Username
Password
	Remember Me
	» Lost your Password?

Archives page

Posts Tagged ‘government technology & services coalition’

The New Paradigm of the Government Market: Plan, Prepare, Position, Partner

I recently attended a small business Match Making event sponsored by the Government Technology Services Coalition for small business and prime contractors to meet, greet and exchange information on each other in hopes of identifying potential government contracting opportunities. This event showcased a three person panel of small business program office directors from the Small Disadvantage Business Offices of three different agencies.

I have attended many of these match-making sessions and recently asked the question in one of my Linkedin discussion groups: is attending these events valuable time well spent or a waste of time? I received various comments both positive and negative. However, I must say that this particular event was one of the best that I have attended and my reason is based on the content that the government panelist shared with the small businesses.

There is no question about the changing state of the government contracting market. There is definitely a new paradigm. The landscape has and is continuing to change significantly.

What does this mean for small business? Well, it means that they are being presented with opportunities greater than they have ever been presented within the history of small business contracting in the federal market.

With the implementation of the President’s Job Act coupled with new legislation and regulation that are favoring increased small business participation for contracts and better oversight on Prime/sub-contracting relationships, larger and longer multiple year contracts are being offered to small businesses. To support these initiatives Agencies are increasing their market research activity by sending out more RFI’s and Sources Sought announcements with the intent of identifying more small business to contract with.

Agency Collaboration and the need to reduce redundancy and budget cuts are responsible for this new trend. With that said, the small business community has to change its thinking and their desire to go it alone when pursuing contracts.

The main theme presented by the government panelist was the lack of preparation by the small business community in pursuing contract opportunities. Some specifics were:

Presenting too many capabilities “jack of all trade” scenarios
Limited knowledge of agency mission
Inability to clearly present their core skills and solutions relevant to the agency mission
Not responding or poorly responding to RFI’s and Sources Sought announcements
Failure to present their value proposition as it relates to the agency request for support

Considering these things, the take away from this event boils down to the following:

Plan

Plan by performing an internal assessment of your company, who are you, what business are you really in, what are you best qualified to do – not what you want to do. Do your market research to establish where your skills and solutions best fit the agency problems you have targeted and refine your pitch based on your research and knowledge of the agency’s mission.

Prepare

Prepare by creating a compelling story of who you are and why your company is best suited to solve the agency problems based on your research and understanding of the agency mission. Responses to the RFI’s and Sources Sought should be focused on how your skills or solutions support the agency mission. Follow the congressional legislative and regulatory initiatives, and agency news. This information will provide you with great insight into the agency mission and the problems they are encountering in carrying out their mission

Position

Use your research to position your company. The more information you know about the legislative, regulatory initiatives and agency news, the easier it will be for you to communicate with agency program managers and department heads. The more knowledge you can share with them will provide them with a level of comfort that you have a understanding of their issues. This will be the basis of establishing a rapport which will lead to trust.

Partner

Performing a formal assessment on potential partners you have identified to team with is essential. The dynamics of the market demand that you spend ample time to do this. There are more contract opportunities that are multiple 8-10 year contracts and this requires thorough knowledge of who you will be spending that time with.

Compatibility, integrity, culture, vision, goals and trust will be the key factors for you to assess and consider in your selection. These criteria should be used regardless of whether or are considering a Prime or subcontractor relationship. Casual teaming is not the best way to go in the new market.

Contributing Author

Earl S. Holland III is the President and CEO, Growth Strategy Consultants, Strategic Advisor with the Government Technology Services Coalition and former Vice President of the Washington Chapter of the Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals. You can reach him at: [email protected]www.growthstrategyconsultants.com

Mitigating the Insider Threat Through Personnel Surety Counterintelligence

The Department of Homeland Security in coordination with US Customs and Border Protection are at the forefront of preventing insider threats within its law enforcement operations. These threats take the form of overt actions because of gaps in coordination and process mistakes that lead to self-created but preventable vulnerabilities.

To assure this continued success, a Personnel Surety Counterintelligence mission must be put in place through a management and implementation functionality that will meet the following objectives:

• Assess and audit the effect of the insider threat through risk analysis threat algorithms

• Establish a collaborative information-sharing personnel surety data base system that tracks action requirements and assigns accountability on a continuous basis

• Build a personnel surety counterintelligence business process into each law enforcement mission area, both operational and technologically supported through stakeholder collaboration

• Create a culture built around a robust personnel surety plan to ensure that a need to share for operational success supersedes the need to protect information

• Identify the insider threat and vulnerabilities through a continual monitoring system of checks and balances

• Counter the inadvertent mistakes that lead to the insider threat through the deployment of technologies that drive mission success and efficiencies

Coordinating the Government’s Personnel Surety Mission

The multi-faceted challenges of working in today’s mission-critical environmental and multiple enterprise coordination formats require innovative approaches that stress stakeholder creation and participation with built-in accountability, under an umbrella set of governance parameters. This is especially true in the world of counter-intelligence / insider threat in light of the number of initiatives currently underway to protect the United States government information infrastructure. It is imperative that the following initiatives be established:

• Establishing a government-wide personnel surety process and management discipline supported by standardized and relevant technologies

• Coordinating the activities of multiple operational centers, including sharing information about malicious activity and establishing common operating standards and procedures to: track information sharing, require acknowledgement of information received, and provide reports of counter-actions taken

• Deploying technology advancements in order to counter the threats both from an IT and behavioral perspective

• Engaging the private sector, as a partner, to extend the envelope of protection beyond the government’s firewall in a manner that is clear and manageable to that sector

These initiatives are designed to break the pattern of information silos and to overlay new paradigms that will mandate sharing and accountability to protect lives and critical mission information while providing stakeholders tangible metrics for their participation.

They also address the technology aspects required to support this new paradigm by ensuring that the most appropriate tools are in place, under the most cost-effective basis.

Establishing Enterprise-Level Governance

As recent events have proven, internal barriers may well be the biggest stumbling blocks to “connecting the dots” on a threat and preventing violence.

Deployment of a CBP Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) is a successful methodology that will enable CBP to break through such barriers and establish an enterprise-level governance functionality that will assure the success of the insider threat mission. An insider threat EPMO will allow CBP to:

• Coordinate the Counterintelligence Mission Focus across all of the Federal Mexican Police Department

• Deploy technologies that drive mission success and efficiencies

• Establish performance metrics and measurable outcomes linked to meeting the counterintelligence insider threat mission

Successfully Deploying the EPMO

A successful Counterintelligence EPMO will require the following focus to its activities:

• Developing and documenting a clear understanding of the mission

• Establishing an executive Governance Board

• Organizing with a focus on meeting the counterintelligence mission

• Deploying operations that protect the mission from internal/external threats

• Leveraging technology to enable the counterintelligence mission

• Establishing a disciplined standards-based foundation

It is critical that CBP establish an EPMO to serve as a central program management body, one which both manages and coordinates core insider threats and counterintelligence activities. The EPMO performs much of the program management related work for individual programs as well as the organization at an enterprise level, while still valuing the individual program contributions and objectives.

Establishing and sustaining this focus for the EPMO will require that four themes be addressed: statutory and other mandatory drivers, organization and supporting processes, technology requirements, and cultural change.

1. Statutory and Other Mandatory Drivers

Any EPMO is responsive to the statutory and / or regulatory drivers that established the mission for a sponsoring agency, augmented by internal agency directives or other mandated requirements. It is critical that information on these be gathered, analyzed, and clearly understood. After this it must be coalesced into a charter statement that all stakeholders will commit to support and follow under a program organization that has been developed and accepted in a collaborative process. Specific mission performance objectives may then be developed. Successful implementation of these is a function of establishing a common operating environment that has two components: process and supporting technology.

2. Organization/Process

The processes defining the EPMO’s operating framework must promote the effectiveness, efficiencies, and collaboration necessary to successfully meet the established counterintelligence insider threat mission. Once established, these characteristics must be sustained by adopting a regular process or review through which the operational and control processes of the EPMO are assessed, revised and opportunities for improvement are incorporated. The effective EPMO deploys Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) measuring key processes, especially those that touch the counterintelligence insider threat customer.

The EPMO monitors the KPIs to identify reductions in performance, and as a result, to proactively deploy revised and improved processes. Incorporation of standards and ratings to insure ongoing performance maturity is essential in order to ensure that the stakeholders of the EPMO are receiving the best information and are participating in decision-making as appropriate.

3. Technology

Even while most EPMOs operate in a highly automated environment, the successful counterintelligence insider threat EPMO team understands the use of technology is not the answer to all problems. That team also understands that well-deployed technology remains a critical, but supporting, component to highly qualified personnel and a well-run EPMO organization.

These technologies should be “smart”, scalable, flexible, extensible, and self-monitoring. The requirements for deployment must be based on the automation of a collection of previously manual processes and should provide short-term tactical efficiencies in response time, effectiveness, and productivity. It cannot disrupt processes, unless it is part of a well-understood process improvement strategy. It must be well understood and require users and customers to be well-trained and able to quickly incorporate the technology capabilities into the responsibilities assigned to them.

4. Culture

The EPMO must be staffed by program, change, technology, and counterintelligence professionals who are directly accountable to the counterintelligence mission and to the Department’s strategic objectives. The individuals in the EPMO must have the necessary credentials, as well as managerial, consultative and functional counterintelligence experience, necessary to operate a Department level counterintelligence program office. While necessity often requires that personnel and resources are gathered from other parts of the Department, once those resources are assigned or brought into the EPMO, the mission of the EPMO takes precedence; any adherence to previous cultural and organizational barriers become of secondary priority.

The above four goals must be addressed via a specific implementation process consisting of three primary phases: Initiation, Planning, and Execution, coupled with ongoing Assessment and Update once all facets of the EPMO have been deployed. Each phase has its own input requirements and results in deliverables which are critical to day-to-day execution of the mission objectives.

The advantages of this phased approach are multiple:

• An over-arching mission definition is established, to ensure that all participating agencies are operating to the same goals and objectives

• Agency and other users are provided hands-on guidance to support them through collaborative / facilitated involvement and integration into the counter- intelligence program

• EPMO establish standards, processes and performance measures as well as measuring tools

• Agencies left with flexibility in the management of individual counter- intelligence activities while adhering to enterprise business rules

• Some impact on organization and may require changes in organization structure and / or roles and responsibilities

• Relieves agencies and program teams of much of the responsibility and details of program management-related activities

• Allows users to focus on the counterintelligence activities, resolution of technical issues, and threat adjudication under a common set of ground rules and information-sharing environments

Conclusion

The need for a successful counterintelligence program demands a direct approach to establishing coordination. Therefore, the Counterintelligence / Insider threat EPMO would provide the most robust construct for securing enterprise wide coordination and help break down the organizational silos preventing success. The EPMO will provide a personnel security program as well as counterintelligence / insider threat coordination to the entire enterprise: from the Executive level to managers, to Federal Officers, to professional staff, to security personnel, to IT personnel, and finally, to IT Security personnel down to administrative and clerical staff.

Contributing Author:

Bill Carroll is a co-founder and the President of the EnProVera Corporation, a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business and Native American Owned Small Disadvantaged Business. Prior to EnProVera, he was the Managing Partner of Strikeforce Consulting. Bill has over 40 years of experience in law enforcement, in the U.S. Government, and in the Government Contracting Industry. He retired from the U.S. Government in 1998 after a distinguished career in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Bill was the Director of the INS Washington District Office and Deputy Director of the Los Angeles District Office.

DOJ Aggressively Pursuing False Claims Act Violations: States Follow Suit

Over the last decade, False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation has exploded, and actions asserting new theories of liability are resulting in increasingly large recoveries. Last year the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had recovered $3.8 billion under the federal FCA in FY 2013. From all appearances FY 2014 promises to be another “banner year for civil fraud recoveries,” and the DOJ has already put up impressive numbers, particularly against pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including a massive $2.2 billion settlement with Johnson & Johnson, as well as settlements with Endo Health Solutions Inc. ($192.7 million), Halifax Hospital Medical Center ($85 million), and Amedisys, Inc. ($150 million).

While the DOJ continues to vigorously pursue FCA cases against companies in the health care and other sectors, cash-strapped states are now following suit. State Attorneys General (AGs) have increasingly pursued novel and creative FCA actions, as have private plaintiffs, who are authorized by qui tam provisions to stand in the shoes of states to sue and receive part of any recovery. A driver of this action was the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005, which authorized states to receive, in addition to their own recoveries, 10 percent of the federal government’s share of recovered Medicaid funds if their FCAs are at least as robust as the federal FCA. As a result, since 2005 nearly a dozen states have either enacted false claims statutes or have amended existing statutes to make them equally or more robust than the federal FCA, including incorporating qui tam provisions and broadening the circumstances under which companies can be found liable for violations.

For example, late last year, in response to the DRA, New York state amended its FCA (New York State Finance Law § 187, et seq. (NY FCA)), to bring its false claims law more in line with the federal FCA. The New York statute now includes a “reverse false claims” provision that imposes liability as broadly as the federal FCA, providing that a person may be held liable for violating the NY FCA if that person “[k]nowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or a local government, or conspires to do the same….” (NY FCA § 189(1)(h)). The New York amendments also allow the state, as intervenor in a qui tam case, to relate back to the qui tam plaintiff’s filing date for statute of limitations purposes, expanding the period for which the state can seek recoveries. In addition, the law provides attorneys’ fees for successful qui tam plaintiffs, incentivizing the plaintiff’s bar to partner with the state or pursue their own cases under the NY FCA.

Recent developments in California also have made California False Claims Act (CFCA) cases more likely. In October of last year, California Governor (and former AG) Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to California’s general whistleblower statute (Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5) extending already existing whistleblower protections to employees who report illegal behavior internally to supervisors or those responsible for compliance. The amendments also imposed liability on any person working on an employer’s behalf who retaliates against an employee who engages in protected whistleblowing activity. In addition, a California appellate court, in San Francisco United School District ex. rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc., No. A136986, Cal. Court App. (1st Dist. Mar. 11, 2014), recently expanded liability under the CFCA by approving the “implied certification” theory, holding that “a vendor impliedly certifies compliance with express contractual requirements when it bills a public agency for providing goods or services.” As a result, government contractors that do business with the state of California are now exposed to CFCA liability if they knowingly submit an invoice while in breach of a material contract term, whether or not they expressly certified compliance with material contract terms.

California and New York are just two high-profile examples of a national trend. Florida AG Pam Bondi worked with the legislature to significantly amend the Florida FCA last year to expand its scope and provide new subpoena powers and penalties. In Vermont, AG Bill Sorrell worked with several state senators to introduce a new FCA patterned on the federal act, after the state collected more than $23.5 million since 2010 through cooperative work with the DOJ on Medicaid fraud cases.

Because many states are facing substantial budget pressure, FCA activity, in particular Medicaid fraud cases, are likely to substantially increase in 2014 and beyond. In January Texas AG Greg Abbott announced that Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. will pay $25 million to settle claims that it submitted inflated pricing information for certain prescription drugs from 1995 to 2013. In April Texas settled a state FCA lawsuit against HEB Grocery Co. for $12 million, settling claims that HEB overcharged the Texas Medicaid program for prescription drugs. Florida also reached a $7 million agreement recently with All Children’s Health System to settle allegations that the hospital violated the federal and Florida’s FCA by submitting illegal Medicaid claims.

FCA cases are not limited to health care. New York AG Eric Schneiderman, who as a state legislator sponsored a substantial 2010 expansion of the NY FCA, has pursued a ground-breaking FCA reverse false claims case against Sprint Nextel Corporation for allegedly under-collecting and underpaying more than $100 million in New York state and local sales taxes. In late February a New York appellate court upheld a lower court’s decision denying Sprint’s motion to dismiss the case. FCA cases have also recently been brought against or settled with technology providers and construction firms for providing allegedly defective products and services or inflating their billing, energy companies for underpaying royalties, and mortgage lenders for alleged false applications for HUD-sponsored insurance and federal loan financing.

State FCAs have also become fertile ground for creative plaintiff’s attorneys. Prominent plaintiff’s firms have long cultivated relationships with AGs as they sought to represent the states in civil lawsuits such as the tobacco litigations of the 1990s and more recent consumer protection and public nuisance suits against the pharmaceutical and other industries. Plaintiff’s lawyers have also taken notice of the potential for large automatic recoveries in qui tam suits. 647 federal qui tam suits were filed by private plaintiffs in 2012 alone, compared to only 30 in 1987. This upward trend is likely to continue as plaintiffs increasingly assert multiple state FCA claims alongside federal claims and attempt to work alongside AGs in pursuing such cases.

There are steps companies can take to reduce their potential exposure to FCA actions brought by the federal government, AGs, and/or qui tam plaintiffs. Any company that provides goods or services to the government, or even subcontracts to do so, should do the following:

(1) Create and update its compliance program to ensure current compliance with all applicable legal requirements and to flag potential problems early before they give rise to an FCA claim.

(2) Establish appropriate and continuous training programs that inform employees of key legal obligations, and encourage employees to bring problems to the attention of supervisors and compliance officers.

(3) Periodically audit business activities to ensure those activities conform to the company’s compliance program by conducting interviews, surveying employees, and providing employees with opportunities to provide feedback regarding potential wrongdoing.

(4) Fully and seriously investigate all allegations of impropriety, no matter how unlikely, and regardless of the whistleblower’s credibility or motivations.

(5) Carefully consider the ramifications of strategies that impact taxes or royalties remitted to the government and whether such plans might become the basis for reverse FCA claims.

More broadly, companies involved in supplying goods or services paid for by the government should familiarize themselves with, and even develop relationships with the DOJ authorities and AGs who are authorized to bring FCA cases or oversee qui tam litigations. Given the increasingly innovative ways FCA claims are asserted, companies cannot risk hiding their heads in the sand regarding their potential exposure. Knowing the government authorities responsible for such cases can provide critical insight to understanding their priorities, their complex relationships with qui tam plaintiffs, and the future directions and likely developments in this increasingly important area of the law.

Contributing Authors:

Merle DeLancey primarily represents healthcare clients involved in a broad spectrum of government contracting issues and litigation. He also formulates strategies for expanding contracting opportunities using the General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), and other government-wide acquisition and indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract vehicles. Merle also has substantial experience in complex, multidistrict litigation in federal district courts throughout the United States.

Bernard Nash joined Dickstein Shapiro in 1988 and leads the firm’s State Attorneys General Practice, where he represents clients in complex state and federal legal and legislative matters. Bernie’s work typically involves cases of first impression, matters having public policy implications and/or a governmental interest, and complex litigation. He routinely counsels major private sector clients on a wide range of matters involving State Attorneys General and also has represented states in significant policy disputes. According to Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Bernie is “the leading practitioner in the country” who has “cornered the market” in representing clients before State Attorneys General and is known as “the godfather of State Attorney General work.”

Andrew Smith is an associate in Dickstein Shapiro’s Government Contracts Practice. Andrew focuses on complex civil litigation matters relating to antitrust, unfair trade, mass torts, product liability, and general commercial law. He also has represented and counseled clients in government investigations and government contract matters, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, and claims and bid protests before the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Additionally, Andrew has been actively involved in providing pro bono legal research assistance to the American Antitrust Institute.

Christopher Allen joined Dickstein Shapiro in 2007. Chris is an associate in the State Attorneys General Practice. He represents clients primarily in connection with state government investigations and complex public policy issues, including outreach, negotiations, and litigations involving consumer protection, pharmaceutical products, data breach, information security compliance, antitrust, and environmental issues.

6/12 MEGA Matchmaking & Mentoring

Join the Government Technology & Services Coalition for a day of matchmaking, mentoring and networking to find new teaming partners, mentors and mentor protege relationships!

The Government Technology & Services Coalition and Government Contracting Weekly partnered to recognize exceptional mentors in the government contracting community.

The awards program recognizes and salutes government contractors for their leadership and concrete actions in assisting small government contracting firms through mentoring, training, inspiration, teaming and cooperation. The awards recognize that mentoring is critical to the contracting community. Large firms that mentor small companies play a critical role in saving their Federal clients money and time, commit to putting action behind the mantra of bringing “innovation and creativity” to the Federal mission and bring a higher level of professionalism to the contracting community.

Honoring our Federal Small Business Titans:

Frank Barros

Program Analyst, Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Sandra Broadnax

Director, Small Business Programs, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency

Peggy Butler

Deputy Director, Army Office of Small Business Programs, Subcontracting and Mentor Protege Program Manager, U.S. Department of Defense

Elissa Sobolewski

SBIR Ptorgram Director, Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Federal Small Business Titan of the YEAR:

Kevin Boshears
Director, Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

KEYNOTE SPEAKER ANNOUNCED FOR MATCHMAKING SESSION

Les Rose is the Corporate Vice President & President of L3 National Security Solutions group. He also serves as the co-chair of the GTSC Mentor Forum. L-3 NSS’ six operating units deliver full-spectrum cyber operations, enterprise and mission information technology, intelligence operations support and operational infrastructure solutions.

Mr. Rose’s career has spanned over 40 years of management and engineering. Upon completing a successful 20-year career as an officer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and as an Army pilot, Mr. Rose joined Delta Research Corporation, an L-3 legacy company in 1990. He was promoted to president of Delta Research, and through a series of acquisitions and promotions became president of L-3 STRATIS one of the largest division of the global defense leader. Today Mr. Rose serves as president of both L-3 STRATIS and L-3 NSS. Mr. Rose holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and a Master of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Michigan.

Are you a small business interested in teaming partners? Do you work on:

information technology
identity management
configuration management
help desk.call center support
warfighter support services
C4ISR experience
Maritime/Port security operations services
Wireless Network technical support
Health IT
information security/information assurance
IA support for validation testing
logistics support
networks services
modeling and simulation
training courseware capabilities
Intelligence Community IT services
or other services?

Join us for an afternoon of new contacts, teaming and insight into new market areas.

TENTATIVE AGENDA – GTSC Small Business Mega-Matchmaking & The Mentor Awards

1:00 pm Introduction

1:15 – 4:00 pm Matchmaking with GTSC Mentors and other large companies

4:30 pm Small Business Government Panel

5:30 pm The Mentor Awards program and reception

Download the Brochure.

Get a Data Breach Response Plan

As data breaches proliferate in and outside the government, companies are faced with serious ramifications if not addressed by leadership. With the DOD-GSA Cyber Resilience Rules looming, the NIST framework on the horizon and cyber security identified as the major priority for Congress and the Administration, GTSC’s Capacity Building session on data breach will focus on your company preparedness, incident response, notification and legal responsibilities when experiencing a data breach. Attendees will receive a Data Breach Response Guide and walk through hands-on procedures and considerations for your data breach policy. This is a must-attend for all small and mid-sized businesses working in the homeland and national security field.

May 22, 2014 | 8:30 am – 11:30 am
Arlington, VA

About Michael Bruemmer

Michael Bruemmer is Vice President of the Experian®Data Breach Resolution group at Experian Consumer Services, the leading provider of online consumer credit reports, credit scores, credit monitoring, other credit-related information, and protection products. With more than 25 years in the industry, Michael brings a wealth of knowledge related to business operations and development in the identity theft and fraud resolution space where he has educated businesses of all sizes and sectors through pre-breach and breach response planning and delivery, including notification, call center and identity protection services. Michael is a Certified Information Privacy Professional and Certified in Healthcare Compliance. He currently resides on the Ponemon Responsible Information Management (RIM) Board, the International Security Management Group (ISMG) Editorial Advisory Board and the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Certification Advisory Board. >>READ More.

Harris IT, L3 NSS Assume Leadership of GTSC Mentor Forum

Wayne Lucernoni, President, Harris IT and Les Rose, President of L3 National Security Solutions (NSS) assumed leadership of the Government Technology & Services Coalition’s Mentor Forum — a group of large companies devoted to the homeland and national security mission. Harris was one of the founding mentors of the Coalition, and L3 NSS is both a founding member and was awarded GTSC Mentor of the Year in 2013.

“Harris immediately saw the value and need for an organization devoted to the mission of homeland and national security. With increasing budget challenges, rapid technological change and complex procurements, we want to help our Federal partners find ways to work smarter and better and to leverage the best technologies available to do that,” said Wayne Lucernoni, President, Harris IT.

“We are proud to work so closely with colleagues across the industry to grapple with difficult challenges in national security,” said Les Rose, President of L-3 National Security Solutions. “Supporting the growth of smaller companies is an important strategic step in preserving our industrial base,” Rose added. “Small businesses fuel the U.S. economy and help to bring innovation to the federal government and public sector.”

The GTSC Mentors are companies with over a billion dollars in annual revenue that work on behalf of the Federal homeland and national security mission. In GTSC, companies in the Mentor Forum collaborate to bring the innovation, ideas and agility of small business to the experience, infrastructure and resources of large companies, in addition to sharing the best practices of the private sector with our Federal partners.

Read the press release here.

See all of GTSC’s Mentors here.

4/25 MEMBERS ONLY Business Development Exchange

Randy Lange, Chief Growth Officer at Eagle Ray, Inc. will Chair GTSC’s Business Development Exchange.

The group is open to all members and seeks to create a trusted environment to exchange information on opportunities, strategies for teaming/partnering with other GTSC members and discussions of trends and opportunity tracking. The first meeting will take place April 25 from 11:30 am -1:00 pm to discuss the parameters of the group, what types of discussions would help with finding the right partners and how to create a trusted environment for information exchange. Eagle Ray has been generous enough to provide lunch. Please RSVP if you will attend. This meeting is for GTSC members only.

5/1 Federal Biometrics: Understanding USCIS with Leslie Hope

Biometrics is changing the way law enforcement and agencies that must track, identifiy and authenticate users aproach security. The Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Department’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services biometric capture services at over 130 application support centers across the country. Biometrics are used to process U.S. citizenship applications and immigration benefits applications.

USCIS collects photographs, digital fingerprints, passport scans, driver’s license scans, signatures, and other biometrics data from applicants. This information is used by the USCIS to determine qualifications for immigration benefits. The data is also used to conduct criminal background checks, which are required for the processing of many immigration benefits.

Leslie Hope
Chief
DHS/UCCIS/ESD/Biometrics Division

About Leslie Hope
Leslie Hope is Chief of the Biometrics Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component of the Department of Homeland Security. Ms. Hope serves as program manager and business owner for all biometric systems at USCIS and manages 137 Application Support Centers (ASCs) across the United States. ASCs allow applicants seeking an immigration benefit to submit biometrics to establish identity and to assist USCIS in determining eligibility with a background check. The results of background checks are disseminated for adjudication to USCIS operational directorates across the United States. Ms. Hope has over 20 years’ experience supporting DHS in a variety of roles; to include acting CIO and Deputy CIO for many years. Prior to joining the government Ms. Hope spent 15 years managing technology in the banking and airline industries.

4/24 FedRAMP with Maria Roat

The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. The Federal Risk and Authorization Program (FedRAMP) represents a unique opportunity for Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) doing business with the federal government. FedRAMP provides agencies and CSPs alike with a standard approach for conducting security assessments, replacing varied and duplicative procedures across government. The FedRAMP approach is based on an accepted set of baseline security controls and consistent processes that have been vetted and agreed upon by agencies across the federal government. Per the OMB memo published on December 8, 2011, all low and moderate impact cloud services leveraged by more than one office or agency must comply with FedRAMP requirements by 2014. If you are a CSP doing business with government, we encourage you to attend this session and learn more about how FedRAMP works.

Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) play an integral role in the FedRAMP process.

Directly apply or work with a sponsoring agency to submit an offering for FedRAMP authorization
Implement the baseline security controls and meet the accompanying FedRAMP requirements
Hire an accredited Third Party Assessment Organization to perform an independent system assessment when working toward a Joint Authorization Board Provisional Authorization or submitting a package without an Agency ATO
Create and submit an authorization package
Provide continuous monitoring reports and updates to FedRAMP

Cloud services offer agencies capabilities and opportunities for cost savings, business improvements, and increased efficiency.

OUR SPEAKER

Maria Roat
FedRAMP Director
Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies
U.S. General Services Administration

About Maria Roat

Maria A. Roat became FedRAMP Director, Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technology, General Services Administration in January 2013 bringing 30 years of professional experience in information technology, including operations and intelligence.

Previously Ms. Roat served as Deputy Chief Information Officer, Director for Administration within the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA), November 2011.

Ms. Roat served as Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) in DHS Headquarters, September 2008.

She directed the OCIO Front Office, which serves as the principal administrative advisor to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Deputy CIO, with responsibilities for budget, acquisitions, communications, human resources, and support programs.

Ms. Roat joined DHS in June 2004, first serving at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), where she was Deputy Director, Technology Development, 2005-2006, for TSA’s Secure Flight Program. In August 2006, Ms. Roat began serving at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), as the Program Manager for the Fraud Detection and National Security System, and then Chief of Staff, Office of Information Technology (OIT), where she managed OIT operations and administration, in addition to holding responsibility as the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with oversight of all aspects of USCIS’ Information Security Program.

Ms. Roat retired from the U.S. Navy in 2007, with 26 years of active duty and reserve service, in which she obtained the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer, Information Systems Technician. Ms. Roat served in numerous leadership positions including Command Master Chief for the Reserve Intelligence Area Washington (2002-2005) and the Center for Navy Leadership Mid-Atlantic (2005-2007). Additionally, she served on the National Naval Reserve Policy Board (2004-2006) to review policy issues submitted from the fleet and provide recommendations and implementation strategies for consideration by the Secretary of the Navy’s Policy Board. Ms. Roat also served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (1991-1992), when she was recalled to active duty.

Ms. Roat holds an A.S., Computer Science, is a graduate of the Harvard Business School Executive Education Program for Leadership Development, and a graduate of the Navy Senior Enlisted Academy.