GovWin
 
 
A Wisconsin turnaround: Reality v. Rhetoric

Written by: Joanna Salini, Stephen Moss and Alexandra Howden

In his 2013 budget address, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker outlined a clear and concise vision for the coming biennium: more prosperity, better performance and true independence. Based on Deltek’s cross-vertical analysis (below), it is clear that Walker’s vision is on display, though perhaps not as ideally as his budget address reads.
 
The economic condition in Wisconsin has improved exponentially since its $4 billion deficit and unemployment rate of nearly 8 percent in 2011. Now, America’s Dairyland has mounted a comeback toward a budget surplus, and unemployment is almost a point less than the national average. In these favorable conditions, the governor has focused his attention on maintaining and improving core government functions – most notably, corrections, K-12 education, and Medicaid.
 
From FY 2013 to FY 2014, the governor’s recommended budget increased by 8 percent, while the budget for corrections and education only increased by 0.2 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively. Medicaid outpaced overall budget growth with a 14 percent year-over-year increase.
 
In line with a focus on better performance, Governor Walker’s budgetary priority of investing in correctional infrastructure sounds promising, but the reality might be quite different. In efforts to reaffirm the state’s commitment to public safety, Walker highlighted plans to improve and expand the state’s criminal justice system, which includes ensuring that all resources are used effectively to provide oversight of correctional facilities and its operations, as well as ensuring that all IT systems are up to date with the latest enhancements. Current systems in place within the Department of Corrections are antiquated and could potentially compromise the safety of those imprisoned as well as those released on electronic monitoring devices.

The Department of Corrections (DOC) manages 18 correctional institutions, 16 correctional centers for adults, two holds facilities, and two correctional institutions for juveniles. Wisconsin’s prison population is expected to grow by the end of 2015 by roughly 3 percent; therefore, per-capital annual inmate costs are also expected to increase. Rise in prison populations are also coupled with an increase in the number of offenders subject to GPS monitoring through community corrections programs. The number of tracked offenders is expected to grow by approximately 37.5 percent by the end of 2015.
 
The DOC has been plagued with insufficient funding and FTE positions available to accommodate these projected increases; therefore, new commitments have been made to fund positions and provide solutions to upgrade department-wide integrated justice information systems. While Governor Walker projects departmental budget increases for IT purposes, the overall budget does not accurately reflect this projection. Instead, the budget for DOC remains relatively stagnant with a slight decrease (less than 1 percent) in departmental expenditures, which indicates the DOC is more focused on maintaining current operations.
 
Other notable justice/public safety and homeland security projects in the state of Wisconsin include a Department of Corrections livescan fingerprint system and driver’s license identification card issuance and production for the Department of Transportation.
 
Governor Walker started off the year making some lofty promises. In his 2013 budget address, he repeatedly expressed the importance of education in the upcoming fiscal year and the need to provide all children a better and more equal education, as well as more affordable options for higher education. Walker directly related education to the developing workforce: “Our educational institutions need to be focused on, and held accountable to, the education of the next generation’s workforce.”
 
The governor continued to stress the direct correlation between an educated youth and a successful workforce. With an “ever-changing labor market for manufacturing, technology, and health care” as the landscape, Walker insists investing in higher education today will result in a stronger workforce and economy tomorrow.
 
“Beyond traditional educational investments, we will make smart, targeted, performance-based investments in our University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Technical College System and traditional K-12 education to ensure our citizens have the skills needed for the jobs of today and tomorrow,” he said in his budget address.
In the Budget in Brief, Governor Walker laid out a 17-step plan for transforming education, which includes providing funding for academic and career planning software, promoting a new educator effectiveness system, and parental input systems for lower-performing schools.
 
All of these initiatives seem well and good, correct? Well, as the old parable goes, actions speak louder than words. While Governor Walker did increase the K-12 education budget from FY 13, he decreased spending from the agency’s request. In the Wisconsin FY 2014-2015 Educational Communications Board budget, the General Purpose Revenue Fund agency request increased by $151,700 for FY 2014, yet the governor’s recommendation decreased by $105,900. This not only denies the agency request for an increase necessary for the projected year, but falls $257,600 below the requested amount. All the while, the federal revenue remains constant, so there is no aid to new projects.
 
Governor Walker did stick to his promises by increasing the program revenue budget. While an increase of $562,400 was requested, the governor increased it by $567,900. This will allow a little extra room to grow projects or even add a few new measures. Additionally, Walker added a performance-based funding incentive to encourage schools to perform better and potentially earn $30,000 a year.
 
Total spending for education increased by 3.4 percent, which leaves room for some of these lofty goals to be accomplished. It may not be feasible to accomplish all of them in the fiscal year, but it will lead Wisconsin in the direction of more prosperity.
 
Critical to attaining the goal of true independence is the governor’s plan for state-administered entitlements. This independence rests on his budgetary pronouncements regarding the optional expansion of Medicaid contained within the pages of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Walker, like many governors across the United States, chose not to opt-in to the ACA Medicaid expansion requirements. That expansion to eligibility for individuals at 138 percent of the federal-poverty level would affect the state’s bottom line to varying degrees in the near term.
 
According to sources including the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, expansion of Medicaid eligibility would actually save the state $65 million; however, the Kaiser Family Foundation fixes the bill at $725 million over the next nine years. With such varying information and the logically inconsistent position that adding millions to an entitlement program would save the state money, Walker opted for a middle-ground position. 
 
Citing the unreliability of a federal government saddled with a $16.5 trillion debt that grows daily, and the virtue of an independent and free populace unencumbered by dependence on government, the governor opted for a slight expansion of Medicaid to include all impoverished Wisconsinites by lifting the enrollment cap for childless adults. This plan would make 82,000 more individuals eligible. However, the governor also places emphasis on the health insurance exchange as critical to reducing the number of uninsured individuals in the state. With the exchange, 87,000 people currently on Medicaid would be eligible for subsidized insurance through the exchange or a private plan. The net effect would be a reduction of the total number of Medicaid enrollees by 5,000, with a simultaneous reduction in the number of insured by 224,580.
As with all political statements, the Medicaid priorities espoused by Governor Walker must be examined within the context of the actual numbers proposed in his budget draft. As part of Deltek’s analysis of the Wisconsin budget, Medicaid spending was collected from FY 2006 through FY 2015. That data shows a 72 percent increase in proposed Medicaid spending – an increase from the FY 2011-2013 biennium of 14 percent per year. As with many other states, Medicaid spending is a main driver in funding growth and far outpaces the 8 percent increase from the FY 11-12 biennium to the FY 14-15 biennium.
 
Also on par with other states, Medicaid accounts for nearly a fourth of the entire state budget. For the past two biennia, that number (approximately 21 percent) has been holding steady, but is expected to rise to 22 percent of the total budget through FY 13-15. The governor’s decision to reduce the overall enrollment in Medicaid while covering more citizens through the use of insurance exchanges seems to be a responsible budgetary move that will allow the state more freedom and flexibility. For the purposes of analysis, it is too early to evaluate the governor’s cost-saving claims.
 
The economic position of Wisconsin has undoubtedly improved over the last few years; however, it has been described by some as still treading water. The budget proposal submitted by Governor Walker for the 2014-15 biennium reflects this reality, which bodes well for vendors conducting future business with the state.
 
Wisconsin has outlined an extensive list of opportunities that will most likely come to fruition in the coming years. The preceding vertical analysis of the corrections, education and health care markets provides an excellent in-depth backdrop by which vendors may position themselves toward achieving the Walker administration’s goals: more prosperity, better performance and true independence. 
 
Vendor Takeaways:
  • There is a focus on corrections, education, and Medicaid in the upcoming fiscal year.
  • Detailed projects (as outlined above) have been forecasted for the year.
  • The governor's increase in budget will allow for bountiful procurement in the state.
Not a Deltek subscriber? Click here to learn more about Deltek’s GovWin IQ database and take advantage of a free trial. Also, click here for an in-depth analysis on State Correction Market Trends for 2013.

Lessening the Blow of Sequestration

OMB may have found a way to bring $5 billion of the $85 billion sequestration price tag, back into play.  The recalculations would free up $4 billion from the Pentagon and $1 billion from other agencies such as NASA and DHS.

When Congress moved money around among various accounts in the Continuing Resolution which took effect in March, it restored $5 billion of the sequestration cuts due to accounting rules that govern the different accounts.  According to a quote from a government official in a recent Government Executive article, “Under the law, if [lawmakers] cut those accounts below their post –sequester level, there is a provision that credits back some of the funds.”  A 1985 budget law prescribes that funds be restored to accounts that had been deeply cut via sequestration.

Much of the specific calculations and data behind the restoration of funds is still hush hush.  According to Associated Press article that broke the story, the process is ongoing and public officials they contacted spoke under the guise of anonymity. 

Although much of the dire consequences of sequestration are yet to be felt by most American citizens, public pressure is mounting to decrease the impact of sequestration cuts.   Agency budget officials have been working with Congress to permit the transfer of funds between accounts to lessen the blow of the cuts.  Some agencies have been able to avoid or shorten furloughs due to this process, such as Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security.  Department of Defense will benefit the most from the new calculations by being able to avoid $4 billion cuts.  

 

FY 2014 Federal Budget Request: Challenges and Opportunities

Although two months late in delivery, the president’s FY2014 Budget Request continues promotion of administrative priorities while proposing cuts and savings to trim the deficit.  Deltek's newly released report, FY 2014 Federal Budget Request:  Challenges and Opportunities, analyzes the spending priorities, policy plans and information technology trends and initiatives in the FY2014 budget request.  

The Obama Administration is requesting $3.8 trillion for FY2014. The budget focuses on jobs creation and economic growth to strengthen the American middle class.  Deltek’s report examines patterns in the $1.2 trillion discretionary budget, as well as the $82 billion information technology budget, including market trends, drivers, and contractor-addressable spending. 

Using a well-honed methodology for gleaning the contractor-addressable portion of federal spending, Deltek calculates projected expenditures for FY2014 for ten different federal product/services market segments.

The chart above shows the contractor-addressable portion of funding across federal agencies, as well as compound annual growth rate for each from FY2012 to FY2014.  Nearly all of GSA's budget authority is under "Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections, Discretionary" to provide GSA the authority to fund its operations using funds collected from sources other than appropriations, primarily service fees.

Should the budget pass as written, Deltek estimates the contractor-addressable portion of IT spending for FY2014 to be $106 billion, which includes traditional IT spending captured in the Exhibit 53, as well as IT spending not typically captured in Exhibit 53 reporting, such as in embedded weapons systems.

Additionally, Deltek predicts contractor-addressable federal spending on architecture, engineering, and construction services will reach $27.7 billion in FY2014.  Aerospace and defense spending will reach $149 billion.  And operations and maintenance spending will reach $80.6 billion.

The budget request and Deltek’s research reveals the following in regards to the different market segments:

  • Information Technology: IT priorities are largely the same as the past 2 years, including shifting from an asset to a service mindset, infrastructure and data center consolidation, and continued transition to cloud computing.
  • Architecture, Engineering & Construction:  Expect a continued shift in funding from major to minor construction, including deferred maintenance, especially in civilian agencies.
  • Aerospace & Defense:  Despite budget constraints, DoD is focused on protecting investments that support the new defense strategy, and the war drawdown continues to impact spending on ground systems and mission support equipment.

As the federal government strives to reduce the deficit and decrease spending, finding contracting areas of opportunity becomes increasingly difficult.  The request provides insight into the administration’s priorities, however the eventual enacted budget is somewhat of a wildcard.  Don’t expect appropriations to conclude prior to Oct. 1, continuing resolutions are likely to prevail.

For more information on Deltek’s report FY 2014 Federal Budget Request: Challenges and Opportunities  see the GovWin IQ website at www.govwin.com.

 

A First Look at Army’s FY 2014 IT Budget

Like other areas of Defense spending, the Army’s information technology budget is shrinking in FY 2014. Despite the decline there are still areas of business opportunity if we dig deeply enough. This post takes a look at some Army programs with total FY 2014 funding <$50M that are slated to receive high percentages of development money.
 
Last week the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the Exhibit 53 document for Fiscal Year 2014. This document provides data concerning agency IT budgets for the last couple of years and outlines where agencies plan to spend in fiscal 2014. In this post we will take a look at the Army’s IT investments, including the overall numbers and programs experiencing declining funding. In an effort to identify potential business opportunities, we’ll also take a look at a few smaller programs (total FY 2014 funding <$50M) slated to receive high percentages of development money. We will focus on smaller programs because much of the funding for larger programs is already wrapped up in large multi-year contract efforts. Industry is going to have to dig deeper into the budget this year to find opportunities worth pursuing.
 
The Big Picture
Drilling into the available data, we find that like other areas of the Defense budget, Army IT funding has been declining. Specifically, Army’s IT budget has decreased from $9.76B to $9.27B, or -4.94%, over the period from FY 2012 to FY 2014.
 
 
Programs with Declining Funding
Starting with programs whose funding is declining, listed below are the five programs experiencing the largest percentage decrease.
 
 
Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP) – Seeing I3MP on this list is somewhat surprising given the emphasis in recent years that Army leadership has placed on modernizing the infrastructure of the now primarily CONUS-based Army’s camps, posts, and installations. This said, budget trimming has forced the Army to downsize its modernization efforts. These are proceeding apace at select locations – Europe, Korea, and some CONUS – but the pace and extent of modernization has been reduced out of fiscal necessity.
 
Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P) – Investment in the JBC-P remains a high priority for the Army, but the level of funding has been declining for a couple of years now. Looking at the Army’s detailed budget submission for JBC-P reveals that the drop in FY 2014 will be the largest, followed by a rebound in FY 2015. The Army anticipates funding required for the JBC-P will rise in FY 2015 to $119M and $113M in FY 2016.
Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System – LRAS3 is a legacy system that has been fielded.
 
Biometrics Enabling Capability (BEC) – Another surprising name on this list, funding for BEC in fiscal 2014 is limited to just under $4M to support the technology refresh of BEC Increment 0, ensuring requirements for system availability, throughput and capacity continue to be met by refreshing the hardware infrastructure with latest generation technologies. Given a pending Full Deployment Decision and designation of BEC as a Program of Record, I would expect funding to pick up in the years ahead.
 
Movement Tracking System (MTS) – Funding has been cut entirely for the MTS because it is converged into the PM FBCB2 Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P), as the 'JBC-P Log'.
 
Programs Receiving Development Funding
Lastly, here is a quick look at programs receiving 100% DME funding. These programs may be efforts for which new contracts will be competed or which will require follow-on contracts for the work to be completed.

 
Army Processing Centers – An APC is an Army Theater-level hub located in a DoD facility where IT applications are centrally, executed, stored, replicated, and managed. Otherwise known as the “cloud,” APCs are provided via the Army Private Cloud (APC2) contract. GovWinIQ is already tracking the potential re-competition of these contracts in 2015.
 
Close Combat Tactical Trainer – The CCTT is a networked system of manned simulators that provide combat support, combat service support, and computer generated forces. It trains crew through battalion level combat elements of both the RC and AC in their collective tasks. This is a requirement managed by Army Program Executive Office Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI). Lockheed Martin holds the latest contract to be awarded for CCTT and this expires in 2016.
 
Electronic Data Manager v1.2 – The Electronic Data Manager is the rugged computer element of Air Warrior (AW) ensemble worn as a kneeboard.  A requirement managed by Army Aviation and Missile Command, work for EDM has been provided by Raytheon since 2006.
 
Army Contract Writing and Management System – A system to support the full spectrum of the Army's acquisition, technology and logistic (AT&L) end-to-end business processes. The requirement is for a single uniform solution for contract writing and management capability and financial auditability. This requirement is being competed under the name Army Procurement Execution Program (APEX).
 
Unified Command Suite – The UCS vehicle is a self-contained, stand-alone C-130 air mobile communications platform that provides voice and data to civil support teams. FY 2014 Base funding in the amount of $18.000 million will modernize, upgrade, and procure components for the Unified Command Suites for Civil Support Teams. Funding supports the UCS platform shelter and integration for 22 UCS systems, Video Teleconference (VTC) upgrade for 21 UCS systems, Satellite Communication (SATCOM) terminal upgrades for 22 UCS systems, and cryptological device modernization of 21 UCS systems. Two current contract competitions related to UCS are underway - The Unified Command Suite & Transportable Communications Package Advanced Echelon (ADVON) and UCS Basic Operator Course Instructional Support.
 
As we can see, the Army’s FY 2014 request registers a slight rebound from FY 2013, when annual Army IT spending sank below $9.2B for the first time in years. Given that Army’s IT budget is declining, what can be said about those programs that the Army is cutting spending on and those in which it is investing?

Georgia's FY 2014 Budget

Despite a financially cautious approach, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal proposed an additional $2.1 billion to the FY 2014 budget compared to FY 2013, bringing total spending to $40.8 billion for the coming fiscal year.

 

The governor wants the FY 2014 budget to focus on eliminating waste, streamlining government operations, stimulating economic growth, and preparing for economic uncertainties. While most agencies’ base spending is reduced in FY 2014, investments will continue in key areas of health care and education. Governor Deal has defined health care as the largest cost driver in Georgia’s recent budgets, and that increased Medicaid expenses will require an additional $246 million in both FY 2013 and FY 2014 over current funding levels.

 

 

True to his word, the governor increased the Georgia Department of Community Health’s budget by $888 million, and the Department of Education saw an increase of $812 million. The University System of the Georgia Board of Regents also received a healthy increase of $220 million. The average reduced funding for departments was pretty minimal – the highest being a $23 million decrease for the Technical College System, and an $8 million decrease for the Office of the Governor.

 

 

Unlike states that report proposed IT budgets alongside new fiscal budgets, Georgia only reports actual IT expenditures from the year prior. The data collected for FY 2012 also reflects a change in IT reporting methodology. In previous years, project portfolio amounts were included, but those amounts are no longer included in an effort to ensure more consistent reporting and to better compare IT spending with other states.

 

It is also important to note that some state entities with large IT expenditures expected, like the University System of Georgia, are not required to report. Only 80 percent of required agencies reported in FY 2012, with just 41 agencies having a commissioner signature on their proposals. Due to the reporting style of Georgia’s IT spending, FY 2013 and FY 2014 are projected by Deltek.

 

Despite a cautious outlook on state and national futures, Georgia maintains a steady spending rate in its total fiscal budgets. The Georgia Technology Authority (GTA) has made several new investments in recent years, and its current momentum is self-described as the nation’s largest state IT modernization. GTA officials said the primary focus in FY 2012 was building strong partnerships with the state’s strategic IT service delivery partners in support of collaboration; this is expected to continue in the years ahead.

 

For more information on Georgia FY 2014 budget, visit the state profile here.

Deltek releases annual state-of-the-states analysis: Webinar to be held this Thursday

Every year, Deltek analysts carefully comb through all 50 governors’ state-of-the-state and budget addresses to identity crucial trends in rising and falling priorities. Understandably, the past few years haven’t been so fruitful, with states cutting key programs, canceling major projects and shifting efforts to stay afloat amid recession’s strapped-budget undertow.
 
Fortunately, states are successfully weathering the storm, and this year’s report contains a bevy of potential vendor opportunities as governors’ agendas increased project items for the first time since 2008. Overall, the total number of governor agenda items rose a sharp 11.6 percent from 2012.
 
In addition to the report, Deltek is presenting a free webinar this Thursday at 2 p.m. EST so vendors can learn how to align technologies with current and emerging policy trends. Go here to register for the free event.
 
Major take-aways from “State of the States, 2013,” include:
  • Governors’ renewed interest in performance-based management, particularly in education
  • More effort to cut corrections and incarceration costs by investing in probation, parole and electronic monitoring programs
  • Heavy focus on Medicaid expansion (both for and against), and how to reduce its costs
  • Increased dedication to developing a strong future workforce by establishing a wealth of present educational opportunities, led by digital learning platforms
  • Amplified justice and public safety initiatives due to natural disasters (Hurricane Sandy) and national tragedies (the Newtown shootings)
  • Continued plans to streamline and consolidate government operations through technology
The report also breaks down governors’ 2013 goals per vertical market, with several charts detailing the number of agenda items mentioned year to year and technology-specific projects.

The full list of report graphs include:
  • 2013 by vertical
  • 2011-2013 comparison by vertical
  • 2008-2013 average by vertical
  • 2013 Agenda Item Popularity vs. 2011-2013 average by vertical
  • Top 25 cross-over agenda items
  • Agenda items with mention of technology, 2013
  • Agenda items mentioned by state, 2013
  • Community development, economic development/regulation, natural resources/environment, and transportation agenda items, 2013
  • Education agenda items, 2013
  • General government services and public finance agenda items, 2013
  • Health care and social services agenda items, 2013
  • Justice/public safety agenda items, 2013
To read the full, 33-page report, please go here. Deltek clients that subscribe to State & Local Industry Analysis (SLIA) may also request (via their Deltek Client Advisor) the Excel workbook containing all of the agenda data compiled for the report.
Lastly, please register for our free webinar this Thursday to learn more about the initiatives and implications of 2013’s state-of-the-state addresses.

 

Michigan's FY 2014-2015 Budget

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.

 

 

OMB Report Charts Growth in Discretionary Spending

The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) submitted its reports on discretionary spending cuts to the President and Congress just ahead of the release of the President’s Budget Request. Along with a the review of spending caps, OMB also released a preview of sequestration in the spending plans for fiscal year (FY) 2014, which looks at discretionary spending out to 2023.
 
The Final 2013 Sequestration Report provides estimates of discretionary spending limits for each category in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), OMB’s scoring of the enacted 2013 discretionary appropriations bill, and comparisons with estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2013. Examining appropriations legislations enacted through April 4, 2013, OMB found that the enacted appropriations are within the discretionary spending limits for 2013 and a sequestration of discretionary budget authority is not required. (Note: The assessment by OMB is distinct from the Joint Committee sequestration.) The chart below shows the caps after various re-categorization adjustments.

BBEDCA provides caps for discretionary program spending each year through 2021. Originally, discretionary programs were separated into “security” and “non-security” categories, which are shown above in the funding levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
·          The security category included budget accounts for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Intelligence Community Management Account, and all accounts in the international affairs budget function.
·          The nonsecurity category covered everything else. After 2013, BBEDCA provided a single category for all discretionary spending.
 
The Budget Control Act (BCA) allowed for revision of the spending caps if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction proposed legislation to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion was not enacted by January 15, 2012. Since legislation was neither proposed nor enacted, the caps were revised in OMB’s Final Sequestration Report of Fiscal Year 2012, which was issued January 18, 2012.
·          The revised security (“defense”) category included only funding for discretionary programs in the national defense budget function: Department of Defense, portions of Department of Energy (including NNSA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
·          The revised nonsecurity (“non-defense”) category covered all other discretionary programs.
·          The discretionary category for 2014 to 2021 was replaced by caps for the defense and non-defense categories. While the budget caps were adjusted to reflect the redefined categories, the overall discretionary spending limits were not changed.
 
The spending caps were changed again, under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), which reinstated the security and non-security categories for 2013 and reduced the limits by $4 billion, split evenly across the two categories. The limits for defense and non-defense spending were left in place for 2014 to 2021. However, the 2014 levels were lowered by $8 billion, split evenly across the defense and non-defense categories.

The preview report sheds light on several proposed revisions to the spending caps in the President’s Budget. The 2014  Budget includes savings in the mandatory and revenue categories, reducing the discretionary limits, restoring the 2013 sequestration amount, cancelling the 2014 mandatory sequestration order, and increasing the 2014 discretionary levels to those agreed to by Congress in ATRA. The Budget Request also proposes extending the spending caps through 2023. The reductions continue to be split between defense and nondefense categories and are set to take effect in 2017.
 
While discretionary spending at the budget proposal levels shows less growth, the levels are higher overall. According to the FY2014 Budget Proposal figures in OMB’s Sequestration Preview Report for FY 2014, the discretionary funding levels from 2013 to 2012 average $25.9 billion above those in the Final Sequestration Report for FY 2013.

The gap between the two plans for FY 2014 leaps out as a notable difference in the two series. The $97 billion increase from the Final 2013 Sequestration report is comprised of several changes. In the budget proposal, both the discretionary categories see an increase from restoring limits from ATRA. The revised security category receives an additional $54 billion, and the revised nonsecurity category receives $37 billion. While the proposed budget shows less of a drop than the Final Sequestration figures, spending rebounds a year later. If the proposed budget is accepted (though, there's ample reason to doubt that it will be), spending would approach 2013 spending levels in 2019.
 
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWin IQ. Follow me on twitter @FIAGovWin.

Transparency success stories: Tacoma Public Schools

The first step in determining what a government is going to want to purchase in the future is to get a good sense of what it purchased in the past. For this reason, the transparency initiatives undertaken by the Tacoma Public School District over the past few years should be encouraging for vendors.
According to Stevel Demel, contracts and warehouse manager, the impetus to make existing contract information more readily available stemmed from a desire to proactively respond to frequent information requests from the vendor community that bogged the procurement department down in paperwork.
“Prior to 2011, the Tacoma School District Purchasing Department would typically get 3 – 5 public disclosure requests for information per month,” said Demel in a written response to Deltek. “As a result, we spent hours copying and preparing documents for disclosure.”
The idea of making all contract information available online came after the district began utilizing online bidding technology for open procurements. This system already allowed the district to automatically post bid tabulations – a fine feature since one of the most frequent requests Deltek gets from members is who they are competing against for a particular procurement. In late 2011, the district was able to pay for the ability to upload its contracts database to the Web for public viewing, which Demel said has dramatically cut down on ad-hoc public disclosure requests.
Tacoma Public Schools provides contract transparency in three forms: inter-local, inter-district and current public contracts. This provides vendors with more or less visibility into all contracting activity for the district, past and present. Additionally, you can filter your searches to search for all contracts set to expire within the next year, making it handy for quick, lead-generating searches. In 20 minutes, I was able to assemble a table of active IT contracts the district currently holds:
 
“We are convinced more bidders means more competition and better prices, so ultimately our customers are benefitting from our transparency efforts as well,” said Demel.
However, the drive for transparency does have limits, and Demel is skeptical about openly discussing upcoming projects to foster competition.
“We tend to avoid [pre-RFP discussions] if doing so would limit competition or drive the specification,” he said. “We want to strike a balance between fairness and the need for discussions/information.”
Further, Demel said the best thing a vendor can do to win a contract is homework. Doing so will ultimately help them develop the best value proposal or bid. He also said the worst things a vendor can do are assume that the last bid submitted will win and failing to read the bid document carefully enough during the RFP process. Purchases below $75,000 can be limited to a list of pre-identified companies; anything over that figure should be competitively bid.

 

 

 

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.

More Entries