[Senate Report 115-170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                          Calendar No. 240
                                                          
115th Congress     }                                         {    Report
                                 SENATE                          
1st Session        }                                         {   115-170
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       


                      DHS ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD

                              ACT OF 2017

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                 S. 886

             TO AMEND THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 TO
  ESTABLISH AN ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                    SECURITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
                    
                    
                    

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                October 16, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
                
                
                
                
                U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                   
 79-010                   WASHINGTON : 2017       
____________________________________________________________________
 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
  Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001                  
                
                
                
                
                
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California

                  Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
   Michelle D. Woods, U.S. Government Accountability Office Detailee
               Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
               Stacia M. Cardille, Minority Chief Counsel
       Charles A. Moskowitz, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel
        Thomas J.R. Richards, Minority Professional Staff Member
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     
                     
                     




                                                       Calendar No. 240
                                                       
                                                       
115th Congress    }                                          {   Report
                                  SENATE
 1st Session      }                                          {  115-170           
                                                    

======================================================================



 
                DHS ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD ACT OF 2017

                                _______
                                

                October 16, 2017.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 886]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 886), to amend the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish an Acquisition 
Review Board in the Department of Homeland Security, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............6

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    S. 886, the DHS Acquisition Review Board Act, amends the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish an Acquisition 
Review Board (ARB) within the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS or the Department). The bill designates the DHS Under 
Secretary for Management (USM) as the chair of the ARB. The 
bill requires the ARB to meet regularly to, among other things, 
provide accountability and consistent oversight of DHS 
components' major acquisition programs, which are defined as 
those with total expenditures of $300 million or more. 
Additionally, the bill assists the Department in its efforts to 
improve the management of its major acquisition programs by 
ensuring the uniform application of acquisition review 
procedures across components.

              II. Background and the Need for Legislation

    DHS has been plagued by longstanding challenges in managing 
its major acquisition programs, resulting in the wasteful 
spending of untold billions of taxpayer dollars.\1\ For 
example, Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Secure Border 
Initiative Network (or SBInet) was cancelled after CBP had 
already spent over a billion dollars on the project, due in 
part to cost growth and schedule slippages.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-17-346SP, Homeland 
Security Acquisitions: Earlier Requirements Definition and Clear 
Documentation of Key Decisions Could Facilitate Ongoing Progress 1 
(2017), http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683977.pdf; see also Dana 
Hedgpath, Congress Says DHS Oversaw $15 Billion in Failed Contracts, 
The Washington Post (Sept. 17, 2008), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603200.html.
    \2\Watchdog Recommendations: A Better Way Ahead to Manage the 
Department of Homeland Security: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on 
Oversight and Mgmt. Efficiency of the H. Comm. on Homeland Sec., 115th 
Cong. (2017) (testimony of John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec.), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/
20170216/105541/HHRG-115-HM09-Bio-RothJ-20170216.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to 
identify the management of DHS's acquisition programs as ``high 
risk'' in its biennial report on Federal programs vulnerable to 
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.\3\ Specifically, in its 
2017 review of high-risk Federal programs, GAO reported that 
DHS needs to ``ensure consistent, effective oversight'' of its 
major acquisition programs and hold programs accountable for 
maintaining accurate and reliable cost, schedule, and 
performance data.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-17-317, High-Risk Series: 
Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on 
Others 356 (2017), http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682765.pdf.
    \4\Id. at 361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The management of major acquisition programs was also cited 
in the DHS Office of Inspector General's (OIG) November 2016 
annual report on management challenges facing DHS.\5\ 
Specifically, the OIG found that the Department continues to 
fall short in managing major acquisition programs to ensure 
programs align with original cost estimates, are delivered on 
schedule, and provide operators with the capabilities 
originally intended.\6\ Moreover, the GAO and OIG have reported 
that although the Department's acquisition management guidance 
is ``generally sound'' and includes best practices, 
inconsistent application of this guidance across component 
agencies has resulted in a lack of uniformity, and, in some 
cases, mismanagement of the Department's major acquisition 
programs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\DHS Office of Inspector General, OIG-17-08, Major Management and 
Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security 3-4 
(2016), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-
08-Nov16.pdf.
    \6\Id.; see also DHS Management and Acquisition Reform: Hearing 
Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th 
Cong. (2016) (written testimony of John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. 
Dep't of Homeland Sec.), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/
TM/2016/OIGtm-JR-031616.pdf.
    \7\DHS Management and Acquisition Reform: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 15 (2016) 
(written testimony of Michele Mackin, Director, Acquisition and 
Sourcing Mgmt., U.S. Gov't Accountability Office), available at http://
www.gao.gov/assets/680/675827.pdf; DHS Management and Acquisition 
Reform: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental 
Affairs, 114th Cong. 1 (2016) (written testimony of John Roth, 
Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.), available at https://
www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/TM/2016/OIGtm-JR-031616.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 2016, the Committee held a hearing entitled DHS 
Management and Acquisition Reform. During the hearing, DHS 
Inspector General John Roth testified that among the root 
causes hindering the performance of DHS's acquisition programs 
is that component agencies ``do not always follow departmental 
acquisition guidance, which may lead to cost overruns, missed 
schedules, and mediocre acquisition performance.''\8\ Mr. Roth 
stated that inconsistent application of DHS's acquisition 
guidance has adversely affected the Department's constrained 
budgetary resources, the timely delivery of security programs, 
and the ability to efficiently use its resources.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\DHS Management and Acquisition Reform: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 6 (2016) 
(written testimony of John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec.), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/TM/2016/
OIGtm-JR-031616.pdf.
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In April 2015, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management 
Efficiency of the House Homeland Security Committee held a 
hearing entitled Acquisition Oversight: How Effectively is DHS 
Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars?\10\ During the hearing, Michele 
Mackin, GAO's Director for Acquisition and Sourcing Management, 
testified that DHS's acquisition portfolio faced significant 
challenges because the Department did not have a cost oversight 
plan in place for programs whose acquisition documentation were 
waived.\11\In addition, the acquisition portfolio had cost 
growth issues exemplified by the $9.7 billion increase in life-
cycle cost estimates across just seven of its programs.\12\ Ms. 
Mackin testified that DHS would be better positioned to make 
informed decisions regarding its acquisition programs if steps 
were taken to ensure consistent compliance across components 
with its acquisition policy.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Acquisition Oversight: How Effectively is DHS Safeguarding 
Taxpayer Dollars?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Mgmt. 
Efficiency of the House Comm. on Homeland Sec., 114th Cong. (2015), 
available at https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/acquisition-oversight-
how-effectively-dhs-safeguarding-taxpayer-dollars.
    \11\Id. at 11 (written testimony of Michele Mackin, Director of 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office), 
available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20150422/103274/
HHRG-114-HM09-Wstate-MackinM-20150422.pdf.
    \12\Id. at 6.
    \13\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 886 is designed to address concerns of inconsistent 
oversight of major acquisition programs by codifying the 
Department's ARB as the mechanism for providing senior-level 
oversight of all major acquisition programs. Codification of 
the ARB addresses concerns raised by GAO and the DHS OIG by 
ensuring that the Department consistently applies a uniform 
oversight approach across its components' major acquisition 
programs. Although the ARB process is currently in practice at 
DHS, the bill strengthens the Department's authority to hold 
its components accountable for improper acquisition program 
management and acquisition program failures. The bill 
specifically delineates the responsibilities of the ARB, to 
ensure regularity and clarity in the acquisition review 
process. One of the most important responsibilities of the ARB 
is reviewing critical documentation for major acquisition 
programs, such as the acquisition program baseline, which 
establishes the program requirements for cost, schedule, and 
performance parameters. The bill designates the USM as the 
chair of the ARB, ensuring senior DHS management is aware of 
and integrally involved in the Department's acquisition 
program.

                        III. Legislative History

    Senators Steve Daines (R-MT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) 
introduced S. 886, the DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 
2017, on April 6, 2017. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
    The Committee considered S. 886 at a business meeting on 
July 26, 2017. The Committee reported the bill favorably by 
voice vote en bloc. Senators present for the vote were Johnson, 
Portman, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, 
Hassan, and Harris.

        IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported


Section 1. Short Title

    This section names the bill the ``DHS Acquisition Review 
Board Act of 2017.''

Sec. 2. Acquisition Review Board

    Section 2 adds a new section 836 to Subtitle D of title 
VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
    New subsection (a) of Section 836 defines the terms 
``acquisition,'' ``acquisition decision authority,'' 
``acquisition decision event,'' ``acquisition decision 
memorandum,'' ``acquisition program,'' ``acquisition program 
baseline,'' ``best practices,'' ``Board,'' and ``major 
acquisition program.''
    New subsection (b) of Section 836 establishes the ARB. This 
subsection outlines the mission of the ARB, namely to provide 
uniformity within the Department's acquisition review process, 
review major acquisition programs, and review the use of best 
practices.
    New subsection (c) of Section 836 details the composition 
of the ARB, including that the ARB will be chaired by the USM.
    New subsection (d) outlines the regular meeting 
requirements of the ARB and establishes that the ARB is 
required to meet any time that a major acquisition program 
requires authorization to proceed through the life cycle 
process or is in breach of its approved requirements. 
Additionally, this paragraph requires the ARB to meet when the 
USM determines that a non-major acquisition program needs 
review.
    New subsection (e) details the responsibilities of the ARB, 
including reviewing acquisition documentation for each major 
acquisition program, such as the acquisition program baseline, 
which sets forth cost, schedule, and performance requirements 
for each such program.
    New subsection (f) requires the USM to submit a report to 
the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that 
explains the rationale behind a decision that permits a major 
acquisition program to proceed to the planning phase of the 
life cycle process without first receiving a Department-
approved acquisition program baseline. This report shall 
include a plan of action to ensure that any such program 
receives an acquisition program baseline.
    New subsection (g) provides that, within one year of 
enactment of this bill, the USM is to provide Congress with a 
report on the activities of the ARB, including acquisition 
decision memoranda for each meeting, results of the systematic 
reviews, results of the acquisition document reviews, and 
information on activities to ensure that best practices are 
adopted and implemented throughout the Department.

                   V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined 
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.

             VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                                    August 9, 2017.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 886, the DHS 
Acquisition Review Board Act of 2017.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jacob Fabian.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall.
    Enclosure

S. 886--DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 2017

    S. 886 would direct the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) to establish an Acquisition Review Board to review major 
acquisition programs and enhance accountability and uniformity 
in the review process for DHS acquisitions. Because the bill's 
requirements are largely consistent with existing DHS 
procurement policies, CBO estimates that implementing S. 886 
would cost less than $500,000 annually; such spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    Enacting S. 886 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting S. 886 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    S. 886 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    On March 22, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
1282, the DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 2017, as ordered 
by the House Committee on Homeland Security on March 8, 2017. 
The two pieces of legislation are similar and CBO's estimates 
of their costs are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jacob Fabian. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

       VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill as reported are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; 
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE D--ACQUISITIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 836. ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Acquisition.--The term ``acquisition'' has the 
        meaning given the term in section 131 of title 41, 
        United States Code.
          (2) Acquisition decision authority.--The term 
        ``acquisition decision authority'' means the authority, 
        held by the Secretary acting through the Deputy 
        Secretary or Under Secretary for Management to--
                  (A) ensure compliance with Federal law, the 
                Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department 
                acquisition management directives;
                  (B) review (including approving, pausing, 
                modifying, or cancelling) an acquisition 
                program through the life cycle of the program;
                  (C) ensure that acquisition program managers 
                have the resources necessary to successfully 
                execute an approved acquisition program;
                  (D) ensure good acquisition program 
                management of cost, schedule, risk, and system 
                performance of the acquisition program at 
                issue, including assessing acquisition program 
                baseline breaches and directing any corrective 
                action for such breaches; and
                  (E) ensure that acquisition program managers, 
                on an ongoing basis, monitor cost, schedule, 
                and performance against established baselines 
                and use tools to assess risks to an acquisition 
                program at all phases of the life cycle of such 
                program to avoid and mitigate acquisition 
                program baseline breaches.
          (3) Acquisition decision event.--The term 
        ``acquisition decision event'', with respect to an 
        acquisition program, means a predetermined point within 
        each of the acquisition phases at which the acquisition 
        decision authority determines whether the acquisition 
        program shall proceed to the next acquisition phase.
          (4) Acquisition decision memorandum.--The term 
        ``acquisition decision memorandum'', with respect to an 
        acquisition, means the official acquisition decision 
        event record that includes a documented record of 
        decisions, exit criteria, and assigned actions for the 
        acquisition, as determined by the person exercising 
        acquisition decision authority for the acquisition.
          (5) Acquisition program.--The term ``acquisition 
        program'' means the process by which the Department 
        acquires, with any appropriated amounts, by contract 
        for purchase or lease, property or services (including 
        construction) that support the missions and goals of 
        the Department.
          (6) Acquisition program baseline.--The term 
        ``acquisition program baseline'', with respect to an 
        acquisition program, means a summary of the cost, 
        schedule, and performance parameters, expressed in 
        standard, measurable, quantitative terms, which must be 
        met in order to accomplish the goals of such program.
          (7) Best practices.--The term ``best practices'', 
        with respect to acquisition, means a knowledge-based 
        approach to capability development that includes--
                  (A) identifying and validating needs;
                  (B) assessing alternatives to select the most 
                appropriate solution;
                  (C) clearly establishing well-defined 
                requirements;
                  (D) developing realistic cost assessments and 
                schedules;
                  (E) securing stable funding that matches 
                resources to requirements;
                  (F) demonstrating technology, design, and 
                manufacturing maturity;
                  (G) using milestones and exit criteria or 
                specific accomplishments that demonstrate 
                progress;
                  (H) adopting and executing standardized 
                processes with known success across programs;
                  (I) establishing an adequate workforce that 
                is qualified and sufficient to perform 
                necessary functions; and
                  (J) integrating the capabilities described in 
                subparagraphs (A) through (I) into the mission 
                and business operations of the Department.
          (8) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Acquisition 
        Review Board required to be established under 
        subsection (b).
          (9) Major acquisition program.--The term ``major 
        acquisition program'' means a Department acquisition 
        program that is estimated by the Secretary to require 
        an eventual total expenditure of not less than 
        $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2017 constant 
        dollars) over the life cycle cost of the acquisition 
        program.
    (b) Establishment of Board.--The Secretary shall establish 
an Acquisition Review Board to--
          (1) strengthen accountability and uniformity within 
        the Department acquisition review process;
          (2) review major acquisition programs; and
          (3) review the use of best practices.
    (c) Composition.--
          (1) Chairperson.--The Under Secretary for Management 
        shall serve as chairperson of the Board.
          (2) Other members.--The Secretary shall ensure 
        participation by other relevant Department officials, 
        including not fewer than 2 component heads or their 
        designees, as permanent members of the Board.
    (d) Meetings.--
          (1) Regular meetings.--The Board shall meet regularly 
        for purposes of ensuring all acquisitions processes 
        proceed in a timely fashion to achieve mission 
        readiness.
          (2) Other meetings.--The Board shall convene--
                  (A) at the discretion of the Secretary; and
                  (B) at any time--
                          (i) a major acquisition program--
                                  (I) requires authorization to 
                                proceed from one acquisition 
                                decision event to another 
                                throughout the acquisition life 
                                cycle;
                                  (II) is in breach of the 
                                approved requirements of the 
                                major acquisition program; or
                                  (III) requires additional 
                                review, as determined by the 
                                Under Secretary for Management; 
                                or
                          (ii) a non-major acquisition program 
                        requires review, as determined by the 
                        Under Secretary for Management.
    (e) Responsibilities.--The responsibilities of the Board 
are as follows:
          (1) Determine whether a proposed acquisition has met 
        the requirements of key phases of the acquisition life 
        cycle framework and is able to proceed to the next 
        phase and eventual full production and deployment.
          (2) Oversee whether the business strategy, resources, 
        management, and accountability of a proposed 
        acquisition is executable and is aligned to strategic 
        initiatives.
          (3) Support the person with acquisition decision 
        authority for an acquisition in determining the 
        appropriate direction for the acquisition at key 
        acquisition decision events.
          (4) Conduct systematic reviews of acquisitions to 
        ensure that the acquisitions are progressing in 
        compliance with the approved documents for their 
        current acquisition phases.
          (5) Review the acquisition documents of each major 
        acquisition program, including the acquisition program 
        baseline and documentation reflecting consideration of 
        tradeoffs among cost, schedule, and performance 
        objectives, to ensure the reliability of underlying 
        data.
          (6) Ensure that practices are adopted and implemented 
        to require consideration of trade-offs among cost, 
        schedule, and performance objectives as part of the 
        process for developing requirements for major 
        acquisition programs prior to the initiation of the 
        second acquisition decision event, including, at a 
        minimum, the following practices:
                  (A) Department officials responsible for 
                acquisition, budget, and cost estimating 
                functions are provided with the appropriate 
                opportunity to develop estimates and raise cost 
                and schedule matters before performance 
                objectives are established for capabilities 
                when feasible.
                  (B) Full consideration is given to possible 
                trade-offs among cost, schedule, and 
                performance objectives for each alternative.
    (f) Acquisition Program Baseline Report Requirement.--If 
the person exercising acquisition decision authority over a 
major acquisition program approves the major acquisition 
program to proceed into the planning phase before the major 
acquisition program has a Department-approved acquisition 
program baseline--
          (1) the Under Secretary for Management shall create 
        and approve an acquisition program baseline report 
        regarding such approval; and
          (2) the Secretary shall--
                  (A) not later than 7 days after the date on 
                which the acquisition decision memorandum is 
                signed, notify in writing the Committee on 
                Homeland Security of the House of 
                Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
                Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
                of the decision; and
                  (B) not later than 60 days after the date on 
                which the acquisition decision memorandum is 
                signed, submit to the Committee on Homeland 
                Security of the House of Representatives and 
                the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 
                stating the rationale for such decision and a 
                plan of action to require an acquisition 
                program baseline for such program.
    (g) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this section and every year thereafter through 
fiscal year 2022, the Under Secretary for Management shall 
provide information to the Committee on Homeland Security of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the 
activities of the Board for the prior fiscal year that includes 
information relating to the following:
          (1) For each meeting of the Board, any acquisition 
        decision memoranda.
          (2) Results of the systematic reviews conducted under 
        subsection (e)(4).
          (3) Results of acquisition document reviews required 
        under subsection (e)(5).
          (4) Activities to ensure that practices are adopted 
        and implemented throughout the Department under 
        subsection (e)(6).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *