Overview
Title
An Act To improve the visibility, accountability, and oversight of agency software asset management practices, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants U.S. government agencies to be better at using and keeping track of their computer programs so they can save money and work more efficiently without spending extra funds.
Summary AI
The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act aims to enhance how U.S. government agencies manage their software resources. It requires each agency to carefully evaluate their software use, costs, and contracts to identify potential improvements. The bill also mandates agencies to create plans for consolidating and modernizing their software use, aiming to reduce costs and improve efficiency. Furthermore, it requires a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on government-wide software management trends and ensures existing funds are used without new appropriations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The "Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act" aims to enhance transparency, responsibility, and supervision over how government agencies manage their software resources. The bill mandates each agency's Chief Information Officer, among other officials, to perform a detailed assessment of their software, looking at purchase details, costs, interoperability, and more. This evaluation must be completed within 18 months of the bill's passing and submitted to various government oversight bodies. Moreover, it outlines a plan for agencies to modernize their software management strategies, which includes improving licensing arrangements, stemming unnecessary expenditures, and ensuring software is used efficiently.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several issues:
Ambiguity in Definitions: The Act uses terms that require external reference or are not clearly defined within the text, potentially leading to misinterpretations.
Contractor Oversight: There's concern about the independence and influence of contractors helping with agency assessments. Without stringent oversight, this could result in conflicts of interest or biased assessments.
Subjectivity in Planning: The bill lacks specific guidelines for what constitutes "cost-effective" strategies for purchasing software, leaving room for subjective decision-making.
Resource Limitations: Although it establishes rigorous requirements, the bill does not allocate additional funds for implementation, possibly straining existing resources.
Extended Timeline for GAO Report: The provision for a three-year waiting period for a Government Accountability Office report may delay the identification and correction of any inefficiencies or problems, hindering timely improvements.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
From the public’s perspective, the Act aims to reduce inefficiencies and waste in how government agencies manage software, potentially saving taxpayer money and improving service delivery by ensuring that government systems work more effectively. Over time, the public might experience better government services and enhanced data security due to improved software management across federal agencies.
For specific stakeholders, such as federal agencies, the Act demands a challenging administrative undertaking without additional funding, potentially overburdening current budgets. Agencies might need to prioritize existing funds to comply, which could disrupt other initiatives.
Contractors providing consultancy and software asset management services to government bodies might benefit from new business opportunities as agencies seek external help to comply with the Act. However, agencies must ensure these contractors operate without conflicts of interest, which could add a layer of complexity to procurement processes.
In conclusion, while the bill intends to streamline software management, enhance oversight, and cut costs within federal agencies, its effectiveness will largely depend on how it is implemented given the constraints on budget and clear guidelines. The Act’s ultimate success will be measured by whether the efficiencies it targets are achieved without overextending agency resources or allowing for contractor-driven biases.
Issues
The lack of a clear definition and structure for what constitutes 'unnecessary' duplication or costs in Section 3 could lead to inconsistent evaluations across agencies, resulting in potential misuse of resources or inefficient spending.
The provision in Section 3 allowing agency heads to enter into contracts for assessment support without rigorous oversight mechanisms poses a risk for conflicts of interest or inefficiencies, as contractors may have undue influence over the assessment process.
The absence of specific guidelines or standardized criteria for what is considered 'cost-effective acquisition strategies' in Section 4 could result in subjective interpretations and inconsistent implementation across different agencies.
The requirement for publicly available criteria not favoring any specific vendor in Section 4 might be difficult to enforce without clear definitions, potentially allowing implicit bias in vendor selection.
Section 5 imposes a three-year timeframe for submitting a GAO report, which may delay responsiveness to identified issues, compromising accountability and the potential for timely improvements in software asset management.
There is a lack of clarity on who the 'Director' is in Section 5, which could cause confusion regarding responsibility for establishing processes for harmonizing definitions, terms, and conditions.
The bill, in Section 6, does not authorize additional funds for implementation, which could lead to insufficient resources for agencies to effectively execute the requirements mandated by the act, impacting overall agency performance and compliance.
The references to external documents, such as Special Publication 800–145 and the National Security Act of 1947 in Section 2, could lead to ambiguity and potential confusion for readers unfamiliar with these materials, complicating the interpretation and application of the bill's provisions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act establishes its short title, officially naming it the “Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act.”
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill provides definitions for key terms used throughout the Act, such as "Administrator," "agency," "cloud computing," and "software entitlement," specifying the precise legal meaning of each term as it applies to this legislation.
3. Software inventory update and expansion Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires each agency's Chief Information Officer, along with other key officials, to thoroughly evaluate the software their agency uses, including costs, restrictions, and interoperability issues, within 18 months of the Act's enactment. They must submit this comprehensive assessment to top agency officials, who will then provide it to certain government bodies. The section also outlines guidelines for employing contractors to help with the assessment and specifies a separate, secure process for intelligence agencies.
4. Software modernization planning at agencies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan for federal agencies to modernize their software systems. It requires the Chief Information Officer and other key agency officials to develop a strategy to consolidate licenses, improve software management, reduce costs, and ensure effective use of software, with detailed reporting and coordination through various government councils and committees.
5. GAO report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Comptroller General of the United States to report within three years on government software management practices, including trends, agency comparisons, efforts by the Director to create consistent definitions, agency compliance with contract restrictions, and any other relevant findings.
6. No additional funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
No additional money is approved for this Act, meaning that the government will not allocate new funds to carry out the tasks outlined in this legislation.