you're here to help us fix the problem and we've got to get that down. >> i want to start by asking, mr. park, if you can make comments about you're repeating a little bit, what are the specific things we can do to get this fixed? i understand all of us would like to have a hard and firm date where everything is going to be perfect. but what we're dealing with is the real world and we wanted to be functional for the vast majority of americans. what are the abc that you need to do and hopefully not require you to sleep on the floor in the office at night? >> thank you so much for the question. the team is taking all of the right steps under the leadership. first of all, the teams are monitoring across the site to understand performance of the system and where there are issues and where they are focused. secondly, i would help with that data, the team has undertaken an aggressive program improvements to actually improve the facility through tunings and configurations and et cetera which has resulted to other things, system response times going down from eight seconds to less than a second. thirdly, the team is working on

functionality bugs so high priority issues and user experience and that's actually being pursued very aggressively. of course, as well, finally there is a bunch of work under way to keep the software at least processed so you can fix the issues faster and faster at the growing clip. you have qssi brought in as the project to manage the effort. it's all moving in at increasing speed. >> how are we going to address the problem mr. langford had getting on the website where he hit the enter button and it didn't work for an hour and a half? >> so, there's been a lot of problems on that front and many more folks get in now than previously through both the

ability for that particular component able to handle more volume through capacity expansion and software. also through bug fixes that have been applied. congressman langford, i would like to follow-up with you afterwards and to understand your situation and we can use that to inform the troubleshooting and fixing. that's a fair -- >> if the gentleman would yield for a second. it's pretty straight forward. it changed colors and did nothing. it's nothing more than that as far as moving it, just a logon to create an account. >> i'll follow-up with you afterwards. >> do you have concrete suggestions on what we can do as a congress to make it more efficient and more effective when we're making significant i.t. purchases on behalf of the american taxpayer. >> i have a couple very specific suggestions and we'll go back to my oral statement. the program management needs to

be in place but there's 700 major i.t. investments. this is one of them. given the late start to compress schedule, does anyone think it was a green project? >> i don't think so it should not have been green. there should be flags on the dash board and better transparency. the other thing is pro active governance. we look at the i.t. reform plans and things in the bill, legislation, proactive governance is very important and it's great and i'm pleased that everyone is involved now. we need that up front on important projects not when things go in the tank. we need it up front. the same when projects go into the tank we get engaged with the contractor more. why don't we engage with the

right executives up front. i know there are a lot of projects and priorities, we need to find a way to tackle that better. >> i yield back. thank you. >> thank you gentleman from vermont. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. i too want to join in this sentiment that i appreciate that you are legitimately trying to work on this and we all are and i chair the cyber committee and i reflect many of the people out there that with the concept of frustration, in many ways when i talk to my folks at home, this isn't about a website. it's about trust. it's about this inherent trust they have in the relationship with their doctor is now being impacted and the very trust they have in the ability for this system not only to operate but to operate securely. i know this is sort of outside. i was stunned when i heard the question the other day the secretary said yes, we can have felons that are operating as navigators. what is going to be done from

this point forward to assure that no felon will be used as a navigator anywhere in the united states? >> in the context of this system,th health policy -- >> is there anything that can be done? will you participate in getting something done? >> i think cms is actively performing background investigations on -- >> that's not what the secretary said. look, please look into that for me. that's not my line of questioning but i go to the whole issue of trust. trust -- we had mrs. tavenner and you testifying about the readiness in july and august of this ready to go. now, i just look at the background of this is the igs report on fis ma, one of the things you were talking about was compliance and therefore, when you look at hhs, the i.g.s came out the second worst score in every agency across government hhs a 50% compliance with fis ma. the second worst in all of

government. so we're already dealing again with a question of trust. so let me just get to the heart of our engagement. i was so frustrated, i couldn't understand how an i.g.s report could have suggested there was great concerns about it to be ready in time to conduct the testing. you assured me at that time that they were on schedule and you were going to meet all of the requirements for the testing. >> you know. >> as did ms. tavenner. we were told before the

marketplace systems were allowed to operate, they had to do -- comply with all of the rigorous standards. yet at the same time, you were testifying before me, i have "washington post" story that was saying staffers were aware by late 2012 that the work of building the federal exchange was lagging. and employees weren't at meetings late last year and in january that so many things were behind schedule, there would be no time for adequate end to end testing of how the moving parts worked together. so how was it done then that in this short time frame, where the own employees are saying it couldn't be done. the ig said there were tremendous concerns about the ability to do the testing somehow the day before our committee had you before us, there was a report sending from the secretary that said, all of our marketplace systems are

allowed to operate and begin serving consumers. i'm pleased to report that hub completed independent security control assessment on august 23rd. >> the hub was tested first and completed in august as you mentioned. i think the remainder of august and into september we concluded the third round of testing for the marketplace systems particularly for the functions that were needed for october 1st. >> how could you do testing on the system? you reported but here's the document that came out from cgi. at the very time you were saying to me that the testing, that this was -- this had been certified as complete by the certificating agency and tavenner was hear testifying it was done, you have at the same time an internal memo from cgi saying that the ffm schedule was only 51% completed. on the same day you're telling me that the certification has been finished.

how can you complete and certify when they haven't built more than half of the system? >> i don't know what document you're holding. i'm assuming that in august 51% is about where we were at. remember, we still have -- we have other key functions such as payment, risk adjustment -- >> how about the certifications? >> because you test the components, the parts of the system that go into production and that are actually interacting with the public. >> gentleman's time is expired. we recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you very much. mr. chao, do you feel you had adequate opportunity to answer the question. >> i think i got my last word in. >> early this morning, beginning of the hearing, chairman issa asked you about the anonymous

shopper function. do you recall that? >> yes. >> you said you would decide the direct cgi to disable it because of defects and chairman issa challenged you and accused of ordering the white house for political reasons do you recall that? >> will the gentleman yield? >> no. during that phrase, i think chairman issa handed you a document and i think it's probably still with you there -- >> yes. >> and the chairman said it showed there was no defects in the system and the function anonymous shopper, cgi tested it successfully. then he has blown up a box over a number of the other statements made on the right-hand side. it says 9/22, speech will be turned off day one, october 1. now, i've given you a sheet there that is clean from those boxes and just is the original document without the chairman's blowups on there obstructing the other materials.

do you have that document? >> i think so. this one? >> yes. >> that's the original document. will you read the last statement there starting with defects identified. >> defects being treated as critical target fixes for 9/12. >> that's what you testified to, right, that you had found defects? as you read up in the box you found there were defects and you decided to disable the shopper function and focus instead on plan compare. >> correct. >> why did you do that? >> because if given the opportunity to choose the more critical function, plan compare is much more critical than the path of a consumer being able to enroll in health care as compared to the ability to browse. >> you focused attention on that, thought that was the priority? >> yes, given the cgi resources that were available. actually, there was a subsequent date, i would have to locate the documentation, post -- we did do another round of testing post 9/12 and it was still failing. >> they thought it tested

successfully and you instead had an ongoing belief that it tested unsuccessfully and there were defects and that's why you made the decision to switch priorities? >> correct, the report i look at is from the aca independent testers and not from cgi. >> that's why the shopper function was disable, right. >> based on the report from independent testers. >> when chairman issa stated on national television that the white house ordered you to disable the consumer shopper function, that is not true, correct.

>> the gentleman may not mischaracterize my statement. >> the gentleman may not object in the mitdle of somebody else's questioning. you don't thoroughly occupy -- >> mr. chairman, point of privilege. the gentleman is repeatedly disparaging and mischaracterizing what i've said. could the chair please direct all members if they want to allege a quote, ensure that it is a quote and not in fact a characterization that is inaccurate as the gentleman's is? >> the chair would remind each and every member here to direct their comments and -- without personality and directing those comments to make sure they are reflected as to not make a personal attack. >> that's well said. i didn't know of any personal attacks. i assume you're directing that to somebody else. i will read a quote from chairman issa. contractors have told us that in fact people represented that the white house was telling them they needed these changes, including a set of simple, shopper program then decide to register, close quote. they were forced to register and

slowdown the website before they can find out about a price. the contract he referred to was cgi but they deny saying a thing and you went on to claim, the high cost of obama care, close quote, ought to avoid consumer overload sticker shock, close quote. that is not why you made the decision to close the program of anonymous shopper? >> just as i answered before. absolutely not. >> i yield to my colleagues. >> i want to address this to chairman issa. when speaking to mr. connelly earlier, you referred to a letter sent to you on november 6th. it's not a letter i sent jointly with mr. connelly. he did not read that letter. that letter was about security testing documents provided to the committee. miter told us like any website security documents they are sensitive and their release potentially could give hackers hints on how to break into the system. i asked you to treat those

documents with sensitivity and consult with me before making them public. try to use my letter to argue that the system -- but that is not what i said. every security testing document or every it system, no matter how secure the system is is sensitive. every security testing document that ill meaning individuals help in causing mischief. they do not mean there are problems with security of the system. i just wanted to clear that up and i yield back. >> i yield back as well. >> the gentleman's time is expired. and mr. chao, i know you made a number of comments with regards to your sworn testimony and what you recall or don't. and i would make it available to you for your reference there at the desk if you would like to have that in case there are other questions that are asked regarding that. >> thank you, but i probably

would need time to go over what looks like -- >> you need time to review what you said previously on the record. >> it was nine hours worth of interview questions. >> as soon as the hearing is over, if you would like to come back and review this, we'll be glad to make it available to you. with that i recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. i know the hearing is getting long and there's been a lot of questioning. there's no doubt the american people want answers about this huge investment in a rollout of a website that certainly didn't go as planned. it's been a learning experience and educational experience. mr. park, looking back, knowing what you know now and looking at the rollout in october, give a letter grade to the rollout of obama care, a through f. >> that's an interesting question. in terms of rollout of the website, it's -- obviously been

really, really rocky. i hesitate to assign a letter grade to it but it's what nobody wanted. >> the people appreciate honesty, you don't have to fail it, but what do you think it was, a through f? >> it depends on the user. some were able to get through and a lot couldn't. >> you're not going to give it a grade. >> i think it overly simplifies it. >> but a lot of people watching want answers and this is a complex issue. just maybe for simplification they would like to know that a lot of people responsible for rolling this out don't think it went very well. to listen to this hearing, it doesn't really sound like a lot of -- you think it was that abysmal of a failure. this hearing started out with the ranking member talking about how this is a republican issue and we're out to destroy health care or the health care law, how we're trying to repeal it and trying to not have the hearing to make this you can succeed.

a lot of money was invested and people do want answers. in a simple fashion, people would like to hear that, hey, we screwed up and mr. chao, can you give it a letter grade? >> i agree that it's highly subjective. >> so fair enough. >> would the gentleman -- perhaps we could have it as a pass/fail, less subjective. >> give it a pass or fail, mr. park? >> again, i don't want to reduce it to something that -- i would say is just to be clear. all of us are frustrated how the site rolled out. none of us think it went well. all of us think it was incredibly rocky and we are

incredibly focused on trying to fix it and make it better. it's getting better week after week after week. >> knowing what we know now, you testified you were giving your marching orders, but yet, i don't think the october 1st date was improvable. would you agree with that? >> i don't have the luxury of determining what was moveable and not moveable. i was given october 1st as a delivery date. and that's what i targeted. >> knowing what you know now, would you have you pushed harder to have the date moved back? >> that's pure speculation. at the time -- >> how can it be speck lace. you know what you know now. >> i wasn't in a position to choose a date. >> sitting here today testifying in front of this committee, knowing what you know now, would you have pushed harder to move the date back? >> i go by what i said. >> you would let history repeat itself? it's been a rocky -- would you have -- >> that is not what i said. >> mr. park, knowing what you know now ask thf this delayed or pushed back? >> i don't actually have a

detailed knowledge base of what happened preoctober 1. i don't know what leavers were available. i just hesitate to make any -- >> once again we spent over half a billion taxpayer money and no one who is responsible for the rollout is willing to say that we should have done things differently. the president doesn't know, first of all we're trying to save the american people from a bad law by all we went through and we're trying to save the president from himself. he needed to sit down and talk with us about the lay on this and nobody sitting on this panel after seeing what a failure this has been over the past month is willing to say we should have delayed this? is that what i'm hearing? anyone want to speak to that? >> perhaps the gao could comment on whether or not this was a site that should have been launched on october 1st and serviced a full six people while

millions were unable to get through. >> knowing what we now know, a delay in rollout would have made sense. i don't know what, we're not privy to who knew what when in terms of the test results and that stuff. >> a lot of these regulations were delayed. do you know why? >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman may answer. >> i don't have the scope -- it's not within my scope to cover regulations. >> does anyone know? mr. park, you were chief of technology. your organization owned the question of whether or not in a timely fashion the regulations were created. >> that's actually a

mischaracterization of my organization's role. we are a tech policy people not health policy people. >> but whether the trains run on time and get -- whether things implementing laws, isn't that what omb does? >> my role in omb is to set governmentwide policy to look at governmentwide budget. >> we should get the omb director in here to find out after three and a half years things weren't done so it could be launched in a timely fashion, the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for attempting to get answers to your questions on healthcare.gov. and my questions today will focus on the federal contract between cms to cgi federal to set up healthcare.gov. if any other witnesses including mr. powellener, care to comment on my question, feel free to jump in. in your testimony to date you stated cms contractor with cgi

federal to build a federally facilitated marketplace system including the eligibility and enrollment system, according to the "washington post," this contract is worth $93.7 million. how much money from this contract has already been a warded to cgi? >> i don't have the exact figures. >> what incentives and disincentives were in the contract of cgi federal to successfully fulfill their contract to rollout healthcare.gov. >> i think as if with the starting at the highest level of federal acquisition regulation, has very specific guidance about contracting and the contracting framework in which you would then award i.t. contracts with specifications for something like marketplace. >> still work to be done, cgi? >> yes. >> they've been paid how much at this point?

>> i don't have the exact figures in front of me. >> and are you pleased with the product you received from cgi federal? >> i think the as todd mentioned, we're all -- we have a responsibility as an oversight committee and that's to protect taxpayer dollars. and so i'm asking specific questions about the taxpayer's dollar. perhaps mr. powellener can share some light on that. have we paid cgi federal yet? >> i don't know specifically about cgi. we do know the government has paid i.t. funding over $600 million. that's what we do now. >> tell me about the structure

of the contract then. if they perform then they should get paid. >> i think how this contract is formlated is that there is a performance element of it. there's a base set of costs and that factored into performing the work and then and dur certain review periods they could receive a performance incentive but i would have to get back on exactly how that works. i don't run the contracts. >> would you share with this committee how they are going to be paid, for the work performed already, are they still working on healthcare.gov and since they messed it up in the first place, are they still on it? >> they are. the contractor that does the development as well as ongoing operations and maintenance. yes, they are still working on it.

>> mr. powner, can you shed some light on this? >> i would like to say that we can sit here and talk about contractor fault, government fault. government is at fault on the requirements point of view. it's clear from a requirements perspective there's fault on the government side. we went through this with the census bureau and same situation -- >> same situation. >> same situation. >> but we corrected -- >> requirements, overspend, what came in and fixed it but it's the same situation, ill defined requirements, all kinds of questions across the board. >> i've been told that this was simply lazy federal contracting. what other failures of cms and policing the cgi contract to ensure that the rollout of healthcare.gov would be a success? what are the failures?

anybody tell me? >> i'm going to go back. >> the oversight of cms. >> executive oversight. there's a fundamental question. to the investment boards in place and agencies and departments, questions are what meetings occur who attended and what risk were discussed and what fallout occurred and how timely were the meetings? that's what you need to look out. >> from a taxpayer perspective, these are millions of dollars going to a failed product. i don't think they are happy and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. i don't have time. >> i ask unanimous consent ranking member have 30 seconds. >> i'll yield. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i thought you had time, i'm sorry. mr. park, we've had a lot of bad news in this hearing. can you just again tell us where we are and the progress we're making, you're making?

>> it's probably -- the team is making, i'm a small part of the team. the team is working hard to make progress week after week. just some numbers that are always helpful. as i mentioned previously, the average system response time which is the time it takes to page render a request to the fulfillment of a user was 8 seconds on average, now under a second. the system error rate in which you experience errors in the marketplace application, that was over 6% a few weeks ago. now it's 1%. and actually getting lower than that. progress, still much, much work to do. a lot of work to do but there's a system in place. as i mentioned earlier around monitoring, production stability work, functional bug fixing. >> would the ranking member yield? >> the chairman -- >> the chairman will yield to the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. park, what contractor is working on fixing site? cgi federal?

>> cgi is one. and cms of course is the manager of all contracts, can give you the most comprehensive answer. >> i thank all of you, mr. park, in case it isn't said again in this hearing. we believe that what you're doing today is important. i think what gao has said there wasn't a single point of contact that an expert in charge in a timely fashion that would be accountable and coordinate that if you will sleep on their floor if that's what it took before october 1st. so that's the big reason we're here today. i think that's where gao is making the point to all of us that the next time there's one

of these, we need to have somebody, perhaps not of injure stature but as close as we can come in the months and years preceding it. we go to the gentleman from south carolina. >> mr. park, do you agree there's a difference between an innocent misstatement of a perceived fact and a deliberate attempt to deceive? >> yes. >> so do i. when did you first realize that you couldn't keep your health insurance even if you did like it, period? i don't recall. >> again, that's kind of a health policy matter, really outside my lane -- >> you don't know when you first realized you couldn't keep your health insurance even if you liked it, period? >> would you agree with me that credibility or the lack thereof in one area of life could impact credibility or the lack there of and any other area of life? >> i suppose it could.