type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' AUDIT OF THE\nFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION\n YEAR 2000 PROGRAM\n\n TASK ORDER #10\n\n\n\n\n FINAL REPORT\n\n\n August 16, 1999\n\n\n\n\n TWM Associates, Inc.\n Suite 310\n 3975 University Drive\n Fairfax, VA 22030\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n\nOver the past several years, the term \xe2\x80\x9cYear 2000 Problem\xe2\x80\x9d has become increasingly familiar. This\nproblem refers to the manner in which automated information systems have represented the year in\ncomputer records containing date information. For the past several decades, primarily in order to\nconserve expensive electronic data storage space and reduce operating costs, computer\nprogrammers used two-digit date fields instead of four-digit date fields to represent the year. Thus\n1900 would be represented as 00 and 1999 would be represented as 99. In using this format,\nhowever, the year 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented only as 00. As\na result, systems that use two-digit instead of four-digit date fields and perform date- or time-\nsensitive calculations may generate incorrect results beyond 1999, reading 00 as 1900 instead of\n2000. Unless corrected, the impact of the \xe2\x80\x9cYear 2000 Problem\xe2\x80\x9d could be widespread and costly. In\na report to Congress on the Year 2000 computing crisis, the General Accounting Office (GAO)\nrecognized that \xe2\x80\x9cthe United States \xe2\x80\x93 with close to half of all computer resources and 60 percent of\nInternet assets \xe2\x80\x93 is the world\xe2\x80\x99s most advanced and most dependent user of information\ntechnology.1\xe2\x80\x9d. Recognizing that fact, the GAO concluded, \xe2\x80\x9cshould these systems \xe2\x80\x93 which perform\nfunctions and services critical to our nation \xe2\x80\x93 suffer disruption, it could create widespread crisis.\xe2\x80\x9d\nFor that reason, the GAO designated the Year 2000 computing problem as a high-risk area.\n\nOn January 25, 1999, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) established Task Order No. 10 under\nits contract with TWM Associates, Inc. (hereafter referred to as TWM) to assist the OIG in\nconducting an audit of the Commission\'s Year 2000 (Y2K) program. The objective of this audit\nwas to assess the readiness of Commission mission critical information systems2 and provide\nconstructive recommendations as warranted. In addition, we conducted interviews of Commission\nand contractor management and staff and examined Commission documents. The scope of this\nreview was limited to the thirty (30) information systems that the FCC has identified as mission\ncritical.\n\nThe FCC has established a program for addressing the Year 2000 problem for those information\nsystems that have been defined as mission critical. However, due to factors identified in this\nreport, the Commission lacks reasonable assurance of the uninterrupted operation of all mission\ncritical information systems after December 31, 1999.\n\nDuring this review, the team identified several areas of concern.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Commission has established an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)\n process to independently assess the effectiveness of renovation and validation efforts.\n However, the process has not been implemented in a timely fashion and did not meet\n either GAO or Office of Management and Budget (OMB) schedules. GAO defines\n\n1\n Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Potential for Widespread Disruption Calls for Strong Leadership and Partnerships\n (GAO/AIMD-98-85, April 30, 1998), page.1.\n2\n Mission Critical Information Systems are defined in Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide\n (GAO/AIMD-10-1-14, September, 1997), page 32. as \xe2\x80\x9cSystems supporting a core business activity or process.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n ii\n\x0c validation as the testing, verification and validation of converted or replaced platforms,\n applications, databases and utilities to ensure Y2K functionality. Under the IV&V an\n independent party who has no ownership or bias to the system(s) being validated conducts\n this process. In fact, as of June 1, 1999, the Commission has established only one of the\n two anticipated IV&V contracts and has scheduled only eight (8) of the twenty-nine (29)\n mission critical systems for IV&V testing.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Commission has not adequately addressed Business Continuity and Contingency\n Planning (BCCP) should mission critical systems fail due to Y2K or other eventualities.\n As of the completion of fieldwork, twenty-nine (29) of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s thirty (30)\n mission-critical systems did not have written and tested contingency plans.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Commission has not tested replacement mission critical information systems or\n renovated mission critical information systems for specific conditions related to the Year\n 2000. Further, the Commission has accepted, and continues to accept, new and renovated\n information system without ensuring that testing for specific conditions related to the Year\n 2000 has been performed.\n\nA mission critical system is defined as a system that supports a core business activity or process.\nThe loss of any of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s self-identified mission critical information systems could\nhave an adverse effect on the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s ability to conduct business. For example,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Licensing records for such critical national infrastructure services as police, emergency\n medical, fire, and coast and ground radio may be inaccessible because completion of their\n Y2K activities is not scheduled until after January 1, 2000.3\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Key financial applications, such as the Collections system, may be unavailable.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The COPS system \xe2\x80\x9cwhich protects aircraft and other safety-of life services from potential\n interference by cable systems sharing the same frequencies4 \xe2\x80\x9d may be inaccessible.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Equipment Authorization System \xe2\x80\x9cdirectly impacts the ability of an applicant to\n market equipment submitted for equipment authorization.5\xe2\x80\x9d The Office of Engineering\n and Technology (OET) states that \xe2\x80\x9csome estimates have placed the value of getting a\n product to market at up to $1,000,000 a day.6\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThere are several areas where improvements can be made in the Commission\'s Year 2000\nprogram. The Commission must quickly establish a dedicated Year 2000 test environment and\nconduct rigorous testing of mission critical systems. Systems being replaced must include\n\n3\n Project review, Universal Licensing System, Second Quarter, FY 1999, May 13, 1999, p. 8.\n4\n Status of the Federal Communications Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Year 2000 Efforts: Quarterly Progress Report, May 14, 1999,\np.8.\n5\n Project review, Office of Engineering and Technology Authorization & Licensing Systems (OET), Second Quarter,\nFY 1999, p. 1\n6\n Ibid.\n\n iii\n\x0cdemanding Y2K tests before acceptance from the contractor. The Commission should\nimmediately determine those applications that are unlikely to be Y2K compliant, and develop a\nstrategy to ensure the critical operations will continue to be supported in event of system failure.\nBusiness continuity and contingency plans must be developed and tested to insure a smooth\ntransition if Year 2000 disruptions occur.\n\nOn June 28, 1999, the OIG issued a draft report summarizing the result of this review. On July\n28, 1999, the OMD responded to the draft report. In the response, OMD indicated concurrence\nwith the three recommendations in the report. The Managing Director also reported that his office\nhas taken significant strides towards addressing the internal FCC Year 2000 problems identified\nby the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The testing tools necessary to conduct the\naforementioned IV&V tests have been purchased and contracts have been awarded to have all\nidentified mission critical systems tested. In fact, this testing has already begun. We have\nincorporated each of the responses to the three recommendations into the body of this report. In\naddition, we have attached a complete copy of the response as Appendix F to the report.\n\nThe OIG will continue to monitor and support efforts being undertaken by the Information\nTechnology Center (ITC) to address the potential Year 2000 problem.\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\x0cACKNOWLEDGMENT\n\nThe Review team acknowledges the contributions of all that were involved with this report. Their\nefforts were highly professional and contributed to the successful completion of this effort.\n\n Name Bureau Role In the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Year 2000 Program\n\nRon Stone FCC/OMD CIO\nBob Snow FCC/OMD Year 2000 Program Manager\nDavid Jarrell FCC/OMD Computer Security Officer\n Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity\nKimberly Hancher FCC/OMD CSR - Cops/Cars, ULS/Planned ULS, Auctions\nMary Jane Smith FCC/OMD CSR - IBFS, COSER, EAS (Lab), ELS, Collections\nRick Kanner FCC/OMD CSR - CDBS(AM,FM,TV, B-EEO, C-EEO), MDS, ECFS\nDave Woodson FCC/OMD CSR - Informal Complaints, Tariffs, Armis, IVR/NCC\nSharon Lee FCC/CCB Informal Complaints\nTodd Mitchell FCC/CCB Tariffs\nDavid Ahn FCC/CCB Armis\nJames Ham FCC/CIB IVR - Integrated Voice Response and Fax Server at NCC\n (Call Center Infrastructure)\nMike Lance FCC/CSB Cops/Cars - Cable antenna licensing & cable operator\n registration systems\nJacki Ponti FCC/IB IBFS - International Bureau Filing System\nJohn Mount FCC/IB COSER - System used to coordinate CoChannel Serial\n licensing between US & Canada\nRon Novak FCC/MMB CDBS(AM, FM, TV, B-EEO, C-EEO) &\n MDS - Multipoint/Multichannel Distribution System\n EEO database\nGeorge Tannahill FCC/OET EAS (Lab) - Equipment Authorization System, ELS -\n Experimental Licensing System\nLynwood Jenkins FCC/OMD Collections\nSpencer Hyndman FCC/OMD FCC Infrastructure\nSheryl Segal FCC/OPA ECFS (Rips) - Electronic Comments Filing System\nIra Keltz FCC/WTB ULS - Universal Licensing System (Aviation, Cell, Paging,\n Personal Communications Services)\nJohn Chudovan FCC/WTB Planned for ULS (Marine, Restricted & Commercial,\n Amateur, Coast and Ground, Land Mobile, Microwave,)\nJudy Dunlop FCC/WTB Planned for ULS (Marine, Restricted & Commercial,\n Amateur, Coast and Ground, Land Mobile, Microwave)\nJohn Giuli FCC/WTB Auctions\n\n\n\n\n v\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n PAGE\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii\n\nACKNOWLEDGMENT v\n\nA. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1\n\nB. AUDIT OBJECTIVE 2\n\nC. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 2\n\nD. FINDINGS The Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Program has not Adequately Addressed 5\n Critical Components of the Year 2000 Readiness Process.\n\n\n \xe2\x99\xa6 Details of Findings\n \xe2\x99\xa6 Recommendations/Management Response\n \xe2\x99\xa6 Subsequent Actions\n\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Glossary 11\n\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Year 2000 Timeline 12\n\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Description of Mission Critical Systems 13\n\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Table of Year 2000 Status for Mission Critical Systems 19\n\nAPPENDIX F \xe2\x80\x93 Management Response 21\n\n\n\n\n vi\n\x0c AUDITING THE\n FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION\n YEAR PROGRAM\n (Task Order No. 10)\n\n\n INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND\n\nThe Y2K problem is highly complex and technical in nature. Date codes are imbedded in millions\nof lines of code that serve as the underpinning of information systems utilized throughout the\nworld. The process for identifying effected dates in software and subsequently replacing or\nrenovating the effected systems and performing subsequent validation testing is arduous and\ncomplex. In recognition that the Y2K problem could be significant within the Federal government,\nthe President in his Executive Order dated February 4, 1998, entitled Year 2000 Conversion stated\nthat agencies shall \xe2\x80\x9cassure that no critical Federal program experiences disruption because of the\nY2K problem.\xe2\x80\x9d Furthermore, the President directed that the head of each agency shall, \xe2\x80\x9cassure that\nefforts to address the Y2K problem receive the highest priority attention in the agency\xe2\x80\xa6.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\nassumed primary roles in guiding agencies towards ensuring uninterrupted service effective\nJanuary 1, 2000. In September 1997, the GAO issued the Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An\nAssessment Guide. Per GAO, \xe2\x80\x9cThis guide provides a framework and a checklist for assessing the\nreadiness of federal agencies to achieve Year 2000 compliance. It provides information on the\nscope of the challenge and offers a structured approach for reviewing the adequacy of agency\nplanning and management of the Year 2000 program.\xe2\x80\x9d The guide is divided into five phases and\nestablishes a timeline which included benchmark target dates for each of the identified phases to be\naddressed by Federal agencies including the FCC (please refer to page 11 of this report). \xe2\x80\x9cInitial\nAwareness\xe2\x80\x9d of the Y2K problem was to have commenced by January 1996. The final phase,\nknown as \xe2\x80\x9cValidation and Implementation\xe2\x80\x9d was to have been initiated by July 1998. All systems\nidentified by agencies, as \xe2\x80\x9cmission critical\xe2\x80\x9d are to be Y2K certified by the completion of this five\nphased approach. These target dates were established to afford agency\xe2\x80\x99s guidance and direction\nin working the Y2K problem.\n\nOn January 20, 1998, OMB established target dates (also incorporated in the chart on page 11) for\ncompleting information system renovation and validation and implementation. Per OMB\nMemorandum No. 98-02, all repairs to agency systems, both mission critical and non-mission\ncritical, were to have been completed by March 1999. Furthermore, OMB directed federal\nagencies including the FCC to provide a quarterly progress reports (due the 15th of February, May,\nAugust, and November through 1999) to include the status of the total number of mission-critical\nsystems.\n\nIn August 1998 the GAO issued a guide entitled Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity\nand Contingency Planning. Per the GAO, \xe2\x80\x9cthe guide provides a conceptual framework for helping\nlarge agencies to manage risk of potential Year 2000-induced disruptions to their operations.\xe2\x80\x9d\nThe focus of this guideline is to emphasize to agencies the need to reduce the risk and potential\nimpact of Y2K induced information system failures on their core business processes by\nimplementing aggressive continuity planning processes. A structure of four business continuity\n\n 1\n\x0cplanning phases: initiation; business impact analysis; contingency planning; and testing is\nincorporated in this approach.\n\nWithin the FCC, the responsibility for managing the Y2K resides with the Chief Information\nOfficer (CIO).\n\n B. AUDIT OBJECTIVE\n\nThe objective of this audit was to evaluate and report to management on the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s efforts\nto address the Y2K problem.\n\n\n C. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\n Scope\n\nThe audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards,\nand included such analysis, interviews and testing as required to support the audit findings.\n\nAudit fieldwork was performed at Commission sites within the Washington, DC, metropolitan area\nand in Gettysburg, PA. from February through May 1999.\n\nBecause of the importance of Year 2000 compliance to the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s core operations, the OIG\nwill continue to independently assess the Y2K program and issue special reports. The OIG will\nfocus on Y2K issues involving external reporting, the Independent Validation and Verification\n(IV&V) process, Business Continuity and Contingency Planning (BCCP), and other topics, as\nneeded.\n\n Methodology\n\nThe audit methodology included a review of applicable Federal regulations and documents to\ndevelop requirements. These regulations included:\n\n\xc2\xbe OMB Memorandum No. 98-02, "Progress Reports on Fixing Year 2000 Difficulties", dated\n January 20, 1998.\n\n\xc2\xbe GAO "Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning", dated\n August 1998.\n\n\xc2\xbe GAO "Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide", dated September 1997.\n\nThe audit included collecting evidence to determine if the mission critical systems were assessed,\nrenovated, validated and implemented completely within the time lines set forth by GAO\nguidelines.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we performed the following:\n\n\n 2\n\x0c\xc2\xbe Y2K Document Review. The team reviewed applicable Year 2000 GAO guides and OMB\n memoranda and bulletins.\n\n\xc2\xbe Y2K Management Review. The team interviewed Year 2000 program officials to assess the\n Commission\'s involvement in the Year 2000 Government wide initiative and to assess the\n documentation compliance with GAO guidelines.\n\n\xc2\xbe System Management Interviews. The team interviewed management officials of the\n Commission\'s mission critical systems to assess the progress towards meeting Year 2000 goals\n and adherence to the GAO guidelines.\n\n\xc2\xbe System Document Review. The team reviewed applicable ITC, bureau, and office system\n documents.\n\n\xc2\xbe Quarterly Progress Reports Review. The team reviewed FCC Quarterly Progress Reports\n submitted to OMB for compliance, consistency, and accuracy.\n\n\n\nMission Critical Systems\n\nAs part of our review of the Commission Y2K program, we requested that the CIO provide a\nlisting of mission-critical information systems. In response to this request, the CIO provided the\nfollowing list.\n\n Bureau/Office Mission Critical Information System\nCable Services Bureau Cable Antenna Licensing & Cable Operator Registration\n Systems (COPS/CARS)\nCompliance and Information Integrated Voice Response System (IVR)\nBureau\nInternational Bureau International Bureau Filing System (IBFS)\nInternational Bureau Co-Channel Serial Licensing System (USA/Canada) (Coser)\nMass Media Bureau AM Licensing\nMass Media Bureau FM Licensing\nMass Media Bureau TV Licensing\nMass Media Bureau Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS)*\nMass Media Bureau EEO*\nMass Media Bureau Children\xe2\x80\x99s TV*\nOffice of Engineering and Equipment Authorization System\nTechnology\nOffice of Engineering and Experimental Licensing System\nTechnology\nCommon Carrier Bureau Informal Complaints\nCommon Carrier Bureau Tariffs\nCommon Carrier Bureau Automated Reporting Management Information System\n (ARMIS)\n\n\n 3\n\x0cOffice of Managing Director Collections\nOffice of Public Affairs Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS \xe2\x80\x93 RIPS)\nWireless Telecommunications Aviation\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Marine\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Restricted & Commercial*\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Amateur\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Auctions\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Cellular\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Paging\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Personal Communications System\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Coast & Ground\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Land Mobile\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Microwave\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Interactive Video Data Service (IVDS)*\nBureau\nWireless Telecommunications Universal Licensing System (ULS)\nBureau\n\nOne system listed above, the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) was later declared not to be\nmission critical. Accordingly, the total reported mission critical systems was reduced from thirty\nto twenty nine systems.\n\nThe team relied on the FCC\xe2\x80\x99s designation of a system as mission critical to select systems for\nreview. The scope of this review did not include an assessment of the process the Commission\nused for designating systems as mission critical. Nor did the scope include an analysis of the Year\n2000 activities for those systems that were not designated mission critical. In addition, lack of time\nand staff precluded a detailed analysis of the Year 2000 activities for five mission critical systems\n(the systems are noted in the proceeding table with an asterisk). We found that the move to Portals\nhad created problems for finding people and identifying time to meet with the team and coordinate\nwith the Customer Service Representative (CSR). Also, some of the applications were being\nincorporated into new systems. It became clear that the same conditions were consistent across\nthis set of mission critical systems because that the renovation of these systems stemmed from the\nsame Statement of Work (SOW). This is especially true of the systems being incorporated into\nULS.\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cFor additional information on the FCC\xe2\x80\x99s mission critical information systems, please refer to\nAppendixes C and D.\n\n\n D. FINDINGS:\n\nOver the past two years, the Commission has made progress addressing the Year 2000 problem.\nHowever, the internal Y2K program has not adequately addressed critical components of the\nreadiness process in a timely manner. For example, the Commission has not: (1) completed critical\nIV&V testing; (2) developed and tested contingency plans for mission-critical systems; (3)\nrequired that contractors conduct specific testing for Year 2000 conditions in replacement or\nrenovated systems; and (4) completed renovation, validation, and implementation of all mission-\ncritical systems. As a result of these conditions, the Commission is not able to accurately assess\nreadiness of mission-critical information systems or provide assurance that critical Commission\noperations, including those supporting public safety, will not be disrupted. Commission program\nofficials attributed these conditions to a number of factors including the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s recent\nmove to a new Headquarters facility, delays in obtaining necessary funding, vendor\nmisrepresentation of software compliance, and the introduction of an upgraded Information\nTechnology (IT) infrastructure. Non-withstanding these conditions, the FCC on May 14, 1999,\nreported to OMB in a required quarterly status report that 26 of 29 self-identified mission critical\nsystems were classified as Year 2000 compliant.\n\nIn May 1997, the Commission established a Year 2000 Task Force to address internal Year 2000\nproblems and the specific areas of concern to the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Bureaus and Offices. The primary\nobjectives of the Task Force were to: (1) assess the compliance of information systems and identify\nsystems that were not compliant; (2) develop and implement plans to repair or replace non-\ncompliant systems; and (3) identify and replace non-compliant Information Technology (IT)\nInfrastructure hardware, telecommunications equipment and building facility systems. In August\n1998, the Commission submitted their first report to OMB on the status of these efforts. In this\nreport, the Commission reported thirty (30) mission-critical systems of which two (2) were\ncompliant systems recently put into production. Of the remaining twenty-eight mission-critical\nsystems, eleven (11) were reported as compliant, fourteen (14) were to be replaced, and (3) were to\nbe repaired. In their latest report to OMB, dated May 14, 1999, the Commission reported that of\ntwenty-nine (29) mission-critical systems,7 twenty-six (26) systems being reported as compliant,\ntwo (2) systems were in the renovation phase, and one (1) system was being tested. While this\nreflects a dramatic shift in the reporting classification of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s mission critical\nsystems, it is our opinion that this representation is not reflective of the Y2K operational readiness\nof the Commission. Per GAO, Year 2000 compliant means \xe2\x80\x9cthat the information technology\naccurately processes date/time data from, into, and between the twentieth and twenty-first\ncenturies, and the years 1999 and 2000 and leap year calculations, to the extent that other\ninformation technology, used in combination with the information technology being acquired,\nproperly exchanges date/time data with it.8\xe2\x80\x9d\n7\n The Commission reported that the number of mission-critical systems was reduced by one (1) because a recent\n Court ruling regarding the collection of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) data by the Mass Media Bureau.\n As a result of that ruling, reprogramming of EEO software can not begin until revised requirements are developed.\n8\n Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide, (GAO/ AIMD-10-1-14, September, 1997), page 33.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c The Commission has characterized in quarterly reports to OMB, mission critical systems as Y2K\ncompliant, which at date of this report had not been independently validated and verified. Thus,\nwhile the Commission has completed certain key phases in the Y2K conversion cycle, the most\nintensive and time-consuming component of the process as defined by GAO has not been initiated.\nLacking the required testing, verification and validation by an independent party, and subsequent\nimplementation (integration and acceptance testing to ensure that all converted or replaced system\ncomponents perform adequately in a heterogeneous operating environment), the Chairman lacks\nbasis to assure the President that FCC mission critical systems will be operational on January 1,\n2000.\n\nIn guidelines promulgated by the GAO, a framework and checklist for agencies to self-assess their\nreadiness to achieve Year 2000 compliance was established. In their framework, the GAO defined\na five phased approach supported by program and project management. Each phase, listed below,\nrepresents a major Year 2000 program activity or segment.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Awareness. Define the Year 2000 problem and gain executive level support and sponsorship.\n Establish a Year 2000 program team and develop an overall strategy. Ensure that everyone in\n the organization is fully aware of the issue.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Assessment. Assess the Year 2000 impact on the enterprise. Identify core business areas and\n processes. Inventory and analyze systems supporting the core business areas, and prioritize\n their conversion or replacement. Develop contingency plans to handle data exchange issues,\n lack of data, and bad data. Identify and secure the necessary resources\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Renovation. Convert, repair, replace, or eliminate selected platforms, applications, databases,\n and utilities. Modify interfaces.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Validation. Test, verify, and validate converted or replaced platforms, applications, databases,\n and utilities. Test the performance, functionality, and integration of converted or replaced\n platforms, applications, databases, utilities, and interfaces in an operational environment.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Implement. Install converted or replaced platforms, applications, databases, utilities, and\n interfaces. Execute contingency plans, if necessary.\n\nThe GAO schedule specified this timeline:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 January 1996 through December 1996 for Awareness,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 November 1996 through August 1997 for Assessment,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 May 1997 through August 1998 for Renovation, and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 July 1998 through December 1999 for Validation and Implementation\n\nThe FCC has not met the last two benchmark dates and is currently in the process of initial activity\nin the validation phase which, per GAO, should have commenced in the July, 1998 timeframe.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cThe OMB has also taken a focal role in overseeing the progress of agencies in addressing the\ndifficulties related to the Year 2000. On January 20, 1998, OMB established a target date of\nSeptember 1998, for completion of renovation and January 1999 for completion of validation.\nOMB Memorandum No. 98-02 further stated that March 1999 should be the end date for\nimplementing repairs to all systems, both mission critical and non-mission critical.\n\nInternal to the FCC, the CIO established April 1999 as the internal benchmark dates for initiating\nthe Commission\xe2\x80\x99s validation process. The FCC\xe2\x80\x99s focused its Year 2000 validation efforts on\nestablishing and implementing an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) test facility.\nThe IV&V test facility is a computer system that is image of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s IT computer\nhardware and software platform. Using this test facility, an independent party, with no ownership\nor bias to the system(s) being validated, will assess and test all FCC mission critical systems for\nYear 2000 for Y2K compliance. If the IV&V testing has disclosed any Year 2000 problems, then\nthe FCC can implement repairs. IV&V is an industry best practice and is critical to ensure\neffective code renovation. The IV&V process acts as a Year 2000 quality control procedure\nindependently assuring that the systems reviewed are Year 2000 compliant.\n\nThe FCC has not met this schedule. Appendix B contains a graphical representation including the\nGAO and OMB benchmark dates and where the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Year 2000 Program converges with\nthese external deadlines. This chart clearly illustrates that the FCC has and continues to be\ndelinquent in all phases of theY2K process. If the Commission is able to complete all phases of\ntheir Y2K process for all mission critical systems by midnight, December 31, 1999, the delays in\nmeeting benchmark dates will be a moot point. However, there is no assurance that this will be\naccomplished. With less then six months to go until January 1, 2000, the OIG has not been\npresented with documentation that would support institutional preparedness for the Y2K event.\nFurthermore, the OIG has not been presented with evidence that business continuity and\ncontingency planning is adequate for the majority of mission critical systems to ensure that the\nCommission will be able to perform core mission critical functions should a Y2K disruption occur.\n\nStatus of Internal Y2K Efforts\n\nBased upon detailed interviews with Y2K program officials, the OIG can report that the FCC is\nactively engaged in a fast track approach to address the Y2K problem. The Commission has now\nengaged a contractor to conduct IV&V and has accelerated its business continuity and contingency\nplanning. However, the OIG has not been provided with adequate assurance to report to\nmanagement that these efforts will be executed in a timely and effective manner necessary to\nminimize potential Y2K disruptions.\n\nThe IV&V activities are behind schedule. The project was to begin in April but as of June 9, 1999,\nonly eight systems are scheduled for IV&V testing. The initial IV&V milestone, the Vulnerability\nAssessment Report, has been completed on only three systems. Further progress is stalled because\nthe ITC does not have a critical software tool, Winrunner, to be used to conduct IV&V testing.\nWinrunner was not purchased because the money for it was not available until recently. The other\n21 of the remaining 24 mission critical systems included within the scope of the audit have not\nbeen scheduled for IV&V processing. Presently, ITC is awarding a contract to a second vendor to\nperform the remaining IV&V testing.\n\n\n 7\n\x0cThe time remaining to perform IV&V testing is short. The average time allocated to perform\nIV&V testing, based on benchmarks for the eight scheduled systems, is seventy-three days, from\nstart to finish. Projecting that it takes an average of seventy-three days to do an IV&V at the FCC,\nall IV&Vs must start by mid September to end by November 30, 1999. This would allow thirty-\none days for repair and re-testing. Also, if IV&V testing identifies Y2K problems, the\nCommission does not have a documented procedure for repair of the problems and re-testing.\n\nAnother critical aspect of the problem is that several mission critical systems are not ready for\nIV&V testing as they are still being renovated. Renovation is the third step in the five-step process\ndefined on page 6 of this report. Our April 1999 interviews found seven systems to be in the\nrenovation phase, which means they are currently being repaired to be Y2K compliant or replaced\nby new, Y2K compliant, applications. These systems are also not ready for IV&V testing and\ninclude:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Cable Operator Registration & Cable Antenna Licensing systems (COPS/CARS)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 National Call Center, Integrated Voice Response (NCC/ IVR)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Universal Licensing System (ULS)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Collections\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Co-Channel Serial Licensing System (COSER)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Informal Complaints\n\nCOPS/CARS maintains a database of cable radio service and antenna relay licensing subsystems.\nThe NCC/IVR system provides automatic phone assistance on regulatory matters to the public\ncalling the FCC. ULS will manage all two million Wireless Telecommunication Bureau licenses.\nThe Collections system accounts for all fees paid to the Commission for licensing and other\nservices. COSER coordinates licensing between the United States and Canada. Informal\nComplaints captures and tracks informal complaints received by the Cable Services Bureau.\n\nShould FCC mission critical systems not maintain functionality on January 1, 2000, the FCC will\nhave to invoke its BCCP for affected systems. As of June 1, 1999, only one of the twenty-nine\nmission critical systems, Auctions, has a documented BCCP that can be used for a Year 2000\noutage. Auctions is the WTB computer system that was developed to expedite simultaneous\nmultiple round on-line bidding for spectrum licenses. Auctions is also the only mission critical\nsystem that has successfully tested its BCCP. All other mission critical systems either had no\nBCCP or indicated they had an informal, anecdotal, untested backup BCCP.\n\nThe FCC Y2K Program Office is developing a high level Commission wide BCCP. We have\nreviewed a preliminary draft of this plan. With appropriate Bureau and Office input, it can be\nadequate as a master Commission wide blueprint. However, details on the specific activities\nneeded to support specific mission critical systems were not available. Also, BCCPs should be\ntested to disclose problems before use.\n\n\n As documented in the Executive Summary, the loss of any of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s self-identified\nmission critical information systems could have an adverse effect on the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s ability to\nconduct business. Examples include:\n\n\n 8\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Licensing records for such critical national infrastructure services as police, emergency\n medical, fire, and coast and ground radio may be inaccessible because completion of their\n Y2K activities is not scheduled until after January 1, 2000.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Key financial applications, such as the Collections system, may be unavailable.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The COPS system \xe2\x80\x9cwhich protects aircraft and other safety-of life services from potential\n interference by cable systems sharing the same frequencies \xe2\x80\x9d may be inaccessible.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Equipment Authorization System which \xe2\x80\x9cdirectly impacts the ability of an applicant to\n market equipment submitted for equipment authorization\xe2\x80\x9d could be inaccessible. The\n Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) states that \xe2\x80\x9csome estimates have placed the\n value of getting a product to market at up to $1,000,000 a day.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nRecommendations:\n\nWe recommend that:\n\n1. The CIO prepare all mission critical systems for IV&V testing by:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewing the progress of those systems not ready for IV&V testing,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Establishing a realistic time line for IV&V readiness, and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Applying additional resources where needed, to ready the system for IV&V testing.\n\nIf this is not practical for a specific mission critical system, then the CIO, with appropriate Bureau\nand Office input, should develop an alternative for Year 2000 processing and include it in its\nBCCP.\n\nManagement Response:\n\nThe OMD concurs with the recommendations. A time line is enclosed (in Appendix F).\nAdditional resources have been assigned. System BCCPs for all mission critical systems are being\ndeveloped.\n\n2. The CIO should increase focus on the IV&V process by:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Awarding a contract for IV&V testing for the remaining mission critical systems. If this\n cannot be quickly completed, then extend the contract of the present IV&V contractor, if\n possible.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Acquiring all needed IV&V testing tools,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Instituting a realistic IV&V project plan for all mission critical systems in a timely manner.\n\nManagement Response:\n\nThe OMD concurs with the recommendations. A second contract has been awarded and all\nmission critical systems are under contract. All IV&V testing tools have been purchased. Any\ndelay in obtaining/providing tools was not for lack of funding but from the need to wait until all\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0ctrainees were on board. A project plan reflecting both contracts and their staffing has been\nprepared.\n\n3. The CIO, with appropriate Bureau and Office input, develop and test BCCPs both for all\nmission critical applications and for a Commission wide outage. We recommend that the FCC\nY2K Program office review the progress made and apply resources where needed, to develop and\ntest effective BCCPs for a Year 2000 outage.\n\nManagement Response:\n\nThe OMD concurs with the recommendations. The OMD is developing a BCCP that covers full\nand partial outages for Commission infrastructure and support services such as electricity. The\nBureaus/Offices are preparing BCCPs covering all mission critical systems and core business\nprocesses. The OMD and Bureaus/Offices will work together to develop and test these plans.\n\nSubsequent Actions\n\nSubsequent to the issuance of the draft report, the Office of the Managing Director has taken\nsignificant steps towards addressing our recommendations. All necessary IV&V contracts have\nbeen awarded and the requisite IV&V testing tools have been procured. The Information\nTechnology Center has begun IV&V testing and developed a schedule to complete the IV&V\nprocess by October 15, 1999. OMD published an agency level BCCP and is currently developing\nplans for its mission critical systems. Please see the OMD response at Appendix F for additional\ndetails.\n\nThe OIG will continue to monitor and support efforts being undertaken by the Office of the\nManaging Director and the Information Technology Center to address potential Year 2000\nproblems.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c APPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 GLOSSARY\n\n\nAwareness Define the Year 2000 problem and gain executive level support and\n sponsorship. Establish a Year 2000 program team and develop an\n overall strategy. Ensure that everyone in the organization is fully aware\n of the issue.\n\nAssessment Assess the Year 2000 impact on the enterprise. Identify core business\n areas and processes. Inventory and analyze systems supporting the\n core business areas and prioritize their conversion or replacement.\n Develop contingency plans to handle data exchange issues, lack of\n data, and bad data. Identify and secure the necessary resources.\n\nBCCP Business Continuity and Contingency Plan\n\nImplementation Implement, converted or replaced platforms, applications, databases,\n utilities, and interfaces. Implement data exchange contingency plans,\n if necessary\n\nIndependent Verification The process to separately assess the effectiveness of renovation and\nand Validation (IV&V) validation efforts conducted by a party with no ownership in or bias to\n the system(s) being certified.\n\nLegacy Systems Older computer systems, frequently using obsolete computer hardware\n or software. Legacy systems often have Year 2000 problems.\n\nMission Critical Systems supporting a core business activity or process.\nInformation Systems\n\nRenovation Convert, repair, replace, or eliminate selected platforms, applications,\n databases, and utilities. Modify interfaces.\n\nValidation Test, verify, and validate converted or replaced platforms, applications,\n databases, and utilities. Test the performance, functionality, and\n integration of converted or replaced platforms, applications, databases,\n utilities, and interfaces in an operational environment.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c Appendix B. Year 2000 Timeline\n\n\n GAO Year 2000 Timeline OMB New FCC\n Milestones System\n J\n F Status\n M\n A\n M Awareness\n 1996 J\n J\n A\n S\n O\n N\n D\n J\n F\n M\n A Assessment 2 Systems\n M\n 1997 J\n J\n A\n S\n O\n N\n D\n J Renovatio 6 Systems *\n F\n M\n n\n A\n M\n 1998 J\n J\n A\n Completion of\n S Renovation\n O\n 21 FCC Systems\n N\n D\n Completion of Awaiting\n J Validation Validation\n F\n M\n Validation Completion of\n A & Implementation\n M Implementation FCC Starts\n 1999 J\n J Validation\n A\n S\n O\n N\n D\n\n\n\n\n* Some Systems being combined into ULS have a Y2K completion date after January 1, 2000.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Appendix C\n Mission Critical Systems\n\n\n\nThe Federal Communications Commission Year 2000 Program Office has designated twenty-nine\nCommission systems as being mission critical. This Appendix lists all the Commission mission\ncritical systems, identified by number, that were contained in documentation provided by the\nCommission\xe2\x80\x99s Year 2000 program office.\n\nA table that indicated current progress towards meeting Year 2000 goals is provided in summation\nof the progress.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cCable Services Bureau Systems\n\n1. Cops/Cars - Cable Operator Registration & Cable Antenna Licensing systems\n\n Customer Service Representative (CSR) Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n Point of Contact (POC) Mike Lance (418-7014)\n\n Cable Operations: This database is used by the cable radio service licensing subsystems\n other than Cable Relay. These subsystems maintain cable station license information, print\n station authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. and perform ad-hoc reporting of\n the administrative and community data, technical data, performance test results and cable\n system specific data captured on the database..\n\n Antenna Relay: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for Antenna Relay stations.\n\nCompliance and Information Bureau Systems\n\n2. IVR - Integrated Voice Response and Fax Server at National Call Center (NCC)\n\n CSR Dave Woodson (418-2666)\n POCs: Charles Engle (418-1137)\n Bruce Tripp (418-1138)\n James Ham (717-338-2620)\n\n Integrated Voice Response: This system automatically answers questions on specific license\n status, part 90 and Amateur Licensing from outside (public) callers to the CIB National Call Center.\n This system greatly reduces the number of telephone calls from the public that must be handled by\n FCC staff.\n\nInternational Bureau Systems\n\n3. IBFS \xe2\x80\x93 International Bureau Filing System\n\n CSR Mary Jane Smith (418-0593)\n POC Jacki Ponti (418-1137)\n\n International Bureau Filing System: IBFS is a consolidated licensing system that tracks\n application processing of applications in the International Bureau (IB). IBFS consolidates\n licensing systems that provide authorization of service for international fixed public radio,\n Section 214 filings, domestic and international earth stations, geostationary space stations,\n low-earth-orbit space stations, direct broadcast satellites, international broadcast stations,\n and recognized private operating agencies.\n\n\n4. COSER - CoChannel Serial licensing between US & Canada\n\n CSR Mary Jane Smith (418-0593)\n\n 14\n\x0c POC John Mount (418-0578)\n\n CoChannel Serial Coordination: This system supports CoChannel Serial co-ordination\n between Industry Canada (the Canadian counter-part to the FCC) and the Commission.\n There are two subsystems; one to coordinate southbound licensing; the other to coordinate\n northbound licensing. (The Southbound system is being redeveloped by Inter-national\n Bureau, and will be made Year 2000 compliant.)\n\n\nMass Media Bureau Systems\n\n5-7 CDBS \xe2\x80\x93 Common Data Base System\n\n CSR Rick Kanner (418-1830)\n COTR Ron Novak (418-2622)\n\n Common Data Base System is the Mass Media Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s central data repository\n containing the following databases.\n\n 5. AM Engineering database. This system captures technical information relevant to AM\n broadcast stations.\n\n 6. FM Engineering database. This system captures technical information relevant to FM\n broadcast stations.\n\n 7. TV Engineering database. This system captures technical information relevant to\n television broadcast stations.\n\n\n8. MDS - Multipoint/Multichannel Distribution System/Instructional Television\n Fixed System database\n\n CSR Rick Kanner (418-1830)\n COTR Ron Novak (418-2622)\n\n Multipoint/Multichannel Distribution System/Instructional Television Fixed System\n database: This system contains technical and licensing information relevant to\n MMDS/ITFS station licenses.\n\n9. EEO \xe2\x80\x93 Equal Employment Opportunity database\n\n CSR Rick Kanner (418-1830)\n COTR Ron Novak (418-2622)\n\n Cable EEO database: This system captures technical information relevant to Equal\n Employment Opportunity programs of cable television stations.\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c The EEO system has been removed from the list of mission critical systems.\n\n Multipoint/Multichannel Distribution System EEO database: This system captures\n technical information relevant to Equal Employment Opportunity programs of MMDS\n licensees.\n\n10. Children\xe2\x80\x99s Television database\n\n CSR Rick Kanner (418-1830)\n COTR Tom Wilcheck (418-2654)\n\n Children\xe2\x80\x99s Television database: This system captures and reports data submitted by\n licensees, relevant to television programming for children.\n\nOffice of Engineering and Technology Systems\n\n11. EAS (Lab) \xe2\x80\x93 Equipment Authorization System\n\n CSR Mary Jane Smith (418-0593)\n POC George Tannahill (301-725-1585 x207)\n\n Equipment Authorization: This system tracks equipment approval prior to its being\n introduced into the market, and captures administrative and technical data relevant to that\n equipment.\n\n\n12. ELS - Experimental Licensing System\n\n CSR Mary Jane Smith (418-0593)\n POC George Tannahill (301-725-1585 x207)\n\n Experimental Licensing: This system captures data submitted by licensees, relevant to\n experimentation conducted prior to proposing changes to FCC spectrum management rules,\n and permits limited capability to make preliminary market studies to determine new\n product viability. Failure of this system would make spectrum analysis more difficult, and\n inconvenience public entities that are conducting research into improved technologies.\n\n\nOffice of Managing Director - Systems\n\n13. Collections\n\n CSR Mary Jane Smith (418-0593)\n COTR Lynwood Jenkins (418-1935)\n\n Collections: This system accounts for all fees paid to the Commission for licensing and\n other services.\n\n\n 16\n\x0cOPA Systems\n\n14 ECFS - Electronic Comments Filing System\n\n CSR Rick Kanner (418-1830)\n COTR Sheryl Segal (418-0265)\n\n ECFS: Electronic Comments Filing System is a Web-based system that accepts electronic\n comments on all proceedings with docket numbers or rulemaking numbers. Comments\n received on paper are scanned into the system. ECFS also provides access to the data for\n online review and printing.\n\n\nCommon Carrier Bureau Systems\n\n15. Informal Complaints\n\n CSR Dave Woodson (418-2666)\n COTR Sharon Lee (418-2800)\n\n Informal Complaints: This system tracks and assists in the resolution of informal\n (consumer) complaints.\n\n16. Tariffs\n\n CSR Dave Woodson (418-2666)\n COTR Todd Mitchell (418-1555)\n\n Tariffs: This system allows local exchange carriers to submit and access federal tariffs and\n associated documents electronically via the Internet.\n\n17. ARMIS\n\n CSR Dave Woodson (418-2666)\n POC David Ahn (418-0853)\n\n ARMIS Paperless Environment: The Automated Reporting Management Information\n System collects financial and operational data from the largest carriers. ARMIS consists of\n ten public reports.\n\nWireless Telecommunications Bureau Systems\n\n18. Av \xe2\x80\x93 Aviation (now in ULS)\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c Aviation: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for aviation radio licenses.\n\n19. Mar \xe2\x80\x93 Marine (Planned for inclusion in ULS)\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n POC John Chudovan / Judy Dunlop\n\n Marine: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for Marine radio licenses.\n\n20. RC \xe2\x80\x93 Restricted & Commercial (Planned for inclusion in ULS)\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n POC John Chudovan / Judy Dunlop\n\n Restricted & Commercial: This licensing system maintains station license information,\n prints station authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for Restricted and\n Commercial radio licenses. The system is composed of two subsystems, the Restricted\n Radiotelephone Operator Permit and the Commercial Radio Operator Licenses.\n\n\n21. Amateur (Planned for inclusion in ULS)\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n POC John Chudovan / Judy Dunlop\n\n Amateur: This licensing system maintains amateur license information, prints amateur\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for Amateur radio licenses.\n\n22. Auctions\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n COTR John Giuli (418-1221)\n\n Auctions: This system manages online bidding on spectrum licenses and accounts for all\n auction activity.\n\n23. Cell - Cellular (now in ULS)\n\n Cellular: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for cellular radio stations.\n\n\n24. Paging (now in ULS)\n Paging: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for paging system licenses.\n\n 18\n\x0c25. PCS \xe2\x80\x93 Personal Communications Services (now in ULS)\n\n Personal Communications Services: This licensing system maintains station license\n information, prints station authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for Personal\n Communications Service licenses.\n\n26. CG - Coast and Ground (Planned for inclusion in ULS)\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n POC John Chudovan / Judy Dunlop\n\n Coast and Ground: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints\n station authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for coast and ground radio\n licenses.\n\n27. LM \xe2\x80\x93 Land Mobile (Planned for inclusion in ULS) (Includes IVDS)\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n POC John Chudovan / Judy Dunlop\n\n Land Mobile: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for land mobile radio licenses.\n\n\n28. MW \xe2\x80\x93 Microwave (Planned for inclusion in ULS)\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n POC John Chudovan / Judy Dunlop\n\n Microwave: This licensing system maintains station license information, prints station\n authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for Microwave radio licenses.\n\n29. IVDS \xe2\x80\x93 Interactive Video Data Service\n\n Interactive Video Data Service: This licensing system maintains station license\n information, prints station authorizations, Public Notices of license grants, etc. for\n Interactive Video Data Service licenses with in the 218/219Mhz range.\n\n30. ULS - Universal Licensing System\n\n CSR Kimberly Hancher (418-2023)\n System POC Ira Keltz (418-0616)\n\n Universal Licensing: This system is currently being developed to incorporate older all\n WTB licensing systems and permit electronic filing and viewing of licenses.\n\n\n 19\n\x0c Appendix D\n Table of Year 2000 Status for Mission Critical Systems\n\nSYSTEM Progress Scheduled for IV&V\nCable Services Bureau Systems\n1. Cops/Cars Renovation\nCompliance and Information Bureau Systems\n2. Integrated Voice Response Renovation\nInternational Bureau Systems\n3. International Bureau Filing System Renovation Yes\n4. Co-Channel Serial licensing between US & Canada Assessment/\n Renovation\nMass Media Bureau Systems\nConsolidated Data Base System (CDBS) Renovation\n 5. AM Engineering Database See CDBS\n 6. FM Engineering Database See CDBS\n 7. TV Engineering Database See CDBS\n8. Multipoint/Multichannel Distribution System Renovation\n9. Equal Employment Opportunity Database No longer\n mission critical\n10. Children\xe2\x80\x99s Television Database Verification\nOffice of Engineering and Technology Systems\n11. Equipment Authorization System Verification Yes\n12. Experimental Licensing System Verification Yes\nOffice of Managing Director Systems\n13. Collections Renovation Yes\nOPA Systems\n14. Electronic Comments Filing System Verification\nCommon Carrier Bureau Systems\n15. Informal Complaints Assessment/\n Renovation\n16. Tariffs Verification\n17. Armis Verification Yes\nWireless Telecommunications Bureau Systems\n18. Aviation See ULS\n19. Marine Renovation\n20. Restricted & Commercial Renovation\n21. Amateur Renovation\n22. Auctions Verification Yes\n23. Cellular See ULS\n24. Paging See ULS\n25. Personal Communications Services See ULS\n26. Coast and Ground Renovation\n27. Land Mobile Renovation\n28. Microwave Renovation\n29. Interactive Video Data Service Renovation\n30. ULS - Universal Licensing System Renovation/\n Verification\n\n\n 20\n\x0c Appendix F\n\nManagement Response\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION\n MEMORANDUM\n\nDATE: July 28, 1999\n\nFROM: Andrew S. Fishel\n Managing Director\n\nTO: H. Walker Feaster III\n Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: Draft Report on the Review of the Federal Communications Commission Year 2000\n Program\n\nThe Office of the Managing Director has completed a review of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Draft\nAudit of the Federal Communication Commission Year 2000 Program dated June 28, 1999 and\nagrees to implement the findings and recommendations provided. Set forth below, are the\nrecommendations and management\xe2\x80\x99s responses.\n\nA. Recommendations:\n\n 1. The CIO prepare all mission critical systems for IV&V testing by:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewing the progress of those systems not ready for IV&V testing\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establishing a realistic time line for IV&V readiness, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Applying additional resources where needed, to ready the system for IV&V testing.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop a specific system BCCP with Bureau/Office input for any system that can\n not be ready for IV&V on time.\n\n Management Response: The OMD concurs with the recommendations. A time line is\n enclosed. Additional resources have been assigned. System BCCPs for all mission critical\n systems are being developed.\n\n 2. The CIO should increase focus on the IV&V process by:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Awarding a contract for IV&V testing for all remaining mission critical systems\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Acquire all needed IV&V testing tools.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Instituting a realistic IV&V project plan for all mission critical systems in a timely\n manner.\n\n Management Response: The OMD concurs with the recommendations. A second contract\n has been awarded and all mission critical systems are under contract. All IV&V testing\n tools have been purchased. Any delay in obtaining/providing tools was not for lack of\n funding but from the need to wait until all trainees were on board. A project plan reflecting\n both contracts and their staffing has been prepared.\n\n 3. The CIO, with appropriate Bureau and Office input, develop and test BCCPs for all\n mission critical applications and for a Commission wide outage and that the FCC Y2K\n\n\n 22\n\x0c Program office review the progress made and apply resources where needed, to develop\n and test effective BCCPs for a Year 2000 outage.\n\n Management Response: The OMD concurs with the recommendations. The OMD is\n developing a BCCP that covers full and partial outages for Commission infrastructure and\n support services such as electricity. The Bureaus/Offices are preparing BCCPs covering all\n mission critical systems and core business processes. The OMD and Bureaus/Offices will\n work together to develop and test these plans.\n\n\nB. Other Issues Identified:\n\n1. The report states that the FCC has established an Independent Verification and Validation\n(IV&V) process but that the FCC has lagged behind the GAO guidelines. The IG points out that,\nas of June 1, 1999, the FCC had established only one of two targeted IV&V contracts and that only\neight (8) of twenty-nine (29) mission critical systems were covered by contract.\nManagement Response: At the time of the report, the second contract was imminent and has now\nbeen awarded. Work is proceeding under both contracts and all appropriate mission critical\nsystems are covered by the contracts. An IV&V schedule covering all appropriate mission critical\nsystems is enclosed. The Contractor\xe2\x80\x99s schedule calls for the completion of testing for all systems\nby October 1, 1999. Funding for the IV&V effort was not available until December 1998. Initial\nFCC efforts to complete the contractual process for the first IV&V contract were unsuccessful as\nthe FCC encountered difficulty in finding truly independent contractors that would provide the\nthorough testing required under acceptable conditions. The first contract effort resulted in no\nbidders responding. A second effort obtained one bidder. At the same time, a key piece of the\nFCC automation environment (PowerBuilder) required for true IV&V was not available from the\nvendor in certified form until June 1999. The report lists six systems as being not ready for IV&V.\nFour of those systems are now ready for IV&V with a fifth having completed simple programming\nand soon to be ready. The last system is scheduled to be completed in August and will be tested in\nSeptember.\n\n2. The report points out that the FCC, as of June 1, 1999, did not have BCCPs for twenty-nine (29)\nof thirty (30) mission critical systems.\n\nManagement Response: A draft of the agency level BCCP was provided to the IG at the time this\nreport was presented to OMD in June 1999. Work on preparing local contingency plans covering\nall appropriate mission critical systems is well underway towards the August 15, 1999 target date.\nAdditional targets have been established calling for completion of local contingency plan training\nby September 15, 1999 and completion of plan testing by October 15, 1999. The FCC has\nconcentrated on remedial actions first and the above schedule will provide the FCC tested\ncontingency plans reasonably in advance of January 1, 2000.\n\n3. The report states that replaced/renovated systems had not been tested for specific conditions\nrelated to the Year 2000 and that the Commission accepted and continues to accept new and\nrenovated systems without ensuring that specific Year 2000 testing has been performed.\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cManagement Response: In response, it should be pointed out that the basic FCC contract under\nwhich renovation/replacement programming takes place requires Year 2000 compliant design and\nprogramming. The appropriate FCC staff responsible for developing renovated/replacement\nsoftware were made aware of the design and programming issues related to Year 2000. FCC staff\nwere aware that complete Y2K compliance testing could not be carried out until the new network\nand associated certified systems and application software (e. g. PowerBuilder) were available.\nStaff did ensure that both the design and delivered programming provided four-digit year storage\nand manipulation.\n\n4. The report states that the FCC has failed to complete renovation, validation and implementation\nof all mission critical systems and that FCC reports misstated the completion of the validation\nphase.\n\nManagement Response: We have acknowledged and have reported to the OMB that several\nsystems are late principally due to late funding. The FCC reported that all systems recorded as\nhaving completed the validation phase had in fact completed only internal validation. Each report\nalso clearly stated FCC plans and progress towards the establishment of the required independent\nvalidation process. The FCC was not unique in reporting validation in this way and OMB has\nstated that the reporting was understood and acceptable. The FCC received spending authority for\nY2K purposes late in FY 98 and in December 1999. Much of the scheduling of\nreplacement/renovation work on FCC mission critical systems has been controlled by the\navailability of funding.\n\n5. The report provides several \xe2\x80\x9cexamples\xe2\x80\x9d of the impact of unavailable mission critical systems.\n\nManagement Response: The impact of any mission critical system being unavailable should neither\nbe understated nor overstated. The examples provided appear to be overstated. The summary\nstates that licensing records for police, emergency medical, fire and coast and ground may be\ninaccessible and that key financial systems, such as Collections, may be unavailable. The FCC, in\npreparing local BCCPs, is now considering specific actions that would best mitigate the loss of\naccess to vital data for these and other systems. A third example of overstatement is in the\nreference to the COPS system which \xe2\x80\x9cprotects aircraft and other safety of life frequencies from\npotential interference.\xe2\x80\x9d The licensing process prevents a new station from going on the air that\nmight interfere with aircraft etc. If the license process were to be unavailable on January 1, 2000,\nthat would not result in sudden new interference.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cENCLOSURE\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c 07/26/99\n\nBur/Off System Contract # Begin Date End Date\n\nCable COALS 2 09/20/99 10/01/99\nCCB Armis 1 07/26/99 08/20/99\n Informal Complaints 1 07/26/99 08/20/99\n Tariffs 2 07/26/99 08/13/99\nCIB Integrated Voice Response 1 08/23/99 09/03/99\nIB IBFS 1 08/23/99 09/03/99\n Coser 2 09/13/99 09/24/99\nMMB CDBS 2 09/20/99 10/01/99\n MDS 2 08/16/99 08/27/99\n Childrens TV 2 08/16/99 08/27/99\nOET Equipment Auth 1 08/23/99 09/03/99\n Experimental 1 09/07/99 09/17/99\nOMD Collections 1 09/07/99 09/17/99\n Fines & Forfs 1 09/07/99 09/17/99\n Nortridge 1 09/20/99 10/01/99\nOPA ECFS 1 09/20/99 10/01/99\nWTB Auctions 1 09/20/99 10/01/99\n ULS 2 09/13/99 09/24/99\n Land Mobile 2 09/07/99 09/17/99\n Marine 2 08/30/99 09/10/99\n Commercial Operators 2 09/07/99 09/17/99\n Coast & Ground 2 08/30/99 09/10/99\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c'


text:
Osoba podľa § 8 zákona finančné limity, pravidlá a postupy platné od 26. septembra 2018 | Elena
 Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie upozorňuje na novelu zákona o verejnom obstarávaní zavedenú zák. č. 269/2018 Z. z. o zabezpečovaní kvality vysokoškolského vzdelávania a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 343/2015 Z. z. o verejnom obstarávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov, účinnú od 26. 9. 2018, ktorou došlo k vypusteniu ods. 2 a 4 z ustanovenia § 8.
 V dôsledku novej právnej úpravy osoba podľa § 8 ods. 2 podľa predpisov účinných predo dňom účinnosti tohto zákona, t. j. osoba, ktorá nie je verejným obstarávateľom ani obstarávateľom a verejný obstarávateľ jej poskytne časť finančných prostriedkov predstavujúcich percentuálny podiel rovnaký alebo nižší ako 50% finančných prostriedkov na dodanie tovaru, uskutočnenie stavebných prác a poskytnutie služieb, už nie je povinná postupovať pri ich zabezpečení v intenciách zákona o verejnom obstarávaní.
 Zároveň je osoba podľa § 8 ods. 2 podľa predpisov účinných predo dňom účinnosti tohto zákona oprávnená zrušiť postup zadávania zákazky, pri ktorom bola výzva na predkladanie ponúk odoslaná na uverejnenie predo dňom účinnosti tohto zákona alebo postup zadávania zákazky, ktorý preukázateľne začal predo dňom účinnosti tohto zákona. Uvedené však neplatí, ak bolo úspešnému uchádzačovi alebo úspešným uchádzačom odoslané oznámenie, že jeho ponuka alebo jeho ponuky sa prijímajú. Ustanovenia § 57 nie sú týmto dotknuté (§ 187d zákona o verejnom obstarávaní).
 V súvislosti s uvedenými zmenami úrad vydal nové všeobecné metodické usmernenie č. 7-2018 týkajúce sa postupu osoby podľa § 8, ktoré nájdete tu


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 8.12.2012
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 379/13
 Wniosek o wydanie orzeczenia w trybie prejudycjalnym złożony przez Raad van State (Niderlandy) w dniu 27 sierpnia 2012 r. — A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren, druga strona postępowania: College van Gedeputeerde Staaten van Zuid-Holland
 (Sprawa C-396/12)
 2012/C 379/21
 Język postępowania: niderlandzki
 Sąd odsyłający
 Raad van State
 Strony w postępowaniu głównym
 Strona wnosząca odwołanie: A. M. van der Ham, A. H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren
 Druga strona postępowania: College van Gedeputeerde Staaten van Zuid-Holland
 Pytania prejudycjalne
 1)
 Jak należy rozumieć pojęcie „umyślnej niezgodności” w art. 51 ust. 1 rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1698/2005 z dnia 20 września 2005 r. w sprawie wsparcia rozwoju obszarów wiejskich przez Europejski Fundusz Rolny na rzecz Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich (EFRROW) (1) w brzmieniu zmienionym rozporządzeniem Rady (WE) nr 74/2009 z dnia 19 stycznia 2009 r. (2), w art. 23 rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 1975/2006 z dnia 7 grudnia 2006 r. ustanawiającego szczegółowe zasady stosowania rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1698/2005 (3) oraz w art. 67 ust. 1 rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 796/2004 z dnia 21 kwietnia 2004 r. ustanawiającego szczegółowe zasady wdrażania wzajemnej zgodności, modulacji oraz zintegrowanego systemu administracji i kontroli przewidzianych w rozporządzeniu Rady (WE) nr 1782/2003 ustanawiającego wspólne zasady dla systemów pomocy bezpośredniej w zakresie wspólnej polityki rolnej oraz określonych systemów wsparcia dla rolników (4); czy taka niezgodność ma miejsce już wtedy, gdy występuje naruszenie długoterminowo istniejącej polityki w rozumieniu art. 8 ust. 2 lit. c) krajowych wytycznych dotyczących ram prawnych dla wzajemnej zgodności w ramach wspólnej polityki rolnej?
 2)
 Czy prawu Unii sprzeciwia się okoliczność, że w państwie członkowskim przyjmuje się, iż ma miejsce „umyślna” niezgodność z przepisem w rozumieniu wymienionych rozporządzeń, jeśli występuje jedna lub więcej następujących okoliczności:
 a)
 przy opisie danej wzajemnej zgodności, która nie została spełniona, przyjmuje się umyślność;
 b)
 dana wzajemna zgodność jest złożona;
 c)
 chodzi o długoterminowo istniejącą politykę;
 d)
 ma miejsce działanie lub świadome zaniechanie;
 e)
 rolnik uprzednio został powiadomiony o brakach w spełnieniu odpowiedniej wzajemnej zgodności;
 f)
 na podstawie stopnia niespełnienia wzajemnej zgodności należy przyjąć umyślność?
 3)
 Czy beneficjentowi pomocy można przypisać „umyślną niezgodność”, jeżeli osoba trzecia wykonuje prace na zlecenie beneficjenta?
 (1) Dz.U. L 277, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 30, s. 100.
 (3) Dz.U. L 368, s. 74.
 (4) Dz.U. L 141, s. 18.


text:
 16.1.2010
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 11/26
 Pirmās instances tiesas 2009. gada 17. novembra spriedums — Apollo Group/ITSB (“THINKING AHEAD”)
 (Lieta T-473/08) (1)
 (Kopienas preču zīme - Kopienas vārdiskas preču zīmes “THINKING AHEAD” reģistrācijas pieteikums - Absolūts atteikuma pamatojums - Atšķirtspējas neesamība - Regulas (EK) Nr. 40/94 7. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkts (tagad - Regulas (EK) Nr. 207/2009 7. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkts))
 2010/C 11/51
 Tiesvedības valoda — angļu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja:
 Apollo Group, Inc., Fēniksa, (Phoenix, Arizona,Amerikas Savienotās Valstis) (pārstāvji — A. Link un A. Jaeger-Lenz, avocats)
 Atbildētājs: Iekšējā tirgus saskaņošanas birojs (preču zīmes, paraugi un modeļi) (pārstāvis — J. Crespo Carrillo)
 Priekšmets
 Prasība par ITSB Apelāciju otrās padomes 2008. gada 14. augusta lēmumu lietā R 728/2008-2 par pieteikumu reģistrēt vārdisku apzīmējumu “THINKING AHEAD” kā Kopienas preču zīmi.
 Rezolutīvā daļa:
 1)
 prasību noraidīt;
 2)
 Apollo Group, Inc. atlīdzina tiesāšanās izdevumus.
 (1) OV C 6, 10.01.2009.


text:
 18.5.2013
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 141/10
 Ennakkoratkaisupyyntö, jonka Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Tšekin tasavalta) on esittänyt 29.1.2013 — MF 7 a.s. v. MAFRA, a.s.
 (Asia C-49/13)
 2013/C 141/16
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: tšekki
 Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin
 Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví
 Pääasian asianosaiset
 Hakija: MF 7 a.s.
 Vastapuoli: MAFRA, a.s.
 Ennakkoratkaisukysymykset
 1)
 Onko direktiivin (1) 3 artiklan 2 kohdan d alakohtaa tulkittava siten, että arvioitaessa, onko tavaramerkin hakija toiminut vilpittömässä mielessä, huomioon otetaan ainoastaan olosuhteet, jotka ovat ilmenneet ennen tavaramerkkihakemuksen jättämispäivää tai tavaramerkkihakemuksen jättämispäivänä, vai voidaanko myös hakemuksen jättämispäivän jälkeen ilmenneisiin olosuhteisiin vedota näyttönä hakijan vilpittömästä mielestä?
 2)
 Onko yhdistetyissä asioissa C-414/99–C-416/99 (2) annettua tuomiota sovellettava yleisesti kaikissa asioissa, joissa on selvitettävä, onko tavaramerkin haltija hyväksynyt toiminnan, joka voi johtaa sen yksinoikeuksien heikkenemiseen tai rajoittumiseen?
 3)
 Voidaanko myöhemmän tavaramerkin rekisteröimisen hakijan vilpitön mieli päätellä siitä seikasta, että aiemman tavaramerkin haltija on tehnyt ensin mainitun kanssa sopimuksia, joiden nojalla tavaramerkin haltija antoi luvan sellaisen säännöllisesti ilmestyvän painetun materiaalin julkaisemiseen, jonka kuvaus oli samankaltainen kuin myöhemmin haetun tavaramerkin, salli myöhemmän tavaramerkin rekisteröimisen hakijan rekisteröidä mainitun painetun materiaalin ja tarjosi tälle hakijalle tukea julkaisussa, vaikka kyseessä olevilla sopimuksilla ei nimenomaisesti määrätty immateriaalioikeuksista?
 4)
 Mikäli myös tavaramerkkihakemuksen jättämisen jälkeen ilmenneillä olosuhteilla voi olla merkitystä tavaramerkin hakijan vilpittömän mielen arvioimisessa, voidaanko hakijan vilpitön mieli vaihtoehtoisesti päätellä siitä seikasta, että aiemman tavaramerkin haltija on tietoisesti hyväksynyt riidanalaisen tavaramerkin olemassaolon ainakin kymmenen vuoden ajan?
 (1) Jäsenvaltioiden tavaramerkkilainsäädännön lähentämisestä (kodifioitu toisinto) 22.10.2008 annettu Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2008/95/EY (EUVL L 299, s. 25).
 (2) Kok., s. I-08691.