Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better
Support Oversight and Accountability (15-FEB-07, GAO-07-309).
In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
established the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program to secure
U.S. borders and reduce illegal immigration. One element of SBI
is SBInet, the program responsible for developing a comprehensive
border protection system. By legislative mandate, DHS developed a
fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan for SBInet to address nine
legislative conditions, including a review by GAO. DHS submitted
the plan to the Appropriations Committees on December 4, 2006. To
address the mandate, GAO assessed the plan against federal
guidelines and industry standards and interviewed appropriate DHS
officials.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-309
ACCNO: A65985
TITLE: Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs
to Better Support Oversight and Accountability
DATE: 02/15/2007
SUBJECT: Border control
Border security
Federal legislation
Federal procurement
Homeland security
Immigration
Procurement evaluation
Program evaluation
Reporting requirements
Strategic planning
Secure Border Initiative
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-309
* [1]Compliance with Legislative Conditions
* [2]Conclusions
* [3]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [4]Agency Comments
* [5]GAO Contact
* [6]Staff Acknowledgments
* [7]GAO's Mission
* [8]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [9]Order by Mail or Phone
* [10]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [11]Congressional Relations
* [12]Public Affairs
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
February 2007
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE
SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better Support Oversight and
Accountability
GAO-07-309
Contents
Letter 1
Compliance with Legislative Conditions 2
Conclusions 7
Recommendations for Executive Action 7
Agency Comments 8
Appendix I Briefing to the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and
House Committees on Appropriations 11
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 62
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 65
Abbreviations
CBP Customs and Border Protection
CIO Chief Information Officer
CPO Chief Procurement Officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EVM earned value management
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
IRB Investment Review Board
IV&V independent verification and validation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PMO Program Management Office
SBI Secure Border Initiative
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
February 15, 2007 February 15, 2007
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable David E. Price
Chairman
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable David E. Price
Chairman
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a comprehensive, multiyear program
established in November 2005 by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
secure U.S. borders and reduce illegal immigration. SBI's mission is to
promote border security strategies that help protect against and prevent
terrorist attacks and other transnational crimes. Elements of SBI will be
carried out by several organizations within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). One element of SBI is SBInet, the program within U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) responsible for developing a
comprehensive border protection system. SBInet is responsible for leading
the effort to ensure that the proper mix of personnel, tactical
infrastructure, rapid response capability, and technology is deployed
along the border. In September 2006, after a full and open competition
source selection, CBP awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
systems integration contract for 3 years, with three 1-year options. The
minimum dollar amount is $2 million; the maximum is stated as "the full
panoply of supplies and services to provide 6,000 miles of secure U.S.
border." According to DHS, the SBInet solution is to include a variety of
sensors, communications systems, information technology, tactical
infrastructure (roads, barriers, and fencing), and command and control
capabilities to enhance situational awareness of the responding officers.
The solution is also to include the development of a common operating
picture that provides uniform data, through a command center environment,
to all DHS agencies and is interoperable with stakeholders external to
DHS. The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a comprehensive, multiyear
program established in November 2005 by the Secretary of Homeland Security
to secure U.S. borders and reduce illegal immigration. SBI's mission is to
promote border security strategies that help protect against and prevent
terrorist attacks and other transnational crimes. Elements of SBI will be
carried out by several organizations within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). One element of SBI is SBInet, the program within U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) responsible for developing a
comprehensive border protection system. SBInet is responsible for leading
the effort to ensure that the proper mix of personnel, tactical
infrastructure, rapid response capability, and technology is deployed
along the border. In September 2006, after a full and open competition
source selection, CBP awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
systems integration contract for 3 years, with three 1-year options. The
minimum dollar amount is $2 million; the maximum is stated as "the full
panoply of supplies and services to provide 6,000 miles of secure U.S.
border." According to DHS, the SBInet solution is to include a variety of
sensors, communications systems, information technology, tactical
infrastructure (roads, barriers, and fencing), and command and control
capabilities to enhance situational awareness of the responding officers.
The solution is also to include the development of a common operating
picture that provides uniform data, through a command center environment,
to all DHS agencies and is interoperable with stakeholders external to
DHS.
The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, required DHS
to submit to Congress an expenditure plan to establish a security barrier
along the border of the United States of fencing and vehicle barriers and
other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology.1 This plan was to
address nine legislative conditions and was submitted on December 4, 2006.
As required by the act, we reviewed the plan, and on December 7 and
December 13, 2006, briefed the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee staff, respectively, on the results. This report transmits
these results. The full briefing, including our scope and methodology, is
reprinted in appendix I.
Compliance with Legislative Conditions
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials' statements, satisfied four legislative conditions, partially
satisfied four legislative conditions, and did not satisfy one legislative
condition. The nine legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction
are summarized below.
o Legislative condition 1: Define activities, milestones, and
costs for implementing the program (partially satisfied).
The SBInet expenditure plan included general cost information for proposed
activities and some associated milestone information, such as beginning
and ending dates. DHS estimates that the total cost for completing the
acquisition phase for the southwest border is $7.6 billion for fiscal
years 2007 through 2011. However, the plan and related documentation did
not include sufficient details about the activities, milestones, or costs
for implementing the program. Although the plan stated that about $790
million will be spent in the Tucson sector in Arizona for such elements as
fencing, ground sensors, radars, cameras, and fixed and mobile towers, the
plan did not specify how the funds will be allocated by element and did
not provide specific dates for
implementation. In addition, the plan did not include activities,
milestones, or costs for the northern border. According to DHS, work on
the northern border is not to begin before fiscal year 2009.
1Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1359-60. The Appropriations Act
required that the expenditure plan be submitted within 60 days after the
enactment of the act.
o Legislative condition 2: Demonstrate how activities will further
the goals and objectives of the SBI, as defined in the SBI
multiyear strategic plan (not satisfied).
The SBInet expenditure plan included a section that describes SBI and
SBInet goals; however, the expenditure plan and related documentation did
not link individual activities with SBI's goals, as called for by the
legislative condition. Further, the December 2006 SBI strategic plan
contained three strategic goals, one of which addresses border control.
SBI and SBInet senior officials told us all SBInet activities link back to
the overall goal of controlling the border and that the linkage between
program goals and activities is intuitive. However, the SBInet expenditure
plan did not link specific activities to more detailed SBI strategic plan
goals, such as the annual performance goals.
o Legislative condition 3: Identify funding and organization
staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors, and
detailees) requirements by activity (satisfied).
The SBInet program is managed by the SBInet Program Management Office
(PMO). The PMO plans to execute SBInet activities through a series of
concurrent task orders and to rely on a mix of government and contractor
staff. The PMO plans to nearly triple its current workforce, from
approximately 100 to 270 personnel,2 by September 2007 in order to support
and oversee this series of concurrent task orders. As of December 2006,
SBInet officials told us that they have assigned lead staff for the task
orders that have been awarded.
o Legislative condition 4: Report on costs incurred, the
activities completed, and the progress made by the program in
terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the
United States (partially satisfied).
2As of December 2006, SBInet personnel included 38 government employees
and 60 contractor staff. Projected personnel as of September 2007 includes
113 government employees and 157 contractors.
The SBInet expenditure plan and related documentation discussed how
approximately $1.5 billion will be allocated to SBInet activities. For
example, about $790 million is allocated for the Tucson Border Patrol
sector and $260 million for the Yuma sector in Arizona.3 However, the plan
did not include costs incurred to date mainly because SBInet activities
are in the early stages of implementation and costs had not yet been
captured by DHS's accounting system (e.g., the SBInet systems integration
contract was awarded in September 2006 and the first two task orders were
awarded in September and October 2006). Moreover, the expenditure plan did
not include a baseline measure of miles under control of the border.4
While the plan did not discuss progress made to date by the program to
obtain control of the border, related program documents, such as the
bimonthly SBI reports to Congress, included information on the number of
miles under control in the southwest border. According to the November
2006 bimonthly report, as of August 2006, 284 miles of the southwest
border are under control.
o Legislative condition 5: Include a certification by DHS's Chief
Procurement Officer (CPO) that procedures to prevent conflicts of
interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are
established and a certification by DHS's Chief Information Officer
(CIO) that an independent verification and validation agent is
currently under contract for the project (satisfied).
On November 30, 2006, DHS's CPO certified that the prime integrator had
established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between it and its
major subcontractors and that DHS is developing a process to monitor and
oversee implementation of the prime integrator's procedures. Also, on
November 30, 2006, DHS's Deputy CIO certified that the SBInet program had
contracted with a private company as the interim independent verification
and validation (IV&V) agent. However, this company is also responsible for
performing program activities, including requirements management and test
and evaluation activities and thus is not independent of all the program's
products and processes that it could review. The Deputy CIO certified that
a permanent IV&V agent is to be selected by February 28, 2007, and that
CBP is to provide information sufficient to determine that this
independence issue has been resolved.
3The U.S. Border Patrol has 20 sectors responsible for detecting,
interdicting, and apprehending those who attempt to illegally enter or
smuggle people, including terrorists, or contraband, including weapons of
mass destruction, across U.S. borders between official ports of entry.
4DHS defines control of U.S. borders as the ability to: detect illegal
entries, identify and classify entries and determine their respective
level of threat, efficiently and effectively respond, and bring events to
a satisfactory law enforcement action.
o Legislative condition 6: Comply with all applicable acquisition
rules, requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition
management practices of the federal government (partially
satisfied).
SBInet is using, at least to some extent, several acquisition best
practices. The extent to which these practices are in use varies, and
outcomes are dependent on successful implementation. However, one
acquisition requirement not followed was that the SBInet systems
integration contract did not contain a specific number of units that may
be ordered or a maximum dollar value. According to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR),5 indefinite quantity contracts must specify the maximum
quantity of supplies or services the agency will acquire. This may be
stated as a number of units or as a dollar value. SBI and SBInet officials
told us that the contract already contains a maximum quantity of "6,000
miles of secure U.S. border" and that this was sufficient to satisfy the
FAR requirement. We disagree because the statement in the contract about
the 6,000 miles of secure border merely reflects the agency's overall
outcome to be achieved with the supplies or services provided but does not
specify the maximum quantity of supplies or services the agency may
acquire. We believe that a maximum quantity or dollar value limit should
be included in the contract in order to ensure that it is consistent with
the FAR requirement.
SBInet's acquisition approach calls for considerable concurrency among
related planned tasks and activities. The greater the degree of
concurrency among related and dependent program tasks and activities, the
greater a program's exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. SBI
and SBInet officials told us that they understand the risks inherent in
concurrency and are addressing these risks. However, they have yet to
provide evidence that shows they have identified the dependencies among
their concurrent activities and that they are proactively managing the
associated risk.
5FAR 16.504(a)(4)(ii).
Further, the program office did not fully define and implement key
acquisition management processes, such as project planning, requirements
management, and risk management. According to the SBInet Program Manager,
this is due to the priority being given to meeting an accelerated program
implementation schedule. However, the program office has begun
implementing a risk management process and, according to the Program
Manager, plans to develop a plan for defining and implementing the
remaining processes by the spring of 2007.
o Legislative condition 7: Comply with the capital planning and
investment control review requirements established by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), including Circular A-11, part 7
(partially satisfied).
As required by OMB, the plan and related documentation provided a brief
description of SBInet and addressed the program's management structure and
responsibilities for most of the program office's directorates. In
addition, the program office developed a draft privacy impact assessment
and established an earned value management (EVM) system6 to manage the
prime integrator's progress against cost and schedule goals. However, an
OMB-required EVM system had not been fully implemented because the
baselines against which progress can be measured for the two task orders
that had been issued, as of December 4, 2006, were not yet established.
Further, the program office had not yet developed a system security plan
or determined SBInet's compliance with the DHS enterprise architecture.7
o Legislative condition 8: Include reviews and approvals by DHS's
Investment Review Board (IRB), the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and OMB (satisfied).
DHS's IRB approved the plan on November 22, 2006; the Secretary of
Homeland Security approved the expenditure plan on November 22, 2006; and
OMB approved the plan on December 4, 2006.
o Legislative condition 9: Include a review by GAO (satisfied).
6EVM is a management tool to help ensure that work performed for a program
or project is consistent with cost and schedule goals.
7An enterprise architecture defines how any organization operates today
and how it plans to operate in the future, and it includes a road map for
transitioning between the two sets of operations.
On December 7, 2006, we briefed the House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations staff and on December 13, 2006, we briefed the Senate
Committee on Appropriations staff regarding the results of our review.
Conclusions
The legislatively mandated expenditure plan for SBInet is a congressional
oversight mechanism aimed at ensuring that planned expenditures are
justified, performance against plans is measured, and accountability for
results is ensured. Because the SBInet expenditure plan lacked sufficient
details on such things as planned activities and milestones, anticipated
costs and staffing levels, and expected mission outcomes, Congress and DHS
are not in the best position to use the plan as a basis for measuring
program success, accounting for the use of current and future
appropriations, and holding program managers accountable for achieving
effective control of the southwest border.
Under the FAR, indefinite quantity contracts such as the SBInet contract
must contain the specific number of units that may be ordered or a maximum
dollar value. However, the SBInet contract merely contains the maximum
number of miles to be secured. While SBInet officials consider this
sufficient to satisfy the FAR requirement, a maximum quantity expressed in
units other than the overall outcome to be achieved or expressed as a
dollar value limit would help ensure that the contract is consistent with
this requirement.
DHS's approach to SBInet introduces additional risk because the program's
schedule entails a high level of concurrency. With multiple related and
dependent projects being undertaken simultaneously, SBInet is exposed to
possible cost and schedule overruns and performance problems. Without
assessing this level of concurrency and how it affects project
implementation, SBInet runs the risk of not delivering promised
capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To help ensure that Congress has the information necessary to effectively
oversee SBInet and hold DHS accountable for program results, and to help
DHS manage the SBInet program and ensure that future SBInet expenditure
plans meet the legislative requirements, we recommend that the Secretary
of Homeland Security direct the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office Executive
Director to take the following three actions:
o ensure that future expenditure plans include explicit and
measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule,
costs, and benefits associated with individual SBInet program
activities;
o modify the SBInet systems integration contract to include a
maximum quantity or dollar value; and
o re-examine the level of concurrency and appropriately adjust the
acquisition strategy.
Agency Comments
In written comments on a draft of this report, DHS generally agreed with
our findings and conclusions, but did not agree with our assessment that
the SBInet contract does not contain specific numbers of units that may be
ordered or a maximum dollar value. In addition, DHS stated that CBP
intends to fully satisfy each of the legislative conditions in the near
future to help minimize the program's exposure to cost, schedule, and
performance risks. DHS's written comments are reproduced in appendix II.
With respect to our recommendations, DHS concurred with two of our
recommendations and disagreed with one. Specifically, DHS concurred with
our recommendation for future expenditure plans to include explicit and
measurable commitments relative to capabilities, schedule, costs, and
benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities. According
to DHS, future SBInet expenditure plans will include actual and planned
progress, report against commitments contained in prior expenditure plans,
and include a section that addresses and tracks milestones. DHS also
concurred with our recommendation to re-examine the level of concurrency
and appropriately adjust the acquisition strategy. In its written
comments, DHS stated that CBP is constantly assessing the overall program
as it unfolds, and adjusting it to reflect progress, resource constraints,
refinements and changes in requirements, and insight gained from ongoing
system engineering activities. DHS also stated that CBP recognizes the
risk inherent in concurrency and has added this to the program's risk
management database.
DHS did not agree with our recommendation to modify the SBInet integration
contract to include a maximum quantity or dollar value. According to DHS,
the quantity stated in the contract, "6,000 miles of
secure U.S. border," is measurable and is therefore the most appropriate
approach to defining the contract ceiling. We do not agree. Under the FAR,
an agency may use an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract,
such as that used for SBInet, when it is not possible to determine in
advance the precise quantities of goods or services that may be required
during performance of the contract. Though these types of contracts are
indefinite, they are not open-ended. The FAR requires that indefinite
quantity contracts contain a limit on the supplies or services that may be
ordered, stated in terms of either units or dollars. This limit serves a
variety of purposes, including establishing the maximum financial
obligation of the parties. In our view, the purported maximum used in the
SBInet contract, "the full panoply of supplies and services to provide
6,000 miles of secure U.S. border," does not allow anyone to calculate
with any degree of certainty what the maximum financial obligation of the
parties might turn out to be since the contract does not make clear the
total amount of supplies or services that would be required to secure even
1 mile of U.S. border. In order to ensure that the SBInet contract is
consistent with the FAR, we continue to believe that it should be modified
to include a maximum quantity, either units or a dollar value, rather than
the total amount of miles to be secured.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Members of other Senate and House committees that have authorization and
oversight responsibilities for homeland security. We are also sending
copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of Customs
and Border Protection, and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. Copies of this report will also be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please
contact Richard Stana at (202) 512-8816 or [email protected]. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix III.
Richard M. Stana
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Randolph C. Hite
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems
Issues
William T. Woods
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Briefing to the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and
House Committees on Appropriations Appendix I: Briefing to the
Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8816, [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the person named above, Robert E. White, Assistant
Director; Deborah Davis, Assistant Director; Richard Hung, Assistant
Director; E. Jeanette Espinola; Frances Cook; Katherine Davis; Gary
Delaney; Joseph K. Keener; Sandra Kerr; Raul Quintero; and Sushmita
Srikanth made key contributions to this report.
(440564)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8816 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [21]GAO-07-309 , a report to congressional committees
February 2007
SECURE BORDER INITIATIVE
SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better Support Oversight and
Accountability
In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established
the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program to secure U.S. borders and
reduce illegal immigration. One element of SBI is SBInet, the program
responsible for developing a comprehensive border protection system. By
legislative mandate, DHS developed a fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan for
SBInet to address nine legislative conditions, including a review by GAO.
DHS submitted the plan to the Appropriations Committees on December 4,
2006. To address the mandate, GAO assessed the plan against federal
guidelines and industry standards and interviewed appropriate DHS
officials.
[22]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DHS (1) ensure that future expenditure plans include
explicit and measurable commitments relative to the capabilities,
schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual SBInet program
activities; (2) modify the SBInet contract to include a maximum quantity
or dollar value; and (3) re-examine the level of concurrency and
appropriately adjust the acquisition strategy. DHS concurred with the
first and third recommendations, but not the second. DHS stated that the
contract already contains a maximum quantity. GAO disagrees and believes
DHS needs to modify the contract to ensure compliance with regulations.
The SBInet expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials' statements, satisfied four legislative conditions, partially
satisfied four legislative conditions, and did not satisfy one legislative
condition. The nine legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction
are summarized in the table.
Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
Satisfying the legislative conditions is important because the expenditure
plan is intended to provide Congress with the information needed to
effectively oversee the program and hold DHS accountable for program
results. Satisfying the legislative conditions is also important to
minimize the program's exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks.
SBInet's December 2006 expenditure plan offered a high-level and partial
outline of a large and complex program that forms an integral component of
a broader multiyear initiative. However, the plan and related
documentation did not include explicit and measurable commitments relative
to capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual
SBInet program activities. In addition, the SBInet systems integration
contract did not contain a specific number of units that may be ordered or
a maximum dollar value as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Further, DHS's approach to SBInet introduces additional risk because the
program's schedule entails a high level of concurrency among related
planned tasks and activities.
*** End of document. ***