Department of Homeland Security: Progress and Challenges in	 
Implementing the Department's Acquisition Oversight Plan	 
(13-JUN-07, GAO-07-900).					 
                                                                 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the third largest	 
department in federal procurement spending in fiscal year 2006,  
has faced ongoing cost, schedule, and performance problems with  
major acquisitions and procurement of services. In December 2005,
DHS established an acquisition oversight program to provide	 
insight into and improve components' acquisition programs. In	 
2006, GAO reported that DHS faced challenges in implementing its 
program. Congress mandated that DHS develop an oversight plan and
tasked GAO with analyzing the plan. GAO (1) evaluated actions DHS
and its components have taken to implement the acquisition	 
oversight plan and (2) identified implementation challenges. GAO 
also identified opportunities for strengthening oversight	 
conducted through the plan. GAO reviewed relevant DHS documents  
and GAO and DHS Inspector General reports and interviewed	 
officials in the office of the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)	 
and nine DHS components.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-900 					        
    ACCNO:   A70669						        
  TITLE:     Department of Homeland Security: Progress and Challenges 
in Implementing the Department's Acquisition Oversight Plan	 
     DATE:   06/13/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Federal procurement				 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Procurement evaluation				 
	     Procurement planning				 
	     Procurement policy 				 
	     Procurement practices				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Lessons learned					 
	     Executive agency oversight 			 
	     Program implementation				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-900

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]Plan Implementation Is Under Way, but Acquisition Planning O
     * [4]The CPO Faces Challenges in Implementing Reviews and Correct
     * [5]External Reviews and Knowledge Sharing Could Improve Acquisi
     * [6]Conclusion
     * [7]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [8]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [9]GAO's Mission
     * [10]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [11]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [12]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [13]Congressional Relations
     * [14]Public Affairs

Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

June 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Department's Acquisition
Oversight Plan

GAO-07-900

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 4
Plan Implementation Is Under Way, but Acquisition Planning Oversight May
Not Be Sufficient 6
The CPO Faces Challenges in Implementing Reviews and Corrective Actions 9
External Reviews and Knowledge Sharing Could Improve Acquisition Oversight
9
Conclusion 11
Recommendations for Executive Action 11
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 11
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 14
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 15

Tables

Table 1: Four Oversight Plan Reviews 6
Table 2: Potential Problems with Acquisition Planning Reviews 8

Figure

Figure 1: DHS Components with HCAs and Lines of Reporting 5

Abbreviations

AAP Advanced Acquisition Planning
CPO Chief Procurement Officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
GCR Gulf Coast Recovery
HCA Head of Contracting Activity

OPO Office of Procurement Operations

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

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable David E. Price
Chairman
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Since it was established, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
been responsible for integrating 22 federal agencies with disparate
missions into one department. In fiscal year 2006, DHS obligated $15.6
billion for goods and services, making it the third largest department in
federal procurement spending. DHS components have experienced ongoing
cost, schedule, and performance problems with major acquisitions as well
as procurement of services. Since January 2003, GAO has designated the
implementation and transformation of DHS a high-risk area, stating the
need for management capacity and oversight mechanisms.^1

In December 2005, DHS established an acquisition oversight program in
addition to existing oversight mechanisms, such as the investment review
process. The program is designed to provide the Chief Procurement Officer
(CPO) comprehensive insight into each component's acquisition programs and
disseminate successful acquisition management approaches throughout DHS.^2
In 2006, we reported that DHS faced challenges in implementing this
program, due to unclear accountability for acquisition outcomes and
inadequate staffing to conduct departmentwide oversight.^3 Subsequent to
our report, Congress, in a conference report accompanying the DHS fiscal
year 2007 Appropriations bill, directed DHS to submit a plan to the
Appropriations Committees by January 2007 identifying necessary oversight
resources and how improvements in the performance of its procurement
functions will be achieved.^4 GAO was required to assess the plan.

^1GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [15]GAO-03-119 (Washington D.C.:
January 2003).

^2DHS Management Directive 0784, Acquisition Oversight Program.

In April 2007, we briefed your Committees on our analysis and findings.
This report expands on that briefing. Specifically, we (1) evaluated the
actions DHS and its components have taken to implement the acquisition
oversight plan through May 2007 and (2) identified the challenges DHS
faces in implementing the plan. We also identified opportunities for
strengthening oversight conducted through the plan.

To conduct our work, we reviewed relevant GAO and DHS Office of the
Inspector General reports and DHS documents, such as the oversight plan,
completed reviews, and guidance to components. We interviewed officials in
the office of the CPO and nine DHS components. Appendix I presents our
scope and methodology in more detail. We conducted our work from February
2007 to June 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Results in Brief

The CPO, responsible for providing oversight reviews to verify the
integrity of component acquisition processes, has taken several actions to
implement DHS's acquisition oversight plan. The plan generally
incorporates basic principles of an effective and accountable acquisition
function and includes mechanisms to monitor acquisition performance
through four recurring reviews: self-assessment, operational status,
on-site, and acquisition planning. Each of the 9 components with
procurement offices has completed the first self-assessment, which have
helped components identify and prioritize acquisition weaknesses. In
addition, each component has submitted initial operational status reports
to the CPO, which are currently under review. CPO-led teams are also
conducting on-site reviews of components. However, the CPO has not
developed sufficient mechanisms to verify that components complete key
elements of acquisition planning reviews. For example, most components
have not conducted an annual review of their acquisition planning
processes--though required to do so since December 2005--and the CPO has
yet to check whether components have fulfilled this requirement.

^3GAO, Interagency Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and Oversight
Would Enable the Department of Homeland Security to Address Risks,
[16]GAO-06-996 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2006).

^4H.R. Rep. No. 109-699, at 118 (2006).

DHS faces challenges in implementing its acquisition oversight plan.
First, the CPO has limited oversight resources to implement the plan, but
has made progress in increasing staff to authorized levels. Specifically,
when implementation of the plan began in 2006, only two personnel were
assigned acquisition oversight as their primary duty. The CPO received
funding for eight additional oversight positions and as of June 2007,
seven of the additional positions had been filled. Second, the CPO, who is
held accountable for departmentwide management and oversight of the
acquisition function, lacks sufficient authority to ensure components take
corrective actions based on oversight review recommendations. We have
previously recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security provide the
CPO with sufficient enforcement authority to enable effective acquisition
oversight.

In addition to these challenges, we identified two opportunities based on
federal standards to strengthen internal controls for overseeing the
plan's implementation and for increasing knowledge sharing. Specifically,
periodic assessments of the oversight program by the DHS Inspector General
or an external auditor could help ensure that the plan maintains its
effectiveness over time. Sharing knowledge and lessons learned from the
oversight plan reviews through memorandums and regular meetings could
provide DHS's acquisition workforce with information needed to improve
their acquisition processes and better achieve DHS's mission.

To improve oversight provided in the plan, we are recommending that the
CPO reevaluate its approach to the acquisition planning reviews and
determine whether the oversight mechanisms are sufficient to improve
component acquisition planning. In addition, we are recommending that DHS
enhance internal controls to strengthen the effectiveness of the oversight
plan through periodic external reviews and knowledge sharing. In written
comments on a draft of this report, DHS concurred with our
recommendations. In addition, DHS commented on planned actions regarding
acquisition authority including revising a management directive and
designating the Chief Acquisition Officer for the department. DHS's
comments are included in their entirety in appendix II.

Background

In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was created and tasked with
integrating numerous agencies and offices with varying missions from the
General Services Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human
Services, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury; as well as the Coast
Guard and the Secret Service.

Eight DHS components have internal procurement offices with a Head of
Contracting Activity (HCA) who reports directly to the component head and
is accountable to the CPO.^5 The Office of Procurement Operations (OPO)
also has an HCA who provides contracting support to all other components
and reports directly to the CPO. The HCA for each component has overall
responsibility for the day-to-day management of the component's
acquisition function. Figure 1 shows the organizational relationship
between the HCAs and the CPO.

^5These components joined DHS with their own internal procurement offices.

Figure 1: DHS Components with HCAs and Lines of Reporting

Note: The Office of Procurement Operations provides contracting support to
multiple DHS components, not shown in this figure, which do not have their
own acquisition staff. During our review, Gulf Coast Recovery (GCR) had
its own HCA. CPO officials told us that as of May 2007 FEMA's HCA subsumed
responsibility for GCR contracting efforts.

Plan Implementation Is Under Way, but Acquisition Planning Oversight May Not Be
Sufficient

We reported in September 2006 that DHS planned to fully implement its
acquisition oversight program during fiscal year 2007.^6 The plan is
composed of four recurring reviews: self-assessment, operational status,
on-site, and acquisition planning. The CPO has issued an acquisition
oversight program guidebook, provided training on self-assessment and
operational status reviews, and began implementation of the four reviews
in the plan (see table 1).

Table 1: Four Oversight Plan Reviews

Description                        Frequency          Status               
Self-assessment                                                            
HCA for each component assesses    Annually           Components completed 
the component's staff, processes,                     first assessment as  
and programs.                                         of March 2007        
Operational status reviews                                                 
The component assesses the status  Quarterly          Components have      
of the acquisition function and                       submitted their      
submits a quarterly narrative and                     reports as of May    
data on performance metrics to the                    2007 and the CPO     
CPO, and the CPO holds a quarterly                    review is under way  
meeting with each individual HCA                                           
to discuss the results.                                                    
                                                                              
The HCA has 30 days to provide the                                         
CPO with an action plan in                                                 
response to the review and is                                              
responsible to ensure that action                                          
items are completed.                                                       
On-site reviews                                                            
A matrixed DHS team led by the CPO Minimum of once    Office of            
reviews each component's           every 3 years      Procurement          
compliance with acquisition        (rotating) unless  Operations review    
regulations, contract              compelling reasons began in March 2007; 
administration, use of good        necessitate more   Federal Law          
business judgment, and             frequent reviews   Enforcement Training 
verification of procurement data.                     Center (FLETC)       
                                                         review to start in   
The head of the component is                          June 2007            
responsible for ensuring that the                                          
findings of the reviews are acted                                          
upon and closed out in a timely                                            
manner.                                                                    
Acquisition planning reviews                                               
This review has three elements:    Ongoing            CPO review of        
(1) Individual Acquisition                            acquisition plans    
Plans-The CPO reviews component's                     under way            
acquisition plans that exceed a                                            
contract value of $50 million for                                          
most components.^a                                                         
(2) Acquisition Planning           Annually           Not implemented as   
Review-Component HCAs review                          planned              
programs and assess acquisition                                            
planning process.                                                          
(3) Advanced Acquisition Planning  Quarterly          Components enter     
(AAP) database-Components are                         information into the 
required to enter information on                      database             
all acquisitions over $100,000                                             
into the database.                                                         

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

aThe CPO reviews acquisitions that exceed $5 million for Secret Service
and FLETC.

^6 [17]GAO-06-996 .

The acquisition oversight plan generally incorporates basic principles of
an effective and accountable acquisition function and includes mechanisms
to monitor acquisition performance. Specifically, the plan incorporates
DHS policy, internal controls, and elements of an effective acquisition
function: organizational alignment and leadership, policies and processes,
human capital, knowledge and information management, and financial
accountability.^7 While it is too early to assess the plan's overall
effectiveness in improving acquisition performance, initial implementation
of the first self-assessment has helped most components prioritize actions
to address identified weaknesses. In addition, the CPO has helped several
components implement organizational and process changes that may improve
acquisition performance over time. For example, one component, with the
assistance of the CPO, elevated its acquisition office to a level
equivalent to its financial office.

However, the acquisition planning reviews are not sufficient to determine
if components' adequately plan their acquisitions. Federal acquisition
regulations and DHS directives require agencies to perform acquisition
planning in part to ensure good value, including cost and quality.
Component HCAs are responsible to ensure that acquisition plans are
completed in a timely manner, include an efficient and effective
acquisition strategy and the resulting contract action or actions support
the component's mission. Inadequate procurement planning can lead to
higher costs, schedule delays, and systems that do not meet mission
objectives. Several recent reviews have identified problems in DHS's
acquisition planning. In 2006, we reported that DHS often opted for speed
and convenience in lieu of planning and analysis when selecting a
contracting method and may not have obtained a good value for millions of
dollars in spending.^8 As part of a 2006 special review of Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) contracts, DHS's CPO found
significant problems with the requirements process and acquisition
strategy and recommended in part that FEMA better plan acquisitions.^9 For
example, the CPO reported that FEMA's total cost for its temporary housing
program could have been significantly reduced if FEMA had appropriately
planned to acquire temporary homes before the fiscal year 2005 hurricane
season. A 2006 internal review of the Office of Procurement Operation's
contracts similarly found little evidence that acquisition planning
occurred in compliance with regulations. While a key goal of the oversight
program is to improve acquisition planning, we found potential problems
with each of the three elements of the acquisition planning reviews, as
shown in table 2.

^7GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal
Agencies, [18]GAO-05-218G (Washington D.C.: September 2005).

^8 [19]GAO-06-996 .

^9As part of the oversight plan, the CPO conducts special on-site reviews
in response to issues that need immediate attention. At the request of the
Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy,
the CPO reviewed several FEMA programs in 2006, focusing on the Hurricane
Katrina response. The CPO is currently conducting a follow-up review of
FEMA to determine whether corrective actions have been taken.

Table 2: Potential Problems with Acquisition Planning Reviews

Purpose                        Potential Problems                          
CPO reviews certain individual acquisition plans
The CPO reviews certain        The CPO's review is advisory because the    
acquisition plans to ensure    component HCA is responsible to ensure that 
that each complies with        the plan complies with regulations and that 
regulations and policies and   the resulting acquisition meets the         
also provides recommendations  component's mission requirements in an      
and guidance.                  efficient and effective manner.             
                                                                              
                                  The HCA is not required to incorporate the  
                                  CPO's comments into the plan. Instead, the  
                                  HCA must document in the contract file how  
                                  the comments were addressed.                
                                                                              
                                  As a result, the CPO has little assurance   
                                  that review comments are included in the    
                                  final versions of the acquisition plans.    
HCAs review their component's acquisition planning process each year
Annual reviews are intended to The CPO does not monitor whether HCAs       
ensure the efficiency and      complete the annual acquisition planning    
effectiveness of the           reviews.                                    
components' acquisition                                                    
planning process.              Most component HCAs were not aware of the   
                                  requirement to complete an annual           
                                  acquisition planning review and had not     
                                  done so.                                    
                                                                              
                                  As a result, HCAs and the CPO may not       
                                  identify and address poor acquisition       
                                  planning processes or opportunities to      
                                  strengthen processes.                       
HCAs update the AAP database   
HCAs are to provide data into  The CPO has not established an effective    
the database to publicize      mechanism to monitor the database:          
contracting opportunities and                                              
to assist components in        In reviewing individual acquisition plans,  
managing schedules for planned the CPO has not been able to establish a    
acquisitions.                  process that allows them to check that      
                                  required information is entered into the    
                                  database.                                   
                                                                              
                                  During the first on-site review at the      
                                  Office of Procurement Operations, CPO       
                                  officials indicated they could not verify   
                                  the accuracy and completeness of Office of  
                                  Procurement Operations' information in the  
                                  database--as it had intended--because the   
                                  database does not retain historical data    
                                  for comparing the database to documents.    
                                                                              
                                  As a result, the CPO's visibility into the  
                                  components' planning activities is limited. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data and interviews with DHS officials.

The CPO Faces Challenges in Implementing Reviews and Corrective Actions

DHS faces two challenges in achieving the goals of its acquisition
oversight plan. First, the CPO has had limited resources to implement the
plan reviews. When implementation of the plan began in 2006, only two
personnel were assigned acquisition oversight as their primary duty. The
CPO received funding for eight additional oversight positions. However,
officials told us that they have struggled to find qualified individuals.
As of June 2007, seven positions had been filled. As part of the
Department's fiscal year 2008 appropriation request, the CPO is seeking
two additional staff, for a total of 12 oversight positions. The CPO will
also continue to rely on resources from components to implement the plan,
such as providing staff for on-site reviews.

Second, while the CPO can make recommendations based on oversight reviews,
the component head ultimately determines what, if any, action will be
taken. DHS's organization relies on cooperation and collaboration between
the CPO and components to accomplish departmentwide acquisition goals.
However, to the extent that the CPO and components disagree on needed
actions, the CPO lacks the authority to require compliance with
recommendations. We have previously reported that the DHS system of dual
accountability results in unclear working relationships between the CPO
and component heads. DHS policy also leaves unclear what enforcement
authority the CPO has to ensure that acquisition initiatives are carried
out. In turn, we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security
provide the CPO with sufficient enforcement authority to effectively
oversee the Department's acquisitions--a recommendation that has yet to be
implemented.^10 CPO officials believe that there are other mechanisms to
influence component actions, such as providing input into HCA hiring
decisions and performance appraisals.

External Reviews and Knowledge Sharing Could Improve Acquisition Oversight

Making the most of opportunities to strengthen its acquisition oversight
program--along with overcoming implementation challenges--could position
the agency to achieve better acquisition outcomes. We identified two such
opportunities: periodic external assessments of the oversight program and
sharing knowledge gained from the oversight plan reviews across the
department.

^10GAO, Homeland Security: Successes and Challenges in DHS's Efforts to
Create an Effective Acquisition Organization, [20]GAO-05-179 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2005).

Federal internal control standards call for periodic external assessments
of programs to help ensure their effectiveness.^11 An independent
evaluation of DHS's acquisition oversight program by the Inspector General
or an external auditor could help strengthen the oversight conducted
through the plan and better ensure that the program is fully implemented
and maintaining its effectiveness over time. In particular, an external
assessment with results communicated to appropriate officials can help
maintain the strength of the oversight program by alerting DHS to
acquisition concerns that require oversight, as well as monitoring the
plan's implementation. For example, the plan initially called for
components to complete the self-assessment by surveying their acquisition
staff; however, the level of staff input for the first self-assessments
was left to the discretion of the HCAs. Specifically, CPO officials
advised HCAs to complete the questions themselves, delegate the completion
to one or more staff members, or select a few key people from outside
their organization to participate. While evolution of the plan and its
implementation is to be expected and can result in improvements, periodic
external assessments of the plan could provide a mechanism for monitoring
changes to ensure they do not diminish oversight.

Federal internal control standards also call for effective communication
to enable managers to carry out their responsibilities and better achieve
components' missions.^12 The CPO has been assigned responsibility for
ensuring the integrity of the oversight process--in part by providing
lessons learned for acquisition program management and execution. While
the CPO intends to share knowledge with components by posting lessons
learned from operational status reviews to DHS's intranet, according to
CPO officials, the Web site is currently limited to providing guidance and
training materials and does not include a formal mechanism to share
lessons learned among components. In addition to the Web site, other
opportunities may exist for sharing knowledge. For example, CPO officials
indicated that the CPO meets monthly with component HCAs to discuss
acquisition issues. The monthly meetings could provide an opportunity to
share and discuss lessons learned from oversight reviews. Finally,
knowledge could be regularly shared with component acquisition staff
through internal memorandums or reports on the results of oversight
reviews.

^11See GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government, [21]GAO/AIMD-00-21 .3.1 (Washington D.C.: November
1999).

^12 [22]GAO/AIMD-00-21 .3.1.

Conclusion

Integrating 22 federal agencies while implementing acquisition processes
needed to support DHS's national security mission is a herculean effort.
The CPO's oversight plan generally incorporates basic principles of an
effective acquisition function, but absent clear authority, the CPO's
recommendations for improved acquisition performance are, in effect,
advisory. Additional actions are needed to achieve the plan's objectives
and opportunities exist to strengthen oversight through enhanced internal
controls. Until DHS improves its approach for overseeing acquisition
planning, the department will continue to be at risk of failing to
identify and address recurring problems that have led to poor acquisition
outcomes.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve oversight of component acquisition planning processes and the
overall effectiveness of the acquisition oversight plan, we recommend that
the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Chief Procurement Officer to
take the following three actions:

           o Reevaluate the approach to oversight of acquisition planning
           reviews and determine whether the mechanisms under the plan are
           sufficient to monitor component actions and improve component
           acquisition planning efforts.
           o Request a periodic external assessment of the oversight plan
           implementation and ensure findings are communicated to and
           addressed by appropriate officials.
           o Develop additional opportunities to share lessons learned from
           oversight reviews with DHS components.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In
written comments, DHS generally agreed with our facts and conclusions and
concurred with all of our recommendations and provided information on what
actions would be taken to address them.

Regarding the recommendation on acquisition planning, DHS stated that
during on-site reviews they will verify that CPO comments on acquisition
plans have been sufficiently addressed. DHS is also developing training
for component HCAs and other personnel to emphasize that CPO comments
related to compliance with applicable laws and regulations must be
incorporated into acquisition plans. The CPO will also annually require an
acquisition planning review as part of the oversight plan's operational
status reviews. Additionally, DHS intends to change the advanced
acquisition planning database so that historical data are available for
review. With regard to the recommendation for periodic external assessment
of the oversight plan, DHS stated they plan to explore opportunities to
establish a periodic external review of the oversight program. However,
the first priority of the acquisition oversight office is to complete
initial component on-site reviews. For the recommendation to develop
additional opportunities to share lessons learned from oversight reviews,
DHS stated it intends to share consolidated information from operational
status and on-site reviews in regular meetings with component HCA staff.
In addition, the CPO plans to explore further opportunities for sharing
oversight results with the entire DHS acquisition community.

DHS also responded to a 2005 GAO recommendation on the issue of the CPO
lacking authority over the component HCAs. DHS commented that it is in the
process of modifying its acquisition lines of business management
directive to ensure that no DHS contracting organization is exempt. In
addition, DHS stated that the Under Secretary for Management has authority
as the Chief Acquisition Officer to monitor acquisition performance,
establish clear lines of authority for making acquisition decisions, and
manage the direction of acquisition policy for the department, and that
these authorities also devolve to the CPO. Modifying the management
directive to ensure no DHS contracting organization is exempt is a
positive step. However, until DHS formally designates the Chief
Acquisition Officer, and modifies applicable management directives to
support this designation, DHS's existing policy of dual accountability
between the component heads and the CPO leaves unclear the CPO's authority
to enforce corrective actions to achieve the department's acquisition
goals, which was the basis of our earlier recommendation.

DHS's letter is reprinted in appendix II. DHS also provided technical
comments which were incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [23]http://www.gao.gov .

If you or your staff have questions regarding this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-4841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Principal contributors to this report were Amelia Shachoy,
Assistant Director; William Russell; Tatiana Winger; Heddi Nieuwsma; Lily
Chin; Karen Sloan; and Sylvia Schatz.

John Hutton, Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine actions taken by DHS to implement the acquisition oversight
plan and challenges DHS faces, we reviewed prior GAO and DHS Office of the
Inspector General reports pertaining to acquisition oversight as well as
relevant DHS documents, such as the oversight plan, documents of completed
reviews and guidance to components, including training materials. We
interviewed officials in the CPO's office and the nine DHS components with
acquisition offices. We compared efforts undertaken to implement the plan
by DHS officials against established program policies, the fiscal year
2007 implementation schedule, and other guidance materials. We reviewed
four component self-assessments that were provided to us and also reviewed
areas in which the CPO provided assistance to components based on
self-assessment results. We also reviewed Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government.

We conducted our work from February 2007 to June 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 
(120651)

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 ( [24]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
[25]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: [26]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [27][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [28][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, [29][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

[30]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-900 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact John Hutton at (202) 512-4841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [31]GAO-07-900 , a report to congressional committees

June 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Department's Acquisition
Oversight Plan

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the third largest department in
federal procurement spending in fiscal year 2006, has faced ongoing cost,
schedule, and performance problems with major acquisitions and procurement
of services. In December 2005, DHS established an acquisition oversight
program to provide insight into and improve components' acquisition
programs.

In 2006, GAO reported that DHS faced challenges in implementing its
program. Congress mandated that DHS develop an oversight plan and tasked
GAO with analyzing the plan. GAO (1) evaluated actions DHS and its
components have taken to implement the acquisition oversight plan and (2)
identified implementation challenges. GAO also identified opportunities
for strengthening oversight conducted through the plan.

GAO reviewed relevant DHS documents and GAO and DHS Inspector General
reports and interviewed officials in the office of the Chief Procurement
Officer (CPO) and nine DHS components.

[32]What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the CPO reevaluate the approach to the
acquisition planning reviews and that DHS enhance internal controls to
strengthen the oversight plan through periodic external reviews and
knowledge sharing. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations.

The CPO has taken several actions to implement DHS's acquisition oversight
plan--which generally incorporates basic principles of an effective and
accountable acquisition function. The plan monitors acquisition
performance through four recurring reviews: self-assessment, operational
status, on-site, and acquisition planning. Each component has completed
the first self-assessment, which has helped components identify and
prioritize acquisition weaknesses. In addition, each component has
submitted an initial operational status report to the CPO and on-site
reviews are being conducted. Despite this progress, the acquisition
planning reviews are not sufficient to determine if components adequately
plan their acquisitions--in part because a required review has not been
implemented and the CPO lacks visibility into components' planning
activities.

DHS faces two key challenges in implementing its acquisition oversight
plan. First, the CPO has had limited oversight resources to implement plan
reviews. However, recent increases in staff have begun to address this
challenge. Second, the CPO lacks sufficient authority to ensure components
comply with the plan--despite being held accountable for departmentwide
management and oversight of the acquisition function. GAO has previously
recommended that DHS provide the CPO with sufficient enforcement authority
to enable effective acquisition oversight.

In addition to these challenges, GAO identified two opportunities to
strengthen internal controls for overseeing the plan's implementation and
for increasing knowledge sharing. Specifically, independent evaluations of
DHS's oversight program could help ensure that the plan maintains its
effectiveness over time. Sharing knowledge and lessons learned could
provide DHS's acquisition workforce with the information needed to improve
their acquisition processes and better achieve DHS's mission.

References

Visible links
  15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-119
  16. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-996
  17. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-996
  18. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-218G
  19. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-996
  20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-179
  21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21
  22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21
  23. http://www.gao.gov/
  24. http://www.gao.gov/
  25. http://www.gao.gov/
  26. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  27. mailto:[email protected]
  28. mailto:[email protected]
  29. mailto:[email protected]
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-900
  31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-900
*** End of document. ***