« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
tion, provided adequate technical and other resources were available. We indicated that we would continue to study the entire area to determine the technical and economic feasibility of this method of procurement. To reach valid conclusions regarding this matter we determined to operationally test this method of procurement and make comparisons with the currently used procurement techniques. We therefore constructed a Request for Proposals which was issued on May 1, 1970 and a competitive procurement is now underway for the purpose of acquiring a computer system which will permit competitive offers by independent peripheral manufacturers and others during initial system acquisition. The Request for Proposals was structured by GSA to explore full potential for savings in the separate procurement of peripherals for complete systems during initial systems procurement. Equipment manufacturers or others will be required to supply all or any part of the system requirements with safeguards to insure compatible operations as a computer system. Proposals from vendors are due to be received no later than July 1, 1970. Selection and award is contemplated by October 20, 1970. On May 27, 1970, a vendors' conference was held. Fourteen firms were represented. There were representatives from two leasing companies, one software house, two consulting firms, eight computer manufacturers, and one peripheral equipment manufacturer.
On a regulatory basis, Bureau of the Budget Circular A-54, Revised, provides for the development of non-equipment oriented specifications which are not designed around the products of any particular company. Our GSA Federal Property Management Regulations issued on January 17, 1969 covering the procurement of ADPE specifically provide for the ability of the agencies to procure components, including peripheral equipment, of a system or augmenting an existing system, from a number of different sources.
BOB CIRCULAR A-83 (4/20/67) In accordance with BOB Circular A-83 (dated April 20, 1967) which contains the basic policy and requirements for the ADP Management Information System, General Services Administration has operated and is maintaining a Govern. ment-wide inventory record of ADP equipment and other management data such as cost and utilization. In order to improve the timeliness of data in the system, we have notified delinquent reporting agencies and requested prompt reporting. This action was taken in coordination with the Bureau of the Budget. We are, based on BOB guidance, currently gearing ourselves to revise the system on a calculated phased basis in order to improve its effectiveness and responsiveness to agency and Government-wide management needs.
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS)
All Federal agencies who use or plan to use ADPE are required to report under the MIS. In addition, all Government contractors who operate ADPE in the performance of work under cost reimbursement-type contracts or sub-contracts are required to report when :
(a) The ADPE is leased and the total cost of leasing is reimbursed under one or more cost reimbursement-type contracts, or
(b) The ADPE is purchased by the contractor for the account of the Government or title will pass to the Government, or
(c) The ADPE is furnished to the contractor by the Government, or
(d) The ADPE is installed in Government-owned, contractor-operated facilities.
The ADPE Inventory includes all general purpose computers and punchcard accounting machines. The only computers that are not reported are: analog computers and computers which are built or modified to special Government design specifications and are integral to a weapons system. The present system requires an "across the board” on-hand inventory every June 30. Projected acquisitions or gains and projected releases or losses of computers are required each June 30 and December 31. In order to improve the quality of projections plus timely system gain and loss reporting, GSA has routinely compared agency projections to actual for the corresponding time periods. If they did not agree, agencies were requested to confirm the accuracy of their gain and loss reporting. The Bureau
of the Budget has advised us that action has been taken to assure that agency projections of ADP equipment acquisitions and releases for Fiscal year 1971 will be more correlated with Bureau of the Budget Circular A-11 submissions. The reporting of actual ADP systems acquisitions and releases are required to be reported as they occur. Thus on an ADP system basis, the inventory is perpetual in nature.
The inventory of ADPE is maintained at the computer system and component level. Thus, at the component level the ADP/MIS provides data on the manu. facturer, type and model of equipment; the actual or projected installation date, release date, and purchase price of equipment; and the monthly maintenance cost and rental cost.
The MIS employs a system of management categories which recognize the major variety of environmental conditions under which agencies operate or acquire ADPE. These categories are as follows:
a. Control Systems Equipment.—Computers which are an integral part of a total facility or larger complex of equipment and have the primary purpose of controlling, monitoring, analyzing, or measuring a process or other equipment.
b. Classified Systems Equipment.—Computers located at a classified location. C. Mobile Systems Equipment.-Mobile computer installations on ships, planes,
d. Reutilization Equipment.—Government-owned computers acquired through Government reutilization programs.
Based on the current BOB Circular A-83, ADP/MIS reporting requirements, while all computers must be reported for inventory purposes, complete reporting for other purposes is not required when the system is used under the above outlined environmental and acquisition conditions. Specifically, ADP manpower and cost reporting and computer utilization reporting are not required for computers used as control or classified systems equipment. Utilization reporting is not required for mobile systems equipment and acquisition history reporting is not required for Government-owned computers which are reutilized within the Government.
The sub-system concerning utilization provides information concerning the equipment hours devoted to inservice use, maintenance, and hours provided to and received from others. The Manpower and Cost sub-systems provides information such as the number of man-years devoted to ADP efforts, the capital cost for site preparation and equipment purchases, and the operating costs for salaries, rentals, and contractual services. The Acquisition History sub-system provides information such as the date selection of a computer was approved by the agency, the date equipment and software delivery was required and delivered ; the date equipment installation was required and made; and the date software and equipment was accepted. The ADP Unit Identification sub-system provides for the integration of all sub-systems of the MIS by providing such information as the name of the agency, office/command within the agency and the actual location of the reporting ADP unit.
The MIS has contributed to management's need for effecting actions directed at the improved utilization and acquisition of ADPE. The following represnt some examples of the use GSA has made of the data contained in the MIS:
(a). The regular, recurring, MIS reports containing data on Inventory, Utilization, and Manpower information are used on a daily basis by GSA Central Office and Regional Offices, agencies operating Sharing Exchanges under GSA guidance, and all ADP installations requiring additional ADP capacity for peak workload and other situations such as downtime and conversion. This information is the common "working data" used throughout GSA's nationwide sharing referral network which is dedicated to obtaining maximum utilization of existing ADP resources.
(6) Regular recurring MIS reports with data of agency procurement plans, as reflected by Projected Gains and Losses, are used on a daily basis by GSA in order to achieve continued use of Government-owned and leased ADPE rather than making new procurements. An example of the use of this data involved the projected loss of a B-5500 computer leased by NASA. This computer was purchased by the ADP Fund on the basis of secondary usage by the Department of Interior commencing February 1969.
(c) GSA purchase/lease analysis are made and, where indicated, consideration of purchasing the equipment through funds available to the agency or through the ADP Fund is made.
(d) Special one time reports, containing data not in the regular recurring reports, such as, specific types and models of equipment, are continually extracted from the system for use; such as, in Federal Supply Schedule Contract negotiations in order to simulate the impact of proposed price increases and to estimate potential savings resulting from proposed offers by vendors. GSA has required 106 of these Special one time reports in support of its Public Law 89–306 mission. Of interest, BOB has required 25 special reports. The Department of Commerce (NBS), has required 3 of these special reports and the Department of Defense 43. Currently 10 agencies and the General Accounting Office have required a total of 218 special MIS reports.
In order to encourage broad interagency use of information contained in the MIS, GSA has the capability to provide all desired special report information within twenty-four hours of a request. Frequently the turn around time on a priority request is as little as six to twelve hours.
GSA, in light of the Public Information Act, makes information contained in the MIS available to the public. Annually, we publish more than 6,000 copies of the "Inventory of Automatic Data Processing Equipment in the United States Government.” In addition, we provide the public more detailed information contained in the system on a request basis. Information is provided in hard copy or magnetic tape form.
As indicated, GSA has been operating the system prescribed by Circular A-83 for approximately three years. During this time we have recognized certain shortcomings. We are presently engaged, in conjunction with BOB and major agencies concerned, in an effort to revise the system on a carefully phased basis. Plans call for a review of such elements of the system as timeliness of submissions and perpetual data requirements; projected acquisitions and release data correlation to BOB A-11 budget submission requirements; components vs system level reporting ; computer language and application usage; leased equipment purchase credits, expanded edit criterion, inclusion of analog and certain telecommunication categories maintenance manpower costs, and other elements which may require further analysis.
Mr. Chairman, in your letter of June 12, 1970, you requested information on space and storage requirements caused by the expanding use of ADPE. We have not been able to attribute any net increased space requirements to the expanding use of ADPE. We have found that paper records produced by automatic data processing equipment are relatively short lived from a records management point of view. We are reviewing alternative methods of recording data for archival purposes with the objective of achieving a substantial compaction in data storage compared to that density normally achieved with digital data recorded on magnetic tape.
Mr. Chairman, turning now to the future I would like to inform you of our most significant plans which are:
To test the economic and technical feasibility of expanding Federal Data Processing Center Services to include time sharing.
To reduce the proliferation and maintenance of similar bread and butter computer applications which are common to many agencies by offering central Government-wide system services through the Federal Data Processing Centers such as:
Payroll and manpower statistics.
Mailing lists. To increase our advertised procurements by developing specifications for
Eleven high disk packs.
Scientific magnetic tape. To improve the ADP procurement process by the development of a uniform ADP contract clause handbook. Chairman PROXMIRE. Fine. You wouldn't be inconvenienced if we asked you to remain while the other witnesses delivered their statement and then question the three of you.
Mr. APERSFELLER. Not at all.
Chairman ProxMIRE. Colonel Warren, we are delighted to have you. You have quite a detailed prepared statement which is 15 pages, and I would appreciate it if you could summarize it. The entire prepared statement will be printed in full in the record including the schedules you have in the back.
Colonel WARREN. All right, sir.
Chairman PROXMIRE. If you could give it to us in about 15 minutes it would be very helpful to us.
Colonel WARREN. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF COL. JOSEPH B. WARREN, U.S. AIR FORCE, DEPUTY
COMPTROLLER FOR DATA AUTOMATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY COMDR. JAN S. PROKOP, U.S. NAVY, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMPTROLLER, ROBERT A. RAUP, DIRECTOR FOR AUTOMATION POLICY; AND HENRY LICHSTEIN, DIRECTOR FOR ADVANCED COMPUTER TECHNIQUES
Colonel WARREN. I am Col. Joseph B. Warren, Deputy Comptroller for Data Automation, Office of the Secretary of Defense. I will present a summary of ADP management in the Department of Defense and address automatic data processing procurement practices of the Department of Defense, especially as they relate to free and full competition, procurement of peripheral equipment and inventory practices in respect to contractor-held automatic data processing equipment.
I will leave a more comprehensive prepared statement for inclusion in the record of the hearing. I have with me my principal assistants, Comdr. James S. Prokop, USN, Assistant Deputy Comptroller, Mr. Robert A. Raup, Director of Automation Policy, and Mr. Henry Lichstein, Director for Advanced Computer Techniques.
ACTION SINCE COMMITTEE REPORT
This subcommittee's interest in the use and management of automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) within the Department of Defense was reflected in the subcommittee report of April 1968. My own concern and interest in this subject closely parallels that of the committee members. Since the April 1968 report, a number of significant and strong management actions have taken place within the DOD and the results have been reflected in our management reports and statistics. I would like to discuss the most important of these actions and the results in recognition of your concern in this area.
The June 1968 establishment of an ADP policy office for the DODwide ADP functions resulted in the creation of the Office of Deputy Comptroller for Data Automation, at which time I assumed my present responsibilities. This Office has been staffed with experienced professionals in ADP matters and serves to advise the Secretary on policy and technical considerations. One of the principal motives in the establishment of this Office was to provide a dispassionate technically competent staff which would be the advocate of no system, and which could provide advice on ADP policy to be applied evenly in all func
This office is not an operational unit. It does not operate automated data systems or procure automated data processing equipment (ADPE). The Office develops policies which are implemented by the
military departments and the agencies of the DOD. These policies concern the selection, acquisition, utilization and management of automatic data processing equipment and associated computer programs throughout the DOD. Other responsibilities of the Office include the monitorship of DOD participation in programs for Government-wide sharing and reutilization of ADPE, the administration of the DOD data standardization program, and the review of major DOD automated data systems.
The development of large automated data systems is closely monitored by the OSD as well as DOD component review offices in line with our thinking and with the guidance of the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. My office has been active in the onsite review of a number of automated data systems in the past year. During calendar year 1969, we visited and reviewed 12 major systems onsite. These revieirs were conducted in full cooperation with the responsible functional managers and have resulted in major decisions concerning the design, development and implementation of these systems. So far this year, we have reviewed 20 major automated data systems.
The process of systems review and cost-effective justification has been in effect for some time in the DOD. However, recent emphasis has been given to this review and evaluation procedure. On February 6, 1970, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Packard, signed a memorandum which effectively stopped expansion or implementation of all automated data systems until the planning, cost-effectiveness and the system review plans were evaluated, documented and specific departmental or agency level approval for continuance or expansion had been obtained.
My office is responsible for monitoring these reviews. When these reviews of automated data systems are completed, each significant system which is undergoing development or expansion will have either explicit documented approval for continuance or will be given instructions on deficiencies to be corrected prior to approval. This action constitutes a major milestone in our program to improve management of ADP systems in the DOD.
In line with the stronger policy role in the OSD which has evolved, there have been corresponding changes, where necessary, in the Services' and Agencies' ADP organizations. The central approval and selection of ADPE within the services and agencies has been strengthened and improved.
I would like to review briefly the steps in the ADPE procurement process in the DOD. As you know, while GSA is charged with the procurement of all ADPE in the Government, the separate Departments are responsible for determination of their requirements. The determination of requirements includes selection of ADPE. The selection process and the procurement process are closely intertwined and the DOD and GSA act as a team in carrying out the selection and procurement of ADPE. In some cases GSĂ may elect to delegate the procurement authority, a team is formed with representatives from the DOD component selection offices and the GSA, and all actions are closely coordinated in accordance with mutually agreed upon procedures. In either case, the DOD component selection offices are intimately involved in each of these major steps of the selection process: