With the February 2008 deadline for federal agencies to comply with OMB's standardized desktop configuration mandate just around the corner, the National Security Agency (NSA) is working to establish similar security configurations for operating systems by Apple, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems.

OMB's March 2007 memorandum only applies to the configuration of Windows XP and Vista Enterprise operating systems. While it is government policy not to endorse specific products, the fact that OMB is only addressing the security of Microsoft operating systems has raised concerns from Unix/Linux based vendors, most recently at ITAA's Breakfast Forum on the Federal Desktop Core Configuration, which was attended by INPUT.

NSA's effort to set standard configurations for this group of operating systems is a solitary effort not currently backed by OMB, or any other federal agency. The willingness of other agencies to follow in NSA's footsteps will depend on how daunting of a process the actual standardization of Microsoft desktops turns out to be, and how willing OMB is to back the effort in the future.

States will begin receiving millions of dollars in federal funds to create high-speed wireless networks for telemedicine and electronic health records. Under the Rural Health Care Pilot Program, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dedicated over $400 million over three years to build statewide or regional broadband telehealth networks in 42 states and three territories. The agency announced the funding and selected participants on November 19, 2007.

The 69 statewide or regional broadband telehealth networks will connect rural public and non-profit health care providers, such as hospitals, universities and correctional facilities in order to accelerate the adoption and deployment of telehealth. Any existing telehealth networks will be leveraged and built upon to create a more comprehensive system.

Notable guidelines for the pilot program:

• Participants can obtain funding for up to 85 percent of the costs to design, engineer and construct their networks
• The networks are to connect to national high-speed infrastructures such as the Internet, Internet 2, or National LambdaRail
• Though the FCC cannot mandate their compliance with AHIC standards, they are requiring, where possible, to coordinate with HHS to utilize the standards
• All projects must be competitively bid
• The projects will be subject to quarterly reviews, oversight and audits

INPUT's Take:

• This is an essential win in realizing a nationwide health information exchange network, as telecommunications is a fundamental building block
• This pilot program is a good start at putting the networks in place to build a system, though more than money may be needed to actually encourage use
• Selected participants will look to partner with vendors as they seek bids for expanding and upgrading networks, purchasing equipment, and services for training

Gov. Charlie Crist on Monday unveiled a new Web site - floridaperforms.com - that outlines 35 of his goals for the state and rates the progress of each as improving, maintaining or worsening. Citizens will find mostly high grades when they check how Florida is doing in public safety, education, transportation, education, economy-taxes and environment-conservation. A color-coded arrow shows the trend for three to seven subjects in each area - green for improving, red for worse and yellow for steady. The data to determine the trends comes from the state agencies and the Legislature.

The purpose of the site, Crist stated, is "to work harder, to be more accountable, to be more responsible and to provide [the people] with services they expect and deserve and should have."

One of the two areas showing a downward performance is "access to health care/rehabilitative services," where things are "worsening," according to the Web site. The scorecard includes the finding that the U.S. census reports Florida is 47th among the states in percentage of population with health insurance. The second area showing a significant downward performance is the "housing market", where the website states, "Housing has slowed substantially, both in construction and sales over the past year. Single family building permits dropped by more than 25%, while the number of existing single-family homes sold by realtors witnessed a similar decline."

INPUT's Take

• Transparency, Transparency, Transparency...Government accountability means that public officials -- elected and un-elected -- have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. As budgets tighten, and constituents become more educated and demand more insight into State's decisions, INPUT anticipates more state Governors to pass into law transparency related bills expected to be introduced in upcoming legislative sessions. As a result, more online websites tracking "scorecards" of governors' goals and initiatives and how the states are meeting them will be developed and available to constituents to view.

More information about transparency websites and legislation nationwide can be found in INPUT's latest Industry Insight report "State 'Transparency' Websites Provide Immediate Insights and Long-Term Opportunities for Vendors" (July 2008).

Under a newly proposed rule, the Department of State (DOS) is considering adding a new contract clause to its acquisition regulations requiring the implementation of the Department's requirement regarding personal identity verification of contractor personnel. The policy is being considered in order to comply with identity compliance requirements under HSPD-12. The rule applies to contractors that require outside employees to work on DOS sites and access DOS information systems.

The rule directs contractors to an Internet based document that explains the verification process for the various types of contractors. The Department will be accepting comments on the rule change through January 18, 2008.

Back in September, the Foundation of Research and Education (FORE) of the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) released a report of preliminary findings in their research on advancing health information exchange (HIE) infrastructure development. The findings were discussed at a Consensus Conference, "Building Sustainable Health Information Exchange: Roles for State-Level Public-Private Partnerships," held November 5-6, 2007 in Washington, D.C

The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Dr. Robert Kolodner, opened the conference speaking about the vision of the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC). He said that the "tipping point" for the adoption of health information technology (HIT) is near, estimating that it will happen between 2009-2011. However, the five critical components necessary for the national exchange of health care data including governance, a foundation of privacy and security, standards and HIT products, adoption of IT solutions, and the network will have to reach a level of maturity to make it happen. Kolodner also discussed the three phases of governance for these efforts, including:

1. Governance of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary with American Health Information Community (AHIC) guidance, along with the ONC funding core activities
2. An early hybrid of a public/private partnership with AHIC 2.0
3. A self-sustaining public/private AHIC 2.0

Throughout the rest of the event, participants discussed the findings from the State level HIE Consensus Project as it related the state's roles for HIE governance, sustainability, and nationwide practices. Recommendations from the discussion on governance included the need for state-granted authority and a state-level entity with public/private composition. There's also a need for some organized standards for consistency from state to state. They also concluded that there's a definite role for consumers and employers, but leadership from payers was not deemed as desirable. However, figuring out how to involve consumers is turning out to be problematic. One participant noted that if the HIEs don't organize centrally and get consumer's needs at the center of their efforts, they will fail. Another undesirable was the dictation of technology solutions, though the dictation of standards is welcome. However, it was noted that statewide RHIOs should not dictate to other regions what they should be doing technology-wise.

Stimulating ideas for HIE sustainability included aggregating data as a revenue source, marketing the secondary use of data and contracting with vendors to pay for it. It was cautioned that these ideas do sound attractive, but if done improperly could sabotage the efforts. The operations should be funded by those who benefit but exactly who should pay and how are still points of debate. And finally there still remained questions of how the HIEs will relate to the NHIN; this vision has not yet been well formulated.

INPUT's Take:

• Though the future of HIT advancement is taking a beating, we can't shortchange the work that has been done through the state-level HIE initiatives
• A key takeaway is that in order for a HIE to be successful there is a need for strong state leadership, strong private leadership, and strong financial relationships
• State-level participation is needed at AHIC 2.0

On November 8-10, the American Association of Grant Professionals (AAGP) held its annual Conference in Washington, DC. Hundreds of grant professionals were on hand to learn, discuss, and evaluate the different techniques and best practices for grant programs and grant writing. Federal, State, and Local government officials, along with industry leaders, took part in a variety of workshops over the three day period. The workshops ranged from project development and program evaluation to preparing successful online grant applications and becoming an expert peer reviewer.

INPUT was able to attend a variety of workshops, but felt that the workshops discussing Grants.gov provided the most insight into the grant process. Grants.gov is an online website maintained by the federal government that allows government agencies, academia, not-for-profits, and other organizations to find and apply for over 1,000 grant programs totaling $400 billion in funds. The grants.gov workshop was a question and answer forum that allowed users to discuss their problems with the system. Many people discussed the difficulty in searching for certain grant programs. One of the main concerns dealt with the lack of specific search results. Many users found that when searching using keywords, the grants.gov search engine would pull up grant programs that were not related to the keyword used. This causes many users the pain of shuffling through hundreds of search results to find the grant program they are looking for. Michael Pellegrino, Management Analyst Officer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and speaker, confirmed that this problem had been plaguing many users, but would be corrected in the next few months through the implementation of new updates to the system.

While the workshops encompassed the majority of this conference, the one thing on everyone's mind was the administering of the first ever AAGP credentialing exam. In 2000, at the Second Annual AAGP Conference in Berkeley California, the AAGP membership voted, through formal resolution, to explore the feasibility of offering some form of professional certification. After a long seven year journey, AAGP and the Grant Professional Certification Institute (GPSI) offered the first ever credentialing exam at this year's conference. The exam allows grant professionals to be accredited and recognized for their work.

INPUT's Take:

Whether you are a government official or industry leader, grants.gov is a valuable source of information on new and upcoming programs available for funding. It can be a very beneficial tool for industry leaders in identifying new business opportunities within their market. It can also be a great starting point in identifying and building relationships with state and local agencies by helping them throughout the grant process. It should also be noted that a certification through AAGP and GPCI can be a valuable tool in helping your company stand out amongst other competitors. Blogs:

There is definite awareness that Health IT (HIT) is critical in the transformation of health care; we're just not there yet. There are still many obstacles in the way of the effective use of IT in health care. Arizona's Health Care Cost Containment System Director, Anthony Rodgers, kicked off the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaboration (HISPC) Privacy & Security Solutions National Conference held November 1-2, 2007 in Washington DC, saying that the technical issues of health information exchange (HIE) are daunting. And in addition, Rodgers noted that the financial, operational, and legal frameworks, as well as the harmonization of confidentiality, are all overwhelming.

States are facing many challenges while trying to transform the exchange of health information. There's a lack of data sharing interoperability between state agencies, a lack of provider adoption of HIT tools, and understaffed agencies that cannot take on large electronic health projects. Trust is another barrier; if one health entity does not know the other's security level, they are hesitant to share data. The fact that information sharing is being delayed by privacy concerns brings forth the need for at least minimal standards. One conference participant commented that a hospital in her state will not exchange health information unless they are required to. They would rather keep it and protect it for fear of being held liable for breaching an individual's right of privacy. Another participant commented that it is easy to classify every barrier to HIT into one of these buckets: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If we reduce the fear, uncertainty and doubt, HIT will get implemented at a faster rate. Hmmm...sounds easy.

• The conference did reiterate that we are coming to the point of consensus on some things:

• There needs to be a consistent approach between states

• There needs to be a roadmap

• Multi-stakeholder collaboration is a must

• There needs to be a coordinating body that facilitates HIE within the individual states

• States want guidance, but not mandates

• Educational efforts are very much needed for consumers, providers, and policy leaders

We've seen these recommendations consistently repeated throughout 2007. It can sometimes seem that the efforts are idling due to the difficulty in measuring the short-term HIT successes found throughout the Nation. One thing that is clear: HIT implementation across the United States will take a long time. We just need to push on the gas pedal.

INPUTs Take:

While states are keeping an eye on national efforts they aren't paying attention to the federal model of standards. These states are moving along and developing their own technical standards and business operations. Vendors need to take heed that many states are still very much focused on the governance, policies and legislation. They haven't forgotten the vendor community; they just want room for developmental time.

In June 2006, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appointed Paul Cosgrave to serve as the City's Commissioner and CIO for the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT). Cosgrave was charged with structuring the City's IT approach in a way that it further advances government accessibility, transparency and accountability through superior customer service for the balance of Bloomberg's term and beyond.

Since Cosgrave's appointment, New York City has instituted the Technology Steering Committee (TSC) as a new IT governance structure. DoITT has been re-organized to support the new IT governance and most recently DoITT released PlanIT, the City's first-ever technology plan. PlanIT builds upon principles and practices of accountability, transparency and accessibility to be embedded in the foundation of the City's government.

PlanIT identifies twenty-three major IT initiatives supporting the City's key business goals. These are either planned or underway projects categorized into customer service, six mission areas, mission support areas and supporting infrastructure. Mission areas consist of agencies directly interacting with citizens such as Economic Development and Sustainability, Public Safety, Social Services, Education and Community services. Mission support areas are functions that the City performs to run effectively such as human resources and administrative management, procurement and legal services. Lastly, supporting infrastructure refers to the City's physical and technical infrastructure needed to be in place for the City to implement the twenty three IT projects. Initiatives in this area include data center consolidation, telecom and networks, and IT services and security.

INPUT's Take

INPUT anticipates cities will take an aggressive approach to review or develop an IT strategic direction aligned with the City's business goals and objectives. Flowing from this shift will be a restructuring of technology agencies' operations and functions as well as a reform in citywide IT governance. For IT Vendors, the strategic initiatives outlined in PlanIT represent a number of contracting opportunities in the city's key functional areas such health care, social services, public safety and general government services. Vendors with vested interested in New York City's groundbreaking technology initiatives can view PlanIT at INPUT's New York City Local Profile documents library.

Helpful Hints for Capture Planning and Proposal Management

A recent industry event hosted by the Association of Proposal Management Professionals (APMP) focused on the development of proposals and featured key proposal managers and consultants from leading government contractors. The government was represented by contracting officers, project managers and program managers.

One of the most interesting sessions was a discussion focusing on "Capture Plan Development and Management." Three panel members each presented a different topic that dealt with the first phase of the government RFP response process. Each panelist is an INPUT member, Patty Nunn (Sr. VP for Strategic Programs @ INDUS), Kristin Dufrene (Sr Proposal Development Manager @ CACI), and Carole Dunn (President and Principal Consultant of Red Team Consulting).

Patty Nunn's topic was "Capture Management – Best Practices and Lessons Learned." Her main point was to focus on gathering information and making decisions. Information gathering included:

1. Past Performance data

2. Relevance – size, scope, complexity

3. Competitive Intelligence

She also presented four tips for success in the Capture Plan process:

1. Know Your Customer or Don't Bother

2. Team Early and Only if required

3. Apply Resources before RFP release (18-24 months)

4. Sell Before RFP release

Kristin Dufrene's topic was "Handoff from Capture to Proposal Management – Best and Worst Case Scenarios". She used a "Good, Bad & Ugly" theme to highlight recent efforts at CACI where their planning overcame obstacles, both on the government side and internally, to get major wins, including winning a contract from 2 incumbents. All three scenarios resulted in wins for CACI.

The "Good" (must win) scenario was characterized by

1. Early Planning & Organization

2. Effective communication between Capture and Proposal Manager

3. Early involvement of Proposal Manager in all phases of effort

4. Regularly scheduled meetings

The "Bad" (takeaway – 2 incumbents) scenario was characterized by

1. Early Planning & Organization

2. Documented strategy

The "Ugly" (unexpected re-compete) scenario was characterized by

1. Poor communication between Capture and Proposal Manager

2. Shortcuts taken in proposal strategy

3. Lack of effective QA

4. Result was a win but with new metrics that will be difficult to manage

These scenarios showed the audience what works and what does not work in the Capture and Proposal Management process.

Carol Dunn's topic was "Effective Capture Management – Two Case Studies." The first Case Study was about "Unseating the Incumbent." She highlighted the process of a Navy program that was expiring and instead of issuing a recomplete, the Navy decided to use an upcoming Army RFP as the follow-on contract. The incumbent did not win the follow-on despite having a lower price due to the winning bidder having "excellent focus and understanding of the evaluation criteria." She also highlighted the steps used by the winning vendor in the capture and RFP response process which led to the win.

Her second Case Study was about a small company winning a large contract by defeating the incumbent. The presentation highlighted the steps in the process that helped the smaller company defeat the larger incumbent. These included:

1. Focus on Past Performance contracts that were similar in size, scope and complexity.

2. Customer needs were exceeded in the proposal due to the vendor knowing the customer's hot buttons.

All panel members agreed to start the Capture and Proposal Management process early, establish effective lines of communication between the Capture Manager and the Proposal Manager and to keep the lines of communication open.

There were other topics discussed during the event and one of the more energized topics dealt with Executive Summaries and when they should be composed, early or late in the RFP process. All panel members as well as the Government representatives agreed that the Executive Summary should be composed early so that the Proposal Manager can address all points in the summary.

The government representatives also were in a consensus that Traceability Matrices should be part of the vendors Capture Planning and Proposal Management process and should be included in the proposal to the government.