GovWin
 
 
Continuous Monitoring as a Service Award on the Horizon

 Improved cybersecurity was called out as one of three administrative priorities for FY 2014. Agencies have been inching towards cybersecurity targets, and an upcoming award may ease agency pains of implementing continuous monitoring solutions.
 
As described in the 2012 FISMA report, continuous monitoring covers three categories: assets, configuration and vulnerability. According to the report, all CFO Act agencies demonstrated the ability to successfully report data feeds to Cyberscope. While agency implementation of automated continuous monitoring increased in FY 2012, 7 out of 24 civilian agencies did not have monitoring programs in place.
 
 According to the agency capability implementation, scores often appear lopsided. Overall, agency implementation would need a 7% improvement in FY 2013 to meet the implementation target. Perhaps, DHS’s continuous monitoring program will provide the boost lagging agencies have needed.
 
 
 Last year, The Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) announced that it’s developing a Continuous Monitoring as a Service (CMaaS) capability. The result of this effort would be an array of sensors that collects data about agency cyber security risks and presents that information in an automated and continually updated dashboard. This display will allow technical workers and managers to improve an agencies’ view of security, to counter recurring threats more effectively, and to support a data-driven approach to agency risk management.

 
As we previous explored, the core capabilities for DHS’s continuous monitoring fell into five areas: hardware asset management, software asset management, vulnerability management, configuration management, and anti-virus. The continuous monitoring program outlined several approaches, including a service-based solution.CMaaS solutions will be based upon NIST standards including a number of guidelines set out in NIST’s 800 series of special publications:
  •  “Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments” (SP 800-30)
  •  “Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems” (SP 800-37)
  •  “Guide for Managing Information Security Risk” (SP 800-39)
  •  “Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations” (SP 800-53)
  • “Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems and Organizations”   (SP 800-53A)

 
DHS plans to shoulder the financial responsibility for this continuous monitoring effort because many agencies lack the resources and expertise.  In December 2012, the contracting office released a request for quote (RFQ) that covers both the CMaaS and tools portions of Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM). Responses to the RFQ were due in February 2013. Strategic sourcing is expected to be leveraged using DHS funds to implement sensors (where missing), a federal dashboard, and operating services. The General Services Administration (GSA) will be charging a 2 percent fee to agencies using the broad purchase agreement (BPA). Over 40 vendors have expressed interest in the $6 billion opportunity. The performance period is set for five years. Officials have stated that they expect to issue awards before October 2013. Deltek analysts currently estimate the announcement of the awards in June 2013.
 
Updates regarding the CMaaS award can be found on GovWin under Opportunity ID 89183 (log in required).
 
 Originally published for Federal Idustry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of them competition by discovering more about GovWinIQ. Follow me on twitter @FIAGovWin.

NIST to Hold Workshop Series on Cybersecurity Framework

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.

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

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.

Highlights of the President’s FY2014 Budget Request

Today President Obama delivered a $3.8 trillion spending plan to Congress which includes a $1.2 trillion request in discretionary funding levels and nearly $82 billion for information technology for FY2014.  The budget focuses on jobs creation, economic growth and to strengthen the American middle class.

The budget proposal also includes $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction measures over 10 years to reach a total deficit reduction of $4.3 trillion.   The proposed deficit actions would reduce the deficit to 2.8%of GDP by 2016.

Additionally, the budget proposes $400 billion in cuts to health programs including Medicare.  Savings and cuts would come from negotiating better prescription drug prices, fighting waste and fraud, and requiring the wealthiest seniors to pay more.

The table below shows the FY2013 enacted budget levels and the proposed FY2014 levels.

 

Other budget highlights:

  • Includes $50 billion for upfront infrastructure investments to invest in repairs to highways, bridges, airports, transit systems, and to encourage innovative infrastructure projects 
  • Invests in in education reforms and training with a commitment to early childhood education
  • Simplifies the tax code and raises $580 billion for deficit reduction by limiting tax benefits, but not raising tax rates
  • Creates new “ladders of opportunity” to ensure that hard work leads to a decent living by developing pathways to jobs and partnering with communities to rebuild after the recession 
  • Includes $200 billion in savings from other mandatory programs, such as reductions to farm subsidies and reforms to retirement benefits 
  • Proposes $200 billion in discretionary savings from both defense and non-defense programs 
  • Offers $230 billion in savings from changes in the way the government calculates inflation for annual cost-of-living adjustments for benefits programs

Information Technology

The president’s budget proposes nearly $82 billion in IT funding, a 1.8% increase from the FY 2013 CR and a 2.1% increase over FY 2012 estimated level.

IT-related budget highlights:

  • $575 million in savings is anticipated from DoD Data Center Closures. 
  • $324 million is being cut from the DoD’s Global Hawk UAV program. 
  • $22 million is being cut from Computer and Information Science and Engineering Research Programs at the National Science Foundation; CISE is the organization responsible for promoting R&D on big data.  NSF’s budget takes big hits for its small size, which will affect grant spending on technology R&D.  
  • $81 million is being cut from the DoD’s Precision Tracking and Space System, which is part of Ballistic Missile Defense at the Missile Defense Agency. 
  • $38 million in savings related to the Joint Polar Satellite System is anticipated at the Department of Commerce. 
  • $29 million in savings is anticipated from IRS Business Systems Modernization at the Treasury. 

All told, the president’s budget request includes 215 cuts, consolidations, and savings proposals, which according to the administration, are projected to save more than $25 billion in FY2014.  The budget proposal outlines the administration’s priorities and proposed methods for generating more revenue, cutting costs, and reducing the deficit.  However, it joins competing budget plans in the House and Senate.  Serious Capitol Hill budget negotiations are not likely to take place until this summer.

 

 

 

 

Surviving Sequestration: The 2nd Half of FY 2013 Could See $300 Billion in Federal Contract Dollars

Increasingly, we hear from companies in the federal marketplace that they struggle to plan and forecast their business prospects. There have been so many delays, false starts, and misaligned priorities that it is sometimes hard to know what opportunities are real and how to position your firm to compete. Now, the impacts of sequestration are beginning to ripple through an already skittish market, adding to the uncertainty. Yet, there are some things to consider that might indicate the contracting potential for the rest of fiscal 2013 and beyond.
Whenever things get unbearably uncertain it is important to have access to good data and information, plus a little creative thinking. It is the only way I know how to keep from making reactionary decisions and to get into proactive mode. So when it comes to thinking about the business prospects for the remainder of fiscal year (FY) 2013 it helps to build some historical context.
To get a sense of the historical pace and relative magnitude of federal spending for the remaining two fiscal quarters of 2013 I looked at the reported quarterly contract obligations across the federal government for the last five years. As I have noted in the past, we have seen a shift in federal spending to later and later in the fiscal year. Spending in Q1 and Q2 (in varying degrees) has shifted to Q3 and Q4. Even with some yearly fluctuation, the trend has been fairly stable. (See chart below.)
These shifts have occurred during a period where we have seen increasing use of continuing resolutions (CR), omnibus appropriations and other delays to funding federal agencies. FY 2013 is not particularly unique in this respect, so it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the trend will hold this year as well. 
Projected Spending for the Rest of FY 2013 – a Possible Scenario
Now that we have received data for the first two quarters of FY 2013 it becomes possible to perform some rough projections of what might be still on the table for Q3 and Q4. I used FY 2012 data as a basis to make these projections. For FY 2012, adding together Q1 and Q2 departmental obligations and then dividing that sum by the department’s total obligations gave me the relative percentage of total obligations that occurred in Q1 and Q2. (See the table below for the top 20 federal departments and agencies.)
Assuming that agency contracted spending in FY 2013 will be at least 90% of what it was in FY 2012 (sequestration may represent about a 7% cut, so this 10% difference seemed reasonable to me) I followed a similar approach to calculate estimates for Q1 and Q2 percentages and potential remaining obligations for the remainder of FY 2013. 
For example, in the table below the Army had combined FY 2012 Q1 and Q2 obligations of $41.6 billion, which was 38% of their total FY 2012 obligations. The Army had a total of $17.8 billion in contract obligations for Q1 and Q2 of FY 2013, which represents 18% of the projected potential total FY 2013 spend, using my 90% of FY’12 assumption. Applying the percentage left over (i.e. 82%) to my total FY 2013 estimate results in a potential remaining obligation balance for Q3 and Q4 of $79.6 billion for the Army.
 
Granted, performing estimates at this macro level has its limitations and it requires certain broad assumptions for consistency, like a comparable year-over-year obligation rate and that, to some degree, these expenditures are for recurring needs. Some departments have a measure of cyclicality that is underrepresented in a chart covering just a few years. For example, Energy tends to run cyclically between 40% and 68% for Q1 and Q2 every other year or so like a pendulum. Further analysis into the specific contracts is needed to understand why.
Implications
Comparing the 2012 and 2013 percentages reveals that nearly all of the top 20 departments are behind in obligating funds, even with an assumed 10% reduction in spending from FY 2012. While the one-two punch of delayed budgets and sequestration might explain much of this it still remains that these agencies will need to obligate their remaining budgets by the end of the fiscal year. Even (or especially) in this uncertain budgetary environment, agencies will not likely leave money unspent. It is still a “use it or lose it” world out there. So there may likely be some significant pent-up demand that we could see play out in the remaining two quarters.

If this simple analysis holds even close to reality the potential remaining total contract obligations across all federal departments and agencies could be over $300 billion in Q3 and Q4, or 70% of total FY 2013 contract obligations. The second half of fiscal 2013 could potentially see federal contract dollars really flow.

Surviving Sequestration: Over $116 Billion in Contracting Opportunities on the Horizon

Despite the emphasis the tighter budgets agencies face under sequestration, major contract opportunities are continuing to move forward. The sum total for 28 upcoming contracts is $116.142 billion. Of course, small businesses won’t be left out in the cold. Of that total, close to some $17 billion will for be small businesses awards.

Contract Status Key

Moving Forward

On Hold

X

Cancelled

Contracting Office Not Commenting

*

Small Business Opportunity

Note: GovWin IQ login is required to view the reports at the Opportunity ID hyperlinks below. 

Agency

Program/Account

Value

Opportunity ID

Status

Air Force

Training System Acquisition Program (TSA III)

$20.9 B

37291

 Air Force

* Engineering Professional Administrative Support Services (EPASS)

$5.0 B

93515

Air Force

*Network-Centric Solutions (NETCENTS II A&AS)

$710 M

48254

Air Force

* Technical Data Support Services (TDSS(e))

$467 M

78427

Air Force

*Follow On Third Party Logistics Services for Support Equipment Commodity Council (3PL SECC)

$288 M

92288

Army

Train Educate and Coach (TEACH)

$8.0 B

69254

Army

Space and Missile Defense Technology Design Development Demonstration and Integration (D3I)

$4.9 B

54159

Army

Strategic Service Solutions (S3)

$4.0 B

86280

Army

Utility Monitoring and Control Systems for Heating Venting and Air Conditioning

(UMCS IV) (HVAC)

$2.5 B

80441

Army

Technical Information Engineering Services (TIES)

$995 M

69356

Army

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC III)

$1.5 B

78525

Army

*Information Management Communications Services (IMCS 3)

$500 M

72006

Commerce

* Patent Office Support Services (PTOSS IV)

$252 M

32547

Education

Common Services for Borrowers (CSB)

$2.3 B

33550

X

GSA

One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS)

$12.0 B

90928

HHS

Health Marketing Communications Services (HMCS)

$870 M

67831

HHS

Chief Information Officer Commodity Solutions

(CIO-CS)

$10.0 B

47886

NASA

Solutions for Enterprisewide Procurement (SEWP V)

$20.0 B

82396

NASA

Center Maintenance Operations and Engineering (CMOE)

$971 M

53636

NASA

* Marshall Engineering Technicians and Trade Support Services (METTS)

$151 M

53603

State

Passport Support Services (PSP)

$570 M

64443

State

 * Hybrid Information Technology Services for State (HITSS II)

$2.1 B

49544

USAID

Encouraging Global Anticorruption and Good Governance Efforts (ENGAGE)

$750 M

83090

Defense

Global Network Services (GNS)

---

86970

Defense

Defense Systems Technical Area Tasks (DS) (TATs)

$3.0 B

48780

Defense

Homeland Defense and Security Technical Area Tasks (HD TATs)

$900 M

48776

Defense

* Special Operational Equipment Tailored Vendor Logistics Support Program

$5.7 B

70506

DHS

BiowatchGen 3

$3.1 B

68486

Navy

Rapid Response Irregular Warfare (RR/IW)

$5.0 B

67883

Navy

Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Services Full Deployment Production Units (CANES)

$1.0 B

50287

Source: Deltek

Many of Deltek’s opportunity analysts have reported that contracting offices have been unable to comment on the precise impact of sequestration their programs. Contractors will want to monitor changes in requirements and scheduling as the precise impact of sequestration becomes clearer.

In some cases, agency officials indicated that sequestration is not expected to have an immediate impact on their contract. Future delays in funding, however, could be a possibility. Certainly, agencies are prioritizing programs, complying with mandates and, in some cases, restructuring their efforts. Program cancellations, however, seem to be in the minority.

Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Protection – Themes from TTC’s Symposium

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

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

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 FIAFollow on twitter @GovWinFIA.

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

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 1st 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 FIAFollow me on Twitter @GovWinSlye.

More Entries