<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43197.wais]
A REVIEW OF THE CENSUS BUREAU'S RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR IT
ACQUISITIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,
CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 11, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-197 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky BILL SALI, Idaho
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
Tony Haywood, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 11, 2007................................ 1
Statement of:
Janey, Cheryl L., president of civil programs, Harris Corp.;
Judy Marks, president, Lockheed Martin Transportation and
Security Solutions; and Tom Romeo, Director, Federal
civilian agencies, IBM Global Business Services............ 55
Janey, Cheryl L.......................................... 55
Marks, Judy.............................................. 60
Romeo, Tom............................................... 69
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Bureau of the
Census; David Powner, Director, Information Technology
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; and
Matthew Scire, Director, Strategic Issues, Government
Accountability Office...................................... 6
Kincannon, Charles Louis................................. 6
Powner, David............................................ 13
Scire, Matthew........................................... 42
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 3
Janey, Cheryl L., president of civil programs, Harris Corp.,
prepared statement of...................................... 57
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, prepared statement of.............................. 8
Marks, Judy, president, Lockheed Martin Transportation and
Security Solutions, prepared statement of.................. 62
Powner, David, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 15
Romeo, Tom, Director, Federal civilian agencies, IBM Global
Business Services, prepared statement of................... 71
Scire, Matthew, Director, Strategic Issues, Government
Accountability Office, prepared statement of............... 15
Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 52
A REVIEW OF THE CENSUS BUREAU'S RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR IT
ACQUISITIONS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clay and Turner.
Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean
Gosa, clerk; Adam C. Bordes, professional staff member;
Michelle Mitchell, legislative assistant, Office of Wm. Lacy
Clay; and John Cuaderes, minority senior investigator.
Mr. Clay. The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census,
and National Archives of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will now come to order. Today's hearing will
examine the Census Bureau's planning and management of its key
information technology systems and infrastructure to be used in
the 2010 census. We will hear from the Census Bureau and GAO on
their activity concerning the risk management of agency IT
acquisitions for the upcoming census, as well as
representatives of the key vendors involved with these
projects.
Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member
will have 5 minutes to make opening statements followed by
opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member
who seeks recognition. Without objection, Members and witnesses
may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement for
these materials for the record.
I will begin with my opening statement.
Welcome to today's hearing examining the Census Bureau's
planning and management of key information technology systems
and infrastructure for the 2010 census.
In October of this year, the GAO issued a report entitled,
``Information Technology: Census Bureau Needs to Improve Its
Risk Management of the Decennial Systems.'' The study found
that of the three acquisitions for the 2010 census, two were
not on schedule and that the Bureau plans to delay testing
certain functionality. As a result, GAO offered four
recommendations for addressing the risk management problems
related to IT for the 2010 census.
Last month, the Department of Commerce Inspector General
issued its semiannual report to Congress. During the review of
this technology, the IG observed several problems: the handheld
computer functions frequently froze; the processing of large
address lists was slow; and help desk support for resolving
users' computer problems was inadequate.
The problems cited are urgent and must be addressed
immediately.
Today, we will examine the problems cited and
recommendations offered by GAO and hear from the Census Bureau
and the IT contractors for the 2010 census about their efforts
to effectively and efficiently address the problems identified.
And let me add to that, that this is not a dog and pony
show. We are here for answers, and we want to hear what
direction you will be taking as far as how we make this a
complete and accurate census.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Right now, as is the policy for this committee,
we will swear in all witnesses, and I would ask you to stand
and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Clay. I ask that each of the witnesses give a brief
summary of the testimony and to keep the summary under 5
minutes in duration. Your complete written statements will be
included in the hearing records, and Mr. Kincannon, welcome,
and let us begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF
THE CENSUS; DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND
MATTHEW SCIRE, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to be here this afternoon to discuss the key information
technology systems under development for the reengineered short
form 2010 census. Four major census IT systems illustrate the
extent to which our Nation lies at the heart of our 2010
operations: the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project [MTAIP];
the Decennial Response Integration System [DRIS]; the Field
Data Collection Automation program [FDCA]; and the Data Access
and Dissemination System [DADS]. They are all critical to the
success of the census, and I must say, the timing is critical
to the success of these programs.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize too strongly that we must
have the necessary funding to carry forward these projects to
success. And we must have that funding at the time that we are
going to be able to use it to accomplish our tasks.
As you know, the recent 7-week delay in funding census
programs resulted from the first continuous resolution passed
at the beginning of this fiscal year. This didn't allow a
planned increase in census funding and forced us to delay and
reduce the scope of our dress rehearsal. I want to thank the
committee for its help in making sure that we got the funds
that we needed, at least through Friday, and we will all hope
for things to continue in the same vein.
Over the next 3 years, delays in funding are one of the
biggest risks that the 2010 census faces. Indeed, any
additional delays will put greater risk in the face of the
successful Census Bureau.
Before I talk about what we are doing for 2010, I want to
note that there is nothing new about the Census Bureau
employing and developing new technology to improve the census.
From the use of automatic tabulating machines from the 19th
century to the development of the TIGER data base in the 1980's
and our data capture system in 2000, we have been a pioneer in
development for the use of technology to meet our needs. And
the pattern of countries overseas following our lead in
adopting the same technology has demonstrated that I think we
are leading the way in a number of areas.
From the 2010 census, the use of handheld computers
represents the most fundamental change in census operations in
many years, and they are the key to leveraging technology to
improve the quality of census results and to control the costs.
I want to emphasize to the committee that this is a new
program for us. We have never done anything of this type on
this scale before. Consequently, there are significant risks
which are exacerbated by the strict time line that I mentioned
earlier. It is possible that we will not have enough time to
incorporate all of the functionalities that we have earlier
planned. Adapting in this way is one way that we can reduce
risks and still meet our schedule.
I can report that the FDCA contractor, the Harris Corp.,
has provided a handheld computer that is functioning well in
the initial dress rehearsal address-canvassing operations. The
device has proved to be reliable, secure and user-friendly. We
have successfully collected precise GPS coordinates for housing
units and map features; data has been transmitted effectively
both by LAN lines and by wireless technology. And our field
workers are comfortable with the devices.
As with any operation of this magnitude, the dress
rehearsal is also identifying challenges. This is not
unexpected. In fact, meeting these challenges is a fundamental
step in the development of the 2010 systems and the very reason
we conduct a dress rehearsal.
Looking toward nonresponse followup, in the nonresponse
followup operational test in the dress rehearsal next year, we
will continue to monitor user problems. We will work with the
Harris Corp. to assist handheld computer performance in terms
of the fundamental objectives of the 2010 census.
Our other contracts are on time and on budget. It is
imperative that we test all of the interfaces between FDCA and
our data capture system. After proving the functionality for
nonresponse followup for the handhelds, this is the highest
priority of our dress rehearsal.
We have weathered the storm caused by the first CR, but
just barely; the reason the GAO report on the status of census
IT systems emphasized the need for an end-to-end systems test,
both for systems supplied by contractors and those developed by
the government. Because of the CR and the elimination of most
of the paper-based operation originally planned for the dress
rehearsal, there is an increased risk in the interfaces between
these two sets of systems to mitigate the potential interface
problems. We are considering additional testing in 2009.
Your continued support is vital as we proceed with the
development of the IT systems, and I thank you again for this
opportunity to address these issues with you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Kincannon, for your testimony.
Our next witness will be David Powner. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER
Mr. Powner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on the 2010
decennial census information technology acquisitions. The use
of automation will be critical to the success of the decennial.
The Bureau estimates it will spend about $3 billion on
information technology for the 2010 census. However, these
technologies can present enormous risks and challenges if not
managed effectively.
With me today is Matt Stray, director of GAO Strategic
Issues team, who has been closely monitoring the mobile
computing device performance issues. Mr. Chairman, I would like
to thank you and Ranking Member Turner for your early and
frequent oversight of these acquisitions.
In 2004, we started looking into the Bureau's institutional
IT management capacity for you. We concluded from this review
that there was much room for improvement. In March 2006, we
testified before this subcommittee that neither the integration
sytem nor the field data system collection project offices have
the full set of capabilities needed to effectively manage these
acquisitions.
At that period, we stated that incomplete management
activities, including those that required management, risk
management and contract monitoring, increased the risk that the
acquisitions will encounter problems in meeting costs and
scheduled expectations.
At this subcommittee's request, I will summarize our recent
report on the status of four key acquisitions and discuss
whether the Bureau is adequately managing key acquisition
risks.
In addition to the integration system in the field data
collection system, which includes the mobile computing devices,
there are two other major acquisitions, one to modernize data
bases of addresses in maps and another to tabulate and
disseminate data.
The four acquisitions are showing mixed progress in meeting
their costs and schedule estimates. The data base acquisition
has been on schedule and within budget. The other acquisitions
have been experiencing delays and one has experienced cost
increases. Specifically, the dissemination contract has been
awarded 2 years later than originally planned. The field data
collection system cost estimate has increased several times due
to poor cost estimation and requirements, and we project
additional cost increases.
In addition, both the field data collection system and the
integration systems are deferring functionality to later bills,
which typically results in the increased cost. In addition,
deferring functionality means that the operational testing
scheduled to occur during the dress rehearsal will not include
the full compliment of decennial systems and their
functionality. This raises the significance of systems testing
post dress rehearsal.
Given the relevant test plans were not completed, we
recommended that the Bureau complete such plans, including end-
to-end testing to test the full compliment systems.
Turning toward the management of the decennial
acquisitions, the Bureau has identified mismanagement with its
key acquisitions; for example, acknowledgement, which includes
baselines, increasing requirements and aggressive test
schedules. Despite this, we found three areas that could be
strengthened: identifying risks, establishing mitigation plans
and reporting those risks to key executives.
For example, promoting mobile computer device performance
issues associated with slow and inconsistent data transmissions
had not been identified and tracked by the project office
despite problems arising during the dress rehearsal. Because
these devices are keystone to the reengineered census, it is
essential that the Bureau perform the appropriate oversight of
how the performance compares to what is expected and ensure
that all performance limitations are figuratively addressed.
We made a number of recommendations to the Bureau to
approve the suspension activities, and to its credit, it is
working on a national plan to strengthen these areas.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the IT acquisition plans for the
2010 census will require continuous oversight. Although we are
always seeing moderate cost increases, to date, the delay and
functionality are a great concern because they will result in
additional cost increases.
These delays also elevate the importance of system
integration in testing that will occur post dress rehearsal.
Going forward, it is important that the Bureau closely
monitor the cost schedule and function and delivery of its
acquisitions; effectively manage its key risks associated with
increasing requirements, system interfaces and mobile computing
devices performance problems; and effectively plan and execute
all systems testing, including the tests in the interrelated
systems.
This concludes my statement. Thank you for your leadership
and oversight.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner and Mr. Scire
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Scire.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SCIRE
Mr. Scire. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I believe the statement that Mr. Powner made reflects my
thoughts as well.
I would just add that we believe that continued oversight
is very important at this critical point in time as we approach
nonresponse followup, and look forward to working with the
committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for that. And it is time to get
to the questioning.
Let me start with Mr. Kincannon.
Director, we have seen delays in both the FDCA and DRIS
systems acquisitions that have required the Bureau the
establish later schedules for completing each project.
How is the Bureau managing the risk associated with
delaying key functionality for the 2010 census decennial IT
system acquisition? And how will this impact the activities of
the 2008 dress rehearsal?
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Chairman, the effects on the 2008 dress
rehearsal are mixed with the CR and its effects on the dress
rehearsal. But we believe that the slight delays in work on the
DRIS contract, which is in fact within budget, will not
adversely affect what we are doing here in the dress rehearsal.
We had to make those rearrangements because, although our
lifecycle estimates of the cost for the DRIS contract are still
intact, the opinion and advice of the contractor was that the
spacing by fiscal year was wrong. And we had to make some
adaptations in order to shift funding for certain projects
sooner. And therefore, other projects had to be delayed
somewhat.
The delays both from the CR and other aspects for FDCA do
affect what will be tested in the dress rehearsal. But the key
functionalities will be tested in the dress rehearsal. The
integration system itself and the ability of handheld analysis
to address a canvas has already been tested. The functionality
was demonstrated. The problems were identified. And we will
carry out later this spring the nonresponse followup for the
dress rehearsal using the handheld, and then we will learn more
about that test, I am sure.
But we believe that functionality will go forward as
planned starting in June.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Powner.
Mr. Powner. I think the key is, the functionality is not
being tested going into the dress rehearsal. It needs to be
tested after the dress rehearsal. That has been our point all
along. When you look at the test plans that you would like to
see in place, those currently aren't there. So the Census
Bureau acknowledges those need to be done, and I think Mr.
Kincannon mentioned that there is key 2009 testing that needs
to occur, and it is important that we have a plan and we stick
to that plan with the post dress rehearsal testing.
Mr. Clay. How will the Census Bureau address that, Mr.
Kincannon? Will you have back-up plans?
Mr. Kincannon. We have plans to begin testing in 2009 to
make sure that we cover all of the important functionalities.
It is not a function of the handheld computers, but it was
a function of DADS, which was delayed in being awarded, of not
being able to test that with the dress rehearsal data. But we
do plan to produce the data using the old DAD system, and we
plan to test the new DAD system before 2010 with the data from
the dress rehearsal passing through that system again and with
data from the 2000 census to make sure that functionality is
there.
Mr. Clay. It is my understanding that the Bureau has
engaged with the MITRE Corp. to evaluate the systems under
development through a FDCA contract in order to test the
reliability and effectiveness of the devices under development.
Can you summarize your findings of MITRE's work for us, and
would you also please submit all internal documents regarding
MITRE's evaluation to the subcommittee for our records?
Mr. Kincannon. The work that MITRE has done with us on a
number of activities, not just FDCA but other activities in the
planning for the 2010 census and for current activities of the
Census Bureau, have been very helpful to us. We have not had a
formal evaluation done by MITRE of the FDCA project, but they
have reflected with us on certain activities, and we will be
glad to provide those documents to the subcommittee.
Mr. Clay. And what was their summary of FDCA?
Mr. Kincannon. They have some concerns about the match
between capacity to get the work done and the amount of time
left to get the work done. And we are addressing that, and we
will be continuing to address that both with the Harris Corp.
and with MITRE and with our internal resources.
It may lead, as I have said in my testimony, to determining
that certain functionalities that were planned for the
handhelds might be handled in a different way. And although we
have not decided that, we are researching several areas to see
whether there's a good way to handle those in an alternative
way.
Mr. Clay. Let me ask you this, Dr. Kincannon. Can you tell
us with confidence that there are no inherent risks within the
FDCA program that will require the Bureau to transition into
contingency plans for a paper-based census?
Mr. Kincannon. I don't see any--I don't see any major risk
that we would have to transition into a full backup of a paper-
based census. I doubt that we have the resources to do that at
this time, and I don't believe that it is necessary.
I believe there will be functionalities where we have to
choose different backup.
I'll give you an example. In some hard-to-enumerate areas,
there are, typically in every census, high rise buildings,
private apartments or housing developments that have high
nonresponse rates and require special action on our part.
Optimally, we had planned that we would use the handhelds to do
that special kind of operation which we referred to as a blitz.
Maybe that's an exaggerated term, but it gets people busy.
And, in fact, we have discovered them in the test in Queens
where we were conducting a blitz in such a building with the
same kinds of problems, that there were communications problems
using the electronic devices that we had then.
It is probably more practical in an isolated case like that
to use a back up that is paper-based. You give everybody a
stack of questionnaires. They start at the top of the packet
and work their way down, or maybe go the other way around. And
then you convert those paper forms, as we will for all of the
mail-in forms, by scanning them into the system. That is an
example of the way of--where we may well use a back-up system
that is paper-based but not drop the automation plans now and
try to plan a complete census based on paper.
Mr. Clay. I would like to ask about the DADS two systems
that will not be available for the 2008 dress rehearsal. What
plans are in place to develop and test this system in time for
the 2010 census?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, the DADS system, the contract was
recently just led on DADS to--as we referred to it, we have a
lots of names for things, and they make me dizzy sometimes.
When I am preparing for something like this, I have to ask
repeatedly, now what does DAD mean, and what does, you know, so
forth and so on. But you are experienced with this and not only
at the census.
We will have a system in time for the 2010 census, and we
will have tested its functionality before 2010 by using the
data from the 2008 dress rehearsal and also taking data from
the 2000 census and running that big volume of data through
DADS 2. So I think that is good.
The same company that did DADS 1 won the contract for DADS
2 in a pattern that is all too familiar, and I guess is our
fate, so we are confident that they will be all to produce the
updated system that is necessary because of the aging of
equipment and methods used to do that delivery of data.
Mr. Clay. In order to strengthen risk management activities
for census acquisition, GAO made three recommendations to
improve the process in place. These included an end to system
testing, processes to mitigate risk and including senior Bureau
leadership into decisionmaking activities.
Please discuss your actions to address each of these
recommendations.
Mr. Kincannon. We are committed to end-to-end testing, and
we have said that--what we are not able to test in the dress
rehearsal, we plan to find the resources, find the time to do
this in 2009 so we can be confident of all of those links
between the different paper-based and electronically based
systems and make sure about that functionality.
On risk identification mitigation, we have, as the GAO
observed, a number of provisions in effect and functioning in
different offices, but they had very good suggestions for where
we can strengthen that. I think it is basically true that we
have agreed with their recommendations and are working to
implement them.
The involvement of top management in decisionmaking, there
is pretty heavy involvement in the top management in the Census
Bureau's top three layers of management in decisions about the
operations and the procurement and the planning for the 2010
census. And we would intend to strengthen that and make sure
close attention is paid.
I may have not done every bit of my duty here in my
position because I have been in this very odd position, never
sure whether October or November or December was going to bring
release from my current responsibilities, but I'm going to
assume now that I am going to be doing this for a while and
will be paying close attention.
Mr. Clay. You will be holding a place then.
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. One of the points that really stands out to me
from the GAO assessment is that the risk management plans are
pretty weak. And I want to know, is there any plans in place at
this point to address the points of GAO brought up about risk
management?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, sir. We transmitted to the GAO last
week an action plan that provided information about how we are
addressing that, and we have not heard back, but if they think
we have missed some point, then I am sure we will hear further
from them. And I am sure GAO can provide that to you. We can
provide it.
Mr. Clay. Let me find out from Mr. Powner.
Have you had an opportunity to look at----
Mr. Powner. We have looked. There does appear to be a
commitment, as I mentioned in my oral statement. There is a
commitment to putting national plans in place to more
effectively manage risks, and that includes, clearly, three
things: An acknowledgment of all of the risks. We saw some
gaps. We think those gaps are closing. Having mitigation plans
in place and having the key executives fully engaged in
mitigating those risks going forward, and we have seen a
commitment from the Bureau on that.
Mr. Clay. This committee would be happy to get your
assessment of the plan as well as what was submitted to GAO.
Let me ask also Mr. Kincannon, the Bureau disagreed the
GAO's recommendation with regard to performing end-to-end
testing so that a full compliment of systems is tested in a
census-like environment. In response, you have told GAO that
you plan to test all critical systems and interfaces during the
dress rehearsal and later. GAO tells us, however, the test
plans are not complete.
When will they be completed? And doesn't a decrease in the
number of dress rehearsal operations increase the need for end-
to-end systems testing between the dress rehearsal and the 2010
decennial?
Mr. Kincannon. Our disagreement was--we weren't disagreeing
with the principle, and we asserted we would be doing the end-
to-end testing in the dress rehearsal. Our commitment was based
on the approval of the President's budget for the fiscal year,
before the CR in other words. It was not desirable to eliminate
some of the paper-based functionalities in it from the dress
rehearsal test because it denied us the opportunity for an end-
to-end test in realistic census-like conditions. We cannot
recreate fully those census-like conditions, but we can
assemble those components and test them in 2009 in the event of
a hot house kind of way to make sure the functionality is
there. We are committed to try to do that.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Powner, any response?
Mr. Powner. I think it is fair to say, since our report was
issued and we went back and forth on that issue, that the
Bureau is clearly more committed to testing. That is our
perspective on that, and I think a hearing such as this has
helped with the situation here.
Mr. Clay. OK.
Mr. Kincannon, in 2005, GAO recommended that the Bureau
define specific measurable requirements for the mobile
computing devices and that they test the device's ability to
meet those requirements in 2006.
Again, in 2006, GAO recommended that the Bureau obtain
validation and approval of baseline requirements for the FDCA
project. Have requirements been developed? If not, then why
not?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, we now, from the address canvas, have
some baseline data about the performance capabilities of the
handhelds in field use. And we have discovered some problems
and are dealing with those problems, but we do have a base of
data about key aspects of their performance from which we can
begin to develop standards that will define not only what we
expect from the Harris Corp.'s devices but for what the
productivity of individual and enumerators will be.
And we agree with the GAO with whether we have to use the
information derived from that activity as the basis for moving
forward with practical, realistic goals, performance goals and
measures so that we can set standards and then measure
performances against those standards.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Powner, any response? Or Mr. Scire.
Mr. Scire. We have learned a little bit more about what the
Bureau is doing in the area of measurement, and I think that we
described it is that they have taken some first steps. We have
learned that the Bureau wasn't even measuring average
processing times, as an example. But as you know, an average
disguises a lot so we would expect they could go beyond that,
look at the distribution processing times, establish
performance metrics that are expressed in terms of the percent
of instances in which the handheld computers are meeting
expectations.
So, for example, you might have a performance metric which
would say 95 percent of the time the handhelds are transmitting
information within 12 seconds. That is just an example. I don't
know that should be the exact number.
But we would expect that the Bureau would then move in that
direction and develop performance measures which are much more
specific than simple averages. And that is a measurement of
times. There are obviously other areas of performance of the
handheld devices that you would also expect to develop
performance measures that they could then use to hold Harris
accountable for the work that they are doing.
Mr. Clay. Any response to what Mr. Scire has said?
Mr. Kincannon. Executive branch agencies complain about
GAO, and they are always nagging about this thing or the other.
But GAO has been quite helpful in this case in pointing out
reasonable things that we need to do that will help make for a
better census. And I think we are going to profit from that.
Mr. Clay. Let me ask Mr. Scire or Mr. Powner. Please
describe for us the major flaws inherent in the Bureau's risk
management strategies for the decennial IT acquisition. Are the
flaws based upon lacking or ill-defined system requirements
during the design phase, or are there other contract management
issues that contribute to the problem?
Mr. Powner. Clearly, if you look at their risk management
activities, some of the things you mentioned there,
requirements, management and contract oversight, those are a
couple of key risks and that is nothing new. That is something
that we have been reporting and you have been asking questions
for several years now on.
When you look at their risk management activities, again,
what we saw was first of all, certain risks were clearly being
made as part of their formal risk management program. For
example, system interfaces between the systems, that seemed to
fall between the cracks, having the appropriate mitigation
plans in place, and also we were looking for key evidence that
the executives were engaged in mitigation of those risks.
So those were the key areas where they were lacking.
Mr. Clay. And you think they have begun to address them?
Mr. Powner. Yes. I mentioned the action plan that they sent
over to us just recently. That is a good start in the right
direction to more appropriately manage these risks, but going
forward, there is a lot of work because some of these are going
to be around for a while. Especially when you start looking at
the requirements, creating the remaining testing and pushing a
lot out into the later bill to try to get more development
testing done in the later phases, and that is difficult given
the moveable deadline.
Mr. Clay. GAO reported that the FDCA cost estimate has
increased by more than $50 million and that additional cost
increases are expected. What are two reasons for the increase,
and are the cost increases correlated with deficiencies in the
designs or incomplete definitions of system requirements and in
the contracts agreed to with the vendors?
Mr. Powner. If you look at the cost increases to date, Mr.
Chairman, clearly incomplete requirements and growing
requirements is one reason why we see increase in costs.
Another key reason was a poor estimate to begin with.
Mr. Clay. So are you saying the Census Bureau did not
exactly know what they were purchasing?
Mr. Powner. I think they knew what they were purchasing,
but when you have incomplete requirement definition up front--
and the Census Bureau isn't alone in this. We see this commonly
throughout the Federal Government where you have incomplete or
not a complete cost estimate to begin with. I mean, we had a
contract that we increased contract costs twice already. We
actually have a technique where we look at burn rates and
project overruns. We project additional ones going forward, and
I think, with growing requirements, we will expect more
increases.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Powner, for the viewing public, break that
down into I guess household terms. If we were purchasing
something for a household, give me an example of what went
wrong here with the $50 million overrun. How would we----
Mr. Powner. Clearly, if you look at the reasons for the
overrun, it was increasing requirements and, of course, cost
estimates. So if you were building a house, you would have
aspects of your house, you know, in terms of square footage,
you know, the features you have learned in your kitchen and
those types of things; you would define those features going
forward. That is what you would expect in a border. So it is no
different from a system.
With your system requirements, you would want to see
specificity in terms of exactly what you want so that the
contractor can then carry out that plan.
As you start adding requirements to a system, it is the
same thing as when you start adding systems to your home. If
you want something more in the kitchen and want additional
square footage or this feature or that feature, you are going
to start seeing the cost go up, and that is exactly what is
happening with that system.
Mr. Clay. So if we wanted marble countertops, that would
add a little bit more to it.
All right. Thank you for that explanation.
Let me also ask you, GAO recommended that the Bureau
perform end-to-end testing on its system. Why is this so
important, and what are your concerns in the Bureau's plans in
this area? Are the Bureau's reasons for resisting this idea
reasonable?
Mr. Powner. Today we are hearing that there is a
receptivity to the end testing, which is a good thing.
The important item here is, because not everything will be
tested during the dress rehearsal as originally planned, the
inter relationships of these many systems, and there are many--
we talked about four major acquisitions today. There are legacy
systems, and there are a lot of interfaces here that need to
work. So it is important that we have the appropriate
integration testing and testing to make sure that not only the
individual pieces work, but they work as a whole.
What we did not see was the test plans in place to make
sure that this happens. There is a commitment to do the end-to-
end testing now, we are hearing, in 2009. And that is a good
thing. But that will also require continued oversight to make
sure those test plans are complete and that they are vigorously
executed.
Mr. Scire. If I can add to that, the importance I think is
that sort of testing be done under census-like conditions. As
Mr. Kincannon was saying, that is where you are going to see
the limitations of the systems. And for the nonresponse
followup to the dress rehearsal, there's a critical interface
here that needs to be tested then. It is not something that it
could be tested later, and that is the interface between FDCA
and DRIS, and how that works with late returns.
One of the arguments for introducing the handheld was a
cost savings that would accrue by doing this late mail return.
That gives you that capacity. So that is something where that
interface would be important to be tested during the dress
rehearsal rather than later.
Mr. Clay. So those are some of the areas that this
subcommittee should continue to have oversight over.
Mr. Scire. Absolutely.
Mr. Clay. And leading up to the 2010.
So any other areas we need to possibly exercise oversight
and really pay attention to?
Mr. Powner. I think if you look at the testing going
forward, that is a key one. In monitoring the cost and
scheduling performance of these major acquisitions, clearly you
want to do that and then also to--the performance and
resolution of the issues with the mobile computing devices,
that would be a third.
Mr. Scire. If I could add to that, as far as looking at the
computing device. I think it is true that we still don't know
the magnitude of the performance issues that we and the IG and
the census itself observed during the address-canvassing dress
rehearsal. So I think it is something that deserves continuing
oversight.
Mr. Clay. And in your opinion, the top three acquisition
risks facing the Bureau between now and the 2010 census?
Mr. Powner. I would say the increasing requirements,
managing the many interfaces and the remaining testing.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Kincannon, anything else to add?
Mr. Kincannon. I had a long dry spell there, Mr. Chairman.
But I have two or three.
Mr. Clay. We will always give you the opportunity to
respond.
Mr. Kincannon. It is true that we think also just about the
most important thing, well, the functionalities of the handheld
in the dress rehearsal will be tested, and that very important
one of how we deal with late rural returns is a big money
saver. In the test censuses in 2006, up to 14 percent of the
receipts were late mail receipts, and that translates into a
lot of savings if we get that information immediately
transmitted back to the handhelds in the field so we don't send
people to knock on those doors.
In the old system with paper, we were never able to catch
up so we would have to knock on those doors again, those being
irritated a second time, and we have a second piece of paper
and sent it in and then it had to be duplicated. So that is
very important, but we are planning to test that in the dress
rehearsal. We endeavored in making our modifications to the
dress rehearsal, as we deleted or constrained things under the
DRIS--under the CR, we tried to preserve the most important
things that we really have to have good knowledge about the
functionality. We would have liked to have had it all, but we
couldn't have it all.
We have mistakes and errors that we have made, but some of
them would have been avoided if we hadn't gotten--by the CR.
Let me also say that, of these four contracts, three are
essentially on schedule. We have made some schedule
modifications and within budget, but one of them is only just
beginning. So that is not a fair test, but all three of those
have, as a characteristic, they are things that we have done
before with contractors. And so those have worked very well
because we had experience with them.
The problem with the FDCA was it was something that we have
not done before, and we did not do a good job of understanding
what the cost should be.
And so we did have to make a change both in the overall
cost and in the timing by fiscal year of funding this meeting.
I think that is a distinguishing characteristic.
The GAO report has some very handy little charts, sort of
like the consumer reports chart. You know you are going to buy
a car. They are the same thing. A little empty circle means you
are not doing it right, and a full circle means you are doing
it right. And I think you file consistently the processing
order, so that No. 1 is intake and so forth. Winding up with
four being DADS. They have been very logical. The intake really
looks like the worst of it. It has the most half circles and a
couple of completely empty circles, and yet it is on time and
within budget. And that is not because we shouldn't be excused
of doing these things, but it is because we understood the
process and exercised good control even without following some
of the proper procedures. But that makes it very important that
we follow the proper procedures on FDCA.
Mr. Clay. And you know, Mr. Director, you have with your
tenure here in Washington, with your service at the Bureau and
with, I guess we would put it as your tentative stay at the
top, and we will get a successor for you; you have been through
this before. You know you cannot count on a CR that--we don't
know if you get a CR, you get an appropriations bill, and you
understand the work of Washington, and that is why it is so
important that we get this right. And yes, there will be a
dress rehearsal in 2008 but you don't get a dress rehearsal in
2010, and we need to get it right. And I know you are aware of
that, and under your stewardship, just keep us on track for
2010 census.
Mr. Kincannon. I will do my best, sir, thank you.
Mr. Clay. I know you will.
And with that, I will dismiss this panel and call up the
second panel. Thank you all for your statements and testimony.
On our second panel, we have a highly distinguished group
of individuals who are highly qualified to address the issues
associated with the four major IT acquisitions underway for the
upcoming decennial census.
And beginning to my left is Ms. Cheryl L. Janey, who is the
president of the civil programs business unit of the Government
Communications System Division of Harris Corp. There she
overseas the development and production of advanced
communication systems for agencies of the U.S. Government and
their prime contractors.
And welcome, Ms. Janey.
Ms. Judy F. Marks, is president of Lockheed Martin
Transportation and Security Solutions, A division of the
Lockheed Martin Corp. In this role, she manages three lines of
business which focus on advanced mission, critical information
technology solutions, including Census Data Capture and
Communications Netware Infrastructure Program.
Thank you for being here, too.
And Mr. Tom Romeo serves as the director of Federal
civilian agencies for IBM Global Business System Services. In
this role, he is responsible for all IBM services, business
relationships and contracts throughout the Federal, Civilian
agency community, including the Department of Commerce and
Census Bureau.
And I welcome you all together.
And it is the policy of the subcommittee to swear in all
witnesses before they testify. I ask you to stand and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I will ask each witness to now give an oral summary of his
or her testimony and keep it under 5 minutes in duration. Bear
in mind that your complete written statement will be included
in the hearing record.
And without objection, I would like to submit the opening
statement of my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Turner of
Ohio.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. And we will now begin with Ms. Janey.
You may begin.
STATEMENTS OF CHERYL L. JANEY, PRESIDENT OF CIVIL PROGRAMS,
HARRIS CORP.; JUDY MARKS, PRESIDENT, LOCKHEED MARTIN
TRANSPORTATION AND SECURITY SOLUTIONS; AND TOM ROMEO, DIRECTOR,
FEDERAL CIVILIAN AGENCIES, IBM GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES
STATEMENT OF CHERYL L. JANEY
Ms. Janey. Congressman Clay, my name is Cheryl Janey, and I
am the president of the civil business division for Harris
Corp. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the role
of Harris in supporting the Census Bureau in the 2010
decennial.
The Field Data Collection Automation [FDCA], program was
awarded to Harris in April 2006. Since the contract was
awarded, we formed a team of highly skilled professionals
focused on successfully supporting the 2010 census. We are
delighted with the progress to date and are proceeding at an
aggressive pace.
The FDCA program provides the automation support for the
Bureau to collect quality data in an efficient and cost-
effective manner for the 2010 census. This includes the
hardware, applications and infrastructure necessary to support
field activities.
We interact daily with the Bureau to manage the technical
schedule and cost risks of the program. Rigorous testing has
been conducted and will continue throughout the FDCA program.
The handheld device marks the first time enumerators will
use electronic means to collect and record data. This is a
historic milestone for the Bureau and one which must be met
with careful planning and testing to ensure the data remains
secure, the process efficient, and ultimately that the
decennial is accurate and complete.
In spring 2007, Harris delivered a secure, robust and
reliable system as part of the dress rehearsal address-
canvassing field operation. During address canvassing, we
successfully deployed nearly 1,400 intuitive handheld devices
developed by Harris. Key FDCA supported infrastructure were
deployed, including the Network Operations Center, Security
Operation Center, Data Processing Centers, and a help desk.
Overall, the testing and the handheld reliability exhibited
during the spring DRAC field operations was encouraging.
Valuable information was gathered through the process, which
was the purpose of this early field evaluation.
When necessary, Harris utilized secure over-the-air
software upgrade procedures to correct defects and maintain
operational effectiveness. Some challenges surfaced, including
issues with transmission speed and synchronization, but this is
understandable at this phase of a program of this size and
complexity. Harris developed temporary fixes to the problems
encountered and is actively working toward permanent resolution
in time for the planned operational tests.
Using the systems engineering approach, we established a
lessons learned review board. This board prioritizes and
reviews corrective action plans, including the testing process.
Once fixes are made and tested, they are integrated into the
system and the system test is run to ensure they work to
accomplish the desired results. We have followed this process
with critical improvements to transition, speed and
synchronization time, among others, ensuring they perform as
designed in the upcoming operational tests.
The security of the collected data has been a paramount
concern to the Bureau and also of Harris. Multiple overlapping
layers of security have been embedded in design and deployment
of the handheld devices. We have created security systems to
protect Title 13 and other sensitive data during collection and
transmission and at any point throughout the process.
The Bureau recently commissioned an independent assessment
of the security measures. This assessment validated the
technical and procedure designs and risk mitigations that we
have incorporated into the program to safeguard data.
Given the unbending census date of April 1, 2010, we have
limited time to incorporate any changes required as a result of
field integration and field testing. The recent period of
reduced funding during the first Continuing Resolution did have
some impact on timing and the scope of the planned NRFU dress
rehearsal. Harris is actively working with the Bureau
developing a revised testing approach for NRFU and all
remaining operations that will meet both the financial and
timing limitations of the Bureau.
We have confidence in the capability and performance of the
infrastructure and are moving carefully and thoughtfully
through the planning process to ensure reliability is not
compromised and integrity is maintained.
Harris Corp. will continue to support the Bureau in
managing risks and will contribute in any way to make sure the
2010 decennial will provide the most accurate, complete and
secure count of our Nation's population.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today. I look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Janey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much.
Ms. Marks, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JUDY MARKS
Ms. Marks. Thank you, Chairman Clay.
My name is Judy Marks. I am president of Lockheed Martin
Transportation and Security Solutions. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to this community. I am pleased to share
the progress we are making on the Decennial Response
Integration System [DRIS], program for the 2010 census. Today I
will describe what the Lockheed Martin team has done and is
doing to keep the DRIS program pivotal to the success of 2010
on track.
First, I want to reassure this committee that we understand
how important the census is to our Nation. The constitutional
mandate is a weighty responsibility. Certainly one such as the
census merits special respect and consideration for the results
touch every one of us in this room, indeed touch every
individual American.
To this end, I am pleased to report that, to date, 100
percent of the DRIS program deliverables have been made on time
and in full compliance with the requirements. Together,
Lockheed Martin and the Census Bureau are on schedule and
within budget for this core system.
Our team supported the census in conducting the 2000
census, the most accurate in our Nation's history, and we have
effectively applied lessons learned from our 2000 experience.
Lockheed Martin's leadership program began in 2005 following a
competitive proposal process. The responsibilities of the DRIS
program include designing, building, testing, deploying,
implementing, operating maintaining, and securing the systems,
infrastructure, staffing, procedures and all of the facilities
needed to successfully carry out the 2010 census.
Through these activities, we provide assistance to the
public through the telephone. We will receive, capture and
standardize census data provided to telephone agents or through
census forms, and we will receive standardized data collected
by the handheld computers.
Following the conclusion of the census activity, we will
also dispose of the systems and infrastructure associated with
the census, and finally, we will decommission the 2010
facilities and staff.
Lockheed Martin has remained within the original Census
Bureau total lifecycle funding in addressing DRIS requirements,
and we remain committed to delivering DRIS solutions within the
planned lifecycle funding and on schedule.
Our role is distinctly separate from two other components
of 2010 census represented on this panel, the FDCA program by
the Harris Corp. and the Data Access in Dissemination Program
led, too, by IBM.
I would like to now touch on some of the highlights of the
DRIS program to date.
First, we have completed system development for the
upcoming dress rehearsal system and are now in the midst of
system integration test efforts. This system has been deployed
and is currently being tested and certified at the national
processing center in Indiana.
And all of these activities prepare our team for the dress
rehearsal in May 2008 where we will test the solution and
identify areas that still require refinement prior to 2010. We
have already demonstrated multiple functions of the 2008 dress
rehearsal system to the Census Bureau and to other
stakeholders, thereby continuing to reduce risk to this test.
In the time that remains before 2010, Lockheed Martin and the
Census Bureau will focus on the following: We will continue to
implement a comprehensive system test approach which will drive
performance, which will enhance quality and which will reduce
risk. We're actively engaging in services of small businesses
that can add value in the DRIS program.
Currently, our small business participation objective is 30
percent of our contract value, and I'm proud to say we're on
target to surpass this objective. We're continuing our proven
record of earned value management, scheduling management and
risk management on the program to ensure that DRIS remains
fully compliant as it is today and we'll continue to operate as
an integrated highly cooperative government industry team from
which we all benefit. The census is absolutely critical to
every American citizen.
The data the Bureau collects during the process helps
foster our democratic process. In order to achieve the success,
the Census Bureau must rely on support from an array of people,
processes and technology. The DRIS program will use information
technology and automation to accurately securely and
efficiently count this Nation's population. We are
accomplishing this by advancing a strong foundation we've built
in partnership with the Bureau, a collaborative team structure,
proven risk reduction and program management practices, focus
on inclusion of small businesses, and we continue to deliver
the right capability on time and within budget. At Lockheed
Martin, we are committed to serving the U.S. Census Bureau with
excellence and partnership to carry out this critical
congressional mandate in 2010.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions on this
statement and my written testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Ms. Marks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Mr. Romeo, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF TOM ROMEO
Mr. Romeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Tom Romeo.
I'm the director of Federal services for IBM's Global Services
Business in the public sector. I'm here today to talk about
IBM's role in supporting the Census Bureau for the 2010 U.S.
census, especially focussing on those concerns identified in
the GAO report on October 2007. IBM has a long history of
working with the Census Bureau. The first automated census of
1890 was the inspiration for the birth of the Hollerith card,
the foundation of modern computing, which remained in use
through the 1970's. Herman Hollerith's company was one of the
founding companies of the IBM Corp. In more recent times, IBM
supported the 2000 census as the prime contractor for the first
Data Access and Dissemination System [DADS] contract, providing
both data tabulation and Internet data dissemination.
In 2005, IBM was proud to be part of the winning Lockheed
Martin team on the 2010 Decennial Response and Integration
System [DRIS]. Our role in that contract was to provide the
systems supporting both the telephony and Internet data
collection channels for the 2010 census. In September of this
year we were awarded the DADS II contract, and will again be
providing data tabulation and Internet data dissemination
services for the 2010 census and for other Census Bureau
surveys.
The October GAO report identified various concerns
regarding the schedule and status of the programs with which we
are involved. And we would like to comment briefly on these.
With respect to the DADS II contract, although an earlier award
would have allowed us to begin development sooner, we do not
believe the delay is a significant risk to the timely
tabulation of the 2010 census data. We should point out that
the original DADS contract was awarded in April 1997, only a
few months earlier in the decade than the new DADS II contract.
At that time there were no existing tabulation or
dissemination systems, so the risks were arguably higher than
it is today. In addition, the proposed replacement tabulation
system is built on the same technology and architecture as the
original tabulation system, so the upgrades required to make it
ready for the 2010 census are not as significant as was
required to build the original system for the 2000 census.
Using the current tabulation system to support the 2008 dress
rehearsal, although not ideal, is a completely workable and
low-risk approach to meeting current schedule constraints.
With respect to data dissemination, our system development
schedule is built around the launch of the new system in early
2011, and we believe the schedule will give us sufficient time
to achieve our objectives. The GAO report also mentioned that
the DRIS Telephone Questionnaire Assistance capability, that is
the inbound calling functions, will not be developed in time to
support the 2008 dress rehearsal. The funding constraints from
fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008 described in the GAO
report did require the exclusion of some telephone system
functionality.
However, most of the functionality selected for exclusion
from the 2008 system was part of the 2000 census, and was
therefore a lower risk for later deployment. The dress
rehearsal telephony system focused instead on outbound calling
functions that were not implemented for the 2000 census. We do
support additional possibly end-to-end system testing in 2009
that includes the full set of telephony features, which is what
the Census Bureau currently plans.
In closing, we would like to express both our commitment to
seeing the Census Bureau through a successful 2010 census and
our appreciation for the Census Bureau's work today. In our
long history of working with the Census Bureau, we have been
thoroughly impressed by their professionalism and dedication of
both their employees and leaders and by their focus on
continuous improvement in technology innovation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Romeo. And thank you all
for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Romeo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Let me start with Ms. Janey.
Significant concerns have been raised that Harris is
scheduled for deliverables, such as software and hardware, may
not meet the Bureau's schedules for deliverables under FDCA.
Can you assure us that your schedules are in concert with the
Bureau's deadlines and needs?
Ms. Janey. I can, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the
Bureau on a literally daily basis as well as with the GAO to
ensure that our delivery schedule matches the means needs of
the Bureau.
Mr. Clay. OK. Let me ask a question similar to what I asked
Mr. Kincannon earlier. Can you describe for us the role Harris
played in the FDCA evaluation conducted by MITRE Corp? What
types of information or data did Harris provide to MITRE for
the evaluation? Can you summarize the findings of MITRE and its
characterization of Harris's work under the FDCA contract? And
can you state with confidence that there are no interests--
inherent risk within the FDCA program that will require the
Bureau to transition into contingency plans for a paper-based
census?
Ms. Janey. Well, I will start with the end of that first.
Any time a new system is implemented, it's a challenge and
there are risks to it. That's why Harris, in conjunction with
the Bureau and the varying oversight agencies that are working
with the Bureau, are focusing so keenly on ensuring that we are
sticking to a plan and sticking to a schedule. I can't speak
specifically about the findings that MITRE gave. I think I
would direct you to the Bureau or to MITRE themselves. Harris
regularly provides significant amounts of data both at the raw
data summary level and everything in between. We did coming out
of the dress rehearsal where there were some synchronization
challenges and timeframes, and have since provided updated
information back again to the Bureau and to GAO. So I can't
speak specifically for the MITRE summary, but I can tell you
that Harris has provided any information that's requested and--
--
Mr. Clay. Has MITRE responded back to you all--to Harris
with a summary?
Ms. Janey. No. I think MITRE was working with the Bureau.
Mr. Clay. I see. OK. Thank you for that response. Let me go
to Ms. Marks. Apparently, Ms. Marks, the DRIS project has
already experienced one scheduling delay and has been altered
to operate at a reduced level of functionality. Can you explain
why this is? And was it solely due to inadequate system
requirements, definitions from the Bureau?
Ms. Marks. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that opportunity to
answer. The challenge that DRIS ran into when we were
competitively selected in 2005 is the Bureau had done their
best to identify all of the program requirements that they
could that they knew at the time. For example, there are
multiple forms used in the census.
For the purpose of running a competitive procurement, the
Bureau selected one representative form to have both ourselves
and the competition bid. It turns out today there are 62 unique
forms and they continue to be defined as we go into 2010. All
of those forms will be tested on a paper basis at the dress
rehearsal. So it's those kind of additional finite definition
that happen as you continue to go through the decade and as you
get closer to the census that are to be expected.
So we are staying within the life cycle limit. We have
stayed within that funding profile and we do look forward to a
successful 2010 census because of that.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response, Ms. Marks, because
of the delays in DRIS, the Bureau will not have a telephone
questionnaire assistance system in place for the dress
rehearsal. Normally they would have these data capture centers
complete by the end. How will you seek to mitigate future
system vulnerabilities that arise between the dress rehearsal
and the actual 2010 decennial census?
Ms. Marks. Well, Mr. Chairman, as we were defining what
would go into the dress rehearsal with obviously some of the
changes that were occurring, we prioritized functions in the
following manner: If we had a function that worked--and we are
very proud to have been the 2000 census provider--if there was
a function that worked, like the telephone questionnaire, we
prioritized that to be tested at a later date. What we wanted
to test early were the functions that had never been in use
before. The most important function being the interface face
with FDCA. We are testing all of the primary interfaces with
FDCA at the 2008 dress rehearsal, and we believe that is the
most critical risk item to retire between ourselves, the Harris
Corp., and the Bureau. All of the other functions, they are not
going to be in dress rehearsal in 2008. We have proposed,
again, within that life cycle funding to the Census Bureau to
do it in 2009, including the telephone questionnaire.
Mr. Clay. And you are pretty comfortable with the telephone
questionnaire?
Ms. Marks. We are. It worked successfully in the past.
Mr. Clay. Let me go to Mr. Romeo. And thank you for your
response. How will the late development of DADS II affect your
ability to ensure that the system will be adequately integrated
and tested in time for the decennial? What challenges do you
foresee that what may require further scheduling delays or cost
overruns? And can you describe for us how you plan to test the
full functionality of DADS II while it is in development?
Mr. Romeo. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the award was
a little bit later than we had hoped. So we didn't get started
as soon as we had hoped. But the testing today--the plan for
the testing is to use the existing DADS system for the dress
rehearsal test and then to retest with the newly developed
system. The data in the DADS system is the data collected by
DRIS passed to the Census Bureau cleanse and then passed to
DADS for analysis and presentation to the public. And because
of that schedule, it is a later requirement in the system. The
interfaces between DRIS and the DADS system are very similar to
the interfaces that we implemented for the 2000 census, and
they are fairly limited. There's two interfaces. So we're very
confident that the test, using the existing system, will give
us a great head start and the later test with the new system
will be adequate to ensure the functionality.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Let me ask a panel-wide question.
We'll start with Ms. Janey and just move down the line.
Because the Bureau has delayed its schedule for FDCA, DRIS
and DADS II contract as well as delayed functionality of key
system activities beyond the dress rehearsal, there are
increased risks associated with system integration and
interoperability among all four acquisitions. Can each of you
please describe for us how you are mitigating the risk
associated with system compatibility and interoperability prior
to April 2010, and has the Bureau effectively managed its
enterprise architecture development activities to ensure its
systems are fully interoperable and they're integrated? I'll
start with you, Ms. Janey and see if you can tackle that.
Ms. Janey. Well, I liken it to a relay, Chairman Clay. Each
individual runner in a relay can operate at his personal best,
but that relay team won't win unless the handoffs are
efficient. I think the same can be true of the criticality of
the interfaces between DRIS and FDCA particularly in this
census. I'm happy to tell you that Harris is working with the
Bureau, with Lockheed Martin to ensure that we test and
rigorously test those interfaces as they developed. Is there as
much time as we'd want? No. But I don't think there is ever as
much time as we want. We are developing rigorous testing plans
at the Bureau's direction and in cooperation with the Bureau,
with Lockheed Martin and with all of the contractors involved
to ensure that we've tested it adequately far before the 2010
census.
Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you for that. Ms. Marks.
Ms. Marks. Mr. Chairman, the DRIS system accepts data from
three sources. We either receive the paper forms, we receive
inputs via the telephone VRE call centers or we receive them
electronically from the FDCA system. And then as Mr. Romeo
shared, some of that data after we submit all of this data to
the Census Bureau, they are the only people who cleanse it and
then several of--some of that data then goes to the DADS
system.
So we have the ability to accept data in any one of three
manners as a secure manner and we test each of those
rigorously. We have already started testing prior to dress
rehearsal some files coming to from FDCA to get basically an
advanced start on testing some of the interfaces. Again, all of
those primary interfaces will be tested in 2008, and we always
have the ability to continue in 2009 in the end-to-end test
that Director Kincannon spoke of this morning.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that. Mr. Romeo.
Mr. Romeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the DADS system,
because of the similarities to the receipt of data from the
2000 system from the Census Bureau and that we will receive in
the 2010 census, we're very confident that the testing will be
adequate to ensure that the system is fully functional.
Mr. Clay. What is the current earned value management data
allowing regarding shelving, regarding constant schedule
performance for the key acquisitions? Specifically, are you on
schedule to deliver on your schedule estimate, Ms. Janey?
Ms. Janey. As was discussed earlier, requirements have
continued to evolve with the FDCA system and we are
experiencing a--less than a 10 percent overrun on the project
to date.
Mr. Clay. Has the Bureau adequately defined specific
requirements for the major system acquisitions that you are
associated with? Has it been clear what they're purchasing?
Ms. Janey. As Director Kincannon stated earlier, this is
the first time a handheld has been used. It's involving a
different part of the Bureau, in the field operations. So not
surprisingly, there is some evolution to the requirements. That
was not unexpected, but it's continued to go. What I'm pleased
to tell you is that the Bureau is actively working to get to a
point in the very near future where we lock down the
requirements so that the requirements are set and we are then
moving forward to the date that we are constantly reminded of.
Mr. Clay. I know that the Harris Corp. has had several
government contracts, I guess, in its history. And this is
taxpayers' money. So I mean, it's not open-ended. And it ought
to be guarded and we should be good stewards of it, all of us.
Ms. Janey. Absolutely, Chairman Clay. We have--75 percent
of Harris money goes to the government in one shape or form.
Mr. Clay. All right. How about Ms. Marks, your earned value
management data, what is it showing?
Ms. Marks. Our earned value management data shows us on
cost and on schedule within the life cycle budget for the DRIS
program, and the Census Bureau has completed all requirements
definition and they are firm.
Mr. Clay. And that goes back to your history with the
Bureau in, I guess, the 2000 census?
Ms. Marks. I think the fact that we have personnel who have
worked together, the fact that we have people who are skilled
in the census domain practice and the fact that those are the
people assigned to this project along with a wonderful team of
subcontractors who are small and large businesses who all
participated in the 2000 census helps us reduce risk and stay
on schedule.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Mr. Romeo.
Mr. Romeo. We also are on budget and on schedule.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
If anyone else has anything to add?
Ms. Marks. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. If not, let me thank you, thank the panel for
their indulgence today. And that ends the testimony of this
panel. And without objection, the committee is adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>