[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE: GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NEW UNDER SECRETARY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-270 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi,
Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California,
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JANE HARMAN, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin
Islands
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
VACANCY PETER T. KING, New York
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
TOM DAVIS, Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff
Director & General Counsel
Todd Gee, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff
Director
_________________________________________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS,AND OVERSIGHT
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY,
Pennsylvania, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
VACANCY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex
Officio) MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
TOM DAVIS, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
PETER T. KING, New York (Ex
Officio)
Jeff Greene, Director & Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Michael Russell, Senior Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 1
The Honorable Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management,
Investigations, and Oversight.................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 3
The Honorable Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York.......................................... 16
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress From
the District of Columbia....................................... 18
Witness
The Honorable Paul A. Schneider, Under Secretary for Management,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Appendix
Additional Questions and Responses:
Responses from Hon. Paul A. Schneider.......................... 23
THE DHS'S MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NEW UNDER
SECRETARY
----------
Thursday, March 1, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations,
and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney, Clarke, Norton, Thompson,
and Rogers.
Mr. Carney. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee on Management
Investigations Oversight will come to order.
Under Secretary Schneider, I would like to thank you for
agreeing to appear before us today. Today is actually the first
time I am officially wielding a gavel. Although I met you
informally a few weeks ago, I really appreciated that meeting.
Although you and I have each served our country in various
capacities in the past, including in the Navy--thank you for
your service, by the way--we are both relatively new to the
world of the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, we were
both sworn in on our roles on the same day. Congratulations
again on your new job.
I think I speak for many in this subcommittee when I say
that I have been shocked with several issues still afflicting
DHS at the management level. These include hardships affecting
recruitment efforts, wasteful procurement issues, like
Deepwater, troubling failed efforts to unify multiple
information systems and dizzying staff departures for the
private sector, and the list goes on.
It seems as if you have inherited quite a beleaguered
directorate over at DHS. In fact, I am sure many of my
colleagues are wondering why someone of your outstanding
background would want to take on such a job. We appreciate you
doing it, certainly.
From what I understand, your predecessor left with, at
best, mixed reviews for both inside and outside DHS.
During our conversation a few weeks back, I found your
candor very welcome. I walked away from the meeting looking
forward to a productive relationship between you, your staff
and this subcommittee, as well as the overall committee.
I hope we can continue with such frank dialogue. It was
heartening to hear you discuss a number of the management
shortcomings that now fall under your purview. That said, it is
very common for people to run when they hear the word,
``oversight,'' but I think you know from your prior service
that with the right people, both solving problems and
overseeing those solutions, the best interests of the taxpayers
and the government are both addressed.
This subcommittee looks forward to hearing from you about
what you have already proposed and begun to implement at DHS,
as well as how your solutions are fairing. In the coming
months, the subcommittee is planning a number of hearings where
the input of your directorate will be invaluable.
I look forward to continued cooperation between your
organization and the MI&O Subcommittee.
I hear from Pennsylvanians who have not only suffered from
the so-called 100-year floods, a couple of them, actually, in
the last couple years, they again suffered at the hands of a
lethargic federal response to each of the floods. They expect
oversight into these issues and others.
I am sure you are already hearing from individual offices
along the southern border about the SBInet and from coastal
communities about Deepwater. While many in Congress see these
as regional problems, these are issues that affect all of us.
Our dialogue and cooperation is essential to ensuring that DHS
is meeting its responsibilities to the American people.
Neither secrets nor partisanship, nor antagonism will help
us accomplish our ultimate goal, which is keeping our country
safe, preparing for, preventing and responding to disasters.
I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to recognize
Mr. Rogers, the ranking Republican on this subcommittee, as
well. While I did not yet have the privilege of being a member
of Congress during the 109th, I have heard that Mr. Rogers
worked tirelessly on management issues and laid a great
foundation upon which we can continue to build. I look forward
to working closely with him as well.
I would also like to recognize Chairman Thompson--perfect
timing--and thank him for the opportunity to sit as the chair
on this subcommittee. His willingness and encouragement to let
MI&O determine its own course is certainly welcome.
I would also like to thank him for the support he has given
us to accomplish our goals, as well as to restore more regular
and vigorous oversight of DHS to this body.
This subcommittee had a very productive joint hearing
yesterday with the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness and Response. We heard from FEMA director, the
director of the former Directorate of Preparedness and one of
the deputy inspector generals. I am hopeful that today's
hearing will provide us with similar meaningful insight into
the Directorate of Management.
Under Secretary Schneider, I cannot stress to you enough
how much I am looking to working with you in the future and
hearing your testimony today.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers?
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman Carney, and I too want to
congratulate you on your new chairmanship. Thank you for
calling this hearing and giving us a chance to hear from
Undersecretary Schneider.
I want to thank you for taking the time to be here. I know
you're busy, and I appreciate your effort. And congratulations
on your new appointment.
The department became operational 4 years ago today--so a
lot of things happened on today recently--in the largest
reorganization of the federal government in 50 years. DHS now
has approximately 207,000 employees and a budget of $43
billion.
When the department was created from 22 separate agencies,
challenges and problems were expected. The Government
Accountability Office has acknowledged that, ``Successful
transformations of large organizations, even those faced with
less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take years to
achieve.''
Improving the management of DHS remains one of the top
priorities facing the department today. While much progress has
been made over the past 4 years, there is much more work to do.
In the 109th Congress, this subcommittee held a number of
hearings on the management structure at DHS. Through our in-
depth reviews, we identified a number of areas which need to be
improved, including the authority of the chief operating
officers over the department's component agencies, morale and
retention at DHS, security of information systems, staff
shortages in procurement and contract oversights, financial
management that will lead to a clean audit opinion and further
integration of the department's operations and programs.
To address these areas, the Committee on Homeland Security
reported two authorization bills in the 109th Congress, which
included provisions to strengthen the department's management
structure. The testimony we hear today will be helpful as the
committee drafts its third DHS authorization bill this month.
I look forward to hearing from Undersecretary Schneider
about his plans to address the department's management
challenges and what goals he expects to accomplish during his
tenure in office.
And with that, Chairman Carney, I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Undersecretary. Welcome to the hot seat.
I appreciate you coming today, but I also appreciate your
outreach before this particular hearing. It tells me that even
though you have a tough job, you don't mind admitting it. And
they tell me that is 90 percent of the challenge is to know
what you face.
You have some awesome responsibility is to tell people what
they need to do, to look at it and somehow get them to
understand that it is in their best interest. And your office
oversees the department's procurement operations. We heard
about SBInet, for instance, yesterday. We know about Deepwater.
We know about a lot of programs that speak to procurement.
But it is also your responsibility to unify the
department's information technology, human resources and
financial systems. MaxHR, I hope you will officially pronounce
it dead before the hearing is over today, so we can move on to
something else.
But I look forward to your testimony, and I appreciate your
service.
And I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. King is not here.
Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under
the committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for
the record.
I welcome our witness, the undersecretary for management,
the Honorable Paul Schneider.
Without objection, the undersecretary's full statement will
be inserted into the record.
I now recognize Undersecretary Schneider to summarize his
statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. SCHNEIDER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Thompson,
Congressman Rogers and members of the subcommittee. It is a
pleasure to appear before you today for the first time as the
undersecretary for management.
I have been the undersecretary for 2 months. For the
previous 3.5 years, I was a defense and aerospace consultant
doing work for NASA, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Defense, the United States Coast Guard and
several others.
Prior to consulting, I was a career civil servant for 38
years. I began my career at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
working as an engineer on designing and constructing nuclear
submarines.
My last three government positions, I served as the senior
acquisition executive at the National Security Agency, I was
the principal deputy assistance secretary of the Navy for
research, development and acquisition, and I was the executive
director and senior civilian of the Naval Sea Systems Command,
which is the Navy's largest shore command.
I am here today to discuss the major management and
programmatic challenges the department faces and the areas that
I am going to focus on as the undersecretary for management.
The most significant challenge we have is to continue the
effort that was started with the creation of the new
department, merging 22 agencies with approximately 180,000
people and turning it into the most effective force to protect
our country. This effort requires effective and efficient use
of financial and human resources, enabling technology and
superb management.
The major elements are our strategy are to improve
acquisition and procurement throughout the department,
strengthen the requirements and investment review process,
acquire and maintain the necessary human capital to do the job,
seek efficiencies across the enterprise in various operations
and resources and making the key management systems, such as
financial and information technology, world-class.
What we are currently doing is reviewing our major programs
and investments to ensure that the requirements are clear, the
cost estimates are valid, technology risk is properly assessed,
schedules are realistic, contract vehicles are proper and that
our programs are well-managed with effective oversight. We are
ensuring that the program offices that manage the major efforts
are properly structured and staffed with the right people and
the right skill sets.
To date, the department's focus has been on procurement,
but procurement is only one element that is required and one
skill set for proper acquisition management. Acquisition
includes understanding operational and lifecycle requirements,
concepts of operations, how the ultimate product or system
would ultimately be employed, developing sound business
strategies, exercising prudent financial management, making
tradeoffs and managing program risk.
One of the things I have found in my 2 months here is that
we need to transition from a focus on procurement to a focus in
the broader context on management. Prior to DHS' establishment
in 2003, the department's components did not have major
acquisitions, like the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program, which
require large numbers of mature and experienced acquisition
personnel, like those that are in the Department of Defense. It
was a different business model, with a different type of
business.
DHS has a shortage of people that are experienced in
program management, including its related functions, such as
acquisition logistics and cost analysis.
To reduce our reliance on contractors, which I know is a
big concern of this committee and others in Congress, for
fiscal year 2007 and 2008, we are focusing on developing from
within an acquisition workforce through targeted recruiting and
advanced training programs for those people we currently have.
DHS did very poorly in the OPM federal human capital
survey. Managers and line employees alike delivered a message
that the leadership has heard loud and clear. As initial steps
toward improving employee satisfaction, we have already
identified the need for better communications throughout the
workforce, continued emphasis on performance management
training at the supervisory and employee level and improved
recognition of good performance. Those messages came out loud
and clear from our analysis of the survey.
There has been considerable publicity about the
department's efforts to implement MaxHR, which is the personnel
management system. In consideration of the recent court
decision on collective bargaining, we are considering our next
steps in how we implement a truly effective personnel
management system in the department.
And so what we are doing is focusing on performance
management, we are focusing on targeted hiring and efforts to
retain our workforce through training and development.
The OPM survey told that one of the most important things
we need to concentrate on first is building this performance-
based, results-oriented culture, and it is the area that we
have to focus on. We started with training over 13,000
supervisors across the department to administer the new program
and we have implemented an automated system to support it.
We are going to continue to expand our coverage of the new
performance management program, because it allows us on the
most basic level, between supervisor and employee, to
understand what performance is required of the employee, make
sure it is properly aligned with the higher level department
objectives, and that helps us achieve our overall department
strategy, and people at the working level can relate to their
contribution to the overall organization's goals.
This clearly was an identified deficiency in the survey,
and so what we need to do is take the process we started,
increase our emphasis on it, expand the performance management
aspects in other areas, additional training for employees and
the like. And so this is the centerpiece of our near-term
efforts.
We are also going to be deploying a pilot effort on linking
performance and pay in one area, and that is in the
intelligence and the analysis component. And this will be for
the INA people that are not part of a collective bargaining
unit. We chose this component because, first, they were eager
to do it and because we are in an intense competition with the
private sector and other government agencies for this same
talent.
The talent that we are looking for in the intelligence and
analysis area is the same talent the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the
DNI--and I forgot all the acronyms--that they are actively
trying to compete for. And so what we believe, and in my
personal experience--I have had considerable experience in the
Navy with performance pay link systems--the better performers,
frankly, are much better compensated, and the poor performers
are less compensated. And so people, once they are in that type
of system, they recognize the potential.
So we are going to try this pilot, it is going to give us
some good examples for the future before we march forward.
[The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Paul A. Schneider
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rogers and members of the
Subcommittee. It's a pleasure to appear before you today for the first
time as the Under Secretary for Management.
I have been the Under Secretary for Management for two months. For
the previous three and one half years I was a defense and aerospace
consultant doing work for NASA, FAA, DOD, Coast Guard and others. Prior
to this I was a career civil servant for 38 years. I began my career at
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard as a project engineer in 1965 working on
nuclear submarines. My last three government positions were Senior
Acquisition Executive at the National Security Agency (NSA), Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and
Acquisition) and Executive Director and Senior Civilian of the Naval
Sea Systems Command, the Navy's largest shore establishment.
I am here today to discuss the major management and programmatic
challenges the Department faces and areas I will focus on as the Under
Secretary for Management.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has continued to
designate transforming DHS as high risk. Their report and other
Inspector General reports address, in large part, the status of the
integration of DHS' varied management processes, systems and people in
areas such as information technology, financial management,
procurement, and human capital, as well as administrative services. The
GAO report said DHS has made some progress in management integration,
but still needed a comprehensive strategy. GAO noted that in such a
strategy, DHS would integrate planning across management functions to
identify critical interdependencies, interim milestones and possible
efficiencies. As the Under Secretary for Management, I support the
strategy proposed by the GAO. The GAO indicates some of the plans and
directives already issued by DHS could be used in building the needed
integration strategy. I am reviewing the DHS progress against each of
the elements of the integration strategy to confirm that the effort is
headed on the right track. My role is to direct this effort and to be
the forcing function across the Department.
The most significant challenge we have is to continue the effort
that was started with the creation of the new Department: merging 22
agencies with approximately 180,000 people and turning it into the most
effective force to protect our country. This effort requires effective
and efficient use of financial and human resources, enabling
technology, strong processes and superb management. These are the
challenges that are the focus of my efforts.
The major elements of our strategy are:
Improving acquisition and procurement throughout the
Department.
Strengthening the requirements and investment review
processes.
Acquiring and maintaining human capital.
Seeking efficiencies across the enterprise in
operations and the use of resources.
Making the key management systems, such as financial
and information technology, world class.
Our approach has a common thread through all of these areas. That
is to ensure that there is a comprehensive and integrated strategy with
specific and measurable goals, and that these goals support the
activities and priorities of the Department. On a practical level, we
will ensure the success of this strategy by having a team with the
right knowledge, skills and abilities to support these programs, the
overall transformation and integration efforts. Our progress will be
measured against metrics and milestones.
Acquisition and Procurement
The Department of Homeland Security is just beginning or is in the
midst of many crucial acquisitions that are vital to the success of
DHS. That is why Chief Procurement Officer Elaine Duke and I are
working to strengthen acquisition and procurement by institutionalizing
solid processes. To this end we are:
Strengthening the requirements and investment review
processes by improving the Joint Requirements Council (JRC) and
Investment Review Board (IRB) process.
Reviewing the major programs and investments to ensure
that the requirements are clear, cost estimates are valid, the
technology risk is properly assessed, schedules are realistic,
the contract vehicles are proper, and the efforts are well
managed.
Building the capability to manage complex efforts by
ensuring that program offices are properly structured and
staffed with the right people, and the right skills, to ensure
efficient and effective program management and oversight; and
aggressively hiring where we have known shortages.
To date, the Department's focus has been on procurement.
Procurement, however, is only one element of acquisition management.
Acquisition also includes understanding operational and life-cycle
requirements, such as formulating concepts of operations, developing
sound business strategies, exercising prudent financial management,
assessing trade-offs, and managing program risks. Best practice
acquisition management is executed by teams of professionals who
understand and are able to manage the entire life-cycle of a major
program effort. DHS has a shortage of people that are experienced in
program management, including its related functional areas (e.g.
acquisition logistics, cost analysis). I will focus on this area as one
of my major priorities by identifying needed skills and processes and
considering expedited delivery of training in key disciplines for those
individuals involved in the management of the Department's major
programs.
We have established a department-wide real property asset
management plan with performance metrics to govern investment decisions
regarding our buildings, structures and land. We are expanding this
approach to all tangible assets through the investment review process
with an Asset Management and Services Board with representation by the
component chief administrative officers.
Contracts
DHS' $12 billion procurement budget provides for the development,
fielding and support of significant homeland security capabilities. For
example, US Coast Guard contracts are providing aircraft and ships from
the Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) and search and rescue capability
from the Rescue 21 program. Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) contracts are providing additional capabilities via the
Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) and Transportation Worker
Identification Credentialing (TWIC) program. Consistent with the SBI
Strategy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is developing and
fielding the capabilities at and between our nation's ports of entry to
gain effective control of our borders.
Our model for using contractors has been to address immediate
staffing shortfalls. Because the Department has launched a number of
new large scale initiatives, our acquisition workforce requires skill
sets and experience that are very different from an ordinary
acquisition program. Prior to DHS' establishment in 2003, the
Department's components did not have major acquisitions like the USCG's
Deepwater program, which require large mature and experienced
acquisition support services such as those that exist in the Department
of Defense for major weapons systems and ship-building. To reduce our
reliance on contractors, for fiscal year 2007 and 2008 we are focusing
on developing a mature acquisition workforce through targeted
recruiting and advanced training programs. Our goal is to build our own
pipeline of people from within the Department and we've begun to do
this.
Also, it is worth noting that DHS has exceeded the Administration's
goal for small business prime contracts as well as our own goal of 30
percent. I am happy to report that in fiscal year 2006, 34.6% of the
procurement dollars went to small business prime contractors. Of that
34.6%, 12.1% went to small, minority owned businesses.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Human Capital Survey
(FHCS)
DHS did very poorly on the OPM Federal Human Capital survey.
Through the survey results, managers and line employees alike delivered
a clear message that the leadership has heard loud and clear.
Leadership teams across DHS are committed to identifying the underlying
reasons for DHS employee dissatisfaction and are seeking ways to
address them directly.
As initial steps toward improving employee satisfaction both at the
headquarters and within the operating components, we have already
identified the need for better communication throughout the workforce,
continued emphasis of performance management training at the individual
supervisor and employee level and implemented improved recognition of
good performance. Although the general results of the survey were
disappointing we are encouraged by the fact that DHS employees have
passion for our mission. 89% percent of employees report that they
believe the work they do is important, and 80% percent like the work
that they do. This is a strong foundation to build upon for
improvement.
We will continue to evaluate the detailed results of the survey,
analyze the practices of Departments that are recognized for their high
performance, and use this information to develop additional steps that
will lead to DHS' employee satisfaction. This summer, we will conduct
another survey of our workforce to ensure that our efforts are on track
with addressing key employee concerns.
Additionally, the leadership team in each operating component and
headquarters unit will discuss details of the survey with our workforce
in order to gather employee suggestions and recommendations that will
inform the way forward.
Human Capital
We are aggressively moving towards building a world-class
organization by continuing to hire and retain a talented and diverse
workforce. There has been considerable publicity about the Department's
initial efforts to implement the MaxHR personnel management system,
mostly resulting from recent court decisions regarding the labor
relations portion of the system. In consideration of the recent court
decision on collective bargaining, we are considering next steps in
this area.
In the meantime, our Chief Human Capital Officer Marta Brito Perez
and I are broadening our efforts to encompass a wider range of human
resource effectiveness with an initial focus on performance management.
A performance-based management system compensates and rewards employees
based on merit, that is, their performance and contribution toward the
achievement of the Department's mission. Moreover, a performance-based
management system requires work on everyone's part, as staff members at
all levels of the Department to collaborate and define requirements,
establish targets towards desired results, and agree on management
methods for measuring and evaluating success. Based on the results of
the OPM survey this is the area we need to focus on first.
Building a performance based, results oriented culture at DHS is
very important. It will foster an environment of open communication and
feedback between the supervisor and employee.
To date, we have implemented the new performance management program
to over 14,000 employees, trained over 13,000 supervisors to ensure
they develop the skills needed to administer the new program, and
implemented a new automated system to facilitate the new performance
management process. We will continue to expand coverage of the new
performance management program as it will allow us to work seamlessly
across components with the goal of aligning the work we do with the
overall strategy, vision and values of the Department.
In addition to establishing a performance-based management program,
we will soon be deploying a ``performance-based'' pay pilot in the
Intelligence & Analysis component for non-bargaining unit employees. We
chose this component because we are competing with the private sector
and other government agencies for the same talent and it will give us
experience and employee feedback before we proceed with a wider
implementation.
Other efforts underway are captured in a recently developed two
year Human Capital Operational Plan. Key goals in the human capital
area include:
Developing career paths to broaden career
opportunities for employees.
Implementing an automated recruiting system to improve
our hiring efficiency.
Providing learning and development programs for DHS
employees at all levels.
Promoting a leadership environment that encourages and
supports cross-developmental opportunities.
In addition, we will be improving our hiring processes by educating
our hiring managers and human resource officials on the flexibilities
that are currently available as well as implementing an enterprise E-
recruitment system. We have established a Department-wide branding
initiative and will implement proactive recruitment strategies to fill
979 mission support vacancies that cross component lines in areas such
as information technology, acquisition, and human resources.
We are well on our way to achieving our hiring targets in our
frontline mission critical occupations as well. In ICE, we have already
filled over 50% of the 1,477 authorized positions for this fiscal year.
As the President committed to last year, we are looking to have 17,819
Border Patrol Agents by the end of FY08 and 18,319 by the end of 2008.
Our recruitment strategies will be designed to ensure that DHS
reflects our Nation's diversity. The percent of Hispanic females and
males in the DHS workforce is 4.59 and 12.11 respectively Hispanic
males are employed at twice their rate in the National Civilian Labor
Force. The percent of African-American females is 7.63, and for males
is 6.86, which also exceeds CLF percentages. However, we must do better
in ensuring our leadership ranks reflect the Nation's diversity. The
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and I are committed to ensuring that the
talent pool for Senior Executive Service positions, in particular, is
representative of our Nation as a whole.
Financial Management
The Department has many substantial challenges to overcome in its
effort to improve its financial management processes. Chief Financial
Office David Norquist and I are working to make measurable,
demonstrable progress in the following areas:
To improve systems and processes eventually leading to
sustainable clean audit opinions.
To provide assurance about our internal controls over
financial reporting via a sound internal controls program.
To provide greater visibility into DHS' financial
activity through timely accurate and useful financial related
data.
To provide efficient financial management services.
Success in these areas rests upon a framework of people, policies,
processes, systems and assurance. We have efforts underway in each of
these areas which include: aggressive hiring and development programs;
the ``Internal Controls over Financial Reporting (ICOFR) Playbook'' -a
corrective action plan that addresses identified audit weaknesses; the
development of a comprehensive set of financial management policies
which represent the best practices of the Federal Government; and a
plan to continue the migration and reduction in the number of our
financial management systems.
Of particular importance are internal controls. Sound internal
controls are essential to effectively meeting the Department's mission.
DHS must have a process in place by which it can test whether our
internal controls are well designed and operating effectively on a
continuous basis. This means that management must move away from
reliance on what outside auditors determine is wrong, and be able to
independently prevent and address issues before they become problems.
Additionally, we are working to ensure that the Department's grant
programs have the necessary internal controls in place, are adhered to,
and that funds to State and Local first responders are monitored to
achieve success with measurable outcomes.
Information Technology
The Department has established and institutionalized Department-
wide business processes and systems for managing information. The DHS
Chief Information Officer (CIO) Scott Charbo, heads the CIO Council,
whose membership includes the CIOs from all of the DHS components. The
council works to standardize business practices where it makes sense
across the Department in order to improve information sharing. These
efforts will improve our IT operations and reduce costs by eliminating
duplicative IT systems. At this time, more than 60% of information
management investments are managed through earned value principles.
Moreover, the DHS CIO has established program management offices
(PMOs) to oversee selected major investments. In addition, DHS has
awarded the EAGLE and FirstSource contracting agreements, the largest
contracting vehicles in the Federal Government for the procurement of
IT and program management services, which should result in more
streamlined and cost-effective procurements.
The Department's Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB)
reviews investments at various stages in the IRP and CPIC cycles.
The EAB has published the DHS Enterprise Architecture
Version 2.0 to be consistent with best business practices. The Homeland
Security Enterprise Architecture 2006 was rated ``green'' by OMB and
rated 5th of 27 in the Federal Government for maturity by GAO. The
enterprise architecture informs the creation of DHS strategic plans and
all investment reviews.
Consolidation of major networks and systems continues,
reducing seven wide-area networks and creating one common e-mail
operation.
The first 24,000 square feet of the primary data center
has been opened. The next 40,000 square feet is under construction and
due to open in July. We have migrated systems and more are scheduled to
move. The RFP for the second DHS data center has been released.
The Chief Information Officer is working to unify and improve DHS'
IT security that is essential to accomplishing our mission. The DHS CIO
and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) are working through the Internal
Controls Assessment Project to bring information security policy and
actions to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)
standards. We are executing a plan to fix identified FISMA
deficiencies.
When we held our first IT security conference (Fall
2005), certification & accreditation (C&A) completion was
approximately 22%. We have since increased C&A completion to
95% (Fall 2006), which reflects a 73% increase.
A baseline list of systems has been integrated into
our budget and procurement process.
Security controls testing increased from 54% to 87% of
DHS systems.
Annual DHS-wide IT security awareness stands at 88%
with training for certain specialized job functions at 97%.
Key policies and procedures have been revised to
assure protection of personal identifiable information.
Consolidated Headquarters
DHS' mission demands an integrated approach, yet the Department's
legacy facilities are dispersed in more than sixty locations with 7.1
million Gross Square Feet (GSQF) of office space throughout the
National Capital Region (NCR). This dispersal adversely impacts
critical communication, coordination, and cooperation across the
Department. Consolidating executive leadership in a secure setting of
no less than 4.5 million GSQF of office space for policy, management,
operational coordination, and command and control capabilities at the
St. Elizabeths campus is vital to the long-term success of the
Department. It will ensure a unity of effort and command for the
Secretary as well as build a culture and a spirit which are essential
to having a happy and productive workforce.
Without federal construction at St. Elizabeths, DHS will continue
to be housed in more than 50 locations in the National Capital Region
(NCR). If the project is not funded, the cost to continue housing DHS
in leased space is approximately $5.1 billion based on a net present
value (NPV) analysis. The St. Elizabeths development NPV is $4.1
billion ($3 billion program investment), a $1 billion dollar NPV
difference providing an equivalent annual cost advantage of
$63,953,000.
Moreover, Congress' approval of this project would reverse the
current situation where DHS is currently located in 70 percent
commercially leased space and 30 percent government owned space.
Consolidating our facilities will increase efficiency and
communication, as well as help foster a ``one-DHS'' culture to optimize
prevention and response capabilities across the Department. I request
that Congress support this effort by authorizing and appropriating the
funding for DHS' consolidation at St. Elizabeths West Campus.
Authority of the Under Secretary for Management
Throughout the process that ultimately led to my Senate
confirmation, the question has been raised as to whether the Under
Secretary for Management has sufficient authority to do the job. My
answer is an unqualified, yes. I have sufficient authority to direct
the type of sustained leadership and overarching management integration
and transformation strategy that is needed Department-wide. Under
section 701 of the 2002 Homeland Security Act, and internal
Departmental directives and delegations, there is a very clear mandate
of management authority for the USM. I also have the full support of
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. The Secretary has advised me that
if there is any authority that I need that I don't have to do my job,
he will provide me that authority. In addition to the statute, I
operate with the Department's leadership fully knowing the job I am
chartered to do, and that I operate with the full authority of the
Secretary to get it done.
Conclusion:
Secretary Chertoff has expressed that one of his key goals for DHS
is to strengthen DHS core management, policy and operational
integration. I think DHS has come a long way since its inception in
management and we will continue to improve by institutionalizing
management processes and procedures over the next few years. I know
from my 2 months on the job that we have major challenges ahead but I
look forward to them with energy and enthusiasm. Thank you for your
leadership and your continued support of the Department of Homeland
Security and its management programs. I look forward to working
together in shaping the future and success of DHS. Thank you for this
opportunity to be here today and I am happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you for the testimony that you have given
so far, and of course, we have your written testimony. We
certainly appreciate that.
I will remind each member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel, to question Mr. Schneider.
I am going to go out of order. I am going to allow Mr.
Rogers to go. He has an urgent appointment he has to make. So
he will be able to ask the first question for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. And I thank the chairman.
Mr. Schneider, as you know, and I have talked with you
privately, the morale at DHS has been an issue that this
committee has been attentive to during the 109th Congress and
concerned about and have held hearings on it. And you also know
that OPM recently conducted a survey of all federal employees,
and DHS obviously was included in that.
On January 30 of 2007, Deputy Secretary Jackson issued a
memo to all DHS employees regarding that OPM survey. In that
memo, Mr. Jackson stated that, ``Strengthening core management
is one of the secretary's highest priorities and the key
elements of an effective communications and proper recognition
of our workforce.''
Mr. Jackson further indicated in that memo that you, he and
Secretary Chertoff would be evaluating that OPM survey. Have
you had a chance in your brief tenure to review that OPM
survey? And if so, what goals have you been able to yield from
it, and what are your expectations?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. I have spent considerable time
looking at all the statistics, not just at the macro department
level but the individual components, the operating components
and the headquarters, and what we see is in certain areas a
common thread.
We know that certain organizations have some very serious
issues, and that is based on the number of respondents relative
to the overall population. And so we also know that we have to
do a better job on this performance management.
When you look at the answers to all the questions, people
feel, in large part, that they are not property acknowledged
for the work that they do. This is linked to performance
management. They, in many cases, feel that the communications--
and this gets down to the individual survey questions--
communications between them and their supervisor are poor. In
some cases, they don't believe that their development
requirements are being properly recognized by their management
so that they can get the skill set and development they need.
So what we have been doing, and I have been working--I
chair Management Council, my counterparts of the operating
component. I have met with them. The deputy secretary and
myself have met with the seven operational component heads, we
have gone through the results of the survey. We have a
framework for a package that focuses on communication, change
processes for even how we do the future-year or out-year
planning where everybody is part of the team and everybody can
kind of understand what our objectives are.
We have got an effort under way with focus groups to go
down--I mentioned in my opening statement we have trained
13,000 supervisors. We are going to go target several of those
across the enterprise and find out what went wrong, okay? They
were trained, they should have worked with their employees, we
should have performance plans in place. We are going to go in
there and we are going to audit these things.
Mr. Rogers. What timeline do you expect to do this on?
Mr. Schneider. We are in the process of putting together
the focus teams right now. I can't give you the actual
timeline. It is something that is currently under development.
Mr. Rogers. Conceptually, when would you like to see this
done, completed?
Mr. Schneider. I would like to see some of these focus
groups under way in the next 60 days. I think we have got a
broad outline of an improved communications packages, of how we
get the information out to the employees. As a start, the
secretary this afternoon, literally as I am speaking, is
conducting an all-hands meeting, and we have arranged for that
message to get out.
So I can tell you that the recognition that we have to do a
better job of communications top down, all the way throughout
the 180,000 people is well-understood, and we have got efforts
under way.
Mr. Rogers. And along that line, one of my pet peeves in
the last Congress is the fact that your department uses the
phrase, ``human capital,'' instead of calling it the Office of
Personnel or something that normal people would use. And on
page 2 of the report, ``The Culture Task Force, which reviewed
this, recommends referring to employees by dropping the buzz
word, 'human capital,' and replacing it with 'employees' or
'members.' ''
Do you agree with that recommendation?
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir, I do. I don't like the phrase,
``human capital,'' and when I read that report from that
committee, I raised the question, ``Why do we use that?'' I
have not traced it down, but I am in the process. Apparently,
there is some--what has been told to me, there is some law that
says that is the proper term. So when I trace that down--
Mr. Rogers. You let us know. We will change the law.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. With all due respect, I hate the--
Mr. Rogers. Good. You and I have something in common.
Mr. Schneider. Well, it doesn't reflect truly the value of
the individual.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schneider, integrating 22 legacy agencies into one
functioning department is a tremendous challenge; we all
appreciate that. How do you plan to use your directorate to
facilitate this goal, and what tangible evidence of progress
can we look forward to in the coming year? In other words, what
are your benchmarks?
Mr. Schneider. There is a whole series of them. Let's start
with the one that gets the most visibility, which is the--and I
believe it was in your opening comments--internal controls. And
so let's just take that.
We have serious weaknesses in internal controls. I have met
with the inspector general. We have a plan, and I refer to it
in my statement, called, ``A Way Ahead,'' which is we call it
the internal controls over financial reporting, ICOFR. And what
it is, it is the road map at the department and operating
component levels that addresses every one of the internal
weaknesses that has been identified by the I.G. and their
accounting firm KPMG.
I have met with the I.G. We are starting a series of
meetings that I am personally running between the chief
information officer, the chief financial officer at
headquarters and then the components that go address each of
these identified deficiencies.
We have a plan for each component and the headquarters that
is focused on a timeline for partial remediation, full
remediation and then assurance. That is the benchmark that I
look for in terms of internal controls.
The deputy secretary and I have met with the heads of each
of the operating components. We have gone through the
framework. They understand they are signed up to do it. And I
believe that with periodic monitoring and implementation--this
is hard work, but it is not something that is beyond the realm
of doing. I mean, it is just hard work, but people can do it.
And that is why I believe in our plan. That is our measurement
or benchmark.
In the case of the financial management systems
integration, there is reference to the 22 different agencies, a
myriad of financial management systems. We have an outline of a
similar architecture, possible solutions without getting into
whether it is SAP or Oracle-based, et cetera. We are working
out at a very definitive plan to start migrating each of the
financial management systems off their existing platforms to
one of those two that meets our architecture.
So I think finance is a big part of it.
In terms of the human resources, one of the problems we
have at MaxHR was that it focused on six elements. It didn't
address the broader context of human resource type things, like
hiring and leadership and development and things like that.
So one of our benchmarks is hiring, how well do we do as a
corporation. We have efforts under way to try and substantially
meet our hiring goals as well as how do we improve the hiring
process, both at headquarters and within each of the
operational components.
I have already engaged in several discussions where people
are taking a look and doing process reengineering at the
operational component level to how they can streamline their
end of it. We, at the corporate level, have to figure out how
do we basically merge the best practices and do much more
efficient hiring?
The consolidation of I.T. infrastructure, I am frequently
asked, do I have all the authority I can to do the job? And
there are others that have made some proposals that perhaps
enhance that. Well, in my discussion with the secretary about 3
weeks ago, we were talking about, ``How are we going to
integrate this I.T. infrastructure? How are we going to,
basically, cut costs, move people to the right types of
platforms, basically, execute our enterprise architecture?''
We have an enterprise architecture. The problem is in
enforcing it. And so he asked me, ``Do you have all the
authority that you need and that the CIO needs to make this
happen?'' And I said, ``No, I don't.'' So he said, ``Fine. You
tell me what authority you need for you and the CIO to make
sure you can execute this thing and I will sign it.'' And 8
days later, he did that.
So we are in the process right now of structuring, how do
we migrate this massive I.T. infrastructure to what we believe
is the correct end state based on our enterprise architecture.
So I think I have captured, between financial I.T. and
human resources, some of the major elements.
My plan is for every one of these areas, have a clear,
definitive approach, just like we have in the internal controls
playbook, that the I.G. and the GAO can monitor us on. And I am
very hopeful that we will, if we do that, start making progress
and that those two oversight agencies will recognize the
progress that we make.
Mr. Carney. We do look forward to those benchmarks and
watching the progress that DHS makes. It is very important, as
you know, to certainly the safety of this nation.
I now recognize Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Undersecretary, can you say to the
committee how you propose to change how the employees view the
agency they work for? Right now, as you know, it ranks dead
last in the eyes of the people who work for it, and that is a
challenge. So tell us how you see that changing?
Mr. Schneider. Well, we are starting with a good foundation
where a very high percentage, high 80s, think the work they do
is important and they think the mission of the organization is
important, and they understand how their work relates to the
mission. So we are starting with a very good benchmark.
I believe it gets down to how people are treated. As
somebody that came up through the ranks, I started as a GS-5. I
was very fortunate that I had good supervisors who clearly, in
my career, explained what was expected of me, would work with
me, and if I did what I was required to do as part of my
performance, saw that I got the recognition. I was properly
recognized for it, and I could rise through the ranks.
I think that is where we have to focus on, and I spent a
lot of time going out talking to people, I personally run town
hall meetings. I believe that part of our communication
strategy, top down, at all leadership levels, is to get the
message out to the people, focus on these employee-supervisor
relationships at the lowest level, the mid level and the high
level and make it work.
Mr. Thompson. Let me tell you what some of us hear. If I am
a GS-12 and I am a federal employee, next to me is a contract
employee, that contract employee makes one and a half to two
times more money than I do and we are doing the same job. You
will never get morale up that way.
Mr. Schneider. I would like to address that. I agree with
you if the two people are doing the same job. I personally have
a problem that that situation would exist. I believe there are
jobs that are inherently governmental that should be done by
government employees, and there are those that could be
properly done by contractors.
And so from my standpoint, we shouldn't be in that
situation, Congressman, where we have two employees doing the
same job. Because I would agree that that would be a
demoralizing factor, if you will, in employee?
Mr. Thompson. That is the concern. Let me give you another
one.
We put procurements on the street. We don't have enough
employees to manage the procurements, and, therefore, we either
get behind on the procurements or, as you know, in times past,
we have had to cancel procurements and projects, ISIS and some
others, but we are in the middle of one now called, SBInet.
We found out in a hearing yesterday that our next
management task we don't have the employees in place to move
forward. But yet and still we are pushing out a multibillion
dollar project, and we don't have staff in house to staff it.
And we are told by the I.G. and GAO that the staff we need are
very complicated tasks that you have to have special people.
You can't use interns, you can't use entry-level people.
So I think the challenge you are going to have to do is to
how first get a hand on the procurement, and so we can't go out
with this procurement unless we can adequately staff it. And
that is a real problem.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. And I agree with you, and that is
why this is one of those cases where the devil is in the
details.
For example, on SBInet, it takes a mix, if you will, of
contracting people to execute contracts. It takes a mix of the
right system engineers to know whether or not the architecture
that is ultimately being developed right now for Project 28,
the first 28 miles, is in fact a good architecture that is
modular and can be scalable to the entire southwest border. It
takes test engineers that frankly can work with the Army, who
is going to be the independent test agent this May and June, to
have the expertise in testing to look at and evaluate whether
or not those test and evaluation results are proper.
So some of those areas we are short. We are not short in
every one, and I think it is a question of, do we have the
right talent looking at the specific task at the right time so
you can move ahead? And that takes going into the level of
detail almost on a frequent basis to make sure as the program
ramps up we have all the specialties covered.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
The chair would also like to recognize the presence of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia at today's
proceedings. Representative Holmes Norton has a particular
interest in the topic at hand today and approached the
committee about participating.
I ask for unanimous consent to allow Representative Norton
to sit and question the witnesses at today's hearing.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
I now recognize Ms. Clarke, but before I do that, a series
of five votes has been called. The committee will recess,
subject to the recall of the chair, to allow members the
opportunity to vote. When we return, we will continue with the
questions, beginning with Ms. Clarke.
[Recess.]
Mr. Carney. The subcommittee will return to order.
I recognize Ms. Clarke from New York for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Undersecretary Schneider, I thank you for coming before
this committee and for your indulgence with the procedures
here. I am sure you are probably more accustomed to it than--
well, actually, you are pretty new here too, so we are probably
all experiencing this simultaneously.
Past leadership has led to many serious concerns and
problems within the directorate of management, and now they
have sort of left all of this for you to clean up. I just
wanted to express my concern, as many of my colleagues have,
with respect to the personnel problems within DHS and
highlighted specifically by the OPM survey.
You or the agency is 36 out of 36 in job satisfaction, 35
out of 36 in leadership and knowledge management, 36 of 36 on
results-oriented performance culture, 33 out of 36 on talent
management. And your employees are your most valuable asset,
and I think before we left you kind of reaffirmed that.
With statistics like these, DHS cannot possibly expect to
recruit and retain the very best possible people when there is
a sharp competition coming from the private sector, as, again,
you have stated.
I see this survey and your hiring as a possible turning
point, and I hope you will take the reigns and provide the
fresh insights that are obviously needed to right this ship.
Since the only direction we have to go is up, the opportunity
could not be a better one.
My question has to do with your testimony in which you
noted that the department failed, HR Max personnel system has
drawn much publicity lately because of court decisions opposing
the department's proposed treatment of labor relations. You
then state, ``In consideration of the court decision on
collective bargaining, we are considering next steps in this
area.''
Today, you have discussed at length your general ideas for
reforming the personnel and human capital system, but I have
not heard you address the future of collective bargaining
within the department.
Please tell me, do you intend to allow your currently
eligible employees to retain union membership and collective
bargaining rights, and do you feel that the department attempts
to end collective bargaining through HR Max had an impact on
the OMB survey?
Mr. Schneider. Congresswoman, I do think--and that is a
personal opinion--that the uncertainty with MaxHR did have an
impact on the survey, and that is one of the reasons why what
we are trying to do is to explain to people what are the
elements of our human resource management system.
This is the problem, as I see it: MaxHR was comprised of
six elements. It was performance management, classification,
pay and pay administration, labor management relations, adverse
actions and appeals. There were six elements.
The problem, I think, was that with the court case it
focused on one of those six, the labor management relations.
And because of that, I don't think we did a good job of
explaining to the workforce, what exactly were the other five
elements of the personnel system.
And so there was a great deal of uncertainty, which what
was this MaxHR across the workforce. Shortly after I was sworn
in, I conducted a series of town hall meetings with all of my
employees. Filled up the auditorium at GSA and the chapel out
at Nebraska Avenue. I was asked a lot of questions about it.
And so what appears would happen was the department tried
to do too much, too soon, and when people started to think
about the fact that we are going to start linking pay and
performance, et cetera, nobody really had taken the time to
explain to them how that was going to be done, coupled with the
visibility in the press regarding labor relations issue.
I think people didn't know what was going on, and when
people start feeling that their pay is going to be tinkered
with, not understanding exactly how it is going to work, I
think that creates an area of concern.
So the first part of your question is, I do think it had an
impact, which is why when we are moving--when I say we are
moving to a human resource management system, it encompasses
the major elements of MaxHR, but it also focuses on hiring,
leadership and employee services, which is why that wasn't
covered--those other elements were not covered by MaxHR.
So what we have done is we are focusing on performance
management, we are deferring the labor relations issue till we
have discussions with the proper union representatives, and we
are going to do a pilot on pay-for-performance in the INA
sector. And then get the basics down right and then move toward
the other elements.
And I think that once we explain that, and that was one of
the things that I believe the secretary did in his all-hands
meeting in transmission this afternoon. Once we do that and we
start getting the word out, explain what we are really doing, I
think it will go a lot toward alleviating a lot of the people's
concerns.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and the
courtesy of the ranking member and allowing me to sit it on
this hearing. I am a member of the full committee but not a
member of this subcommittee, and I appreciate what I have heard
of what you are doing in this particular hearing, in
particular.
By the way, I didn't hear the gentlelady's original
question about pay-for-performance. This came up in government
reform, and I am afraid what the government has not come to
grips with, as why we have a civil service system in the first
place when you have thousands and thousands of employees. And
you are in a system that is a public system where the 14th
Amendment due process applies.
Maybe you all are smarter than everybody else, but no one
has been able to figure out how to do a system with due
process, which assumes everybody is treated the same way, and
do the kind of individualized pay-for-performance you are
describing without getting, first, a gazillion grievances and,
second, simply complying with due process.
When Mr. Schneider talked about a consultation with the
affected unions, I was pleased to hear that since the statute
setting up the Department of Homeland Security all but wiped
out collective bargaining, which is part of the problem. I
don't know how you run an agency so demoralized by wiping out
the rights of workers but then proceeding to do something that
has never been done and, I am going to say as a lawyer, think
can never be done, at least in a public system and that is to
say, ``We are just like General Motors.'' I shouldn't say
General Motors because that is a unionized system they are
following, which isn't quite that way either.
But we are just like any old corporation. We are going to
decide on an individual basis who gets paid what in a federal
system, but the reason that hasn't proceeded, I believe, is
because it is all but impossible. There may be better ways to
do it than the way we are doing it, but what has come forward
in pay-for-performance invites court suits and invites
overturning.
I don't have questions.
I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making the
St. Elizabeth's campus part of this hearing and making it part
of the hearing on management.
Mr. Chairman, the president of the United States, when he
had a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate last year,
put in money for the homeland security headquarters and they
did so for a reason I think we can all understand. And, yet,
that Congress did not pass this bill. It is amazing since I
think this president considers homeland security his signature
issue.
The reason for the consolidation is that you simply can't
manage this agency without it. I do not believe we have an
agency yet. They are located in 60 different locations. In
other words, they are as we found them. What good did it do to
set up a Department of Homeland Security that is still spread
in the very same places that it was before when we said the
whole reason for setting up, in light of 9/11, was to
consolidate the agencies so that they could have cross-agency
coordination and action and that it was dangerous not to have
them so that they could have the unity of action that would
come with putting them in the same agency.
The president has requested that they be placed into the
only place left in the District of Columbia large enough to
accommodate what amounts to several agencies, a consolidated
Homeland Security agency.
We have been over there, introduced it to the community
when we thought it was coming the last session. Another reason,
of course, that this was chosen is that the old St. Elizabeth's
campus is government-owned. We have very little land that is
government owned, but still--so that means we don't have to buy
the land as well as the rest of it.
As I say, I think that the chair has legitimately put your
dispersed situation in a management structure. I believe that
you could have done a lot more at DHS in 4 years to establish
the semblance of any agency. I will grant you, however, that as
long as you are left as you were, it is asking a great deal to
say what the statute envisioned. Make an agency, make it whole,
make it cohesive.
I can only ask, Mr. Schneider, part of what I think
happened last time that as much as the agency was committed, to
this, they didn't try hard enough. I was in the minority.
Ms. Norton. And it seemed to me that the burden on the
president, his agents and his congressman. Instead, the money
was used up. To show you the kind of respect they had for the
agency and the need to have a coherent agency, the Senate, just
found and used it for four courthouses. The president has put
money for those courthouses in his budget.
Mr. Schneider, I have come to the hearing only to say to
you that I am chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over
GSA, which is charged with building this agency. I believe
Secretary Chertoff, I believe, your deputy, when they say this
means everything to them, given your position in the agency, I
hope that you will use your good office as well to make sure
that this happens this time.
I think this is the last clear chance, and the president
has put the money again in this budget. I think he has done all
he can. It is going to be up to the agency to press very hard
for it. It is your agency, it is your dispersal, and it is
yours to do something about.
Mr. Schneider. If I may, Congresswoman, I really appreciate
those comments and your support. I have personally walked the
St. E's campus looking at these buildings and have gone both
through the DHS $120 million portion of the budget and the GSA,
I think it is, $345 million of the budget.
I personally track the progress that GSA is making in
dealing with the National Capital Planning Commission as well
as satisfying all of those that have interest relative to the
National Historic Preservation Act and the specific executive
orders.
My personal take on this is, we have got a lot of issues to
work to make this happen, and we may have a lot of budget year,
as you indicated, with those seven, but we can still make the
majority of that schedule if we can work through these historic
preservation issues, environmental impact statement issues.
And so I appreciate your support of this. This move is
absolutely critical to the department.
I have walked just about every building on Nebraska Avenue
complex. In many cases, those facilities are not adequate to
house this department.
Ms. Norton. If I may say, I wish you would take off the
table the environmental impact issue. That is not yours to work
on. There will be a full-blown environmental impact statement.
And in terms of the historic issues, you may not know this, Mr.
Schneider, but the federal government has an extraordinary
record, the best in the country, of building in places that
have historic buildings and preserving them.
So I want to take that right off your mind so that you can
focus on the one thing that seems to me that is your
responsibility and that is making sure that the Congress
understands this time that you, the agency, must have this
construction and need to have it this time. Those other issues
are not your issues, sir.
Mr. Carney. I thank Ms. Norton for her comments, her
insight and her willingness to push this stuff through. It is
very important.
And, Mr. Schneider, again for your comments.
We are going to start round two of the questions now. I
think both Ms. Clarke and I have another round and we will get
to them right now.
Mr. Schneider, last month, Deputy Secretary Jackson told us
that, ``MaxHR is dead.'' He also told us that he asked Secret
Service detail but they thought of MaxHR after they did their
training, and they told him that they hated it. MaxHR is dead
is a pretty unambiguous statement.
So I was a little surprised to hear your office describing
the new human capital operational plan as ``encompassing all
MaxHR initiatives and more.''
Mr. Schneider. Let me?
Mr. Carney. Let me finish the question, and then we will
get to it.
I am pretty sure that those Secret Service agents hated
more than just the name, MaxHR. I am concerned that your just
stripping the title and repackaging the old Max HR in a shiny
new wrapper.
What parts of MaxHR are actually dead? What has changed?
Mr. Schneider. The one we are not pursuing is that one
element of the labor relations, which is the item that was the
basis for the court hearing--those elements focuses--we have a
template that focuses on those other five elements and the
additional ones that I talked about, which were leadership and
development, quality employee services, servicing centers, if
you will, as well as our hiring effort, okay?
So those are the elements of our human resources plan.
These are all documented in what will ultimately be issued as a
human capital operating plan. And so that is what is our
centerpiece for human resources.
Our game plan is to focus on an incremental basis on
selected portions of this, heavy emphasis on performance
management, a pilot on pay-for-performance with the
intelligence and analysis group, leadership development. We
have already instituted a fellows program, we have instituted
an SCS counterdevelopment program. We have several other
leadership and development programs that are under way. We have
extensive hiring efforts under way. Those efforts that could be
done across the department as a total enterprise, those that
are operating unit-specific.
So that is our plan, if you will.
And we don't call it MaxHR, we don't--and the reason is,
MaxHR equals a court case, equals a failed system, equals
something that people didn't understand. And so we are going
out now and explaining to people what exactly is our human
capital operating plan. And we have a large effort in front of
us because the experience that you got with the Secret Service
is typical across the enterprise. And that is because we didn't
do a good job of explaining our plan.
And so when the secretary says, ``MaxHR is dead,'' it is
dead as it was envisioned and explained or poorly explained to
people.
Mr. Carney. I think I understand that.
[Laughter.]
Thank you very much.
Ms. Clarke?
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I guess let
me--MaxHR is dead? Okay.
I wanted to just in light of the whole element piece that
you went over with us, you said the piece that you are not
pursuing is labor relations. And I wanted to ask, do you feel
that the department's attempt to end collective bargaining
through MaxHR had an impact on the OPM survey?
Mr. Schneider. I think, as somebody on the outside who was
trying, when I was first nominated by the president for this
job, as somebody that was trying to understand what this MaxHR
was, it was very confusing to an outsider, and I read all the
available public information, and I was confused about exactly
what the basis for the court case was, exactly how and pay and
performance were linked together.
And I could clearly understand why, if I was an employee in
the department, why I would be very suspicious about what
exactly was envisioned and how it would affect my performance,
how it would affect my compensation, how it would affect my
employee rights.
And so I believe that that really did have an impact on the
survey, because, frankly, the department did not do a good job
of explaining what was MaxHR.
Ms. Clarke. So you think the employees sort of saw it as a
threat or the end of collective bargaining as they knew it,
because the elements that you just described is something that
most employees associate with their affiliation and their
membership with the labor organization, in effect, collective
bargaining.
Mr. Schneider. I think it had impact on two accounts. One,
those employees that were covered by collective bargaining
clearly perceived that as a threat and a loss of rights,
without arguing whether that is a valid position to have or
not. Those that were not under the collective bargaining, I
think the general uncertainty of what MaxHR was and how it
would directly impact them I think gave cause for concern as to
what the impact of what MaxHR would be on them individually.
So I think you had a double hit, frankly, those that were
covered by collective bargaining and those that were not. And I
think it would have an impact. And I can understand, again, as
somebody who tried to understand based on the available
literature, the documentation, what exactly was MaxHR. I can
reasonably understand why somebody would be suspicious and
concerned that their pay was going to be tinkered with and they
would have no rights.
And so that might considered jumping to conclusion, but I
see the paper trail could have easily led somebody to that
conclusion.
Ms. Clarke. And just, finally, as you institute a more
performance-based system, pay-for-performance, and managers
will have an increased amount of control over their employees,
what type of system do you envision will be in place to resolve
inevitable disputes between employees and management, and would
this system incorporate cooperation with unions?
Mr. Schneider. Well, first of all, I think for those that
are subject to collective bargaining, we have to follow the
practice in terms of how we institute any system, okay? So that
would get addressed in the collective bargaining process. For
those that do not come under collective bargaining, we would
have what I would consider the menu of appeals and grievances.
And so in other departments, like the Department of
Defense, where pilot pay-for-performance and performance
management systems were implemented, there is a menu of
grievances and appeals for the employees. So we would have
those menus of appeals and grievance processes so that they
would be entitled to protection of their rights. And that is a
very important part of that.
So it would be handled differently for those that were
covered and those that were not under collective bargaining.
Mr. Carney. Does the gentlewoman have any further
questions?
Ms. Clarke. No.
Mr. Carney. I have none either.
I want to thank you, Mr. Undersecretary, for the testimony
and all the members who asked their questions.
The members may have additional questions, and if you could
expeditiously respond to them in writing, we would appreciate
it.
Hearing no further no business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additiional Questions and Responses
Questions From the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, for Honorable Paul A.
Schneider Responses
In its report on the acquisition of the National Security Cutter,
the Inspector General stated that he ``encountered resistance from the
Coast Guard'' and that ``responses to document requests were either
delayed or incomplete,'' ultimately leading the IG to suspend fieldwork
completely for five weeks.
Question 1.: Please explain your understanding of the IG's
statutory right of access to Departmental records and other material.
Response: The Inspector General's right of access is very broad.
According to the Inspector General Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is authorized ``to have access to
all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers,
recommendations, or other material available to the applicable
establishment which relate to programs and operations with respect to
which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this Act.''
Consistent with this statutory grant of authority, DHS Management
Directive 0810.1 requires Component agencies to provide prompt access
for the Office of the Inspector General to any files, records, reports,
or other information that may be requested, and directs DHS employees
to cooperate fully by disclosing complete and accurate information
pertaining to matters under investigation or review.
Question 2.: Do you believe it is appropriate for employees to
provide materials directly to the IG, or must materials first be
provided to a central unit or audit liaison?
Response: As noted previously, DHS requires departmental employees
to cooperate fully with the Inspector General by disclosing complete
and accurate information pertaining to matters under investigation or
review, in accordance with the DHS Management Directive 0810.1.
In addition, the Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office routinely
works with the Office of Inspector General to facilitate the flow of
information in the context of the Management Directive. Indeed, the DHS
Inspector General testified before this Committee on February 7, 2007,
regarding DHS cooperation and indicated that he was not concerned about
denial of any information. Moreover, the IG regularly meets with senior
DHS officials to discuss and resolve such matters.
Nevertheless, we are constantly striving to improve the
Department's internal processes in the context of prudent management
practices. In this way, we can move forward to fulfill lawful requests
thoroughly and comprehensively.
Question 3.: Do you believe the IG has a right to all Department
records or can draft, privileged, privacy protected, or classified
materials be withheld from the IG?
Response: As previously stated, the Inspector General Act grants
the IG broad authority to obtain relevant records, reports, audits,
reviews, documents, papers, or recommendations within the Department.
Moreover, the Department maintains a strong Management Directive which
requires that its Components provide the IG with prompt access to any
files, records, reports, or other information requested. The documents
provided to the OIG often include classified or otherwise sensitive
information, and in these instances, DHS employees are to advise the
OIG about such markings in order to ensure proper handling of the
documents. As a result, the Department has provided the Office of
Inspector General with many thousands of pages of documents--frequently
containing classified and otherwise sensitive information--and has
assisted the OIG in issuing hundreds of reports. Further, there may be
documents that implicate certain legal principles that require careful
consideration.
Question 4: Please explain your understanding of the conditions
under which employees may meet with the IG. In particular, must
employees report all contact with the IG to their supervisors, or are
they free to meet confidentially with the IG at any time? Are employees
free to provide information directly to the IG, orally and in writing,
without notifying management?
Response: DHS employees are not required to report their contact
with the Office of Inspector General. Typically, the OIG will meet with
employees without supervisors being present. Indeed, DHS Management
Directive 0810.1 recognizes that the OIG is authorized to ``[p]rotect
the identity of any complainant or anyone who provides information to
the OIG.'' This procedure is consistent with Section 7 of the Inspector
General Act and the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
In addition, DHS Management Directive 0810.1 specifies that
Component agencies will ``assist in arranging private interviews by
[OIG] with staff members and other appropriate persons.'' This approach
operates in accordance with prudent management practices, and is, in no
way, intended to inhibit the free flow of information to the Office of
Inspector General. Instead, it reflects the need for supervisors to be
aware of employees' whereabouts and activities within their office or
Component.
Question 5: Do you think it is appropriate for the Department or
one of its Components to require a representative of management or an
audit liaison to sit in on all interviews with the IG?
Response: DHS does not require the presence of a management
representative or audit liaison at all interviews of employees or
contractors. We are not equipped or staffed to handle such a workload.
As the Secretary recently testified before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, DHS believes cooperation with the
OIG is imperative. Nevertheless, when an employee requests a Department
representative to accompany him/her to a meeting with the Office of
Inspector General, we will consider such a request and honor it when
appropriate. In evaluating such situations, we carefully consider the
employees' rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act and other
related statutes.
Question 6.: Please explain your understanding of the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) statutory right of access to Departmental
records and other material.
Response: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has a broad
right of access to a wide range of materials and information within the
Department. In particular, section 716(a) of Title 31 of the U.S. Code
provides the Comptroller General with access to various information
about the Department's ``duties, powers, activities, organization, and
financial transactions,'' so long as it falls within the proper scope
of GAO's authority and competency. Consistent with this statutory
framework, DHS Management Directive 0820 ``requires all employees of
DHS to cooperate with all employees of GAO to the fullest extent
consistent with the obligations of the Department and its
Organizational Elements.''
Question 7: Do you believe it is appropriate for employees to
provide materials directly to the GAO, or must materials first be
provided to a central unit or audit liaison?
Response: As discussed previously, DHS Management Directive 0820
requires DHS employees to cooperate with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) consistent with the Department's obligations. In addition,
DHS employees are provided guidance as to when it is appropriate to
consult with senior officials in order to ensure prompt, accurate and
complete responses to GAO requests. Moreover, the Departmental GAO/OIG
Liaison Office routinely works with the GAO to facilitate the flow of
information and keep track of the materials provided in accordance with
prudent accountability and good management practices. In this way, the
Liaison Office helps to ensure proper marking of documents and
compliance consistent with applicable statutory provisions (including
31 U.S.C. Section 716).
As the Secretary testified on February 8, 2007, DHS is putting
mechanisms in place to create incentives for DHS employees to make
information flow a top priority and linking employee performance
reviews to their responsiveness. We are always striving to improve the
Department's processes in the context of consistency, coordination, and
prudent management practices. In this way, we can move forward to
fulfill lawful requests thoroughly and comprehensively.
Question 8: Do you believe that there are any limitations to the
types or classes of documents that the GAO can request? If so, please
describe the limitations.
Response: DHS works cooperatively with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) in responding to its requests. Indeed, DHS
has provided GAO many, many thousands of documents in response to
numerous GAO requests and hundreds of GAO audits and investigations.
DHS employees are provided guidance for reviewing document
productions before disclosing the information to the GAO. For instance,
DHS--due to nature of the work it performs--handles very sensitive
information, the inappropriate disclosure of which can lead to severe
consequences. While fully cooperating with the GAO, the Department must
strictly adhere to applicable laws and regulations related to the
disclosure of such information. The Department's ability to obtain the
information critical to our mission--particularly from the private
sector and other stakeholders--is based upon our extreme vigilance to
ensure that the release of materials will not be made in an
inappropriate manner. Further, we must ensure that such disclosure will
not negatively impact the open atmosphere in which the information is
shared in the first place. Failure to demonstrate such diligence may
``chill'' or inhibit the willingness of various stakeholders to provide
useful information to the Department. Therefore, it is important to
have an organizational mechanism and structure in place to consider
documents prior to disclosure. DHS will nevertheless continue to work
with and cooperate with the GAO to improve the proper flow of
information and materials consistent with 31 U.S.C. Section 716.
Questions From the Honorable Christopher Carney
Question 9.: Integrating 22 legacy agencies into one functioning
Department is a tremendous challenge. How do you plan to use the
Directorate to facilitate this goal, and what tangible evidence--what
benchmarks--of progress can you describe for the coming year?
Response: An effort of this magnitude requires effective and
efficient use of financial and human resources, enabling technology,
strong processes and superb management. These are the challenges that
are the focus of my efforts.
The major elements of our strategy are:
Improving acquisition and procurement throughout the
Department.
Strengthening the requirements and investment review
processes.
Acquiring and maintaining human capital.
Seeking efficiencies across the enterprise in
operations and the use of resources.
Making the key management systems, such as financial
and information technology, world class.
Our approach has a common thread through all of these areas: Ensure
that there is a comprehensive and integrated strategy with specific and
measurable goals that support the activities and priorities of the
Department. On a practical level, we will ensure that this strategy
succeeds by having a team with the right knowledge, skills and
abilities to support the programs, the overall transformation and the
integration efforts.
Question 10.: The Department has requested over $120 million to
consolidate its headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, we have yet
to see a complete budget estimate for this 10 year project. The $120
million for FY '08 is the short run cost. Looking at the long term
costs of this project, what guarantees can you give us that this
project will stay within budget and not become another ``Big Dig'' or
Capitol Visitor Center?
Response: Both the General Services Administration (GSA) and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are committed to executing this
project in a fiscally responsible manner and will institute controls/
systems throughout the design and construction phases to effectively
manage the scope, schedule and budget.
The DHS NCR Housing Master Plan submitted to the Congress on
October 24, 2006 as directed in the FY 2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-295) establishes the DHS requirement in
terms of the minimum density of development necessary for the
Department to effectively function as a Unified Headquarters. This
requirement is for up to 4.5 million gross square feet of office space
plus parking. GSA is preparing a Master Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for St. Elizabeths West Campus which has 3 alternatives
that meet the DHS requirement. The Master Plan will set the framework
for development, including density, locations for development, design
guidelines, adaptive reuse of historic structures and demolition. This
effort is being coordinated with the Regional Planning and Review
Agencies, including the National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S.
Commission on Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Office of Planning
and other stakeholders such as the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. Since the site is a National Historic Landmark,
consultations in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) are also being conducted.
The final Master Plan with design guidelines and the programmatic
agreement from the Section 106 consultations will help form the basis
of the scope control as all development will have to conform to the
limits and requirements of these documents.
To prevent the project from undisciplined cost growth and schedule
extensions confronting the ``Big Dig'' and Capital Visitors Center, the
General Services Administration (GSA) intends to reduce risks and
uncertainties and will focus on the design and construction process to
deliver a high quality product within the schedule and budget. Our plan
is to concentrate key leadership, management, policy, and operations
coordination functions to enhance DHS's mission execution. Design
Guidelines will be established that will standardize office sizes,
furniture, furnishings, equipment, and will maximize shared use
amenities. Generic office plans will allow maximum flexibility for the
occupancy so changes to the program will limit impact to the design and
construction contracts. GSA plans to employ a ``Construction Manager as
Constructor'' (CMc) delivery model for the St. Elizabeths development
that will facilitate fast tracking of design and construction for
expedited delivery. The CMc model will improve design and construction
coordination because the CMc is brought onto the project team early in
the design to provide pre-construction phase services such as
constructability reviews, coordination of long lead items, construction
cost estimating and construction market analysis to reduce the
likelihood of cost overruns when the design is complete. This delivery
model fosters a better team environment and cooperation between all
parties reducing the potential for contract damages and claims.
The GSA/DHS team will also implement an oversight process for the
St. Elizabeths development that applies technical and administrative
direction and surveillance over the lifecycle of the design and
construction of the project. We will control changes, record and report
information needed to manage the delivery process, track the status of
proposed changes and implementation status of approved changes. We will
also audit change orders to verify conformance to specifications,
drawings, and other contractual requirements.
The Congress will play a critical role in the long term cost
control of the project by providing the necessary funding to maintain
the project schedule for both GSA and DHS. We are concerned that the FY
2007 Continuing Resolution did not fund GSA's request to begin
construction of the USCG Headquarters, which will have both cost and
schedule impacts. Your support of the combined budget requests from DHS
and GSA for the consolidated DHS Headquarters will help reduce
uncertainties and risk by allowing the St. Elizabeths development to
proceed and will limit the impacts of partial funding to the design and
construction process.
Question 11.: The Homeland Security Advisory Council's Culture Task
Force recommended eliminating the buzzword ``Human Capital'' to
describe employees at the Department. We have heard that Department
employees find this term demeaning and that it makes them feel
expendable. It may seem like a small thing, but sometimes small things
say a lot. You told us during your testimony that you do not like it.
What do you intend to do implement this recommendation?
Response: Section 704 of the Homeland Security Act created the
position of the Chief Human Capital Officer. Further, as a consequence
to the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, most other agencies
re-named their human resources offices Human Capital Offices. This was
done for consistency with both the language in the Act, and the
language in related guidance issued by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM). In fact, the establishment of Human Capital Officers
at Federal Agencies is included in the Act that created the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS).
Although legislation created the office for human capital, we are
aware of the fact that we may refer to our greatest asset using some
other ``buzzword'' or phrase. As is the case with most employers, DHS
most often refers to its greatest asset as employees.
As I stated in my testimony, I am not particularly fond of the term
human capital when referring to employees and I am exploring other
possible terms that might be used. My research of this topic, though,
has caused me to discover that there may have been very well conceived
intentions behind the use of the term ``human capital'';
The term ``human capital'', it seems, was coined in order to
provide for stronger argument when articulating a need to
``invest'' in the workforce, i.e., training, development,
education expenses, etc., just as we invest in physical
capital, i.e., buildings, office machines, office furniture,
etc.
The term has also been defined by some as ``a loose catch-all term
for the practical knowledge, acquired skills and learned abilities of
an individual that make him or her potentially productive and thus
equip him or her to earn income in exchange for labor'', and utilizes
the word ``capital'' metaphorically to describe the ``quality of
labor''.
I expect that the use of the term ``human capital'' will remain
throughout the federal government for some time, and may very well
continue to be used by DHS when referring to investments by the
Department in various plans and reports to the Congress. However, as I
said previously, I will continue to examine other possibilities and
will consider all the recommendations offered by the Homeland Security
Advisory Council's Culture Task Force.
Question 12.: As you know the Department's procurement offices are
understaffed. Your plan to develop home-grown experts through an
internship is a good long-term idea, but really won't do much in the
short term. Other short-staffed areas of the Department have had
success in hiring federal annuitants.
Would you support this for the procurement area, and if so do you
have an estimate of how many would be needed?
Response: Yes. The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer is
working with the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer on several
key efforts to address the issue of staffing shortages. In fact, one of
the first initiatives taken was to seek the authority to maximize the
use of hiring flexibilities such as Direct Hire Authority and Re-
Employed Annuitants for procurement personnel. In working closely with
CHCO, the CPO is utilizing centralized recruiting efforts,
incorporating the use of the direct hire authority to rapidly bring
identified talent on board. By actively recruiting at Veteran specific
job fairs, placing job announcements in military publications,
capitalizing on acquisition professionals whose commands were affected
by the Base Realignment and Closure initiative, and teaming with The
Department of Veterans Affairs, we will alleviate our immediate
staffing needs while acquiring the expertise of experienced
professionals.
There is a pressing need to begin filling CPO positions as soon as
possible. However, at this time we do not have an estimate of the
number that would be needed to adequately resolve our staffing problem.
Questions From the Honorable Michael D. Rogers
Question 13.: The Department of Homeland Security was established
just over four years ago. Yet, it already has undergone major
reorganizations. The first major reorganization occurred as a result of
Secretary Chertoff's Second Stage Review in 2005. The second major
reorganization is currently underway as mandated by Congress to reform
and strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In your view, what impact do such reorganizations have on the
operations of DHS and the morale of its employees?
Response: In my view, the business need for reorganization is
essential. It is important to carefully review the mission and how the
organizational structure supports the mission. During our
reorganizations, we have done everything within our power to try to
ensure that the transition for employees is seamless--from a human
resource perspective that employees pay and benefits are not
interrupted, that the supervisory chain is clear and that performance
plans are adjusted; from a security perspective that all of the
security clearances, badges and key cards are obtained before
transferring from one component to another; from an IT perspective that
proper adjustments are made to telephone numbers, computers, etc.; and
from a facilities perspective that furniture, key cards and offices are
relocated in such a way as to keep the disruption for employees to a
minimum. However, I don't want to diminish the fact that change can be
unsettling.
What are some of the lessons learned from the need for such
reorganizations of a new Cabinet department?
Response: Since the Department is newly formed, reorganizations can
be deliberate. Even so, we should attempt to minimize the urge to
reorganize. The bottom line is that reorganizations interfere with a
certain security that employees draw from their work environment and
have an adverse effect on those impacted by the change, no matter how
small. During reorganizations employees spend valuable time concerned
about the impact of the reorganization on their job, job security,
physical moves, etc., instead of the job which we are paying them to
perform.
With that in mind, any reorganization within the Department must be
well thought out and planned with a long-term strategic view, instead
of a knee-jerk reaction to address an immediate failure or deficiency
within the Department, which will invariably end up being a short term
solution necessitating yet another reorganization. The employees of the
U.S. Fire Administration are a good example of this. They were pulled
out of FEMA nine months ago, moved to the Under Secretary for
Preparedness, and are now being moved back to FEMA. We must end this
practice of repeatedly moving employees back and forth between
organizations. I think this can be done through better strategic
planning.
Do you believe the Department is adequately organized, or do you
anticipate or recommend another reorganization in the near future?
Response: I don't see the need for further reorganization in the
near future.
Question 14: Section 841 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a human
resources management system for DHS. Congress intended that the system
include the flexibilities necessary for the Department to be able to
take necessary actions and respond appropriately to protect our Nation
from terrorist attacks.
The Department's original proposal has been delayed by protracted
litigation. It is critical that the Secretary have the tools he needs
to manage the Department to fulfill its overarching mission of
protecting our homeland.
What needs to be done to ensure the Secretary has the necessary
flexibilities to manage the Department's work force?
Response: We believe that we have the critical flexibilities we
need to manage our workforce through existing government-wide
flexibilities, as well as those provided through the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 and the 2005 Department of Homeland Security Human
Resources Management System (Part 9701) regulations implementing the
MAXHR program.
However, as part of our strategy moving forward under the 2007--
2008 DHS Human Capital Operational Plan, the Office of the Chief Human
Capital Officer will also be working with the components to identify
areas where additional regulatory and/or statutory changes would help.
For example, one area that we will be looking at very closely is hiring
flexibilities. We will work with our components to review current
flexibilities in order to determine if there are other changes we may
need in order to more readily hire qualified individuals into our
mission critical occupations to meet mission requirements.&
Once these determinations are made, we will reach out to Congress
to request those additional flexibilities and report on our efforts. We
will also be reviewing our internal policies and regulations, in
partnership with the DHS EEO/Civil Rights Offices, to find additional
efficiencies, where possible.
The Committee has been advised that the Department will no longer
use the term ``MaxHR'' to describe its new personnel system. Could you
please comment on how DHS plans to proceed with implementing a flexible
personnel system?
Response: The flexibilities provided to the Department (which were
branded using the name MAXHR) provided an excellent start, but they did
not go far enough in addressing the broad range of needs for a 21st
century human capital program across the Department. For this reason,
we will no longer be using the brand MAXHR as we move to address
broader initiatives that are essential for us to be successful in the
future.
As you know, DHS received flexibilities in the following six areas:
Classification
Pay and Pay Administration
Performance Management
Labor-Management Relations
Adverse Actions, and
Appeals
Over the past few years, we have made significant progress in
laying the foundation for a robust human capital program using the
flexibilities provided. The cornerstone of our efforts has been the
development and implementation of our DHS Performance Management
Program. Implementing this program under MAXHR has helped many of our
component organizations achieve new levels of accountability and
transparency by improving manager-employee interaction and recognizing
top performing employees.
At the same time, it became evident that the human capital needs of
the Department extended beyond the six areas provided for in the
regulations. To address all the critical areas, we have developed a
Human Capital Operational Plan to serve as a roadmap to integrate key
human capital practices. This plan will allow DHS to adjust to changing
directions and priorities while identifying five operational goals.
These goals are designed to improve DHS' capacity to build and sustain
a high-performing workforce with the knowledge, tools and resources to
achieve the Department's vital mission. They are:
Hiring and retaining a talented and diverse workforce
Creating a DHS-wide culture of performance
Creating high-quality learning and development
programs for DHS employees
Implementing a DHS-wide integrated leadership service
Being a model of human capital service excellence
Under the five goals, we will continue the valuable work begun
under the MAXHR program, but will also broaden our focus to other key
areas, including development of career paths to expand career
opportunities and investment in learning and development programs to
give employees the knowledge and tools they need to be successful. We
will also modernize hiring and retention programs to make sure we can
attract and retain the best talent. With respect to the programs
initiated under MAXHR, we will:
Expand the implementation of the DHS Performance
Management Program to allow us to work more effectively across
components and align the work we do with the strategy, vision,
and values of the Department.
Delay the implementation of a pay banding program
until the DHS Performance Management Program has been fully
implemented and evaluated.
Conduct a pay-for-performance pilot program in a small
component or organization to validate, measure, and refine the
pay band models and processes.
Work with the Office of Personnel Management and
collaborate with employee representatives to decide on next
steps consistent with recent court rulings.
By proceeding in this deliberate manner, we will ensure that
performance management is well-established in the Department, and that
we have adequate time to properly train the workforce. These actions
will also support our efforts in addressing the issues raised by the
Federal Human Capital Survey.
As we look to a future of increasing challenges, our need for
innovative, state-of-the art human capital programs is clear. The
framework for these new programs is described in the DHS Human Capital
Operational Plan, which will guide our efforts to sustain our high-
performing workforce of today--and build our workforce of tomorrow.
Question 15.: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
General Services Administration (GSA) have developed a plan to relocate
and consolidate a number of DHS facilities in the National Capital
Region to one main, secure facility on the site of St. Elizabeth's
Hospital in Anacostia, District of Columbia.
The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 requests $120 million
for DHS and $345 million for GSA for this relocation.
What is the proposed total cost and timeline for this relocation?
Response: The overall cost of the St. Elizabeths West Campus
development is a function of the final Master Plan layout and density
selected in conjunction and in consultation with the review agencies.
While a programming level estimate has been developed, it continues to
be refined and revised as more of the details of the various ongoing
studies are completed. Currently, the preliminary estimate of total
project cost, inclusive of GSA infrastructure/building costs, DHS
tenant specific costs for the construction and renovation, IT,
furniture, fixtures and equipment, and move costs may approach as much
as $3 billion. Most of the DHS specific costs will be incurred
irrespective of the St. Elizabeths West Campus development due to the
need to replace expiring leases over the coming years.
According to ``The Automated Prospectus System'' (TAPS) analysis
conducted by GSA, consolidating up to 4.5 million gross square feet
(GSF) of the DHS office space requirement at St. Elizabeths West Campus
will result in an approximate $1 billion Net Present Value (NPV)
savings over a thirty year period as compared to individually replacing
commercial leases without any consolidation.
DHS is currently housed in more than 50 locations and over 80
buildings dispersed throughout the National Capitol Region (NCR). Over
the course of the next 10 years approximately 4.7 million GSF of DHS
leased office space will have to be replaced. Without consolidation of
up to 4.5 million GSF of office space plus parking at St. Elizabeths,
DHS would be compelled to occupy predominately leased space at an
overall greater cost. We would also forego multiple vital efficiencies
gained through shared services, while incurring higher real estate and
security costs.
The original 3-phase schedule for development of the St. Elizabeths
West Campus as proposed by the General Services Administration (GSA)
and included the DHS National Capital Region Housing Master Plan
submitted to the Congress as directed in P.L. 109-295 (FY 2007 Homeland
Security Appropriations Act) is listed below. The schedule proposed
construction funding beginning in FY 2007 for the first phase of the
development (USCG Headquarters Relocation) and completion/occupancy of
the third and final phase in FY 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Phase Component Construction Proposed
Start Occupancy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 USCG Headquarters FY2007 FY2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 DHS HQ/FEMA HQ FY2009 FY2013
National Operations
Center
(NOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Remaining Operating FY2011 FY2015
Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the lack of funding for the St. Elizabeths project in the
recently passed Continuing Resolution, we are concerned that the
overall schedule may be delayed with corresponding adverse impacts on
DHS operations and integration. We are currently working with GSA to
update the schedule and I look forward to working with the Congress on
options to recover from any schedule slippage as a result of the FY07
C.R. in future year budget submissions.
How will the initial $120 million for DHS be used? To the extent
you may know, how will the $345 million for GSA be used?
Response: The DHS FY08 Budget Request of $120M is for the
following:
USCG Headquarters Building Tenant Improvement
construction liability for FY 2008 including the main
headquarters facility and shared spaces
Tenant specific design costs for Phase 2 of the
development will include DHS Headquarters (including components
with only liaison presence on campus), FEMA HQ, the National
Operations Center (NOC )
Tenant specific pre-design costs for Phase 3 of the
development will include the remaining operating components
Project team staffing to manage the initiative
The GSA's FY08 Budget Request of $345M is for the following:
Phase 1 construction of USCG Headquarters
Management and Inspection costs
Phase 2 design of DHS Headquarters, FEMA Headquarters,
the National Operations Center (NOC) and other shared use
facilities
West Campus Infrastructure
Site Acquisition for new access into the campus
What DHS components will be relocated to the new site? What
components in the National Capital Region would not be relocated?
Response: The table below is excerpted from the DHS NCR Housing
Master plan submitted to the Congress on October 24, 2006 as directed
in P.L. 109-295 (FY 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Act). All DHS
and Component Headquarters will have some level of presence on the
campus. The campus occupancy will be focused on senior leadership,
policy, mission execution/operations coordination and program
management functions. Mission support functions that cannot be
accommodated on the campus will be consolidated where possible off-
campus to support functional integration.
St. Elizabeths West Campus Proposed Occupancy Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Level of
Presence[1] S = Relocation Phase
Component Significant L = Liaison According to GSA's
F = Full planned schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Office of the F 2
Secretary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the General F 2
Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Secretary for F 2
Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for S 2
Preparedness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Operations F 2
Coordination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Intelligence S 2
and Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Secretary for F 2
Legislative and
Intergovernmental
Affairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Public F 2
Affairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for S 2
Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of F 2
Counternarcotics
Enforcement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening Coordination F 2
Office
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Privacy Officer F 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship & F 2
Immigration Services
Ombudsman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer for Civil F 2
Rights and Civil
Liberties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLETC Washington Office F 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Coast Guard F 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Emergency F 2
Management Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customs & Border S 3
Protection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration & Customs S 3
Enforcement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Security S 3
Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Secret Service L 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science & Technology L 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Nuclear L 2
Detection Office
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US-VISIT L 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizenship & L 2
Immigration Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Inspector L 2
General
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] S = Significant Presence means Component Heads and their senior
leadership for operations, planning, policy, management and some
limited support functions. Remaining support staff will be
consolidated with other Components back-office functions ``off-
campus'' where possible to minimize locations and take advantage of
functional integration opportunities.
L = Liaison Presence means a limited coordinating staff only with the
bulk of the Component space located off-campus.
F = Full Presence means the entire office or component.
Question: What other sites were considered, and what was the
rationale for selecting the St. Elizabeth's campus?
Response: The following table was excerpted from the DHS NCR
Housing Master Plan submitted to the Congress on 24 October 2006 as
directed by P.L. 109-295 (Homeland Security FY2007 Appropriations Act)
and lists the locations that GSA considered to house DHS and why each
was eliminated from further study. Only Federal sites were examined by
GSA to avoid incurring unnecessary acquisition costs. Privately owned
properties were excluded from the analysis given that GSA already
controls a federally owned site capable of accommodating DHS's need.
GSA has determined the only site under Federal Government control that
has the size, potential capacity, security features, and availability
to meet DHS minimum urgent consolidation needs is St. Elizabeths West
Campus, Washington, D.C.
Alternative Location Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Reason Eliminated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germantown Campus, Insufficient space--only 1.3 million
Germantown, Maryland SF of space available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suitland Federal Center, Insufficient space--only 800,000 SF
Suitland, Maryland of space available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Research Center at White Insufficient space--only 1.7 million
Oak, SF of space available.
Silver Spring, Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franconia Storage Depot, Insufficient space--only 55,000 SF of
Franconia, Virginia space is available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Geological Survey Campus, Insufficient space--only 450,000 SF
Reston, Virginia of space is available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton Annex & 12th and C Insufficient space--only 56,636 SF of
Streets, space available.
Washington, D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Federal Center, Insufficient space--only 1.8 million
Washington, D.C. SF of space available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reservation 13, Washington, D.C. The site is under control of the
District of Columbia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armed Forces Retirement Home, The site is projected to be
Washington, D.C. redeveloped via ground lease to
compatible users to replenish the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust
Fund. GSA cannot pay for both
construction costs and ground lease
payments, since another Federal site
(St. Elizabeths West Campus) is
available. Also, GSA would not pay
for full reimbursement of the site
(in a transfer context), given that
there is already a Federal site
available for development. The
property would also not likely be
available in a timely manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert F. Kennedy Stadium Site, The site is under control of the
Washington, D.C. District of Columbia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska Avenue Complex, Insufficient space--if site was
Washington, D.C. developed to full capacity, only 1.2
million SF of space is available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, The property would not be available
Washington, D.C. until 2012, which is outside the
timeframe required by DHS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beltsville Agricultural Research The U.S. Department of Agriculture
Center, currently determines types of
Beltsville, Maryland development on this site and has
indicated the site is not available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, language in PL 109-241, Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006, dated 11 July 2006, requires GSA to
specifically evaluate the following properties for the USCG
Headquarters:
1. The current Department of Transportation Headquarters
located in the Nassif Building above the LEnfant Metro station
in Southwest Washington, D.C.
2. The Waterfront Mall Complex in Southwest Washington, D.C.
Although GSA will formally provide evaluation of these properties
to the relevant Congressional Committees, as required by PL 109-241,
since the USCG Headquarters is part of the up to 4.5 million GSF
minimum departmental consolidation requirement, neither of these
facilities has the required size or security setbacks to meet the needs
of the consolidated campus that DHS seeks.
Since DHS Headquarters is expected to relocate, will DHS continue
to use the Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC)? If so, how?
Response: DHS and Component Headquarters currently require about 7
million Gross Square Feet (GSF) of office space. GSA has determined
there are no sites already federally owned that are available and can
accommodate the entirety of DHS real estate needs in a single location
in the NCR. Moreover, the St. Elizabeths West Campus is the only site
that has the potential to accommodate up to 4.5 million GSF of new and
adaptively reused office space plus parking as well as meet our
security requirements. Consequently, the Department carefully analyzed
the critical functions that must be collocated on the secure campus and
the remaining requirements that may be consolidated elsewhere. As we
finalize the specific levels of presence for the components listed
above, we will look closely at all of the properties and capacities
that remain. Our goal is to reduce the number of locations housing DHS
entities to as few as possible.
The NAC was selected as the initial headquarters when the
Department was stood up in 2003. As DHS organizations and mission
requirements have matured and expanded over the past three years, it is
obvious that the physical limitations of the property make the NAC
wholly unsuitable as the permanent headquarters for the Department.
Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and the Second Stage Review
underscore this conclusion. We appreciate that Congress appropriated
funds to support the NAC, and these funds are vital to sustain the
current operating capability of the Department. Although the physical
limitations of the NAC render it unsuitable as the permanent DHS
headquarters, over the longer term it is certainly likely that the NAC
can well serve as a site for consolidation of certain DHS mission
support functions that can utilize the much needed recent facility
improvements.
A number of buildings on the site date back to the 1800s. How will
they be utilized, and what is the cost-benefit analysis that will
determine whether to renovate the historic buildings versus building
new office space?
Response: GSA is responsible for the costs of renovating historic
buildings to meet current codes and standard office requirements. DHS
costs are for tenant specific requirements above the tenant improvement
allowance provided by GSA. There are two overarching considerations
that influence GSA's approach to renovating historic properties. They
are the National Historic Preservation Act and applicable Executive
Orders. The other factor is requirements imposed by the National
Capital Planning Commission. As the central planning agency for the
Federal Government in the National Capital Region, NCPC is charged with
planning for the appropriate and orderly development of the national
capital and the conservation of important natural and historic
features. Within that context, GSA is engaged in working with DHS to
protect the most significant historic resources as part of an
integrated campus for DHS.
Executive Order 13006: Locating Federal Facilities on Historic
Properties in our Nation's Central Cities requires Federal agencies,
when operationally appropriate and economically productive, to give
first consideration to historic properties within historic districts.
St. Elizabeths is a National Historic Landmark. As GSA is committed to
complying with Executive Order 13006 and Sections 106 and 110 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, consideration of the site's
historic significance is a major focus of GSA's planning efforts. GSA
is guided by the principal goals of its Historic Buildings program in
carrying out this project. Those goals are to realize the objectives of
the National Historic Preservation Act by developing: a) strategies
that enable the reuse of GSA's historic buildings; and other
contributing elements, such as the cultural landscape b) creative
design solutions to resolve conflicts between preservation, codes, and
functional requirements of modern office use. In keeping with these
preservation and planning goals, GSA is seeking to satisfy DHS's
programmatic requirements in a manner ensuring that ``to the maximum
extent possible, [GSA has] undertake[n] such planning and actions as
may be necessary to minimize harm to [the] National Historic
Landmark.'' The Master Plan includes both development objectives and
planning principles that recognize the importance of preserving and
protecting the important tangible, as well as intangible, historic
characteristics of the campus while ensuring operational effectiveness
for the Federal user. The National Capital Planning Commission uses an
approved Master Plan as the basis of approving follow on building
designs. The master plan for the St. Elizabeths West Campus development
and the subsequent building designs are subject to review (advisory
only) by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
With regard to the cost-benefit analysis that will determine
whether to renovate the historic buildings versus building new office
space, this is also a GSA responsibility and they intend to approach
this task on a campus wide basis that seeks to preserve the historic
resource while introducing new construction. The final cost of
developing the campus continues to be refined as more information is
learned about the site and individual buildings. GSA advises the costs
of renovating historic structures will be dependent upon the results of
consultation process as required by the National Historic Preservation
Act.
The alternative to housing DHS in a campus environment (which
includes new and adaptive re-use space at the St. Elizabeths West
Campus) would require GSA to house DHS in leased locations that would
be more costly to the tax payer. here are no other Federal sites that
have the potential to meet the DHS minimum housing requirement.
According to ``The Automated Prospectus System'' (TAPS) analysis
conducted by GSA, consolidating up to 4.5 million gross square feet
(GSF) of the DHS office space requirement at St. Elizabeths West Campus
will result in approximate $1 billion Net Present Value (NPV) savings
over a thirty year period as compared to individually replacing
commercial leases without any consolidation.
GSA is currently consulting under Sections 106 and 110 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 with the District of
Columbia State Historic Preservation Office, Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, National Capital Planning Commission, U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts as well as other local planning and other
planning agencies including National Capital Planning Commission and
preservation organizations. The consultation will help identify
appropriate mitigation measures necessary to minimize harm to the
National Historic Landmark. Mitigation consultations are expected to
begin when a preferred alternative is made available to the public in
July 2007 and are expected to be completed in March 2008.
Question 16: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
recommended that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department
of Defense each should establish a new Deputy Secretary position
specifically to focus on management and transformation. GAO also
advocated that this position should be filled by longer-term executives
to provide for greater continuity within the departments.
What is your opinion on this GAO recommendation to create a new
Deputy Secretary position?
Response: I have been given, as the Under Secretary for Management,
the Secretary's authority to manage the entire department. I've been
told by the Secretary that I should prepare management directives that
will strengthen any areas of authority that I feel I do not have.
I don't agree with elevating it to deputy. First of all, I think
title inflation doesn't necessarily add any value. At some point the
Under Secretary has to get the work done, and making me a deputy
secretary doesn't make it any easier. It has a negative effect.
There should be only one deputy in a department. That person, who
happens to be very able--Michael Jackson--is the one person who knows
everything that the Secretary does, including the most highly
classified things. Anything that muddles his authority in the
Secretary's absence is counterproductive.
Wouldn't the same goals be accomplished by simply augmenting the
authorities of your position within DHS?
Response: Yes.
Wouldn't a new Deputy Secretary just be another layer of
bureaucracy which would overlap the role of the existing Deputy
Secretary at DHS and create confusion within the organization?
Response: Yes, it could.
Wouldn't a longer-term executive serving in this new position
create inherent conflict with changes in leadership of the Department?
Response: Yes, it could.
Question 17: During the last Congress, this Committee held a number
of hearings and passed legislation to strengthen the ability of the
chief operating officers to oversee their counterparts in the
Department's legacy agencies.
In your first few months in office, have you identified any
specific problems in the areas of financial management, procurement,
and personnel that could be related to the lack of direct line
authority for the chief operating officers at the Headquarters level?
What recommendations do you have to improve management in these areas?
Response: Yes, I determined that the DHS Chief Information Offer
(CIO) did not have sufficient authority to execute the Information
Technology (IT) transfer required across the Department. The Secretary
agreed with my assessment and shortly thereafter, he issued the
appropriate Departmental management directive giving the CIO the
authority he needed to successfully execute his responsibilities.
When it was determined that the CIO did not have sufficient
authority, specific steps were taken to give him the authority he
needed.
Question 18.: Comptroller General David Walker testified on January
31st that DHS ``continues to face challenges in creating an effective,
integrated acquisition organization.''
What is your assessment of the existing acquisition organization at
DHS?
Response: The Department of Homeland Security is just beginning or
is in the midst of many crucial acquisitions that are vital to the
success of DHS. That is why we are working to strengthen acquisition
and procurement by institutionalizing solid processes. To this end we
are:
Building the capability to manage complex efforts by
ensuring that program offices are properly structured and
staffed with the right people, and the right skills, to ensure
efficient and effective program management and oversight; and
aggressively hiring where we have known shortages.
Strengthening the requirements and investment review
processes by improving the Joint Requirements Council (JRC) and
Investment Review Board (IRB) process.
Reviewing the major programs and investments to ensure
that the requirements are clear, cost estimates are valid, the
technology risk is properly assessed, schedules are realistic,
the contract vehicles are proper, and the efforts are well
managed.
What changes in the organization do you plan to implement?
Response: To date, the Department's focus has been on procurement.
Procurement, however, is only one element of acquisition management.
Acquisition also includes understanding operational and life-cycle
requirements, such as formulating concepts of operations, developing
sound business strategies, exercising prudent financial management,
assessing trade-offs, and managing program risks. Best practice
acquisition management is executed by teams of professionals who
understand and are able to manage the entire life-cycle of a major
program effort. DHS has a shortage of people that are experienced in
program management, including its related functional areas (e.g.
acquisition logistics, cost analysis). I will focus on this area as one
of my major priorities by identifying needed skills and processes and
considering expedited delivery of training in key disciplines for those
individuals involved in the management of the Department's major
programs.
We have established a department-wide real property asset
management plan with performance metrics to govern investment decisions
regarding our buildings, structures and land. We are expanding this
approach to all tangible assets through the investment review process
with an Asset Management and Services Board with representation by the
component chief administrative officers.
Question 19.: Many of the legacy components of DHS have their own
procurement offices.
What is the Department doing at the Headquarters level to ensure
the accountability of these different processes?
Response: To ensure accountability of acquisition and procurement
processes at the DHS Components, the Chief Procurement Officer has
established the following top priorities:
First, to build the DHS acquisition workforce to
enhance the Department's acquisition program.
Second, to establish an acquisition system whereby
each requirement has a well defined mission and a management
team that includes professionals with the requisite skills to
achieve mission results.
Third, to ensure more effective buying across the
eight contracting offices through the use of strategic sourcing
and supplier management.
Fourth, to strengthen contract administration to
ensure that products and services purchased meet contract
requirements and mission need.
These four goals were flowed down to each of the eight Heads of the
Contracting Activities through the component heads to ensure alignment
and focus on these high priority items. Progress in these four areas
will significantly strengthen the Department's ability to perform its
mission and to execute acquisition programs successfully. Additionally,
the CPO is implementing a 4 step oversight process intended to ensure
Components are using effective procurement processes. These steps
include acquisition planning, Component self-assessments, Component
operational assessments and procurement management reviews of the
Components. Considerable progress has been made in implementing this
oversight plan, with the initial implementation of the first three
steps largely done, and the implementation of the last step commenced.
What organizational changes, if any, would you recommend to ensure
acquisition by the legacy components of DHS is integrated to maximize
economies of scale?
Response: I would not recommend any organizational changes at this
time. It is not clear that the current organizational structure is the
reason for any problems that have been identified. The single largest
reason for identified problems has been the shortage of acquisition
personnel and skills to accomplish the mission. Organizational change
will not necessarily resolve people shortages. I've have taken a number
of steps to address the people and skills shortage including a
Department-wide acquisition recruitment initiative. I've asked the CPO
to lead this effort with support from the Chief Human Capital Officer.
What additional tools would you recommend be given to the DHS Chief
Procurement Officer to strengthen oversight of acquisitions by the
Department's component agencies?
Response: I intend to review programs on a regular basis and the
process that is used to manage programs within the Department. I will
make adjustments as appropriate to ensure that DHS programs are
effectively managed.
Question 20.: The DHS Inspector General testified on January 31st
that many of the procurement offices within the Department are
understaffed.
What are your plans to address this issue?
Response: The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer is working on
several key efforts to address the issue of staffing shortages. The
first initiative taken was to seek the authority to maximize the use of
hiring flexibilities such as, Direct Hire Authority and Re-Employed
Annuitants for procurement personnel. In working closely with the
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, the CPO is utilizing
centralized recruiting efforts incorporating the use of the direct hire
authority to rapidly bring identified talent on board. The centralized
recruiting efforts include: department-wide vacancy announcements,
print advertisements in major media publications as well as attendance
at key acquisition recruiting events such as: the Federal Acquisition
Conference/Expo and the National Contract Management Association 2007
World Congress. Future recruiting initiatives will focus on the
employment of Veterans, such as Veteran specific job fairs, job
announcements in military publications, capitalizing on acquisition
professionals whose commands were affected by the Base Realignment and
Closure initiative, and teaming with The Department of Veterans affairs
utilizing existing programs such as ``The Wounded Warrior'' whenever
possible. A longer term approach, and capstone to the plan is the
centrally managed Intern Program. In order to satisfy the long term
need for qualified personnel, the Office of the Chief Procurement
Officer sought centralized funding in order to attract, hire, and train
exceptional new talent in order to ``grow'' a workforce.
How long will it take to ensure DHS has the requisite number of
properly trained procurement officers?
Response: The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer will utilize
all resources available to attract and retain qualified talent and
provide training and development opportunities to the procurement
workforce across the Department. Currently, the CPO's office is
contracting a study to assist in determining a methodology for
forecasting future workforce needs. The training and development of
procurement personnel is an on-going endeavor and the lifecycle is
dependant on where in their experience level in their careers an
individual enters the Department. For instance, in order to fulfill the
Federal certification requirement a new entrant with no experience will
be required to obtain a minimum of four years experience and complete
over four hundred hours of procurement training during that time
period.
Question 21.: In the 109th Congress, this Subcommittee held a
number of hearings on DHS contracts that were riddled with waste and
mismanagement.
The Inspector General testified before this Subcommittee that DHS
lacks the necessary number of procurement officers and a number of the
procurement staff on board are not properly trained.
What are your plans to ensure DHS has the necessary number of
trained procurement officers?
Response: The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer is utilizing
the methodologies as outlined in question number 35 in order to
increase the numbers of procurement personnel. To ensure they are
properly trained they are embarking on a number of key initiatives. The
first was to seek centralized, specific funding for acquisition
training. Those funds will be used to supplement certification training
provided by the Federal Acquisition Institute with specialized targeted
training identified such as: Safety Act, Performance Based Acquisition,
and Buy American Processes and Compliance. The department has also
launched an almost monthly series entitled, ``Excellence in
Contracting'' which are seminars targeted on hot and emerging topics in
procurement. The Acquisition Workforce division is also working closely
with the Oversight Division to identify deficiencies as procurement
reviews are conducted and plan to develop and/or buy specific training
to close those skill gaps as necessary.
Based on your experience at the Department of Defense, what are
some of the major differences in contracting and procurement that you
have seen within DHS?
Response: DoD has well established protocols and procedures. The
processes that DHS does have in place, because of the Department's
infancy, have not had a chance to mature. The acquisition and
procurement career field is also better staffed at all levels,
providing a more solid resource base to lay out complex efforts.
What are some of the lessons learned from your experience at DoD
that you plan to implement at DHS?
Response: I plan to adapt best practices in all areas.
Question 22: On January 31st, the DHS Inspector General testified
that 36 Federal grant programs may duplicate grant programs
administered by the Department.
Will you work with the Inspector General's Office to identify these
programs?
Response: The DHS Office of Inspector General's (IG) testimony,
before the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on February 6, 2007 and
Committee on Homeland Security on February 7, 20027, stated that they
``identified 36 federal assistance programs that have the potential for
duplicating DHS grant programs''. The grants process and the
requirements associated with each assistance program can be complex,
and generally are stipulated by the Congress with administrative
requirements provided by OMB Circulars. The DHS Chief Procurement
Office has responsible for oversight of assistance programs within DHS
and has assigned the Office of Grant Policy and Oversight to contact
the OIG's to request the list of federal assistance programs they
identified in order to determine if there is a duplication of effort,
or whether the grant programs address different sets of requirements
and recipients. It is not unusual for assistance programs awarded under
grants sponsored by different agencies to address similar missions, but
generally the agencies are aware of the potential duplication and
coordinate the efforts to avoid such duplication.
What can be done to eliminate this bureaucratic overlap?
Response: The DHS CPO/GPO will continue to work with the DHS
program offices, the Office of General Counsel and the Office of
Inspector Generals to identify Federal assistance programs that appear
to be overlapping with DHS assistance programs, and notify the DHS
program offices of potential duplication possibilities and request that
they contact the program respective agency to coordinate program
mission and/or awards.
Question 23.: This Committee has consistently been concerned with
reports that first responder grants were used for unrelated or
ineligible uses.
What can the Department do to better manage grants once the awards
have been made to ensure that funding is being spent appropriately?
Response: Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gives
the State Administrative Agency (SAA) maximum flexibility to determine
State and local funding priorities, the Office of Grants and Training
(G&T) provides several levels of oversight for Federal grant funds.
The SAA provides sub-grants to local jurisdictions for
their use, and monitors the sub-grantees to ensure compliance
with G&T program guidance.
G&T's Preparedness Officers (POs) are in almost daily
contact with State grantees to serve as a resource for
questions.
G&T requires each State and identified urban area to
develop a homeland security strategy, based on a comprehensive
assessment of threats, vulnerabilities, and assets. Last year's
strategies were further enhanced by the requirement that States
align their existing State/urban area strategies with the
national priorities as listed in the National Preparedness
guidance. States must expend grant funds in accordance with
identified goals and objectives listed in their strategies.
POs continually monitor grant implementation,
including appropriate and timely obligation and expenditure of
grant funds. This office-based monitoring is conducted through
quarterly financial status reports, bi-annual progress reports,
correspondence, and routine communication with grantees.
G&T has an established programmatic monitoring
protocol requiring that at least one onsite monitoring visit be
conducted each year with the SAA. During this visit, POs may
conduct interviews with State program implementation staff,
review records, review State procedures and guidelines, visit
sub-grantees, and verify equipment purchases. Monitoring
protocols also require the review of progress made toward the
goals and objectives noted in the State strategies, as well as
compliance with national initiatives such as National Incident
Management System and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-
8 implementation.
In addition to the programmatic administrative oversight described
above, G&T financial monitoring is now being conducted to ensure the
appropriate use of homeland security funds consistent with Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations on assessing and addressing
risk. Risk can be measured in association with dollar volumes,
incidence significance (meaning that there are trends or other
indicators that show a need for more in depth analysis), or with a
combination of discretionary and random risk elements (measuring a
population of awards, for instance). Monitoring is done using both
onsite and desk reviews of grantees.
G&T financial monitoring also includes an assessment of the flow of
funds through the States to the localities to identify impediments and
to test the appropriate use and distribution of funds. These reviews,
which are conducted as part of an annual onsite monitoring plan by both
programmatic and financial personnel from G&T, include the assessment
of financial performance as part of a tandem visit.
G&T also incorporates financial management training and assistance
to grantees to enhance internal control measures and the proper
oversight of subgrantees (localities). G&T uses internal reports,
grantee financial and programmatic progress reports, and a new
financial monitoring protocol and profile that assists in performance
assessment and control measures.
Although there have been periodic media inquiries regarding alleged
misuses of our funds by State or local entities, DHS has been able to
refute the vast majority of these claims. In many cases, outside
entities do not clearly understand how DHS programs work, and, as such,
the Department is committed to education and outreach to help clarify
any questions.
It is also worth noting that after numerous audits by various
governmental agencies, including GAO, there has not been any evidence
of widespread abuse of homeland security grant funds. Given the fact
that the Department has granted more than $15 billion dollars since 9/
11, this is a testament to the commitment to preparedness at the
Federal, State and local levels.
Questions 24.: The Inspector General testified on January 31st that
FEMA has made progress in addressing problems in its contracting, such
as increasing the number of pre-negotiated contracts. In addition, the
Department has created a Disaster Response and Recovery Internal
Control Oversight Board.
Do you believe these steps will help to reduce waste, fraud, and
abuse in future disasters?
Response: FEMA has developed a National Contingency Plan which
assists the Agency in preparing for upcoming disasters. As part of this
plan, an acquisition tracker was developed which identifies
procurements that support future hurricane seasons. The tracker helps
to support the contingency plan to compete contracts for requirements
which may be needed in the future. By aiding FEMA in competing
contracts prior to the advent of a hurricane, the acquisition tracker
will help preclude the need to procure disaster relief and recovery
with unusual and compelling urgency.
What else can FEMA to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in its
contracting?
Response: Supporting acquisitions prior to disasters will help
combat waste, fraud and abuse by enabling procurement officials to
include proper oversight and monitoring controls in the contract to
counter abuse as well as ensure FEMA resources are available to
properly administer and supervise the contracts. Overall, the use of
contingency contracts will help FEMA to more effectively control its
procurement and contract management processes.
In addition to the competitive award of contingency contracts,
strong contract administration will protect against fraud, waste, and
abuse. FEMA has established contracting offices in each of the Gulf
states, staffed with qualified contracting personnel. Additionally,
FEMA has added contracting officer's technical representatives (COTRs)
in the region to ensure appropriate acceptance of good and services.
Also, it has published a FEMA contracting field guide establishing the
contract administration procedures for the major contracts.&
What is your role in the current reorganization of FEMA?
Response: My role is to facilitate the reorganization.
Question 25.: On January 31st, the DHS Inspector General testified
that the Department's internal control weaknesses, specifically those
at the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the
Transportation Security Administration, weaken financial management
within DHS.
What is the Department doing to resolve the internal control
weaknesses?
Response: To resolve the internal control weaknesses, the
Department issued its first ever Department-wide corrective action plan
in a document entitled the Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
(ICOFR) Playbook. The ICOFR Playbook outlines the additional steps the
Department will take to resolve material weaknesses and build
management assurances.
What additional steps should the Department take in this area?
Response: Substantial progress was achieved in our FY 2006
financial statement audit. Two components, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC) received favorable audit outcomes. CBP obtained an unqualified
opinion on all financial statements and FLETC achieved an unqualified
opinion on its first ever balance sheet audit. Significant progress has
also been achieved in reducing conditions that comprise the
Department's material weakness structure. For example, most
significantly the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
eliminated five of its seven component-level material weakness
conditions.
Question 26.: In 2004, Congress passed the Department of Homeland
Security Financial Accountability Act which strengthened the role of
the Chief Financial Officer and required audits of the Department's
internal controls.
What is the status of the Department's compliance with this Act?
Response: The Department has made steady and continuous progress in
implementing the Department of Homeland Security Act. In FY 2005,
Secretary Chertoff issued an assurance statement on internal control
over financial reporting. In FY 2006, the Department's Inspector
General issued an audit opinion on the Department's internal controls
over financial reporting. In addition, the Department's Chief Financial
Officer was confirmed by Congress. Finally, Secretary Chertoff approved
the Department's first ever Department-wide corrective action plan to
address material weaknesses reported in the Secretary's assurance
statement and the Inspector General's audit opinion.
When do you believe the Department will receive its first clean
audit opinion?
Response: A favorable audit opinion is dependent upon successful
execution of corrective action plans. Currently corrective actions are
scheduled to be completed by 2010.
Question 27.: The DHS Inspector General testified on January 31,
2007, that his information security audits identified a number of
information technology (IT) risks and vulnerabilities within the US-
VISIT program.
What are these vulnerabilities?
Response: OIG-06-39 Enhanced Security Controls Needed for US-VISITs
System Using RFID Technology Audit Closed--As of November 7, 2006, in a
memo from Assistant Inspector General Frank Deffer, all recommendations
associated with this audit were closed.
OIG Report 06-16 US-VISIT System Security Management Needs
Strengthening
Recommendation 1: Ensure that CBP's Information Systems Security
Manager follows up with the local system administrators at the ports-
of-entry (POE) to ensure that the security vulnerabilities identified
for US-VISIT systems are remediated.
Original DHS Response: Both the US-VISIT Program Office and CBP
management concurred with this recommendation. Based on the
vulnerability scanning results, the US-VISIT Program Office will
independently determine whether US-VISIT information or assets are at
risk. CBP Technology Operations will organize a team of local
administrators to generate a plan for the recommendation of identified
POE vulnerabilities and for addressing subsequently identifies
vulnerabilities by March 31, 2006.
DHS 5/23/06 Update: On March 30, 2006 CBP generated a plan for the
recommendation of identified POE vulnerabilities and for addressing
subsequently identified vulnerabilities. By August 31, 2006, CBP plans
to remediate currently vulnerable US-VISIT systems. By May 31, 2006,
CBP plans to implement a vulnerability management process for US-VISIT
systems.
OIG 10/3/06 Evaluation: The attached ``Plan for Correcting Security
Vulnerabilities in US-VISIT Systems'' meets the intent of our audit
recommendation. US-VISIT systems will be tested to ensure existing
vulnerabilities have been remediated when we schedule a subsequent
follow-up audit of the US-VISIT security program.
Status: CLOSED
Recommendation 2: Establish MOUs and Interconnection Security
Agreements (ISA) between CBP, ICE and the US-VISIT Program Office for
the interconnections to the US-VISIT backbone. US-VISIT, in conjunction
with CBP and ICE, has completed all required actions resulting from
this finding.
Recommendation 3: Revise the MOU with the Department of State to
ensure that it defines the responsibilities for establishing,
operating, and securing the interconnection between US-VISIT and the
Department of State systems. Additionally, the US-VISIT CIO should
formally approve the MOU and ISA with the Department of State. US-VISIT
is continuing to work with Department of State to update the Memorandum
of Understanding to reference the appropriate Interconnection Security
Agreement.
Recommendation 4: Establish MOUs with key US-VISIT participants to
ensure that security requirements are documented and agreed to before
non-DHS systems are connected to US-VISIT's backbone. US-VISIT
partially concurred with this recommendation. All external connections
to the US-VISIT backbone are documented in appropriate ISAs. The OIG
accepted US-VISIT's response that all current external connections to
the US-VISIT backbone systems are documented in appropriate ISAs. US-
VISIT will continue to follow existing policies and procedures to
ensure that MOUs are established and reference ISAs (where appropriate)
to ensure that security requirements are agreed upon with external
agencies prior to connecting non-DHS systems to the US-VISIT backbone.
Recommendation 5: Ensure that ISAs for the systems comprising US-
VISIT's backbone and external organizations are current and formally
approved by the US-VISIT CIO. Remaining action items reside within CBP
for mitigation.
Recommendations 6: Establish a formal structure for the oversight
and management of the security for the US-VISIT Program. US-VISIT
deferred to the DHS CIO for response. The OIG has requested that the
DHS CIO formally respond with the actions that have been or will be
taken to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 7: Provide US-VISIT's CIO with sufficient authority
to oversee all elements, including the system security, of the future
architecture of the US-VISIT Program. US-VISIT deferred to the DHS CIO
for response. The OIG has requested that the DHS CIO formally respond
with the actions that have been or will be taken to address this
recommendation.
Will the program's reorganization into the new National Protection
and Programs Directorate have an impact on their information technology
problems--either negatively or positively?
Response: The reorganization of the US VISIT program into the new
National Protection and Programs Directorate will have a positive
impact on US VISIT information technology problems. The new National
Protection and Programs Directorate CIO and his staff are from the
Preparedness Directorate Information and Technology Division. This
office is recognized throughout the Department of Homeland Security and
the government as one of the top performing Information and Technology
(IT) organizations. Their strengths are in Project and Program
Management, Enterprise Architecture, and IT Security as demonstrated by
awards from the IT industry.
What progress has the Department made in its efforts to establish
resiliency and continuity of operations for its information technology
systems in the event of a disaster?
Response: DHS is establishing a redundant IT architecture to ensure
continuity of operations is maintained in the event of a disaster. We
are transitioning IT applications from over 17 data centers to 2
active-active data centers with coop capabilities established as a
design feature in these new data centers. Additionally, the department
is establishing a common email system and reducing its five WAN to one
WAN (with two active-active Network Operations Centers and Security
Operations Centers and supported by two separate carriers) to ensure
resiliency.
What are the major IT challenges at the component level of the
Department?
Response:
a. Some component CIOs do not have sufficient visibility into all
the IT being developed or proposed to be developed within their
agencies. They are unable to ensure elimination of duplication where
not desired and consistency with the target architecture of DHS.
b. Components have a lack of understanding and implementation
of Earned Value Management and portfolio management principles.
c. Component Information Security challenges stem from the
rapid adoption of new information technology by DHS to more
effectively accomplish its mission. ew IT drives the need for
new security policies and architecture to enable its use at an
acceptable level of risk. Further, NIST and OMB continue to
evolve security requirements and standards to address emerging
threats to information systems. These new and emerging security
requirements drive the need for continuous updates of DHS
information security polices, implementation oversight and
metrics reporting.
As new requirements and standards are issued, there will be
specific audit findings by the DHS Inspector General (IG) and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) for improvement with
implementing processes and verification procedures to meet these new
requirements. New weaknesses that are identified as a result of
additional requirements will increase remediation efforts across DHS
and impact the amount of management and oversight required by the DHS
Information Security Program.
d. Components are implementing the One Infrastructure vision
and migrating to the consolidated infrastructure environment.
The consolidated infrastructure which is being developed and
deployed by the Department's Infrastructure Transformation
Program (ITP), provides capability for addressing continuity of
operations requirements and establishes a resilient technical
infrastructure that is managed at the enterprise level. (1)
Migration efforts to the enterprise email and network solutions
are underway. Migration to the consolidated data center
environment has initiated, and in that regard, a migration
strategy is being developed to support Components in their
understanding of the planning, scheduling, funding, and the
technical resources required achieve a data center migration,
as well as engineering support to facilitate any necessary
modification of applications to run in the enterprise data
center environment.
e. Components are challenged with working through legacy
barriers and component-specific data repositories to obtain
visibility across the Department. (2) Headquarters has
established the Global Address List for email which provides a
centralized data repository as well as the management processes
neeeded to ensure accurate, timely information at the Component
level. Additionally HQ has chartered the Single Sign-On project
which will develop and deploy the technical solutions needed to
provide secure, consistent, authentication to Component and
Department resources.
How is Headquarters working with the components to assist them in
addressing their IT challenges?
Response:
a. Through its investment and procurement review process DHS is
instilling the concept of IT as a utility service that is
obtained from the component agency CIOs. Individual programs
and projects should not own their technology but receive that
service from the CIO.
b. By establishing a contract vehicle whereby component Program
Management Offices can conduct Earned Value Management
assessments and surveillance of their major investments in a
developmental phase, and by working with component IT and
functional staff to establish operational portfolio management
organizations.
c. By developing guidance and training material for component
Program Management Office staffs to enhance the awareness of
Earned Value Management and portfolio management principles,
and IT investment and budgeting reporting procedures.
d. By providing detailed guidance through distribution of the
DHS Information Security Handbook, the DHS Certification &
Accreditation Methodology, the Information Security SM Guide,
and the Plan of Action & Milestone Guide.
e. Making available specialized training and training material:
POA&M Training, FISMA Reporting Training, C&A Training, NIST SP
800-53 Training, Annual DHS Security Workshop & Conference,
Annual Security Awareness Training Materials, and Component
Specific Training as requested.
f. Performing Component Information Security Assistance Visits:
Information Security Teams are made available to all components
for assisting in FISMA reporting, C&A, POA&M Reporting, and
Remediation Activities.
Question 28.: Recognizing that the Department was under tremendous
time pressure to roll out an information sharing network at the
earliest possible time, is it fair to say that the Homeland Security
Information Network (HISN) has provided a benefit to states and
localities?
The Inspector General's Major Management Challenges report states
that ``potential users do not regularly use HISN'' because of a lack of
training by the Department at the time of the program's establishment.
Anecdotally, the Committee has heard that the Department is using HISN
to issue a number of homeland security alerts and the network is being
used by states and localities.
What type of training or other guidance would you suggest the
Department institute for HISN users?
Response:
Many states have adopted HSIN as the centerpiece for information
sharing throughout the state. They are using it for situational
awareness, emergency management and law enforcement coordination, and
collaboration with the private sector.
In the past the HSIN program office retained ownership of many
aspects of the system that inherently belong to the end users. These
aspects included content control, personnel access, and individual site
administration. This control has contributed to low user rates. The new
program office is relinquishing ownership of these aspects through a
controlled release. Training, policies, and procedures are being
established to ensure proper use and understanding of the technology.
This effort is promoting a renewed interest in participation across the
communities of interest.
Efforts are underway to provide technical bridges between HSIN and
other collaboration tools in use within the states. This initiative
will enable states to be part of the HSIN community of users while they
to continue to use the solutions they have invested in and built long-
standing processes around.
Although training has been cited as one of the prime reasons for
limited use of HSIN, it is more accurate to cite the lack of mission-
focused operational training. The program has lacked the involvement of
the operational components of the Department. HSIN was deployed as the
primary tool for sharing terrorism and all hazards information but the
program office failed to engage the Department components to ensure
that content would be delivered. In an effort to rectify this
deficiency Operations Coordination is:
Standing up the HSIN Advisory Council. This council
will work to create policies that will help overcome major
obstacles preventing information flow,
Hiring a full-time resource to help establish
governance and procedures for sharing content across HSIN, and
Standing up a department-wide group--HSIN Mission
Coordination Committee--that will focus on ensuring the system
is developed to enable the specific information sharing
missions of each of the components.
A few components are using HSIN extensively in the execution of
their mission. FEMA has integrated the tool in all emergency management
coordination and has conducted extensive training across the nation.
The USCG has begun to use the tool as its primary coordination tool for
exercises and missions that require large-scale, real-time
collaboration. CBP has constructed collaboration space for each of its
sectors to enable seamless information flow and situational awareness.
Although these examples demonstrate the viability of the system,
efforts to connect the mission owners and the information they produce
remains a work in progress. Initiatives underway to connect mission
owners include:
Single-Sign-On and Identity Management--this will
enable seamless interaction and trusted sharing across
communities
Security layering--this will enable appropriately
restricted information flow and relieve reluctance to share
data
Additional collaboration tools--to include geospatial
data exchange and event visualization
Information feeds from other agencies' collaboration
tools--to include Intelink-U, RISS, and LEO
Question 29.: The Integrated Deepwater System Program (Deepwater)
is a $24 billion, 25-year acquisition program designed to replace and
modernize the Coast Guard's aging and deteriorating fleet of ships and
aircraft. The Committee is informed that approximately $5 billion has
beenobligated to date.
The DHS Inspector General has released audits reflecting a number
of significant challenges with the Deepwater program.
How are you working with the Coast Guard to improve the contract
oversight in the Deepwater program?
Response: The Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) has been actively
engaged in the oversight of the Deepwater program since the inception
of the Department. Separate from the general oversight of the USCG
Acquisition Operations, Deepwater has been the specific subject of
numerous reviews by the CPO and CPO Staff. CPO and the Acquisition
Oversight Staff have been part of every major review of the program
beginning with the review of the updated ORD to account for changes in
requirements brought on by the attacks of 9/11/01. We have reviewed
each change to the Program and each quarterly report to Congress as
well. The CPO Acquisition Oversight staff participated with the
Deepwater staff in several GAO and DHS OIG reviews conducted over the
past 3 years. The DHS CPO was instrumental in advising USCG to seek
outside assessment on the critical portions of the Deepwater
acquisition. The DHS CPO Acquisition Oversight Team was one of the
first offices outside USCG to review and comment on the application of
Earned Value Management data on the program and sought refinement of
several cost estimates as a result of that review. Reviews of the
Deepwater program have been conducted by several levels of DHS
Management and the CPO and CPO Acquisition Oversight staff have been
intimately involved in each. The DHS CPO Acquisition Oversight Team
closely reviewed, for example, the entire process for assessing and
awarding the first Award Term for the Deepwater contract.
What steps should DHS take in the short-run--and long-run--to
ensure this major program is managed most efficiently and cost-
effectively?
Response: First and foremost, the DHS CPO is supporting the USCG in
its implementation of the USCG Blue Print for Acquisition Reform. This
initiative, begun by the Commandant shortly after assuming command,
will fundamentally change the way that the USCG does business and will
focus assets in the areas of requirements generation, program
management, contracting and logistics where needed and when needed. DHS
CPO supports the request to Congress by USCG to have personnel costs
shifted from Deepwater specific appropriations to the general
Operations Expense appropriation so as to give the USCG the flexibility
to place human resources in the most efficient manner possible and no
longer be constrained by rigid personnel limitations in program
specific appropriations. The DHS CPO and the CPO's Acquisition
Oversight Team will continue to engage the USCG at every level in the
routine oversight activities involved in the review of Acquisition
documents such as Acquisition Program Baselines, Acquisition Plans,
selected contract documents. The Acquisition Oversight Team is part of
the departmental executive review of each major action and attends
every meeting involving Deepwater with DHS external organizations. As
circumstances arise, the DHS CPO has the ability and commitment to
assign special reviews to the Acquisition Oversight Team and has done
so recently with respect to the coordination of the updated set of
Acquisition Documentation including an updated Program Baseline and
Acquisition Plan. The Team has recently reviewed the Acquisition Plan
for the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) B-Class and has submitted numerous
comments on the draft plan. his plan provides evidence of the changes
that have taken place in the Deepwater program in the past several
months as it marks the departure from the Systems Integrator as the
sole acquiring agency for major Deepwater Assets.
Question 30.: In the 109th Congress, the Management, Integration,
and Oversight Subcommittee, which I chaired, held three hearings as
part of its in-depth examination of the current camera system on our
borders known as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, or
ISIS. The Subcommittee found rampant waste and mismanagement in the
Department's oversight of the ISIS program.
Last September, DHS announced the award of the new Secure Border
Initiative contract, known as SBInet. This multi-year, multi-billion
dollar program is intended to cover both the Northern and Southern
borders.
On November 15, 2006, we held a hearing on the SBInet contract, and
the Inspector General testified and released a Management Advisory
raising specific concerns.
One of the issues raised in the Management Advisory was that the
Department lacked the necessary number of acquisition and procurement
staff to manage a new major acquisition program like SBInet.
Do you believe the Department currently has the necessary number of
trained personnel to effectively manage the SBInet contract? Other
major contracts?
Response: No. The Department has grown significantly over the last
couple of years in terms of personnel and acquisitions. It has been a
challenge to grow the acquisition and procurement workforce
commensurate with Department growth. Ensuring that DHS has the right
number of acquisition professionals with the right skills is one of the
top priorities. DHS is conducting an assessment on the utilization of
acquisition professionals in the Department to ensure that people with
optimal skills currently work in DHS. To complement this, the
Undersecretary for Management has initiated a Department-wide
acquisition recruitment effort. The CPO has been asked to lead this
effort with support from the Chief Human Capital Officer. As DHS
continues to recruit, it will consider using non-DHS resources to help
address our staffing shortages--this includes use of non-DHS government
personnel for acquisition and procurement support (such as the Defense
Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency) as
well as some contractor support.
How do you plan to monitor the Department's progress to limit the
potential for waste and abuse in SBInet and other major contracts?
Response: With regard to monitoring the Department's progress on
achieving effective acquisition and procurement, the CPO is responsible
for implementing the four-step Acquisition Oversight program. These
steps include acquisition planning, Component self-assessments,
Component operational assessments and procurement management reviews of
the Components. Considerable progress has been made in implementing
this oversight plan, with the initial implementation of the first three
steps largely done, and the implementation of the last step commenced.
Programs of significant importance and size, like SBInet, will receive
additional reviews as appropriate.
Questions From the Honorable Michael T. McCaul
Question 31.: Under the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, Federal agencies are required to use voluntary
consensus standards that are developed by private sector standards
bodies. This policy correctly directs federal agencies to rely on the
expertise of our nation's private sector standards development system
as a means to prevent duplication of efforts and to save taxpayer
dollars. Importantly, the Act also requires federal agencies to
participate in the activities of voluntary, private sector, consensus
standards bodies.
I am very concerned that DHS and its agency components have not
regularly participated in the standards development activities of
private sector standards bodies developing standards in critical areas
that go to the heart of your agency's functions and mission: intrusion
detection, access control, video surveillance, and other efforts
related to the interoperability of disparate electronic security system
components. I believe the active participation of DHS in these private
sector standards areas would be a wise use of agency and taxpayer
resources.
Could you please explain the current level of DHS participation, or
lack thereof, in these standards areas?
Also, what plans have been developed or are being developed to
promote DHS participation?
Are there any regulatory or statutory issues that need to be
addressed to promote participation?
Response: The Department takes an active role in private sector
standards organizations' standards development activities and has
specific ongoing efforts in these areas.
The Department has adopted a policy that all standards activities
will be conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
National Transfer and Advancement Act (PL 104 113) and the Office of
Budget and Management (OMB) Circular A-119. In 2006, DHS reported 35
agency representatives involved in 100 activities.
The Science & Technology Directorate's Office of Standards
coordinates and encourages participation in standards development
across the Department and with private sector standards organizations.
This includes partnering with the American National Standards
Institute's Homeland Security Standards Panel (ANSI-HSSP), which
promotes a positive, cooperative partnership between the public and
private sectors in order to meet the nation's needs for homeland
security standards. The ANSI-HSSP has membership from over 40 private
sector standards development organizations including the National
Electronics Manufacturers Association (NEMA), the Security Industry
Association (SIA) and the American Society for Industrial Security
(ASIS International). The ANSI-HSSP provides a forum that engages DHS,
the private sector, and private sector standards development
organizations on homeland security standardization issues.
In the area of access control, the S&T Directorate is engaging the
standards community to help facilitate the transfer of an access
control technology known as the Policy Machine to commercial entities.
This effort, which includes publishing papers and performing
demonstrations, mirrors the process used to develop the Role-based
Access Control Standard adopted by ANSI and the International Committee
for Information Technology Standards (INCITS), ANSI INCITS 359-2004,
which is in wide use today. Additional plans include developing a suite
of related standards and promoting these standards as a member of an
ANSI INCITS working group for the development of a national access
control standard.
In the area of interoperability of disparate electronic security
system components, the S&T Directorate is providing input to standards
development organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
on standards (such as the IEEE 1451 standard) for sensor interfaces for
sensor and security networks and on the use of sensor networks for
building applications. Current work aims to find standard ways by which
data from various sensor networks can be used across platforms, and
will aim to develop metrics and test methods by which sensor networks
can be tested for compliance with DHS standards and requirements. The
S&T Directorate is also working across DHS and standards development
organizations on the harmonization of sensor and alert-related
standards.
Also what plans have been developed or are being developed to
promote DHS participation?
Response: In 2006, the S&T Directorate established a DHS Standards
Council to improve coordination and participation in the development
and implementation of voluntary consensus standards. The DHS Standards
Council is working with the S&T Directorate's Office of Standards to
create guidance on Departmental participation in the development and
use of non-Government Standards. This guidance is expected to be issued
by year's end. At the next Council meeting in April, the S&T
Directorate plans to request that the council develop a strategy to
improve DHS overall participation in standards bodies that affect the
interoperability of electronic security systems components.
Are there any regulatory or statutory issues that need to be
addressed to promote participation?
Response: Through the DHS Standards Council, the S&T Directorate
Office of Standards will work with General Counsel, to explore if there
are any regulatory or statutory issues that need to be addressed to
promote participation.