Senate aims to tighten reins on government IT spending

Bill calls for more planning and evaluation of IT projects

The Senate has passed a bill that would put tighter controls around the money the government invests in its major information technology projects.

The Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act (S. 920) would set up tougher monitoring of the roughly $80 billion that agencies spend each year on IT.

The Government Accountability Office reported in October 2009 that it had identified 11 mismanaged IT investments made by agencies that will likely cost $3 billion more than planned.

Related stories

HUD CIO seeks help with IT investment system

Senate IT oversight bill progresses

The bill would establish an improved process for agencies to manage the progress of their IT projects. It would require more planning and oversight before agencies invest their money into the projects. And once they've begun, agencies would have to measure the progress to verify whether it’s matching the expected costs and schedule and meeting performance targets, the bill states.

If a project goes bad, the bill would require agencies to notify the Office of Management and Budget as well as Congress, and they may have to end projects that fail to meet their targets.

“It’s clear that federal agencies are dropping the ball when it comes to deploying the right technology in a timely and cost-effective manner,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who sponsored the bill, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The legislation developed from a series of hearings of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which Carper chairs. The hearings found agencies were poorly managing costly and risky IT investments. One high-profile investment gone awry was the Census’s malfunctioning hand-held devices that collect the data. The bad machines forced the officials to revert to paper-based system.

The Senate's bill now goes to the House for its consideration.


About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

FCW in Print

In the latest issue: Looking back on three decades of big stories in federal IT.


  • Shutterstock image: looking for code.

    How DOD embraced bug bounties -- and how your agency can, too

    Hack the Pentagon proved to Defense Department officials that outside hackers can be assets, not adversaries.

  • Shutterstock image: cyber defense.

    Why PPD-41 is evolutionary, not revolutionary

    Government cybersecurity officials say the presidential policy directive codifies cyber incident response protocols but doesn't radically change what's been in practice in recent years.

  • Anne Rung -- Commerce Department Photo

    Exit interview with Anne Rung

    The government's departing top acquisition official said she leaves behind a solid foundation on which to build more effective and efficient federal IT.

  • Charles Phalen

    Administration appoints first head of NBIB

    The National Background Investigations Bureau announced the appointment of its first director as the agency prepares to take over processing government background checks.

  • Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

    Senator: Rigid hiring process pushes millennials from federal work

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said agencies are missing out on younger workers because of the government's rigidity, particularly its protracted hiring process.

  • FCW @ 30 GPS

    FCW @ 30

    Since 1987, FCW has covered it all -- the major contracts, the disruptive technologies, the picayune scandals and the many, many people who make federal IT function. Here's a look back at six of the most significant stories.

Reader comments

Mon, May 24, 2010

Another government oxymoron. A law to regulate over spending in the IT world with projects gone bad? Most interesting. Some projects gone bad by up to 3 billion dollars worth eh? How much will it cost us to make sure we save that money? I would bet it will cost far more than 3 billion dollars in administrative costs and lost production costs. That's the oxymoron that I see in this.

Fri, May 21, 2010 Steve Chantilly

Three words for the clowns on the Hill: Federal Enterprise Architecture. Does every agency needs its own everything? No. Does every Air Force Base need it own applications? No! Does every agency need it own IT IDIQ? No. Will Congress cut with grace? No.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group