lawmakers from two house veterans affairs subcommittees question officials on their decision to use a software system and actions to solve problems with it. this hearing is about two hours. >> good morning, everyone rgts. i call this hearing to order. and a quorum is present. without objection the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. i want to welcome all witnesses and members to this hearing. i know participants have committed in similar meetings. but a reminder, if you are experiencing connectivity issues make sure you or your staff contacts our designated technical support so we can work through those and to ensure members and participants can have robust engagements, those taebdsing remotely, please remain on camera for the duration of the hearing unless you have some connectivity issue or some other matter that might prevent you from being on camera. today we will be using a virtual timer. if you want to keep that timer in your view, select greater focus view, click on the white circle on the right. select lock participant. from the list of participants you can choose hearing timer and it will keep it in your view. when you are going to speak, unmute and then pause two or three seconds before speaking. that ensures all of your words will be on camera. group load documents the email -- and it will be deposited in the depository. any objections to this hearing? hearing none, we will proceed. today's hearing will examine the ongoing attempts by the department of vet reasons affairs to modernize its supply chain. each year, va buys billions of dollars of vital life saing supplies needed for our nation's veterans. during committee hearings in recent years, we have continually heard about the weaknesses of va's purchasing and inventory management systems for medical supplies. the government accountability office and the va's office of inspector general have testified during the past hearings about how the department's antiquated medical supply chain results in increased costs and weighsful spending. also the inability of its hospitals to keep track of their inventory can lead to shortages of critically needed supplies sometimes resulting in canceled surgeries and situation where is patients are put at risk. the government accountability office added va acquisition to its high risk list in to 19. the antiquated purchasing system has led employees at va hospitals to turn to government charge cards to purchase as much as half of their medical supplies. this means that the department can't actually make use of its purchasing four for lower prays prices and reduces visibility and accountability over the inventory nationwide. the inspector general issued three reports during the first half of this year with examples of va medical facilities around the country that either ran out of ppe or were running low and had to ration. now it is important that we acknowledge that the va hospital staff and employees who have worked tirelessly over the last year have done a great job in procuring needed medical supplies. these were heroic efforts that avoided large-scale shortages. moving forward we can't continue to reloye on heroic efforts alone by the staff. clearly, the v yarks needs a modern supply chain system. our veterans and health care employees deserve nothing less. unfortunately, the va is years away from this goal. let's go over the history. the medical surgical prime vendor program was launched in 2004. it faced many problems and short falls and was never completed. 2016, va tried a new modernization event called the next generation program. again, things did not go awell as hope. next, they tried to launch the medical surgical prime vendor version 2.0 program. that also saw delays. there is more. in the latter part of 2020, va announced it would replace that ram about the department of defense system. they started with full scale implementation across the department starting with a pilot project. an inspector general report last wee points out there were major problems at the level va hospital in north chicago. as the office of the inspector general will testify today,d o.d.'s dimmels system did not meet more than 40% of the high priority business requirements identified by level staff as essential to successful operations. additionally in august this year the u.s. court of federal claims issued a ruling that va's attempted transition to the department of defense system conflicted with current law regarding procurement rules. i should point out, va is -- you heard that correctly, va has made four modernization attempts since 2004 and now will start its fifth. this restart of the previous failed attempt will occur before its current plans to modernize the supply chain. it is not clear how va's latest attempt will pass the test from the courts. we need to hear from va how its current plans for creating a modern medical supply chain will prove successful. the system needs a modern and effective acquisition system and congress needs to have a full understanding of its plans before decisions are made. i look forward and participation from all of our witnesses today. and really, we have got do all we can here to give veterans and va employees a medical supply chain that's reliable, effective, and efficient. with that, i recognize congressman mann for any opening comments. >> thank you, chairman, for hosting this joint hearing him. i am also glad we are joined by our colleagues from the technology modernization subcommittee. good the see you careman and ranking member. the organization of this subcommittee started this quer with a hearing on va's medical supply chain. it is fitting we should return to this subject today. the good news is the investments made last year dramatically improved the availability of medical supply throughout the country. the shortage of a n95 masks, surgical gloves and other ppe no longer exists. unfortunately, lockdowns to the labor market caused supply chain blockages to develop in other sectors of the economy. the bad news is the foal boast for all of va's big ticket supply chain issues have moved farther away. implements of dimmest, the regional medical centers and the medical sirge surl surgical prime vendor contracts are all further delayed or stalled all together. based on the information gathered since the hearing in march i am skeptical. va fully implemented the dimmels system in north chicago in august of 2020 after almost a i don't remember's delay, the results are not encouraging. dimmels failed to settle half of the business requirements and solutions are in the works for only a handful of these gaps. this should come as no surprise. i have studied a va collision from mitre corporation in 2018 predicted this. it scores logical asks dimmels four behind for emergency supply chain systems. it also estimated the cost of dimmels to be higher than two of these systems. in our previous hearing i urged va witnesses to consider waiting for logical to became available rather than pressing forward with dimmels only to replace it later and drive up the cost. it was reject asked now logical is delayed until 2025. until va can demonstrate the dimmels system suitability we would negative gent to allow more than a limited deployment. i encourage our witnesses to reexamine the most compelling options that were -- in 2018. turning to the regional readiness centers i don't think anyone would dispute the va has an extreme imbalance to warehouse base to inventory and demand for the inventory. in the past year, va has tumbled from temporary warehouse to temp rary warehouse. i understand they have spent $180 million on the temporary warehouse in pens pen. the v.a. is only using 10% of its space. they have two other warehouses, one in pennsylvania and one in southern cal. what concerns me most is the very little demand from the centers. i previously expresenced my apprehensions that they would turn out to be places where inventory sat unused. that's to the the plan but it clearly seems to be what's happening now. ranking member, and chairman, i put hr 2082, the supply chain resiliency act. our goal is to use vendor managed inventories to reduce some of the risk of physical inventories in v.a. warehouses. it's disappointing to me that our requests have been repeatedly ignored. i think the time has come to pass a legislation with or without v.a.'s cooperation. finally i would like to mention the medical surgical prime vendor crass. v.a.'s struggles to manage the system are well documented. i can't understand why they ought to use d.o.d.'s mspv contract asks pays out their own. it left no doubt that unless the v.a. comes up with a completely different way of achieving its goal it violates the law. i never heard of a judge before who was so exasperated that he had to quote a poem, he wrote in his decision, if there could be a literary analogy to this government procurement it would be long fellow's the wreck of the hesperas which recaps a captain's aroadible rock fall. i think it is important to understand this analogy. the course needs to be change before the medical system crashes on the rocks. if they will not, i fear the v.a. supply chain will become more expensive and not more resilient. we cannot allow to it fail again. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much ranking member mann for your comments. now we will turn things over to the chair of the technology modernization subcommittee, frank mrvan for five minutes for any opening comments he would wish to make. >> thank you chairman pappas and ranking member mann and ranking member rosendale. thank you for being willing to cutting this joint hearing. as i am sure our witnesses are aware, v.a. has taken modernizations effort of three i.t. problems at the same time. i have high lighted the trouble that the ehrm program is experience asking how it is affecting other modernization efforts. case in point our hearing today is going to delve into a supply chain modernization effort that has suffered through a number of failed attempts. the latest attempt started in 2018, was to adopt a solution the department of defense has been using since the '90s. and which is planned to be decommissioned in two years. i am not sure how the previous administration considered that a modernization effort, but we are here. to make matters worse, the v.a.'s office and inspector general released a report on november 10th which stated that this system did not meet more than 40% of the high priority business requirements identified by staff as essential to successful operations. i look forward to the inspector general's testimony today to provide more insight on the challenges that this system is providing staff at this pilot site. as our gao witness can attest today, v.a. has historically suffered to successfully management i.t. programs n. 2015, v.a.'s management of acquisition asks operations were added to the go's high risk series and remain there. i think the supply chain modernization effort is a perfect example of contracting gone wrong. congress appropriates billions to v.a. every year, and every i.t. modernization effort that involves contracting. i am pleased that v.a. has offered the chief acquisition officer, mr. parish, to testify today to present hess plan to fix this. the issues with spline modernization and the electronic health record modernization are symptoms of a larger problem. the v.a. does not manage these programs effectively, and have allowed siloed decision making for far too long. it is my hope that this hearing will begin larger discussions for a legislative solution to address this partnership with mr. parish. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. and i look forward to their testimony. with that, chairman, i yield back my time. >> well, thanks very much, chairman mrvan. i would also like to recognize for five minutes the ranking member of the technology modernization subcommittee, ranking member matt rosendale. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. my colleagues have described the situation of v.a.'s medical supply chain. i will get right to the heart this matter. the supply demand imbalance in this particular market corrected itself nearly a year ago. meanwhile the federal government's solution to the problem are just getting off the ground. these solutions always come in the form of expenive contracts and new i.t. projects and we are dealing with this at the hearing today. there is a common thread in the dmlss, dimmels system. the regional medical centers and the prime service contract. it ises from straighting. v.a. seals to be dead set on shoveling hundreds of millions of dollars a year into these projects regardless of whether they have a credible business case, whether the courts say they are lawful, whether they have capable leadership, and whether they are actually improving the situation in the field. it is disturbing philosophy of spend money first, demonstrate ruts later, or not at all. the justification for selecting the dimmels system seems to have been manufactured to support a predetermined conclusion. i question why the v.a. did not provide these studies to the committee in 2018 when they were completed and when the decision was being made. there is no way to read the mitre corporation analysis of alternatives as anything but extremely critical of dimmels system. v.a.'s own analysis of alternatives seems to have been cooked up to compare dimmels to a clearly inferior product so as to guarantee dimmels selection. it only looked at one other option not the four commercial systems that mitre examined. the dimmels has the hallmarks of a pet project much like the electronic health record modernization. the feedback from the initial site is bad. but the people leading and managing this system are cheerleading it to deploy it in other facilities. i understand the v.a. spent over $270 million on this system already, and the life cycle cost is $2.8 billion we need to shut it down before it becomes another money pit. then there are the region medical centers, where it seems like naive shoppers met a schwan talk them into time-share unit they will never use. i understand the decision to build in redundancy and increase resilience. however, there is southly no reason to be paying for a gigantic 860,000 square footwear house. that is 20 acres, people, 20 acres of warehouse, in addition to three other warehouses that all sit nearly empty. this is another $180 million wasted that would be providing much-needed care to our veterans. if the v.a. insists on proceeding with this regional readiness center concept, the warehouse footprint has to shrink dramatically. it makes no sense logistically or financially. finally, i want to turn to the medical surgical prime vendor contracts. this is truly a byzantine maze of government bureaucracy, an attempt to make the process of buying medical and surgical supplies more efficient and economical has turned into an endless series of false starts, lawsuits, and broken promises. it has driven up cost asks made the logistic staff's job more difficult. at this point i don't claim to know what the path is out of this mess, or what it looks like. i do know that any private that made such cavalier decisions breaching multiple billion dollar contracts would soon fine themselves out of business. i also know that business executives who disregard the advice of their attorneys and brazenly roll the dice in court would soon find themselves booted out by the board of directors. and we on this committee are acting as that board. i have serious questions on if we should continue to allow the same people who made these mistakes in the past to be in the position to continue to make more at the taxpayers' expense. and yes, mrs. kramer, i am referring to you. i'm deeply concerned by the v.a.'s pattern of risky gamuts and the mspv program. this is not even the first time a court has ordered a halt to what thev v.a. executives were attempting to do. v.a.'s planning and decision-making process is clearly broken with respect to these contracts. if we are going to expect to get better results in the future, we have to begin by fixing that right now. gambling with taxpayers' money and the medical supplies that our veterans rely upon is unacceptable. and we must find a way to break this bureaucratic mess without delay. thank you mr. chair. i will yield back. >> thank you very much ranking member rosendale for you are comments. and we now have a full committee chair mark decano participating in today's hearing. so i would like to recognize him for five minutes for any opening comments. chairman, you are recognized. >> thank you chairman pappas, normally with a joint committee with so many chairs and ranking members i would waive my comments. but this is such an important topic that i do want to weigh in. i think our hearing today is an important opportunity to highlight that as we move forward we don't forget the lessons that we have learned that come from dealing with a global pandemic. at the start of the pandemic the flaws in v.a.'s ability to track and obtain medical supplies highlighted the need to modernize v.a. supply chain. the previous administration's failure to successfully coordination acquisition of ppe and medical supplies is a mistake that we should never repeat again. we owe it to veterans and staff at v.a. to get them the supplies they need when they need them. so i am pleased that mr. parish is here today to testify today to brent his plan to fix the supply chain modernization effort. now, the inspector general's report last week highlighted that the valor program manager during the deployment of dimmels at the level of federal health care center in north chicago, illinois, did not follow v.a.'s act wi decision framework policies. so my question to you, mr. parish, is where are the checks and balances in the acquisition system at v.a.? i have to assume this is exactly why we are continuing to have these discussions on failed morpization programs. now, another concern of mine is that there seems to be a general attitude that v.a. have you abt kate their contracting responsibilities and let the department of defense do their work for them. i'm all for strategic sourcing and making the best use of contracts across the federal government. but i do not agree that the d.o.d. is the answer to all of v.a.'s contracting problems. now, the reason the veterans affairs committee exist and the reason the v.a. receives a separate appropriation is because veterans have requirements and needs that the department of defense does not address. so when we give away our ability to manage contracts and programs to another department, you lose the ability to ensure that the requirements of veterans and the v.a. are the top priority. now i look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today and getting some answers on how to get this program and contracting at v.a. overall on track notice i didn't say back on track, because i don't think it was ever on track. and i am not just dinging the last administration. this has been a persistent issue of not ever having been on track. so my republican colleagues, i don't want you to take my first opening comments about the last administration as, like, that that was, you know, the only administration that's had this issue. and i am hopeful in a bipartisan way we are going to get things on track, maybe, for the first time. so we can no longer be in a holding pattern of making the same blunder over and over again. i am pleased that we are in agreement with members of the minority on the committee that this is an important topic and i look forward to continuing to work with them to resolve this issue once and for all. thank you mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> thank you very much chairman takano, for our comments. we will now turn to our witnesses. i will start by recognizing our first witness for five minutes. first we have from the v.a., mr. michael parish, principal executive director for the office of acquisition, lodgistics, and construction. he is joined by ms. deborah kramer acting underseth for health for support. veterans health administration. and mr. neil evans, acting chief information officer. mr. parish is going to provide the testimony for v.a. mr. parish, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning chairman takano, chairman pappas, chairman mrvan. and distinguishes members of the subcommittee. -- i am here today -- i am accompanied by deb kramer acting assistant undersecretary with the veterans health administration and neil evans. again, i want to acknowledge our great and dedicated v.a. employees who despite the challenges brought on by the global pandemic continue to serve veterans with care and compassion. i also want to thank the house foreign affairs committee for holding this hearing to address our supply chain. -- v.a. is also working with the white house and other executive branch agencies to develop and implement actions identified in the national strategy for resilient public health supply chain. september, we began an enterprise wide strategic analysis -- >> mr. parish, could you suspend for just a minute? i apologize. i think we are having some audio issues. your volume is little bit lower than some of the other folks we heard from today. i don't know if you can get closer to the mic or project more? >> how is this? >> that sounds a little bit better. why don't you continue on and i will let you know if we have any more issues. >> thank you, sir. in september we began an enterprise wide supply chain analysis of our operations. i am leading this evident in collaborations with the v.a..ed a operations and staff offices. the overaverage arching supply chain objectives are three fold, to obtain a comprehensive focus, two develop an integrated strategy with a master schedule, and three allow evidence based management of v.a.'s supply chain. we have easy to use, integrated and intelligent systems which will be implemented. easy to use means the system should be ready to use out of the box without significant training. compatibility means with all other programs in the v.a. and intelligent means it is data driven automated and predictive. the initial phase this analysis includes a supply chain as-is assessment. we developed a strong team to lead this aspect and to ensure appropriate methodologies were applied. the effort is driven from teammates in the field not headquarters. with secretary mcdonagh's leadership v.a. has promoted evidence based decision making. the department chartered the evidence based policy county, evpc, and investment review council as well as a acquisition board co-chaireds by me and three others to ensure the leaders of the v.a. are provided with information required to make sound recommend dakss on the way forward. as part of our improved governing structure the department is completing operational management reviews, oomrs under the leadership of the deputy secretary. i am leading pmrs of all major acquisition programs to provide a forum for deliberate programmatic discussions of costs, schedule, performance, and risk of those various programs. these recurring structured reviews tie together to improve our v.a. governance structure which directly impacts our v.a. supply chain to ensure it is in line with goals priorities and mission. v.a.'s office of inspector general and the government accountability office assessed our v.a. supply chain and made areas for improve. you will hear while some progress be that made we have much more work do. we agree with their assessment and the v.a. is committed to completing that work. recently we received three recommends from the aig. one regarding the dimmels system, two, solve -- and three, properly staff our v.a. logistics redesign or valor. as part of our governing structure, we are reviewing all major acquisition programs to ensure the original theory of the case and the divisions that established those major programs are still current. dimmels is under going that review now. v.a. is committed to transforming its supply chain to provide high quality health care services and other benefits and access to veterans. this is modern me as a disabled veteran i am committed to delivering when we promised, on time, and on or under budgets. our continued support is essential to fulfilling this mission. this concludes my statement. i and my colleagues are prepared to respond to any questions you or any other members of the committee may have. >> thank you very much, mr. parish. our next witness is miss leigh ann searight. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the oig's recent report on v.a.'s supply chain. inspector general missile testified before the subcommittee on oversight and investigations in march 2021 regarding v.a.'s chain and those concerns still persist. oig reports have identified challenges to realtime tracking of inventories, purchasing, distribution, storage, and other supply management functions. while v.a. staff created work around to meet patient needs these sometimes lack comply witnesses a v.a. policies and procedures. further even these well meaning measures are not enough and can exacerbate underlying programs. my testimony focus on v.a.'s deployment the d.o.d. dimmels at the level of fed wrath ral health care center. we found significant unaddressed prigsal gaps that could affect delivery of health care services and he did employment of dimmels at future v.a. medical facility sites. we determined that dimmels did not meet nearly half of all priority needs at level. v.a. did not follow its own acquisition framework requirements. and valor, as the program oversight office was flawed. first, while v.a. intend dimmels to be a comprehensive supply chain management system it didn't immediate 40 of 90 high priority business requirements identified by the level staff this. forced staff to develop work around just to maintain day-to-day operations. notely, dimmels did not meet any of lovell's data and information sharing requirements, could not adequately perform routine health care technology management functions and lacked key functions needed to maintain accountability of i.t. equipment. second. although v.a.'s acquisition framework policies meet the high priority requirements v.a. didn't follow the framework from the march 2019 memo. moreover, dimmels's deployment kss were $176 million further vie hating the framework policy. third, the valor problem office tasked with overseeing also had a show unsteady start from lack of resources and funding. valor was not funded until january 2020. it has also been led by six different managers since 2019. from the outset, valor did not involve key offices and local staff in the assessment and development of functional requirements needed to identify needed capabilities and identify operational problems in areas such as data sharing and health care technology management. valor primarily focused on getting dimsels functions ready for deployment. the current executive corrector confirmed valor lacked the subject matter expertise to work with facility staff to determine and confirm operational requirement needs. the oag made three recommends to improve across v.a. v.a. concurred with all the findings and submitted action plans for each. v.a. will monitor and assess the corrective action asks follow-up. in conclusion, the work related to dim elsz discussed in this statement reveals there are still considerable challenges for v.a. to modernize its systems, the stakes are high for implementing a new supply chain system. inefficient work arounds do not meet v.a.'s intent to modernize without prompt and decisive action the unresolved deficiencies identified will likely occur at multiple other sites causing a cascade of problems. this concludes my statement. i welcome any questions you may have? we will now turn the our final witness, miss shelby oakcally a director of contracting and national security acquisition force the government accountability office. ms. oakley, i will recognize you for five minutes. >> hi chairs, ranking members mann and rosendale, and members of the committee, thank you for having me today. v.a.'s struggles with supply chain management are well-known to this committee and frankly to v.a. itself. yet the department faces fundamental challenges as it seeks to improve. as you know woe added v.a.'s acquisition management to gao's high risk task list in 2017 and i have testified several times in recent years about v.a.'s various acquisition struggles. in 2017 i testified that vac's kblishl clement igs of mstv next generation was flawed resulting in a program that did not meet medical center's needs. since then, v.a. as struggled to chart a clear strategic direction for its medical supplies program. last year, we rommed that v.a. take steps to assess the outcomes of its blv and stv pilot to develop a solid business case for making the decision whether to adopt the system v.a. wide. however, they didn't do this and expanded the dimmels program. this empli phisv's hbt to putting action ahead of strategy. the pandemic forced them to jump into other supply chain issues. several times over the last year v.a. officials testified about their intent to accelerate dimmels. congress gave v.a. 100 thuds to expand dimmels although they have never done that. we recommended that v.a. develop a comprehensive supply chain development strategy. mr. parish noted his office is leading the effort to develop that strategy at the direction of the deputy secretary. v.a. leadership's action on this recommendation and in other areas shows commitment to improving the agency's supply chain management. however, v.a. face as number of fundamental and cultural challenges that need to be addressed before it can make real progress in improving. for example, in an ongoing review, our preliminary observations indicate that many of v.a.'s major programs are not following its current enterprise wide acquisition framework. a good acquisition framework among other things provides leaders with the necessary information the make key decisions and ensure programs are underpinned by a sound business case. it also provides them with ways to monitor and ensure accountability for program outcomes, something that has been sorely lacking in v.a. senior v.a. act wi decision officials recognize the need for more controls in accountability and decision make and are working on a new framework that they plan to implement in 2022. while v.a. identified lessons learned about why the system has not been prodbly adopted it remains to be seen how they will deal with core issues such as a lack of trust and poor participation. in conclusion, v.a. faces challenges that require organizational transformation from both a cultural and business process perspective. more money will not solve v.a.'s woes unless v.a. breaks its habit of putting action ahead of strategy. v.a., congress, and veterans will not see the outcomes they want and expect from billions of dollars in investments. the high risk action plan v.a. developed is a good first step. but it remains incomplete and needs to evolve as the full breadth of root causes continue to surface. further have a's leadership and work force must commit to and follow through on steps to institute lasting change. addressing the fundamental challenges v.a. faces will be difficult. but if v.a. takes the time to do this right, it will be well positioned to more effectively use their resources to meet the needs both daily and in times of crisis of those who have served our country. this concludes my oral statement. i am happy to take any questions you have at this time. >> thank you for your testimony. we will now start with the questions. why don't we ask mr. parish to do a five count to make sure we have the audio in place. >> one, two, three, four, five. any better? >> yeah, i think we hear that loud and clear. thank you for doing that. we will go to questions now and i will start by recognizing myself for five minutes. mr. parish, we will start with you. i want to get to this issue of the history that i highlighted in my testimony. we know v.a. has had a number of false starts and failures over the better part of the last two decades to mrnize and improve its supply chain from the antiquated system into a more modern one. it's safe to say we all agree about the need for a modern, resilient, and efficient supply chain. we all want to get to that goal. but we are not there yet. mr. parish, can you tell us what you believe are the key ingredients of success that you are pursuing? and what have you learned from these fillures as you come into this role and are beginning to plan for the future? >> thank you for that question, chairman pappas. two points. one, we are focusing on acquisition reform from miss oakley's commentary. we are working with oei to establish a more rigorous oversight process as well as a -- what we call the acquisition life cycle framework that's going to be all encompassing for the enterprise for future acquisition programs and we hope to roll that out in the next quarter or two in the latest. to the supply chain, there have been multiple attempts over the years to have various evaluations. the my knowledge this is the first enterprise wide attempt. it is not just focused on vha, but across the entire enterprise. that's a key feature because it is going to allow us to identify the relationships between the various programs and supply chains. two is we are making it driven by the field. getting that cultural buy in that miss oakley mentioned. we are taking all the lessons learned from the previous evaluations and assessments. we are not starting from scratch. we are starting from where they left off and we are going to build upon that. the next step is focusing on the requirements analysis and then establishing a gap analysis between what we have got today and where we want to be in 2050 and then we will determine the tech no decision. technology should be the last decision in the know president cess we are trying to establish? we have been asking for a comprehensive strategy, a road map to get to this modern resilient efficient supply chain. can you tell us more about what he we expect to see that? ms. oakley said this is something you want to be compiling and providing. but we need to know there are benchmarks. we need to know all about the components, we need to see time frames. i am going to ask in this hearing as i have in the last two, are we going to see a comprehensive road map? >> our time line for the assessment is mid december, in about a month. we are well on track to achieve this. he will have the as-is status, what we look like. the next phase is the strategy development which will be in the second and third quarter of fy '22 that we should have something enterprise wide for all of v.a. >> why don't we turn to ms. see rite. i have a question for you about dimmels. we know that the pilot didn't meet nearly half of all the priority needs at this site in chicago. your findings detail how staff at the level health care center had to establish manual work arounds to acquire medical and health care equipment. can you talk about your thoughts given what we saw happen at the level site. >> sure. it is my understanding that the valor office is trying to address those unmet requirements through updates of dimmels. however, those updates, about 33 of them are still -- we haven't seen any action on those in terms of what they are doing or any processes forward. in terms of moving forward, i think they come up with solutions for those high priority requirements, and then also really to speak to the change agent, getting the facility staff on board with the changes. because it is not just implementing a new system. it is implementing new processes and procedures as well and gaining buy in for those. so it is difficult to say whether those processes will really come through and satisfy the requirements looking forward and whether dimmels will be successful at future facilities. >> okay. >> doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. maybe in the last few seconds, i don't know if v.a. can respond to miss see rite's comments? >> yes, sir, i will acknowledge her concerns. i would state that part of this entire assessment includes facilities and includes all of our comprehensive components. >> okay. we will get into that a little bit deeper but my time is up and i would like to turn thing over to ranking member mann for three minutes. >> thank you chairman pappas. it struck me going through your testimony it is all about management frameworks, not the three things i discussed in my opening remarks. v.a. process needs to be improved. but i think we have more immediate problems with dimmels, regional readiness centers and mspv. i would like to turn attention to those. really a question for mr. parish and ms. kramer. your responsibilities appear to be overlapping. who is directly responsible and in charge of dimmels? >> the way we are structured -- thank you for that ranking them mann i am at the v.a. level and each of the subcomponents have their own equivalent chief acquisition officers or the undersecretary for support. one of my challenges is to be able to do a transformation the three digital estimates at the v.a. level to mick sure they are all together and going forward. >> who would be responsible for dimmels? >> for the dimmels program i am the program decision authority and vha has the valor program as a program office in the veteran's health administration? okay. seems like part of our problem here is overlapping. i am a farm kid. our farm used to say is one of the best ways to starve a horse is making two people responsible for ito feeding it. it seems like this is a structural issue that that could easily be clarified. ms. kramer, v.a. committed to dimmels in 2018 as a one side pilot and expanded it to a nationwide implementation in 019. the first and only site so far was completed last year in 2020. is dimmels still a prove of concept for the v.a. or has it been successful enough in your mind and suitable to roll out everywhere? >> sir, the pilot at fhcc was set up as a -- that was done because fhcc is a one of a kind organization, a joint navy and v.a. organization. the desire by the staff was to use the same systems. that's what's being done that. that's strat from when we are doing in find an overarching solution for not just the supply chain but all the support funks, medical maintenance, maintenance of the environmental care and those kind of things. >> thank you. >> ms. see rite, the only data that seems to exist about dimmels performance seems to be been chicago. has it proven ready for a nationwide roll out right now in your mind? >> similar to my response to chairman pappas, i think it's still to be determined. there's a number of requirements that need to be solidified, you know, to find work around for that, and then to ensure, you know, staff can do their jobs without having to use a swivel chair approach using dimmels and legacy systems statement. so we are not even moving for the even when you implement dimmest, the needs are not likely to be achieved as it stands today. >> a follow-up on that, what are in your mind the real life implications of dimmels not being able to meet nearly half of the north chicago facility's requirements? and what does that then portend for future sites? >> like i was just saying, i think one of the biggest issues the swivel chair approach. i have information in dimmels, information if legacy systems, but they don't talk to each other. so i have to take information out of one system and put it into the other, and that creates additional work, additional time, and a lot of opportunities for errors in terms of moving information from point a to point b. so until you have that seamless transfer of information from within one system, whatever system that might be, i think there is a lot of risk that you are going to lose visibility of data, visibility of supplies, your ability to track, and really the intent behind dimmels is to have an enterprise supply chain solution. if they don't talk to each other, if it doesn't talk as a whole system, you have negated that intent? one more question for you again ms. see rite. i understand that the v.a. oig is not planning on any future work looking at dimmels. why is that? >> honestly, we don't have any plans for future work right now because we are waiting to see what the future of dim ols was really going to be. with the lindsey graham that occurred late this summer and the hold on the dla, mspb contracts that effects in our opinion the ability of dimmels to work effectively in any facility because it is sort the backbone of the ordering and the supply chain management processes. so until we have a better idea what have the future of that mspb, whether it is dla or prime vendor and how that will work, we are holding to see what v.a. is going to do moving forward with dimmels. >> okay. >> we do have some projects in the works, but until we know that there is a future, we are not implementing or starting any of those projects. >> okay. okay. thank you. no further adequacy. -- no further questions. >> thank you ranking member mann. i will now recognize chairman mrvan for five minutes. >> as a chairman the technology modernization subcommittee my experience with the v.a.'s modernization efforts focused on the ehra system. this has led to numerous complaints and a strategic pause ordered by secretary mcdonagh this past summer. according to the office of the inspector general it appears that the supply chain modernization program is suffering from similar issues. miss oakley, the gao has produced a number of reports before and during the pandemic on supply chain modernization issues. do you see the issue of supply chain modernization as a representative of issues across the v.a. with their i.t. acquisitions? i'm sorry, miss oakley, you are still muted. >> is that better? >> much better. >> okay. all right. absolutely, yes, the issues are very consistent. and they are indicative like i said of v.a.'s bent of putting action ahead of strategy. when we added v.a. act wi decision management to the high risk list we pointed to similar challenges that plague many of v.a.'s programs. some of these include leadership instability, inadequate training. and now our ongoing work is focusing on do they even have a framework for conducting these programs making sure that they are set off with a good business case that is then executed and measured for effectiveness. without doing that decisions are often ill supported and no one is held accountable for outcomes. >> in your opinion are the most important outstanding recommendations from the garks o that v.a. still needs to address to fix these issues? >> yeah, so we made the recommendation about v.a. needing to do a comprehensive supply chain management strategy. i encourage mr. parish and his folks for undertaking that. then we also have another recommendation focused on a medical surgical program strategy. those are outlined in our priority recommendation letters to v.a. that we issue every year. but i want to make sure i am very clear. it's not going to be sufficient for v.a. to just address our recommendations. you know, it needs to continue its work to understand fully what the root causes of are its challenges and then put in place that credible plan to address. again, like i said, lack of a framework. we are also finding in quon going going work that v.a. lacks information about who is in its acquisition work force to make sure they are trained and able to execute these big programs. stay tuned from likely recommendations in those two areas going forward. >> based on the work that you have already completed and the work that you are currently performing to oversee issues with the v.a.'s it. t. programs do you think the current plan to adopt the dimmels system is the most appropriate path forward? >> i think as miss see rite ashrewded to some of the key factors that influenced these decision to adopt dimmels are now in question. in particular, whether it can actually use dla's mstd program or not. and that was one of the driving factors for going down the dimmels' path. as i mentioned the aoa documentation didn't even point to dimmels as the best solution. but you know, nevertheless, that was the path taken. and i think really important. v.a. has an through this skman assessment that mr. parish is leading up to step back and examine whether dimmels remains its preferred decision. is the business case there to support that dimmels can meet the requirements of each of those facilities? you know, going through a framework and going through a process for acquisition oversight, that's one of the key aspects is does the material solution meet the requirements that are exiting? clearly boo the ig's work on dimmels, it was not the case. >> thank you ms. oakley. mr. parish, as the chief acquisition officer you have inviting into all the modernization efforts currently under way at the v.a. i am sure you can understand the concern that we have given the recent court decision and report from the oig. do you feel that pausing any further implements of dimmels is appropriate given the way things are going? >> thank you for that question chairman mrvan. yes, as i mentioned we are taking our government structure and evaluating dimmels to ensure as miss oakley rightly said that the original conditions original theory of the case of dimmels is still valid. >> with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much chairman mrvan. i will now recognize ranking member rosendale for five minutes. >> thank you chairman pappas. i appreciate it. i want to dig into the study alternatives the d.a. used to justify selecting dim nels 2018. it was written by the office of information technology. ms. kramer you were listed in it as the subject matter expert. how was it decided to only compare the dimmels to ibm's maximo software and not any of the other software problems infinity marketplace? >> well, ranking member rosendale, good morning. i was just -- i was interviewed as an expert. i can't answer to why mitre chose to do what they z. i was not involved in the design of that study. i was interviewed as a subject matter expert. >> okay. ms. kramer and dr. evans, if the v.a.'s criteria was one system that performs a whole range of functions but maximally only performs one function, how is it anything but a flawed comparison? >> thank you. i think that's one of the key points that mr. parish was bringing up is that the current strategic review and assessment and functional gap analysis that we are doing is intended to ask he's questions in a comprehensive way to determine the strategy to move forward before we determine the technology that meets the strategy. >> we we are going to -- just so i understand the process we have already invested in a software program that was compared to another software program that didn't offer any of the same options and components. and now in a we have invested that man, we are going to go back and see why we did it that way, and where the money is going? now that we have already screwed the process up? is that what you are telling me? >> sir, i think what we are doing is using what we are learning from the fhcc implementation and the review conducted by the deputy secretary to assess whether this is a right decision. we learned a lot with the fmcc implementation. those things ned to be taken into consideration as we determine our path moving forward. >> is no one who is conducting this contracting process aware that it possibly would be better to compare similar products if if we are going investing billions of dollars, to compare similar products instead of taking a product that is completely void of all the components of the one, and the criteria that has been established that that was being searched for. >> ranking member rosendale, i don't believe the mitre study was flawed. it looked at two options that were used to support manufacturing not health care. and it eliminated using dimmels and logical based on the justification that because it didn't do what we do in v.a. today it wasn't a val i had solution. i think all of these assumptions need to be relooked. >> turning to the mitre analysis. i just happen to have a copy of it here. and the alternatives. the in force software scored 1836 points compared to dimmels' 877 points. so mitre estimated the costs at $1.2 billion and dimmels at nearly $1.7 billion. please explain to me how anyone could have selected dimmels based on this information. >> sir, i was not there when that decision was made. but i am assuming that they did it because they were looking at a system that did more than just the supply chain aspects. medical maintenance is critical as well, as is taking the environment of care. >> which study did they rely on to make this decision? the oit study or the mitre study. >> i don't think there was a formal study that was published like the mitre study. i think that was done based on business case analysis by experts. but we can go back, take that for the record and see what we can go back and fine. >> i would. and who was it who actually recommended dimmels to secretary in 2018 as well. can we have that answer? >> we will get that the for you, sir. >> okay. greatly appreciate it. miss see right, how was it decided that dimszels meets v.a.'s requirements before it was deapplied to north chicago or anywhere else in v.a.? >> i honestly don't now how it was decided that it would meet those requirements. they developed a business -- not a business. sorry. they developed a requirements document and assessed those requirements and how they made the decision that those requirements would meet the needs, i can't speak to that. >> mr. chair, i do see that my time is expired. >> thank you very much mr. rosendale, i will now recognize chairman takano for five minutes. >> ranking member rosendale, i was in communication with the administration at the time. i am almost believing that dimmels, custom is a defense department-related contractor -- or program, that that was coming from the secretary and his background at d.o.d. but i am trying to verify that information. but that's my recollection. but i just -- i just wanted to kind of pass that off to you. i would like to start with a simple question. i have seen -- as we have seen -- have we seen real world progress on -- during the past eight years to work to modernize the supply chain? the chronology of the past and unsuccessful attempts to modernize the v.a. supply chain in chairman pappas's opening statement should give us all pause. i recognize the large challenge of designing and implementing the system that will handle the purchaing and inventorying of billions of dollars of medical supplies handled by the department. however, as all the witnesses made clear this current system is simply not good enough. i said eight years for a specific reason. these ongoing serious supply problems and failed solutions are not about any one administration, nor about a political party. i see this as a problem enduring through the last administration and the previous ones before that, and so on. as a committee, we must also approach this in a bipartisan manner, helping v.a. to modernize the supply chain. for the v.a. witnesses, what progress in modernizing the supply chain can you point to in the past eight years? any one of the v.a. witnesses. >> i thank you for that question. obviously it was before my time, but i would assess -- i will just make a general comment to one of the earlier testimonies congress bergman highlighted our challenges operating an analogue bureaucracy in a digital world. we are doing these three major digital transformation, supply chain being one of them, the logistics reform that we are movingford on. i know in my eight months here we are making some progress on implementing, slowly implementing those governance structures to kinds of be able to make sure that we are moving faster. in other words taking a step back to go faster. i don't know if ms. kramer or dr. evan wants to add to that at all. >> we have made improvements. we did implement a graphical user interface with vista for the use of the prosthetics contracts to make it easier for users to find the products they would need. we also created a national equipment catalog containing more than 500 contracts and 175 different categories that again made it much easier for users to find what they were looking for. what mr. parish said in terms of being an analogue environment that is what v.a. is. we don't have a supply chain management system today. so trying to make it easier for our users to find what we need is one of the most important things we need to do. >> that word analogue. analogue environment that to me means not digitized, not automated. so we are in a situation in 2021, with an analogue system. you know, what i am basically getting at is whether or not the actual front-line users of the system, those who sit before screens and order supply asks those who stock the shelves, have they seen any progress? if we are still in an analogue environment, like you are telling me. >> they have seen with it graphical user interface with the prostet threatics products. and the national equipment catalog, while it is not 21st century is a significant improvement over someone having the search through various share point sites in order to find what they need. we have seen some improvements, yes. >> given the extensive work that gao has done on this progress can you point to any progress v.a. has made to benefit v.a. employees that are handling the supply chain? >> as i said, it's not quite as bad as it was when we first started doing that work. that might kay a little bit of progress. but i think, frankly, the constant churn and change and being whipped left to right by the v.a. logistics and contracting staff made it too hard on them, made their jobs too hard. i think that the key that you are looking for is can these folks do their jobs in the most efficient and effective way in and have we seen progress that enabled that? and i would say not to date. >> so no is the answer. when you say it's not quite as bad, that tells me it is still bad, right. >> that's what i would say, yeah. >> all right. i field back. >> thank you very much chairman takano. i see chairman bergman is on the zoom. i would like the recognize him for five minutes of questions. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thanks to everyone, colleagues and also those who have given testimony before us. you know, the limiting factor in most of our performances on a daily basis is we still are analogue. and that's okay. when they transition us to digital, i think i am probably going to seek other things to do. so having said that, ms. kramer, your cost estimate the implement dimmels is between $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion depending on how long it takes to implement. the life cycle cost estimate through 2033 is $2.8 billion. the department of defense owns this system. why is it so expensive for the v.a. to adopt it? i mean you are talking -- are we talking r and d costs here for something that is already working? what are we -- how does the math add up? and that's the math that's still all analogue. >> yes, sir, the math is analogue. those costs also include the cost to make the changes required. there are thing that we do differently here in v.a. and that dimmels needs to accommodate. for instance one of the shortcomings at fhcc was the inability for users to be able to see their data inside v.a.'s corporate data warehouse. we implemented that change request. that will be completed in december. and then the fhcc folks will actually be able to go to the corporate data warehouse and see the data in the environment they are used to seeing. there are many things there that need to do it. i would say the existing life cycle cost is incorrelate. it assumes we would have fielded it to a number of different locations over the last 20 months and covid has prevented that. we are going to be depending upon the outcome of the assessment that the deputy secretary is conducting, will initiate a new life cycle cost estimate to validate those costs. >> i would suggest that that's helpful. our role as legislators is to provide funds. but your job is to implement those funds and then provide feedback to us, so to see if we need more funds or if we can -- if you will -- repurpose, redistribute, reuse excess funds. the government is inherently not good at that. that's not good or bad -- well, it is bad, actually. but it is -- you know, it is what it is. so it would be helpful, i think, for us as the committee to get an update from you on that, if you will, modified or new estimate, you know, of the life cycle cost so that we as a whole staff can figure out how to deal with it. and do it -- sometimes the story is going to be either good news or bad news. it is what it is, but we have deal with it. miss sea right, if the d. v.a. is unable to use -- contracts, is dimmels still necessary. >> i can't speak to whether dimmels is still necessary. but v.a. needs a supply chain solution. whatever that solution may be is what v.a. needs to support that. >> ms. oakley, same question to you? >> i mean the bottom line is dimmels is optimized to work with dla's mstd system. that's the reason they moved forward with it. in my discussion earlier looking at v.a. needs to take a wider look to see if that is in question, if dla dimmels is still in question does it make any sense continuing to pursue dimmels or should they look the those other options. frankly in conducting an analysis of alternatives, that's what it is called. when you look at all the alternatives that are available to be able to meet your requirements, assessing systems that are credible and can meet those needs and arrange across a range of systems is one of the best practices. i think v.a. needs to keep that best practice as we are reevaluate asking reassessing the system that they are going to put in place to meet that modern skman management system requirement. >> thank you, and i see i only have a few seconds left. i will just say number one thanks to all of you who work every day to take technology and appropriately use it so our business processes reflect our needs and the needs of the veterans and the v.a. with that, i yield back. thank you. >> well thank you very much general bergman. i don't see other members who haven't asked questions so we will move into a second round. i assume others may have additional questions. i have got a few. i want to pick up on the issue general bergman was just raising about a wider look at other systems. mr. parish, maybe i could ask you this question. you have been asked many times about dimmels, its fate, what the department is pursuing. but i think we need a little bit additional clarity here. just about whether you are completely committed to pursuing dimmels despite the fact that assessment and comprehensive strategy aren't complete yet. is that an accurate characterization, that you are committed to dimmels and committed to moving forward with it? >> thank you for the question. i will go back to saying we are conducting this review, and we will have it due out to you once we have that finished. >> is dimmels just on hold, on the back burner? or are you moving forward with it even though, you know, all this other information subpoena -- the picture isn't complete on it? >> i would say we are assessing the future of where we are going to go with that program. >> okay. so it's up in the air, you are not committed to it? >> i am not going to say we are not committed to it because that is right now our primary effort. however, we are reevaluating the theory of the case the make sure it is still valid for us to continue forward. >> okay. can you talk about -- how about other -- miss oakley just referred to taking a wider look at other opportunities that are out there, other systems that might meet the need. are you pursuing any other options? are there for instance any off the shelf options used by the private sector that might be available? >> as i stated earlier, the last decision should be the technology. asset what your requirements are about the future and what you are executing today, the gap analysis. all the hard work should be done up front before you zid on a technological path forward. i will have to get back with you on that one. >> is one of the things that you are considering as part of this look before you arrive at the technology solution -- are you thinking about the fact that dodd plans to upgrade dimmels to logical by 2023? is that something you take into consideration now? or do you think about that later? >> well, sir, logical has been delayed to 2025. i will go back to what chairman takano said, the mission of the department of defense is fight and win wars. our mission in the v.a. is to care for those warriors and widows and themselves upon completion of their military duties. we are focused on the medical aspects. on the d.o.d. side medical is a process of a process of war. >> let me ask you about war stopper. ranking member mann brought up the program. war stopper would help ensure that critical supplies could be acquired during a national emergency such as a future pandemic like the one we just lived through and are continuing to live through. v.a. paused efforts as it has been working on a multi agency assessment of the public health supply chain as directed by the president. i am wondering now that a national strategy has been put out is war stoppers is going to fit into v.a.'s emergency readiness plans. >> thank you for that question. let me pass it off to ms. kramer who can better answer that. >> the implementation plans for the 30 actions includinged in the national strategy for resilient public health supply chain are in process now. all of them will be completed by next summer. implementation will begin as each is completed. we are still working with our interagency partners to determine how the dla war fighter does or does not fit into that strategy. then we would ask if you do provide legislation coming forward it includes the ability for us to be flexible moving forward no matter what the national strategy should be. >> you mentioned next summer? >> right now there are 30 actions in play right now required by the national strategy. those are being worked in four different phases. phase two is under way now, so development of program objectives, and metrics, and then the implementation plans themselves. there is quite a few. we would be happy to provide a more detailed briefing on that at a separate time. >> i think we would be interested in that. while i have you miss kramer in the last few exseconds i have got can you speak to the state of ppe today, how v.a. is doing, and what preparations you might be making for you know the winter months as we know the case count and hospitalizations continue to rise in certain parts of the country. >> i am actually happy to say we have a minimum 180 days of supply on hands for all critical ppe. that is what the regional readiness centers bring us, the ability to hold 120 days there and additional 60 days at the facilities. we are well prepared should there be another surge. >> thanks for that. i would like to recognize ranking member mann and ask if he has additional questions? >> i do, thank you. i want to talk about regional readiness centers. pennsylvania is the largest most active regional readiness center, 860,000 square feet. our understanding it stores about 25,000 pallets of supplies right now, only 25% of that warehouse of couldn't the v.a. be achieving its goals with much less space? >> thank you for that question. as you know, we did a site visit i believe last week with our vha team. i will pass that question off to ms. kramer as well. >> good morning ranking member mann. we originally designed that warehouse to support a larger demand based on where we saw the pandemic going. originally we were looking at 65,000k. it is dynamic. we are looking -- that site is going to close and we are going to be transitioning that material into defense division depot in pennsylvania and trisy, california. >> i understand we spend $180 million to occupy that warehouse through 2023. if 90% of floor space is not occupied that means we spend $162 million unnecessarily. couldn't that have been spent much better elsewhere, on patient care? medical supplies? it just seemed like an enormous amount of money for space we are not even using. >> sir, again i would have to say that contract, iaa took a while to get in place and was based on the demands at the time. we are adjusting that now to close that facility so we do avoid spending money that does not need to be spent. >> okay. my understanding that mr. parish or ms. kramer, whichever, of those 25,000 palettes in chamberberg almost all of it is for personal protective equipment. the v.a. has been moving that inventory from warehouse to warehouse and the medical centers are placing very few orders for it today. why is that happening? what are we doing with the inventory that's still collecting dust? what are we going to do when these contracts expire here in the next few years. >> mike, i can take that one. we actually are taking -- we do have orders. when the primary source of sly for ppe should continue to be our medical center prime vendors. that's still the primary source. when they cannot meet a requirement that's what the regional readiness centers do, they allow us to build resiliency in our supply chain. as you my display manufacture and distributing globally is still disruptive, still not depend lk. so we do need to keep this material. we are though filling orders every month to meet the commands. we have also moved in and are act dating other shortages. as you are probably aware there is a global shortage of blood tubes today. we are also storing blood tubes at the region readiness centers and providing it to the facilities when they prime vendors can't meet the demand for the surges they are seeing. >> with the war stopper. practice, personal protection equipment, gloves, n95 masks, these are exactly the types of items that the war stopper program handles best. do you that the war stopper programs alongside the regional readiness centers would key crease spoilage. >> yes, anything that's got an expiration date needs to be something that is turning over at a relatively rapid rate. but we still need the ability to reach out and surge as is required to support this pandemic or any future public health emergency. >> we have had multiple witnesses including the secretary himself testified that v.a. would benefit from participating in war stopper. and the department is supportive of our legislation that we have offered up with changes. when i have requested information most importantly the information v.a. wants to access in the program that will be the no response or any cooperation. do you agree to provide a list immediately and cooperate with the committee as we look at war stopper as a legitimate option to help the v.a. and help the veterans. >> you have my promise on that. we will do that immediately following the meeting. >> thank you. i have no further questions, chairman pappas. >> thank you very much. chairman mrvan, you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman pappas. mr. parish, we have been made aware of the dimmels is not only a supply chain tool currently deployed at v.a. will your strategy identify all of the tools that v.a. is currently using for supply chain management? >> thank you chairman, we are back to that question. part of our as-is assist cessment is to identify what we are using today. it goes back to miss oakley's point about our acquisition work forces all of our logistical people and where they are working. we have site visits and interviews ongoing comprehensively across the enterprise nca, v.a., and vha. and also our facilities officers. >> specifically, do you know what other systems you guys are using? >> i know we have maximo in place in a couple other facilities. >> any other ones? >> i don't have specific names. miss kramer, if you want to -- >> there is a complex environment. let me give you an example. gip, the inventory system that v.a. uses today, by the way it doesn't take an expiration date and wasn't designed to support medical. it is not just one. every hospital has their own versions of that, 170 islands of excellence. we have laid all of the systems out as part of our dimmels implementation because we need to understand where the data is coming from to support a dimmels implementation. we can provide that to the committee, sir. >> yes, please, if you would. after your strategy document is completed, can we expect to see full and pope competition for -- did open competition for comprehensive explain solutions at the v.a.? >> chairman, once we decide on the path forward and if we choose to go through a source selection, i will commit to, that yes sir. >> as i am sure you can appreciate given the issues that v.a. has had with these programs i am interested seeing v.a. start an openly compete programs and start an open integrations policy. i look forward to working with you to start making progress instead of restating these programs every few years. i also want to ask mr. parish given the number of attempts the v.a. has made to modernize the supply chain management system as identified by chairman pappas in his opening i don't think i am alone in worrying that any new efforts has the potential to be another failed attempt. that being said, if the v.a. identifies that the move to dla and dimmels is not the best path forward they should paws the current effort and find a new solution. in your testimony, mr. parish, you highlighted that there are a number of efforts underway to ensure evidence based decision making with programs and acquisitions. i think that's a step in the right direction, and i fully support v.a. taking a look at all of their i.t. programs to ensure that we aren't spending money on programs that don't meet the needs of v.a. staff. for the supply chain program in particular what do you see as the biggest factors that need to be reviewed before moving ahead with the solution? >> chairman, i would like to take that for the record and respond back to you once we have completed our initial assessments. >> will you be taking into account previous solutions like the one produced by mighter. >> yes,s that one of the components we are reviewing. we are reviewing all the previous assessments. we are not starting from scratch. we are taking all of those items and taken them into consideration. we have created a master database that the team along with our industry partners are using for leverage. in the spirit of transparency and jointness across the entire enterprise all of our organizations see everything that we have done previously and where we are going forward. so we communicate and collaborate very well. >> with that, i yield back. >> thank you chairman mrvan. i don't know if ranking member rosandale is still on. but if he would like to ask additional questions, i can recognize him. okay. we will come back to you ranking member rosendale if you pop back on. with that, maybe general bergman has additional questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. parish, how much has the v.a. spent so far in shipping items to the chambersberg warehouse, sea, arks lands, pony express, mail, whatever? >> i will take that for the record and i will get back to you on the proper answer. >> okay. as long as you are taking it for the record, how much has the v.a. spent on all categories of shipping of items from all the other warehouses. so let's look at a total picture piece, not just chambersberg, that would be helpful. >> cyril take all of that for action. we will commit to that. >> okay. now mr. parish, on another note the warehouses are using a d.o. dchlts system called the defense property management system to manage their facility. why is it not sufficient and why does the v.a. need to implement dimmels in addition? do we need to overlap? do we need duplication is this or is one good enough? >> sir, as i stated as we are undergoing this comprehensive review i don't know what's sufficient or what's not sufficient. but i will also take that for action to respond back to you once we are done determining the requirements and then determining the technology that fits into where we need to be. >> do you have a time frame for getting that info? >> yes, sir, the initial assessment, our as-is status is due to me in the month. and we will report it back to the deputy secretary. the gap analysis will be completed in the next two quarters. by spring, summertime we will have answers to all of your questions, sir. >> is there any hint anywhere that when all the data is compiled and the assessment is complete that decision might be made to, well, we'll still use two systems any way? >> i trust the process. being a philadelphiian, we are going the rely on the facts and we are not going to presuppose any solutions. >> okay. well, thank you. that's all i have. i yield back. >> sure. >> thank you general bergman. chairman takano, you are recognized for additional questions for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman pappas. so, mr. parish, i get the sense that v.a. is going to reevaluate, possibly reconsider, the plan to move to dimmels as the modernization solution. that's the feeling i am getting. is that -- is my feeling correct? >> sir, as i stated, part of our structure that we are doing, this is for all major programs as we did with the dhr and others we are reviewing the program to assess if the original conditions and environment and the business case back when it was decided are still valid today. and then we will make that decision after we evaluate that. >> all right. how is that different than just re -- so you are -- are you reevaluating the plan to move to dimmels? is that what's going on. >> yes, sir. we are assessing the program overall and determining the best course of action. >> okay. well, i -- i -- i find that the court of federal claims opinion to be fairly convincing that the v.a. did not -- is not prepared to move forward with the proposed move to that failure to modernize is not an option and that this is a priority, modernization is a priority of mine, and i want to make sure that we don't continue with an antiquated system that doesn't provide v.a. insight into the supply needs across the country. so i just want to make sure that that's clear. i'm happy to see that in your testimony, mr. parrish that you are working to put some structure and planning in place at v.a. to ensure that we are doing acquisitions correctly. as part of your testimony, we were provided with -- we were provided the v.a. supply chain transformation road map phases, which include milestones where findings and updates are provided to v.a. -- to the v.a. operations board. can you tell me, mr. parrish, who sits on the operations board and how often the board is convened? >> yes, sir, ask that's part of our new governance structure, ask that v.a. operations will report to the v.a. executive board. at the executive board level, that's chaired by secretary mcdonough. we all at the deputy level and at the functional champion level cao, cio, and cfo sit on that board as well. >> thank you, also includes a decision -- decision event for the secretary of the v.a. at the end of may 2022 before the new integrated supply chain strategy is implemented. i realize that decisions on the supply chain program won't routinely be elevated to the secretary for final approval, so i'm interested to hear how you plan to oversee and manage this program going forward after a strategy's in place? >> well, sir, my role as the chief acquisition officer, i have the obligation and the authority to report to the secretary all actions, especially around our major acquisition programs, and we've established our major acquisition programs as anything that is more than $200 million in costs per year, over a billion dollars in life cycle costs or anything that has been designated by leadership as a major acquisition, and that's our focus on that. >> i've heard that there are -- i've heard that a number of boards and councils at the v.a. surrounding acquisitions and programs recently, but i've heard of them, but what i am most interested in is who makes up the final decision authority on large acquisitions? >> yes, sir. the ultimate decision will be -- and we're establish ing a new major acquisition program framework from cradle to grave, so a new idea comes in place, and i'm working on that with our team, our new assistant secretary and i along with the rest of our team, we're going to hope we have a new process in place so we'll take that and i'll report back to you once we have that completed. >> not real clear about who that big acquisitions, who's that? >> ultimately it's the secretary, but we're putting a process in place along with our governance structure to have it properly vetted before it raises to any new program -- before it raises to the level of the secretary. >> your buck stops at the secretary but you're going to give me a better idea about how that recommendation -- >> yes, sir. >> what is the current status or makeup of the group of decision-makers at v.a. that will routinely approve and review acquisition decisions for these large programs? >> well, we have these monthly meetings that we have what's called the investment council and we also have the i.t. investment board, and those are co-chaired by myself, by dr. evans, the acting cio, and cfo. the cio, cfo and cao, we work hand in glove and talk almost daily about programs, but we meet formally monthly to review the programs. as mentioned in my oral testimony, the way -- used at the deputy secretary level he gets a chance to review them strategically and i drill down on the programmatics, the cost schedule performance and risk, and i'm in there quarterly with all these major programs and the cio and cfo also sit in those meetings with me. >> thank you. i yield back, i'm sorry for going over my time, mr. chairman. >> no problem, chairman takano. i do have a couple of additional ones. maybe folks have some other questions for a third round: we can do that if folks are interested. ms. oakley, could i turn to you real quick? i think this issue of having a comprehensive strategy is so crucial to the ultimate success of v.a. here. i know you've alluded to the recommendation that comes from gao to develop this supply chain strategy which would help coordinate and improve v.a.'s efforts. can you just talk a little bit more about what v.a.'s comprehensive plan should entail. i don't want to leave this hearing without that really being underscored. >> yeah, the comprehensive supply chain management strategy should really clearly define all the elements of v.a. supply chain and address the interrelationship between the various modernization programs. it needs to outline, you know, the next steps. it needs to assign and document clear lines of responsibility, put in place metrics and measures to assess performance and outline how the v.a.'s various different efforts are integrated. i think it's really important to note that if this strategy is done well, it will outlast leadership, right? by putting it in place and implementing it will outlast leadership changes, and i think that's the important point, right? if we keep changing the approach and changing what we're doing every time new leaders come into v.a., we're never going to make any progress, and so a well-documented comprehensive supply chain strategy will hopefully outlast, you know, changes in leadership. >> thanks for your comments. i really appreciate that, and mr. parrish, maybe i could just turn to you for one as well. you know, we've heard about how interoperability is so crucial. fmbt, ehrm, we've got to make sure that they're connected and reliant on each other. and you know, one linkage that's been highlighted is dmls and ehrm, which are connected through v.a.'s joint architecture, so could you talk or have the other v.a. witnesses talk about what other modernization or supply chain programs are linked and how that, you know, impacts your decisions moving forward. >> chairman pappas, you highlighted the top three, ehrm, and fmbt, and the battle program. what i would take for action and i promise to get back to you once we have our assessment done because one of the key items we're doing in the assessment is to identify those in interrelationships and see where everybody are linked. i do know at the tactical level the teams are talking with each other and working closely to schedule and deconflict any type of items that are going. i don't know, dr. evans, if you want to add anything to that. >> sure i'd be happy to. so there are interdependencies between all three. that is ehr modernization, electronic health record modernization product needs to have input with regard to the supplies that can be ordered as part of a physician ordering something, so there is a connection between whatever v.a.'s comprehensive supply chain management solution is will need to interface with the electronic health record, modernization system. there's currently a manual, it's not a manual, but there's currently an approach that has allowed us to go live with the electronic health record in spokane with essentially files that get the data to the electronic health record, but we will need to have part of the assessment of the requirements that mr. parrish is mentioning is understanding and assuring that the solution that we deliver will interface, dmls does interface, it's what the department of defense is using to interface the supply chain capabilities with dhr. there's also, of course, an interception between with fmbt with the financial management system because with supply chains, there is an ordering and financial piece to that. >> okay. thanks for walking us through that. i appreciate it. i have no further questions. ranking member mann i'll recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman pappas, look through the medical, surgical contracts. i'm not an attorney but the court of federal claims judge was clear, i mentioned this in my opening remarks, what v.a. has been trying to do with msvp contracts was uncompetitive and constituted a breach of contract. do i understand correctly that you and ms. kramer have decided to continue this effort to rely on the dod's contracts? >> no, sir, from that court case we've taken three actions. one is obviously we've had to take a step back and go back to our bridge contract and 6 was the only one that had moved forward to the dla contract. because of the court case they're transitioning back to the ridge bridge contract, so they're stepping away from the dla relationship. that transfer back should be done in early january. 20, which is up in the northwest, they are working with dla and that's because in the court case, they've allowed that to continue, and then additionally we are creating a new bridge contract, a one-year contract that will take us through next december, december '22, by which time we should be able to have a better assessment and idea of which way we're going to go forward. >> so this new approach, you believe, you know, we're doing a similar thing but then it's going to be legal this time. is that -- >> absolutely. yeah, i guess i failed to mention that ogc, our general counsel is deeply embedded in all the conversations we have, along with our great contracting teammates and members that we have them embedded into the programs. we're all as one collaborative entity joint. >> okay. and then thank you, and then my last question is for ms. oakley, switching gears a little bit. you know, this morning we talked about dmls regional readiness centers, mspbs, you know, i see major inconsistencies in how these programs have been planned, initiated as well as how they're being managed now. how do you big picture evaluate vh processes to manage these major programs? >> yeah, absolutely. our ongoing work is showing that, you know, v.a.'s major acquisitions, several of the ones that we're talking about are not guided by a credible acquisition framework currently, and you know, i applaud mr. parrish and his efforts to try and bring more discipline to that, but what it has resulted in has been, you know, differing approaches for each program, lack of clear direction, limited ability to assess progress and hold folks accountable, you know, you might say that it could leave the impression that v.a.'s managing these billion dollars of investments and somewhat of a loosey goosey fashion, and i'm hoping that mr. parrish's efforts do bring more discipline and accountability to v.a.'s management of its major acquisition program. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> thank you very much. chair minnesota mrvan, you're recognized for additional questions for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman pappas. ms. oakley, from the work that the gao has completed to date, do you have a better insight into who exactly is providing oversight and management to the modernization programs? >> i wish i could say i did. i think one of the consequences of not having a credible acquisition framework in place is that the lines of accountability and responsibility are as clear as mud. you know, for example, you know, mr. parrish discussing that, you know, there's three co-chairs to some of these committees that they sit on. it doesn't really give you that bellybutton to press as to who is held responsible and accountable. if everybody is responsible, nobody is. what we really want to see in, you know, a credible acquisition framework is that decision authority, is that person that's signing their name and saying this business case is good, it's well-supported. we can execute it within the resources that we have, and i'm hoping that that's what comes out of mr. parrish's efforts going forward. >> thank you, and as a follow-up, does v.a. currently have a structure in place that make you feel confident that they can provide the leadership and oversight needed to make these modernization programs a success? >> i think they're working on it. i think there's a lot of touchups that needs to happen because, as you know, many of these programs are well underway, and we've already invested a lot of resources in these programs, and so i'd like to be able to see what the outcomes are of not only the comprehensive supply chain management strategy, but also the continuing evolution of v.a.'s high risk action plan that directly addresses some of the issues that we've identified as having been challenges to v.a.'s execution of many of its programs. >> and then ms. oakley, can you provide any examples of actions that v.a. should take to improve this structure and whether you think that legislative solutions is necessary given the history of v.a.'s issues with modernization and acquisition? >> yeah, legislation may ultimately be necessary, but, you know, given all of the good work that's going on right now, all of the commitment that we see, i think i probably wouldn't start there immediately. seeing the outgrowth of v.a.'s plans that it's working on, i think once we see that, we we assess the credibility and the fidelity of those plans and whether or not we think v.a.'s positioning itself for executing, we'll be able to, you know, weigh in i think a little more clearly as to, you know, where they're falling short and where congress may need to step in to legislate to get some action. >> thank you, ms. oakley. in recent program briefing with the department of defense on the status of the cloud-based solution, the program manager stated that the efforts to deploy the logical solution are being greatly aided by the dod's move and integration to single ehrm solution as well as a single financial management solution. given the current state of the v.a.'s ehrm program, the supply modernization program as well as the financial management modernization program going on all at the same time seems extremely risky. mr. parrish, my question is for you. how are all of these programs being coordinated and integrated at the upper management level? j. >> well, thank you for that question, chairman mrvan. as i mentioned, one of the things that we were putting in place and i appreciate ms. oakley's support and recommendations for a lot of these things, but we are putting in place that structure and that oversight to be able to kind of integrate. as i mentioned, one of my key deliverables is to be able to provide an integrated program strategy. that means that those three programs because each one of them are major undertakings. we're doing this digital transformation together, and we got to make sure they're all working hand in glove. so that's a -- that i'll have the interrelationships and the integrated program strategy amongst all of our programs, current and future. >> what are you doing to mitigate risks to the success of the ehrm program and the financial management program if the supply modernization effort continues to have delays? >> i'll take that for action to be able to give you more specific details. i do know that teams are working internally together and collaborating and anticipating part of the risk assessment is assessing the likelihood of a risk as well as the severity of a risk. it's around cost schedule performance as well as what we call programmatic, things beyond our control like lawsuits, so we are properly assessing those and then the teams are anticipating the high performing organization antist pate -- i don't have specifics but we can get back with you on that mr. chairman. >> thank you, with that i yield back, chairman. >> thank you. ranking member rosendale, we miss ed you in round two, if you'd like to take up to ten minutes here. >> thank you so much for your generosity. i would never do that to this list of witnesses or this committee. they would run me out of town. i apologize, i'm trying to juggle two committees at the same time. that's why i didn't make round two. you didn't skip me. i'm going to dive right into my questions. mr. parrish, are there any other business cases, analysis of alternatives or other studies written by the v.a. or any other party regarding the selection of dmls or evaluating its performance that have not been provided to this committee? >> i do not know that answer, ranking member rosendale, but i will get you an answer back. >> please go back and check, and unfortunately i've had a history of requesting information from agencies and i doubt very seriously if you would be that way, but they have not returned that information to me in a timely fashion. so i would appreciate if we could get this done in 14 calendar days. >> i'll do my best, yes, sir. >> okay. ms. kramer, are there any other business cases, analysis of alternatives, or studies written by the v.a. or any other party regarding selection of dmls or evaluating its performance that have not been provided to this committee? >> i don't know the answer to that question, as mr. parrish said we'll go back, do that investigation, find them and provide them. >> and again, i would repeat that if you could please have that provided back to this committee within 14 days, it would be greatly appreciated. and then finally, dr. evans, the same question to you. are you aware of any other reports, analysis in regards to these issues? >> i'm not personally aware, but i don't know the answer to the question, and like ms. kramer and mr. parrish, we can together look into that as you've asked. >> thank you, and again, i would have requested we could have that accomplished within 14 calendar days. that way we could take this up before the end of the year, i would greatly appreciate it. mr. parrish, ms. kramer, dr. evans, whose idea was it for the v.a. to unilaterally staten island to cancel its medical surgical prime vendor contracts and use the dod contracts? >> ranking member rosendale, i don't have the answer to that because it was before my time. i don't know if dr. evans or ms. kramer want to add to that or we'll take that for action. >> i don't know. >> and i don't have the details, and i don't want to provide any inaccurate information, let us go back and get the facts for you, sir. >> i would greatly appreciate that, if we could see that chain of command and who basically was the one who signed off and thought that this was a good decision to, again, enter v.a. into this legal spider web of great expense that has not been very product ive for us, and with that, mr. chair, i will yield back the balance of my time. thank you so much. >> thank you very much, ranking member rosendale, chairman takano, if you're still with us, if you have additional questions, i'll recognize you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to just -- i want to ask if there's for any other alternative assessments of solutions outside of the miter report, i also want to know if -- i'm also interested in the requests for information as asked by mr. rosendale and others. if you would get me that information as well, and mr. rosendale, you were gone by my staff confirmed with me what i recollected, which was dmls came as a sort of push from secretary wilke. it came from the department of defense as under secretary for personnel readiness. at the time, you know, they knew that this was an issue, this was an issue that they inherited as well, and they thought that dmls was a solution and why not, you know, what dod does, but and not everything was well thought out, and not all the processes, internal processes were followed, so -- but again, i emphasize, i'm not trying to finger any particular party or administration. this has been an ongoing problem and i really urge all of us to try to pull together in a bipartisan way to get v.a. on track, not back on track, but on track, so ms. oakley, do you feel that there is sufficient oversight of large acquisitions at v.a. as it is currently organized? >> no, there's definitely not sufficient oversight, as i mentioned for managing its major acquisitions, and that results in unclear lines of authority and responsibility, and that's part of what is wrong. probably people's eyes glaze over, it really does provide clarity. it provides opportunities for the life of a program where decision-makers can weigh in and make go and no go decisions based upon fact based information. so that really does help to make sure that we're continuing to pursue programs that make sense for the agency, and i just want to make the point again, when you have a good framework in place that becomes a part of the culture and how they do business, it will ensure that it's followed and that progress transcends changes in leadership. >> ms. oakley, i think you might have answered this question before, but the previous answer that you made, we don't really know exactly who at v.a. has final authority on large acquisition programs, and who exactly can stop the program that is over budget behind schedule or is not meeting the requirements of the contract. is that something that you've kind of said throughout this area or if you have not, is that something you would agree with? >> i think it's clear as mud. i mean, i think it's telling that if you ask me, i can't give you a straightforward answer immediately for a number of the program that we review, and so i think when you have to kind of dig to figure out who's in charge, that means nobody's really in charge. >> they sense that there's nobody really in charge with regard to these acquisitions. it's too diffuse. >> or it's in charge by committee or, you know, leadership by committee which i think leads to a welcome of -- lack of being able to hold folks accountable. >> so the final authority is really as you say clear as mud. it's not clear so i think we've gone on too long waiting for a solution to appear at v.a. and i know that gao is interested in seeing some real changes being made as i'm sure mr. parrish is i want to work with v.a. to find a legislative solution so we can codify some of the changes that a cao has put in place. we are continuing to have these issues in the future, and i get the feeling that we'll have bipartisan buy in to all of this and that we can arrive at a solution. mr. chairman, this is a really important hearing for you to hold. i want to thank you and chairman mrvan and the ranking members of each of the committees for this joint -- this joint oversight hearing. if we can get v.a. on track, that will be a major accomplishment, and we're going to do it. we are going to do it. so thank you. >> thank you, chairman takano. would any of the ranking members or chairs like to provide any closing comments? i see a lot of shaking heads there. okay. i guess we're very thorough with the questioning and the time that members had today, but i just want to thank everyone for joining today's hearing. look, i think today's hearing clearly underscores that v.a. supply chain modernization efforts are needed as urgently as ever, but we know that v.a. needs a more comprehensive plan for making medical supplies and it's got to be a plan that properly includes key stakeholders and ensures that all of these efforts are being properly coordinated and governed. i think the record's clear, v.a. has had too many unsuccessful attempts at modernization, and we simply have got to get this right. our subcommittee is going to continue to monitor this program as i know the others will on the full committee. we all have to work in a bipartisan manner to identify additional ways we can support v.a. and veterans in the v.a., employees who staff our facilities really deserve nothing less. mr. parrish, ms. kramer, mr. evans, thank you for your testimony. i remain hopeful that over the long-term because of your efforts we will move to a better place, please also pass along our thanks to the men and women at the v.a. who are doing everything possible to stock the supply shelves and make sure that everything is in the right place for vha and all the veterans that are served by the department. also thank you to ms. oakley and ms. searight for the work that you do. i think your oversight is so critical for us to understand in realtime what's happening at v.a. and to identify the best path forward. so thank you to everyone who has joined us today and with that this hearing is adjourned. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing affordable internet. cox,bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. next, european mayors testify on democracy abroad before the house foreign affairs subcommittee on europe. membersg us. i recognize myself for an opening statement. we are holding a hearing today entitled "innovative municip >> i see we do have a quorum. thank all the members here. i recognize myself for an opening statement. pursuant to notice we're holding a hearing today entitled innovative leadership in central europe, founding members of the pact of three cities. i want to thank you all for being here, thank our witnesses given the time zone issues we

Related Keywords

Minnesota , United States , California , Illinois , Pennsylvania , North Chicago , Chicago , Neil Evans , Matt Rosendale , Lindsey Graham , Deb Kramer ,