[House Hearing, 108 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MAKING NETWORX WORK: AN EXAMINATION OF GSA'S CONTINUING EFFORTS TO CREATE A MODERN, FLEXIBLE AND AFFORDABLE GOVERNMENT WIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-223 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 96-747 WASHINGTON : 2004 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland NATHAN DEAL, Georgia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN R. CARTER, Texas Columbia MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida ------ ------ ------ BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on September 15, 2004............................... 1 Statement of: Bates, Sandra, Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, U.S. General Services Administration; and Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office...................................... 6 Scott, Donald, senior vice president, EDS U.S. Government Solutions; Jerry Hogge, senior vice president, Level 3 Communications LLC; Robert Collet, vice president, engineering, AT&T Government Solutions; Shelley Murphy, president, Federal markets, Verizon; and Jerry A. Edgerton, senior vice president, Government markets, MCI............. 42 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Bates, Sandra, Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, U.S. General Services Administration, prepared statement of..... 8 Collet, Robert, vice president, engineering, AT&T Government Solutions, prepared statement of........................... 69 Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 105 Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4 Edgerton, Jerry A., senior vice president, Government markets, MCI, prepared statement of........................ 83 Hogge, Jerry, senior vice president, Level 3 Communications LLC, prepared statement of................................. 61 Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of........... 104 Koontz, Linda, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 19 Murphy, Shelley, president, Federal markets, Verizon, prepared statement of...................................... 76 Scott, Donald, senior vice president, EDS U.S. Government Solutions, prepared statement of........................... 45 Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 102 MAKING NETWORX WORK: AN EXAMINATION OF GSA'S CONTINUING EFFORTS TO CREATE A MODERN, FLEXIBLE AND AFFORDABLE GOVERNMENT WIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, McHugh, Mica, Ose, Lewis, Platts, Waxman, Maloney, Cummings, Kucinich, Clay, Watson, Ruppersberger, and Norton. Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; David Marin, deputy staff director/communications director; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel; John Hunter, counsel; Robert Borden, counsel/parliamentarian; Robert White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Edward Kidd, professional staff member; John Brosnan, GAO detailee; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah Dorsie, deputy clerk; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Phil Barnett, minority staff director; Michelle Ash, minority senior legislative counsel; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk. Chairman Tom Davis. The hearing will come to order. I ask that my total remarks be put in the record. As all of you know, Congress is in the mad dash to adjournment. But I thought it very important before the close of this Congress to hold this hearing and make a few points to GSA, to the industry, and especially to the agencies. We have a couple objectives this morning. The first is to receive a progress report from GSA on the Networx procurement, and underscore to GSA and all of the parties interested in this procurement just how important I think Networx is to the Government. More than ever, and for reasons all of us know, the U.S. Government must be able to move information seamlessly, securely, efficiently, in the most cost-effective manner possible. This is best accomplished through a centrally managed communications environment. GSA is in the best position, both historically and in terms of its jurisdiction, to manage this environment. Networx must be this environment. In my mind, Networx must include a spectrum of services to allow agencies flexibility in meeting diverse requirements. This should include the ability to introduce new technologies, in this rapidly changing technology sector. And this should have a minimum contract value to assure the best industry participation. But, a minimum contract value can only be set by GSA if agencies and departmental participation is assured. As the chairman of the committee, I want to ensure every agency participation in Networx, because it is important to the operation of our government, and because it is the historic and jurisdictional responsibility of this committee to do so. Agency participation is best assured when agencies feel ownership of the contract. I think Don Scott is here today, representing EDS. He understands this point, because the Interagency Management Council he put in place for the original FTS 2000 set the stage for what I hope GSA considers for Networx. I want to see a Networx government that relies on both the Federal CIO Council and OMB's Office of Electronic Government for its management. The second message I want to deliver is the importance of ending the popcorn creation of networks across the government that too often are not interoperable, are agency or mission specific, and are expensive. Departments with telecommunications procurements underway today first must view Networx as the ultimate solution, and second, should consider strongly the existing FTS 2001 environment as the bridge until Networx is awarded. I express this view to the Treasury Department in correspondence and directly by phone with regard to the current telecommunications procurement. On this point, I am very disappointed that the Treasury Department elected to decline my request to participate in the hearing today. I am also disappointed that Treasury has yet to respond my letter asking that their current telecommunications procurement by reconsidered and ported to FTS 2001 pending award of Networx. I am disappointed that my request that the Treasury CIO meet with my staff has yet to be met. OMB's Office of Electronic Government shares my views about Networx and about Treasury's procurement in particular. This office, which was created by legislation I authored and this committee steered, understands the importance of an enterprise environment for communications and other components of what is termed enterprise architecture. This was the vision behind the creation. Treasury has chosen to disregard OMB's guidance, declined GSA's proposal that could very quickly produce substantial savings, and contribute to the communications environment many of us envision, and apparently disregard this committee's express concerns as well. Treasury's record of IT management doesn't justify such disregard. In fact, tax system modernization itself would suggest that the Department very seriously consider the advice it is receiving. This program started seven Presidents ago with Richard Nixon, has consumed billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and it is still unfinished. I focus on Treasury, but my message is to all of the agencies, a vision which I know is shared by the majority of our committee colleagues, is for agency CIOs to report their requirements to departmental CIOs, and departmental CIOs to work with GSA to ensure their inclusion in a more unified centrally managed communications environment. So let's be clear. The committee intends to look carefully and critically at any communication procurement going forward to determine, first, whether it can be met through Networx, and second, whether FTS 2001 can satisfy its requirements as a bridge contract until award. Now, our Government finds itself today in one of the most critical periods in our Nation's history. Its ability to effectively move information is directly related to our national security. Further, its ability to move information also is directly related to the committee's jurisdiction. As chairman, I take that responsibility seriously, that is why we are here today. I look forward to the testimony. [The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.002 Chairman Tom Davis. Any other opening statements? Any other Members wish to make opening statements? If not, as you know, it is our policy that we swear in witnesses. If you would rise with me and raise your right hands. We have two distinguished panelists to open. We have Sandra Bates, a Commissioner of the Federal Technology Service, the U.S. General Services Administration, and we have Linda Koontz, the Director of Information Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office. [Witnesses sworn.] Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Please be seated. Sandra, you are no stranger to this committee. We will start with you. Then we will go to Ms. Koontz, and then we will move to questions. Thanks for being here. STATEMENTS OF SANDRA BATES, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND LINDA KOONTZ, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Bates. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Our Networx procurement is at an important stage. We consider Networx to be far more than just another in a series of Federal telecommunications contracts. Networx is an initiative whose success can profoundly affect the government's ability to move information at a reasonable cost to the tax-paying public. Its success depends on many factors. Networx will result in a series of contracts that are designed to meet the existing and emerging needs of our customers as addressed through our goals. The goals are: Service, continuity, highly competitive prices, high quality service full service vendors, alternative sources, operations and transition support, and performance based contracts. Networx will provide a seamless, interoperable and secure operating environment for the Federal Government. The innovations and creativity of the industry will be challenged by Networx. We have revised our Networx strategy based on the guidance from this committee, our customers, and the industry. Since our last discussion, we have had an ongoing dialog with industry and others to mature our strategy. As a result of this dialog, we observed four primary concerns that I will briefly address. One, should we relax our nationwide service requirement formerly referred to as ``ubiquity'' and allow for a less stringent requirement that will not compromise our goals? The answer to this question is yes. We have reduced our nationwide wire center pricing requirement by 70 percent. We believe this change will result in greater competition while sustaining service continuity for our customers. Two, could our goals and objectives be accomplished with one acquisition or must we have two? Our original approach suggested dual acquisitions awarded 9 months apart. After careful consideration, we determined that dual acquisitions are still required, but they will be awarded simultaneously. Three, are the ordering and billing elements described in the RFI too complex and extensive, resulting in the potential for limited competition? We determined that they are too complex and extensive. We have reduced them by 62 percent. Finally, what should the role of the multiple award schedules be in Networx? We believe that the schedules play a valuable role in helping agencies craft solutions. The ongoing expansion of schedule holders will complement the Networx program and continue to provide our customers with choice. The revised strategy has been accomplished without compromising our program goals. We are excited about the environment we will create with our two acquisitions, Networx Universal and Networx Enterprise. Networx Universal will serve as our full service continuity acquisition. The entry criteria has been greatly reduced, making it possible for more companies to compete. Enterprise is designed to attract IP or wireless-based offerors who do not provide the broad range of services offered by Universal. They have a significant market presence today and a strong future. Combined, both acquisitions will help us accomplish our goals, foster competition, and provide us with the agility we need to meet the uncertainties of the future. We believe both small business and large business cooperation will help Networx achieve success. All prime contractors on Networx will be required to meet tough small business goals. Additionally, small business multiple award schedule holders may offer agency services that can complement, and to some degree, compete with the Networx program awardees. To achieve our goals, we are committed to a schedule that is aggressive. We have much work to do. We are up to the task. The Networx Universal and Enterprise draft RFPs will be released on November 1, 2004. The final RFPs will be released in April 2005, with contract award in April 2006. Mr. Chairman, we have listened carefully to your committee's guidance and to the feedback we received from our customers and industry. We have revised our strategy and have made significant and meaningful changes to our approach. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee today. And I am ready to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Ms. Bates. [The prepared statement of Ms. Bates follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.011 Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Koontz. Ms. Koontz. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to participate in the committee's hearing on the General Services Administration's next generation telecommunications acquisition program known as Networx. As you know, GSA's planning for this program is taking place within an environment of tremendous change in the telecommunications industry and underlying services and technology, and potentially in the regulatory environment. In this context, the Networx initiative can be viewed as a significant opportunity for agencies and GSA's customers to flexibly acquire and apply innovative telecommunications services offered by industry to improve their operations. As you know, GSA issued a request for information in October 2003 describing the strategy of the proposed Networx program. At that time, GSA proposed two acquisitions. Networx Universal was to provide a full range of national and international network services. Offerors were to provide ubiquitous service across the United States. Networx Select was to provide agencies with leading edge services and solutions with less extensive geographic and service coverage than required by Universal. Contracts under the Select acquisition were to be awarded 9 months after the Universal contracts. Last February, we testified on GSA's initial planning efforts and identified four challenges GSA faced in ensuring a successful outcome for the program. These challenges related to the structure and timing of the proposed contracts, and the need for transition plans and inventory of current services and effective measures of performance. In April, you requested that we assess GSA's progress in addressing challenges that we identified, as well as GSA's efforts to address longstanding issues related to billing. My testimony today presents our results to date on these topics. In brief, GSA has taken steps to address several of the significant challenges facing the Networx program. Work is either planned or underway on other challenges, but additional efforts will be necessary to fully address these. Specifically, first, GSA has addressed concerns about the structure and scheduling of the two acquisitions now known as Universal and Enterprise. Instead of the 9-month time lag between acquisitions that might complicate agency decisionmaking, GSA now plans to issue the request for proposal for the contract simultaneously. In addition, the Universal contracts will now require that offerors provide services where Federal agencies are currently located, rather than across the entire country, to potentially allow more industry participants to compete. Second, GSA has solicited quotes for contractor support to assist with the development of plans to transition customers who change carriers. However, GSA has not yet developed procedures to ensure that lessons learned from past transitions are applied or established a transition timeline. Third, GSA worked with agencies to develop a service level inventory as input into their requirements for the new contracts. In addition, GSA plans to work with agencies to build a more detailed inventory of currently used telecommunication services for use during transition. Fourth, GSA plans to implement performance measures that evaluate progress against the program's goals. However, some of the measures are still under development, and it does not yet have a strategy for using the measures to monitor ongoing program performance. And last, GSA has reduced the number of billing elements that it will track, and has begun a study designed to identify potential improvements in the billing process and associated administrative costs. However, it lacks a strategy for addressing agency concerns about the usability of billing data. To prevent unresolved challenges from hampering GSA's efforts to provide agencies with the services they need, we recommend that it finalize and implement processes for managing transition efforts, measuring program performance, and resolving agency concerns over the usability of billing data. GSA agrees that more needs to be done in these areas, and with continued focus on these challenges, the agency can ensure that the goals of the Networx program are ultimately realized. That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.027 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Let me start, Ms. Bates, with you. The Networx strategy envision a centrally managed Government-wide telecommunications program run through GSA. But, as I understand it, some government agencies, such as Treasury, who I mentioned in my opening remarks has announced plans to conduct their own large telecom acquisitions on their own. What is your strategy for attracting these agencies to participate in Networx? What do you offer that they can't provide for themselves? Ms. Bates. As an example, we have worked, currently are working with, two agencies, Department of Justice, and Department of Agriculture, in their strategy to utilize the existing FTS 2001 contracts to begin moving their Networx infrastructure to the next level, so that when Networx is awarded, they can continue that journey, or will be in a position to transition, whichever is necessary. And that seems to be working for those two agencies very well, both from a price perspective and technical innovation, and was done in a competitive task order environment. Our strategy overall is to keep the current contracts as competitive, technologically and price wise, with the best industry has to offer. When we have the Networx group of contractors and new services, people then can continue upgrading their networks or moving to their enterprise architecture. We are also planning for transition so that transition will not be the huge effort and disruption that it has been in the past. We think we have provided a clear pathway for agencies to move into the future. Chairman Tom Davis. But, if different agencies start picking their own, and setting up their own networks and so on, that will defeat the whole thing, won't it? Ms. Bates. Yes, it will. It makes each agency doing duplicative effort because they are conducting their own procurements, they are not leveraging the government's buying power. Chairman Tom Davis. You lose economies of scale, obviously. Ms. Bates. Absolutely. And they are placing a burden on the industry as well, who has to spend a lot of money to respond to these requests. Of course, that, in the end, gets passed on to the taxpayer. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. So more expensive. Probably not---- Ms. Bates. Right. And we have no standardization, we have such a mixed bag of offerings, we don't know what the security requirements are in each of these contracts. We don't know what the interoperability is. There is just a whole host of problems by doing this in a fragmented way. Chairman Tom Davis. When GSA revised the timetable for the Networx contract, it pushed back the award date for the comprehensive Universal contract from the winter of 2005 to April 2006. If contracts are awarded as planned, how will GSA be able to ensure a complete transition to new service providers before the FTS 2001 contracts expire in December 2006 and January 2007? When will the transition timeline be established to help manage the process? Ms. Bates. The planned--as you stated, the planned award in April 2006 is predicated on the fact that we will have done, with our customer agencies, a significant amount of transition planning prior to that. In fact, that has already begun. The IMC has working groups established to begin with inventories, requirements development, and timelines within their agencies to begin transitioning right away. Also, not all of the FTS 2001 contracts expire with the Sprint and MCI. We have crossover contracts with--such as Qwest, AT&T and Verizon that expire at different times later in the time period. So transition will have to be carefully orchestrated, and we are confident that we can do that. Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Koontz, you have been reviewing the program for the last year or so. Based on that experience, how you would you rate GSA's overall performance so far in developing the Networx strategy? Ms. Koontz. I think that based on the challenges that we identified in February, I think that GSA has made good progress toward addressing those challenges, which we thought were all critical to ensuring the programs success. Our major concern at this point is that GSA needs to remain focused on these issues to ensure that all of the things that they promised to do will be done in an appropriate time. Chairman Tom Davis. Do you think that GSA currently has adequate resources to manage the Networx program in the anticipated transition? Ms. Koontz. I do not know. We have not evaluated their resources. That is an excellent question. Chairman Tom Davis. Will their proposed performance measures help ensure that the program fulfills its ultimate goal in providing agencies with the services they need at competitive prices? Ms. Koontz. Performance measures are absolutely critical to make sure that GSA, over the life of something as long as what could be a 10-year contract, can know, you know, with the force of data, that they are indeed meeting the goals of the program. So it is absolutely critical that they have performance measures, good performance measures, for all of the program goals. I would also suggest that GSA would probably benefit from actually reexamining and maybe refining some of the goals to make sure that they really represent a picture of and planned program performance and that they are results oriented. Chairman Tom Davis. You said in your statement that GSA needs to finalize and implement processes for managing its transition efforts. Compared to the last transition, is GSA better prepared for the transition to Networx? Ms. Koontz. I would have to say that GSA is better prepared, to the extent that based on the report that we did for you in the transition last time, and a rather exhaustive study that they have done on their own of transition lessons learned, I think they have a wealth of knowledge of the problems and barriers that they have to address. What is left to do, though, is to translate those lessons learned into actual processes and procedures that will mitigate the same problems recurring. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Ms. Watson, any questions? I will have more. Ms. Watson. Sure. I would like to possibly have you give some specifics on the extent to which GSA and its customer agencies have developed accurate and complete inventories for the current services and requirements. Ms. Bates. I will first address what--the customer agencies. We have something called the Interagency Management Council, which consists of the senior telecommunications network officials from the 16 large agencies and the small agencies council. Each one of those agencies, plus others, in response to the chairman's letter last December, have begun working on an inventory. Many of them have a very good inventory based on the last transition, the inventory they developed for Y2K, an increased ongoing emphasis on inventory. What they continue to work on is the inventory needed for transition. It has a requirement for significantly more detail than an inventory just to have. And I will cite an example. In order for a service to transition from one service provider to another, you have to have specifics such as room number, local government contact, floor, that kind of thing where you wouldn't need it if you just wanted a regular inventory. The agencies are well aware of this, and they are working hard. It is my estimation that we are further along at this point in working on that inventory than we were for the last transition. GSA, FTS, is working with the current service providers, to make sure that their inventories are up to speed, as well as the inventories we maintain from an overall perspective. I do believe we need to continue to be focused on inventories since it is an everchanging data base. Ms. Watson. Can you just describe what our objectives and goals are? Where would we like to go with our inventory? Ms. Bates. Ideally what we would like to have is for each agency and component to have a very accurate inventory of all of the telecommunications services they have, exactly where it is located, as well as the program applications and systems that are running over that network. This becomes critical when you begin planning a change, you need to identify the programs that are using that facility so that you have no program interruption. So it is a big job. I think the government agencies are up to it. But, it is something that you should never declare finished. It is ongoing. Ms. Watson. My concerns go to how do we coordinate communications across the board in times of emergencies or tremendous threats? And I know as you transition, and all of the agencies that you support, that I hope is kept in mind. And I am just trying to find out, are we on the path to being sure that the telecommunications and other systems are up to par, working? I heard mention of what are the best practices, best equipment and are we getting there? Ms. Bates. I think you have made a very good point. And by GSA FTS having a centrally managed program, we are in a much better position to work with the service providers to make sure that in times of emergency or disaster, we can help coordinate the recovery efforts, we have central inventories, and we know where we are going. If we do not have a centralized focus in times of natural disaster or other emergencies, it is very difficult for the government to coordinate the next steps. So I think we are on the path. We are working very closely with the Department of Homeland Security. They will be using the Networx network. And I think we are on the right path. Ms. Watson. That is a very effective nexus to my next inquiry. I was visited yesterday by representatives of the fire department in New York and some family members. And they are very concerned about their communication--those radios and the bands that they were using. And apparently the equipment failed on September 11. And when the Commission was holding the hearings, they felt that they were not able to really get into the substance of why so many firefighters were killed on that day, and why so many of them didn't get the order to evacuate. And they talked about a piece of equipment that came from Motorola. And so I don't know how you get into the local first responders and what they do and municipalities. I don't know how we make that connection. But, on a National Federal level, we ought to be looking at the equipment and how companies get those contracts, and testing that equipment, does it work properly at the time when it is needed? And I am trying to get there. And I don't know if it is GSA that could look into it. But, certainly as we deal say with the Capitol under tremendous risk on 9/11, you know, did we have a communications network, are we getting the equipment in the agencies? Are we using the best that we can get? Are we looking at competition so we can be sure we are getting the best product at the best cost? And I am interested in what you are doing along these lines. Ms. Bates. That particular requirement for the first responder and interoperability of radio systems at the local level is not covered--is not one of the main focuses of the Networx acquisition. However, I can tell you that the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other components, we are working with them, and the focus on the first responder and the interoperability of State, local, municipality and Federal systems is one of great concern to everyone. And it is a very complex problem. Ms. Watson. Well, that is what I am trying to emphasize here in terms of homeland security and national security, and they affect the local areas. And there should be a network across this country that is connected, and we can have assurances that right down to the local level, the first responders are part of that network, that Federal network, and so this is something you probably can't get into any detail now, because we are all trying to find our way as to what is the best to do. I was forced to raise that issue because I just had this conversation. We are very, very concerned about what happened on September 11 and what lessons were learned. Ms. Bates. Well, I support you. And I can assure you that the scope of the Networx contracts will be such that should we receive the appropriate approvals to provide service to State and local Governments, we will be in a position to do that and to further that. Ms. Watson. Right. You talk about possibly 10-year contracts. And I would hate to think that GSA and the agencies you serve would get into contracts of long extensions that--and their equipment doesn't really stand up. So we can go into this discussion in private. But I just wanted to raise these concerns that I have. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Bates, let me just ask you, how did GSA decide which services to make mandatory in the Universal contract? Ms. Bates. We looked at the services that were being provided today under FTS 2001. We looked at the services that were going to be needed over the future of the next 10 years of the contract, and decided that those were the ones to be made mandatory. We did not do this in a vacuum. We worked with our customer agencies as well as the industry to make sure that our mandatory requirements were all inclusive, but, not so lengthy that they limited competition. Chairman Tom Davis. The revised strategy mentions an increased role for the Federal Supply Schedules. Ms. Bates. Yes. Chairman Tom Davis. Could you elaborate on how this works? Ms. Bates. Today there are many companies that are on the Federal supply schedule that provide extensive amounts of telecommunications equipment. There are some telecommunications services on the schedules today. And certainly there are integration services available on the schedules and GWACs today. As companies choose to widen of their schedule presence, they do that as they see fit. And we see that growing more and more. So I see the schedules as a complement to Networx and I think it is a good thing. It allows companies that are new companies to the marketplace to bring their services to the government through the schedules. And we are working closely with FSS in doing this. So I think that we have a very compatible program. Chairman Tom Davis. So innovation, new technologies, new things that happen maybe outside of the parameters of the original awardees are able to enter into the marketplace in this way? Ms. Bates. Sure. And the companies, as you know with the schedules, the companies can select the time that they wish and the services that they wish to offer, and the terms and conditions as a part of the schedule, as opposed to doing it at the Government's timeframe. So that does allow a company when it is ready to seek a schedule contract. Chairman Tom Davis. It is hard to foresee these things. But how likely is it that the option years in the Networx contracts would be exercised when you consider that the changes that are taking place in the telecommunications industry, how is it advantageous to enter into contracts that can last for as long as 10 years? Ms. Bates. Well, it is hard, particularly at this time and with this industry, to predict too far into the future. But we feel that our strategy really supports the government in a position for a longer period of contract. With the two acquisitions, we will have multiple awards, within Universal and Enterprise. Universal will have, I think, a very good cadre of full service contractors. And the Enterprise will address those same contractors should they decide to bid, as well as some emerging companies. So hopefully, we will have a stable of contractors that will see us through. However, if it doesn't make any sense to exercise options, we won't. Chairman Tom Davis. Well, how many awardees do you envision for the Universal segment? Ms. Bates. The contracts will be multiple award. The number of awards will be determined by the quality of the proposals that are submitted. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. How will new technologies be added to the contracts? Will GSA add all new technologies whether they are mandatory or nonmandatory to both contracts? Ms. Bates. We will buildupon some of the things we have done in the past. First, both of the contracts will be scoped so that technology upgrade and technology refreshment will be included in the scope. In addition, industry will be able to propose a contract modification to add new technology to whichever contract they hold. Then should our customers have new requirements, the customer can ask that new technology be added to the contracts. So we have it covered three ways. Through scope, through industry initiating modifications, or through customer- initiated modifications. Of course we can do it any time we want. Chairman Tom Davis. Do you envision a process whereby an Enterprise vendor could become a Universal provider as their capabilities expand over the period? Ms. Bates. As it is currently structured, we do not envision that. The Enterprise requires, I think--with being IP based or wireless, is really the wave of the future. And I think that if somebody is in the enterprise category, it will serve their company well. I really don't see an advantage to having a crossover after the initial competition. That said, if the initial competition, a company can bid both Universal and Enterprise, and can be selected for both if it is appropriate. Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Koontz, let me ask you. Go back to the first question I asked Ms. Bates. Agencies such as Treasury, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, they plan to conduct their own large telecom acquisitions instead of participating in the GSA program. Do you think such acquisitions have the potential to undermine Networx? Ms. Koontz. I think they do have the potential if this is done too far. I guess that our position on anything that is outside of Networx or FTS 2001, those contracts are not mandatory. However, every investment, including telecommunications investments, have to be justified. And they have to be justified in light of looking at other alternatives. And only in that case where it was justified in other alternatives should those other contracts be awarded. Chairman Tom Davis. Over the years, prices have fallen under FTS 2000 and FTS 2001. Do you think we have reached the bottom, or do you expect prices to fall over the length of Networx programs, or is it just hard to say? Ms. Koontz. I think it is hard to say. Chairman Tom Davis. Do you think that GSA has been addressing need for inventories. Do you think their actions have been adequate in that area? Ms. Koontz. I think that GSA has made some very good first steps toward establishing the inventories that we think are really critical, particularly for transition. They did create inventories that they used for the requirements planning process. And now they plan to go forward and develop the more detailed kind of inventories that will support transition. So, again, I think they are making progress. This is something they need to stay focussed on throughout. Chairman Tom Davis. Finally, in your statement, you recommend that GSA finalize and implement processes for managing transition efforts, measuring program performance, resolving agency concerns over the usability of billing data. Do you think GSA can comply with these recommendations and still meet the projected timetable for Networx? Ms. Koontz. I believe they can. I believe it is going to be very challenging. But I think there is sufficient time for them to resolve these issues and have them completed at the appropriate time. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. That is all of the questions that I have for this panel. Ms. Watson, do you have any additional questions? Anything else anybody wants to add? Well, thank you very much for being with us. We will take a 2-minute recess as we move to our next panel. Thank you. [Recess.] Chairman Tom Davis. All right. Our second panel here. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have Don Scott, senior vice president of EDS U.S. Government Solutions; Jerry Hogge the senior vice president Level 3 Communications; Mr. Robert Collet, vice president, engineering, AT&T Government Solutions; Shelley Murphy, president, Federal markets for Verizon; and Jerry Edgerton the senior vice president, government markets, MCI. It's policy that we swear you before you testify. If you'd rise with me and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Scott, we will start with you and we will move straight on down the line. We are debating a bill on the floor. That's why we have had some animated discussions here that affects this committee in a number of areas. I am not going to be able to get over. I think if I can--on a couple of amendments. But we want to move as quickly as we can. Your entire statements are in the record. Mr. Scott, we will start with you and we will move straight down and then move to questions. Thank you. STATEMENTS OF DONALD SCOTT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, EDS U.S. GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS; JERRY HOGGE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC; ROBERT COLLET, VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING, AT&T GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS; SHELLEY MURPHY, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL MARKETS, VERIZON; AND JERRY A. EDGERTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT MARKETS, MCI Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I'm Don Scott. Chairman Tom Davis. If you'd turn on your mic. Mr. Scott. I'm vice president of U.S. Government Solutions, EDS Corp. Thank you for inviting me today to testify on behalf of EDS regarding the GSA strategy for the Networx program. We believe our comments will help GSA's Networx be most effective in today's telecommunications environment. I'm presenting an abbreviated version. The rest is for the record. We have included a recommendation to expand the scope of the Networx program to include applications and other user services. This is outlined in a white paper EDS provided recently to GSA and is an included as a part of the testimony. Also in the record are examples of this integrated strategy's successful implementation. Please note that also in our testimony submittal we have referred to some recently published papers on network convergence. And, finally, we have offered some suggestions for transitions to those expanded services. We do not propose that GSA eliminate any of the services proposed under Networx; rather, it is our belief that Networx should offer an even broader, richer set of services and solutions. My comments that follow concentrate on the services that should be offered and explain why. GSA's governmentwide responsibility offers a unique opportunity to support the agenda of the Congress and of the administration. GSA is in a position to leverage the buying power of the entire Federal Government and has a charter to lead the technology initiatives. Networx should be aligned with the Office of Management and Budget's efforts to move to common governmentwide architectures. Mr. Chairman, we commend you and your committee for your high level of interest in this program and we commend GSA and the leadership that Administrator Perry, Commissioner Bates, and Assistant Commissioner Johnson have shown. In particular, GSA's continuous outreach to stakeholders will help ensure that services are acquired at the best value to the taxpayer and that vigorous competition occurs. Considerable investment will be required by both government and industry, so we support the long-term contracts for projects having such large size and scope. However, because the Networx contract may be effective for the period 2007 through 2017, GSA should give serious consideration to the services expected to be commonly available during that period and the companies' ability to provide those services. GSA should not leave it to the customer agencies to individually acquire services that are available in the marketplace and are appropriate for consolidated governmentwide buying consistent with the government's common enterprise architecture goals. The telecommunications industry will be much different by 2007 and beyond. There is compelling evidence that the IT and telecommunication industries are converging and that traditional telecommunications will likely be acquired using commodity schedules or through integration into total IT service packages and solutions. In the complete text of this testimony, there are references to a number of industrial, governmental, and academic and medical organizations who have implemented or are in the process of implementing converged solutions. Most will be fully implemented by 2007. Also included are references to two convergent studies that were completed this year. These studies, published in ``The Economist,'' each surveyed approximately 100 senior executives on the subject of convergence. The first study found that two thirds of the organizations surveyed would shift their applications to unified networks within the next 5 years, and that one quarter sees this integration as crucial to fulfilling their business strategy. The second study and report conclude that 75 percent of companies will achieve widespread migration to converged networks within 3 years. The integrated services we are proposing include such items as information storage; security; messaging; collaboration tools; various business applications; situation awareness capabilities; knowledge management tools; hosting capabilities; and other services. Associated enabling devices such as desktop computers, laptop computers, and telephones should be included. BlackBerries, pagers, and other remote devices, together with seamless network connectivity, should be included so that a complete secure capability is provided wherever the user happens to be. The industry is transitioning toward integrated networks that will provide all media over a data network using IP. We expect maturity by 2007, which will render the risk far less than if government agencies acquire services independently. Along with these technology developments, we believe that traditional telecommunications organizations in the user community will be fully integrated into the IT organizations. The transformation of the communication marketplace defines the following progressions of events. Transport will become a commodity, and minimal strategic value will be placed on the transport providers. Transport will be converged into IP-based services and applications. IP solutions will become the strategic product, which will be built on the transport infrastructure through the desktop, personal data systems, and other devices. In essence, the current logical demarcations will be moved further into the infrastructure. Government agencies will be enabled to move toward true performance-based relationships in which the success of the mission is directly related to the underlying technology that provides the solution. End-to-end services fit this new mold best. This approach deals with the infrastructure as it directly interfaces with the user and also facilitates consistent thought leadership across the infrastructure. These success factors are critical in IP-driven transformations. By anticipating these market shifts, the Federal Government can provide for the breadth and flexibility that will be required to integrate secure, effective offerings over the life of the contract. Therefore, while the transport components will continue to be a foundation for the application services being carried, we predict that these will be dwarfed in importance by the applications. We believe that with these enhancements, the Networx program can provide effective best-value solutions, deliver cost savings to the taxpayer, enhance security and increase user productivity, and contribute to the organizational transformation. The Networx program should be an integral part of the government's enterprise architecture. In attracting customer agencies to participate, GSA should offer a wide array of integrated services, thereby discouraging agencies from acquiring them individually. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will be pleased to answer any questions. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.040 Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Hogge. Mr. Hogge. Good morning, Chairman Davis, members of the committee, and thank you for inviting me here today to speak to you about the Networx program. My name is Jerry Hogge and I'm senior vice president and general manager of Level 3 Communications, government markets. On February 26 of this year, Level 3 and other industry participants testified before this committee to offer suggestions about how GSA might best procure telecommunications services through the Networx program. The efforts of this committee and GSA's Federal Technology Service appear to have made significant improvements to the original procurement approach as announced in the Networx request for information released last fall. As outlined in GSA's August 11th briefing, the revised approach embraces many of the procompetitive recommendations offered by industry. However, since the full details of the revised strategy won't be available until the draft RFP is released, certain central elements of the procurement remain as open questions. Level 3 believes that GSA's revisions, together with a few key additional elements, can combine to maximize competition, attract Federal agency participation, and ensure best value for our Federal Government and taxpayers. Level 3 is encouraged by the revised strategy and looks forward to reviewing the full detail of how the proposed changes will be implemented as well as how the remaining elements of the procurement will be characterized in the draft RFP. In our earlier testimony, Level 3 made four recommendations which we believe must be addressed to ensure competition and end-user value in the Networx program. Those recommendations were that Networx should allow bidders to bid to their strengths; that Networx should specify the services required and avoid specifying particular technologies; that Networx should avoid being locked into one or two providers; and that Networx should allow for the adoption of best practices for operational support. We believe that GSA has taken very positive steps to address these issues through its revised strategy. Specifically, we believe that GSA's proposed changes improve the Networx procurement in four key dimensions. First, Networx service ubiquity requirements appear to have been substantially relaxed. Level 3 considers this revision procompetitive because it allows communications providers to bid to their strengths, while permitting them to expand their coverage as their networks and services expand. Second, Networx service requirements are now to be specified in functional terms with key performance criteria rather than in terms of specific technologies. Level 3 considers this proposed revision fundamental to ensuring that Networx will be flexible enough to facilitate the availability of leading-edge technology as well as address the possibility of legacy service obsolescence. Third, Networx-Universal and Networx-Enterprise contracts are to be simultaneously awarded. Level 3 considers this proposed revision essential to leveling the competitive playing field, encouraging competition, and reducing the possibility for Networx to be dominated by one or two providers. Four, the number of required billing elements is expected to be reduced by 62 percent. In our view, it appears that these simplifications will be procompetitive, as reduced operational requirements should reduce the cost of entry for new competitors and may add flexibility to the program as new services are introduced. In addition to these four areas, GSA's strategy document addressed potential changes covering a wide range of program elements. Level 3 is encouraged by the proposed changes and will offer a complete assessment when greater detail is released in the draft request for proposal. I'd like to suggest that a number of critical issues should be addressed to ensure that Networx delivers the greatest value and efficiency to the government. Most important are two related terms that address, one, the government's business commitment to successful bidders; and two, the means through which the government will ensure full competition at the time of contracting and then post award. These two concepts are at the heart of the Networx program's ability to attract agency participation, to motivate vigorous industry competition, and ensure best value for end- user agencies. Just as agency decisionmakers will weigh the cost and benefits of making a change between possible service providers, so too will prospective bidders consider the costs, risks, and potential benefits associated with pursuing and winning a Networx contract. Specifying a minimum business commitment for each successful bidder is a simple tool to facilitate this assessment and directly leverage the government's aggregate buying power. Minimum business commitments, expressed through minimum revenue guarantees, serve as basic consideration for the competitive process. Finally, in order for Networx to be a successful program for the government and industry, there must be an effective competition throughout the life of the program. There are many processes available to the government to ensure competition, and many methods have been used successfully by GSA and other agencies in the past. Indeed, the committee has touched on this issue by raising a question about GSA's ability to execute the Networx program as currently proposed. Based on GSA's high- level strategy and its extensive and successful record of achievement through previous programs, Level 3 is confident that GSA will be able to successfully design and implement the Networx program in such a way that it will stimulate agency participation and deliver agency value, while driving competition that will be fair to all bidders and result in meaningful business opportunity for successful industry participants. In summary, GSA's revised strategy suggests that Networx will be flexible enough to encourage new competitive providers, new technologies, new services and changing market forces; that Networx's legacy operational and system requirements will be simplified, and that service coverage requirements will be optimized to the agency needs. Level 3 looks forward to continuing to work with GSA and Chairman Davis and this committee to ensure that Networx continues along a successful path as the procurement process moves forward. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Mica [presiding]. Thank you. And we will hold questions till we have heard from the rest of the panelists. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hogge follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.046 Mr. Mica. I recognize now Mr. Robert Collet, vice president of Engineering, AT&T Government Solutions. Welcome, and you're recognized, sir. Mr. Collet. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Mica and members of the Committee on Government Reform. My name is Bob Collet. I'm the vice president of Engineering and Chief Technology Officer for AT&T'S Government Solutions Division. I'm also leading the AT&T's FTS Networx proposal team. My remarks today respond to the committee's questions regarding FTS Networx benefits and GSA's ability to manage the program. We believe the procurement is on track, that the changes made since the RFI was issued last October are positive, and that the benefits that Networx can bring to the government should not be delayed. The procurement should stay on schedule and move forward as expeditiously as possible. The first question in the committee's letter of invitation was whether the revised acquisition strategy as proposed by GSA would be effective in today's telecommunications environment. The answer to that question is yes. Through the Universal suite of products GSA will deliver four key things: a vehicle that enables continuity of service; products that anticipate future agency requirements; and choices and continuous competition. For those agencies that do not require the comprehensive suite of services under Universal, there will be a data network and wireless Enterprise tracks. And when GSA expands the multiple award schedule with additional telecommunication options, there will be an easy-to-use vehicle for obtaining off-the-shelf products. The committee's second question focused on GSA's ability to execute the proposed strategy. We believe that GSA is capable of executing both Universal and Enterprise strategies if they are provided adequate resources. Managing a handful of Universal contracts and a larger number of Enterprise contracts would tax the management capabilities of any agency. The complexity would be further compounded if all Universal and Enterprise contracts provided up to 53 types of network services. Therefore, we recommend that GSA award only the number of contracts that it guarantees that it can manage well in terms of vendor, contract administration, and agency customer service. The last question posed by the committee addressed the program's attractiveness to the agency in terms of best value. If the gist of the question is whether the Networx procurement is designed to give the agency the right products at the best industry practices, the answer is yes. The Federal Government, as a large-scale buyer, has tremendous purchasing power. We believe that agencies would be satisfied with GSA's acquisition strategy because it will yield competitive sources for a broad range of telecommunications hosting and application services. AT&T has consistently stressed the importance of strong security and continuity of operations capabilities. The current procurement addresses these requirements and will bring robust value to the agencies. While GSA is maintaining and expanding its portfolio of networking and hosting security services, agencies can obtain a rating of ``green'' on their Federal Information Security Management Act scorecard. Agencies can also obtain ``green'' on the continuity of operations scorecard, as contractors will be required to provide robust national security, emergency preparedness, and disaster recovery services. Finally, with regard to billing, even though GSA recently reduced the number of billing elements by 62 percent, the remaining elements should provide the agencies with the billing detail they need to effectively run their businesses. With the changes that have been made to date, GSA has the right vision for the Networx procurement. We believe the FTS Networx strategy is responsive to the needs of the agencies. The government should expect AT&T to submit competitive bids for both the Universal and Enterprise options of the Networx procurement. We look forward to bringing the government the benefits of our extensive investments in the network, security, continuity of operation services, and in applications services, and back-office systems to give agencies a quantum leap in productivity and to make America stronger and more secure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to appear before the committee. I appreciate having the opportunity to share AT&T's views on this important matter and welcome any questions that you may have or wish to ask. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will withhold questions until we have heard from all the panelists, as I said. [The prepared statement of Mr. Collet follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.051 Mr. Mica. Shelley Murphy is president of Federal markets for Verizon. Welcome, and you're recognized. Ms. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Shelley Murphy and I'm the president of Verizon Federal markets. I want to thank you for giving me another opportunity to testify on the GSA Networx procurement. In February of this year, I testified on concerns regarding the Networx procurement as laid out by the GSA. Verizon thanks the GSA for listening and addressing a number of our concerns. However, we believe a few key modifications are still necessary to allow sufficient competition on both the Enterprise and Universal contracts and to ensure that the contracts remain viable through the expected 10-year term. Although the GSA reduced the number of wire centers for Universal bidders to approximately 5,400, the GSA requires vendors to provide a wide range of services including high- speed data services to all of these locations. From the information provided by the GSA, only about 5 percent, or 300 of these 5,400 Universal locations use these high-speed services today. Many of the sites may never need these services, so requiring them at all of the 5,400 wire centers on the Universal contract is excessive. It also presents a high barrier for companies attempting to bid on the Universal contract, effectively limiting competition to the traditional long distance carriers and increasing prices for the services that the government agency will require. The GSA also needs to reevaluate its wireless strategy. The GSA provides the option for a wireless provider to bid on a modified Enterprise specification with only certain mandatory wireless requirements. However, the requirement of this modified procurement to provision service in 100 percent of the Nation's metropolitan statistical areas and 90 percent of the rural statistical areas would not allow Verizon Wireless, the Nation's largest carrier, to participate in the wireless-only Enterprise procurement. Verizon is also concerned about the long-term viability of Networx. With the volatility of the telecommunications market, over time it is possible that consolidation will reduce the number of Networx awardees, thereby reducing the competition for services. The GSA's current approach omits a plan for adding new technologies as they become available, and mandates the use of soon-to-be-obsolete services throughout the 10-year term of the contract. It is very expensive to build or retain infrastructure to support outdated technologies, and this will drive up prices. Such an approach will also limit competition to those with legacy networks in place, the traditional long distance carriers. Verizon requests that the GSA consider several key changes to the network acquisition strategy. These changes will maximize competition, reduce risk, and achieve best value, while ensuring rapid introduction of new technologies and services. The GSA defined approximately 300 locations that today require high-speed data services. For the Universal contract, the GSA should make high-speed data services mandatory for the 300 locations currently requiring these services, the remaining 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas and locations where the bidders have the services commercially available. The remaining locations should be nonmandatory. These changes, in conjunction with the future deployment of new technologies by the industry, should satisfy the government's current and future needs for continuity of service, as well as increase the number of potential bidders for the Universal contract. The GSA also needs to change the wireless coverage requirements to 95 percent of the top 100 most-populated markets to allow major wireless providers to bid on the optional wireless-only Enterprise contract. GSA should focus on the wireless carriers' ability to provision quality network coverage and advanced voice and data services within these markets. As envisioned under the two-contract approach, there is no ability to compete agency requirements between the Universal and Enterprise contracts. One solution to maintaining sufficient competition on the Networx contract is to allow Enterprise contractors to graduate to the Universal contract as their capabilities evolve. The GSA must define the processes and criteria by which old technologies and outdated standards are eliminated. The Networx contract must include a separate new technology insertion mechanism that allows for rapid contract modifications to add new technologies as they are made available. This process must be flexible enough to allow the marketplace to define the standards during the life cycle of the technology so that providers will not be required to provide outdated network services to the government. In addition, pricing needs to evolve as the technologies evolve. In summary, the GSA has made significant progress evolving the Networx strategy, but the evolution is not finished. These recommendations will increase competition on both contracts, ensure highly competitive prices for required services, and protect the government's networks from obsolescence throughout the life of the contract. I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the Networx procurement and would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Mr. Mica. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Murphy follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.055 Mr. Mica. And we will hear from our final witness who is Jerry Edgerton, and he is senior vice president of Government markets at MCI. Welcome, sir, and you're recognized. Mr. Edgerton. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. My name is Jerry Edgerton. I'm the senior vice president of MCI'S Government markets division. I want to thank Mr. Chairman and the committee for your support of the FTS 2001 program and I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with MCI's comments regarding the government strategy for Networx. The existing Federal telecommunications program, FTS 2001, has been very successful in meeting the changing and expanding telecommunications needs of the Federal Government's agencies. The world, as well as the mission of many government agencies, has changed since that contract was awarded in 1999. And the Federal Telecommunications Service, FTS, has delivered on its promise to support increasingly complex communications needs. The FTS has been quick to respond to agency requirements by adding new services to support security, citizens' access to services, and continuity of operations. Furthermore, GSA has delivered on its promise to provide value for government users. According to the GSA Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Performance and Accountability Report, FTS 2001 prices are 53 percent lower than comparable services purchased by large commercial clients. MCI strongly believes that the Networx structure being proposed by GSA will continue to provide the flexibility, innovation, technology refreshment and value that agencies need to perform their mission-critical operations. MCI attended the GSA's Networx Industry Day in August, and GSA provided a clear and detailed profile of its Networx strategy. MCI believes that GSA has been inclusive and diligent in soliciting input from all of the stakeholders in the Networx project. The strategy briefing has resolved most of our outstanding questions about the general direction of the program, with a few exceptions that I will note later. MCI supports the FTS plan to provide agencies with choices by competing two separate contracts, Universal and Enterprise. Offering two separate contracts recognizes the fact that one size does not fit all Federal networks. The Universal contract allows agencies to procure the full range of telecommunication and network services by choosing from a set of capable teams. The Enterprise contract gives agencies the option of addressing additional telecom and network needs by choosing from more specialized providers. The FTS also addressed industry's concerns about the timing issue of these two procurements and now plans to conduct those simultaneously. The Enterprise procurement also offers small and disadvantaged businesses an opportunity to compete for government business. They can continue to partner with the Universal service providers and bid Enterprise procurements as an additional entry to the Federal Government space. MCI supports the requirement for continuity of service on the Universal contract. Many agencies desire to procure services from a single contractor who will provide all required network services to agency locations worldwide. Most agencies don't have the specialized technical staff, budget, time or systems and processing required to procure services from multiple vendors. The continuity requirement in the Networx proposal will save most agencies time and money and allow them to focus their resources on their mission-critical activities. FTS has streamlined the Networx Management and Operations Support [MOPS], requirement. FTS listened to industry and has crafted an appropriate compromise between agency requirements and industry capabilities. This will allow agencies with extensive detailed billing and operational requirements to receive the level of support that is needed without raising the cost of doing business for all users. FTS is taking the right approach by mandating a fixed set of service capabilities on both Universal and Enterprise contracts. Agencies would be ill served by having to put together workable network solutions using a jigsaw puzzle of mismatched parts from different vendors. FTS correctly concluded that program flexibility that provides convenience for some service providers would not be beneficial for the government. Most agencies would face higher prices to fill the gaps in service. MCI does have concerns about two unresolved issues that could negatively impact the ability of government to obtain the best possible pricing and services under Networx. First, FTS has not clearly set forth the number of awardees under either the Universal or the Enterprise procurements. Networx, like FTS 2001, can provide agency users with the lowest possible prices by aggregating the massive volume-of- service demands for much of the Federal Government into a single contract vehicle. FTS should maximize the competition by encouraging as many bids as possible from potential service providers, but must limit the number of awardees. In order for the government to lock in rock-bottom prices for the contract's 10-year term, providers must be confident of their ability to win certain levels of revenue. The greater the number of awardees, the less the business that each awardee will be able to capture and the more the government's purchasing power is diluted. FTS must leverage the government's volume to produce the lowest possible prices from industry. Second, FTS has not offered many details on its proposal to add telecom services to the Federal Supply Schedule program. MCI supports the inclusion of commodity-like services on the Federal Supply Schedule. The absence of clear, precise definitions by the FSS will create uncertainty for Networx bidders by creating an unpredictable and uncontrollable backdoor, post-award path for entry into the Federal telecommunications market space. In order to make the business case for the lowest possible prices, Networx bidders must have a level of certainty as to the number and type of services and thereby the potential revenue under the contract. I might add that this is a concern from any other government contract that attempts to offer services to other government agencies other than through GSA. In conclusion, I want to assure this committee and the government that MCI is fully committed to ensure the continued success of FTS 2001 and the future success of Networx. GSA plans for the Networx procurement are on the right track. It will require companies like MCI to compete like never before, and will force our rivals to do the same. But that's really the whole point of the exercise and the only way to guarantee that Federal agencies and the taxpayers will get the best deal possible. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Edgerton follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.066 Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. Well, thank all of you for your testimony. I'm sorry I wasn't here for everything. We're trying to get a couple of things straight over on the floor, but I have read everybody's testimony. Let me ask each of you--and I don't want you to be bashful; GSA won't hold anything against you, I'm sure, when they start evaluating the prospective bids--but how would you rate GSA's overall performance on a scale of 1 through 10? And, Don, I'll start with you. I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but I just want to---- Mr. Scott. Seven. Mr. Hogge. Eight. Mr. Collet. Eight and a half. Ms. Murphy. Eight. Mr. Edgerton. Eight point five. Chairman Tom Davis. I don't think anybody hurt themselves there. A recurrent theme, we have some different testimony, is does the proposed structure provide enough flexibility for companies to offer new services as they become available? That's a critical question for us, because things change so quickly in this. I'll start and just go down the line. Mr. Scott. I think it provides the flexibility to provide infrastructure certainly, telecommunications infrastructure. But it does not provide the capability to move to where I think the government--the whole industry is going to be in this timeframe, and that is the convergence of telecommunications and IT so that it all ends up as a solution. And so I don't think--I don't think it will get GSA to that point. And what I fear is, if they don't, we are going to have more situations such that we have in this agriculture and such that we have had at Homeland Security and other places. Mr. Hogge. From Level 3's perspective, we are one of the companies that is going to be providing those infrastructure or telecommunications services, some broad-brush strokes were given in the strategy document. But we were encouraged by the specification of requirements and functional terms with key performance criteria rather than by specific technologies. And we see that as a key element of flexibility needed in the future. Mr. Collet. I believe there is plenty of flexibility in the acquisition strategy. If you break it down into components such as telecommunications, definitely. For wireless there is, especially from a mobile virtual service operator perspective. And I do disagree with Mr. Scott's proposition about information technology. The acquisition, from our perspective, includes a substantial amount of flexibility in the IT space, because hosting and application services are a part of the acquisition, and therefore we should be able to integrate those in very nicely with the network and actually provide it in an optimal way. A model would be to look at how the Defense Information Systems Agency is structuring its network-centric Enterprise services and the global information grid. You don't want to take it too far. You don't want to do too much at one time. By starting first with the establishment of Web services, things on the desktop can certainly come later, and they certainly become simpler rather than more complex. Ms. Murphy. We are really pleased also by functional definitions of the services that GSA provided in the strategy documents that they released. And we believe there is adequate flexibility. We won't know until we really see the process further defined. Ms. Bates mentioned that it will be through, you know, contract modifications with three pads in, you know, that's-- that sounds very good. But once we get to the draft RFP and see the further definition, we'll be able to answer that more clearly. The other piece that's critical is the flexibility and pricing of those new services. Pricing algorithms that have been used for traditional services aren't going to work for the services of the future, because the underlying infrastructure is different and the pricing structures need to differ to go along with that. Mr. Edgerton. Mr. Chairman, if the success on the change- out of the services and the requirements by the agencies in the FTS 2001 is any indication, what we implemented in 1999 and 2000 is totally different than what the customers are asking for today. And the current vehicle has been adaptable for that, and we believe that the current processes that have been in place will allow those kinds of innovations to be presented and accommodated in this next procurement. Chairman Tom Davis. My time is almost up for my first round. But Ms. Murphy let me ask you. You suggested GSA needs to make some changes in its strategy, particularly reducing locations specified for high-data services and reducing wireless, a couple of its requirements. Would these changes be necessary for firms other than, you know, the usual long distance carriers? I mean, how would you---- Ms. Murphy. We believe that these changes will increase the number of companies that are in a position to respond to the Universal portion of the procurement. Chairman Tom Davis. Correct. But I'm trying to look at the bells. I mean, you've removed more in the long distance business, the backbone, but this is still a very high bar for you is what you're telling us. Ms. Murphy. This is still a very high bar, especially when you consider that at this point, 5.5 of those 54 locations require those types of services today. We know the requirement for those services will grow over time. But we also believe that there will be alternate technologies available, wireless technologies, for instance, that aren't envisioned today that may provide more cost-effective ways to serve those customers at those higher bandwidth requirements in the future. Chairman Tom Davis. And you also suggest that Networx should allow Enterprise contractors to graduate to be Universal as their capabilities evolve. And I asked this question of the panel prior to that: Do you think that feature would significantly increase competition both on the front end and as the contract goes on? Ms. Murphy. I don't know that it will increase competition for the Universal portion on the front end. But what it will do is help mitigate the risk for the industry issues that we are currently having. If you have consolidation within the industry, if that consolidation includes one of the traditional long distance providers that we could envision being awarded under Universal, what you want is to make sure that you continue to have sufficient competition on the Universal contract to make sure that the government is continuing to get best value and rapid introduction of new services. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Ms. Watson. Ms. Watson. Universal communications is my interest, and you heard me raise some questions in the first panel. And anyone on this panel who would like to speak to it, are we looking at ways when we service our various agencies of setting up a Universal system that works, is tested, tried and true, across this country as it relates to security? Ms. Murphy. Ms. Watson, I think any number of the agencies are looking at putting that type of network infrastructure in place that will provide the high availability and security that's required. As we go forward in a post-September 11th world, I think part of the discussion we have had here today revolves around encouraging agencies to use the Networx procurement potentially as the vehicle to do that. My opinion is that the way the procurement is structured, with some minor changes, would allow the agencies to do exactly that. Ms. Watson. Do that monitor in terms of procurement, the efficacy of the products that are served--the products that are sold? And do they work? How do we evaluate the equipment? Is it a good contract, you know, and are they using state-of-the-art, and are we giving the best value for our money? How does your agency or the GSA do that? Mr. Collet. OK. Perhaps I could answer that question. The products that the government is asking for is under a broad scope. And many of the products--let me rephrase that. All of the products that they are asking for have standards. So things that need interoperability, they will certainly be able to have that. Now, there are some risk areas in the future with regards to convergence. Much work is being done in places like the Internet Engineering Task Force to establish the standards in which Networx can carry multiple kinds of communications. Ms. Watson. Let me just ask this. Who evaluates whether or not these contractors meet the standards at the end of their contract or during their contract? Who monitors to see that they meet these standards that are being formulated. Mr. Edgerton. I think the customers do that by virtue of their satisfaction with the services. GSA conducts an active program with the Interagency Management Council to make sure that the services being provided are up to the industry standards but are also forward looking. So each agency lays on the GSA its unique requirements, and then they are fulfilled through the GSA execution of that. Ms. Watson. Is there anywhere where the information that comes from the customers is housed so we can look back to see that we have made the best contractual decision, and that the equipment, indeed, or whatever the services are, indeed are of some value and a cost savings to the taxpayers? Is there any way that the information can be deposited in a central place? Does that exist? Mr. Edgerton. I think we would have to yield to GSA as to what their requirements are on that. But we certainly make available performance in terms of installation, performance in terms of mean time to repair, overall network performance statistics, and so forth. Ms. Watson. Well you know, you hear story after story about how we contract for government services and equipment, and we are paying too much for what we are getting. And you know, we keep doing this, and I'm just wondering that this information could be deposited in a central place where we can see and kind of monitor, a committee like this, kind of monitor whether or not we are making the best decisions on procurement. Mr. Edgerton. I would submit that the competitive process that the GSA has put into place certainly on FTS 2001 has provided the opportunity for my esteemed colleagues to make aware to all customers, as well as GSA, the current price points and the current values in the marketplace, so there is always pressure to do better both from a pricing and performance perspective. Ms. Watson. Well, I know about competitive processes, but it seems like the people in several cases who do get the contracts are way over what they should be, and I don't know how that process works. Mr. Edgerton. Well, let me make one other observation. Under FTS 2001, there was a price management mechanism put into place to assure that the prices were always good, or as good or better than commercial. And as a result of the processes that GSA put in place, they have never had to exercise that option because our prices have always been better than commercial prices. Mr. Scott. Let me support that, Ms. Watson. Over the last more than 10 years, GSA has led the industry in driving the prices down for this service. The initiative that was taken in that has driven these prices down. They are the best in the industry. And I am not one of the contractors. Ms. Watson. Well, let me ask this. Does the GSA deal with noncompetitive or nonbiddable processes? Mr. Scott. Not on this contract. Mr. Edgerton. You have to ask GSA that. Ms. Watson. OK. Because, you know, we are hearing about a particular contract was given, it wasn't bidded on, you know, and I'm just wondering what the connection is with GSA. Anybody from GSA want to respond? OK. I'm not going to put you on the spot. Chairman Tom Davis. I think some of this may be anecdotal. And so you need to run it down on this. These folks deal with it every day. There's always somebody who doesn't get something. We tend to operate a lot by anecdote here. I think she's trying to get to that. Ms. Watson. Yes. So I will just stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Watson, thank you very much. I've got a few more questions, if you can just indulge me. From an industry perspective, how do we ensure participation of small and disadvantaged businesses in the Networx program? Mr. Scott. Well, a lot of the small business--a lot of it comes out of the applications software development. They do very well, and they probably lead the industries into development of innovative new software. And so if Networx is pushed toward more applications, you'd get more participation in the program by small businesses. Mr. Hogge. As part of delivering the services that are mandatory under either the Universal or the Enterprise contracts--and there are lots of bits and pieces that have traditionally fallen to small disadvantaged businesses historically either as specified percentages or as goals and objectives in that regard work quite well. In my experience, and previous programs. Chairman Davis. But I mean just let me ask you all, if you're going to do that--and I'm not advocating you do or don't do, because my philosophy is that on procurements we ought to let the value for the taxpayer be the driving force, not making sure it's spread around that everybody gets a little piece of it. I mean I think when you start doing those other things in the procurement system, it just raises your cost, so it just creates inefficiencies. But if you're going to do that, I mean, we're realistic here. I think there'll be a component of that in most of this. Are you better off letting your primes pick it and decide and be the integrators, or are you better off letting the government--I mean, how would you--anybody have any thoughts on that? Mr. Collet. Well, I think the prime contractor should select its teaming partners. There's a lot of technology that needs to be brought to bear on this deal. And small businesses can be a very important part of that. I think there's a natural synergy between the large companies and the small ones. Given the scope and requirements of FTS networks today, even just under FTS crossover and our day-to-day business at AT&T, we use a large number of small contractors. And it's for a selfish reason: They bring innovation and flexibility to the team that we might not have otherwise. Ms. Murphy. I would agree. I think the primes should select their subs. And if you look at the way GSA has defined the mandatory services under Universal and the optional services under Enterprise, there are some areas that are a natural fit for small business partners. Chairman Tom Davis. The revised strategy mentions an increased role for the Federal Supply Schedules, which I think makes a lot of sense. But how would you suggest GSA implement the used schedules within the program? Anybody have any thoughts on that. Mr. Collet. Well I think there are two elements in the supply schedule that would need to be modified. First is, I think contractors can change their prices every year, so that might be an issue that needs to be addressed here. And there are also some difficulties associated with how you stitch together end-to-end solutions. So maybe the multiple awards schedule, rules of engagements, need to be changed a little bit to address telecommunications. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Mr. Collet. But it should be doable. Chairman Tom Davis. Anybody else want to add anything? Ms. Murphy. The way we've thought about it from a schedules perspective is that can be a very efficient way for agencies to acquire what we often refer to as stems and ends of their networks. You know, the broad---- Chairman Tom Davis. We call them bells and whistles, whatever. Ms. Murphy. Yeah and the broad-brush Enterprise core of an agency's network backbone is probably going to be procured through Universal. It is going to have to be designed. It's got very stringent specifications. But as that network changes or needs to be added to over time, schedules become a very efficient way to do those add-ons. Chairman Tom Davis. It can be an entry point for people who couldn't get in otherwise--new companies, startup small companies. Ms. Murphy. Absolutely. Mr. Scott. That's very compatible with a solution base, because the commodity services that are available on the schedule could then be assembled into a solution by some solution provider. Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Scott, let me ask, does the change in strategy make the Networx acquisition more attractive to integrators? Mr. Scott. It is more attractive, but it's my estimation at this point in time that we cannot compete effectively on it as currently structured. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Mr. Scott. There are not enough solutions yet and not enough applications, not enough of the stuff that we do. Chairman Tom Davis. And if other agencies start setting up their own systems, would this be even less attractive? Mr. Scott. We'll go try to win them. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. But that would be one at a time and--OK. Mr. Scott. Yes. And that's what I was suggesting we ought to stop doing here. Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Hogge, you note that Networx, to be successful, should be effective through the life of the program, the competition should be effective through the life of the program, which I agree with. Any other specific suggestions you want to make just in terms of how we can accomplish this? Mr. Hogge. Well, I think you heard from a couple of the panelists, including me, as we look at this opportunity and try to understand what sort of business opportunity it represents for us, and that's a part of the catalyst for the competitive process. So having some level of certainty, understanding what the business commitment will be, is a key element from our perspective as a nonincumbent contender here. The argument was made by a couple of the other panelists who sit in different positions in the current program, and I think that the two things, business commitment and understanding how the competitive process will work, both at the initial contracting period and over the life of the program, are keys to competitiveness. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. You suggest that GSA has yet to address fully the issue of specifying a minimum business commitment, or what you call the MRG. The new strategy does say that MRGs will be smaller than under FTS 2001, which I would agree with, just looking back historically. Are you saying you disagree with the concept of the smaller MRGs, or do you have any suggestions for a minimum MRG level for the Universal and the Enterprise? Mr. Hogge. Well, smaller is a relative term. So we are trying to understand. There is a threshold on both sides that makes sense; that, No. 1, leverages the government's buying power and is roughly equivalent to what happens on the commercial side with minimum commitments and minimum contract commitments that occur. Chairman Tom Davis. Before you gear up, you want to make sure you're going to be able to---- Mr. Hogge. Exactly. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. I think it's fair. Mr. Collet, you indicated that the changes made since the issuance of the RFI are positive. What changes do you think were the most helpful? Mr. Collet. I'm sorry. What changes---- Chairman Tom Davis. You indicated that changes, that the changes made, such the issuance of the request for information, were positive. What particular changes were most helpful? Mr. Collet. OK. I would say the changes that were helpful were in the area of billing. Originally the government had a requirement for roughly 500 elements, and that's been reduced by 62 percent, so we are very much capable of meeting those requirements and doing so very cost effectively. That was the most key area. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. And let me just ask Mr. Edgerton, what's your position on the contract term for Networx, including base and option years? Do you have a thought on that, the way it's being structured? Mr. Edgerton. We're satisfied with the way it is. The 5- year base and the option year make you do the right thing as you go through the process of the contract. Chairman Tom Davis. And I asked this of the GAO testifier in the previous panel, and you've had an extensive experience in this. Under the prior program, do you think that we reached the bottom in terms of prices, and what's your expectation for changes in unit prices for service to be acquired in Networx over the length of that contract? Have any idea or you think it's still just too dynamic? Mr. Edgerton. We've squeezed our lemon pretty tight. Chairman Tom Davis. That's well scripted. Mr. Edgerton. That's better than the sour apples. This whole business now is all about what can you do and how can you more efficiently. We have a transition going in the industry to IP platforms that require investment. We're doing that against an uncertain revenue base, uncertain regulatory environment, and certainly the issues relative to consolidation in the industry. So our focus has been to move with the IP platform to focus on Enterprise solutions and continue to drive the prices out. We still have the access cost piece, which is our significant cost. But we have done and continue to do what's necessary. I would certainly hope that the prices are at the lowest level. GSA would probably have a different view of that. But I think as we make the additional investments in the network and we increase our reach in the access area and use alternative methods of access, then there is the possibility of additional savings to the government. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Is there anything else anybody wants to add on top of what anybody else has said, or any questions that we've gotten here before we close the hearing? Mr. Collet. I'd just like to add one point about the issue of convergence. You know, when we are looking forward, we're probably going to see a great deal of technological churn during the next few years and the benefits to the government should be absolutely fantastic in terms of moving business logic functions and capabilities off stovepipe IT systems onto the Web. But doing that is going to be challenging. There's a lot that needs to be done at the network-centric Enterprises services layer, and then at the transport layer beneath that. We're probably looking at a 5 to 10-year story, rather than just having everything ready by 2007. And one of the things we--well, there's lots that we like about the acquisition strategy, but a key aspect of that is if it bundles enough IT and network components so that we'll have a fighting chance of making it all work and providing the government the best service that they can possibly set. So keeping it together is important. But keeping the scope where it is is very important. And I think industry could deliver those tools and processes that will help the agencies go to the next level. Chairman Tom Davis. Good. Well let me just say we appreciate everybody's interest. Did you want to add anything? Mr. Scott. I had one more comment. If GSA sees fit to move forward pretty much on the course they're on, I would encourage them to leave great flexibility over the life of this contract for the entry of new services and new providers. We're going to see a time of very very great change, and GSA needs to be positioned to accommodate that or the agencies will leave them. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Well thank you very much. I think this has been helpful to us. I think it has probably been helpful to GSA as we continue to formulate it, and obviously this committee will continue to stay on top of this procurement as it moves forward. Thank you very much and the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] [The prepared statements of Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, and Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6747.075