B2G Blog - Homeland Security

Deltek Pulse: Justice/public safety and homeland security April review

Wed, 01 May 2013 13:04:00 -0400

The most common terms appearing in justice/public safety and homeland security solicitations during April were fire alarm and alerting, camera/surveillance and radio. The below word cloud provides a visual interpretation of key term frequency.

Number of Public Safety Bids: 1,400
Top three states (by number of solicitations released): California (175), New York (95) and Pennsylvania (75)
Top three keywords: fire alarm and alerting, camera/surveillance and radio

Frequency of terms:

Radio: 8 (4 state, 11 local)
911: 1 (3 state, 1 local)
Computer Aided Dispatch (1 state, 3 local)
Records Management System (1 state, 2 local)

Like March, April was a slow month for justice and public safety (JPS) procurements; and while numerous solicitations were released, there seemed to be little movement on projects in the early development stages. Many governments are waiting on funding to move forward with projects, and agencies widely differ in their approaches to how much work they put into a project prior to securing funds.

While some states are hesitant to spend a lot of time planning and developing specifications for projects that may never receive funding, others like Georgia work to have a nearly completed plan in place so that a project can move forward quickly once funding is secured. Vendors should be aware of these different approaches and have patience with governments that are unwilling to spend large amounts of time consulting with vendors early on.

Many governments further along in project planning took big steps in April by releasing RFPs or RFIs, many of which were large in scale. Waukesha County, Wis., released an RFP for a trunked radio system, while Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, released one for a new 911 system. These major projects, which have been in the works for several years, are likely to be among the most expensive these entities will undertake for some time.

Numerous entities also released solicitations for smaller projects, such as Cook County, Illinois’ inmate telephone audit and the Florida Department of Corrections’ inmate telephone system. Given the fact that inmate phone systems tend to be paid for by users rather than the government, these projects often require less lead time; therefore, vendors would be wise to contact project managers sooner than later to share their expertise before a solicitation is released.

Analyst’s Take

Vendors should gear up for a couple busy months as late spring and early summer tend to be extremely active for projects before the summer lull strikes in July and August, which tend to be slow due to vacations and scrambles to cover holidaying colleagues. For entities with July budgets, these months also act as planning weeks when solicitations and projects are worked on behind the scenes as agencies decide what to do with their funding. Many states and localities are also waiting to find out if they have received money from grant applications submitted in spring, such as the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, for which applications are due May 30, 2013. Therefore, vendors should work particularly hard in the next few months to identify and make connections for projects that may be waiting on money from grants and the next budget cycle.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

PSAP demographics across the United States

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:58:00 -0400

Last April, Deltek utilized the Federal Communications Commission’s PSAP Registry to give vendors an overview of public safety answering points (PSAPs) in counties nationwide. Now, we’re using the current registry to detail information on consolidation efforts and other changes that have taken place across the country in the last year.

Consolidation projects have been taking place for the last few years as cities and counties work to become more efficient and, ultimately, save more money; however, the total number of PSAPs actually increased by 64 from 2012 to 2013. Still, of the 8,393 PSAPs, only 7,485 act as the primary call-taking location – 908 are considered “orphaned” and are no longer utilized. These orphaned PSAPs will not be included in future filings with the FCC.

PSAP Quick Facts 2013
U.S. Population (July 2012 estimate)	313,914,000
Total number of PSAPs	8,393
Average number of individuals served by each PSAP	37,401
State with the most PSAPs	Texas
State with the fewest PSAPs	New Hampshire
Average number of calls to 911/ year (NENA)	240,000,000
Average number of calls to 911/day	657,534

Just as in 2012, Texas has the most PSAPs (667), followed by California (587) and Illinois (422) – all three states also saw slight increases in their total number of PSAPs year to year.

New Hampshire still has the fewest PSAPs (5), and Delaware’s nine puts it second from the bottom. Washington, D.C. held that spot in 2012, but an increase from seven to 11 PSAPs now ties the district with Vermont and Hawaii for having the third lowest number.

As of April 2013, a total of 719 PSAPs have changed name, state, county or city compared to only 679 that had as of April 2012. The majority of these took place in California, followed distantly by Nebraska – providing further evidence that dispatch centers in many locations are consolidating efforts and working to cover a wider geographical span.

The below chart provides a visual representation of PSAP locations by city and county in 2012 and 2013, as well as information on where vendors can find the most opportunities.

Analyst’s Take

The number of dispatch opportunities in each of the regional areas has remained steady since 2012, with nine solicitations in the works in Los Angeles and Boston, and 12 within 100 miles of Chicago and 21 within 100 miles of New York City. This should provide some hope for vendors that cities and counties are still interested in purchasing dispatching technologies despite the tough economic climate.

Dispatch technologies are among the most vital tools that police use, and localities have little choice than to purchase new ones once they reach the end of their life cycles. This trend, along with increasing number of PSAPs, is likely to continue as individuals’ ability to report where and when crimes take place becomes easier.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

First steps for FirstNet

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:02:00 -0400

The state of Delaware, on behalf of the Mid-Atlantic Consortium for Interoperable Nationwide Advanced Communications (MACINAC), released a request for information (RFI) for a 700 MHz public safety broadband network to support FirstNet’s efforts in deploying a nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN).

The initiative involves a multistate approach with Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland, and may include Washington, D.C. The RFI process is expected to take place in two phases. The first phase focuses on obtaining information on certain “low-risk” aspects of the network that are less likely to be impacted by any future decisions made by FirstNet. The second phase will begin after the initial RFI process is complete and FirstNet provides further direction on technical specifications. This phase would include aspects related to long-term evolution (LTE) equipment, maintenance, operations and end-user devices. The MACINAC intends to work in close collaboration with FirstNet before a subsequent solicitation is developed.

The NPSBN is expected to enhance current public safety communications operations already in use within MACINAC states. Each state utilizes its own land mobile radio (LMR) system that will continue to remain in place once the network is constructed. To date, MACINAC has made consistent efforts to analyze and obtain information on current infrastructure that could be useful in any future build out of the NPSBN.

Analyst’s Take

This RFI marks one of FirstNet’s first major initiatives, and information gathered through the process is likely to benefit both statewide and FirstNet decision-making in regards to implementing an NPSBN. If the RFI process yields sufficient results, it is likely to act as a roadmap for other states to follow and may drive the formation of regional partnerships.

The decision to take a regional approach could make for a more attractive grant application since regional projects often receive more attention and funding than localized projects. This will be particularly important given the difficult economic times and the potential impact sequestration may have on state and local grant funding levels. At the same time, a regional approach may also create difficulties for the project as larger projects are more prone to stagnation and exploding budgets, as seen with LA-RICS and New York’s statewide wireless network.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

Michigan's FY 2014-2015 Budget

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:06:00 -0400

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is utilizing his fiscal year 2014-2015 budget to highlight Michigan as the nation’s “comeback state,” calling for both fiscally responsible and innovative spending to ensure a bright future. With no big surprises, education, health care reform, and transportation are among the state’s top investment priorities. More than 75 percent of the budget is dedicated to education and health and human services, and state spending will go hand in hand with outcome measures and performance metrics.

The FY 2014 budget totals $51.8 billion, a 7 percent increase from FY 2013. The FY 2015 proposed budget tops $53 billion. Table 1 below represents the total budget starting in FY 2010.

Michigan’s FY2014-2015 budget is spot on with Governor Snyder’s goals to increase better health outcomes, education, and transportation for Michigan citizens. Touted as the “comeback state,” Michigan is turning a corner as employment rates and personal income rise. The unemployment rate is decreasing faster than the national average, and the housing market is starting to gain momentum. Further, the governor has called for a focus on long-term solutions and assistance for struggling local entities. For a deeper dive into the state’s budget, please click here for an Analyst Perspective (log-in required).

Deltek is currently tracking more than 30 core-IT opportunities in the state of Michigan, valued at an estimated $3.3 billion. Vendors interested in forming a partnership with the “comeback state” should visit our Michigan state profile to access procurement information, budget documents, and key contacts.

Boston Marathon tragedy sparks nationwide surveillance initiatives

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:45:00 -0400

Following the tragic bombings at the Boston Marathon, cities nationwide are calling for more vigilant emergency response efforts and increased security resources. Of those resources, surveillance technology is proving to be a key ingredient in identifying suspects, and is likely to be a vital component of thwarting future occurrences.

Law enforcement and public safety officials in Boston have relentlessly been making efforts to carefully scrutinize the city’s surveillance network as well as any footage captured via the public. In response, government agencies across the country are calling on legislators to ask for additional and widespread use of surveillance technologies within their own jurisdictions.

Surveillance technologies, including CCTV, were effective in capturing evidence of criminal and terrorist activity in London. While Boston’s surveillance network isn’t nearly as extensive as London’s, the technology will likely be a key component in criminal intelligence. Many jurisdictions have recently expressed interest in improving current surveillance technologies, including the city of Virginia Beach and the state of Washington’s Sound Transit.

Many investigators have also pointed to the use of facial recognition software as an imperative additive to traditional video surveillance. Facial recognition software has become a hot-button technology in crime prevention as it enables investigators to map distinct features from a photographic image to identify suspects, victims, and missing persons, which can provide leads for additional investigative resources.

Recent legislation regarding the use of drone technology in U.S. airspace has also stirred up much attention among public safety agencies. The aftermath of events like those in Boston could push governments to request drone presence at major entertainment or sporting events to increase surveillance.

Analyst’s Take

When catastrophic events occur, there is an exigent need for increased police presence to ensure maximum safety, but on a day-to-day basis, increased police presence can be taxing on state budgets. Therefore, government agencies constantly rely on technological improvements to advance overall first response efforts and ensure public protection with minimal resources. Major cities may also set aside funds for implementing additional surveillance initiatives to ensure that current systems are up to date with the latest improvements, including facial recognition software.

After major emergencies, it is also common for public safety agencies to see an influx of 9-1-1 calls from citizens reporting suspicious activity since senses are heightened and people are naturally on a higher level of alert. Therefore, public safety communications and dispatch agencies may also take the opportunity to improve overall 9-1-1 capabilities to next generation and incorporate statewide emergency alert signals. With the ability to now send pictures, text messages and even video as 911 calls, this technology could become even more important for first response. It will be interesting to see if grant funding will now become more readily available to help departments fulfill their transition to NG911, as many agencies are plagued with outdated systems and lack the funding needed for upgrades.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

NIST to Hold Workshop Series on Cybersecurity Framework

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:36:00 -0400

Based on early reviews of the 2014 budget request, it appears agency efforts to improve cybersecurity will receive continued attention for the foreseeable future. Considering the As part of the executive order for cybersecurity, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) was given the responsibility for developing a cybersecurity framework. The first in a series of workshops on developing this “living framework” was held in Washington, D.C. on April 3, 2013. Much of the discussion revolved around risk management and the role of industry in identifying best practices. (Not surprisingly, these are issues that government agencies have been facing too.)

Mid March, we looked at the role of private industry in implementing the cyber executive order. For government, the goal of partnership with industry is to strengthen national security both within government and across private industry. To that end, the public sector has been reaching out for input from industry, academia and the public. As Rebecca Blank, Deputy Secretary for the Department of Commerce, phrased it in her opening comments: “Government cannot and should not do this alone.”

It’s clear that improved information sharing, situational awareness, and public-private partnership have roles to play in moving forward. For the most part, government and industry agree that there’s a need to build on existing capabilities, to identify solutions that provide flexibility and that can adapt across varying sector requirements.

For many companies, cybersecurity has become an integral part of discussion around risk-management practices. Opinions vary about how to define “best practice,” and rightly so. Organizations do not have a consistent answer for how to measure the success of security practices. For the most part, risk levels are evaluated at the tactical level, rather than compared to strategic benchmarks. Raising risk and security management to a strategic level would clarify its role in business strategy. During an industry leadership panel discussion. Patrick Gallagher, the Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of NIST, described this challenge as the need “to learn about the balance between good cybersecurity and good business.”

In all likelihood, the best practices captured in the framework will illustrate range of approaches to security implementation. This brings us to another sticky wicket: incentives. While there’s no certainty around the success another organization might have following another company’s lead, effective policies and procedures around risk management can contribute to a competitive position. There is no current barrier to sharing practices. So what is going to change? What will motivate the private sector to adopt new security standards voluntarily? What role can the government play to facilitate the exchange?

For starters, they’re asking for input. The Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce and Treasury are working together to report on industry incentives. The Commerce Department posted a Notice of Inquiry on incentives for getting industry involved in the framework development process. Public comments are open until April 29, 2013.

Beyond that, several multiday workshops are being scheduled. The next session will be hosted at Carnegie Mellon, held from May 19th through 31st. Other sessions will be held in July and September, further informing the framework. The first draft of the framework is due in October 2013, allowing 8 months from the release of the executive order for draft to be crafted.

Deltek salutes national telecommunicators

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:43:00 -0400

Every April, National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week celebrates the work that telecommunicators engage in every day to keep their communities safe. These individuals are often the first line of defense in the face of tragedy and work to keep everyone calm on what may be the worst day of their lives. When a call comes in to 911, they are the ones charged with gathering salient information, determining which agencies are best to respond, and dispatching first responders.

Public safety telecommunicators also provide key instructions for individuals calling in with an emergency, whether instructing them where to hide during a home invasion or how to give CPR and clear an airway.

Telecommunicators rely not only on their extensive training and people skills, but also a complex network of technologies to ensure the appropriate help arrives at the correct emergency location as quickly as possible. In the past year, communities nationwide have recognized the importance of these essential technologies and have sought to upgrade or replace antiquated systems.

In the past year, several solicitations were released for the following technologies:

911 (Enhanced and Next Generation): 24
Records Management Systems (RMS): 19
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD): 13
Automatic Vehicle Location Systems (AVL): 7
Geographic Information Systems (GIS): 6

Many public safety priorities for 2012 and 2013 emphasize increasing utilization of these systems and improving first-response efforts, which rely heavily on cooperation of neighboring jurisdictions or agencies in the event of an emergency. Increased interoperability coupled with the ability to receive information in real time has greatly enhanced overall telecommunications.

While most state and local governments manage their own dispatch centers, there is likely to be a continued focus on consolidation and partnerships between agencies to curb costs and improve efficiency. Dispatch equipment such as CAD, RMS, GIS mapping and AVL technology are typically procured through a formal solicitation process. Usually, CAD and RMS equipment are procured together, but as most of these technologies require integration, agencies may choose to procure all equipment within a technology suite. This helps agencies save time and money and allows for simultaneous upgrade and implementation processes.

The upgrade or enhancement of 911 systems to next generation has been on the radar of many governments over the past few years due to many systems becoming obsolete. Next generation 911 advancements have put pressure on agencies to incorporate new capabilities into 911 systems, such as the ability to receive text-to-911, video streaming and picture messaging. Most 911 projects are implemented through a formal procurement process, and some agencies even prefer to utilize an RFI or hire a consultant prior to formal implementation. Despite tight budgets, agencies will likely continue to put forth the effort to ensure the most efficient and advanced dispatching technologies are purchased because, like dispatchers, these systems are central to the mission of public safety agencies.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

Federal FY 2014 IT Budget to Grow, but there?s Winners and Losers

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:30:00 -0400

Steven VanRoekel, U.S. Chief Information Officer at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a presentation yesterday outlining the Obama Administration’s FY 2014 Information Technology priorities and budget numbers. The bottom line is that they are seeking 2% growth in the overall IT budget year-over-year, but individual department budget changes vary widely, meaning that there are “winners” and “losers.”

Preceding the public release of his presentation, VanRoekel posted a series of tweets on Twitter under the theme: All you need to know about the IT budget in 10 tweets. You can find the series under #FedITx10, but here they are in the descending order in which they appeared:

10-Flat or declining. IT=$82B in the 2014 Budget 2.1% increase from FY12, flat, 0.78% CAGR since 09, negative adjusted for inflation

9-Cut & Reinvest: Now more than ever we must use IT to drive savings to fund innovations that change how govt works

8-Priorities: IT priorities in 2014Budget: Innovate. Deliver. Protect. Evidence

7-Innovate: 2014 Budget enables the Digital Gov Strategy to build a 21st century govt, increase mobile services and Open Data

6-Deliver: PortfolioStat = +$2.5B in savings through IT consolidations and upgrades (over 3yrs)

5-Protect: Over $15B of the IT 2014 Budget is going to enhance our Nation’s cybersecurity

4-Evidence: 2014 Budget NEW evidence-based innovation initiative in my office to strengthen evaluations & drive results, beyond IT

3-Innovate with Less: Since 09 we flattened IT $ while FY01-FY09 IT increased ~2x At that rate, we’d be at +$110B on IT today

2-Dogfood: For geeks (like me!) interested in an Open Data 2014 Budget, key tables in XML here:

1-Progress: 2014 Budget enables strategic IT investment for a 21st century govt, drives innovation & protects our national assets

IT Budget “Winners” and “Losers”

The budget submission information included in VanRoekel’s presentation contains some top-line budget numbers which allows for some initial analysis. The IT budget summary table in the presentation calculates the amount and percentage change for FY 2014 based on FY 2012 budgets, even though he provides FY 2013 Continuing Resolution (CR) budget estimates that are different. To provide a more detailed perspective I ran the numbers comparing the dollar and percentage change for all scenarios.

The tables below are grouped by the “Winners” and “Losers” based on the percentage change from FY 2012 to FY 2014. The third table provides a comparison between Defense and Civilian segments, along with total federal IT.

Conclusion

While we are still waiting for the release of detailed IT budget information from OMB the proposed $1.4 or $1.7 billion increase for FY 2014, depending on which baseline year you use, is sure to surprise many who watch this market. Certainly, a 2% yearly growth rate is anemic compared to the growth rates we have seen over the last decade or so. (OMB reports a 7.09% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between FY 2001 and FY 2009 and they are projecting a 0.78% CAGR between FY 2009 and FY 2014) Yet, many expected lower growth – if not an outright decline – in the federal IT budget for this coming fiscal year.

Now the budget is in the hands of Congress, which has historically appropriated more for IT than what the President requests. With fiscal priorities clashing and sequestration impacts now being felt across the market, federal IT could weather the current fiscal storm in relatively good shape.

---
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWin FIA. Follow me on Twitter @GovWinSlye.

Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Protection ? Themes from TTC?s Symposium

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:10:00 -0400

I had the opportunity recently to attend a two-day symposium on Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Protection, hosted by the Technology Training Corporation. The event brought together federal government and industry cyber security experts from the various critical infrastructure sectors, including Energy, Homeland Security, Defense, Transportation, Communications/IT, Postal, Emergency Services, and Financial Services. The recurring theme throughout the event was the ongoing vulnerability that these sectors share and what they are doing about it.

The symposium agenda included presenters from a range of governmental, quasi-governmental, non-profit, and private industry organizations with one underlying commonality – their interest in protecting critical infrastructure that is vulnerable due to the growing threat to the information technologies that have permeated this infrastructure. As has been the case with their other events that I’ve attended, the TTC team assembled a very broad array of leaders and experts across the field to provide a really comprehensive coverage of the topic. As events go, I get some of the best information in one place and at one time. Way to go, TTC!

Key Themes

As I heard from the presenters and interacted with them and other attendees, several themes and commonalities emerged. Here are just a few.

Threats – the Changing Landscape

The threat vector has dramatically changed at the same time that laws are changing that put penalties on not securing your data. More is changing in this environment than is staying the same.
Some security practitioners have dropped the word “advanced” from the description of advanced persistent threat (APT) because they observe the vast majority of attackers using common attack approaches – the “open door” rather than “breaking a window.” The disparity in security capabilities is greater than the disparity in threat.
Mobility – The number of new mobile vulnerabilities being detected is growing almost exponentially each year, making mobility the biggest growing threat vector.
Cyber arms race is unlike any other arms race in history because it is frictionless. For example, it took 3 days for Stuxnet to be reverse-engineered, reproduced, and propagated. It taught everybody how to attack a SCADA system. It has also given rise to the private cyber arms manufacturer – people who build cyber-attack capabilities and sell them on the black market.
Personnel training to avoid risky behavior is the most important element of cybersecurity. NSA statistics show that 80 percent of exploitable vulnerabilities are a result of poor cyber hygiene. The other 20% is the APT.
Social engineering is a growing threat because, among other things, it gives the attackers a deeper understanding of how users and organizations behave, respond and think.
Growing cyber threats in the aviation sector target in-flight operations, ground support operations, air traffic managements systems, etc.

Cloud Computing Security – Key Challenges

Some agencies are moving to cloud services because of financial constraints, knowing of security risks and hoping security will follow soon afterward.
Some key challenges in effectively implementing Cloud include:
- Contract structuring: How do you structure a contact offering when you don’t own the asset? How do agencies (GSA, etc.) effectively strengthen cloud acquisition policy and build in security into SLAs?
- Clearance: what types of clearance levels are needed for people around the world who are supporting agencies or have access to their data, but are not necessarily part of a secure sector? Information sharing on threats, etc. is sensitive.
- Incident response: When there is an incident, who do I call? The Cloud Service Provider (CSP) or the agency?

Information Sharing – Culture Change is Needed

Information sharing is not an ends, it’s a means to an ends. In this context, it is needed to gain an effective shared situational awareness among shared stakeholders.
One challenge to information sharing stems from a sense of human preservation. We have a culture of not sharing information, while hackers have a culture of sharing widely.
Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC) – Allows electric providers to share information in a non-compliance framework and encourages free flow of information without fear of compliance threat hanging over you. Effective sharing requires the freedom from the threat of sharing.
Cyber Federated Model (CFM) – the warfighter has great command and control (C2) information and the CFM intends to enable C2 for cyber indicator information. For example, an infected site is sent into the CFM and within a few minutes all other sites within the CFM get the information. Some sites have automated updates and the information sharer gets to control with whom they share.
One key to effective sharing includes the ability to be able to do it securely, i.e. share with assurance. Also, data must be anonymized to be shared, especially if the data is classified, sensitive or contains private information. Sensitive but unclassified information will need cooperative agreement between government and industry to set the boundaries for what each can do with the information they receive.
Automated information sharing should focus on machine-readable threat indicators to automate data flow and get people out of loop where possible. Currently, high-priority threat-level information is XML-based, but going forward organizations will need more visual analytics.

SCADA Systems – Unanticipated Vulnerabilities

SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems, and other industrial control systems (ICS) were never designed for networking, but they have been extensively. So we are now building monitoring capabilities in an attempt to detect and defend against attacks on systems that were never designed to withstand such attacks.
Attacks like Stuxnet and Shamoon targeted energy sector systems and disclosed SCADA system vulnerabilities.
The patching treadmill – These control systems were never designed to be patched and/or shut down regularly. This patching can mean an entire plant must be shut down to complete the patch. This has the potential for unforeseen domino effects and implications for supply interruptions and other complexities.
Different organizations and unrelated sectors currently have different architectures and protocols for collecting and sharing threat information. What is needed is a common open-standards XML schema to communicate attacks in industrial control and other systems.

Regulation Versus Collaboration

There is not currently a consensus on how to proceed with administering cyber- and critical infrastructure protections, with significant polarization existing between competing regulatory/compliance and collaboration/incentive approaches.
Comprehensive legislation (Lieberman-Collins, and others) that failed in the Senate included new and expanded regulatory and compliant elements over the private infrastructure community.
Some industries, like nuclear energy, have very mature regulatory environments and some assert that the success in this area is an example of positive regulation that should serve as a prototype for other infrastructure industries.
Public-private partnerships are essential. The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) and HSPD-7 were the predecessors to the latest Executive Order (EO) and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-21).

Impact of Budget Limitations

Budget constraints multiply the challenges that disparate critical infrastructure sectors and federal agencies face as they look to secure their assets and protect their information. This is driving some federal agencies to look to shared services to establish a common security approach and leverage their collective buying power.

As for the current budget sequestration, several government representatives at the symposium noted that they had been fortunate so far, with the greatest impact being to restricted travel budgets for speaking and outreach. (They were based here in D.C.) But they could still travel to perform their site assessments as needed. We will see how ongoing budget constraints shape cyber and infrastructure protection plans going forward.

---
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWin FIA. Follow me on Twitter @GovWinSlye.

Latest FISMA Report Reveals Federal Cyber Challenges are Mostly Internal

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:23:00 -0400

The current season of federal budget uncertainty, exacerbated by sequestration, raises concerns of how federal departments and agencies will allocate funds to implement and improve their information security. As OMB describes in the latest Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) report to Congress, agencies continue to be the target of increased attacks. But digging a little deeper reveals that many of the challenges may stem from internal practices rather than external attacks.

The latest OMB FY 2012 FISMA report provides OMB’s FY 2012 assessment on what agencies have achieved in FISMA-related information security in the previous fiscal year. Of particular interest is the number of security incidents that are being reported to the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). (See chart below.)

From FY 2011 to FY 2012 agencies report an increase of 11%, which is more than the 5% increase they reported from 2010 to 2011 but less than the 40% reported from 2009 to 2010. Reported incidents are up 200% since FY 2008. In an earlier blog I mentioned comments by a former CIA CISO who noted that the counting method used by FISMA actually understates the threat levels, so these numbers are more like baselines than actualities.

A deeper look into the specific types of security incidents and their frequency reveals that the vast majority of these incidents fall into 5 categories:

Non Cyber – Non Cyber is used for filing all reports of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) spillages or possible mishandling of PII which involve hard copies or printed material as opposed to digital records.
Policy Violation – This subset of Improper Usage is primarily used to categorize incidents of mishandling data in storage or transit, such as digital PII records or procurement sensitive information found unsecured or PII being emailed without proper encryption.
Malicious Code – Used for all successful executions or installations of malicious software which are not immediately quarantined and cleaned by preventative measures such as anti-virus tools.
Equipment – This subset of Unauthorized Access is used for all incidents involving lost, stolen or confiscated equipment, including mobile devices, laptops, backup disks or removable media.
Suspicious Network Activity – This category is primarily utilized for incident reports and notifications created from EINSTEIN and EINSTEIN 2 data analyzed by US-CERT.

These top 5 categories account for 87% of all incidents reported by federal agencies. Factoring out the Non Cyber category, the remaining top 4 make up nearly 60% of all reported federal security incidents. (See chart below.)

Delving into the data a bit further shows where these incidents are most widely occurring among the 15 departments spending the most on their IT security, according to their FISMA submissions. (See table below.)

Implications

While a data comparison among categories and agencies has its limitations, it does lead us to ask further questions and draw some possible conclusions. The most obvious to me is noticing the clustering of incidents within categories that relate to internal behaviors.

Combining the frequency of Policy Violations, lost or stolen Equipment, and Non-Cyber (non-digital) incidents consisting of the physical spillage or mishandling of PII in paper form drives home that there appears to be much left to do in the area of cybersecurity training for IT users at these departments. If the Malicious Code category accounts for much in the way of code insertion through unsafe user practices then that incident frequency too underscores the ongoing training need. OMB notes in the report that federal agencies spent less than 1% of their IT security budgets in FY 2012 on training. In previous FISMA reports training accounted for roughly 2.5% in FY 2010 and FY 2011, but according to OMB, the DOD portion of the data for those years was incomplete so adjusting for DOD might show that 1% is consistent across all of these years.

The sheer number of departments in the top 15 above that list Policy Violations and/or Equipment incidents in their top 2 or 3 for frequency suggests that some of the greatest information security challenges facing federal agencies are internal – whether through lack of awareness or training or through outright disregard for approved security practices. In a fiscally constrained environment where return on investment for each dollar is scrutinized agencies might actually save money that they would spend on cleaning up security mistakes by users if they could more effectively prevent many of these incidents in the first place.

---
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWin FIA. Follow me on Twitter @GovWinSlye.

Congress Passes FY 2013 Funding ? No Shutdown, Sequestration Intact

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:00:00 -0400

This week the Congress passed a fiscal year (FY) 2013 funding bill that provides budgets for a handful of federal departments and continuing resolution (CR) level funding for the remaining departments and agencies through the end of fiscal 2013 on September 30. The final bill averts the potential for a government shutdown and funds key priorities while leaving intact the sequestration rules set under the Budget Control Act (BCA).

When all was said and done, the House passed a Senate amended version of the original H.R. 933 House funding bill. The House original appropriated new budgets for the Department of Defense (DoD), military construction (MilCon) and the Veterans Affairs department.

The Senate added new budgets for Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, NASA, and select other agencies. All others will be funded at FY 2012 levels. (For our take on the overall impacts of the House bill check out this recent blog and for some DoD, VA and DHS implications see this blog.)

Year-over-Year Changes

Of the handful of appropriations bills that were finally passed, Congress did make some changes to fund select departments and agencies to reflect current priorities and give some flexibility in dealing with spending caps. A summary of these appropriations are presented in the table below.

Department of Defense

Total FY 2013 discretionary spending for DoD is set at totals $604.9 billion, including $87 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. This is roughly $30 billion less than the FY 2012 appropriations, representing a decrease of 4.5%. Other highlights and funding priorities in the bill include:

Complies with the Budget Control Act spending caps by eliminating unneeded, unrequested funding that would be provided if the CR was extended
Directs 671 cuts to unnecessary or under-performing programs and eliminates excess funding due to schedule delays, program terminations, redundancies, and budgeting errors
Rescinds nearly $4 billion in unspent prior year funds
Aligns funding to new Defense strategy to fund current needs and reprioritizes funds to address known shortfalls
Fully complies with Senate Rule XLIV for transparency and maintains earmark moratorium
Bill provides the necessary funding for training and military health care
Adds $1.5 billion to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account
$486 million to repair aging base facilities
Adds $463 million to mitigate shortfalls in day-to-day operation costs for installations
Increases funding for nanotechnology, advanced materials, silicon carbide, and manufacturing technologies

Homeland Security

Overall FY 2013 discretionary spending for DHS is $39.6 billion, excluding $254 million for Overseas Contingency and $6.4 billion for the disaster relief cap adjustment.

Coast Guard: $10.4 billion overall, of which $9 billion is discretionary spending. The bill also provides targeted increases above the FY 2013 request to support front line personnel with resources, including $8 million for initial acquisition planning and design of a new polar icebreaker and $20 million to reverse cuts proposed in the request for critical operational assets.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA): $7.5 billion for TSA is reduced by $2.4 billion in offsetting collections and fees. The bill includes funding for investments in explosives detection systems, passenger screening technologies, and air cargo security. The bill includes several funding oversight requirements including expenditure plans for checkpoint security technology investments, explosives detection systems for checked baggage, and air cargo security. In addition, language is included requiring TSA to provide a five-year investment plan forecast for passenger screening technologies.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): $11.9 billion, which adds $79 million above the request for procurement, operations, and maintenance of critical air and marine assets used to defend our borders – including one additional multi-role enforcement aircraft, enhanced radar for unmanned aerial systems, and $28 million to increase flight hours.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): $5.7 billion for ICE, primarily supporting personnel and operations, including border patrol, special agents and immigration officials.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): $112 million in direct appropriations for USCIS and fully funds the E-Verify employment eligibility verification system.
United States Secret Service: $1.6 billion, adding $3.5 million for priority domestic and electronic crimes investigations and continues the multi-year modernization of critical White House and other Secret Service information technology and communications systems.
Science and Technology (S&T): $835 million, returning to FY 2011 levels, for R&D in biological defense, explosives defense, cyber security, first responders, border security, chemical countermeasures, and interoperability.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO): $318 million, including $28 million for handheld portable radiation detectors and $75 million for research and development of next-generation detection technologies.
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD): $1.4 billion, including the following:
- $232 million for a new account, the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM). Instead of realigning the US-VISIT program as proposed in the FY 2013 budget, the bill creates a new account for OBIM, the DHS lead responsible for biometric identity management services.
- $756 million for cybersecurity programs including Einstein intrusion detection and a critical cyber diagnostic strategy for the 118 federal agencies. Also included in cybersecurity funding is $16.8 million for cyber education programs.
- $260 million in infrastructure protection programs to bolster against natural and man-made disasters, including $78 million to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program.
Office of Health Affairs (OHA): $132 million, including $85 million for the Bio-Watch Program and $2 million to complete demonstration projects through the Chemical Defense Program.

Veterans Affairs

The VA receives $134 billion for FY 2013, which consists of $72.9B for mandatory programs ($9.1B above FY 2012) and $60.9 B for discretionary funding ($2.5B above FY 2012.)

Homeless Veterans Programs: $5.76B for health care and support services for homeless veterans.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans: $3.28b to meet the health care needs of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, a $510M increase over FY 2012.
Long Term Care: $7.2M for long term care for the nation’s aging veterans as well as severely wounded combat veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Information Technology (IT): $3.3 billion for IT projects.
- $1B for pay and associated costs
- $1.8B for operations and maintenance
- $494B for DME including $169m for the iEHR and $38.5m the development of paperless claims systems. Requires approval for iEHR spending over 25% of total allotted.

Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health: Provides $1.5b for NIH, a $71m increase including $165m for the National Children’s Study.
Food and Drug Administration: Provides $2.5b for the FDA including $50m for implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Child Care and Development Block Grant: Provides $2.3b for the program, which is a $50m increase for grants to states to improve working families’ access to quality, affordable child care.
HHS Lease Assistance: Provides additional funding to address imminent lease expirations and consolidations to allow HHS to save millions in annual lease costs and reduce its real property portfolio.
Head Start: Provides a $33.5m increase for the Head Start program.

Transportation

Section 1801 of the legislation increases funding for highway, highway safety, and motor carrier safety programs to make them consistent with the levels previously authorized under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. Total funding provided by MAP-21 was $561 million in FY 2013 and $572 million in FY 2014.
Normalized MAP-21 funding potentially has an impact on initiatives related to the improvement of travel data collection and safety management. These initiatives would include active procurements for Compliance Test Procedures for Electronic Logging Devices and the Road Inventory Program, as well as task orders under contract # DTFAAC09D00081 held by SAIC for NextGen Initiatives Support Services.

Commerce

Department of Commerce will receive $7.7B in total funding.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will receive $5B, including funding for satellite programs.
The Patents and Trademark Office (PTO) provides $2.88B.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) receives $809M for laboratories and research.
Bureau of the Census will receive $906M.

Justice

Department of Justice will receive $27.3B in total funding.
Grants to State and Local Law Enforcement and crime victims total $2.2B. This includes funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) improvements.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) receives$8B for salaries and expenses for national security and counterterrorism investigations, combating cyber threats.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) receives $2.36B.

Energy

Energy Department funding was reduced by a total of $44M.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy reduced by $11 M
Nuclear Energy reduced by $10M.
Science reduced by $13M.
Advanced Research Projects Agency –Energy reduced by $10M to $265M.
Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) $7.577B, an increase of $363M.
Atomic Energy Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Proliferation receive an additional $110M.

Agriculture

USDA’s operating budget is a winner this time around as FY 2013 discretionary funding of $20.5 billion represents a 5% increase over the FY 2012 level of $19.5 billion. Funding includes:
$24 million for USDA Departmental Administration to provide for necessary expenses for management support services and general administration. These support services include enterprise IT services provided by the National IT Center (NITC) and investments in enterprise IT modernization called for by the USDA’s Optimized Computing Environment (OCE) initiative.
$44 million for the Office of the Chief Information Officer and $6 million for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
$89 million for the Office of Inspector General that the legislation states may be used for contracting.
$811 thousand for the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety and calls out that funding shall be directed to the Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System (PHDCIS) until expended. This potentially affects the following vendors and contracts: General Dynamics, # AG3A94D090194 & Dell, # AG3A94D090137.
$75 million for the Risk Management Agency (RMA), including funding that may be used for the Common Information Management System (CIMS). This affects the IT Support Services contract, # GST0011AJ0019, held by SAIC.

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration receives $17.5B in total funding.
Space Launch System receives $2.1 B including funding for ground operations and construction and related test facilities.
Funding for the International Space Station (ISS) includes $515M for commercial crew transportation to the ISS and $2.9B for operations and research.
NASA Science includes $630M for Space Technology to support human and robotic missions.

Education

Safe Schools and Citizenship: Allows funds available under the Department of Education Safe Schools and Citizenship account to be used to assist educational institutions impacted by school violence.

Interior

Bureau of Land Management $951M for Management of Lands and Resources, $0 for construction.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, $1.2B for Resources Management

Labor

Job Corps Program: Provides an additional $30m for the program.
Unemployment Insurance: Decreases funding for grants to state agencies that administer federal and state unemployment insurance (UI) by $60m.

Fellow GovWin Federal Industry Analysis (FIA) analysts Kyra Fussell, Angela Petty, and Alex Rossino contributed to this entry.

---
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWin FIA. Follow on twitter @GovWinFIA.

Do big contracts mean big failure?

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:52:00 -0400

Procurements and contracts don’t always go as planned. While this is not exclusive to any one type of contract or industry, it is often the very large contracts that have complications, to put it mildly. Mega statewide or citywide contracts have lots of requirements that often apply to several systems. These sizeable projects include revamping radio infrastructure, building out 911, upgrading Medicaid management information systems (MMIS), and major financial system overhauls, all of which require significant time, money and sometimes a bit luck.

Large projects often require longer-than-normal procurement processes due to several factors. First, large projects require lengthy solicitations (request for proposals), which in turn require more time for vendors to develop their response. Second, the comprehensive bids submitted take longer for agencies to review and determine a successful bidder. Additionally, the approval process can often be an uphill climb. Oversized projects carry significant price tags and therefore the buy in from governors, mayors or commissioners isn’t always a quick process. Add all of these pieces together and you have the makings for a drawn-out procurement.

There are a number of projects we can look to in various industries to see how these types of initiatives are often unsuccessful. In the health care industry, the Medicaid management information system procurement field has been plagued with an innovation-squashing procurement cycle – they are typically over budget, deadlines are missed, and systems are outdated by the time they are installed. A study in 2012 found that three out of seven states undergoing an MMIS procurement resulted in canceled projects. Five out of 10 states in the MMIS design, development, and implementation phase experienced significant delays. Some notable MMIS delays include the state of New Hampshire, which recently convened a budget conference committee in the legislature due to concerns with the length of its MMIS implementation. The state’s $61 million MMIS contract with Xerox was the largest computer contract in state history in 2005, and the state now estimates the system will be running by April 1, 2013, which is five years behind schedule, prompting a $15.8 million contract extension.

West Virginia awarded a $248 million contract to Molina, which is now under protest after the original RFP was twice canceled. South Dakota canceled its MMIS contract with CNSI due to cost overruns and being sued by the vendor. The state has now reached a settlement and is in the process of renegotiating a contract for a new MMIS.

Although states recognize that changes need to be made to the costly, burdensome MMIS procurement process (with its few titans), the right answer doesn’t seem to have been discovered yet. With a new set of individuals gearing up to enroll in Medicaid in the coming years, can states afford new systems burdened with the same problems?

The public safety industry is also not immune to procurement failings. The state of New York began planning its statewide wireless network in 2000. After a draft proposal in 2001, it issued an RFP in June 2002 and eventually awarded a contract to M/A-COM two years later in April 2004. The project was expected to cost just less than $2 billion over the 20-year contract. However, the project immediately began to experience delays, and after several years, many failed system tests and the inability of M/A-COM to fix the issues, the state canceled the contract in 2009. The failed and subsequently canceled contract had a major impact on M/A-COM, as it would any company losing a $2 billion contract during a tough economy. Soon after this project hit the fan, Harris Corporation purchased Tyco Electronics Wireless Systems (M/A-COM). It’s unclear whether this sale was a direct result of the failed New York contract, but certainly makes for a curious coincidence.

The state of California has had several run-ins with large procurements that have been delayed or canceled. The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) has been delayed due to a large procurement that was canceled after being deemed illegal. More specifically, the LA-RICS contract was illegal because of its large scope of services. After months of reviews and the eventual cancelation, the project was broken up into various pieces, each procured separately, with a combined estimated price tag of $600 million. The California Administrative Office of the Courts also had major delays leading to the cancellation of its half-billion dollar court case management system (CCMS), which was riddled with issues. The state is now moving forward with a new system.

Finally, on the financial side of the state and local market, New York City will forever be remembered for CityTime. The city sought to upgrade its payroll system; however, the selected vendor, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), has since been removed from the project and is required to pay the city $500 million after a judge ruled in the city’s favor. The project included SAIC employees accepting bribes and stolen or completely wasted money as part of the project implementation. Issues with the system led to numerous scams and scandals, all of which caused the project to go from a $63 million project to a more than $650 million project. The irony is that the upgraded system was supposed to prevent employees from cheating on their time cheats; instead, the city was cheated out of millions of dollars.

Since this disaster, SAIC split in two – the government services business separated from the division that provides technology for national security (now called Leidos), health care and engineering. Is it possible that this large scandal, like the radio project involving M/A-COM, led to the SAIC division? While we may never know the answer, Marjorie Censer, reporter for the Capital Business section of the Washington Post, alluded to the CityTime scandal as well as declining revenues causing the split.

Analyst’s Take

Large contracts that follow large procurements are often doomed from the start. While it is not unheard of for massive projects to move forward without a hitch, they are huge undertakings that often lead to issues down the road. When agencies solicit bids for these projects, vendors must ensure that they are prepared for the extensive planning and negotiations that will occur prior to implementation. Agencies have become aware of the inherent issues that may present themselves with these types of projects, and like Los Angeles learned, splitting up a project into smaller pieces may be the way to go.

It would be easy to advise hiring a consultant to assist with planning and procurement processes, but many of the projects mentioned did in fact utilize a consultant. Agencies that commit to large-scale, high-cost projects must establish working committees and regular meetings throughout in order to safeguard themselves, the project, and the tax and grant dollars that make it happen. As part of this, assigning a clear-cut chain of command can help minimize problems and ensure everyone is properly designated to specific tasks if issues arise. When every stakeholder is part of the process from the start, there is less likely to be problems with a new agency added to the mix.

Additionally, when working in the health care and general government IT sphere, a solid quality assurance and independent verification and validation team can clearly define project goals and establish target dates for those goals. Vendors and the government are then held accountable throughout the implementation process.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

Public safety technology?s state of the union

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:03:00 -0400

Deltek is pleased to present a guest blog on public safety technology in the cloud from InterAct™. InterAct is a GovWin member and this blog post was written by James Cape, senior vice president of marketing.

If you are interested in guest blogging for Deltek on the public safety arena, please contact Evan Halperin for more information! Meanwhile, be sure to follow us on LinkedIn!

Public safety technology has come a long way over the past few years, but many would argue that the industry is still 10 to15 years behind commercial sector technology capabilities. Is this because the needs of public safety are fewer? Certainly not! But as state and local budgets continue to shrink, public safety agencies are being asked to do more with less money, which could impact their ability to fulfill their mission.

Some of this technology gap can be attributed to historical inefficiencies in the industry:

· Political competition instead of cooperation between local, state and federal governments

· The procurement process is expensive:

oThe average, mandated public safety competitive procurement process costs between $50K and $350K

oThis is not for the products, but simply the cost of the request for proposals (RFP) and selection process

· Agencies demand highly customized solutions that can’t easily scale

Apply modern technology

A new generation of technology has already had an immeasurable impact in the commercial sector. There are companies that didn’t even exist 15 years ago such as Google, SalesForce.com, and Amazon, which offer information technology models based on what is commonly called cloud computing. Cloud computing models enable organizations to dynamically share computing resources, ultimately saving them 60-90 percent of the total cost of ownership (TCO) as compared to typical client/server IT systems.

Cloud computing is the use of computing resources (hardware and software) that are delivered as a service over a network by a public or private service provider and accessed by end users from the Internet. Cloud computing enables configurable virtual software application instances that serve multiple client organizations – these applications are referred to as multi-tenant applications.

Multi-tenancy is an essential attribute of modern cloud computing and is one of the many reasons why cloud computing is more beneficial for public safety users. Multi-tenant applications reduce the need for administrative and financial resources necessary for managing individual applications, operating systems, networks and enable governed data sharing between agencies.

Moving to the cloud

Cloud computing allows public safety agencies to share computing infrastructure so they can focus on what they do best – keeping people and their communities safe. Public safety cloud options are superior to traditional premise-based solutions in that they are more secure, more reliable, less costly, easier to use, and they make data sharing and citizen connections simple.

It may be impossible to retrofit most legacy public safety applications to run in cloud. Most vendors will need to adopt completely new platforms to build new cloud applications – a process that will take years to complete.

While adoption of cloud technology by the public safety community is a relatively recent phenomenon, there are agencies both large and small today benefiting from its use. Two examples include the Indiana State Police and Harrison County, Miss. In 2011, the Indiana State Police deployed a state-wide private public safety cloud available to agencies across the state, and Harrison County recently completed modernization of its entire emergency response system.

InterAct believes that the benefits of cloud computing are so great that its adoption has become a key success factor in achieving the mission that we share with our customers: the safety and well-being of citizens and their communities.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.

House FY ?13 Continuing Resolution Gives DoD and VA Flexibility, Has Select IT Implications

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:20:00 -0400

On March 6, the House passed H.R. 933 which would appropriate funding for the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) and fund military construction projects (MilCon) for fiscal year (FY) 2013. The bill will also avert a potential government shut-down near the end of March by funding the remaining departments at their FY 2012 levels under a continuing resolution (CR) effective until the end of the fiscal year. How the bill fares in the Senate is yet to be seen.

Passage of appropriations for the DOD and VA would mean that those departments can allocate funds to new programs, which is not permitted under a continuing resolution which essentially funds the previous year’s programs at the same levels and schedules.

Specifics of H.R. 933, the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 include:

Total discretionary budget authority of nearly $1.2 trillion, including
Full-year appropriations for Defense and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs committees
Defense – $518 billion in non-war funding for the DoD, $87 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO)
MilCon/VA – $72 billion in discretionary funding for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs, with some shifting of funds away from military construction to support increase in veterans’ programs, which are exempt from sequestration
The remaining federal agencies would be funded at fiscal 2012 levels under a continuing resolution covering the remaining 6 months of fiscal 2013

Sequestration

Citing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) March 1^st Sequestration report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted In a letter to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that impact of sequestration on the $1.2 trillion appropriations would be a $68 billion reduction, lowering the overall budget authority for FY 2013 to $1.13 trillion. (An additional $17 billion reduction in mandatory spending brings the total sequestered amount to $85 billion.)

Agency-specific Provisions – Select Details

Although not comprehensive or complete, a quick review of the text of the bill looking for information technology and related acquisition provisions provides the following agency-specific examples.

Veterans Affairs

Veterans Benefits Administration – Provides $3.3 billion for information technology, including $1 billion for staff pay, $1.8 billion for operations and maintenance, and $494 million for systems development, modernization, and enhancement. This DME funding is 2-year money available through FY 2014 but requires the VA Secretary or CIO to submit to Congress a certification of the amounts to be obligated for each project. Further, Congress requires approval of any transfers between the three funding sub-accounts or individual project funding increases/decreases of more than $1 million.
No more than 25% of any joint DoD-VA integrated electronic health record (iEHR) may be obligated until the DOD–VA Interagency Program Office gets the approval of both Congressional Appropriations Committees on the planned costs, timelines, acquisition, etc.
Of the $60.5 billion appropriated for veterans compensation and pension benefits programs no more than $9.2 million “shall be reimbursed to ‘General operating expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’, ‘Medical support and compliance’, and ‘Information technology systems.’”
$115 million for the VA’s the Office of Inspector General, to include information technology costs and for constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the facilities.
Only upon approval of Congress may the VA Secretary transfer funds to/from the VA’s ‘‘Information technology systems’’ account to/from the ‘‘Medical services’’, ‘‘Medical support and compliance’’, ‘‘Medical facilities’’, ‘‘General operating expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration’’, ‘‘General administration’’, and ‘‘National Cemetery Administration’’ accounts.
Department of Justice, General Administration, Justice Information Sharing Technology receives $22 million, the National Protection and Programs Directorate, United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology receives $279 million, and the Office of Health Affairs receives $132.5 million, of which $85 million is for the BioWatch program.

Defense

None of the DoD appropriation can be used for new multiyear procurement contracts for any systems or components if the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500 million, unless specifically provided in the bill. A cursory review finds these are predominantly weapons systems, with some mention of commercial SatCom for naval vessels.
The DoD provisions further stipulate that no multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-day prior notification to the congressional defense committees.
Defense Intelligence Agency funds may be used for the design, development, and deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program intelligence communications and intelligence information systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, and the component commands, unless otherwise stated.
$12 million for mitigation of environmental impacts on Indian lands resulting from DoD activities, including training and technical assistance, related administrative support, the gathering of information, documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete estimates for mitigation.
None of the funds in the Act may be used for research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system.
$519 million in multi-year funds for Cooperative Threat Reduction for the elimination and secure transportation/ storage of nuclear, chemical and other weapons; to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-related technologies, etc.
RDT&E New Starts Justification – Funds appropriated under ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ for any new start advanced concept technology demonstration project or joint capability demonstration project may only be obligated 45 days after a report, including a description of the project, the planned acquisition and transition strategy and its estimated annual and total cost, has been provided in writing to the congressional defense committees. (The Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis.)
Funds appropriated for research and technology for programs of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shall remain available until the end of fiscal year 2014.

Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency receives $35 million for the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System, $22 million shall be for capital improvements at the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center, and not less than $5 million directed to the modernization of automated systems.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) receives $112 million for the E-Verify Program.
DHS’s National Protection and Programs Directorate, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security receives $1.1 billion, with $328 million slated for Network Security Deployment and $218 million for Federal Network Security to establish and sustain essential cybersecurity activities, including procurement and operations of continuous monitoring and diagnostics systems and intrusion detection systems for civilian federal computer networks. $213 million (40%) of the combined $546 million is tagged as multi-year funding through FY 2014.

On to the Senate

According to recent media reports, the Senate leadership will go along with the House leadership’s decision to set fiscal 2013 spending at levels reflecting the $85 billion in spending cuts through sequestration. Time will tell whether anyone in the Senate will seek to shift money for agencies within the top-line spending number specified by sequestration. Top agencies on the Senate list to receive similar funding flexibilities include Homeland Security, Justice, State and Transportation, according to reports.

If enacted, H.R. 933’s funding of the DoD would put dollars behind the priorities and policies outlined in the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act signed in January. For more details on the acquisition and IT implications of the Defense Authorization bill check out our NDAA analysis report.

---
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWin FIA. Follow me on Twitter @GovWinSlye.

Deltek pulse: justice/public safety and homeland security February review

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:50:00 -0400

The most common terms appearing in justice/public safety and homeland security solicitations during February were fire alarm and alerting, consultant and radio. The below word cloud provides a visual interpretation of key term frequency.

Number of Public Safety Bids: 971
Top three states (by number of solicitations released): California (106), Pennsylvania (88) and Georgia (57)
Top three keywords: fire alarm and alerting, consultant and radio

Frequency of terms:

Radio: 9 (7 local and 2 state)
911: 1 (1 state, 0 local)

Weeks after the narrowbanding deadline passed, counties finally seem to be making progress in meeting the new requirements. Several counties awarded projects for new radio systems in February, including Chester County, Penn., and Putnam County, N.Y. Other localities released radio solicitations, including Yadkin County, N.C.; Otsego County, N.Y.; and St. Tammany Parish, La., which released a solicitation to rent radio equipment and trunked repeater services.

While there was significant progress made in several projects as long-awaited RFPs were released, funding continues to be a huge hindrance for many governments. Though several states and localities are used to releasing RFIs to gain a better understanding of technologies and how they could be applied to their specific needs, more and more agencies are using RFIs to determine costs of solutions and whether they can afford to pursue implementation efforts.

Many of these RFIs used for price analysis are resulting in canceled projects a year or two after the initial RFI release. North Carolina released an RFI for computer-aided translation software for the Administrative Office of the Courts in August 2012, and canceled the project in February 2013. Likewise, the California Administrative Office of the Courts canceled its online privacy protection service project, which an RFI was released for in March 2011. Pennsylvania made a surprising choice, given recent media focus on gun control, and canceled its instant gun check system project, which was first mentioned in a 2007 RFI.

Analyst’s Take

Despite many projects being canceled across agencies due to funding, this does not mean they won’t be pursued in the future. Some agencies are moving the projects in house, while others are waiting for the economy to improve. Further entities are seeking funding for necessary projects in unconventional ways. After the rejection of budget requests, the Austin Police Department is seeking forfeited funds to pay for one of its projects. Rockdale County, N.C., is submitting a request for capital appropriations for one of its larger projects, and is also considering applying for grants.

The trend of canceled projects and seeking untraditional funds is likely a response to the government’s sequestration measures, which will likely mean fewer grants for state and local agencies. At this point, however, agencies have been dealing with budget constraints for years, and some projects must be completed. Vendors should keep an eye on the budget process in key localities, including any chances agencies may have to seek additional funds if projects are not included in the finalized budget. This is particularly true for agencies that may have access to forfeited funds or vendors that serve the 911 market, as many 911 boards can spend money collected from citizens’ telephone bills as the 911 surcharge.

Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial.