in that database; that is something we have not been able to do historically. That involved using what we call a database management system that resides at the House Information Systems Computer Center, fortunately colocated in our building. That is a distinct advantage, and has reduced the need for lengthy communication nodes with commercial vendors on the outside and has reduced a lot of risk of data losses and so forth. We also have recently established a credit budget application using the same technology. Here again, right down to the last user of that application they are extremely pleased with it and it is responsive. Mr. FAZIO. I might point out my colleague from California, Mr. Mineta, was probably as important in pushing the Congress to look at our credit budget as he was to have us look at the cost estimates that impact State and local government. I would have to give him credit for having, during his six years of service, gotten into these areas and I appreciate the fact that you are following through even though he is no longer on the committee. Mr. HARRIS. Now in conjunction with our major users, we are looking at our last major application-the automated scorekeeping system. We hope that, with the cooperation of the end users, over the next 12 or 15 months we might seriously entertain revising that application so that we can bring it in house. Dr. Rivlin established very early on a couple of basic policies regarding data processing. One was that we would come before this committee and ask for all the resources we needed, as opposed to having a service entity such as the Senate Computer Center or the House Computer Center asking for money on our behalf. That basically gives us the discretion so people can't gouge us, whether it be a Congressional center or a commercial center. Our commercial request this year is actually below that of 1979, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAZIO. That is very impressive, and you were able to do that with an increased workload. RELIABILITY OF HOUSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS Mr. HARRIS. With significant increases. At the same time, the House Information System's people will be requesting somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million less for direct appropriations this year than they did in 1979 because the Clerk of the House and the Congressional Budget Office are reimbursing them and it is a pay as you go. Therefore, the responsiveness we expect is what we would get from a commercial vendor. We have a memorandum of understanding with the chairman of the House Committee on Administration on terms of service levels, penalty rates, revising rates, and a quality review process to measure this success. Computer centers on the Hill have a tremendous job to be everything to everybody. Within the Congressional Budget Office, when it comes to computers, not all my users are happy at all times and there definitely is some criticism from time to time, but as an end user of HIS we think we are going in the right direction. EVALUATE HIS Mr. FAZIO. I was going to ask you to comment on HIS, to evaluate them, and I gather it is very positive. Do you want to expand on that? This is an important issue for this committee. Mr. HARRIS. We have participated. Mr. FAZIO. Several years ago when I first heard your budget presentation you were a lot more skeptical and somewhat reluctant to spend a lot of time working with them and apparently this has changed. Mr. HARRIS. That was one reason for the memorandum of understanding. That was one of the reasons we asked the House Committee on Administration for this memorandum that gave us a longterm commitment in terms of the level of service. Over the last 12 months, the reliability on the House Computer Center has been in the area of 98 to 99 percent reliability. That compares with what we have been getting with most of our commercial vendors, which is in the 96 to 97 percent range. It sounds like minute differences but, when you get called out of bed late at night or when you are trying to get that report out so that we can meet a particular deadline, it is very important that those computers be functioning properly. Mr. FAZIO. Could you provide some data for the record? [The following chart compares the computer availability (i.e. uptime) between CBO's largest commercial and government suppliers.] Mr. FAZIO. I have some additional questions for the record and unless there are any further questions. [The questions follow:] Question. You estimate a $760,000 increase (+29 percent) in interagency agreements-from $2,605,000 to $3,365,000. Why is this item increasing? Answer: To avoid the impact of a 20 percent price increase by our largest commercial supplier and to take advantage of more modern and responsive systems and software. Question. That item also increased last year by almost $1 million. That amounts to a $1,471,000 increase in two years (+78 percent). Why is it necessary to increase these interagency agreements to that extent? Answer. As pointed out earlier despite large price increases by commercial suppliers, our 1984 commercial request for ADP services is below our 1979 level. This has been made possible by using Federal services which offer more resources per dollar. Furthermore, the interagency pricing was not adequately reflecting true cost and was understating our real utilization. Question. Are you shopping around to see if you can save some money. We don't have to use an agency just because it is within the government. There are plenty of hungry suppliers out there. Answer. We have shopped around and in so doing have identified the congressional source of computer services as the best value. Although the competition is keen in the commercial sector, the communication and marketing costs have increased significantly. The following analysis of our computer bill for the last 6 months of 1982 shows the changes in cost due to new prices effective March 1, 1983. This is much higher than we anticipated. COST COMPARISON FOR COMPUTER PROCESSING UNITS CURRENT AND NEW VENDOR RATES Question. Please update the interagency ADP contract data on page 719 of the fiscal year 1983 hearings. Question. You are asking for a $268,000 increase in the Systems, Data and Model Development item under "Other Services." Which of your divisions uses these services? Answer. Systems, Data and Model Development services are used by all of our seven divisions to varying degrees as dictated by Congressional demands. Question. Give us some examples of the type of services provided in the Systems, Data and Model Development budget item. Answer: SYSTEMS, DATA AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT, SELECTED FISCAL YEAR 1982 PROJECTS Fiscal Analysis: Install comprehensive EAL software system for economic modeling. National Security: Update data base to continue analysis of congressional proposals for improved military General Electric......... education benefits. 27,000 Update data base and analyze possible changes in the military retirement system. Peden, EA. 11,000 Question. Explain the $268,000 increase in Systems, Data and Model Development. Answer. The $268,000 increase in Systems, Data and Model Development is due primarily to continuing Congressional demands on two divisions. Human Resources and National Security. In the Human Resources area, new data from the Labor Department and the Current Population Survey are available that will greatly enhance our analysis in the areas of Unemployment Insurance and cost estimating in general. In the National Security area, data must be acquired and updated for models that estimate military retirement costs and military personnel retention, and that analyze the effects of alternative strategic forces on national defense costs and capabilities. The above projects, and others, are needed to continue to respond to requests for analysis of current key domestic and military policy issues. Question. Please update the Systems, Data and Model Development data on page 720 of the fiscal year 1983 hearings. Answer. Question. For the entire "Other Services" category, update the increase-by-type data on page 730 of the fiscal year 1983 hearings. Answer. |