CIOs Archives

Vivek Kundra, the first-ever federal chief information officer, is leaving his post in August, the Office of Management and Budget announced Thursday.

Kundra will take a fellowship at Harvard University.

In a statement posted on the OMB blog, OMB Director Jacob Lew said:

When President Obama appointed Vivek Kundra as the first U.S. CIO, he said, "Vivek Kundra will bring a depth of experience in the technology arena and a commitment to lowering the cost of government operations to this position. As Chief Information Officer, he will play a key role in making sure our government is running in the most secure, open, and efficient way possible."

When he began at the White House, he brought with him the promise of good ideas and a hard-charging style focused on getting things done, necessary qualities to tackle the difficult issues facing Federal IT - an aging infrastructure with rising operating costs, too many major projects failing to deliver, and increasing vulnerability to outside threats. Two and a half years after joining the Administration, Vivek has delivered on that promise.  He has cracked down on wasteful IT spending, saved $3 billion in taxpayer dollars; moved the government to the cloud; strengthened the cybersecurity posture of the nation while making it more open, transparent, and participatory.  His work has been replicated across the world from 16 countries that have deployed the data.gov model to tap into the ingenuity of their people to multiple countries that have deployed the IT dashboard to save money.

 I want to congratulate him on his move to Harvard in mid-August to serve as a joint fellow at the Kennedy School and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society.  We are planning for a smooth transition, continuing these remarkable gains in changing the way the Federal government manages IT and Vivek's impact on cutting waste and making government work better for the American people will continue to be felt well beyond his departure from Federal service.

The White House is releasing the software code for a website it uses to track the performance of big computing projects, as a way to fix program glitches and share the tool with other government bodies, according to the federal chief information officer.

The so-called IT Dashboard monitors the budget, schedule and functionality of systems under development that cost the federal government about $80 billion annually. But critics and federal auditors say ratings on the site do not always accurately represent the current status of projects.

Still, federal CIO Vivek Kundra says the dashboard has helped reduce IT costs by more than $3 billion and he wants "to tap into the collective talents and ingenuity of the American people, to enhance functionality, improve the code and address existing challenges," according to a post on the White House blog. "Software developers will be able to collaborate, identify errors, develop enhancements and recommend improvements to the dashboard, and find new uses for it that we have not even imagined."

CIOs throughout the nation and the world, such as Maarten Hillenaar of the Netherlands, Kyle Schafer in West Virginia and Jason DeHaan in the City of Chicago, are interested in deploying the accountability software in their respective governments, he writes.

The code underpinning the dashboard is freely available, through a format referred to as open source.

In addition, the Obama administration is publishing instructions on how to conduct "TechStat" sessions, which are in-person meetings Kundra typically holds with agency CIOs to decide what to do with systems at risk of failing.

He writes, "The TechStat toolkit provides a comprehensive guide for organizations to establish their own TechStats to improve line-of-sight between project teams and senior executives, increase the precision of ongoing measurement of IT program health, and boost the quality and timing of interventions to keep projects on track."

White House officials on Wednesday circulated a memo, obtained by Nextgov, that encourages procurement officers to communicate with contractors before finalizing solicitations, in an effort to dispel misperceptions about conflicts of interest.

The idea is that companies know the costs and features of current technology better than the government so potential bidders should be consulted early in the process of drawing up system requirements for contracts.

"Although industry may have had their best technical representatives engaged with the program manager, the contracting officer should communicate to vendors as much information as possible about the government's needs as early as possible," states a copy of the guidance, signed by Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Daniel Gordon. "As a result of early communication, the contracting officer may learn some things that suggest that an approach somewhat different than planned may cause increased competition, more small business participation, lower prices, or even a better definition of the government's technical requirements."

The so-called "myth-busting" campaign is part of a 25-point plan for overhauling the way the government buys $500 billion worth of computer equipment and services annually.

Fears of contract protests or signing unauthorized deals have prevented some acquisition officers from talking to vendors, according to the memo. At the same time, industry may stay away -- out of concern that stepping over boundaries may bar them from future government business.

The document requires agencies by June 30 to develop plans for communicating with contractors. After the plans are reviewed by the White House, they must be made publicly available within a month.

Wednesday's memo takes pains to stress that nothing within the guidelines should be interpreted to "alter, or authorize violations of, applicable ethics rules, procurement integrity requirements, or other statutes or regulations that govern communication and information sharing."

After discussions with company representatives and agency staff, the White House identified the 10 most frequently-mentioned misconceptions about contractor-government fraternization:

1. "We can't meet one-on-one with a potential offeror." Fact: Government officials can generally meet one-on-one with potential offerors as long as no vendor receives preferential treatment.
2. "Since communication with contractors is like communication with registered lobbyists, and since contact with lobbyists must be disclosed, additional communication with contractors will involve a substantial additional disclosure burden, so we should avoid these meetings." Fact: Disclosure is required only in certain circumstances, such as for meetings with registered lobbyists. Many contractors do not fall into this category, and even when disclosure is required, it is normally a minimal burden that should not prevent a useful meeting from taking place.
3. "A protest is something to be avoided at all costs -- even if it means the government limits conversations with industry." Fact: Restricting communication won't prevent a protest, and limiting communication might actually increase the chance of a protest, in addition to depriving the government of potentially useful information.
4. "Conducting discussions or negotiations after receipt of proposals will add too much time to the schedule." Fact: Whether discussions should be conducted is a key decision for contracting officers to make. Avoiding discussions solely because of schedule concerns may be counter-productive, and may cause delays and other problems during contract performance.
5. "If the government meets with vendors, that may cause them to submit an unsolicited proposal and that will delay the procurement process." Fact: Submission of an unsolicited proposal should not affect the schedule. Generally, the unsolicited proposal process is separate from the process for a known agency requirement that can be acquired using competitive methods.
6. "When the government awards a task or delivery order using the Federal Supply Schedules, debriefing the offerors isn't required so it shouldn't be done." Fact: Providing feedback is important, both for offerors and the government, so agencies should generally provide feedback whenever possible.
7. "Industry days and similar events attended by multiple vendors are of low value to industry and the government because industry won't provide useful information in front of competitors, and the government doesn't release new information." Fact: Well-organized industry days, as well as pre-solicitation and pre-proposal conferences, are valuable opportunities for the government and for potential vendors -- both prime contractors and subcontractors, many of whom are small businesses.
8. "The program manager already talked to industry to develop the technical requirements, so the contracting officer doesn't need to do anything else before issuing the RFP." Fact: The technical requirements are only part of the acquisition; getting feedback on terms and conditions, pricing structure, performance metrics, evaluation criteria, and contract administration matters will improve the award and implementation process.
9. "Giving industry only a few days to respond to an RFP is OK since the government has been talking to industry about this procurement for over a year." Fact: Providing only short response times may result in the government receiving fewer proposals and the ones received may not be as well-developed -- which can lead to a flawed contract. This approach signals that the government isn't really interested in competition.
10. "Getting broad participation by many different vendors is too difficult; we're better off dealing with the established companies we know." Fact: The government loses when we limit ourselves to the companies we already work with. Instead, we need to look for opportunities to increase competition and ensure that all vendors, including small businesses, get fair consideration.

White House officials on Friday sent agency chief information officers and senior procurement executives a memo directing them to weigh open source options when buying technology.

Open source refers to technology based on nonproprietary parts, which allow third-party developers to improve and modify the product without having to pay the technology's maker. Advocates have said a move toward open source in the government could save taxpayer dollars and bolster security.

For example, in planning software purchases, "agencies should analyze alternatives that include proprietary, open source and mixed source technologies," states the policy, co-signed by Federal CIO Vivek Kundra, Dan Gordon --- Office of Federal Procurement Policy administrator, and Victoria Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.

The guidance reminds agencies that, according to existing policies, buying decisions should "be free of preconceived preferences based on how the technology is developed, licensed or distributed."

Agency officials "should follow technology neutral principles and practices," which include selecting suitable technology on a case-by-case basis by considering factors such as performance, cost, security, compatibility, ability to share or re-use and availability of quality support, the one-page document states.

Hewlett Packard has nabbed a 10-year NASA megadeal potentially worth $2.5 billion to manage employees' personal computers and peripheral technology, space agency officials announced on Monday.

The job entails providing, securing and servicing most staff computers, agency software, mobile technology services, printers and other supporting infrastructure. Herndon, Va.-based HP Enterprise Services, formerly EDS, will be responsible for outsourcing some of the tasks to other commercial vendors under the contract known as "ACES," for Agency Consolidated End-user Services.

The fixed-price pact covers four base years of work, with two three-year option periods. Program managers will be based at NASA's shared services center in Mississippi.

ACES is part of a larger NASA effort, the IT Infrastructure Integration Program, intended to save money by consolidating procurements and centralizing information technology services. The new HP deal will replace an older long-term contract currently held by Lockheed Martin Corp. called the Outsourced Desktop Initiative (ODIN).

In February, Lockheed, one of the most established NASA business partners, announced the space agency had awarded the company a $230 contract extension for ODIN that ends in Oct. 2011.

The Mississippi facility where ACES will be managed -- operated by NASA, Computer Sciences Corp. and the states of Mississippi and Louisiana -- supports operations at all 10 NASA space centers.

White House officials on Thursday morning released a 25-point implementation plan to execute one of the biggest information technology contracting overhauls since the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act.

The problem the plan aims to tackle: Productivity gains in the private sector have outpaced government performance even though federal agencies spent about $600 billion during the past decade on technology to boost efficiency. The Obama administration's policy roadmap aims to dismantle the old way of installing new technology - which has been to design overly-ambitious systems that fall years behind in development - and create new procedures for quickly and cheaply upgrading machinery.

Here are some of the standouts on the to-do list:

• Reshape or terminate at least one-third of underperforming projects in the government's $80 billion IT portfolio within the next 18 months.
• Shift to a "cloud first" policy, where agencies consider moving to Web-based software and hardware before spending money on new systems. Each agency will identify three must-move services within three months, shift one of those services to the cloud within 12 months and then transition the remaining two within 18 months.
• Within 12 months, establish a tech fellows program modeled after the Presidential Management Fellows program to recruit graduate students with in-demand talents into IT program management.
• By mid-June, launch a website where industry and agency contracting officials can collaborate prior to the issuance of requests for proposals.

More details and commentary later today. . .

During a webcast next Thursday morning, Office of Management and Budget officials will flesh out the Obama administration's recently-announced strategy to update the way agencies acquire and access information technology. The Dec. 9 Forum on IT Management Reform will be held at the White House at 8:30 a.m. and streamed live here, according to an administration official.

Federal Chief Performance Officer Jeffrey Zients and federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra will discuss detailed execution plans for the initiative and take questions from government IT managers and contracting officials, as well as IT vendors.

The thrust of the strategy -- which was unveiled Nov. 19 -- is to expedite the process of upgrading IT systems by moving equipment online to the cloud; matching the technology refresh cycle with the congressional appropriations cycle; cultivating a cadre of professional program managers; encouraging communication between agency managers and the IT community; and holding in-person meetings with senior executives and program managers to review projects.

The Food and Drug Administration may have to bulk up on information technology if the House signs off on surveillance measures in a food safety bill the Senate passed Tuesday.

Three months after enactment of S. 510, FDA would have to create an online search engine that allows people to find helpful information on every recalled food, such as whether the recall is ongoing or completed.

Within two years, FDA's parent agency, the Health and Human Services Department, would have to report to Congress on new IT needed for identifying food contamination risks and collecting data from foreign governments, industry, labs, consumers and other sources, according to the bill. HHS officials also would have to detail their progress on building an electronic system that can flag indicators of health risks from the data gathered.

Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be required to upgrade surveillance machines with better tools for obtaining data on disease exposures; enhancements for matching illnesses with specific foods; and mechanisms for sharing anonymous, aggregated data with the public more quickly.

Lawmakers now will reconcile differences between the House bill, H.R. 2749, approved in July 2009, and the Senate version. The Senate bill, which had been in the works for years, was prompted by several high-profile food scares, including outbreaks of salmonella in tomatoes, spinach tainted with e-coli, contaminated imports from China and the biggest beef recall in U.S. history.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., who spearheaded the legislation, said: "This bill will have a dramatic impact on the way the FDA operates - providing it with more resources for inspection, mandatory recall authority and the technology to trace an outbreak back to its source."

Several House Democrats on Wednesday evening announced they have introduced legislation that would expand the Homeland Security Department's cybersecurity powers, adding to the growing pile of competing bills aimed at protecting the Internet from criminals and foreign enemies.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the outgoing chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, proposed the 2010 Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act, along with co-sponsors Jane Harman, D-Calif., and Yvette D. Clarke, D-N.Y. Unlike S.3480, the 2010 Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in June, the House committee's bill would not create new White House positions or make systemic changes governmentwide.

Instead, the new legislation would fortify DHS' cyber capacity by creating a new cybersecurity compliance division within the department to oversee performance-based standards for .gov websites and separate standards for critical infrastructure networks. Thompson stressed that, since 2003, Homeland Security has been designated a focal point for the security of cyberspace, under a presidential directive, but has lacked the authority to fulfill its mission.

Like other bills, the House measure would require DHS to partner with the private sector on developing tailored security plans for critical networks.

Specifically, the Thompson legislation would authorize DHS to:

• Establish and enforce performance-based standards for agencies.


• Alert the Office of Management and Budget when agencies violate standards.


• Decide which commercial networks should be designated "covered critical infrastructure" and provide a way for private firms to challenge such a designation.


• Develop performance-based standards for private networks determined to be critical and enforce such standards.


• Recommend liability protection for firms that comply with the standards and issue civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation.


• Share and protect relevant threat information with other federal agencies and applicable companies.


• Conduct research and development.


• Develop a strategic cybersecurity workforce plan.


• Hire an additional 500 cybersecurity professionals and grant retention bonuses for personnel that would otherwise leave DHS.

"From a security and good-government standpoint, the way to deliver better cybersecurity is to leverage, modify and enhance existing structures and efforts, rather than make wholesale bureaucratic changes," Thompson said in a statement.

Harman added, "Cyberattacks, whether originated by other countries or sub-national groups, are a grave and growing threat to our government and the private sector. This bill provides new tools to DHS to confront them effectively and make certain that civil liberties are protected." In June, Harman introduced a House version, H.R.5548, of the Senate committee's bill that is still pending in Thompson's committee.

Clarke noted, "This bill will protect our country from a growing risk of 'hacks' and better allow the department to fulfill its duties of protecting our nation."

The New York Times' Bits blog has a Q&A with federal CIO Vivek Kundra today. He doesn't break a lot of new ground, mostly giving his standard rundown on the administration's initiatives in the areas of transparency, cybersecurity, cloud computing, etc.

There's this great exchange near the end, though:

Are you the White House geek?
I think there are a lot of geeks in the White House. I'm definitely not the most geeky.

Kundra also reports that he keeps a brutal work schedule, reporting to the office at 4:30 a.m., and not leaving until 10 at night.