OMB Archives

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."

The White House and Office of Management and Budget's unclassified e-mail systems went down shortly before 8 a.m. Thursday and as of 1 p.m. were still down.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted that Verizon is working to solve the issue.

The White House normally sends out numerous daily e-mails to the media, such as travel pool reports for the president's trip to State College, Pa., today. Pfeiffer said in his tweet that paper copies are available in the White House's press office.

The Washington Post reported that in addition to e-mail problems, some officials experienced trouble using printers as well.

There was no mention of the outages on the White House's official Twitter feed.

By mid-afternoon, service was restored and e-mails began moving again. Just after 4 p.m., Nextgov received an e-mail about the prayer breakfast Obama attended this morning.

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."

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.

The Office of Management and Budget has given agency chief information officers new guidance on installing software to continuously monitor the security of their networks by the end of fiscal 2012, Federal News Radio reported Wednesday.

As part of the administration's annual IT budget passback guidance, which was obtained by FNR, agencies are also instructed to use the CyberScope reporting tool to submit standard data on the health of their IT systems by Sept. 30. Homeland Security is supposed to issue guidance for exporting data to CyberScope later this year.

Continuous monitoring, which requires security evaluations on an ongoing basis in real time or near real time, presents a major challenge for agencies, the report noted. Many agencies now conduct such monitoring only a few times a year.

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.

The White House's deputy chief technology officer, a former Google veteran, will leave his position Thursday to launch two startups, according to news reports.

Politico reported Wednesday that Andrew McLaughlin, who handled Internet policy issues in the White House, will announce his plans to launch one organization that fosters "low-cost, collaborative tech for state and local governments" and another to support new startups in developing countries.

According to Politico, McLaughlin was Google's head of global public policy and served on Obama's transition team before joining the White House.

In April, he was questioned over the legality of his use of Web-based e-mail to communicate with lobbyists at Google and high-ranking officials. Politico reported that it is unclear who will fill McLaughlin's role.

He is not the first Google official to leave the White House. In July, Katie Jacobs Stanton, a Google veteran who worked on new media strategies for Obama's 2008 campaign and served as White House director of citizen participation before joining the State Department to help the department use social media in international diplomacy and aid, left for Twitter, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Some federal agencies have laid good groundwork for the move to the next generation of Internet protocols, but others aren't nearly as far along, according to a report from Government Computer News.

"I really don't think they get it yet," at some agencies, said Peter Tseronis, chairman of the Federal CIO Council's IPv6 task force, according to the report.

IPv6 is the long-anticipated upgrade to the way information is sent across the Internet. Currently, the most widely used communications protocol is IPv4. With IPv6, agencies will have more Internet addresses, better security and increased automation.

By the end of fiscal 2012, agencies are required by the Office of Management and Budget to enable the new protocols on public-facing servers and services. They will then have two years to upgrade internal client applications to operationally use native IPv6, according to GCN.

"They have a clear mandate to meet by 2012," Tseronis said during a meeting of the Association for Federal Information Resource Management, GCN reported. "The onus is on the agencies, the carriers and the service providers to make it happen."

According to the report, the council will brief the White House next month on the readiness of agencies to begin the transition.

The State Department has sent out a memo to all employees in its Consular Affairs-Passport division telling them they can't read leaked confidential documents posted by WikiLeaks on their 'personal time.'

The memo was obtained by Gawker, which published it late Wednesday.

Other agencies have left open the question of whether employees were permitted to browse WikiLeaks on non-work computers. Preventing employees from viewing the classified material while not in a federal workplace could be illegal, Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law with expertise in whistleblower protection and national security, told Nextgov Tuesday.

The State Department memo states: "Although legitimate reasons may exist for certain individuals in their official capacities to review 'Wikileaks documents,' with few exceptions, PPT employees have not been assigned work or projects related to 'Wikileaks documents,' . . . Accordingly, PPT employees shall not access any classified documents . . . during business hours or on their personal time."

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.

The Library of Congress, which recently shutoff access to WikiLeaks on its computers, may be unintentionally undermining the research its analysts perform for lawmakers, classification expert Steven Aftergood, who regularly publishes a government secrecy newsletter, blogged on Monday.

The Congressional Research Service, a branch of the library that scours bills, news and other primary sources to inform lawmakers of pressing issues, "will be unable to access or to cite the leaked materials in their research reports to Congress," wrote Aftergood, who runs the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonpartisan think tank.

Several current and former library employees told him that restricting access to WikiLeaks could degrade CRS analysts' research and may not have a legal basis, he added.

• "It's a difficult situation," said one CRS analyst. "The information was released illegally, and it's not right for government agencies to be aiding and abetting this illegal dissemination. But the information is out there. Presumably, any Library of Congress researcher who wants to access the information that WikiLeaks illegally released will simply use their home computers or cell phones to do so. Will they be able to refer directly to the information in their writings for the library? Apparently not, unless a secondary source, like a newspaper, happens to have already cited it."


• "I don't know that you can make a credible argument that CRS reports are the gold standard of analytical reporting, as is often claimed, when its analysts are denied access to information that historians and public policy types call a treasure trove of data," a former CRS employee said.
• In a press release, LOC explained its actions by citing an Office of Management and Budget memo regarding the obligation that federal agencies and federal employees have to protect classified information. "But LOC is statutorily chartered as the library of the House and the Senate. It is a legislative branch agency. I don't recall either chamber directing the blocking of access to WikiLeaks for/or by its committees, offices, agencies, or members," a different former analyst said.

Aftergood's summation: "If CRS is 'Congress' brain,' then the new access restrictions could mean a partial lobotomy."