June 10, 2015 It has been over four months since I was appointed the U.S. Chief Information Officer (CIO). In that time I have come to appreciate both the complexity of Federal information technology (IT) as well as the unprecedented opportunity of technology to accelerate the quality and timeliness of services delivered to the American people…
Read more at Whitehouse.gov…
What is OMB planning to do to make sure agencies successfully and completely implement these requirements? OMB will work with agencies to ensure that they are meeting the Common Baseline in Section A of the memorandum through existing oversight methods including PortfolioStat. In addition, our memorandum states that agencies will post their plans to meet the Common Baseline publicly, helping to enable Congressional and public oversight.
Would this memorandum make it more difficult for mission programs to select software and solutions that meet their needs? This memorandum would require agencies to ensure that their CIO and other management officials have a common baseline of roles and responsibilities. For some agencies, these responsibilities may include greater involvement of the CIO in planning and execution decisions regarding IT used by programs or components outside of the Office of the CIO. Each agency should establish appropriate processes that work in its environment to meet the Common Baseline of roles and responsibilities. In the memorandum, a key part of the CIO’s role is to be a partner in supporting programs’ efficient and effective accomplishment of their missions through the use of IT. To succeed in this, it is critical that CIOs understand the program environments that are supported by IT resources. This includes greater involvement with program governance boards and planning processes, as well as greater program inclusion of the CIO in acquisition and requirements planning—as described in the Common Baseline. At its core, this memorandum seeks to achieve greater agency CIO accountability for the agency’s use of IT resources through increased collaboration and communication between the CIO and the full scope of agency programs and units.
The CIO shouldn’t be in charge of how programs manage their resources; instead, the program leadership should maintain this control. How is that reflected in this memorandum? Through TechStat sessions, PortfolioStat sessions, and CyberStat sessions, OMB has seen agencies struggle with successful implementation of IT projects that lack close coordination between the program leaders and the CIO. Strengthening these relationships and strengthening the collaboration between program leadership and the CIO’s organization is a major objective of this memorandum.
Won’t this make today’s CIOs a bottleneck and damage agencies’ ability to deliver their programs? Through extensive outreach and collaboration, we believe we have developed a memorandum that is applicable to all agencies in a way that gives them flexibility to implement the law’s requirements and does not create unnecessary bottlenecks. This was an initial primary concern of many CIOs and agency executives. In response, we created the CIO assignment plan to allow the CIO to assign, in a rules-based manner, certain responsibilities to other people in their department. This keeps the accountability with the CIO but allows each agency to realistically meet the law’s requirements while minimizing the chance for bottlenecks.
The new processes described in the common baseline are either redundant with existing agency processes or not aligned with how certain processes function today. How should agencies implement these in their existing structures? In some cases and in some agencies, the roles and responsibilities identified in the Common Baseline may be implemented through existing practices, as long as those practices completely deliver the requirements described in the Common Baseline. However, in other instances, agency practices may need to be revised or strengthened, and agencies may need to establish new practices.
Can the CIO overrule an agency head such as a Secretary on decisions about IT? CIOs, like other senior management officials, work within the organizational structures of their agencies. This guidance emphasizes the role and responsibilities of the CIO and other management officials in that context.
Why does the memorandum include requirements not described in the FITARA law? Other legislation, primarily the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and the E-Government Act of 2002, require the Director of OMB to issue management guidance for information technology and electronic government activities across the government. Moreover, while the FITARA law contains some specific requirements, it also contains more general requirements that require interpretation for successful FITARA implementation.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide implementation guidance for the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)1 and related information technology (IT) management practices.
FITARA was enacted on December 19, 2014. FITARA outlines specific requirements related to:
To implement the requirements of FITARA, combined with the need to update policy and guidance related to other modern IT practices, OMB is publishing this guidance. This guidance reflects input from a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO), Assistant Secretary for Management (ASAM), Chief Operating Officer (COO), and CIO communities.
The objectives of the requirements outlined in this memorandum are to:
Many of the requirements of this memorandum refer to the agency CIO’s involvement with the decision processes and policies related to “information technology resources” throughout the agency, including IT within programs. To establish a consistent governmentwide interpretation of the Federal resources included in this scope, the following definition shall be used for “information technology resources.”
“Information technology resources” includes all:
A. Agency budgetary resources, personnel, equipment, facilities, or services that are primarily used in the management, operation, acquisition, disposition, and transformation, or other activity related to the lifecycle of information technology;
B. Acquisitions or interagency agreements that include information technology and the services or equipment provided by such acquisitions or interagency agreements; but
C. Does not include grants to third parties which establish or support information technology not operated directly by the Federal Government.
This definition and this memorandum refer to the term “information technology,” which for the purposes of this memorandum is defined as:
A. Any services or equipment, or interconnected system(s) or subsystem(s) of equipment, that are used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the agency; where
B. such services or equipment are ‘used by an agency’ if used by the agency directly or if used by a contractor under a contract with the agency that requires either use of the services or equipment or requires use of the services or equipment to a significant extent in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.
C. The term “information technology” includes computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including provisioned services such as cloud computing and support services that support any point of the lifecycle of the equipment or service), and related resources.
D. The term “information technology” does not include any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract that does not require use of the equipment.
This definition is based on the definition of information technology found in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.6 Additional definitions used in this memorandum are available in Attachment A.
To establish consistency across IT management and acquisition policies, OMB Circular A-130, OMB Circular A-11, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will be updated to reflect these definitions of “information technology resources” and “information technology,” as appropriate.
The “Common Baseline” (Attachment A) provides guidance on the CIO’s and other Senior Agency Officials’ roles and responsibilities for the management of IT. This Common Baseline provides a framework for agencies to implement the specific authorities that FITARA provides for CFO Act agency CIOs, and builds upon their responsibilities as outlined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.7 The Common Baseline also speaks to the roles and responsibilities of other Senior Agency Officials, as it is critical that these officials in each covered agency are engaged in the oversight of IT investments.
All covered agencies shall institute policies and procedures that implement the roles, responsibilities, and requirements found in the Common Baseline. The Common Baseline provides agencies with certain flexibility to adopt procedures that meet these requirements in a manner tailored to the volume and type of work completed by the agencies. As explained further in Attachment A, agencies may adopt a plan that provides for the CIO’s direct involvement or a framework approved by the CIO that contains clear rules on the procedures by which decisions are made and articulates that the CIO remains responsible and accountable for those decisions (referred to as the “CIO Assignment Plan” in Attachment A). Further detail is provided in the “CIO Assignment Plan” section found in Attachment A.
Each agency shall take the following actions to implement the Common Baseline:
– Complete agency self-assessment and plan. Each covered agency shall conduct a self-assessment that identifies current conformity with or gaps in conformity with the Common Baseline, and shall articulate an implementation plan describing the changes it will make to ensure that all Common Baseline responsibilities described in Attachment A are implemented by December 31, 2015. This shall include a discussion of how agency senior leaders and program leaders will work in partnership to facilitate the successful implementation of the Common Baseline and how the agency CIO will be enabled as a strategic partner integrated in shaping Agency strategies, budgets, and operations. The deputy secretary or chief operating officer or higher is responsible for the completion of the self-assessment and plan documents. This self-assessment and implementation plan shall not exceed 25 pages and shall include the template in Attachment C or another template approved by OMB.
– Submit to OMB for acceptance of self-assessment and implementation plan. Covered agencies shall submit this self-assessment and this implementation plan for review and approval to OMB’s Office of E-Government & Information Technology (E-Gov) as well as to the agency’s relevant OMB Resource Management Office no later than August 15, 2015. To fulfill this requirement, the agency deputy secretary or chief operating officer or higher is responsible for submitting these documents by email to egov@omb.eop.gov with the subject line: “[Agency Abbreviation] FITARA Common Baseline Implementation Plan.” OMB may request additional information from agencies before the self-assessment and implementation plan are approved. Agencies shall post the “implementation plan” portion of this document (posting the “self-assessment” is optional but encouraged) on their public website at agency.gov/digitalstrategy, and include it as a downloadable dataset in their Public Data Listing,8 no more than 30 days following OMB acceptance and thereafter keep the public document up to date with access to a history of previous versions.
– Support ongoing oversight of implementation plan and Common Baseline. Covered agencies shall follow OMB guidance from PortfolioStat sessions and other oversight activities regarding the ongoing implementation of the Common Baseline. Agencies shall notify OMB of any obstacles or incomplete implementation of the Common Baseline on an ongoing basis following the initial implementation deadline. OMB may request agencies to revise or update agency self-assessments or implementation plans during implementation as more information becomes available about the agency’s management processes.
– Conduct annual review and update to self-assessment. Covered agencies shall update the self-assessment annually to identify any obstacles or incomplete implementation of Common Baseline responsibilities that occurred over the preceding 12 months. The first update will be due April 30, 2016, and each April 30 on an annual basis thereafter.
– Federal CIO Council (the Council) shall develop and share on-going support and tools. Through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Council will dedicate time in its meetings to discuss current topics related to the implementation of the Common Baseline at least once every quarter. The Council should consult with the CFO Council in the development of materials to support changes related to the Common Baseline across management domains. The Council will also assist agencies in implementing the Common Baseline by sharing examples of agency governance processes and IT policies on a public website at https://management.cio.gov.
– Support President’s Management Council (PMC) follow-up. By June 30, 2015, the PMC will select three members from the Council to provide an update on governmentwide implementation of FITARA on a quarterly basis through the end of FY2016. These updates will improve each agency’s awareness of policies and processes which have worked well at other agencies.
– Standardized cost savings metrics and performance indicators. As a part of the IDC reporting requirements, agencies shall continue to provide cost savings and cost avoidance achieved as a result of strategies that the agency has decided to adopt. Based on this information, agencies will be provided a summary scorecard that provides agency-specific performance metric data and portfolio analysis agenda items.
– Sharing with the public and Congress. As required by the Consolidated Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 and (P.L. 113-235),10 OMB will continue to report quarterly to Congress on the cost savings, avoidance, and reductions in duplicative IT investments resulting from the above agency efforts. OMB will also provide a summary of these savings by agency on a publicly accessible website. Agency reporting requirements for these topics are included in the IDC instructions.
– Monthly reporting. Covered agencies shall continue to provide updates of risks, performance metrics, project, and activity data for major IT investments to the ITDB as soon as the data becomes available, or at least once each calendar month.
– Data improvement program. If OMB or the agency CIO determines data reported to the ITDB is not timely and reliable, the CIO (in consultation with the agency head) must notify OMB through the IDC and establish within 30 days of this determination an improvement program to address the deficiencies. The CIO will collaborate with OMB to develop a plan that includes root cause analysis, timeline to resolve, and lessons learned. In addition, the CIO will communicate to OMB the steps the agency is taking to execute the data improvement program and the progress the agency is making. Agencies will provide updates on the status of this program on a quarterly basis as a part of their IDC submission until the identified deficiency is resolved.
– TechStat Sessions. A TechStat is a face-to-face, evidence-based accountability review of an IT program with agency leadership.12 TechStat sessions are a tool for getting ahead of critical problems in an investment, turning around underperforming investments, or terminating investments if appropriate. For all agency-led TechStat reviews of investments, the agency shall contact egov@omb.eop.gov with the subject line, “[Agency Acronym] TechStat Notification,” at least two weeks ahead of the TechStat session. Agencies shall follow the agency’s TechStat policy and procedures based on the CIO.gov TechStat Toolkit when managing TechStat sessions. Agencies shall report the outcomes and outputs of all TechStat sessions through the quarterly IDC, including: the assessment described in Attachment E: Investment and Portfolio Management Maturity Framework, a root cause analysis of performance issues, corrective action plans which address these causes, and a timeline for implementing the corrective actions. More detailed reporting guidance will be provided in the quarterly IDC instructions.
– High risk rating. Given the size and complexity of the multi-billion dollar Federal IT Portfolio, it is critical to maintain a focus on the health of IT investments across the government. As required by CPIC guidance, the CIO evaluations reported to the ITDB for all major IT investments must reflect the CIO’s assessment of the current level of risk for any major investment’s ability to accomplish its goals based on factors described in the CPIC guidance.
– Automatic TechStats. Moreover, if an investment has a high risk rating (red CIO evaluation in the ITDB) for three consecutive months beginning July 1, 2015, agencies must hold a TechStat session on that investment. The session must be held within 30 days of the completion of the third month. If this investment remains categorized with a red CIO evaluation one year following the TechStat session then OMB may take appropriate performance and/or budgetary actions until the agency has addressed the root cause and ensured the investment’s ability to complete the remaining activities within planned cost and schedule.
During these sessions, agencies will:16
Agencies must report the status of PortfolioStat action items in the IDC at least quarterly. Annually by April 30, agency heads shall review and certify the status of PortfolioStat action items with the agency CIO and send to OMB.
OMB will focus on the metrics highlighted in PortfolioStat materials, data submitted through the quarterly IDC process, and agency IT Major Business Case information developed through the CPIC process to assess agency PortfolioStat progress. Complete FY 2015 PortfolioStat guidance is included in Attachment D.
OMB FDCCI Guidance,17 which was issued in March 2012, outlined the goals, responsibilities, and reporting requirements for agencies through the end of FY 2015. Covered agencies shall continue to provide updates regarding phase one of FDCCI in their quarterly IDC submissions. OMB will publish updated FDCCI guidance by the end of FY 2015, which will describe the second phase of the initiative and will refresh and refocus the data center optimization strategy on the efficient and effective use of resources and implementation of the statutory requirements of FITARA.
IT Acquisition Cadres. FITARA’s requirements for IT acquisition cadres builds upon OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) July 2011 memorandum on building specialized IT acquisition cadres.18 As originally required by the memorandum, Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies – FY 2010 – 201419 of October 27, 2009, civilian CFO Act agencies shall continue to send their annual Acquisition Human Capital Plans to OMB OFPP. The latest iteration of those Plans was due April 15, 2015. Additional guidance from OMB issued in February 2015 requires agencies to address new reporting elements required by FITARA. Details regarding these new reporting elements are found in Attachment F.
Category Management and the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI).20 Agencies will be required to comply with an upcoming new rule regarding purchases of services and supplies of types offered under an FSSI agreement without using an FSSI agreement. In February 2015, the FAR Council initiated rulemaking to implement this provision of FITARA, which creates a preference for strategically sourced vehicles. Once finalized, agencies will be required to include in the contract file a brief analysis of the comparative value, including price and non-price factors, between the services and supplies offered under the FSSI and services and supplies offered under the source or sources used for the purchase. This rule will be in addition to other strategies that OFPP is developing around category management, a practice adopted by industry where spending is managed by categories of common spending, like IT and Transportation, and led by experts who promote governmentwide best practices and help agencies avoid unnecessary duplicative spending and activities. OMB formally launched the Category Management initiative21 in December 2014.
Governmentwide Software Purchasing Program. The General Services Administration (GSA), in collaboration with OMB, shall create, and allow agencies access to, governmentwide enterprise software licenses through new awards as part of category management. These awards shall, at a minimum, allow for the purchase of a license agreement that is available for use by all Executive agencies.22
All covered agencies shall adopt specific controls for the management of IT from the “Common Baseline” below. The Common Baseline prescribes a basic set of specific responsibilities and processes that all covered agencies shall have in place no later than December 31, 2015. A set of definitions follows the Common Baseline to further clarify the specific responsibilities.
Throughout the Common Baseline:
The DOD, the Intelligence Community, and portions of other agencies that operate systems related to national security are subject to only certain portions of FITARA and shall meet with OMB no later than 60 days following the final release of this guidance to clarify the applicability of this guidance throughout their organizations and activities, including alternative requirements or exceptions.
It is critical that the agency CIO retain accountability for the roles and responsibilities identified in the Common Baseline. As agency environments vary considerably, CIOs may find that decisions about some IT resources included in the Common Baseline may be more appropriately executed by other agency officials, such as a bureau CIO or even parts of program or procurement communities. This must be done in a way to allow the agency CIO to retain accountability.
For the responsibilities other than those detailed in D1 and M1 of the above chart (budget approval and bureau CIO appointment), the CIO may designate other agency officials to act as a representative of the CIO in aspects of the above processes in a rules-based manner, such as by a dollar threshold, type of planned IT activity, or by bureau. This designation shall be developed in consultation with the CFO, CAO, CHCO, and other Senior Agency Officials, as appropriate. Even if a representative is substituted for the CIO, the CIO retains accountability for the assigned role or responsibility and thus must ensure the overall suitability of selected officials. Because the selected official represents the CIO, CIOs should monitor the ongoing suitability of this designation and revise as appropriate. This allows the CIO to define a rules-based manner to select representatives such members of the CIO’s office, or a bureau CIO, to represent the CIO for portions of the Common Baseline responsibilities described above (such as for contract review of purchases of less than a certain dollar threshold).
Agencies which plan to use such a rules-based method must describe it in a “CIO Assignment Plan” (Plan) and submit it for OMB approval as detailed in Section B above. Plans must show evidence that the CIO retains accountability for the designated alternative agency officials’ involvement and decisions and that the appropriate level of rigor shall be executed by this official in place of the CIO. The agency shall post the Plan publicly at agency.gov/digitalstrategy and include it as a downloadable dataset in the agency’s Public Data Listing not more than 30 days following the Plan’s approval by OMB.
Related statutory language from FITARA:
Agency CIO - The Chief Information Officer at the headquarters level of a department or establishment of the government as defined in Section 20 of OMB Circular A-11 (contrast with ‘bureau CIO’).
Bureau CIO - Official with the title or role of Chief Information Officer within a principal subordinate organizational unit of the agency, as defined in Section 20 of OMB Circular A-11, or any component organization of the agency (contrast with ‘agency CIO’).
Major IT Investment - An IT investment requiring special management attention because of its importance to the mission or function to the government; significant program or policy implications; high executive visibility; high development, operating, or maintenance costs; unusual funding mechanism; or definition as major by the agency’s capital planning and investment control process. Agencies should also include all “major automated information system” as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2445 and all “major acquisitions” as defined in the OMB Circular A-11 Capital Programming Guide consisting of information resources. OMB may work with the agency to declare IT investments as major IT investments. Agencies must consult with assigned OMB desk officers and resource management offices (RMOs) regarding which investments are considered “major.” Investments not considered “major” are “non-major.”
Reprogramming - Any movement of funds for IT resources that requires Congressional notification.
Adequate Incremental Development - For development of software or services, planned and actual delivery of new or modified technical functionality to users occurs at least every six months.
Information Technology - As described in Section A above:
A. Any services or equipment, or interconnected system(s) or subsystem(s) of equipment, that are used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the agency; where
B. such services or equipment are ‘used by an agency’ if used by the agency directly or if used by a contractor under a contract with the agency that requires either use of the services or equipment or requires use of the services or equipment to a significant extent in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.
C. The term “information technology” includes computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including provisioned services such as cloud computing and support services that support any point of the lifecycle of the equipment or service), and related resources.
D. The term “information technology” does not include any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract that does not require use of the equipment.
IT Resources - As described in Section A above: All agency budgetary resources, personnel, equipment, facilities, or services that are primarily used in the management, operation, acquisition, disposition, and transformation, or other activity related to the lifecycle of information technology; acquisitions or interagency agreements that include information technology and the services or equipment provided by such acquisitions or interagency agreements but does not include grants to third parties which establish or support information technology not operated directly by the Federal Government.
“Shadow IT” or “Hidden IT” - Refers to spending on IT that is not fully transparent to the agency CIO and/or IT resources included as a portion of a program that is not primarily of an “information technology” purpose but delivers IT capabilities or contains IT resources. For example, a grants program that contains a portion of its spending on equipment, systems, or services that provide IT capabilities for administering or delivering the grants.
Contract - A mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services (including construction) and the buyer to pay for them. It includes all types of commitments that obligate the Government to an expenditure of appropriated funds and that, except as otherwise authorized, are in writing. In addition to bilateral instruments, contracts include (but are not limited to) awards and notices of awards; job orders or task letters issued under basic ordering agreements; letter contracts; orders, such as purchase orders, under which the contract becomes effective by written acceptance or performance; and bilateral contract modifications. Contracts do not include grants and cooperative agreements covered by 31 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq. For discussion of various types of contracts, see Part 16. – FAR definitions
OMB will issue revised IDC reporting instructions that describe how agencies shall submit their self-assessment and plan using the below template or another template approved by OMB. Each element of the Common Baseline will be evaluated, along with accompanying evidence and steps to close the incompletely addressed areas.
This Attachment describes changes to the PortfolioStat process used in FY 2015, including reporting requirements for agencies. This attachment also describes the goals and topics which agencies and OMB will address through the FY2015 PortfolioStat process.
PortfolioStat 25 was established in FY 2012 to assess the maturity of Federal IT portfolio management, consolidate and eliminate duplicative spending on Commodity IT,26 and improve agency processes to drive mission and customer-focused IT solutions. PortfolioStat is an evidence-based, data-driven review of agency IT portfolio management with agency leadership that continues to drive significant cost savings and efficiencies. To date, agencies have saved over $2.59 billion,27 exceeding the $2.5 billion in savings opportunities identified in the original FY 2012 PortfolioStat sessions.
Each year this process has evolved to better align Federal IT policy goals to agency IT portfolios. As part of this evolution, starting in FY 2015 we have changed PortfolioStat from being an annual review session to quarterly reviews. OMB now collects agency progress data on a quarterly basis28 and as such has an obligation to provide timely performance feedback throughout the year. Sharing this feedback quarterly will better allow OMB to track progress and recommend course corrections more frequently.
In alignment with the Administration’s core IT objectives, PortfolioStat sessions will focus on three key areas: (1) driving value in Federal IT investments, (2) delivering world-class digital services, and (3) protecting Federal IT assets and information. Prior to each quarterly PortfolioStat session, agencies will be provided a scorecard including agency-specific performance metric data (see Fiscal Year 2015 PortfolioStat Performance Metrics below for specific metrics) and portfolio analysis agenda items.
– PortfolioStat Action Items. Agencies will discuss the status of each PortfolioStat action item reported through the IDC with OMB.
– High Impact Programs. Agencies will use Attachment E: Investment and Portfolio Management Maturity Framework to describe the strategy, progress, critical milestones, risk, and expected impact of investments included in High Impact Programs. OMB will continue to work with agencies to designate investments included in High Impact Programs.
– Agency Digital Service Teams and United States Digital Service (USDS). OMB will review the agency’s progress in laying the organizational groundwork and establishing Digital Service Teams, the agency’s plan for effectively leveraging those resources, and the status of the performance of USDS activities.
– Commodity IT. Agencies will discuss how they use category management29 to consolidate commodity IT assets, eliminate duplication between assets, and improve procurement and management of hardware, software, network, and telecom services. Furthermore, agencies will share lessons-learned related to commodity IT procurement policies and efforts to establish enterprise-wide inventories of related information.
– IT Management Roles and Responsibilities. Agencies will discuss the status of their plans to implement the Common Baseline (Attachment A) and monitor the effectiveness of the CIO’s execution of the included roles and responsibilities. This should include discussion of the CIO’s relationship with other Senior Agency Officials, as well as those officials’ execution of listed roles and responsibilities.
– Portfolio Management Maturity. Agencies will use the categories described in Attachment E: Investment and Portfolio Management Maturity Framework to evaluate the maturity of the agency’s People, Technology, Governance, Process, and Acquisition capabilities related to IT resources. Agencies should describe how their policies implement the portfolio management, capital planning, and other processes required in OMB Circular A-130, OMB Circular A-11’s capital planning and investment control guidance, and other OMB IT management policies, including this guidance. For example, agencies should describe how agency priority goals, agency strategic objectives, the IT investment portfolio, the Information Resource Management (IRM) Strategic Plan, and the Enterprise Roadmap relate to each other and support the efficient and effective accomplishment of agency program and business objectives. Finally, agencies should describe how they select the system development lifecycle frameworks used in IT development activities, such as the use of incremental development and modular approaches prioritized by customer requirements.
– Data Center, Cloud, and Shared Services Optimization. Agencies will discuss their progress using cloud computing and shared services to optimize data center activities and achieve overall IT objectives. This includes a discussion of how the agency is using FedRAMP services and ensuring cloud services meet applicable FISMA requirements.
– Cybersecurity. In addition to the “Protect” metrics in Fiscal Year 2015 PortfolioStat Performance Metrics below, PortfolioStat discussions will draw on topics covered in each agency’s quarterly Cybersecurity Self-Assessments.
– World-Class Customer Service. Agencies shall discuss how their portfolio management practices emphasize the customer-centric themes of the U.S. Digital Services Playbook,30 OMB’s capital planning and investment control guidance,31 and the Smarter IT Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goal.32 Agencies should describe where in their policies the following are implemented: the Playbook’s “Understand what people need” play, the capital planning guidance requirement for major investments to measure customer satisfaction performance metrics, and the Smarter IT CAP Goal’s focus on improving outcomes and customer satisfaction with Federal services.
– Open Data. Experts have calculated that the potential economic benefits of open data are in the trillions of dollars.33 The Federal government has made significant strides in opening up data to drive economic growth. Currently there are over 117,000 data sets available on data.gov http://www.data.gov/. As a next step, agencies should improve the quality and types of datasets. Agencies should continue to evaluate their enterprise data inventory, conduct outreach to understand the users of their data, improve customer feedback mechanisms, and release datasets—subject to privacy, confidentiality, security, or other valid restrictions.
– Streamlining reporting. OMB will continue to seek opportunities to reduce agency burden through revising reporting requirements and improving reporting channels through the ITDB and IDC as well as work with agencies to develop opportunities to improve the timeliness and reliability of reported ITDB data.
– Phase 1: Preparation. Following each quarterly agency IDC submission, OMB will analyze the latest data, consider trends in performance metrics over time, and review past PortfolioStat topics and PortfolioStat action items to identify topics for the upcoming PortfolioStat session’s discussion. OMB will send these topics, analysis, and proposed agenda for each agency to the agency’s PortfolioStat lead. Agencies are encouraged to work closely with OMB to provide clarifications and improvements to the preparation prior to the quarterly PortfolioStat session.
– Phase 2: Session. Agency PortfolioStat leads shall work with OMB to schedule a PortfolioStat session to be held within eight weeks following the relevant IDC quarter’s submission deadline. In the session, OMB and the agency CIO will review updates to the agency’s Strategic IRM Plan and Enterprise Roadmap, trending data from the agency’s IDC and IT Dashboard submissions, discuss preceding quarterly PortfolioStat action items, status of investments included in High Impact Program(s), and select performance metrics. Based on the discussion, OMB and the agency will identify and agree on PortfolioStat action items (with specific deadlines) which OMB will send to the agency within two weeks of the completed session. Where appropriate, results from these sessions shall be integrated into agency budget submissions and Congressional Budget Justifications.
– Phase 3: Post-Session. Upon receipt of PortfolioStat action items, agency PortfolioStat leads shall work with OMB to include updates on the status of these items in the next quarterly PortfolioStat. Agencies that do not meet a deadline identified in a PortfolioStat action item shall brief the Federal CIO and the agency head at least once per quarter until the action item is complete. Agencies shall describe progress implementing each PortfolioStat action item as a part of quarterly IDC reporting. At least once per year, agency heads shall review with the agency CIO and certify that the reported status of each PortfolioStat action item is accurate and send this certification to OMB.
Metric | Metric Definition |
---|---|
Deliver on Budget | Percent of IT projects within 10% of budgeted cost (% “Green” cost variance on the IT Dashboard) |
Deliver on Schedule | Percent of IT projects within 10% of budgeted schedule (% “Green” schedule variance on the IT Dashboard) |
Development, Modernization, and Enhancement (DME) Spending | Percent of IT spending that is DME or provisioned services spending (DME normal + DME provisioned services + operations & maintenance provisioned services spending) |
IPv6 Adoption | Percent of operational “Internet Protocol version 6” (IPv6) enabled domains |
Metric | Metric Definition |
---|---|
Commodity IT Spending | Infrastructure spending per person |
Planned Delivery versus Actual Delivery | Average planned duration and average actual duration of completed activities providing key deliverables, usable functionality, iterative release, or production release for activities completed within the last year. |
Incremental or Agile Development | Average planned duration of future, in-progress, and completed activities providing key deliverables, usable functionality, iterative releases, or production releases by start year. |
Open Data Leading Indicators | Performance on Project Open Data Dashboard35 leading indicators |
DAP Script Installed | Percent of second-level domains with the Digital Analytics Program (DAP) script installed |
Potential Mobile Savings | Estimated savings the agency could achieve in mobile device contracts as estimated by the GSA FSSI Economic Model |
Metric | Metric Definition |
---|---|
Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) | Average percentage of IT assets subject to an automated inventory, configuration, or vulnerability management capability. |
Identity Credential and Access Management (ICAM) | Percentage of all users required to use a Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card to authenticate to the agency network. |
FedRAMP Implementation | Percentage of Authorities to Operate (ATOs) that are FedRAMP37 compliant38 |
Security Incidents | Number of information security incidents reported to the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), by type |
When conducting TechStat reviews, PortfolioStat reviews, or evaluating investments related to High Impact Programs, agencies shall use the following framework for describing investment and portfolio management maturity with OMB. These scores may be compared or aggregated across bureaus, agencies, or governmentwide to provide a summary of overall IT management maturity. This model may be updated over time as common root causes of implementation challenges or other common management issues are identified.
Agencies shall evaluate their performance in each of the following areas by comparing their performance to a set of criteria provided by OMB describing performance at three levels: (1) “Reacting”, (2) “Implementing”, and (3) “Optimizing”. More information will be provided as a part of the PortfolioStat process.
Management
- Program/Project Management
- Portfolio Management
- Enterprise
- Strategy
- Financial Management
People
- Leadership
- Accountability
- Talent/HRM
- Customer-Centric
Process
- Governance
- Agile
- Transparency
- Complexity
Technology
- Security
- Scalability
- Open
- Reuse
Acquisition
- Strategic Sourcing
- Flexibility
- Scope
- Lock-in
In February 2015, OMB added the following additional requirements for civilian CFO Act agencies to those established in Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies – FY2010 – 2014.39
####Additional FITARA Related Sections for Agency Human Capital Plan
IT Acquisition Cadres: Has your agency developed an information technology (IT) acquisition cadre or used a memoranda of understanding with other agencies that have such cadres or personnel with experience relevant to your agency’s IT acquisition needs? Select Yes or No If yes, please elaborate. If no, please explain your agency’s plans for developing an IT acquisition cadre or explain why you are not developing an IT acquisition cadre.
Personnel Development: Has your agency taken steps to develop personnel assigned to IT acquisitions, including cross-functional training of acquisition IT and program personnel? Select Yes or No If yes, please elaborate. If no, please explain if and how your agency plans to develop personnel assigned to IT acquisitions.
Specialized Career Path for IT Program Managers: Has your agency utilized the specialized career path for IT program managers as designated by OPM? Select Yes or No Has your agency strengthened IT program management? Select Yes or No If yes, how many IT program managers have you designated? If no, does your agency plan to utilize the specialized career path? When? If your agency has strengthened IT program management, please explain how it has done so. If your agency has not strengthened IT program management yet, please explain if it plans to do so and how. If it is not planning to strengthen IT program management, please explain why.
Direct Hire Authority: Has your agency utilized direct hire authority relating to personnel assigned to IT acquisitions? Select Yes or No If yes, how many times and for what job series has your agency utilized direct hire authority in this area. If no, please explain your agency’s plans to utilize direct hire authority in this area or explain why it does not plan to use this authority.
Peer Reviews: Has your agency conducted peer reviews of IT acquisitions? Select Yes or No If yes, please elaborate on the number and types of IT acquisitions reviewed. If no, please explain your agency’s plans to conduct peer reviews of IT acquisition or explain why it does not plan to conduct peer reviews of IT acquisitions.
Pilot Programs: Has your agency utilized pilot programs of innovative approaches to developing the IT acquisition workforce, such as industry-government rotations? Select Yes or No If yes, please explain what pilot program you have used or are using. If no, please explain your agency’s plans to utilize pilot programs of innovative approaches to developing the IT acquisition workforce or why it does not plan to utilize these programs.
Some requirements and objectives described throughout this document are related to forthcoming new policies or changes to existing guidance/instructions to be released later in FY2015, such as:
The materials below summarize which portions of the above guidance address which sections of FITARA.
##### PortfolioStat - Law: Section 833: Portfolio Review, Subsection (c)(1) - Memo: Page 7: Transparency, Risk Management, Portfolio Review, and Reporting
Title VIII, Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291. Further references in the text that refer to “FITARA” refer to these sections. ↩
Senior Agency Officials, as referred to in this guidance, include positions such as the CFO, CHCO, CAO, ASAM, COO, and Program Manager. ↩
Agencies listed in 31 U.S.C. § 901 (b)(1) and (b)(2). ↩
M-14-08 FY2014 PortfolioStat Guidance available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2014/m-14-08.pdf. ↩
44 U.S.C. § 3501 note. ↩
Clinger-Cohen Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11704) available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title40/html/USCODE-2013-title40-subtitleIII.htm. ↩
Ibid. ↩
See Open Data Policy-Managing Information as an Asset (M-13-13) available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf. ↩
Public law 113-235 contains: “Provided further, That the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit quarterly reports not later than 45 days after the end of each quarter to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the Government Accountability Office identifying the savings achieved by the Office of Management and Budget’s governmentwide information technology reform efforts: Provided further, That such reports shall include savings identified by fiscal year, agency, and appropriation.” ↩
OMB Circular A-11 available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a11_current_year_a11_toc. OMB IT budget capital planning guidance available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/strategiesandguides. ↩
CIO.gov TechStat Toolkit available at: https://cio.gov/drivingvalue/techstat/browse-toolkit. ↩
Implementing PortfolioStat (M-12-10) available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-10_1.pdf. ↩
Fiscal Year 2013 PortfolioStat Guidance: Strengthening Federal IT Portfolio Management (M-13-09) available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-09.pdf. ↩
Fiscal Year 2014 PortfolioStat (M-14-08) available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2014/m-14-08.pdf. ↩
The following bullets reflect requirements outlined in FITARA Section 833 (c)(1). ↩
Implementation Guidance for the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (March 2012) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/cio_memo_fdcci_deliverables_van_roekel_3-19-12.pdf. ↩
Guidance for Specialized Information Technology Acquisition Cadres, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/guidance-for-specialized-acquisition-cadres.pdf. ↩
Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies – FY 2010 – 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/procurement_workforce/AWF_Plan_10272009.pdf. ↩
M-13-02, Improving Acquisition through Strategic Sourcing, December 5, 2012, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-02_0.pdf. ↩
OMB Memorandum, Transforming the Marketplace: Simplifying Federal Procurement to Improve Performance, Drive Innovation, and Increase Savings, December 4, 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/simplifying-federal-procurement-to-improve-performance-drive-innovation-increase-savings.pdf. ↩
As defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105. ↩
Federal acquisition certifications such as FAC-C (Contracting), FAC-P/PM (Project and Program Managers), and FAC-COR (Contracting Officers Representative) ↩
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Part 7 available at https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/current/far/html/FARTOCP07.html ↩
See OMB M-12-10, M-13-09 and M-14-08. PortfolioStat is a tool that agencies use to assess the current maturity of their IT portfolio management process, using data and analytics to make decisions on eliminating duplication, augment current CIO-led capital planning and investment control processes, and move to shared solutions in order to maximize the return on IT investments across the portfolio ↩
See OMB M-11-29 CIO Authorities memorandum ↩
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235), includes an appropriation for the Office of Management and Budget to administer the Information Technology Oversight and Reform fund and requires the submission of quarterly reports “identifying the savings achieved by the Office of Management and Budget’s governmentwide information technology reform efforts” with the “savings identified by fiscal year, agency and appropriation.” ↩
See OMB M-13-09. This information is collected through the Integrated Data Collection (IDC) established in FY 2013 PortfolioStat. Quarterly IDC deadlines are the last days in May, August, November and February. ↩
See the OMB Office of Federal Procurement Policy Transforming the Marketplace (December 4, 2014) memorandum available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/simplifying-federal-procurement-to-improve-performance-drive-innovation-increase-savings.pdf ↩
U.S. Digital Services Playbook, available at: https://playbook.cio.gov/ ↩
IT Budget Capital Planning Guidance available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/strategiesandguides ↩
Smarter IT Delivery Cross-Agency Priority Goal, available at: http://www.performance.gov/node/3403?view=public#overview ↩
Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information (McKinsey & Company, October 2013) available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/open_data_unlocking_innovation_and_performance_with_liquid_information ↩
These metrics will be available on MAX and any future updates to performance metrics will be published there. ↩
Project Open Data Dashboard available at: http://labs.data.gov/dashboard/offices ↩
Protect metrics are each based on a component of the Cybersecurity Cross-Agency Priority Goal described on Performance.gov. Each of these components is described in detail at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nppd/ciofismametricsfinal.pdf. The Cybersecurity CAP goal metrics are currently being revised for FY 2015 and therefore the performance metrics in this area are subject to change. ↩
Memorandum for Chief Information Officers: Security Authorization of Information Systems in Cloud Computing Environments (December 8, 2011) ↩
FedRAMP Compliant Systems: https://www.fedramp.gov/marketplace/compliant-systems/ ↩
Available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/procurement_workforce/AWF_Plan_10272009.pdf ↩