WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

The CDM (Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation) program is run by DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and is authorized to protect federal computer networks from cyber threats. The GSA (General Services Administration) manages the contracting process on behalf of DHS.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

Federal government computer networks face constant cyberattacks and security threats that could expose sensitive data or disrupt critical government services. The CDM (Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation) program works to detect and respond to those threats in real time across federal agencies.

WHO BENEFITS?

Federal agencies and their employees benefit from stronger protection of government computer systems and data. American citizens also benefit indirectly, since these systems hold sensitive personal information and support services that millions of people rely on.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

At over $630 million, this is a very large award to a single contractor, which raises questions about competition and whether taxpayers are getting the best value. Because the contract type is listed as unknown, it is unclear how costs are controlled or how performance will be measured.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

If this contract were cancelled, federal agencies could lose ongoing cybersecurity monitoring and support, potentially leaving government networks more vulnerable to attacks during any gap in coverage. Finding a replacement contractor quickly would be difficult given the specialized nature of the work.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •Cybersecurity threats to federal networks are real and growing, making continuous monitoring a genuine national security need.
• •Using a bridge contract keeps existing protections in place without a dangerous gap in coverage while a new long-term deal is arranged.
• •Booz Allen Hamilton has an established track record working on federal cybersecurity programs, which may reduce the time and cost of getting up to speed.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •Awarding more than $630 million to a single firm without a clearly documented contract type raises concerns about competition and cost transparency.
• •Bridge contracts are meant to be temporary, but they can sometimes extend indefinitely, delaying the competitive process that could save taxpayer money.
• •Relying heavily on outside contractors for core government cybersecurity functions means critical expertise may not be built up within the government itself.