>> cgi did not. >> okay. mr. slavitt, when were you made aware of the decision that the website would not allow browsing and would require registration first? >> we were made aware of this until the final days prior to the launch. >> being what they? >> i believe it was within 10 days. >> do you know who made that decision? >> i don't know. we don't know when the decision was made and we don't know why the decision was made. >> and are you aware that it was someone from cms, hhs, administration, white house, any idea of? >> we don't know. >> ms. campbell, did you inform anyone at cms or hhs of any concerns you have that this requires more testing? more time was needed because the system wasn't going to be working? >> more testing because of the anonymous shopping, or -- >> both. let's start with a shopping issue, but the whole system. did you inform anybody at cms or hhs that you need more time because the system wasn't working? >> once again, the portion that cgi was responsible for went through its unit testing

. >> did cgi contain this through competitive bidding? >> yes, sir. >> to the provide other technology services to the federal government yes or no? >> yes. >> did cgi conduct testing of the software for the marketplace web site prior to october 1st when relaunching took place yes or no? >> yes. >> was cgi responsible for testing the function of the integrity of healthcare.gov? >> no. >> if not, who was? >> cms. semidey you believe that it is unusual for such a large project to experience some problems after it launches, yes or no? >> no. >> despite the initial problems with the website, have consumers still been able to enroll in the health insurance plans yes or no? >> yes. >> do you believe that progress has been made getting the website to run as intended since launched three weeks ago, yes or no? >> yes. >> these questions are for mr. lau of serco. is serco responsible for handling and processing paper applications for health insurance in the marketplace? >> yes, sir. >> with all of the problems with of the web site, many consumers a

the contractor hired, cgi. for $46 million, cgi was given six years to get all diabetes patients records and treatment plans on one easily accessible computer network. what happened? the government waited, and waited and waited. missed deadline after missed deadline came and went until finally ontario said enough, you're fired. >> they were so late in delivering that it was not worth it anymore in the entire contract got cancelled. >> reporter: a member of ontario's prevention parliament and committee was stunned. the contractor cgi knew ontario's government would be looking over its shoulder. the government had even written in contract clauses specifically outlining that if the e health diabetes registry did not work, cgi would not get paid and cgi she says in her words bombed. >> the six-year contract, two years in got canceled. nothing got done and they did not get paid. there was nothing to show for it. >> reporter: cgi would not comment to cnn what happen in canada but with the less than stellar track reco

now, in august, gci told cms in their -- >> cgi. >> i'm sorry, cgi, thank you. on august 9th that there was not enough time in the schedule to conduct adequate performance testing. did that make its way all the way to you and do you think there was adequate time? >> sir, clearly as i've said before, we did not adequately do end-to-end testing. the products were not locked and loaded into the system until the third week in september. each of the component parts was tested, validated, skbaindependy validated. >> all those worked, right? they told us their individual modules tested and med specification. do you concur with that analysis based on what you know. >> i do concur with the testing that was done. >> so it really was the end-to-end which is why some of us thought we should delay until it could be done right to avoid this very collapse that now is upon us, and i realize not everybody agreed with that. the second piece gets back to "the washington post" which i understand you haven't had a chance to read but the four pinnochios about the president repeatedly

now in august, gci told cms in their report -- >> cgi. >> i'm sorry, cgi, thank you. august 9th there was not enough time in the schedule to conduct adequate performance testing. did that make its way all the way to you, and do you think there was adequate time? >> sir, clearly, as i've said before, we did not adequately do end-to-end testing. the products were not locked and loaded into the system until the third week in september. each of the component parts was tested, validated, independently val validated. >> i'm sorry. all those worked, they told us last week their individual modules were tested and met specification, do you concur with that analysis, based on what you know? >> i do concur with the testing, yes. >> it really was end to end, which is why some of us thought we should delay until it could be done right to avoid this very collapse that now is upon us. i realize not everybody agreed with that. the second piece gets back to "the washington post," which you haven't had a chance to read this morning, but the four pinocchios about the president repeatedl

>> zero from cgi. >> pardon me? >> we have zero access to the database. >> zero, okay. >> i believe zero is also the answer for qssi. >> misspellecy? >> we have no access to the servers. >> about 2,000 people. >> 2,000 people have access to the database? >> through the key entry of the applications. >> okay. under hippa regs, no one is expected to have direct access to that database. under the current technology infrastructure, how many separate servers or virtual servers in the cloud are being used to host and store data for healthcare.gov? miss campbell, mr. slavitt, i think that's primarily to you. >> i don't have the exact number. >> all right. we're going to jump away and sort of analyze what's been going on in this hearing. our tech expert, laurie segall has been doing a fabulous job with this. we heard cgi, senior vice president say the problems will be fixed and the system will be okay. do you believe her? >> you know, i will say when i'm -- i'm very excited they asked about that 5 million lines of code need

arm of a canadian company, cgi federal. cgi's business with the u.s. government grew dramatically during the bush administration. then on october 4, 2011, it was awarded a $55.7 million contract for computer systems design services to build the website with a ceiling price tag at $94 million. by may of this year, the contract shows cgi had spent $196 million, and the ceiling price tag had soared to $292 million. >> is this escalation in price due to the fact of the quick turnaround time to get this website up and running? are there technical glitches and bugs that are driving the cost up? >> reporter: the government said the cost went up as more states joined the federal exchange. for weeks cgi has declined to comment to nbc news about the troubled rollout. last year the canadian province fired cgi and canceled its $46 million contract, saying the company failed to build an online registry. cgi tells nbc news it's in talks to resolve the issues. they say the problems with the website are serious. >> it doesn't work. it's supposed to give you a quote. i

she was unable to confirm that, the vice president of cgi. he also suggested that you ought to be able to tell the people you're working for the truth about what is going on with the system, which she claims they did. the suggestion there is that it didn't matter. let's bring in monica crowley, radio talk show host and fox news contributor as she watches this along with us today. monica, what do you make of it so far? >> it is pretty stunning, martha. what you're seeing from these four major obamacare contractors is epic buck-passing. they're all pointing the figures at everybody else saying don't look at us. we took our responsibilities seriously but we weren't able to see it through. why? because the client, and the client in this case issthe federal government, it is the obama administration, it is hhs, they weren't giving us any direction. they were providing no oversight. they were giving us no guidance. that's what they're saying. ultimately the buck does stop with the president of the united states. this is his major legacy issue. this

there is a cgi report mid august identifying some problems. between august and september that was the function of cgi to fix those problems, that is why you test. >> in the "washington post" october 21 there was an article that said about a month before the exchange opened a testing group of 10 insurers urged officials not to launch the site because it was riddled with problems. were you aware in september they requested a delay in the exchange? sebelius: i was not aware they requested a delay. everyone was concerned there were risks and likely to be problems with a brand-new integrated insurance system. i don't think anyone ever estimated the degree to which we have had problems in the system and certainly the contracting partners did not. >> and did hss respond to the recommendations? sebelius: i was not in the meeting, i don't know who they talk to. i will get back to you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. green. >> madam secretary, thank you for taking time to be here today. i represent parts of east and north houston harris co

now in august, gci told cms in their report -- >> cgi. >> i'm sorry. cgi. thank you. that august 9th there was not enough time in the schedule to conduct adequate performance testing. did that make its way all the way to you and do you think there was adequate time? >> sir, clearly as i've said before, we did not adequately do end to end testing. the products were not locked and loaded into the system until the third week in september. each of the component parts -- >> right. >> -- was test and independently validated. >> i'm sorry. all of those work, though right? they told us last week that their individual modules were tested and met specification. do you concur with that? >> i do concur with the testing that was done. >> it was the end to end. which is why some of us thought we should delay the very collapse that now is upon us. the second piece here gets back to the "washington post" which i realize you haven't had a chance to read this morning, but the four points about the president repeatedly saying that if you have a plan you'll keep a plan. we all heard that

>> no, there is a hit over at cgi. like one of the previous commentators said, the whole contracting space has exploded over the past couple of decades, particularly the last five or ten years. it's hyper competitive. there are just a lot of firms willing and able to step in and basically step in the shoes that cgi is currently in. they're going to do whatever it takes to recover. it's really their only option. i'm sure they'll put everyone they have on this. >> they're staying with us. when we come back we'll talk again about how the government gets the job done through the use of contractors, particularly when it comes to national security. more with our guests in a moment. you're watching inside story. >> how old are you? >> nine. >> how old were you when you first started working out here? >> seven. >> fault lines how children are hired by us agriculture to help put food on america's tables. >> in any other industry kids need to be 16 years old to be able to work. you don't see any of that in agriculture. >> they d

on page 8 of what i've handed you, cgi recommended that cgi and cms have a review board to agree on which issues can technically be solved and which should politically be solved. was such a review board convened? >> sir, i cannot tell you. i've never seen this document and i'm not aware of this recommendation. >> but cgi is responsible for the website, correct? >> cgi is responsible for the application. >> for the application of this. >> yes, sir. >> does it surprise you that in a slide show that they gave october 11th they acknowledged political reasons for trying to solve this? >> sir, i've never seen this document. i have no idea what that means. did you ask cgi when they came last week? >> can you find out for us if such a review board was done and if any decisions were made on political reasons or on the other reasons and find that out for us? >> sir, that question needs to go to cgi. but i can ask them to report to you. >> if you would do that. >> this is their document, if i understand it, this is not our document. >> yes. would you turn to page 9. and it states challenges on page

campbell, did cgi its tests before the systems went live? >> yes, it did. >> my understanding is he felt the system was ready to go on october 1. >> that is correct. >> neither you nor anyone else or made ale thought recommendation not to go forward on october 1 because you did not think the system was ready. is that correct? >> that is a correct apron. >> mr. slavitt. >> i'd refer back to my earlier answer. we did not make recommendations. >> we did not make recommendations. >> we did not either. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> i recognize the vice chair of the full committee, mrs. blackburn from tennessee. >> thank you for your testimony. i'd like each of you to submit in writing for me how much you have been paid to date and then how much you're being paid on retainer or either to clear up and so if you'll submit that to us for the record, that would be wonderful. hipaa compliance, were you all trained in hipaa compliance prior to beginning your contract? i'll just go right down the line, ms. campbell. >> yes. >> mr. slavitt. >> ye

cgi tells nbc news it's in talks to resolve the issues. they say the problems with the website are serious. >> it doesn't work. it's supposed to give you a quote. it doesn't do that. >> reporter: lou chung owns a software and data base company. >> if this was your company, what would you say? >> i would be embarrassed and i would use language with my development team that couldn't be on the air. this is ridiculous. >> reporter: a health care analyst it says cgi was forced to deal with late design changes ordered by the government. >> it would back up their ability to test to see whether everything was functioning properly. >> reporter: last june a gao report forshadowed these problems, warning the webte might not be ready to go live in part because of all the last-minute design changes. and cgi has helped establish some state web sites that have actually gotten pretty good reviews. brian? >> tom costello in our newsroom tonight. tom, thanks. speaking of health, health is in the news tonight. we mentioned this earlier. it's specifically abo

>> chairman, from a cgi perspective, our portion of the application worked as designed. people have been able to enroll, not at the pace and not at the the experience, but the end to end testing was the responsibility of cms. our portion of the system is what we testified in terms of what was ready to go live, but it was not our decision to go live. >> it was not your decision to go live? >> it was cms' decision, not our decision one way or the other. >> did you recommend to cm is that perhaps they weren't ready and they might delay the date. >> it was not our position to do so. >> so you chose not to share those thoughts with them, is that right? >> let me clarify my statement. cms had the ultimate decision for a live or no-go decision, not cgi. we were not in a position. we are there to support our client. it is not our position to tell our client whether they should go live or not go live. >> so who at cms were you sharing that information with or those decisionses? anyone in particular? >> once again, chairman. it was not -- i did not have nor did drshgs gi have an o

on page 8 of what i've handed you, cgi recommended that cgi and cms have a review board to agree on which issues can technically be solved and which should politically be solved. was such a review board convened? >> i cannot tell you. i've never seen this document and not aware of this recommendation. >> but cgi is responsible for the website, correct? >> it's responsible for the application. >> does surprise you that in the slide show that they gave in october 11th, they acknowledged political reasons for -- >> sir, i've never seen this document. i have no idea what that means. did you ask cgi when they came -- >> can you find out for us if such a review board was done and if any decisions were made on political reasons or on the other reasons and find that out for us? >> sir, that question needs to go to cgi. but i can ask them to report to you. >> well, if you would do that. >> this is their document, if i understand. this is not our document. >> would you turn to page 9 of that document, please. and it states challenges on page 9 in this presentation by cgi. and it says under challeng

cgi federal is fully committed to its partnership with the with cms. our priority is for american to have a positive experience. we dedicate the best experts to optimize our portion of the federal exchange. let me describe our role in the federal exchange. the exchange is comprised of six systems and involves 55 contractors, including cgi federal. 5 government agencies, 36 states, and more than 300 insurers, all coming together in healthcare.gov. cms awarded cgi federal its portion of the federal exchange, an application called the federally facilitated marketplace. specifically, the ffm provides functionality for eligibility and enrollment, plan management, and financial management. cms serves as the systems integrator, having ultimate response ability for performance of the exchange. it is important to understand the complexity of cgi federal's work on the exchange. the ffm is a software application that combines a web portal, a transaction processor, and business analytics to help americans determine the eligibility for insurance, apply for subsidie

cgi perspective, our portion of the application worked as designed. people have been able to enroll, not at the pace or the experience we would have liked. but the end to end testing with the responsibility of cms. our portion of the system is what we testify in terms of what was ready to go live. it was not our decision to go livel. -- go live. >> it was not your decision? >> it with cms' decision. >> did you ever recommend to cms that it was not ready? >> it was not our position to do so. let me clarify -- cms had the ultimate decision for live or no go, not cgi. we were not in a position. we were there to support our client. it is not a position to tell our client to go live or not the live.ot go >> pool at were you sharing -- who atsions with cms were you sharing those decisions with? >> i did not have a position to make that decision. >> who at cms made the decision to go live? >> is a body of individuals. >> mr. slavitt? >> we had a limited view of the weirety of the project, were confident in the ability of the data services hub where we spent

is the government faults or cgi or everybody? >> there is plenty of blame to go around but that the government is the quarterback. great. i of the big football fan if the football drops the ball then it is the quarterback's fault but they handed often in the running back decides to drop the ball that is not the fault of the quarterback he handed it to cd-i they have known it was not ready they were asked about that today the hearing and ms. campbell said she did not believe there would be problems she said it was not her job because her job to build the web site is a dish -- shouldn't she have told them we cannot handle the value -- volume like valentine's day? she never did. her company bears a lot of responsibility for this. >> you said there were political connections. explained. >> is there is some of the liberal party and the white house and democrats generally in the united states but the premier in charge has resigned them with the into private life but the premier of ontario used as a political consultant says this aidman

cgi globally is worth more than $10 million. their main office is up in canada, and the american offices are around the beltway. their president, donna ryan, visited the white house six times before cgi was selected for this massive undertaking, other cgi executives went to the white hoas well. based on our brain rooms look at white house visitor logs. gretchen. >> good investigation. thank you so much. >>> he is a man of faith. with little need for worldly possessions. but one thing pope francis possesses may surprise you. when you hear what the pontiff is auctioning off for a good cause. that's next. >> can you believe this story? pope francis auctioning off -- what might it be? his robe? nope. his harley. for a worthy cause. the pope had a harley? who knew. turns out the harley davidson company presented the motorcycle and the biker jacket the pontiff in june. the proceeds will help rennovate a youth hostel and soup kitchen. didn't want to ride that thing around vatican city? come on. >> a family vacation takes a turn when a

i am here to reinforce cgi federal?s ongoing commitment to the success of healthcare.gov. 5 government agencies, 36 states, and more than 300 insurers, all coming together in healthcare.gov. cms awarded cgi federal its portion of the federal exchange, an application called the federally facilitated marketplace. specifically, the ffm provides functionality for eligibility and enrollment, plan management, and financial management. cms serves as the systems integrator, having ultimate response ability for performance of the exchange. it is important to understand the complexity of cgi federal's work on the exchange. the ffm is a software application that combines a web portal, a transaction processor, and business analytics to help americans determine the eligibility for insurance, apply for subsidies, shop for health plans, and enroll in plans. the technology works in real- time with analytic systems developed by other contractors. large scale data repositories, and health plans for more than 300 insurers. the federal exc

on its contract and remains committed to the success of the marketplace. >> reporter: cgi is based in dan but its u.s. subsidiary has hundreds of federal wcontracts for website construction. the medicare experience could be part of the problem. government officials and contractors use the medicare signup process to estimate how many people would simultaneously apply for obama care. they got that number wrong. this is the former u.s. chief technology officer and helped plan the launch of obama care in the first two years. >> what i believe they had done is built in the capacity to support about 60,000 people at the exact same time, signing up for an account. now, that's a lot of people at the exact same time. what they actually got was over a quarter of a million people at the exact same time. >> should they have seen a quarter of a million people? >> i think there's going to be a lot of monday morning quarterbacking about what we could do better. >> cgi is not commenting on the story. they say the website is working faster and signed up more people every day. still two weeks into the

scarily in the hot seat, cgi federal. the company was handed $54 million to implement the federal health care exchange before bringing its incompetence stateside, cgi had a track record of burning up taxpayer money in canada. so why on earth did the president choose this company to handle the health care exchange? joining us now to figure it all out, we have adrian of "the toronto star." trusted sec ceo david contend i d thank to both of you for being with us. adrian, let's start with you because you covered this company in your neck of the woods. how bad is it and what was the fallout? >> what is actually incredible in your introduction you mentioned american taxpayers are on the hook for $54 million. i would suggest you guys got off quite lightly as far as money goes. when it came to our federal gun registry here in canada, the former fedliberal federal government hired cgi for the long gun registry in canada. it was complete disaster. it cost taxpayers nearly $2.7 billion when all was said and done. cgi's contract was

on page 8 of what i have handed you cgi recommended that cgi and cms have a review board to agree on which issues can technically be solved and which should politically be solved. was such a review board convened? >> sir, i can not tell you, i have never seen this document and i'm not aware of this recommendation. >> but cgi is responsible for the website, correct? >> cgi is responsible for the application. >> for the application of this. >> yes, sir. >> does it surprise you in the slide show they gave october 11th they acknowledged political reasons for -- about this. >> sir, i have never seen this document. i have no idea what that means. did you ask cgi when they came last week? >> can you find out for us if such a review board was done and if any decisions were made on political reasons or any other reasons and find that out for us? >> sir, i, that question needs to go to cgi but i can, i can is them to report to you. >> well, if you would do that. >> this is their document if i understand it. this is not our document. >> yes. would you turn to page 9 of that document please. it

one company, cgi, blames another company, qssi, for the big problem. qssi blames the federal government, the centers of medicare and medicaid services for putting in a late change that created a bottleneck. this is clearly a political issue. also very technical. and it's something a congressional committee, as a whole, isn't equipped to handle very well without a ton of staff to work on. so you get a lot of people veering off, asking policy questions to companies here to talk about a technology breakdown. that's even evident when asking very, very simple questions about the testing of this product before it went online. listen. >> that the system -- that our portion of the system, the cgi was responsible for, that our functionality worked. >> and it didn't. >> yes. >> it did not in the end result, correct? >> when it became part of integrated end-to-end system. >> you knew it was going to be integrated. there are many subcontractors than wasn't a surprise. do you have something to say about the testing? >> let me be clear about our role in testing. our

arm of a canadian company cgi federal. cgi's business with the government grew dramatically during the bush administration. on october 4th, 2011, it was awarded $55.7 million for computer systems design services to build the website with a ceiling price tag of $94 million. by may of this year the contract shows cgi had spent $196 million. the ceiling price tag had soared to $292 million. >> is this escalation in price due to the fact of the quick turnaround time to get this up and running? are there technical glitches and bugs driving the cost p? >> the government said the cost went up as more states joined the federal exchange. for weeks cgi has declined a comment to nbc news about the rollout. last week the canadian province of ontario canceled cgi and canceled its $46 million contract accusing the company of failing to build a registry online. they tell us they are in talk to resolve the issue. tech experts say the problem with the u.s. website are serious. >> it doesn't work. it's supposed to get you a quote. it doesn'

when discussing matters with cgi. although cgi officials were not able to identify who within the administration made the decision to disable the anonymous shopping feature, evidence is mounting that political considerations motivated the decision. i would like to ask a few questions about this. first, did cgi provide a briefing to the staff last week? myself, but ihere believe that meeting occurred. >> to the best of your knowledge? >> i think it did, but i would have to confirm. i am not close enough to the situation. >> who do you answer to within your organization? >> the president of cgi. >> do you know she'll participated question? >> i don't know for sure. allegations correct, did they order you to mask the sticker shock of obamacare by disabling this anonymous shopper function? >> let me answer two things, one i don't believe that members of cgi actually made those statements directly in that manner. i think they may have been taken out of context. i would have to get back to you with confirmation of that. to

cgi contractor estimates it would take another two months. the health department won't commit to a timetable but you can be sure members of congress will put to that question, kathleen sebelius when she testifies before the house next week. bertha coombs, "nightly business report", washington. >>> our next guest has suggestions on how to fix those problems. he's dr. zeek emanuel. he's now vice provoe at the university of pennsylvania. i talked with him a short while ago and he began talking about what went wrong with the government's program from get-go. >> the first thing is that the regulations and guidance necessary to specify what the sites would look like so contractors can build them came in late. there wasn't a ceo with a lot of mana managing experience, enough it to understand the system running it, instead, the people who run medicare who know how to pay bills and know how to issue regulations, but have never built an e commerce site were entrusted to build this, which didn't make sense and to integrate the different components. i'd

what about cgi, the main contractor here? have you had any experience with their track record in the past? i have never worked with them directly, but i can tell you from watching the hearing yesterday that from a technologist point of view, ot questions from congress -- both the questions from congress were absurd and not particularly helpful, and the answers from the contractors were also just demonstrably ignorant of the technology they were managing. so you have these bizarre exchanges where a member of the presidentking of cgi federal about code inside of the website that isn't even being displayed and isn't even relevant to the user, and the vp of cgi federal not even recognizing it is not displayed and not relevant to the user. really baffling set of exchanges. it is like watching my one-year- old argue with my cat. issuet about this whole -- many of these contractors insisting on developing proprietary software for many projects like this, what is the impact of that not only on cost, but on the ability to hold contrac

should cgi make good? >> right, they recontracted, keep in mine, cgi is not only contractor there are a lot, they singled out cgi, imnot too sure why. there were others with pivotal rolls, problem was not necessarily with the contractors, who were involved in pieces but problem of putting it together. other problem they got started very late. i think they were pressed at the end because they started late. gerri: one more e-mail in. charlotte from iowa. how obamacare will affect seniors that receive social security now, my social security is not high, i'm afraid of it taking all my money to purchase obamacare. ed? >> well, she does not have to worry about having to buy anything, nothing changes in terms of that. the plans north about seniors -- plans are not about senior citizens that is medicare program, there will be some effects down the road but she does not have to worry about buying something. gerri: a ton of questions from people on medicare about how it impacts short-term ulong-term, a lot of concer

>> was cgi involved with the testing? >> we do test with a set of insurers to make sure obviously before we go live that our system is working appropriately. >> did they recommend you weren't ready to go live? >> they did not to my knowledge. to my knowledge the insurers did not recommend that directly to cgi. >> do you know if they recommended it to h.h.s.? >> i don't know. >> did they share that information with you? >> not that i'm aware of. >> c.g.i. is not aware this test took place? >> i said to my knowledge i'm provided the insurers feedback. >> did y'all discover errors or problems with the system? >> purpose of tests, the 2345eu67 of test is it's there to find the issue that is you have so you can have an opportunity to correct those issues. >> because there are still reports in the week before the start, there are still reports in news that insurers are saying there is missing data, incorrect data in applications and missing data still taking place s. that still taking place? >> when we receive what we call they

. >> reporter: but a former aide of medicare and medicaid says cgi was forced to deal with late design changes ordered by the government. >> it would back up the ability to test, to see if everything was functioning properly. >> reporter: last june a report foreshadowed these problems, warning that the website may not be ready to go live in part because of all the ordered changes. and there are state web sites that actually got pretty good reviews. brian? >> tom, thanks. >>> speaking of health, health is in the news tonight. we mentioned this earlier. it's about specifically the danger in the air all around us. the world health organization is warning tonight that air pollution is indeed a major cause of cancer. our report from our chief medical editor dr. nancy

>> i do. >> is there any penalty to qssi or cgi for not delivering on what they promised? >> well, i think the -- as you can see, we have a obligated funds for a contract. we certainly have not expended all those funds. and we expect not only the cms team but our contractor partners to fulfill their obligations. >> but if they fail to fulfill their obligations, i don't know what's in the contract, is there a penalty? >> there isn't a built-in penalty, but i can tell you that paying for work that isn't complete is not something that we will do. qssi, as you know, as taken on a new role as integrator of the hub that they built and have in operation, is working extremely well, not only for the federal exchanges but all the state-based markets are using the hub and that's why we had confidence in their ability to actually take this next role on and coordinate the activities moving forward, which have to be driven with a very clear set of outcomes, very accountable timelines and deadlines, and they will be helping to manage that process. >> on the issue of security, there was a

not cgi. >> all of the concerns that we had which were mostly related to testing and the inability to get as much testing as we would have liked, we expressed all of those concerns and risks to cms throughout the project. >> so the clear message, they were rushed and cms did not test the system end to end before the launch. during the hearing, we also saw republicans air concerns about whether the websites comply with hipaa, the law that protects the privacy of your medical information. congressman joe barton, republican from texas, pointed out a line in the website source code that says when establishing an account quote, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication of any data transmitted or stored on this information system. barton laid into the cgi representative over that. >> are you aware this was in the source code, yes or no? >> yes. >> you were aware. okay. do you think that's hipaa compliant? how can that be? you know it's not hipaa compliant. admit it. you're under oath. >> sir, that is cms' decision to make. >> that testy exchange may have just

and on page 8 of what i've handed you, cgi recommended that cgi and cms have a review board to agree on which issues can technically be solved and which should politically be solved. was such a review board convened? >> sir, i cannot tell you. i've never seen this document, and i'm not aware of this recommendation. >> but cgi is responsible for the website, correct? >> cgi is responsible for the application. >> for the application. >> yes, sir. >> does it surprise you that in a slideshow that they gave in october 11th, they acknowledged political reasons for -- >> sir, again, i've never seen this document. i have no idea what that means. did you ask cgi when they came last week? >> can you find out for us if such a review board was done, and if any decisions were made on political reasons or on the other reasons and find that out for us? >> sir, that question needs to go to cgi, but i can -- i can ask them to report to you. >> well, if you would do that -- >> this is their document, if i understand it, this is not our document. >> would you turn to page 9 of that document, please? an

now in august, gci told cms in their report -- >> cgi. >> i'm sorry, cgi, thank you. august 9th there was not enough time in the schedule to conduct adequate performance testing. did that make its way all the way to you, and do you think there was adequate time? >> sir, clearly, as i've said before, we did not adequately do end-to-end testing. the products were not locked and loaded into the system until the third week in september. each of the component parts was tested, validated, independently val validated. >> i'm sorry. all those worked, they told us last week their individual modules were tested and met specification, do you concur with that analysis, based on what you know? >> i do concur with the testing, yes. >> it really was end to end, which is why some of us thought we should delay until it could be done right to avoid this very collapse that now is upon us. i realize not everybody agreed with that. the second piece gets back to "the washington post," which you haven't had a chance to read this morning, but the four pinocchios about the president repeatedl

it does not provide health care so there's really no excuse for this company cgi not to have done this appropriately so everything has to fall directly on their shoulders because everyone there is basically a subcontractor of cgi. the question of privacy, doctor, which led to a relatively heated exchange and i want to play that portion. take a look. >> yes. >> i am trying to tell you that the problem here -- >> disrespecting american citizens -- >> it is a legitimate concern of this committee. >> hipaa doesn't apply. there's no health information in the process. you were asked about your address, your date of birth and you are not asked health information so why are we going down this path? because you are trying to scare people so they don't apply and so therefore the legislation gets delayed. >> is that what they're doing, intimidation, doctor, or scare tactic about a potential privacy issue basically of creating a problem that doesn't really exist? >> that is a pure, republican smoke screen, once again, intimidation factors from wanting people to get involved. 51% of americans still

arm of a canada government, cgi federal. their business grew dramatically during the bush administration. it was awarded a contract for computer systems design services to build the website. with a ceiling price tag of $94 million. by may of this year the contract showed cgi had spent $196 million and the ceiling price tag had soared to $292 million. >> the "wall street journal" reports the marketplace is generating flawed data for the insurance companies everything from duplicate enrollments and missing data fields to problems with eligibleilty and spouses reported as children. one reason for the problems the site was built on ten year old technology that will need constant fixes and updates over the course over the next six months. i'm going to go to gene robinson. i was going to go to joe. i got to tell you -- >> gees. >> the damage to the country over the past three weeks far supercedes a website not working. you know how these things work. this is a story that can fly. >> deservedly so. this really is a disastrous launc

if you look at its website, cgi will tell you it does technological services for everything from banks to insurance companies to most agencies of government and of course the healthcare sector. >> this is an incredibly successful company. it has done very well on the stock market. it is well regarded. it is considered to be one of canada's showcase technology companies. >> reporter: but the current problems in the u.s. aren't the first time it has faced challenges with governments and health care. ontario last year terminated a $46 million contract to build a diabetes days ta base. >> the corporation couldn't connect its systems with the systems that exist in the public health care system here, which serves a population of 13 million people, and it's a big system, and whether it was the fault of the company, cgi, or the fault of the public health system is in legal debate. >> reporter: most large technology projects involving government or business or both end in some sort of failures, and experts say that's because of complexity and systems are not tested adequately. >> this is a high