Congress Eyes Gaps in VA's IT Strategy

Lawmakers pressed VA officials over duplicate licenses, poor inventory tracking, and a lack of accountability in software spending.

May 20, 2025

⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

“Improving Software Licensing Management”

House Veterans Affairs Committee, Technology Modernization Subcommittee Hearing

May 19, 2025 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses & Written Testimony (linked):

  • Mr. Don Carter: Executive Director for Contract and Operations Management, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information Technology (OIT)

  • Ms. Carol Harris: Director, Information Technology and Cybersecurity Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office

  • Mr. Jeff VanBemmel: Executive Director of End User Operations, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information Technology (OIT)

Keywords mentioned:

  • Software licenses, VA management, GAO report, license usage, cost savings, procurement, IT modernization, executive order, GSA consolidation, software inventory, license tracking, vendor contracts, enterprise approach, assistive technology, IT procurement

IN THEIR WORDS

“Every unused or duplicative software license that the VA pays for isn't just a line item. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars and a missed opportunity — an upgrade that never happened, a fix that got delayed, and a veteran waiting longer for the care they earned.”

Chairman Tom Barrett

“If the Trump administration were serious about this executive order, they would be fortifying GSA to handle the onslaught of requirements from across the federal government. Instead, they're bleeding it dry, just like other agencies.”

Ranking Member Nikki Budzinski

Witnesses during yesterday’s hearing testified on licensing management, IT procurement, and several other issues at the VA.

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE

  • Chairman Tom Barrett reviewed the VA’s longstanding issues with managing its billion-dollar annual software license portfolio. He claimed that without accurate data on license ownership and usage, the department cannot make informed decisions or prevent wasteful spending. He referenced a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found that the VA was unable to track costs and usage for many licenses, making it difficult to negotiate better deals or identify savings. The Chairman applauded efforts by the Trump administration to centralize software procurement under the General Services Administration (GSA) but stressed that consolidation alone will not solve the problem—the VA must also improve internal accountability and oversight.

  • Ranking Member Nikki Budzinski agreed that software license mismanagement at the VA was a serious concern. She cited the January 2024 GAO report, which identified wasteful spending across federal agencies, and recommended tracking license usage against purchase records to identify inefficiencies. Ranking Member Budzinski urged the VA not to treat these recommendations as a simple checklist, but to address the systemic policy and process issues that allowed the problem to grow. She expressed skepticism about President Donald Trump’s executive order consolidating IT procurement under GSA, warning that it may not account for the VA’s unique needs and could result in further inefficiencies.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

  • Mr. Jeff VanBemmel acknowledged the essential role of software in delivering care to veterans and outlined the VA’s efforts to strengthen software asset management. He explained that the VA had launched a Software Asset Management (SAM) program to address risks from decentralized procurement and limited oversight. The program includes building a centralized repository, automating processes, improving license visibility, training staff, and updating policies like VA Directive 6008. He emphasized that managing software effectively is a shared responsibility and reaffirmed the VA’s commitment to optimizing resources for veterans.

  • Ms. Carol Harris summarized GAO’s findings, noting that the VA lacked the ability to track how many software licenses were actively used or compare them to purchases—hindering cost management. While the VA had started implementing new procedures for its most-used licenses and planned a centralized tracking system, she noted that the process was still incomplete. She also flagged licensing practices that limit cloud computing, such as vendor lock-in and repeated repurchasing, which remain unresolved. Citing $65 million in savings from better oversight of a single license type, Ms. Harris highlighted the potential for broader cost reductions.

  • Chairman Barrett asked whether vendors notify the VA when software usage falls below purchased amounts. Ms. Harris replied that while vendors track usage, they typically do not report underutilization, and such clauses are not included in VA contracts—though she said they should be.

  • Chairman Barrett also requested an update on the SAM program. Mr. VanBemmel replied that the VA now tracks usage for its top 15 software titles and is working to expand that visibility. He noted improved tracking at the endpoint level and mentioned the difficulty of standardizing software needs across VA facilities.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski asked if the VA’s software policy had been updated since 2015. Mr. VanBemmel said that revisions are underway as part of the SAM overhaul. When she asked about enterprise tracking, he explained that several VA offices are collaborating to consolidate data and that his office will eventually manage the central repository.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski then asked Ms. Harris about progress in assigning ownership in license management. Ms. Harris stated that the centralization effort was promising and confirmed that GAO will continue to monitor implementation.

  • Rep. Morgan Luttrell asked whether VA hospitals must go through Mr. VanBemmel’s office for software needs. Mr. VanBemmel said that enterprise software like Microsoft is centrally managed and that a collaborative review process is being developed. He mentioned new tools like Tachyon and ServiceNow to monitor usage. When Rep. Luttrell questioned why problems persisted despite existing tools, Mr. VanBemmel explained that most investments were only made in the past year.

  • Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick asked how much money the VA had wasted due to poor software management. Ms. Harris responded that the total is unknown because of limited tracking. Mr. VanBemmel added that cost-saving efforts are still human-driven, though AI is in the pipeline. He reported that the VA has already avoided $136 million in costs among its top software titles.

  • Chairman Barrett asked about the shift toward centralized software procurement. Mr. VanBemmel confirmed this transition. Mr. Don Carter added that while contracts are reviewed under FITARA, some software purchases—such as those embedded in medical devices—are missed due to incorrect coding. He mentioned that new contract clauses now allow the VA to adjust costs if usage falls below 10%, which recently saved $136 million on a Microsoft agreement.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski inquired about eliminating duplication in a decentralized environment and the role of the Business Integration and Outcome Service (BIOS). Mr. VanBemmel responded that BIOS supports stakeholder engagement and could help reduce redundancies. When she raised concerns that BIOS might be affected by VA workforce reductions, witnesses could not confirm.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski also asked about performance indicators for the SAM program. Mr. VanBemmel reported that they are still in development, with a focus on consolidating categories and reducing redundancy. The Ranking Member further asked about the Trump administration’s executive order centralizing IT procurement under GSA. Mr. Carter responded that while the VA uses GSA contracts, it has not yet engaged with GSA on the executive order.

  • Rep. Luttrell questioned duplicative usage, using Zoom and Teams as an example. Mr. VanBemmel acknowledged that legacy decisions led to local preferences but claimed the VA is now working toward enterprise-wide consolidation. Mr. Carter added that the VA negotiates bundled pricing but must weigh user needs and support costs.

  • Chairman Barrett asked whether bundling software could cut costs across agencies. Mr. VanBemmel agreed, especially for commodity products. Mr. Carter claimed that improved negotiations saved the VA $230 million and described a governance process to evaluate software needs before purchasing.

  • Chairman Barrett followed up on a request from the Federal CIO for inventory data and asked about user-level tracking. Mr. VanBemmel said that the VA now tracks usage for over 4,400 commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) titles and 224 Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings, though assigning ownership remains a challenge. He confirmed that software requests now go through his office.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski asked Ms. Harris for GAO’s view on the GSA takeover. Ms. Harris replied that centralized purchasing may offer savings for basic software but noted past delays and overruns with GSA contracts and flagged that the VA’s specialized software may not be well-suited for the model.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski raised concerns about special government employees like Sahil Lavingia potentially modifying VA code using AI, and Mr. VanBemmel agreed to provide more information for the record. She also asked whether the VA tracks software given to veterans. Both Mr. VanBemmel and Ms. Harris confirmed that the current review focuses only on employee software.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski asked what it would take for the VA to adopt an enterprise-style approach to procuring assistive technology for veterans. Mr. VanBemmel clarified that his office oversees internal software only, while software for veterans is managed separately by the Office of Connected Care.

  • Chairman Barrett asked about the spending breakdown between the VA’s 15 largest titles and the rest of its software portfolio. Mr. VanBemmel explained the distinction between cloud-based SaaS tools like Office 365 and locally installed COTS software.

  • Then, Chairman Barrett asked how the VA matches software purchases to usage. Mr. Carter explained that the VA uses unlimited licensing for some products like Oracle but still relies on per-user licensing for many others. He noted that periodic license reclamation is built into the process for some contracts.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski reiterated the importance of tracking both internal and veteran-facing software assets. She strongly opposed the Trump administration’s IT procurement consolidation plan, arguing that GSA lacks the resources to manage the VA’s complex software environment. She also raised alarms about the lack of transparency and oversight regarding special government employees, warning of possible risks to veterans.

  • Chairman Barrett drew parallels between the VA’s progress in standardizing IT operations and its electronic health record (EHR) modernization challenges. He underlined that software underpins every aspect of veteran care, and that waste and inefficiencies in licensing must be addressed to improve outcomes.

SPECIAL TOPICS

👨‍💻 IT issues:

  • The primary focus of the hearing was on the VA’s software license management, emphasizing poor inventory tracking, underutilization, decentralized procurement, and the risks of waste.

  • Mr. VanBemmel testified that the VA’s SAM initiative is working to centralize software oversight, improve real-time tracking, and reduce duplicative purchases. He noted recent investments like the Tachyon platform for endpoint visibility and a ServiceNow module for asset management.

  • The VA is not yet using AI in full operation for software asset management, but leaders see the potential for AI to help reconcile data and identify redundancies. Current progress in license oversight remains people-led.

  • Ranking Member Budzinski expressed concern over President Trump’s executive order consolidating federal IT procurement under the GSA. Witnesses agreed that commodity software might benefit from this model, but specialized VA software likely would not.

  • Chairman Barrett and Rep. Luttrell noted similarities between the VA’s decentralized software acquisition and EHR rollout challenges. Each VA facility developed its own systems over time, complicating standardization and interoperability.

📋 Government contracting:

  • VA officials discussed how contracts are negotiated with major software vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, and Zoom. The VA has achieved savings through better terms, including clauses that allow adjustments if usage drops below thresholds (e.g., 10%).

  • The VA uses a mix of licensing models, with per-user being more common. Unlimited licensing is selectively used (e.g., Oracle Java), based on cost-effectiveness.

  • While the VA has used GSA contracting vehicles, it has not yet begun formal collaboration under the Trump executive order. Witnesses advocated for evaluating GSA's pricing versus the VA’s own negotiating power before moving forward.

JOIN THE NIMITZ NETWORK!

Enjoying our updates? Don’t keep it to yourself — forward this email to friends or colleagues who’d love to stay informed. They can subscribe here to become part of our growing community.