Preventing the Next Obamacare Tech Fail

Firing CGI Federal treats a symptom and does nothing for the problem. So what would a real solution look like?

Rocky rollout: HealthCare.gov.
(C)2012 RICHARD A BLOOM
Sophie Novack and Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sophie Novack Dustin Volz
Jan. 16, 2014, midnight

A head has rolled, but the body re­mains broken.

In ter­min­at­ing CGI Fed­er­al’s role in Health­Care.gov, Pres­id­ent Obama fi­nally “fired” one of the parties re­spons­ible for Obama­care’s faulty web­site. That may ap­pease the chor­us of those call­ing on Obama to hold someone “ac­count­able,” but it does noth­ing to fix the un­der­ly­ing prob­lem: the sys­tem for se­lect­ing private con­tract­ors that picked CGI Fed­er­al in the first place.

“The worst thing we can do is de­clare vic­tory and go home,” said Stan So­lo­way, pres­id­ent and CEO of the Pro­fes­sion­al Ser­vices Coun­cil. “We may or may not have helped Health­Care.gov, but we’ve done noth­ing to fix the sys­tem­ic is­sue.”

IT ex­perts say that pre­vent­ing the next Health­Care.gov would re­quire a top-to-bot­tom over­haul of the way the gov­ern­ment picks and man­ages con­tract­ors, and that won’t be easy. Such re­form would re­quire bi­par­tis­an, bicam­er­al co­ordin­a­tion from a Con­gress that fre­quently fails to pass even the most straight­for­ward bills; and a sig­ni­fic­ant shift in cul­ture that brings gov­ern­ment man­age­ment of IT in line with rap­idly de­vel­op­ing tech­no­logy.

So what would it take to con­nect the best firms with the biggest fed­er­al con­tracts? Ad­voc­ates in the field identi­fy three ma­jor re­forms.

Step 1: Change who calls the shots

Gov­ern­ment needs to cre­ate a cent­ral­ized of­fice for de­velopers and de­sign­ers to test IT and re­spond to prob­lems as they sur­face, said Clay John­son, an IT-re­form cru­sader and former pres­id­en­tial in­nov­a­tion fel­low.

Such a ded­ic­ated team of tech-lit­er­ate people could com­mu­nic­ate with con­tract­ors dir­ectly about a pro­ject’s pro­gress and chal­lenges, help solve them, and, most im­port­antly, coun­sel the gov­ern­ment on which groups should be awar­ded con­tracts in the first place.

“There are plenty of people in­side of gov­ern­ment who know tech­no­logy and are really good with tech­no­logy,” John­son said. “But the prob­lem is that those people don’t have a lot of power on how these pur­chas­ing de­cisions get made.”

Step 2: A more trans­par­ent bid­ding pro­cess

Pro­cure­ment-re­form ad­voc­ates ad­di­tion­ally want to see con­tract­ing of­ficers make bids for IT con­tracts a more open pro­cess, where any­one — large con­sult­ing be­hemoths or in­nov­at­ive start-ups — can ap­ply for the right to do busi­ness. This seems like an easy fix, but the reas­on bid­ding wars are of­ten lim­ited is be­cause of a no-risk en­vir­on­ment for con­tract protests, in which losers can file a pe­ti­tion with the Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice against a win­ning con­tract even if their com­plaints are en­tirely mer­it­less.

John­son fa­vors im­ple­ment­ing “an NFL yel­low-flag rule” that would lim­it the num­ber of protests a po­ten­tial con­tract­or could file in any giv­en year. He also wants to ease the reg­u­lat­ory hurdles a com­pany needs to clear be­fore it can even be con­sidered a gov­ern­ment con­tract­or, as the cur­rent sys­tem in­centiv­izes bur­eau­crat­ic flu­ency over skills and po­ten­tial.

Step 3: Com­pet­it­ive pay for top tal­ent

Pro­cure­ment re­form re­quires bet­ter com­pens­a­tion for con­tract of­ficers, who could eas­ily find much high­er wages work­ing in places like Sil­ic­on Val­ley — where the av­er­age de­veloper hauled in $118,900 in 2012, ac­cord­ing to a study by a Bay Area tech­nic­al-re­cruit­ment firm. That’s tens of thou­sands of dol­lars more than what sim­il­ar jobs in gov­ern­ment can of­fer, ac­cord­ing to data tracked by the Of­fice of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment, Glass­door.com, and oth­ers. Mon­et­ary in­cent­ives for suc­cess­ful pro­jects and in­vest­ments in train­ing work­shops for of­ficers are fre­quently-floated solu­tions.

So what’s stand­ing in the way?

Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans gen­er­ally agree on the need for these kinds of re­forms, and the Health­Care.gov dis­aster ad­ded pres­sure to ac­cel­er­ate le­gis­la­tion that would pre­vent a sim­il­ar tech de­bacle from hap­pen­ing again. Yet a bi­par­tis­an bill that had mo­mentum at the end of last year has once again hit a wall in Con­gress.

The Fed­er­al In­form­a­tion Tech­no­logy Ac­quis­i­tion Re­form Act (FIT­ARA), co­sponsored by Reps. Dar­rell Issa, R-Cal­if., and Ger­ald Con­nolly, D-Va., would ad­dress some, but not all, of the con­cerns raised by pro­cure­ment-re­form agit­at­ors. The bill was passed in the House in June of last year, and was tacked on as an amend­ment to the Sen­ate’s an­nu­al de­fense reau­thor­iz­a­tion bill be­fore be­ing stripped off in Decem­ber. FIT­ARA — which would cre­ate an of­fice to co­ordin­ate IT product ac­quis­i­tion, boost au­thor­ity of the Chief In­form­a­tion Of­ficers Coun­cil, re­strain waste­ful spend­ing on IT ac­quis­i­tions, and re­quire agen­cies to more thor­oughly track and re­port their IT is­sues — is cur­rently lan­guish­ing in the Sen­ate Home­land Se­cur­ity and Gov­ern­ment­al Af­fairs Com­mit­tee.

A ma­jor ele­ment of FIT­ARA in­volves con­sol­id­at­ing au­thor­ity in a cent­ral chief in­form­a­tion of­ficer, which sup­port­ers say would have pre­ven­ted, or at least quelled, the man­age­ment is­sues that plagued the im­ple­ment­a­tion of the Af­ford­able Care Act. “The [Health­Care.gov] rol­lout didn’t have a pro­ject dir­ect­or,” Con­nolly said. “FIT­ARA ad­dresses that and chooses one per­son called CIO with the re­spons­ib­il­ity, ac­count­ab­il­ity, and flex­ib­il­ity of de­cision-mak­ing.”

The re­form meas­ures in­cluded in FIT­ARA have broad sup­port from both parties, both cham­bers, and the pres­id­ent, yet it seems am­bi­val­ence — not op­pos­i­tion — got in the way. Con­nolly said he is still op­tim­ist­ic that the bill will pass in the near fu­ture.

Yet the Sen­ate re­mains stuck, at least for the mo­ment. While the bill has passed eas­ily in the House, Con­nolly pre­dicts it will go through sev­er­al it­er­a­tions in the up­per cham­ber.

Even FIT­ARA’s sup­port­ers say the bill may not ac­com­plish everything, but it’s a start. “Fed­er­al IT re­form is an in­cred­ibly large is­sue,” said Caitlin Car­roll, a spokes­wo­man for Rep. Issa. “There are al­ways more things we could be do­ing; for now it’s a good step in the right dir­ec­tion.”

In the mean­time, there is little reas­on to ex­pect a change in how IT con­tracts are de­term­ined. Due to the tight time frame to build the re­mainder of the on­line sys­tem, the Cen­ters for Medi­care and Medi­caid Ser­vices used an “ex­ped­ited pro­cure­ment pro­cess” in their hir­ing of Ac­cen­ture, in ac­cord­ance with Fed­er­al Ac­quis­i­tion Reg­u­la­tion.

Ac­cord­ing to CMS of­fi­cials, this in­ter­im ap­proach lasts 12 months, and the agency ex­pects to con­duct a “full and open com­pet­it­ive pro­cess” dur­ing that time. The web­site could get a third change in lead­er­ship in its first year and a half.

CMS de­clined to com­ment on how man­age­ment or con­tract­or changes fit in­to the lar­ger goal of fed­er­al IT pro­cure­ment re­form, and it seems the two are largely sep­ar­ate, at least un­til more sus­tain­able changes are made.

“I fo­cus less on the con­tract­or chosen — that’s one is­sue. But the abil­ity of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to man­age whatever con­tract­or it chooses? That’s what’s want­ing,” Con­nolly said. “In­tern­ally, we need re­form. We need to step up our game.”

What We're Following See More »
PASSAGE NOT GUARANTEED
House Freedom Caucus Endorses Obamacare Replacement
36 minutes ago
BREAKING

After more than a month of back and forth, a failed bill, and GOP embarrassment, the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus has announced that it will support the Obamacare replacement legislation in its most recent iteration. Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the caucus, said the roughly 30 members of the caucus view this compromise as the best option short of a full repeal. A recent amendment, authored by Meadows and Rep. Tom McArthur, co-chair of the more moderate Tuesday Group, would allow states to apply for waivers exempting them from provisions forbidding insurers from charging higher prices to those with pre-existing conditions if the state set up a high-risk pool. The plan's passage in the House is not a done deal though, as a number of moderate lawmakers have resisted supporting the amendment.

COULD RATTLE MARKETS
White House Working On Order To Leave NATO
1 hours ago
BREAKING
IRANIANS CAME WITHIN 1,000 METERS
U.S. Navy Vessel Fired Flare at Iranian Boat on Monday
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer fired a warning flare toward an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessel coming near it in the Persian Gulf. The incident happened Monday as the vessel closed to within 1,000 meters of the USS Mahan, "despite the destroyer trying to turn away from it." After attempting to contact the Iranian vessel and sounding its whistle, it deployed the flare. After that, the ship had had enough and turned away.

Source:
ON SANCTUARY CITIES
White House Attacks Judge Who Suspended Executive Order
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick's district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.

MAY BRING CONSERVATIVES ON BOARD, BUT WHAT ABOUT MODERATES?
House GOP Circulates Amendment on Preexisting Conditions
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login