Hill panel casts wary eye over costly Archives ERA project

With cost overruns of over half-a-billion dollars and counting, the "Electronic Records Archive" (ERA) now being built for the National Archives and Records Administration easily ranks as one of the most expensive information technology projects in the Federal Government.

And now, there are concerns from the House subcommittee that provides oversight over the National Archives that the ERA might not be living up to the agency's expectations.

The concern over the ERA was voiced recently during a House Archives subcommittee oversight hearing. North Carolina congressman Patrick McHenry, a Republican, is ranking minority member of the panel.

The ERA is in the midst of a system development that is far over budget. When fully operational, it will cost $500 million dollars more than projected. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) has already been critical of this system citing methodological weaknesses that could limit NARA's ability to accurately report cost schedules and performances, and concluding that NARA lacks a proper contingency plan should the Electronic Records System fail.

As recently as this past September, Archives officials reported that they had successfully reached an important milestone: the transfer of 77 terrabytes of electronic data, including e-mail and digital documents, from the Bush 43 White House.

During testimony at last week's hearing, acting Archivist Adrienne Thomas told lawmakers that the first two "increments" in the ERA project were in progress, and on schedule. These involve a pilot project to take in records from four federal agencies to test policies and procedures, and the processing of those Bush Administration documents. But Thomas hinted at bumps in the road for the next phase of ERA - a system to store and retrieve Congressional records.

"The subcommittee should know," she testified, "that the start of 'increment three' has not been as smooth as we would have desired. NARA has raised some concerns with the contractor (Lockheed Martin) regarding analysis design, and architectural foundation issues. The contractor was receptive to NARA's input, and has taken concrete steps to making improvements in process, deliverables and staff."

But Thomas' guardedly optimistic progress report might be negated by the testimony of Archives Inspector General Paul Brachfeld, who says he has a long -- and some might say a frustrating -- experience with ERA since his first meeting with on the project in 2002.

Fearing a worst-case scenario, I went to then-Archivist Carlin in April of 2002, seeking audit staff resources to provide independent, skilled, and objective oversight over ERA. Per my notes, he responded, and I quote, "I could give you 50 people, and you still couldn't cover it, and you think you can do it with two?" In December 2003, failing to get any dedicated audit resources for ERA, I made a formal request from the OMB Director, saying ERA is a challenge we are not equipped to answer in our current fiscal restraints. We're simply unable to provide coverage for this mission-critical program.

Clearly frustrated, Brachfeld told the subcommittee that his concerns have never been addressed directly by the management of the Archives, which he accused of having "abundant optimism" about ERA.

Acting Archivist Thomas, who is now handing over the reins to David Ferriero who was just confirmed last Friday as the 10th Archivist of the U.S. by the Senate, responded only that dealing with the problems with the ERA are part of a broader review of IT oversight at NARA, which includes recently reported data breaches linked to missing hard drives, now being handled through NARA's chief information officer, and the IG's office.

David Powner with the Government Accountability Office has been watching the ERA project for some time now, and has written some of the most critical GAO reports on the subject. He was questioned by Subcommittee Chairman William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), who wanted to know if the Archives was exhibiting a "cavalier attitude with taxpayers money"?

Powner responded:"I wouldn't say that, but I would say that the management discipline that we would like to see from the government is clearly not where we would want it to be."

Powner went on to describe ERA contractor reports in which they're "receiving funds, but not getting the work done." He told the committee that he submits the reports to an Office of Management and Budget technique called "Earned Value Management".

"We need the program office to pay close attention to those reports so that we're overseeing the contractor, and the government's in charge, not the contractor."

Powner agreed to Chairman Clay's request to submit a more detailed study of funds spent so far on NARA's Electronic Record Archive project.

------

On the Web:

Federal News Radio - Archives officials grilled on the Hill over missing data drives

Federal News Radio - Archives reports progress on road to digital ERA

NARA - Electronic Records Archive

GAO - National Archives: Progress and Risks in Implementing its Electronic Records Archive Initiative, GAO-10-222T, November 05, 2009

(Copyright 2009 by FederalNewsRadio.com. All Rights Reserved.)