B2G is moving!
Blogs posted after May 22, 2015 will be located on Deltek's central blog page at
Just select the "B2G Essentials" blog to continue to receive this valuable content.
Energy Department Releases New Data Management Policy

August 4, 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced a new effort to promote open data through access to DOE funded public research. Along with push for public access to information, the department is implementing a new policy for data management that takes effect October 1, 2014.

According to Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, “these new policies set the stage for increased innovation, commercial opportunities, and accelerated scientific breakthroughs.” Like other government agencies looking to tap into the data they generate, DOE recognizes a great potential for economic and intellectual value.  As Secretary Moniz noted, “increasing access to the results of research funded by the Department of Energy will enable researchers and entrepreneurs to capitalize on our substantial research and development investments.”

The department is implementing a new policy for data management for all research funding through the Office of Science effective October 1, 2014. According to the policy, all proposals for research funding will need to include a Data Management Plan. As outlined in a statement from the Office of Science, “data management involves all stages of the digital data life cycle including capture, analysis, sharing, and preservation.” These data management plans must meet requirements across areas like sharing and preservation, open data, resources, and protection.

Sharing and preservation: Plans must outline data collection, access, sharing, and storage. Explanation will be provided for any data excluded from sharing or preservation. For example, cost considerations or limitations related to data protection driving decisions not to share or preserve data need to be fully described. The minimum requirement for the plans is to describe how validation of research results will be facilitated.

Open data: Resulting research publications and supporting data is to be open, machine-readable, and publicly accessible. This includes chart data as well as figures and images. While supporting data may be made available as a supplement, the published research will need to identify how supporting data can be accessed.

Resources: Since the data will result from research efforts, the plans are expected to reference the information and data management resources used for the research and include any necessary facility approvals where additional resource requirements are anticipated.

Protection: Plans will account for sensitive data including confidentiality, personal privacy, Personally Identifiable Information, and U.S. national, homeland, and economic security.  They are also expected to address proprietary data and intellectual property rights. (There is no requirement to share proprietary data.) And, of course, the plans must align with applicable laws, regulations, and DOE policies.

Sponsoring programs (or sub-program) or solicitations may include additional requirements or review criteria. Vendors can expect these data management requirements to start appearing in funding solicitations and invitations this October. Other Energy Department research offices are expected to implement requirements for data management plans with in the next year. The full details of the requirements being rolled out by the Office of Science can be found on their website.


Originally published in the GovWin FIA Analysts Perspectives Blog. Follow me on Twitter @FIAGovWin.


Shared Services to Ease DATA Act Implementation

Dick Gregg, Fiscal Assistant Secretary of The Treasury and the executive assigned to implementing the DATA Act, expressed concern about the quick three year implementation timeline for the DATA Act at a recent Federal Financial Management Conference.  However, he believes that moving agencies to shared financial management services is a “force multiplier.”

Gregg believes outsourcing financial management functions to one of the four recently approved federal financial management shared service providers could streamline the compliance process.  “The sooner we can move more agencies into shared services, the easier it’s going to be to implement the DATA Act,” he stated.

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act creates standards for agency reporting of financial data and makes it publically available.  The Act specifies a three year implementation timeline to begin with Treasury’s establishment of a data analytics center modelled after the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board’s Recovery Operations Center for the Stimulus.  The center will work with OMB to establish agency financial reporting standards.  OMB will also set up a two-year pilot program for use by contractors and grantees.  Gregg wants to move quickly with demonstration programs to see what will work. 

The Act provides no funding for implementation.  This may explain the less than enthusiastic reception from some agency financial managers.  They fear reporting may cast more of a burden on already strained resources.  According to Mary Peterman, president of the Association of Government Accountants, “…generally, they all believe in the essence [of the Act], except that whether the legislating transparency is a value proposition for the citizenry is somewhat the question.”    

Ultimately, the new financial reporting will be available via which is now managed by Treasury.  After implementation, the federal spending data available via the site will provide a deeper view into federal spending.  Not only will the additional data provide transparency to the public, it should help agency executives gain more insight into their operations, leading to improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. 


Open Data Action Plan Poses IT Investment Challenges

Government information systems create, manage, and store a wealth of information that has yet to be fully utilized. The push to treat information as an asset is fuelled by the potential to increase government efficiency, improve accountability, and drive economic growth through innovation and scientific discovery. As progress continues toward making government data publicly available and useable, agency technology spending must straddle various and sometimes incompatible objectives.

In May 2013, the administration issued an executive order establishing open and machine-readable data as the default for government information. On the first anniversary of that step, the White House published its Open Data Action Plan. The document outlines new commitments and builds on the efforts established through the Open Data Charter.

The five strategic principles of the Open Data Charter, released mid June 2013, include achieving open data as a default expectation, maintaining quality and quantity of data releases, providing the data in a range of useable formats, improving governance by cultivating expertise around data collection, standards, and publishing; and cultivating innovation through empowering users. Continuing in this vein, the Open Data Action Plan describes four commitments around publishing data, prioritizing data releases, supporting innovators, and improving data.

Working toward making open data the default for government information, progress has been made both at a strategic level around policy and administrative initiatives as well as at the federal agency level. For example, the new action plan notes that, “All executive branch agencies are now required to develop a machine-readable catalog of their public data at [department].gov/data.json, such as, allowing simple software tools to automatically get updated information about the latest data available and have access to the same information that collects and publishes.”

The requirements for cataloging and providing access to data will shape efforts in parallel to agency initiatives around modernization and consolidation. The technology transformation underway (e.g. adoption of shared services, mobile technologies, and cloud computing) offers an opportunity to incorporate necessary adjustments to make data available at the same time. As agencies pursue work to refresh technology and improve efficiency, they will also need to be aware of the information being handled by their systems. While some data sets pose no issue for public release, security and privacy concerns present hurdles for others. Some agencies face additional challenges around making information available externally without compromising the internal performance of work by federal users. 

The goal of releasing and enhancing high-priority data sets will engage the support of Presidential Innovation Fellows. Projects that will be led by Presidential Innovation Fellows include work at the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, Labor, and Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service. These efforts, along with other examples highlighted in the plan, will serve as test cases for agencies to demonstrate the successful adoption of best practices and the value of the technology investments made along the way to the achievement.

These days, government agencies are aiming to stretch their technology spending, looking to improve both their efficiency and effectiveness. At the same time, increased oversight continues to drive greater accountability and drives reporting requirements. Together, this creates a push to be selective and prioritize funding. While the goal of default open data is clear, there’s a lot to be done to reach that target. The forty-some data sets selected as examples of expansions, enhancement, and releases in the action plan illustrate the work that lies ahead for agencies.


Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWinIQ. Follow me on twitter @FIAGovWin.



White House Cyber Czar Walks a Thin Line on Cybersecurity Info Sharing

If the federal government knew about the Heartbleed security bug before it became public, would they have said anything? The answer, according to Michael Daniel, the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, is an unequivocal . . . “maybe.”  

In a recent White House Blog post, Daniel reiterated the NSA assertion that they had no prior knowledge of the existence of Heartbleed, the recently discovered vulnerability in OpenSSL that could expose online passwords and encrypted Internet traffic to hackers. Daniel used the occasion to wade into the murky waters of when the federal government would, and would not, withhold knowledge of a computer vulnerability from the public.  He affirmed the administration’s “commitment to an open and interoperable, secure and reliable Internet, and in the majority of cases, responsibly disclosing a newly discovered vulnerability is clearly in the national interest.”

But he also noted that a major reason they would delay disclosure is if the opportunity for critical intelligence gathering was deemed to outweigh the cost of the delay. At odds are the extremes of saying nothing and maintaining and exploiting a collection of undisclosed vulnerabilities while leaving users vulnerable . . . and saying everything and completely forgoing this knowledge as a way to conduct intelligence gathering.

In an effort to balance the trade-offs between transparency and secrecy with a strong leaning toward disclosure, Daniel outlined a list of question he wants agency officials to address whenever they are proposing to withhold their knowledge of vulnerability:

  • How much is the vulnerable system used in the core internet infrastructure, in other critical infrastructure systems, in the U.S. economy, and/or in national security systems?
  • Does the vulnerability, if left unpatched, impose significant risk?
  • How much harm could an adversary nation or criminal group do with knowledge of this vulnerability?
  • How likely is it that we would know if someone else was exploiting it?
  • How badly do we need the intelligence we think we can get from exploiting the vulnerability?
  • Are there other ways we can get it?
  • Could we utilize the vulnerability for a short period of time before we disclose it?
  • How likely is it that someone else will discover the vulnerability?
  • Can the vulnerability be patched or otherwise mitigated?

The impact of the answers to these questions on the share/don’t share decision is unclear, since by his own admission “there are no hard and fast rules.”

In a previous blog post that ran about the same time that Heartbleed was coming to light, Daniel emphasized the importance of information sharing to improve the nation’s overall cybersecurity posture. In that blog he said “reducing barriers to information sharing is a key element of this Administration’s strategy to improve the nation’s cybersecurity,” and that they would ”continue to work to address the concerns our private sector partners have raised that the government should share more of its own information, so that companies could better protect themselves.” “Our goal is for the government to be a reliable information sharing partner, but only one of many.” 

In an era where government transparency and secrecy issues have become high-profile in the public mind, the above guidelines show the tightrope the White House is attempting to walk.

Originally published in the GovWin FIA Analysts Perspectives Blog. Follow me on Twitter @GovWinSlye.

Another Win for Transparency: The DATA Act Passes

President Obama is expected to sign legislation this week that will mandate standard coding and reporting of federal spending data.  Last week the House passed the Senate version of the DATA Act.  The Senate passed the legislation earlier in April.

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act’s leading sponsors include Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rob Portman (R-OH).  The purpose of the act is to

  • Disclose direct federal agency expenditures and link federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to federal programs to enable taxpayers and policy makers to track federal spending more effectively.
  • Establish government-wide data standards for financial data and provide consistent, reliable, and searchable government-wide spending data that is displayed accurately for taxpayers and policy makers on
  • Simplify reporting for entities receiving federal funds by streamlining reporting requirements and reducing compliance costs while improving transparency.
  • Improve the quality of data submitted to by holding federal agencies accountable for the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted.
  • Apply approaches developed by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to spending across the federal government.

Modelled after federal spending and reporting for the 2009 Stimulus, the DATA Act will give contractors and grant holders a central portal to log receipt and spending of federal funds.  The law purports to save the federal government billions by reducing waste and fraud, and increasing performance.  Less than 1% of Stimulus spending was lost to fraud.

“The DATA Act is but the first shot of a technology revolution that will transform the way we govern,” according to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA).  Other industry groups also praised the passage of the act including the Professional Services Council, the Center for Data Innovation, TechAmerica and the IT Alliance for Public Sector.

Rep. Issa would like to see a DATA Act “champion” to move the implementation process along and avoid delays.  Treasury will also play a vital role in implementation due to its oversight and management of  Execution of the act will not be easy.  For example, the community of federal grants recipients has identified 1,100 data elements that could potentially be included in standard reporting.

However, many elements of the act fall in line with transparency efforts already underway in agencies.  For instance, work to standardize CAGE Codes to show ownership relationships between corporate entities is already taking place.   Efforts are also in process to standardize the designation of contract numbers.

Contractors will be affected by requirements to report data as a recipient of federal funds.  Also, opportunities will  likely arise to assist with implementation of the act in the way of technology solutions for data entry, storage, retrieval, analysis and display. 

“The DATA Act gives policymakers in Congress and in the executive branch better data to make better decisions,” Rep. Issa stated. 


Ironies abound: Procurement for New York/New Jersey transparency website shrouded in secrecy

Last year I wrote about the New York/New Jersey Port Authority’s request for information for a comprehensive transparency website to provide the public with better insight into Port Authority operations and practices. At the time, the semi-independent organization was facing a tremendous amount of heat from both politicians and the public for its secretive and opaque approach to a myriad of hot-button issues, including toll and fare hikes, public meetings, and bonuses paid to top-level authority officials. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was hammering the organization and threatening to use his veto pen to inflict pain on the Port Authority without major changes to transparency policies. All of this posturing set the stage for the August 2012 RFI and what was supposed to be a new day of open government and transparency. 

Well, it turns out that the whole process may have been an exercise in misdirection by the agency, and my experience following up on the RFI is indicative of how the authority’s definition of “transparency” can be a little different than yours or mine. 

In December 2012, the Port Authority’s 2013 operating budget included funding for the establishment of a new Transparency Office charged with overseeing and managing “the unimpeded flow of agency information to the public.” It also established a new contracts page that did a better job of keeping the public up to date on award and contract information. 

In February 2013, the Board of Commissions officially approved a resolution adopting a new set of key operating principles for all future Port Authority operations. The very first key principle states that “The Port Authority shall proactively communicate, be transparent in its decision making, and set clear expectations upon which to measure the results of its actions.” 

In April 2013, the designated point of contact in the contracting office declined to answer any and all questions related to this RFI, including whether an open procurement had taken place or whether an award had been made. In May 2013, the Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution honoring outgoing Port Authority commissioner James P. Rubin

for, among other things, pushing “various initiatives to build on the agency’s commitment to the highest standards of accountability and transparency to the public and to promote transparent, efficient and ethical corporate governance practices and to adopt measures to adhere to the highest government accountability standards of the states of New York and New Jersey.  

Shortly after that conversation, Deltek filed its first FOIA, requesting all documents related to the establishment of a transparency website. The agency’s FOIA office sent a letter in response on May 10, 2013, informing Deltek that these documents were exempt from disclosure under Clause 2A of the Port Authority’s Freedom of Information Code. Clause 2A of the organization’s code reads that documents can be exempt from FOIA disclosure in cases where "if disclosed, would impair or give a competitive advantage in connection with, present or imminent awards or negotiation of collective bargaining agreements, leases, permits, contracts or other agreements, open procurement matters, contracts not yet awarded, unexecuted leases or permits and portions of scoring or evaluation documents not constituting a part of a final agency action document."

Careful readers of the clause will note it is worded broadly enough to encompass future bids, contract negotiations for released bids, contracts currently under negotiation, and contracts established outside the competitive bidding process. Essentially, the Port Authority doesn’t need to comment on or release documents for procurement at any stage of the procurement process except after it has been awarded. 

Setting aside the obvious irony of an organization doing everything it can to avoid being transparent about the procurement of a website specifically designed to increase transparency, what is most amazing here is that the agency has carved out an exception from FOIA disclosure so large that it can encompass virtually any procurement or contract it handles until the point where it is far too late for vendors who are shut out of the process to do anything about it. 

In the interests of absolute fairness, I called the authority’s procurement office again before sitting down to write this piece in the hopes of gaining some kind of insight into what had happened with this project. This time, the office confirmed that an award had been for the requirements set forth in the RFI, but then categorically declined to provide any information about the award. Instead, the contracts officer claimed that the procurement office was not the “proper channel” for ANY questions regarding award or contract information, and that only the FOIA office was empowered to do so. I’ll repeat that because it bears repeating: The procurement office for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is “not empowered” to discuss procurements or awards made through procurements. 

Of course, it is not just procurement matters where the Port Authority has taken heat for a lack of openness. A quick Google search using the terms “Port Authority of New York and New Jersey” and “transparency” shows that this is more or less how Port Authority officials approach most issues regarding transparency and disclosure, whether the inquiries come from private citizens, businesses and even lawmakers tasked with oversight of the organization. 

Analyst’s Take

So let’s review here. We have an RFI for increased transparency that the purchasing office was instructed not to comment on; an entity that, to this day, operates in a manner so secretive that state political officials charged with oversight cannot get answers on matters that directly affect their constituent; a procurement office that explicitly rejects any claim that it is empowered to discuss procurements or award information, and insists that only the FOIA office can answer award questions; and, finally, a FOIA office that exempts contract and award information from disclosure.

Earlier this week, the chairman of the New Jersey State Assembly Transportation Committee released the following statement regarding his attempts to induce Port Authority officials to release information regarding lane closures in September:

“Despite a budget that exceeds that of more than half of the states in this country, the Port Authority has become an agency that operates with little accountability and no transparency. It has lost sight of what it means to serve the public and I intend to continue my pursuit of the truth about this matter as well as the long list of other issues that have raised questions and concerns about the agency’s operations and management.”

Deltek has re-filed a FOIA for contract and award information for this project since the justifications given under Clause 2A of the Port Authority’s FOI code should theoretically no longer apply, unless the office can make an argument that releasing awarded contract information would in some way impair or give a competitive advantage to vendors. The results of that FOIA request will be published on theTracked Opportunity page that was created to follow the initial RFI. 

In the meantime, vendors should take this information in context when doing future business with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. There is no substitute for being the first in the door with these contracts, as it can give you the ability to shape and restrict others from that business or knowledge. Of course, a far better alternative would be a Port Authority that takes its own statements and objectives regarding transparency seriously. Failing that, unless you are the selected vendor, chances are you will be more or less in the dark before, during and after the procurement process takes place. 


DATA Act Passes House

Mid-November, the House passed the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (or DATA Act), which stands to improve the transparency of federal spending. Introduced back in May of this year, the legislation would standardize and publish government reports and data related to financial management, procurement, and assistance. <font >

Under the legislation, the Treasury department is called to establish data standards in consultation with OMB, GSA, and the heads of federal agencies. In addition to standardizing the information, the data would be made publicly accessible in machine-readable format through the improved site. Recipients of federal funding, including state and local organizations, would regularly report how money is being spent.

The accessibility of this data holds promise for delivering greater transparency to citizens and investors, identifying and eliminating waste and fraud through data analytics, and facilitating automation of compliance for contractors and grant recipients.

Introduced back in May, the House vote on H.R. 2061 passed the House on November 18, 2013. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs passed their version of the bill (S. 994) and reported it to the full U.S. Senate on November 6, 2013. Although a version of the bill passed the House in 2012, it failed to receive Senate committee votes.

Currently, the version in of this legislation in the Senate removes a provision for an expanded role of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board’s accountability platform. This existing system has aided inspectors generals to find waste and fraud in stimulus grants and contracts. The substitute amendment not only cuts this accountability platform, it removes “prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and improper payments” from the goals of the bill. It might seem like this move hamstrings the inspectors generals ability to use this data, but that may not be the case. Once the data is available, other systems and technologies may advance to provide more robust analytics solutions. Although the Recovery Board’s accountability platform already exists, the Board itself is scheduled to end its operations in 2015. Unless the final version of the bill expands the accountability platform, inspectors general will be faced with a window to identify a replacement capability for recovering and preventing fraud.

Through its Open Data policy and associated initiatives, the administration has sought leverage transparency to stimulate innovation, increase efficiency, and reduce waste. Back in September 2013, the Data Transparency Coalition hosted the nation’s first open data policy conference to explore opportunities for new tools to streamline processes. As momentum behind these efforts continues and financial reporting requirements persist, contractors and grant recipients should anticipate further spending scrutiny to drive transparency and decrease waste, fraud, and abuse.


Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWinIQ. Follow me on twitter @FIAGovWin.

Future of Open Data Draws Attention to Innovation, Policy

Representatives from federal agencies, transparency organizations, legislative staffers, technology companies, and activists gathered this month to discuss the future of open data policies. Yet, some agencies have their own initiatives to encourage innovation underway.
On September 10, 2013, the Data Transparency Coalition hosted the nation’s first open data policy conference. The discussion examined the impact of open data and explored opportunities for new tools to streamline processes and target waste, fraud, and abuse. Meanwhile, the government is looking to release the follow on to its Open Government Action Plan, and the floor is open for comments and suggestions on encouraging public participation, improving management of public resources, and achieving effective collaboration to advance public services. Feedback submissions are requested by September 23, 2013.
Even as government, industry, and academia chart steps to open silos within the federal data portfolio, agencies are making strides to achieve great agility by leveraging data. In a recent interview, Dr. Sasi Pillay, Chief Technology Officer for IT, described several programs promoting innovation at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). One focuses on engaging individuals outside of NASA. Another focuses on engagement inside the organization by connecting the right NASA employees and staff.
This past April, NASA’s Open Innovation projects completed an activity that engaged over 10,000 people around the world in a 48 hour period to work on 58 different problems. Many of these problems were developed and presented by NASA employees that had encountered challenges they’d been unable to resolve. Over 770 solutions were developed in that 48 hour period, which Pillay considers “a huge amount of success.” Pillay estimates the return on investment (ROI) for NASA was between $10 to 12 million for around $500,000 of investment including logistics and civil service time. The next step for the effort will be to explore the developed solutions internally to determine if they can be implemented.
NASA’s IT Labs program includes an annual poll for ideas and problems from within the organization. This is the 2nd year the activity has been completed, and so far 25 technologies have been identified for further investigation and development.  The aim is for some of these investments to go on to benefit the rest of NASA.
Pillay notes that the challenges of continued declining budget spur two approaches: either reduce services or increase investment in innovation. One key area that received further attention and investment at NASA is mobility. Last year, 20 partners helped to develop a strategy for aggressively embracing and adopting mobile capabilities at NASA. Going forward the agency has 30 actionable small projects, some of which include Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) efforts. To this end, NASA is taking an approach that emphasizes securing data and applications rather than endpoint devices. The focus marks a departure from past approaches that sought to save money by standardizing end-point devices. Now, NASA hopes to accommodate a variety of devices and implement strategies that make information accessible while addressing data and security layer requirements.
In recent years, early investment and aggressive adoption of new technologies has not come without setbacks. This has been especially true of technologies that have prompted agencies to approach and manage data in a new way. Cloud computing adoption, for example, has required continued development of strategies, evaluation of security controls, and operational evaluations. So while, some efforts hold the promise of cost savings or greater agility, it’s critical to ensure governance and adoption strategies are mature before rushing ahead.
For more information on the second National Action Plan (NAP 2.0) and details on submitting responses visit the Open Gov blog.
Originally published for Federal Industry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of the competition by discovering more about GovWinIQ. Follow me on twitter @FIAGovWin.

The Federal Program Inventory Provides Visibility, but with Limitations

On May 31st, the administration took another step forward in implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 by releasing Federal Program Inventories on the website.  Centralizing program inventories on will provide greater visibility into federal programs with the intent to improve program outcomes, efficiencies, and root out duplication and waste.

Significant amounts of information currently exist about federal programs, such as the President’s Budget, Congressional Budget Justifications,, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.  However to date, the information has been decentralized and difficult to analyze.  The new Federal Program Inventories will provide greater visibility for Congress and the general public regarding government operated programs.   

Since the beginning of his administration, the president has waged a campaign against federal waste, fraud and abuse.  To that end, eliminating duplication in federal programs has the potential to save billions of dollars.  The 2014 President’s Budget proposes 215 cuts, consolidations, and savings proposals, which are projected to save more than $25 billion in 2014, a number of which are achieved by reducing duplication.  For example, the budget includes proposals to streamline Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs, and training and employment services.

Program inventories on are a step in the right direction.  However, their current usefulness is limited.   To date, 24 departments and agencies present links to program information via the website.   Agencies chose to present program information in various formats and organizational structures.  Most of the agency links lead to formal program inventories in a pdf document format.  Others lead to agency web pages with links to budget documents and justifications.  At present, it is difficult to spot overlap and duplication of programs across agencies.   Centralization of the information is helpful, but I’m hopeful that future iterations of the information will contain consistent formats and tools to analyze the program data across varying departments and agencies. 





Digital Strategy Scorecard Highlights Progress, Despite Open Items

May 23, 2013 marked the one year anniversary of the Digital Government Strategy.  As government organizations worked toward their remaining deliverables, others took stock of the progress they’ve made toward the goal of delivering better services to American citizens.
Steven VanRoekel, Federal Chief Information Officer, has described the achievements in four categories: increasing data-centric approach to information technology, promoting shared platforms and services, improving customer access to information and services, and maintaining cybersecurity. These categories covered ten different milestones, which were comprised of a combined twenty-nine actions. The milestones scorecard shows that close to 76% of the milestones were achieved. While 4% of the actions appear to have not been completed, the statuses of several efforts are difficult to assess due to variance across agency reporting.
Originally published for Federal Idustry Analysis: Analysts Perspectives Blog. Stay ahead of them competition by discovering more about GovWinIQ. Follow me on twitter @FIAGovWin.

More Entries