The Standard Procurement System (SPS): Can the DOD Procurement Process be Standardized? : Hearing Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 7, 2002
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government Reform. Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations
U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003 - SPS (Computer file) - 90 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
Accounting acquisition actions additional agencies approach audit believe benefits better billion budget Chairman commitments Committee Component concerns continue contract contract management contractor cost decisions Defense Procurement Department of Defense Department's deployed deployment determine directed Director economic analysis effort end users enhance ensure estimates example existing expected fact findings fully functionality future goals going GOVERNMENT implement important improve increase incremental information technology initiated investment issues justified LIEBERMAN look LYNCH major measures meet ment milestone MYERS operational oversight percent performance plans positive problems program manager projects PUTNAM question recognize recommendations releases remain replace requirements responsibility result risk satisfaction schedule SPS program staff Standard Procurement System statement steps subcommittee testimony testing Thank tion understand users WILLEMSSEN
Page 53 - Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Page 25 - Budget (OMB) guidance 11 emphasize the need to have investment management processes and information to help ensure that IT projects are being implemented at acceptable costs and within reasonable and expected time frames and that they are contributing to tangible, observable improvements in mission performance (ie, that projects are meeting the cost, schedule, and performance commitments upon which their approval was justified). For programs such as SPS, DOD requires this cost, schedule, and performance...
Page 52 - Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give to this subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? Mr.
Page 54 - THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FEBRUARY 7,2002 Mr.
Page 21 - ... incremental subprojects or releases and individually justifying investment in each separate increment on the basis of costs, benefits, and risks. The department had not met these Investment management tenets for SPS. KirsŤ, the latest economic analysis for the program— dated January 2000 — was not based on reliable estimates because most of the cost estimates in the 2000 economic analysis were estimates carried forward from the April 1997 analysis (adjusted for inflation). Only the cost...
Page 82 - Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I will be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
Page 32 - BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM ON THE STANDARD PROCUREMENT SYSTEM FEBRUARY 7, 2002 Mr.
Page 17 - Specifically; • the department had not economically justified its investment in the program because its latest (January 2000) analysis of costs and benefits was not credible. Further, this flawed analysis showed that the system, as defined, was not a cost-beneficial investment • It had not effectively addressed the inherent risks associated with investing in a program as large and lengthy as SPS because it had not divided the program into incremental investment decisions that coincided...