TechStat Review

A TechStat review is a face-to-face accountability session between federal agency leadership, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and IT program stakeholders designed to identify root causes of poor performance on troubled federal IT investments and develop binding corrective action plans.

What is a TechStat Review?

Launched by OMB's Federal CIO in 2010 as part of the IT Dashboard initiative, TechStat reviews bring high-level attention to federal IT programs that are significantly over cost, behind schedule, or failing to deliver promised capabilities. The reviews are modeled on a "Stat" approach, data-driven performance management sessions with executive accountability.

A TechStat session is typically triggered when an investment's IT Dashboard rating falls below an acceptable level, when a milestone review surfaces systemic problems, or when agency leadership or OMB identifies a program requiring intervention. Participants typically include the agency Deputy Secretary or CIO, the program manager, and OMB representatives. The session reviews the program's status data, technical approach, governance structure, and corrective action history.

Outcomes of a TechStat review include a formal action memo with specific corrective actions, responsible owners, and completion dates; potential restructuring of the program or contract; reduction of the investment portfolio (reducing scope or capabilities to restore achievability); or, in severe cases, recommendation for termination. Agency CIOs must implement TechStat findings and report progress.

For contractors on programs that enter TechStat review, the process creates significant pressure. Contracts may be restructured, ceilings reduced, or performance requirements revised. Demonstrating a credible recovery plan, with realistic schedule, budget, and risk mitigation, is the contractor's best response to a TechStat trigger.

Why TechStat reviews matter for government contractors

Being on a program that enters TechStat review is a reputational risk. Even when the program's problems stem from government-side requirements churn or inadequate funding, contractors whose names appear in TechStat findings face scrutiny in future source selections. Proactive EVMS reporting, early escalation of issues, and documented corrective actions help contractors demonstrate accountability rather than culpability.

Example

A federal agency's $200M case management modernization program receives a "Red" rating on the OMB IT Dashboard due to a 14-month schedule slip and $30M cost growth. OMB triggers a TechStat review. The agency CIO, program manager, and prime contractor's program director attend the session. The TechStat results in a directive to reduce scope by 40%, restructure the contract as a series of short delivery increments, and implement biweekly progress reporting. The contractor restructures its staffing plan and submits a revised integrated master schedule within 30 days.

Frequently Asked Questions

What triggers a TechStat review?

Common triggers include IT Dashboard ratings below "yellow" (satisfactory), significant cost overruns or schedule slips beyond established thresholds, repeated failure to achieve quarterly milestones, and Congressional or inspector general inquiry about a program's performance.

How often are TechStat reviews conducted?

TechStat reviews are event-driven, not periodic. OMB conducted dozens of TechStat sessions in the initiative's early years (2010-2015). The methodology has evolved and some agencies conduct their own internal TechStat-style reviews independently of OMB.

Are TechStat findings public?

OMB publishes summary information about TechStat sessions and outcomes on the federal IT Dashboard. Detailed findings and corrective action memos may be released through FOIA requests, though deliberative process exemptions protect some internal deliberation records.

How can contractors prepare for the possibility of a TechStat review?

Contractors should maintain robust EVMS data, document issues and risk mitigations contemporaneously, escalate problems to the government proactively rather than waiting for schedule slips to become visible in dashboard data, and be prepared to present a credible recovery plan with achievable milestones on short notice.