status of Federal 
Government cloud computing adoption.\106\ Both identified a 
number of considerations, mostly challenges, to moving services 
to the cloud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\Stephen Delahunty, 2013 Federal Government Cloud Computing 
Survey, InformationWeek Reports, at 8 (2012), available at http://
reports.informationweek.com/abstract/104/9047/Government/research-
federal-cloudcomputingsurvey.html?cid=pub_analyt_iwk_20121008.
    \106\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-756, Information 
Technology Reform: Progress Made but Future Cloud Computing Efforts 
Should be Better Planned (2012), available at 
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592249.pdf; InformationWeek, supra note 
105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both assessments found that security is the top concern of 
those responsible for implementing cloud computing at the 
agency level. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management 
Program (FedRAMP), which began in June 2012, is intended to 
increase confidence in the cloud by standardizing the security 
assessment of vendor facilities and services. According to the 
results of an InformationWeek Government survey of federal 
government IT professionals, only about 1 in 10 have begun 
using FedRAMP, so it is difficult to say what, if any, impact 
the program has had thus far.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\InformationWeek, supra note 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other challenges faced by those responsible for cloud 
adoption at the agency level include:
        
  ensuring compatibility (e.g., data 
        portability and interoperability) with legacy systems 
        and processes;
        
  increasing the level of expertise and 
        experience;
        
  stabilizing the standards process; and
        
  obtaining additional guidance/governance to 
        avoid cloud services ``sprawl.''
    In the face of these challenges, however, there are two 
strong drivers of cloud adoption: ``lowering the cost of 
ongoing IT operations [and] reducing capital investment in 
servers and data center equipment.''\108\ It appears that in 
spite of existing challenges budget pressures may play a 
significant role in driving cloud adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strengthening program and project management performance

    As part of his 25-Point Plan, Mr. Kundra, then-federal CIO, 
directed the Department of the Treasury and the Department of 
Agriculture to pilot the creation of new ``federal career 
paths'' in IT program management.\109\ These career paths, 
presumably if effective, would then be expanded across the 
Federal Government. According to media reports, OMB and the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which creates and manages 
career paths, or ``job series'', held a January 2011 meeting 
with about 30 IT industry executives and former CIOs, to 
determine the expertise and skills that would be needed to 
create a ``new GS-series,'' or career path.\110\ Those who 
attended the meeting reportedly said the consensus was that IT 
program managers would need ``technical skills and 
experience.''\111\ Creating a new job series allows OPM to work 
with agencies to craft job postings that target potential 
employees with specific, IT-project management skills--as 
opposed to general project management skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\Kundra, supra note 2, at 13.
    \110\Jason Miller, OMB, OPM Turn to Former CIOs for Help, Federal 
News Radio (Jan. 28, 2011), available at http://
www.federalnewsradio.com/697/2252313/OMB-OPM-turn-to-former-CIOs-for-
help.
    \111\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personnel awards for acquisition of information systems and information 
        technology

    Federal law establishes many authorities that govern 
employee awards. In this context, the term award refers to an 
agency payment that is used to reward an individual employee or 
a group of employees for the quality of past performance.\112\ 
In general, Congress established these statutory authorities to 
give agencies tools to help them manage their workforces, 
thereby, better accomplishing agency missions and policy goals 
that cut across agency boundaries.\113\ Award authorities that 
reside in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, in particular, have wide 
coverage across federal agencies and workforces. Congress 
granted extensive flexibility and discretion to agencies under 
these provisions to customize award practices to fit agency 
missions, environments, and resource levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4501-4523 (2012). See also Clinton T. 
Brass, Cong. Research Serv., R40031, Federal Employee Awards and 
Incentives: Title 5 Authorities and Potential Issues For Congress 
(2008); Maeve P. Carey, Cong. Research Serv., R41801, The Senior 
Executive Service: Background and Options for Reform (2012). Award 
authorities differ in their coverage and requirements among three 
general types of employees: federal employees generally; career Senior 
Executive Service employees; and political appointees. Payment of 
awards may be subject to statutory limitations on aggregate 
compensation for an individual employee. By contrast, the term 
incentive refers to a payment that is designed to provide a monetary 
inducement for an individual (or group) to accept a new position or to 
remain employed in a current position.
    \113\5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4501-4523; Brass, supra note 112; Carey, 
supra note 112. Some of these statutory award authorities are contained 
within Title 5 of the U.S. Code and cover most agencies in the 
executive branch along with some agencies in the legislative branch. 
Other authorities in Title 5 and elsewhere in the U.S. Code may be 
unique in their coverage to a single agency, occupation type, or 
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring business case analysis to address duplicative contracts

    A legislative provision involving business case analysis 
was enacted during the 110th Congress.\114\ Section 865 of P.L. 
110-417 addressed interagency contracts, agency-specific 
contracts, and agency-specific blanket purchase agreements 
(BPAs).\115\ Section 865 required, among other things, that the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) be revised ``to require 
any multi-agency contract entered into by any executive agency 
after the effective date of such regulations to be supported by 
a business case analysis, including an analysis of all direct 
and indirect costs'' related to awarding and administering the 
contract. Section 865 also required OMB to provide guidelines 
to federal agencies regarding the management of interagency 
contracts. The resulting revision to the FAR may be found at 
FAR 17.502-1(c),\116\ and OMB issued its guidance, through the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), on September 29, 
2011.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\Ralph C. Nash, Jr. et al., The Government Contracts Reference 
Book 75 (Wash., DC: CCH, 2007) (defining business case as an ``analysis 
of the factors affecting and affected by a capital investment or other 
acquisition decision. Such factors could include cost/benefit, cash 
flow, and cost and schedule risk.'').
    \115\Memorandum from Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator, Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy, Development, Review and Approval of 
Business Cases for Certain Interagency and Agency- Specific 
Acquisitions, at 1 (Sept. 29, 2011), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/
development-review-and-approval-of-business-cases-for-certain- 
interagency-and-agency-specific-acquisitions-memo.pdf. For the purpose 
of the OFPP memorandum, an agency-specific contract ``is an indefinite-
delivery, indefinite quantity contract intended for the sole use of the 
establishing agency.'' Id. at 1, n. 1. Agency-specific contracts may be 
agency-wide (sometimes referred to as `enterprise-wide') or limited to 
one or more specific component organizations within the agency.'' See 
also Nash, Jr. et al., supra note 114. The same description probably 
applies to agency-specific BPAs. A blanket purchase agreement is a 
``simplified method of filling the government's anticipated repetitive 
needs for supplies or services by establishing charge accounts with 
qualified sources of supply,'' including GSA's schedules.
    \116\Acquisition Central, FAR, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/
current/pdf/FAR.pdf (site contains the complete FAR).
    \117\Memorandum from Daniel I. Gordon, supra note 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assisted Acquisition Centers of Excellence

    In response to a statutory requirement, OFPP, in 
partnership with the Federal Acquisition Institute, the Defense 
Acquisition University, federal agencies, and private sector 
stakeholders, established the Acquisition Center of Excellence 
(ACE) for Services.\118\ The center is to ``assist the 
acquisition community by identifying, and serving as a 
clearinghouse for, best practices in contracting for services 
in the public and private sectors.''\119\ The Acquisition 
Center of Excellence for Services website, https://acc.dau.mil/
ace, includes links to regulations, policy and guidance, 
successful practices, a training center, e-tools, news sources, 
the Automated Requirements Roadmap Training (ARRT) Tool, and 
information regarding the acquisition of specific types of 
services (e.g., research and development services, construction 
services, and medical services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA), Pub. L. No. 108-136 
Sec. 1431(b), 117 Stat. 1392 (2003).
    \119\41 U.S.C. Sec. 1129 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IT acquisition workforce

    In 2010, the Administration proposed the design and 
development of specialized IT acquisition cadres as part of its 
25-point plan for reforming IT management.\120\ The following 
year, and as noted in the 25-point plan, OFPP issued guidance 
that addressed how agencies could establish cadres of 
acquisition professionals and strengthen their capabilities, 
but it did not require agencies to establish cadres.\121\ 
Specifically, OFPP's guidance advised agencies on how they 
could

design and organize a cadre of contracting professionals, 
Program Managers (PMs), and Contracting Officer's 
Representatives (CORs) to ensure these functions work closely 
throughout the process to achieve program goals, and strengthen 
the skills and capabilities of this specialized acquisition 
cadre to improve outcomes.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\Kundra, supra note 2 ( the plan can be found at http://
cio.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/25-Point-Implementation-
Plan-to-Reform-Federal-IT.pdf)
    \121\Memorandum from Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator, Office of Fed 
Procurement Policy, Guidance for Specialized Information Technology 
Acquisition Cadres 1 (July 13, 2011), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/guidance-
for-specialized-acquisition-cadres.pdf.
    \122\Id.

    OFPP did, however, require agencies to update their 
acquisition human capital plans, which was to include an 
analysis of their ``current IT acquisition staffing 
challenges,'' an assessment regarding whether ``developing or 
expanding the use of cadres would improve IT program results,'' 
and an outline for a ``plan to pilot or expand cadres for an 
especially high-risk IT area if the agency determine[d] this 
effort would improve performance.''\123\ This supplemental 
information was due to OMB by August 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund

    Several years ago, an acquisition fund was established to 
support the training of the DoD acquisition workforce.\124\ 
Section 852 of National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 
required the Secretary of Defense to establish the Defense 
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. Credits to the fund are 
provided, at least in part, by ``an amount equal to the 
applicable percentage for a fiscal year of all amounts expended 
by the Department of Defense in such fiscal year for contract 
services from amounts available for contract services for 
operation and maintenance.''\125\ No parallel provision was 
made for the civilian acquisition workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\See National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008, Pub. L. No. 
110-181 Sec. 852, 122 Stat. 3 (2008) (required the Secretary of Defense 
to establish the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund 
(DAWDF)); 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1705(d)(2)(A) (2012). Credits to the fund are 
provided, at least in part, by ``an amount equal to the applicable 
percentage for a fiscal year of all amounts expended by the Department 
of Defense in such fiscal year for contract services from amounts 
available for contract services for operation and maintenance.'' 10 
U.S.C. Sec. 1705(d)(2)(A).
    \125\National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 Sec. 852; 10 
U.S.C. Sec. 1705(d)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 1412 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA; 
Title XIV of P.L. 108-136), requires the Administrator of 
General Services to establish the Acquisition Workforce 
Training Fund (AWTF). The Administrator manages the fund 
through the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) and consults 
with the head of OFPP in managing the fund.\126\ Credits to the 
fund are provided in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004, Pub. L. No. 
108-136 Sec. 1412(b), 117 Stat. 1392 (2003).

          Five percent of the fees collected by executive 
        agencies (other than the Department of Defense) under 
        the following contracts shall be credited to the fund: 
        (A) Government-wide task and delivery order contracts 
        entered into under sections 4103 and 4105 of this title 
        [41 USCS Sec. Sec. 4103 and 4105]. (B) Government-wide 
        contracts for the acquisition of information technology 
        as defined in section 11101 of title 40 and multi-
        agency acquisition contracts for that technology 
        authorized by section 11314 of title 40. (C) 
        [M]ultiple-award schedule contracts entered into by the 
        Administrator of General Services.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\41 U.S.C. Sec. 1703(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strategic sourcing

    Strategic sourcing, as defined by OMB, is ``the 
collaborative and structured process of critically analyzing an 
organization's spending and using this information to make 
business decisions about acquiring commodities and services 
more effectively and efficiently.''\128\ According to the GAO,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for 
Management, Office of Management and Budget, Implementing Strategic 
Sourcing 1 (May 20, 2005), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/procurement/comp_src/implementing_strategic_
sourcing.pdf.

        [a] strategic sourcing effort begins with an 
        opportunity assessment--an analysis of spending and the 
        identification of products and services for which 
        strategic sourcing should be implemented. Spend 
        analysis provides knowledge about how much is being 
        spent for which products and services, who the buyers 
        are, who the suppliers are, and where the opportunities 
        are for leveraged buying and other tactics to save 
        money and improve performance. Data on spending are 
        analyzed on a continual basis to support decisions on 
        strategic sourcing and procurement management in areas 
        such as cost cutting, streamlining operations, and 
        reducing the number of suppliers. Based on this 
        analysis, organizations evaluate and prioritize 
        commodities to create a list of top products or 
        services to target for strategic sourcing. This list 
        typically includes the products or services on which 
        most of the organization's spending is focused. In 
        addition to spending, criteria such as potential 
        savings and relative ease of implementation are 
        considered.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-12-919, Strategic 
Sourcing: Improved and Expanded Use Could Save Billions in Annual 
Procurement Costs, at 5 (2012), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
650/648644.pdf.

    OMB issued a memorandum dated May 20, 2005, that made 
agency Chief Acquisition Officers (CAOs), Chief Financial 
Officers (CFOs), and Chief Information Officers (CIOs) 
responsible for developing and implementing their agencies' 
strategic sourcing efforts and directed CAOs to head their 
respective agencies' teams.\130\ Later that same year, the 
General Services Administration (GSA), in partnership with the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, launched the Federal 
Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI).\131\ FSSI has established 
or plans to offer strategic sourcing programs for office 
supplies, print management, domestic delivery services, 
wireless telecommunications expense management services, and 
software (which is known as SmartBUY).\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, supra note 128.
    \131\U.S. General Services Administration, Fact Sheet, Federal 
Strategic Sourcing Initiative, Office Supplies, Blanket Purchase 
Agreements, available at http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/
FSSIOfficeSupplyBPAsFactSheetOct2011.pdf.
    \132\Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative, U.S. General Services 
Administration, www.gsa.gov/portal/content/112561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 2012, OMB issued strategic sourcing guidance. 
The memorandum directs each of the 24 Chief Financial Officer 
(CFO) Act agencies to designate a Strategic Sourcing 
Accountable Official; establishes the Strategic Sourcing 
Leadership Council (SSLC), which will be chaired by the OFPP 
Administrator and include representatives from several selected 
agencies;\133\ requires the SSLC to provide ``recommendations 
for management strategies for specific goods and services'' to 
OMB by March 2013 and the SSLC members to promote strategic 
sourcing within their respective agencies; requires GSA, among 
other things, to implement a minimum of five strategic sourcing 
solutions in each fiscal year (FY2013 and FY2014); and states 
that, ``[t]o the maximum extent practicable, all strategic 
sourcing opportunities shall seek to increase participation by 
small businesses.''\134\ Notably, the SSLC's recommendations to 
OMB for management strategies is to include ``several IT 
commodities identified through the PortfolioStat 
process.''\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\See Memorandum from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for 
Management, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Improving Acquisition 
Through Strategic Sourcing, at 2 (Dec. 5, 2012), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-02-
0.pdf.
    \134\Id. at 2-5.
    \135\Id. at 3. ``PortfolioStat [is] a new toll that agencies use to 
assess the current maturity of their IT portfolio management process, 
make decisions on eliminating duplications, augment current CIO-led 
capital planning and investment control processes, and move to shared 
solutions in order to maximize the return on IT investments across the 
portfolio.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open source software

    Open source software refers to a computer program whose 
source code\136\ is made available to the general public to be 
improved or modified as the user wishes. Changes to such a 
computer program may be available freely through websites and 
user groups dedicated to that particular program. Some examples 
of open source software include the Linux operating system\137\ 
and Apache web server software.\138\ In contrast, closed 
source, or proprietary, programs have source code that is not 
made publicly available and can be altered only by the software 
manufacturer. In the case of closed source software, updates to 
a program are usually distributed in the form of a patch\139\ 
or as a new version of the program that the user can install 
but not alter. Some examples of closed source software include 
Microsoft Word and Adobe Flash Player. The majority of software 
products most commonly used, such as operating systems, word 
processing programs, and databases, are closed source programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\Source code is the set of programming instructions written by 
the software developer that allows a program to execute its functions. 
Source code is written at the keyboard and appears as a set of commands 
in the form of words, symbols, and numbers. After a programmer has 
finished writing the source code, it is compiled into a machine 
language that is recognized only by computers and is represented 
entirely as numbers. Proprietary software includes only the machine 
language code, which allows the computer to function but cannot be 
altered by the user. Open source software includes the source code (and 
sometimes the machine language code) so that the user can make changes 
to how the software program functions.
    \137\Linux, http://www.linux.org (additional information on Linux).
    \138\Id.
    \139\A software patch is a small piece of software that integrates 
itself into the larger program and is created to fix a specific 
problem, such as a particular security weakness or some other error or 
defect in the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Open source software often is developed and supported by a 
loosely organized community of volunteer developers and users 
of the product. Sometimes, however, companies, universities, or 
other organizations with an interest in the product will have 
their paid staff contribute toward the development and support 
of open source products. Collaborating via the Internet, 
interested individuals share new contributions, develop fixes, 
and hold discussions regarding the development of the software. 
The software itself is developed as a collection of modules, or 
subcomponents, that are connected together to form the whole 
program or application. This modular approach allows for 
multiple development efforts to occur in parallel, and for 
changes and additions to be tested and implemented 
incrementally.
    Although the origins of open source software date back to 
the development of ARPANET\140\ in the late 1960s, the debate 
over federal government use of open source software has at 
times intersected with several other issues, including, but not 
limited to, information security, protecting intellectual 
property rights, costs, and product quality. A lack of 
familiarity with open source software, and the rapidly evolving 
nature of application development overall, has prompted 
concerns about whether information on these platforms is secure 
or whether Federal Government purchase of open source software 
is permissible by law or regulation.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). The 
network was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(ARPA, later DARPA) within the U.S. Department of Defense for use by 
its projects at universities and research laboratories in the U.S.
    \141\See, e.g., Brian Robinson, Kundra Advocates Open Source, FCW 
(June 15, 2009), available at http://fcw.com/articles/2009/06/08/
feature-open-source.aspx; Alex Howard, Government IT's Quiet Open 
Source Evolution, O'Reilly Radar (Sept. 1, 2011), available at http://
radar.oreilly.com/2011/09/open-source-government-it-goscon.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 1, 2004, however, Karen S. Evans, then-OMB's 
Administrator for IT and E-Gov, released a memorandum to senior 
procurement executives and chief information officers in the 
executive branch, saying that open source software should 
receive the same consideration as proprietary software in the 
acquisition process. The memorandum further clarified that 
``Open Source Software's source code is widely available so it 
may be used, copied, modified, and redistributed.''\142\ It 
further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\Memorandum from Karen S. Evans, Administrator, Office of E-
Government and Information Technology, U.S. Office of Mmgt. and Budget, 
Software Acquisition (July 1, 2004), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda_fy04_m04-16.

          It is licensed with certain common restrictions, 
        which generally differ from proprietary software. 
        Frequently, the licenses require users who distribute 
        Open Source Software, whether in its original form or 
        as modified, to make the source code widely available. 
        Subsequent licenses usually include the terms of the 
        original license, thereby requiring wide availability. 
        These differences in licensing may affect the use, the 
        security, and the total cost of ownership of the 
        software and must be considered when an agency is 
        planning a software acquisition.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\Id.

    The House Armed Services Committee, in its Report\144\ 
accompanying the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
stated the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\H.R. Rep. No. 110-652, at 275 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Open source software systems
          The committee is concerned by the rising costs and 
        decreasing security associated with software 
        development for information technology (IT) systems. 
        These rising costs are linked to the increasing 
        complexity of software, which has also resulted in 
        increasing numbers of system vulnerabilities that might 
        be exploited by malicious hackers and potential 
        adversaries. While the Administration has put forth a 
        plan to increase cybersecurity within the larger 
        enterprise of federal IT systems, a focus and 
        assessment of fundamental software engineering 
        practices is not apparent.
          Open source software (OSS) is a set of practices on 
        how to write software, based on the open availability 
        and right to use software code. This process provides 
        greater rigor in the software development process by 
        making it available to a diverse community of 
        programmers for review, testing, and improvement. The 
        Linux operation system and Internet Protocol internet 
        addressing system are examples of high quality products 
        developed within the business sector using the OSS 
        standard.
          The committee encourages the Department to rely more 
        broadly on OSS and establish it as a standard for 
        intra-Department software development. The committee 
        acknowledges the availability of proprietary software 
        and encourages its development and acquisition as 
        necessary and appropriate. The committee believes, 
        however, the wide-spread implementation of an OSS 
        standard will not only lead to more secure software, 
        but will also foster broader competition by minimizing 
        traditional constraints imposed by an over-reliance on 
        proprietary software systems.

    In January 2011, then-Federal CIO Vivek Kundra released a 
memorandum to CIOs and senior procurement executives reminding 
them to remain technology neutral while they select and acquire 
``information technology that best fits the needs of the 
Federal Government.''\145\ The January 2011 memorandum 
continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\Memorandum from Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information 
Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Technology Neutrality (Jan. 
7, 2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/assets/egov_docs/memotociostechnologyneutrality.pdf.

          This long-standing policy helps ensure that federal 
        investments in IT are merit-based, improve the 
        performance of our government and create value for the 
        American people . . . Accordingly, as program, IT, 
        acquisition, and other officials work together to 
        develop requirements and plan acquisitions, they should 
        follow technology neutral principles and practices. 
        This means selecting suitable IT on a case-by- case 
        basis to meet the particular operational needs of the 
        agency by considering factors such as performance, 
        cost, security, interoperability, ability to share or 
        re-use, and availability of quality support.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\Id.

    The Obama Administration's ``Digital Government Strategy,'' 
released May 23, 2012, indicated that the Federal Government 
had received considerable feedback encouraging it to ``use open 
source technology to enable more sharing of data and make 
content more accessible.''\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\Digital Government, supra note 94. See also National Dialogue 
for Improving Federal Websites, http://web-reform-
dialogue.ideascale.com/ (providing more information on the feedback 
dialogue).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Section-by-Section


Section 1. Short title

    The short title of the bill is the ``Federal Information 
Technology Acquisition Reform Act.''

Section 2. Table of contents

    Provides the table of contents.

Section 3. Definitions

    Provides the definitions for the purpose of this bill.

TITLE I--MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WITHIN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section 101. Increased authority of agency Chief Information Officers 
        over information technology

    Increases the accountability and authority of the agency 
Chief Information Officers (CIO) over each agency's information 
technology (IT) investment practices. Subsection (a) makes CIOs 
of the 16 major civilian agencies (i) presidential appointees 
or designees; (ii) maintain a direct reporting link with the 
head of the agency. Listed below are the 16 agencies:
          The Department of Agriculture, the Department of 
        Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department 
        of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
        the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 
        Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the 
        Interior, the Department of Justice, the Department of 
        Labor, the Department of State, the Department of 
        Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration.
    FITARA intends such appointee or designee to be a fully-
dedicated CIO without any concurrent non-IT duties. The 
Committee also expects there be a deputy CIO who is a full-time 
career executive with the same requisite qualifications to 
provide needed continuity.
    Subsection (b) provides additional budget and personnel-
related authority to 23 major civilian agencies. Listed below 
are the additional seven agencies that are covered by this 
subsection:
          The Agency for International Development, the General 
        Services Administration, the National Science 
        Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
        Office of Personnel Management, the Small Business 
        Administration, the Social Security Administration.
    Subsection (c) eliminates redundant CIO positions within 
each agency covered by the Clinger-Cohen Act by requiring there 
be only one CIO for the entire agency. For the purpose of this 
subsection, DoD and its three military departments are each 
treated as a single ``agency'' (see definitions in 44 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3502(1)).
    The Department of Defense was generally excluded from 
subsections (a) and (b) due to the differing procedures 
currently in place in Title 10 for DoD and its three military 
departments regarding the appointment, budget, and investment 
review process utilized by CIOs. However, as the biggest user 
of interagency acquisitions, both in direct and assisted 
acquisition settings, the Committee expects DoD to be a major 
participant and beneficiary of FITARA.

Section 102. Lead coordination role of Chief Information Officers 
        Council

    Expands the role of the CIO Council to encompass a more 
active role in portfolio-based oversight and establishment of 
cross-agency IT standards and practices. The word 
``acquisition'' in the current statutory language is removed to 
clarify the potential conflict of authority between CIOs and 
CAOs. Requires additional reporting obligations to allow 
further transparency into the activities and roles of the CIO 
Council.

Section 103. Reports by Government Accountability Office

    Requires GAO review of CIO Council effectiveness.

                   TITLE II--DATA CENTER OPTIMIZATION

Section 201. Purpose

    The purpose of this title is to optimize Federal data 
center usage and efficiency.

Section 202. Definitions

    Provides the definitions for the purpose of this title.

Section 203. Federal Data Center Optimization Initiative

    Requires the Federal CIO to develop and implement the 
Federal Data Center Optimization Initiative to optimize the 
usage and efficiency of federal data centers.

Section 204. Performance requirements related to data center 
        consolidation

    Requires greater emphasis and clarity on performance with 
respect to the server utilization and energy efficiency related 
to federal data centers.

Section 205. Cost savings related to data center optimization

    Requires tracking and reporting of cost savings realized 
from Data Center Optimization. Authorizes the savings to be 
used to offset implementation costs of the initiative, or be 
invested in IT enhancement that improve capabilities and 
services. Requires GAO to examine and verify the accuracy of 
the methods to calculate savings.

Section 206. Reporting requirements to Congress and the Federal Chief 
        Information Officer

    Requires each agency to annually report to the Federal CIO 
on the implementation of the Federal Data Center Optimization 
Initiative. The Federal CIO, in turn, is required to assess 
agency progress and report to Congress.

    TITLE III--ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION AND WASTE IN INFORMATION 
                         TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION

Section 301. Inventory of information technology assets

    Requires the Director of Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) to develop and then implement a plan for conducting a 
Governmentwide inventory of IT assets with particular focus on 
software licenses.
    Elimination of wasteful IT management practices must begin 
from an adequate awareness of the current IT assets. The 
Committee recognizes past attempts for comprehensive inventory 
of IT assets have had limited success. The Committee is also 
aware that there are various innovative tools and evolving 
technology to aid software and hardware asset management. For 
example, DHS-led continuous diagnostics and mitigation (also 
known as continuous monitoring) program or cloud-based 
solutions may offer alternate ways to discover and manage IT 
assets or even transform the way software rights are purchased 
and deployed. As such, this section is not intended to require 
any particular IT inventory methodology or perpetuate existing 
software asset management practices.

Section 302. Website consolidation and transparency

    Requires the Director of OMB to eliminate or consolidate 
duplicative or overlapping public Federal Government websites. 
Requires the Director to issue guidance to ensure that the data 
on such websites are open and accessible to the public.

Section 303. Transition to the cloud

    Expresses the intent of Congress that transitioning to 
cloud computing offers significant potential benefits for 
federal IT projects. Requires the CIO Council to provide 
guidelines for the establishment of government-wide standards 
for security assessments pertaining to cloud offerings. Grants 
broader budget flexibility to the CIOs in the 24 Chief 
Financial Officer Act (CFO Act) agencies to establish cloud 
service Working Capital Funds.
    The Committee continued to believe that a standardized 
approach to cloud security certification offered by the FedRAMP 
can save the government and the industry money, time, and staff 
by eliminating redundant individual agency security 
assessments. The Committee urges OMB and GSA to make timely 
progress while maintaining the integrity of this important 
program.

Section 304. Elimination of unnecessary duplication of contracts by 
        requiring business case analysis

    Eliminates unnecessary duplication of IT contracts across 
the federal enterprise by requiring that the agencies obtain 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) approval of 
business case analysis when creating a new government-wide 
contract vehicle.
    This provision, as drafted, does not address single agency 
contracts such as DHS Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for 
Leading Edge Solutions (EAGLE) or Navy's SeaPort-e (also 
referred to as ``enterprise-wide'' contracts). The term 
``government-wide contract vehicle'' is defined to treat DoD or 
DHS as a single ``executive agency'' (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 105). The Administrator of the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP) is allowed to exercise administrative 
discretion to add other contracts as necessary.

    TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING AND STREAMLINING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
                    ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Subtitle A--Strengthening and streamlining IT program management 
        practices

Section 401. Establishment of Federal Infrastructure and Common 
        Application Collaboration Center

    Establishes the Federal Infrastructure and Common 
Application Collaboration Center (Collaboration Center) to 
promote coordinated program management practices for the 
acquisition of IT infrastructure and business applications 
commonly used by various federal agencies. It is funded without 
appropriations utilizing the existing fees already collected 
for certain interagency contracts.

Section 402. Designation of assisted acquisition centers of excellence

    Requires designation of specialized Assisted Acquisition 
Centers of Excellence (AACE) to promote government-wide 
leverage of IT procurement special expertise that exists within 
government. AACEs are provided with enhanced budget 
flexibilities to enable long term IT acquisition planning.
    FITARA's intent is to develop and share pockets of IT 
procurement special expertise that currently exists within 
government. AACEs are provided with enhanced budget 
flexibilities unavailable to other contracting options. This 
flexibility is akin to the existing case law found in GAO 
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Red Book), B-302760 
(May 17, 2004). The Committee is aware that some agencies, such 
as DoD, have existing policies strictly prohibiting any use of 
the appropriated funds beyond their original duration even in a 
legitimate assisted acquisition context. FITARA is intended to 
overcome such restrictions. FITARA establishes a statutory 
exception to the constraints of the so-called bona fide needs 
rule to provide funding flexibility to an agency utilizing 
AACEs.

Subtitle B--Strengthening IT acquisition workforce

Section 411. Expansion of training and use of information technology 
        acquisition cadres

    Requires OMB to prepare and implement a 5-year strategic 
plan to enhance IT acquisition workforce capabilities. Requires 
annual progress report and GAO verification to ensure effective 
implementation.

Section 412. Plan on strengthening program and project management 
        performance

    Requires the Director of OMB, in consultation with the 
Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to 
provide a plan for improving management of IT programs and 
projects by creating a specialized career path for IT program 
managers.

Section 413. Personnel awards for excellence in the acquisition of 
        information systems and information technology

    Requires the Director of the OPM to develop policies to 
recognize excellent performance in the acquisition of IT, 
including monetary incentives.

                      TITLE V--ADDITIONAL REFORMS

Section 501. Maximizing the benefit of the Federal Strategic Sourcing 
        Initiative

    Requires the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to be 
amended to ensure proper consideration of the Federal Strategic 
Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) by contracting personnel.

Section 502. Promoting transparency of blanket purchase agreements

    Requires the Administrator of General Services 
Administration to publish a list of all blanket purchase 
agreements (BPAs) entered into by federal agencies under its 
Federal Supply Schedules contract and the associated prices 
with those BPAs.
    The Committee considers that the final negotiated price 
offered by an awardee is public information and should be 
available to other government buyers. This provision does not 
promote the creation of duplicative BPAs. In contrary, by 
availing the list of existing BPAs, agency buyers will be able 
to utilize them rather than creating a new one.

Section 503. Additional source selection technique in solicitations

    Provides an additional, non-mandatory source selection 
technique called ``fixed price technical competition'' to 
enhance best value acquisition practices.
    The Committee recognizes and shares the concern that the 
use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation 
techniques in IT acquisition is often contrary to the best 
interest of the government and that the use of LPTA is on the 
rise in recent years.
    Currently under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 
there are two main types of source selection evaluation 
techniques for competitive, negotiated procurements: ``trade-
offs'' and LPTA. While both are designed to obtain best value, 
the relative importance of cost/price varies depending on the 
technique.
    Under ``trade-offs,'' the difference in cost/price is 
weighed against the additional benefits in non-price factors 
such as quality, experience, or technical specifications. This 
allows the government to accept options other than the lowest-
priced proposal. Effectively judging the relative merits of the 
competing proposals involves a complicated analysis on the part 
of the government acquisition workforce to appropriately and 
fairly evaluate and quantify the differences in price and 
technical factors.
    Under the ``lowest price technically acceptable'' 
technique, an award will be selected on the basis of the lowest 
evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the 
acceptability standards for non-price factors. This is a 
simpler evaluation process reserved generally for requirements 
that are based on well-established technology where varied 
qualification levels above industry standards will not result 
in significant performance risks.
    There is another source selection technique often used by 
the government and private sector characterized as ``fixed 
price technical competition'' or ``bid to price.'' Under this 
technique, the solicitation, based on independent cost 
estimates or a request for information (RFI), would set a pre-
determined award price and invite offerors to compete on non-
price factors only (e.g., quality, past performance, and 
technical factors). Because the price is pre-set, the 
evaluation of proposals is much simpler and strictly based on 
technical evaluations. This technique is appropriate when the 
buyer has a good understanding of the requirements and the 
technologies involved and can therefore rely on the validity of 
its independent cost estimate, as further refined by the RFI.
    While this type of evaluation technique is not prohibited 
by the FAR and has been used successfully by some agencies, the 
FAR lacks clear guidance on when a ``fixed price technical 
competition'' approach would be appropriate. This source-
selection technique, if used properly, could help both the 
government and industry acquisition workforce by lowering bid 
and proposal costs and simplifying the evaluation process, 
thereby alleviating acquisition workforce challenges.
    Additionally, this new ``fixed price technical 
competition'' technique would:
    
  Force government buyers to fully develop 
requirement documents necessary to determine realistic and 
complete total cost estimates.
    
  Promote transparency and competition by 
maximizing government-industry exchange of ideas prior to 
formal solicitation.
    
  Encourage clear and fair criteria for technical 
evaluation by eliminating the danger of inconsistent valuation 
of minor quality or technical variations vis-a-vis price. 
Often, in a trade-off evalution, inexperienced contracting 
officers have a hard time eliminating ``low-ball'' offers by 
under-qualified offerors. Emphasis must be given to ensure 
selection of the best-qualified offeror that can get the job 
done at a fair and reasonable price.
    
  Significantly reduce the gamesmanship involved in 
the bid and proposal process. Often, companies will offer 
multiple proposals at various price ranges in response to one 
solicitation because they do not know whether the government is 
looking for an ``economical'' solution or a ``luxury'' 
solution.
    
  Help reduce program cost overruns by maximizing 
firm-fixed price arrangements.
    
  Be one of several optional source-selection 
techniques that may be used when appropriate.

Section 504. Enhanced transparency in information technology 
        investments

    Increases the transparency of IT investments by requiring 
80 percent of the governmentwide IT spending, and 60 percent of 
each of the 24 CFO Act agency IT spending be covered by the IT 
Dashboard. Requires OMB to ensure that the information posted 
is current, accurate, and reflects the risks associated with 
each covered IT investment.
    The Committee appreciates the transparency IT Dashboard 
brings and urges OMB to fully utilize its potential. The 
Committee also notes that OMB in recent years has considerably 
slowed down the pace of its TechStat reviews of agency IT 
programs. The Committee urges the OMB to continue to hold a 
sufficient number of OMB-led TechStat sessions to maintain 
sufficient independent oversight in assessing and improving the 
performance of agency IT investments.

Section 505. Enhanced communication between Government and industry

    Requires strengthening of the government-industry exchange 
of information to enhance acquisition planning.

Section 506. Clarification of current law with respect to open source 
        software

    Clarifies that open source software should be viewed on a 
level playing field with other forms of software acquisitions.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    No amendments were offered.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 20, 2013, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 1232, by voice vote, 
a quorum being present.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill increases the accountability and authority of the 
agency CIOs over each agency's IT investment practices. As such 
this bill does not relate to employment or access to public 
services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions 
of this report.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 1232 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    H.R. 1232 requires the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget to develop policies, guidelines, and plans on 
various information technology acquisition management-related 
matters. The bill also requires the Administrator for Federal 
Procurement Policy to make necessary amendments to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation to implement the bill. Further, H.R. 
1232 requires the heads of certain agencies to establish 
internal guidelines to provide the Chief Information Officers 
additional authorities related to budget and personnel.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to 
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has 
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included 
herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 1232 does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of Rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1232. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for H.R. 1232 from the Director of 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                                 November 12, 2013.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1232, the Federal 
Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1232--Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act

    Summary: H.R. 1232 would amend the laws governing the 
procurement and management of information technology (IT) 
throughout the federal government. Specifically, the 
legislation would increase the authority of Chief Information 
Officers (CIOs) and the CIO Council, establish a collaboration 
center to coordinate the acquisition of IT products, and 
require a number of additional reports and analysis by 
government agencies.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1232 would cost $145 
million over the 2014-2018 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill could affect direct 
spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, 
however, that any net increase in spending by those agencies 
would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not affect 
revenues.
    H.R. 1232 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the federal government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1232 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within all budget functions 
that include funding to purchase information technology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                                                     2014   2015   2016   2017   2018  2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund:
    Estimated Authorization Level.................................      8     18     18     18     18        80
    Estimated Outlays.............................................      8     18     18     18     18        80
Administrative Provisions:
    Estimated Authorization Level.................................     12     10     10     10     10        52
    Estimated Outlays.............................................     10     10     10     10     10        50
Regulations and Reports:
    Estimated Authorization Level.................................      5      3      3      3      3        17
    Estimated Outlays.............................................      3      3      3      3      3        15
Total Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level.................................     25     31     31     31     31       149
    Estimated Outlays.............................................     21     31     31     31     31       145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
1232 will be enacted early in fiscal year 2014.

Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund

    The bill would establish and authorize funding for the 
Federal Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration 
Center. The Center would advise agencies on IT procurement. 
Under the bill, 5 percent of the amounts currently set aside 
from funds appropriated to procure goods and services through 
governmentwide and multiple award contracts would be deposited 
in the proposed Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement 
Fund. Amounts in the fund would be spent by the collaboration 
center to improve IT purchasing as well as recruitment and 
training of IT personnel.
    The federal government spends about $50 billion annually 
under current law to procure goods and services through 
interagency contracts. Such contracts lower prices by 
leveraging the government's buying power. The General Services 
Administration (GSA) recovers the costs of administering that 
contracting program (about $360 million annually), by charging 
federal agencies that participate in such contracts a fee of 
less than 1 percent. Under H.R. 1232, 5 percent of that annual 
fee (about $18 million annually) would be deposited in the 
Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund and spent on 
improvements to federal IT infrastructure. Based on information 
from GSA regarding the current contracts and the experience of 
similar programs, such as the Acquisition Workforce Training 
Fund, CBO expects that GSA would continue to spend the same 
amount on general administrative expenses under H.R. 1232 as 
under current law. Therefore, H.R. 1232 would result in an 
increase in overall spending of about $18 million annually.

Administrative provisions

    H.R. 1232 would authorize agency CIOs to hire additional 
staff, expand the role and responsibilities of the Chief 
Information Officers Council, and expand the analysis needed to 
justify governmentwide IT procurements. Based on information 
from GSA and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), CBO 
estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $50 
million over the 2014-2018 period.

Regulations and reports

    The legislation would require agencies to prepare 
additional regulations for purchasing IT equipment. Under the 
bill, GAO, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and GSA 
would be required to prepare reports to the Congress concerning 
the inventory of the federal government's information 
technology, the use of open-source technology by the 
government, and the need for federal data centers. Based on the 
cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing 
those provisions would cost $15 million over the 2014-2018 
period.

Other provisions

    The federal government spends about $80 billion annually on 
information technology investments. Many provisions of H.R. 
1232 would codify and expand upon the government's current 
practices concerning IT procurement. OMB memoranda, 
Presidential directives, initiatives, and plans have directed 
federal agencies to consolidate data centers, make improvements 
to websites, increase the use of cloud computing, and generally 
improve IT procurement practices. Consequently, CBO expects 
that enacting those provisions of H.R. 1232 would not 
significantly increase administrative costs to federal 
agencies.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


            SUBTITLE III--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

Chapter.                                                            Sec.
      GENERAL......................................................11101
     * * * * * * *
      INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION PILOT PROGRAM............11501]
11501nformation Technology Acquisition Management Practices...........

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 113--RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACQUISITIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER I--DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 11302. Capital planning and investment control

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Use of Budget Process.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Public availability.--
                  (A) In general.--The Director shall make 
                available to the public the cost, schedule, and 
                performance data for at least 80 percent (by 
                dollar value) of all information technology 
                investments Governmentwide, and 60 percent (by 
                dollar value) of all information technology 
                investments in each Federal agency listed in 
                section 901(b) of title 31. The Director shall 
                ensure that the information is current, 
                accurate, and reflects the risks associated 
                with each covered information technology 
                investment.
                  (B) Waiver or limitation authority.--The 
                applicability of subparagraph (A) may be waived 
                or the extent of the information may be 
                limited--
                          (i) by the Director, with respect to 
                        IT investments Governmentwide; and
                          (ii) by the Chief Information Officer 
                        of a Federal agency, with respect to IT 
                        investments in that agency;
                if the Director or the Chief Information 
                Officer, as the case may be, determines that 
                such a waiver or limitation is in the national 
                security interests of the United States.
          [(2)] (3) Report to congress.--At the same time that 
        the President submits the budget for a fiscal year to 
        Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, the 
        Director shall submit to Congress a report on the net 
        program performance benefits achieved as a result of 
        major capital investments made by executive agencies 
        for information systems and how the benefits relate to 
        the accomplishment of the goals of the executive 
        agencies. The report shall include an analysis of 
        agency trends reflected in the performance risk 
        information required in paragraph (2).
  (d) Information Technology Standards.--The Director shall 
oversee the development and implementation of standards and 
guidelines pertaining to federal computer systems by the 
Secretary of Commerce through the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology under section 11331 of this title and 
section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3). The standards and guidelines 
shall include those necessary to enable effective adoption of 
open source software.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--EXECUTIVE AGENCIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 11315. Agency Chief Information Officer

  (a) Presidential Appointment or Designation of Certain Chief 
Information Officers.--
          (1) In general.--There shall be within each agency 
        listed in section 901(b)(1) of title 31, other than the 
        Department of Defense, an agency Chief Information 
        Officer. Each agency Chief Information Officer shall--
                  (A)(i) be appointed by the President; or
                  (ii) be designated by the President, in 
                consultation with the head of the agency; and
                  (B) be appointed or designated, as 
                applicable, from among individuals who possess 
                demonstrated ability in general management of, 
                and knowledge of and extensive practical 
                experience in, information technology 
                management practices in large governmental or 
                business entities.
          (2) Responsibilities.--An agency Chief Information 
        Officer appointed or designated under this section 
        shall report directly to the head of the agency and 
        carry out responsibilities as set forth in this section 
        and in section 3506(a) of title 44 for Chief 
        Information Officers designated under paragraph (2) of 
        such section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Additional Authorities for Certain CIOs.--
          (1) Budget-related authority.--
                  (A) Planning.--The head of each agency listed 
                in section 901(b)(1) or 901(b)(2) of title 31, 
                other than the Department of Defense, shall 
                ensure that the Chief Information Officer of 
                the agency has the authority to participate and 
                provide input in the budget planning process 
                related to information technology or programs 
                that include significant information technology 
                components.
                  (B) Allocation.--Amounts appropriated for any 
                agency listed in section 901(b)(1) or 901(b)(2) 
                of title 31, other than the Department of 
                Defense, for any fiscal year that are available 
                for information technology shall be allocated 
                within the agency, consistent with the 
                provisions of appropriations Acts and budget 
                guidelines and recommendations from the 
                Director of the Office of Management and 
                Budget, in such manner as may be specified by, 
                or approved by, the Chief Information Officer 
                of the agency.
          (2) Personnel-related authority.--The head of each 
        agency listed in section 901(b)(1) or 901(b)(2) of 
        title 31, other than the Department of Defense, shall 
        ensure that the Chief Information Officer of the agency 
        has the authority necessary to approve the hiring of 
        personnel who will have information technology 
        responsibilities within the agency and to require that 
        such personnel have the obligation to report to the 
        Chief Information Officer in a manner considered 
        sufficient by the Chief Information Officer.
  [(a)] (e) Definition.--In this section, the term 
``information technology architecture'', with respect to an 
executive agency, means an integrated framework for evolving or 
maintaining existing information technology and acquiring new 
information technology to achieve the agency's strategic goals 
and information resources management goals.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     [CHAPTER 115--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION PILOT PROGRAM

                 [SUBCHAPTER I--CONDUCT OF PILOT PROGRAM

[Sec.
[11501.  Authority to conduct pilot program.
[11502.  Evaluation criteria and plans.
[11503.  Report.
[11504.  Recommended legislation.
[11505.  Rule of construction.

                 [SUBCHAPTER II--SPECIFIC PILOT PROGRAM]

                [SUBCHAPTER I--CONDUCT OF PILOT PROGRAM

[Sec. 11501. Authority to conduct pilot program

  [(a) In General.--
          [(1) Purpose.--In consultation with the Administrator 
        for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
        the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy may 
        conduct a pilot program pursuant to the requirements of 
        section 11521 of this title to test alternative 
        approaches for the acquisition of information 
        technology by executive agencies.
          [(2) Multiagency, multi-activity conduct of each 
        program.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 
        the pilot program conducted under this chapter shall be 
        carried out in not more than two procuring activities 
        in each of the executive agencies that are designated 
        by the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in 
        accordance with this chapter to carry out the pilot 
        program. With the approval of the Administrator for 
        Federal Procurement Policy, the head of each designated 
        executive agency shall select the procuring activities 
        of the executive agency that are to participate in the 
        test and shall designate a procurement testing official 
        who shall be responsible for the conduct and evaluation 
        of the pilot program within the executive agency.
  [(b) Limitation on Amount.--The total amount obligated for 
contracts entered into under the pilot program conducted under 
this chapter may not exceed $750,000,000. The Administrator for 
Federal Procurement Policy shall monitor those contracts and 
ensure that contracts are not entered into in violation of this 
subsection.
  [(c) Period of Programs.--
          [(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the pilot 
        program may be carried out under this chapter for the 
        period, not in excess of five years, the Administrator 
        for Federal Procurement Policy determines is sufficient 
        to establish reliable results.
          [(2) Continuing validity of contracts.--A contract 
        entered into under the pilot program before the 
        expiration of that program remains in effect according 
        to the terms of the contract after the expiration of 
        the program.

[Sec. 11502. Evaluation criteria and plans

  [(a) Measurable Test Criteria.--To the maximum extent 
practicable, the head of each executive agency conducting the 
pilot program under section 11501 of this title shall establish 
measurable criteria for evaluating the effects of the 
procedures or techniques to be tested under the program.
  [(b) Test Plan.--Before the pilot program may be conducted 
under section 11501 of this title, the Administrator for 
Federal Procurement Policy shall submit to Congress a detailed 
test plan for the program, including a detailed description of 
the procedures to be used and a list of regulations that are to 
be waived.

[Sec. 11503. Report

  [(a) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the 
completion of the pilot program under this chapter, the 
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall--
          [(1) submit to the Director of the Office of 
        Management and Budget a report on the results and 
        findings under the program; and
          [(2) provide a copy of the report to Congress.
  [(b) Content.--The report shall include--
          [(1) a detailed description of the results of the 
        program, as measured by the criteria established for 
        the program; and
          [(2) a discussion of legislation that the 
        Administrator recommends, or changes in regulations 
        that the Administrator considers necessary, to improve 
        overall information resources management in the Federal 
        Government.

[Sec. 11504. Recommended legislation

  [If the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
determines that the results and findings under the pilot 
program under this chapter indicate that legislation is 
necessary or desirable to improve the process for acquisition 
of information technology, the Director shall transmit the 
Director's recommendations for that legislation to Congress.

[Sec. 11505. Rule of construction

  [This chapter does not authorize the appropriation or 
obligation of amounts for the pilot program authorized under 
this chapter.

                [SUBCHAPTER II--SPECIFIC PILOT PROGRAM]

  CHAPTER 115--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Sec.
11501. Federal Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration 
          Center.
11502. Assisted Acquisition Centers of Excellence.

Sec. 11501. Federal Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration 
                    Center

  (a) Establishment and Purposes.--The Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget shall establish a Federal 
Infrastructure and Common Application Collaboration Center 
(hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Collaboration 
Center'') within the Office of Management and Budget in 
accordance with this section. The purposes of the Collaboration 
Center are to serve as a focal point for coordinated program 
management practices and to develop and maintain requirements 
for the acquisition of IT infrastructure and common 
applications commonly used by various Federal agencies.
  (b) Organization of Center.--
          (1) Membership.--The Center shall consist of the 
        following members:
                  (A) An appropriate number, as determined by 
                the CIO Council, but not less than 12, full-
                time program managers or cost specialists, all 
                of whom have appropriate experience in the 
                private or Government sector in managing or 
                overseeing acquisitions of IT infrastructure 
                and common applications.
                  (B) At least 1 full-time detailee from each 
                of the Federal agencies listed in section 
                901(b) of title 31, nominated by the respective 
                agency chief information officer for a detail 
                period of not less than 2 years.
          (2) Working groups.--The Collaboration Center shall 
        have working groups that specialize in IT 
        infrastructure and common applications identified by 
        the CIO Council. Each working group shall be headed by 
        a separate dedicated program manager appointed by the 
        CIO Council.
  (c) Capabilities and Functions of the Collaboration Center.--
For each of the IT infrastructure and common application areas 
identified by the CIO Council, the Collaboration Center shall 
perform the following roles, and any other functions as 
directed by the CIO Council:
          (1) Develop, maintain, and disseminate requirements 
        suitable to establish contracts that will meet the 
        common and general needs of various Federal agencies as 
        determined by the Center. In doing so, the Center shall 
        give maximum consideration to the adoption of 
        commercial standards and industry acquisition best 
        practices, including opportunities for shared services, 
        consideration of total cost of ownership, preference 
        for industry-neutral functional specifications 
        leveraging open industry standards and competition, use 
        of open source software, and use of long-term 
        contracts, as appropriate.
          (2) Develop, maintain, and disseminate reliable cost 
        estimates that are accurate, comprehensive, well-
        documented, and credible.
          (3) Lead the review of significant or troubled IT 
        investments or acquisitions as identified by the CIO 
        Council.
          (4) Provide expert aid to troubled IT investments or 
        acquisitions.
  (d) Guidance.--The Director, in consultation with the Chief 
Information Officers Council, shall issue guidance addressing 
the scope and operation of the Collaboration Center. The 
guidance shall require that the Collaboration Center report to 
the Federal Chief Information Officer or his delegate.
  (e) Report to Congress.--The Director shall annually submit 
to the relevant congressional committees a report detailing the 
organization, staff, and activities of the Collaboration 
Center, including a list of IT infrastructure and common 
applications the Center assisted and an assessment of the 
Center's achievement in promoting efficiency, shared services, 
and elimination of unnecessary Government requirements that are 
contrary to commercial best practices.
  (f) Improvement of the DOD Enterprise Software Initiative and 
GSA Smartbuy Program.--
          (1) In general.--The Collaboration Center, in 
        collaboration with the Office of Federal Procurement 
        Policy, the Department of Defense, and the General 
        Services Administration, shall identify and develop a 
        strategic sourcing initiative to enhance Governmentwide 
        acquisition, shared use, and dissemination of software, 
        as well as compliance with end user license agreements.
          (2) Examination of methods.--In developing the 
        strategic sourcing initiative, the Collaboration Center 
        shall examine the use of realistic and effective demand 
        aggregation models supported by actual agency 
        commitment to use the models, and supplier relationship 
        management practices, to more effectively govern the 
        Government's acquisition of information technology.
          (3) Governmentwide user license agreement.--The 
        Collaboration Center, in coordination with the 
        Department of Defense and the General Services 
        Administration, shall issue guidelines for establishing 
        a Governmentwide contract vehicle that allows for the 
        purchase of a license agreement that is available for 
        use by all executive agencies as one user. To the 
        maximum extent practicable, in establishing the 
        Governmentwide contract vehicle, the Collaboration 
        Center shall pursue direct negotiation and contracting 
        with major software publishers as prime contractors.
  (g) Guidelines for Acquisition of IT Infrastructure and 
Common Applications.--
          (1) Guidelines.--The Collaboration Center shall 
        establish guidelines that, to the maximum extent 
        possible, eliminate inconsistent practices among 
        executive agencies and ensure uniformity and 
        consistency in acquisition processes for IT 
        infrastructure and common applications across the 
        Federal Government.
          (2) Central website.--In preparing the guidelines, 
        the Collaboration Center, in consultation with the 
        Chief Acquisition Officers Council, shall offer 
        executive agencies the option of accessing a central 
        website for best practices, templates, and other 
        relevant information.
  (h) Pricing Transparency.--The Collaboration Center, in 
collaboration with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 
the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the General Services 
Administration, and the Assisted Acquisition Centers of 
Excellence, shall compile a price list and catalogue containing 
current pricing information by vendor for each of its IT 
infrastructure and common applications categories. The price 
catalogue shall contain any price provided by a vendor for the 
same or similar good or service to any executive agency. The 
catalogue shall be developed in a fashion ensuring that it may 
be used for pricing comparisons and pricing analysis using 
standard data formats. The price catalogue shall not be made 
public, but shall be accessible to executive agencies.
  (i) Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund.--
          (1) Establishment and management of fund.--There is a 
        Federal IT Acquisition Management Improvement Fund (in 
        this subsection referred to as the ``Fund''). The 
        Administrator of General Services shall manage the Fund 
        through the Collaboration Center to support the 
        activities of the Collaboration Center carried out 
        pursuant to this section. The Administrator of General 
        Services shall consult with the Director in managing 
        the Fund.
          (2) Credits to Fund.--Five percent of the fees 
        collected by executive agencies under the following 
        contracts shall be credited to the Fund:
                  (A) Governmentwide task and delivery order 
                contracts entered into under sections 4103 and 
                4105 of title 41.
                  (B) Governmentwide contracts for the 
                acquisition of information technology and 
                multiagency acquisition contracts for that 
                technology authorized by section 11314 of this 
                title.
                  (C) Multiple-award schedule contracts entered 
                into by the Administrator of General Services.
          (3) Remittance by head of executive agency.--The head 
        of an executive agency that administers a contract 
        described in paragraph (2) shall remit to the General 
        Services Administration the amount required to be 
        credited to the Fund with respect to the contract at 
        the end of each quarter of the fiscal year.
          (4) Amounts not to be used for other purposes.--The 
        Administrator of General Services, through the Office 
        of Management and Budget, shall ensure that amounts 
        collected under this subsection are not used for a 
        purpose other than the activities of the Collaboration 
        Center carried out pursuant to this section.
          (5) Availability of amounts.--Amounts credited to the 
        Fund remain available to be expended only in the fiscal 
        year for which they are credited and the 4 succeeding 
        fiscal years.
  (j) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' 
        has the meaning provided that term by section 105 of 
        title 5.
          (2) Governmentwide contract vehicle.--The term 
        ``Governmentwide contract vehicle'' means any contract, 
        blanket purchase agreement, or other contractual 
        instrument that allows for an indefinite number of 
        orders to be placed within the contract, agreement, or 
        instrument, and that is established by one executive 
        agency for use by multiple executive agencies to obtain 
        supplies and services.
          (3) Relevant congressional committees.--The term 
        ``relevant congressional committees'' means each of the 
        following:
                  (A) The Committee on Oversight and Government 
                Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of 
                the House of Representatives.
                  (B) The Committee on Homeland Security and 
                Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed 
                Services of the Senate.
  (k) Revision of FAR.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation 
shall be amended to implement this section.

Sec. 11502. Assisted Acquisition Centers of Excellence

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to develop 
specialized assisted acquisition centers of excellence within 
the Federal Government to promote--
          (1) the effective use of best acquisition practices;
          (2) the development of specialized expertise in the 
        acquisition of information technology; and
          (3) Governmentwide sharing of acquisition capability 
        to augment any shortage in the information technology 
        acquisition workforce.
  (b) Designation of AACEs.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this section, and every 3 years 
thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, in consultation with the Chief Acquisition Officers 
Council and the Chief Information Officers Council, shall 
designate, redesignate, or withdraw the designation of 
acquisition centers of excellence within various executive 
agencies to carry out the functions set forth in subsection (c) 
in an area of specialized acquisition expertise as determined 
by the Director. Each such center of excellence shall be known 
as an ``Assisted Acquisition Center of Excellence'' or an 
``AACE''.
  (c) Functions.--The functions of each AACE are as follows:
          (1) Best practices.--To promote, develop, and 
        implement the use of best acquisition practices in the 
        area of specialized acquisition expertise that the AACE 
        is designated to carry out by the Director under 
        subsection (b).
          (2) Assisted acquisitions.--To assist all Government 
        agencies in the expedient and low-cost acquisition of 
        the information technology goods or services covered by 
        such area of specialized acquisition expertise by 
        engaging in repeated and frequent acquisition of 
        similar information technology requirements.
          (3) Development and training of IT acquisition 
        workforce.--To assist in recruiting and training IT 
        acquisition cadres (referred to in section 1704(j) of 
        title 41).
  (d) Criteria.--In designating, redesignating, or withdrawing 
the designation of an AACE, the Director shall consider, at a 
minimum, the following matters:
          (1) The subject matter expertise of the host agency 
        in a specific area of information technology 
        acquisition.
          (2) For acquisitions of IT infrastructure and common 
        applications covered by the Federal Infrastructure and 
        Common Application Collaboration Center established 
        under section 11501 of this title, the ability and 
        willingness to collaborate with the Collaboration 
        Center and adhere to the requirements standards 
        established by the Collaboration Center.
          (3) The ability of an AACE to develop customized 
        requirements documents that meet the needs of executive 
        agencies as well as the current industry standards and 
        commercial best practices.
          (4) The ability of an AACE to consistently award and 
        manage various contracts, task or delivery orders, and 
        other acquisition arrangements in a timely, cost-
        effective, and compliant manner.
          (5) The ability of an AACE to aggregate demands from 
        multiple executive agencies for similar information 
        technology goods or services and fulfill those demands 
        in one acquisition.
          (6) The ability of an AACE to acquire innovative or 
        emerging commercial and noncommercial technologies 
        using various contracting methods, including ways to 
        lower the entry barriers for small businesses with 
        limited Government contracting experiences.
          (7) The ability of an AACE to maximize commercial 
        item acquisition, effectively manage high-risk contract 
        types, increase competition, promote small business 
        participation, and maximize use of available 
        Governmentwide contract vehicles.
          (8) The existence of an in-house cost estimating 
        group with expertise to consistently develop reliable 
        cost estimates that are accurate, comprehensive, well-
        documented, and credible.
          (9) The ability of an AACE to employ best practices 
        and educate requesting agencies, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, regarding critical factors underlying 
        successful major IT acquisitions, including the 
        following factors:
                  (A) Active engagement by program officials 
                with stakeholders.
                  (B) Possession by program staff of the 
                necessary knowledge and skills.
                  (C) Support of the programs by senior 
                department and agency executives.
                  (D) Involvement by end users and stakeholders 
                in the development of requirements.
                  (E) Participation by end users in testing of 
                system functionality prior to formal end user 
                acceptance testing.
                  (F) Stability and consistency of Government 
                and contractor staff.
                  (G) Prioritization of requirements by program 
                staff.
                  (H) Maintenance of regular communication with 
                the prime contractor by program officials.
                  (I) Receipt of sufficient funding by 
                programs.
          (10) The ability of an AACE to run an effective 
        acquisition intern program in collaboration with the 
        Federal Acquisition Institute or the Defense 
        Acquisition University.
          (11) The ability of an AACE to effectively and 
        properly manage fees received for assisted acquisitions 
        pursuant to this section.
  (e) Funds Received by AACEs.--
          (1) Availability.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law or regulation, funds obligated and 
        transferred from an executive agency in a fiscal year 
        to an AACE for the acquisition of goods or services 
        covered by an area of specialized acquisition expertise 
        of an AACE, regardless of whether the requirements are 
        severable or non-severable, shall remain available for 
        awards of contracts by the AACE for the same general 
        requirements for the next 5 fiscal years following the 
        fiscal year in which the funds were transferred.
          (2) Additional transfer authority.--If the AACE to 
        which the funds are transferred under paragraph (1) 
        becomes unable to fulfill the requirements of the 
        executive agency from which the funds were transferred, 
        the funds may be transferred to a different AACE to 
        fulfill such requirements. The funds so transferred 
        shall be used for the same purpose and remain available 
        for the same period of time as applied when transferred 
        to the original AACE.
          (3) Relationship to existing authorities.--This 
        subsection does not limit any existing authorities an 
        AACE may have under its revolving or working capital 
        funds authorities.
  (f) Government Accountability Office Review of AACE.--
          (1) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United 
        States shall review and assess the use and management 
        of fees received by the AACEs pursuant to this section 
        to ensure that an appropriate fee structure is 
        established and enforced to cover activities addressed 
        in this section and that no excess fees are charged or 
        retained.
          (2) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        designation or redesignation of AACES under subsection 
        (b), the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
        relevant congressional committees a report containing 
        the findings and assessment under paragraph (1).
  (g) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Assisted acquisition.--The term ``assisted 
        acquisition'' means a type of interagency acquisition 
        in which the parties enter into an interagency 
        agreement pursuant to which--
                  (A) the servicing agency performs acquisition 
                activities on the requesting agency's behalf, 
                such as awarding, administering, or closing out 
                a contract, task order, delivery order, or 
                blanket purchase agreement; and
                  (B) funding is provided through a franchise 
                fund, the Acquisition Services Fund in section 
                321 of this title, sections 1535 and 1536 of 
                title 31, or other available methods.
          (2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' 
        has the meaning provided that term by section 133 of 
        title 41.
          (3) Relevant congressional committees.--The term 
        ``relevant congressional committees'' has the meaning 
        provided that term by section 11501 of this title.
  (h) Revision of FAR.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation 
shall be amended to implement this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER I--FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities

  (a)(1) * * *
  (2)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the head of 
each agency, other than an agency with a Presidentially 
appointed or designated Chief Information Officer as provided 
in section 11315(a)(1) of title 40, shall designate a Chief 
Information Officer who shall report directly to such agency 
head to carry out the responsibilities of the agency under this 
subchapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)(A) The Chief Information Officer designated under 
paragraph (2) shall head an office responsible for ensuring 
agency compliance with and prompt, efficient, and effective 
implementation of the information policies and information 
resources management responsibilities established under this 
subchapter, including the reduction of information collection 
burdens on the public. The Chief Information Officer and 
employees of such office shall be selected with special 
attention to the professional qualifications required to 
administer the functions described under this subchapter.
          (B) Each agency shall have only one individual with 
        the title and designation of ``Chief Information 
        Officer''. Any bureau, office, or subordinate 
        organization within the agency may designate one 
        individual with the title ``Deputy Chief Information 
        Officer'', ``Associate Chief Information Officer'', or 
        ``Assistant Chief Information Officer''. The head of 
        the agency shall seek the advice of the Chief 
        Information Officer of the agency in designating or 
        appointing any deputy, associate, or assistant chief 
        information officer within the agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 36--MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3603. Chief Information Officers Council

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) The Council is designated the principal interagency 
forum for improving agency practices related to the design, 
acquisition, development, modernization, use, operation, 
sharing, and performance of Federal Government information 
resources.]
  (d) Lead Interagency Forum.--
          (1) In general.--The Council is designated the lead 
        interagency forum for improving agency coordination of 
        practices related to the design, development, 
        modernization, use, operation, sharing, performance, 
        and review of Federal Government information resources 
        investment. As the lead interagency forum, the Council 
        shall develop cross-agency portfolio management 
        practices to allow and encourage the development of 
        cross-agency shared services and shared platforms. The 
        Council shall also issue standards and practices for 
        infrastructure and common information technology 
        applications, including expansion of the Federal 
        Enterprise Architecture process if appropriate. The 
        standards and practices may address broader 
        transparency, common inputs, common outputs, and 
        outcomes achieved. The standards and practices shall be 
        used as a basis for comparing performance across 
        diverse missions and operations in various agencies.
          (2) Report.--Not later than December 1 in each of the 
        6 years following the date of the enactment of this 
        paragraph, the Council shall submit to the relevant 
        congressional committees a report (to be known as the 
        ``CIO Council Report'') summarizing the Council's 
        activities in the preceding fiscal year and containing 
        such recommendations for further congressional action 
        to fulfill its mission as the Council considers 
        appropriate.
          (3) Relevant congressional committees.--For purposes 
        of the report required by paragraph (2), the relevant 
        congressional committees are each of the following:
                  (A) The Committee on Oversight and Government 
                Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of 
                the House of Representatives.
                  (B) The Committee on Homeland Security and 
                Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed 
                Services of the Senate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) The Council shall perform functions that include the 
following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8) Direct the Federal Infrastructure and Common 
        Application Collaboration Center established under 
        section 11501 of title 40.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


TITLE 41, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE I--FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Division B--Office of Federal Procurement Policy

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 17--AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1704. Planning and policy-making for acquisition workforce

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j) Strategic Plan on Information Technology Acquisition 
Cadres.--
          (1) Five-year strategic plan to congress.--Not later 
        than June 1 following the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection, the Director shall submit to the relevant 
        congressional committees a 5-year strategic plan (to be 
        known as the ``IT Acquisition Cadres Strategic Plan'') 
        to develop, strengthen, and solidify information 
        technology acquisition cadres. The plan shall include a 
        timeline for implementation of the plan and 
        identification of individuals responsible for specific 
        elements of the plan during the 5-year period covered 
        by the plan.
          (2) Matters covered.--The plan shall address, at a 
        minimum, the following matters:
                  (A) Current information technology 
                acquisition staffing challenges in Federal 
                agencies, by previous year's information 
                technology acquisition value, and by the 
                Federal Government as a whole.
                  (B) The variety and complexity of information 
                technology acquisitions conducted by each 
                Federal agency covered by the plan, and the 
                specialized information technology acquisition 
                workforce needed to effectively carry out such 
                acquisitions.
                  (C) The development of a sustainable funding 
                model to support efforts to hire, retain, and 
                train an information technology acquisition 
                cadre of appropriate size and skill to 
                effectively carry out the acquisition programs 
                of the Federal agencies covered by the plan, 
                including an examination of interagency funding 
                methods and a discussion of how the model of 
                the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 
                Fund could be applied to civilian agencies.
                  (D) Any strategic human capital planning 
                necessary to hire, retain, and train an 
                information acquisition cadre of appropriate 
                size and skill at each Federal agency covered 
                by the plan.
                  (E) Governmentwide training standards and 
                certification requirements necessary to enhance 
                the mobility and career opportunities of the 
                Federal information technology acquisition 
                cadre within the Federal agencies covered by 
                the plan.
                  (F) New and innovative approaches to 
                workforce development and training, including 
                cross-functional training, rotational 
                development, and assignments both within and 
                outside the Government.
                  (G) Appropriate consideration and alignment 
                with the needs and priorities of the 
                Infrastructure and Common Application 
                Collaboration Center, Assisted Acquisition 
                Centers of Excellence, and acquisition intern 
                programs.
                  (H) Assessment of the current workforce 
                competency and usage trends in evaluation 
                technique to obtain best value, including 
                proper handling of tradeoffs between price and 
                nonprice factors.
                  (I) Assessment of the current workforce 
                competency in designing and aligning 
                performance goals, life cycle costs, and 
                contract incentives.
                  (J) Assessment of the current workforce 
                competency in avoiding brand-name preference 
                and using industry-neutral functional 
                specifications to leverage open industry 
                standards and competition.
                  (K) Use of integrated program teams, 
                including fully dedicated program managers, for 
                each complex information technology investment.
                  (L) Proper assignment of recognition or 
                accountability to the members of an integrated 
                program team for both individual functional 
                goals and overall program success or failure.
                  (M) The development of a technology fellows 
                program that includes provisions for 
                recruiting, for rotation of assignments, and 
                for partnering directly with universities with 
                well-recognized information technology 
                programs.
                  (N) The capability to properly manage other 
                transaction authority (where such authority is 
                granted), including ensuring that the use of 
                the authority is warranted due to unique 
                technical challenges, rapid adoption of 
                innovative or emerging commercial or 
                noncommercial technologies, or other 
                circumstances that cannot readily be satisfied 
                using a contract, grant, or cooperative 
                agreement in accordance with applicable law and 
                the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
                  (O) Any other matters the Director considers 
                appropriate.
          (3) Annual report.--Not later than June 1 in each of 
        the 5 years following the year of submission of the 
        plan required by paragraph (1), the Director shall 
        submit to the relevant congressional committees an 
        annual report outlining the progress made pursuant to 
        the plan.
          (4) Government accountability office review of the 
        plan and annual report.--
                  (A) Not later than 1 year after the 
                submission of the plan required by paragraph 
                (1), the Comptroller General of the United 
                States shall review the plan and submit to the 
                relevant congressional committees a report on 
                the review.
                  (B) Not later than 6 months after the 
                submission of the first, third, and fifth 
                annual report required under paragraph (3), the 
                Comptroller General shall independently assess 
                the findings of the annual report and brief the 
                relevant congressional committees on the 
                Comptroller General's findings and 
                recommendations to ensure the objectives of the 
                plan are accomplished.
          (5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                  (A) The term ``Federal agency'' means each 
                agency listed in section 901(b) of title 31.
                  (B) The term ``relevant congressional 
                committees'' means each of the following:
                          (i) The Committee on Oversight and 
                        Government Reform and the Committee on 
                        Armed Services of the House of 
                        Representatives.
                          (ii) The Committee on Homeland 
                        Security and Governmental Affairs and 
                        the Committee on Armed Services of the 
                        Senate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 33--PLANNING AND SOLICITATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3306. Planning and solicitation requirements

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Additional Information in Solicitation.--This section 
does not prohibit an executive agency from--
          (1) providing additional information in a 
        solicitation, including numeric weights for all 
        evaluation factors and subfactors on a case-by-case 
        basis; [or]
          (2) stating in a solicitation that award will be made 
        to the offeror that meets the solicitation's mandatory 
        requirements at the lowest cost or price[.]; or
          (3) stating in the solicitation that the award will 
        be made using a fixed price technical competition, 
        under which all offerors compete solely on nonprice 
        factors and the fixed award price is pre-announced in 
        the solicitation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *