VA mailed it in on FLITE contract, IG says

Inspector general concludes financial system modernization project foundered because key Veterans Affairs personnel didn't work closely enough with contractor

Managers at the Veterans Affairs Department didn't participate in key conference calls with a contractor — submitting written comments instead -- that resulted in missed opportunities to keep a pilot project for the department's Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprises (FLITE) financial management IT system modernization on track, according to a new report.

Many development problems could have been better dealt with if VA employees and the contractor “spent more time working side-by-side in a collaborative environment instead of in an environment that encouraged passing documents back and forth,” Belinda Finn, deputy inspector general for audits and evaluations at the VA 's Office of Inspector General, wrote in her report issued Sept. 7.

Finn recommended that the VA’s key team members “attend meetings, conferences, and work sessions in person” to avoid such problems in the future.

Related stories:

FLITE cancellation: VA pulls plug on modernization effort

OMB puts brakes on financial systems modernization

Overall, Finn concluded that the VA did not adequately monitor contractor performance, foster collaboration, provide staffing or ensure that necessary software was available while overseeing a pilot project in the “FLITE” financial modernization program.

“We substantiated that FLITE program managers needed to improve their overall management of the Strategic Asset Management pilot project,” Finn wrote.

The audit investigated several allegations of inadequate management of contractor General Dynamics Information Technology in the development of the FLITE program. The $400 million FLITE program recently was canceled by the VA, concurrent with a White House-led overhaul of troubled financial system modernization programs.

According to the audit, FLITE program managers didn't adequately monitor the contractor’s performance, ensure that programmers were assigned to the project in a timely manner, develop written procedures for roles and responsibilities for program interface development, and foster a collaborative working environment.

For example, the audit cited inadequate management shown by the “significant delays” in getting contractor deliverables. As of April, the VA had accepted two of 12 deliverables. According to the original schedule, the department should have accepted eight of the 12 deliverables by January. One of the deliverables, the project management plan, was “more than six months late,” the report said.

Finn made three recommendations for the VA’s assistant secretary for information and technology in the report:

Establish mechanisms to ensure all VA staff members designated to formally review deliverables submit comments are regular intervals in the development process.

  • Develop and implement procedures to ensure needed collaboration occurs between VA employees and future contractors.
  • Direct key team members to attend meetings, conferences, and work sessions in person.

VA officials agreed with the findings and recommendations and have set up a schedule for implementing modifications, the report said.


About the Author

Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week.

Cyber. Covered.

Government Cyber Insider tracks the technologies, policies, threats and emerging solutions that shape the cybersecurity landscape.


Reader comments

Tue, Sep 14, 2010

VA-Austin? They had nothing to do with it. FLITE didn't run there. Or do you mean the FSC? Why would anyone point fingers at the Union? This was just poor program and project management from the get go and now there are a bunch of people who got a one grade bump who will be looking for a soft landing after not being successful. Just like COREFLS VA keeps relying on contractors rather than their own people to execute major programs.

Tue, Sep 14, 2010 Washington, DC

VA is still a "department" in name only. The problems with FLITE (and also CoreFLS) are complex but start becsuse of the players and managers have their own turf and defend it without mercy. They really don't play well together. The result is rice bowl protecting battles that rarely get to important, productive matters. Dealing with complex system development issues needs prople who can actually trust each other. VA is a long way away from that level of trust.

Mon, Sep 13, 2010

VA-Austin IT department is a mess and has been for years. CORE-FLS anyone? Close the building and get all new program and contracts people. The union is does not function there anyway so you can't pass the buck to them.

Mon, Sep 13, 2010

Another instance of an absence of senior management capabilities for the Center for Acquisition Innovation. Willing to bet a lack of backbone and leadership led to this epic fail at the GS-15 level. When is VA-DC going to get the hint that they have the wrong people in charge at the Center for Acquisition Innovation??

Mon, Sep 13, 2010 RFD

"While the cat's away...". The COTR and CO and their bosses need to be held accountable and be written up...oh, wait, any union involvement would preclude accountability.

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