My first reaction to reading the following article was, "What took them so long?" Then I remembered how many revisions the original proposal most probably went through and how many people undoubtedly had to sign off on this before they reached the "planning" stage. See below for my further comments.
DHS plans wiki for agencies, cybersecurity centers to coordinate efforts
By Ben Bain, Government Computer News, August 17, 2009
The Homeland Security Department plans to develop a “cyber ops wiki” that agencies can use to improve collaboration on cybersecurity efforts, according to a notice from the department.
The wiki will be used by DHS’ National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) and the six other federal cybersecurity centers as a collaboration tool and a way to develop improved situational awareness, communication and information sharing, DHS said in a notice published on Aug. 11 on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site.
Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said "NCSC is engaging industry expertise to develop a Web 2.0/3.0-enabled collaboration platform — this is an important piece of the larger NCSC vision of meaningful collaboration across government."
DHS' NCSC was established during the George W. Bush administration to coordinate cybersecurity efforts across the government. Phil Reitinger, DHS' deputy undersecretary of the department’s National Protection and Programs Directorate now leads the center.
"The 'cyber ops wiki' ... will provide a capability for near-real-time information sharing and collaboration on cyber security incidents, as well as be a repository of technical information," Kudwa said. She added that DHS envisions that when completed the wiki "will leverage the individual strengths and technical competencies" of the government's cybersecurity centers run by defense, civilian, intelligence and law enforcement departments and agencies.
DHS said in the notice it intends to negotiate and award a sole-source contract with an company named WiiKnoInc based in Austin, Texas, to work on the project.
Mark says:
This is a welcome and necessary first step... but only an initial and probably baby step forward.
Why am I so grudging in my praise — and it is praise?
First of all, who will be allowed to participate in this wiki and what will they be allowed to write or share on it? Will it be transparent to government contractors and their employees? Will private industry, i.e., non-government businesses, have any access to it to either use it or contribute to it? Will government employees in their respective organizations and agencies be encouraged to contribute to this wiki? Or will some managers, organizations, or agencies discourage explicitly or implicitly their employees from participating on the grounds of "need to know" or other "security" reasons or simply because of any number of bureaucratic reasons?
It might help if there were a "Cybersecurity Czar" reporting directly to the President who made this a priority. Oh, wait... I forgot. We're seven months into this administration's term and a cybersecurity czar (whether reporting or not reporting directly to the President) has still not been appointed... and everything is a priority — which means nothing is a priority.
Showing posts with label Department of Homeland Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Homeland Security. Show all posts
Friday, August 21, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Inspector General (Not Danny Kaye)
Federal government inspector general reports often make for interesting reading (well, at least to me), not only for what they say but what they don't say. Consider a recent inspector general report at the Department of Homeland Security, as reported by Federal Computer Week:
DHS officials skirted procurement ethics rules, IG says
Actions created 'appearance of impropriety'
By Alice Lipowicz, Federal Computer Week, July 29, 2009
Staff members and officials at the Homeland Security Department’s Science and Technology Directorate engaged in improper actions in four procurements in 2007 but stopped short of violating any ethics rules, according to a new report from DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner.
In one case, a senior official there started a procurement based on a concept marketed by one of his business acquaintances interested in bidding on the work — and the official even named the project after the acquaintance, the report said.
In another case, two senior officials met “unwittingly” with a representative of a company that had submitted a proposal to an open Broad Agency Announcement, and during the meeting, the representatives presented information related to their proposal, according to the report released July 28. However, the company received no competitive advantage because it was dropped from the competition for other reasons, Skinner wrote.
The federal executives involved did not violate any ethical rules, the IG said. However, the actions did create an appearance of impropriety, the report concluded.
“Circumstances surrounding four procurements created an appearance that staff members intentionally directed funding to specific acquaintances, though further review indicated that S&T staff did not violate conflict of interest or other ethical rules,” the report said.
In several cases, it appeared that executives were favoring industry executives with whom they were familiar, but when the problems were detected, the federal agency modified procedures to maintain the integrity of the procurements, the IG said.
“These situations indicate the need for better understanding of or regard for procurement standards,” Skinner wrote. “The rules for communicating during the procurement process were established to prevent competitors from gaining an unfair advantage and ensure that the government reaps the benefits of competition. S&T should train its staff in competitive procurement and ethical rules, and S&T management must model and enforce those rules.”
Skinner did not name individuals or companies in the report.
The directorate's top official said he generally agreed with the findings and with the recommendations for improvement. “I believe the draft report fairly describes the facts within the scope of the review…. I agree with the recommendations,” Bradley Buswell, acting undersecretary for science and technology, wrote in response to the IG.
Mark says:
The first and third sentences in the third-to-last paragraph in the article, which I have bolded, point to deeper, entrenched problems in government procurement that are not going to be easily or quickly ameliorated and would probably be exacerbated by additional rules and regulations. Moreover, regarding the IG’s statement that "S&T should train its staff in competitive procurement and ethical rules, and S&T management must model and enforce those rules," I would ask (or rather S&T management should ask):
DHS officials skirted procurement ethics rules, IG says
Actions created 'appearance of impropriety'
By Alice Lipowicz, Federal Computer Week, July 29, 2009
Staff members and officials at the Homeland Security Department’s Science and Technology Directorate engaged in improper actions in four procurements in 2007 but stopped short of violating any ethics rules, according to a new report from DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner.
In one case, a senior official there started a procurement based on a concept marketed by one of his business acquaintances interested in bidding on the work — and the official even named the project after the acquaintance, the report said.
In another case, two senior officials met “unwittingly” with a representative of a company that had submitted a proposal to an open Broad Agency Announcement, and during the meeting, the representatives presented information related to their proposal, according to the report released July 28. However, the company received no competitive advantage because it was dropped from the competition for other reasons, Skinner wrote.
The federal executives involved did not violate any ethical rules, the IG said. However, the actions did create an appearance of impropriety, the report concluded.
“Circumstances surrounding four procurements created an appearance that staff members intentionally directed funding to specific acquaintances, though further review indicated that S&T staff did not violate conflict of interest or other ethical rules,” the report said.
In several cases, it appeared that executives were favoring industry executives with whom they were familiar, but when the problems were detected, the federal agency modified procedures to maintain the integrity of the procurements, the IG said.
“These situations indicate the need for better understanding of or regard for procurement standards,” Skinner wrote. “The rules for communicating during the procurement process were established to prevent competitors from gaining an unfair advantage and ensure that the government reaps the benefits of competition. S&T should train its staff in competitive procurement and ethical rules, and S&T management must model and enforce those rules.”
Skinner did not name individuals or companies in the report.
The directorate's top official said he generally agreed with the findings and with the recommendations for improvement. “I believe the draft report fairly describes the facts within the scope of the review…. I agree with the recommendations,” Bradley Buswell, acting undersecretary for science and technology, wrote in response to the IG.
Mark says:
The first and third sentences in the third-to-last paragraph in the article, which I have bolded, point to deeper, entrenched problems in government procurement that are not going to be easily or quickly ameliorated and would probably be exacerbated by additional rules and regulations. Moreover, regarding the IG’s statement that "S&T should train its staff in competitive procurement and ethical rules, and S&T management must model and enforce those rules," I would ask (or rather S&T management should ask):
- Which staff?
- Who is going to train the staff?
- How are they going to train the staff?
- How is management going to “model and enforce those rules”?
- Who is going to pay for the training, modeling, and enforcement – and how?
One paragraph on page 7 of the IG’s report jumped out at me, particularly the third and fourth sentences (which I have bolded):
S&T does not have contracting authority. To award its R&D funds, S&T relies on contracting officers from another DHS Division, the Office of Procurement Operations (OPO), within the Management Directorate. The OPO contracting officers have the authority to obligate government funds, and the responsibility to ensure that procurement decisions comply with federal contracting regulations. They may assist S&T project managers in planning their procurements, and they may overrule their procurement-related decisions. Historically, OPO was unable to provide S&T with enough contracting officers, which slowed procurement activities. In response, S&T staff members frequently used other agencies’ procurement services and contracting officers to award its projects. Currently, OPO has 27 contracting officers and specialists to support S&T, but seeks a staff of 35.
If I easily believed in conspiracy theories, I could say that this was a nice setup to:
- On the one hand, get in trouble good people just trying to get the job done, and/or…
- On the other hand, provide not-so-good people opportunities for unethical or illegal activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
