Assessment of the Explanation That Immigration and Customs	 
Enforcement Provided for Its Subsequent Transfer from the	 
Spectrum Relocation Fund (09-SEP-08, GAO-08-846R).		 
                                                                 
Congress has taken a number of steps to facilitate the deployment
of innovative, new commercial wireless services to consumers,	 
including authorizing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to assign licenses through auctions and requiring more spectrum  
to be transferred from federal government use to commercial use. 
In addition, in 2004, Congress passed the Commercial Spectrum	 
Enhancement Act (CSEA), which established a Spectrum Relocation  
Fund (the Fund) to cover the costs incurred by federal entities  
within certain spectrum bands as they relocate to new frequency  
assignments or transition to alternative technologies. The Fund  
is administered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in  
consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce. In September
2006, FCC concluded an auction of licenses for Advanced Wireless 
Services on radio spectrum in the 1710 megahertz (MHz) to 1755	 
MHz band that is currently used by federal agencies. The auction 
raised almost $6.9 billion in net winning bids from the sale of  
these frequencies, which was deposited into the Fund to be	 
available to the federal entities for their eligible relocation  
expenses. Any auction proceeds remaining in the Fund after	 
payment of relocation costs are to revert to the General Fund of 
the U.S. Treasury not later than 8 years after the date of their 
deposit.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-846R					        
    ACCNO:   A84098						        
  TITLE:     Assessment of the Explanation That Immigration and       
Customs Enforcement Provided for Its Subsequent Transfer from the
Spectrum Relocation Fund					 
     DATE:   09/09/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Federal procurement				 
	     Funds management					 
	     Radio broadcasting 				 
	     Relocation allowances				 
	     Relocation expense claims				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Technology assessment				 
	     Technology modernization programs			 
	     Wireless application protocol			 
	     Wireless networks					 
	     Spectrum Relocation Fund				 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-846R

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

GAO-08-846R: 

September 9, 2008: 

Congressional Committees: 

Subject: Assessment of the Explanation That Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement Provided for Its Subsequent Transfer from the Spectrum 
Relocation Fund: 

Congress has taken a number of steps to facilitate the deployment of 
innovative, new commercial wireless services to consumers, including 
authorizing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assign 
licenses through auctions and requiring more spectrum to be transferred 
from federal government use to commercial use. In addition, in 2004, 
Congress passed the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA), 
[Footnote 1] which established a Spectrum Relocation Fund (the Fund) to 
cover the costs incurred by federal entities within certain spectrum 
bands as they relocate to new frequency assignments or transition to 
alternative technologies.[Footnote 2] The Fund is administered by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in consultation with the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the 
Department of Commerce.[Footnote 3] In September 2006, FCC concluded an 
auction of licenses for Advanced Wireless Services on radio spectrum in 
the 1710 megahertz (MHz) to 1755 MHz band that is currently used by 
federal agencies. The auction raised almost $6.9 billion in net winning 
bids from the sale of these frequencies, which was deposited into the 
Fund to be available to the federal entities for their eligible 
relocation expenses.[Footnote 4] Any auction proceeds remaining in the 
Fund after payment of relocation costs are to revert to the General 
Fund of the U.S. Treasury not later than 8 years after the date of 
their deposit.[Footnote 5] 

In February 2007, OMB, in consultation with NTIA, submitted a Report to 
Congress outlining the agencies' original transfer amounts from the 
Fund. These amounts represented OMB's determination of the appropriate 
costs and timelines for relocating the federal communications systems 
in the 1710-1755 MHz band. OMB noted that these original transfer 
amounts represented the best estimate of each agency at that time and 
that the possibility of subsequent transfers existed.[Footnote 6] 
However, OMB staff with whom we spoke also pointed out that the Fund 
was not intended to be an ongoing source of revenue for the affected 
agencies. OMB staff said that initial estimates from the agencies in 
2005 had formed the reserve price for the auction, and that agencies 
are expected to try to hold to their initial estimates. 

In OMB's February 2007 report, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested 
approximately $3.6 million from the Fund to relocate electronic 
surveillance operations consisting of four systems on four frequency 
assignments. Later that year, in November 2007, OMB notified Congress 
that it had approved a request from ICE for a subsequent transfer of 
monies from the Fund. ICE received a subsequent transfer of more than 
$35 million--approximately 10 times the amount that it had originally 
received.[Footnote 7] This subsequent transfer to ICE was the first 
subsequent transfer that OMB approved. OMB has since approved 
subsequent transfers to three other affected federal entities. Other 
requests for subsequent transfers are currently in the review process. 

In accordance with the provisions of the CSEA, whenever a subsequent 
transfer exceeds 10 percent of the original transfer, GAO is required 
to submit to Congress, within 30 days after receiving the plan, an 
assessment of the explanation for the subsequent transfer.[Footnote 8] 
Our assessment of the explanation for ICE's subsequent transfer was to 
be provided to Congress by December 26, 2007, but due to the scope of 
the work involved, we were unable to provide our assessment within that 
statutory time frame. The cognizant committees were amenable to our 
providing this report at a later date. Our assessment is based on work 
that we conducted between December 2007 and September 2008, including 
our review of documentation provided by ICE, OMB, and NTIA and 
discussions with staffs from these entities. We conducted this audit in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

Our assessment of the explanation that ICE provided is that the need 
for a substantial subsequent transfer was caused by DHS and ICE failing 
to identify a significant number of relocation expenses in the original 
transfer request, including costs associated with additional equipment, 
offices, and systems, and with a fifth frequency assignment. DHS 
submitted and OMB, in consultation with NTIA, reviewed and approved 
this original transfer request. The CSEA provided some guidance to 
agencies concerning the categories of expenses that are eligible for 
relocation monies from the Fund. In addition, NTIA provided guidance to 
agencies about how to submit information for their initial estimates of 
their relocation costs, including how to break out expenses and how to 
format their submissions. OMB also provided some guidance to the 
federal entities to use in developing their original requests for 
transfers from the Fund. However, in submitting both its initial 
estimate to NTIA and its original transfer request to OMB, ICE did not 
detail its estimated costs by equipment, location, system, or 
frequency--as suggested by NTIA's guidance--and did not include costs 
for one of its frequency assignments. Instead, ICE provided a lump sum 
estimate of $3,559,281 for its spectrum relocation costs. ICE staff 
told us that the initial estimate had not been well coordinated among 
ICE offices and was simply a poorly crafted estimate. According to OMB 
staff, ICE's initial estimate and original transfer request were based 
on an inadequate inventory of deployed systems. OMB and NTIA accepted 
ICE's estimate and did not require ICE to provide the details suggested 
in the CSEA or requested in NTIA's guidance in either its original or 
subsequent transfer request. As a result, OMB and NTIA had limited 
assurance that DHS or ICE had conducted a thorough assessment of ICE's 
spectrum relocation needs. With respect to subsequent requests for 
transfer, OMB staff stated that they work with agencies on what 
information is needed to support a request. However, OMB has not 
established any written guidance or criteria for agencies in submitting 
subsequent requests for transfer, which could result in limited 

assurance going forward that the subsequent requests reflect thorough 
and properly vetted estimates. 

To address the issues we have identified, we are recommending that OMB, 
in consultation with NTIA, establish written criteria for federal 
entities to follow when submitting subsequent requests for spectrum 
relocation funding, communicate these criteria to each of the affected 
federal entities, and require the federal entities submitting 
subsequent requests to meet these criteria. These criteria should be 
designed to better assure OMB (and NTIA in its consultative role) that 
the requesting federal entity has conducted a thorough assessment of 
its spectrum relocation needs, and that the estimate has been vetted 
throughout the agency or department involved. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, DHS, and the Department of 
Commerce for comment. OMB staff provided oral comments and said that 
they are considering our recommendation. OMB's comments were technical, 
and we incorporated them into the report as appropriate. DHS provided 
written comments which appear in enclosure I. DHS states in its letter 
that it believes our recommendation would be beneficial if adopted. DHS 
states that our report does not sufficiently reflect action taken by 
DHS and ICE with regard to ICE's subsequent transfer request. DHS 
states that ICE's subsequent transfer request submission included a 
tactical plan, complete inventory of current equipment, office 
locations, and pricing information on the analog replacement equipment. 
We acknowledge in our report that they submitted more thorough 
information in support of that request, although we maintain that even 
more information would have been helpful to ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA in 
validating that request. NTIA, in oral and e-mail comments, disagreed 
with our emphasis on ICE not having provided information for any of its 
estimates broken out by location, system, or frequency. NTIA says this 
type of detail was not necessary for the type of surveillance system 
that ICE was operating. We maintain that ICE's costs could have and 
should have been broken out in multiple ways to assure and validate 
that all necessary relocation expenses were being identified. The fact 
that ICE came back and asked for 10 times more funding than its 
original request is evidence that ICE did not construct and present to 
NTIA and OMB an initial estimate that was close to accurate. 

ICE's Initial Estimate and Original Transfer Request Did Not 
Sufficiently Detail Its Costs and Did Not Include Relocation Expenses 
for All of Its Systems and Frequency Assignments: 

The CSEA required that NTIA notify FCC (the agency conducting the 
auctions) on behalf of the affected federal entities regarding their 
estimated relocation costs and timelines at least 6 months prior to the 
commencement of an auction.[Footnote 9] In February 2005, shortly after 
the CSEA became law, NTIA sent each of the affected federal entities a 
letter that provided an overview of the CSEA. NTIA also provided an 
enclosure containing the language of the CSEA and recommended to the 
federal entities that they review carefully the listing of eligible 
frequencies and definition of "relocation costs" in section 202 of the 
act as they prepared their relocation cost estimates. Section 202 of 
the act provides guidance on eligible expenses by listing several 
categories and examples of relocation costs, such as equipment 
replacement costs, site acquisition and construction costs, and the 
costs of engineering studies or economic analyses. 

To compile the necessary information as required by the CSEA, NTIA 
requested in its letter that agencies provide their information to NTIA 
by September 2005 in a certain format. Specifically, the NTIA guidance 
in enclosure 2 of its letter provided a list of information required 
for each agency's frequency assignments, including the serial number, 
frequency, system name, geographic location information, and initial 
cost estimate (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Enclosure 2 of NTIA's February 2005 Letter to the Affected 
Federal Entities Regarding Relocation Cost Estimates for the 1710-1755 
MHz Frequency Band: 

[See PDF for image] 

Enclosure 2: 

1710-1755 MHz Information Format: 

The following list contains the information required for each agencies 
frequency assignment. Note that included are frequency assignments that 
may be located in the 1755-1850 MHz band due to band pairing with 1710-
1755 MHz operations. 

Serial Number:
Frequency (MHz): 
Bureau Code: 
Original Service Type: 
Original System Name: 
Transmitter Location, State: 
Transmitter Geographic Location: 
Transmitter Latitude (ddmmss): 
Transmitter Longitude (ddmmss): 
Receiver Location, State: 
Receiver Geographic Location: 
Receiver Latitude (ddmmss): 
Receiver Longitude (ddmmss): 
Relocation Timeline (in months): 
Cost Estimate ($K): 

Source: NTIA. 

[End of figure] 

NTIA guidance also included a separate template for an executive 
summary of relocation costs and timelines for the affected 1710-1755 
MHz frequencies for each department or agency (see figure 2). This 
executive summary was to include a number and description of systems 
and the number of frequency assignments supporting each system, as well 
as per-unit costs for each system. In addition, NTIA staff with whom we 
spoke noted that, for surveillance systems such as ICE was operating, 
the most important information for the agency to provide would be 
detailed equipment information and costs. NTIA advised agencies to 
retain all documents supporting their cost estimates. 

Figure 2: Enclosure 3 of NTIA's February 2005 Letter to the Affected 
Federal Entities Regarding Relocation Cost Estimates for the 1710-1755 
MHz Frequency Band: 

[See PDF for image] 

Enclosure 3: 

Executive Summary Of 1710-1755 MHz Costs And Relocation Timeline For
[Insert Name Of Department Or Agency]: 

The total estimated relocation or modification costs for the [insert 
name of Department or Agency]'s radio communications systems in the 
1710-1755 MHz band is $ [insert amount].[Footnote] This total 
represents estimated costs to relocate [insert number and description 
of the agency's systems and the number of frequency assignments 
supporting such systems for each system being relocated, e.g., 4 fixed 
microwave systems supported with 62 frequency assignments and I land 
mobile system supported with 4 frequency assignments]. The per unit 
estimated cost for the [insert description of system, e.g. fixed 
microwave system] is $ [insert amount] [The per unit cost must be 
provided for each system covered by the cost estimate.] 

The [insert the name of the Department or Agency] estimates that the 
timeline for relocating its [description of system] is [insert number 
of months/years] from the date of the agency's receipt of relocation 
funds. [Please provide this information for each system covered by the 
cost estimate.] 

[Any other additional information to be supplied by the agencies should 
appear in this paragraph (e.g., unique system requirements), including 
whether the agency intends to utilize alternative technologies or 
commercial systems to replace its existing systems. To the extent 
alternative technologies will be used, the agency should indicate for 
which systems (or parts of systems) and how the alternative technology 
affected the cost estimate and timeline for relocation.] 

If you have any further questions regarding our department's relocation 
costs, the point of contact is (insert name, telephone number, and 
email address). 

Footnote: The total relocation costs include all the eligible costs as 
defined in Title II of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, Pub. L. 
No. 108-494. 

Source: NTIA. 

[End of figure] 

In response to NTIA's requests, DHS obtained the estimated relocation 
costs from its affected entities[Footnote 10]--including ICE--and 
reviewed, approved, and submitted these estimated costs to NTIA in 
September 2005. The initial cost estimate that DHS provided for ICE in 
September 2005 did not include a breakout of costs by equipment, 
location, system, or frequency. For example, DHS provided an initial 
breakdown of costs by location and frequency for its Customs and Border 
Protection component, but did not do so for ICE. Instead, it provided a 
lump sum estimate of $3,559,281, representing the combined costs for 
four systems using four frequency assignments. 

In September 2006, OMB provided some guidance to the affected federal 
entities for submission of the entities' original transfer requests. 
OMB delivered to the agencies, via NTIA, a document that outlined the 
process involved in relocating the agencies to new spectrum under the 
CSEA. OMB noted that agencies should ensure that the information they 
provided reflected the most up to date relocation plans. OMB also 
provided the agencies with a template for submitting information. 
However, this template was the high-level presentation of information 
that has been included in OMB's reports to Congress, which identify the 
agency, bureau, account, amount, timeline, number of frequency 
assignments, and number of systems. Descriptive information was also 
requested about the agency's relocation activities. OMB's guidance did 
not request any further detail from the agencies in support of the 
amount of their original transfer requests. 

Roughly 1ï¿½ years passed between the affected federal entities providing 
their initial cost estimates to NTIA and their providing estimates to 
OMB for the actual transfer of funds. During that time, about half of 
the agencies provided OMB and NTIA with updated cost estimates. 
However, ICE again submitted the roughly $3.6 million cost estimate for 
four frequencies and four systems. ICE's 2007 original transfer request 
still did not detail expenses by equipment, system, location, or 
frequency. OMB staff told us that they questioned ICE's $3.6 million 
estimate as seeming too low, but ICE assured them that the amount was 
an accurate estimate. In February 2007, OMB made its determination of 
the costs and timelines for relocation for all of the affected federal 
entities and sent a Report to Congress[Footnote 11] outlining the 
amounts that would be transferred from the Fund to 28 accounts within 
12 federal departments and agencies (see figure 3). ICE was approved 
for $3,559,281 for four systems using four frequency assignments. 

Figure 3: Spectrum Relocation Fund Original Transfer Amounts and 
Project Timelines, February 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

Table 1: Spectrum relocation Transfer Amounts and Project Timelines: 

Agency: Agriculture; 
Bureau: Forest Service;	
Amount[A]: $21,578,486; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 
			
Agency: DOD; 
Bureau: Air Force; 
Amount[A]: $106,753,481; 
Timeline[B]: 48. 

Agency: DOD; 
Bureau: Army; 
Amount[A]: $15,933,043; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOD; 
Bureau: Navy; 
Amount[A]: $134,465,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOD; 
Bureau: RDT&E/O&M (Defense-wide support); 
Amount[A]: $98,200,000; 
Timeline[B]: 72. 

Agency: DOD; Subtotal; 
Amount[A]: $355,351,524. 
			
Agency: DOE; 
Bureau: Bonneville Power Administration; 
Amount[A]: $48,627,399; 
Timeline[B]: 72. 

Agency: DOE; 
Bureau: Southwestern Power Administration; 
Amount[A]: $8,091,360; 
Timeline[B]: 24. 

Agency: DOE; 
Bureau: Western Area Power Administration; 
Amount[A]: $108,202,200; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOE; 
Bureau: National Nuclear Security Administration; 
Amount[A]: $10,900,000; 
Timeline[B]: 24. 

Agency: DOE; 
Bureau: Departmental Administration (DOE-wide support); 
Amount[A]: $1,000,000; 
Timeline[B]: 72. 

Agency: DOE; Subtotal; 
Amount[A]: $176,820,959. 

Agency: DHS; 
Bureau: Customs and Border Protection; 
Amount[A]: $74,349,990; 
Timeline[B]: 12. 

Agency: DHS; 
Bureau: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Amount[A]: $3,559,281; 
Timeline[B]: 12. 

Agency: DHS; 
Bureau: Secret Service; 
Amount[A]: $105,800; 
Timeline[B]: 12. 

Agency: DHS; 
Bureau: Chief Information Officer (DHS-wide support); 
Amount[A]: $11,979,761; 
Timeline[B]: 12. 

Agency: DHS; Subtotal; 
$89,994,832. 
			
Agency: HUD; 
Bureau: Inspector General; 
Amount[A]: $21,115; 
Timeline[B]: 24. 
			
Agency: DOI; 
Bureau: Bureau of Reclamation; 
Amount[A]: $4,550,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOI; 
Bureau: Geological Survey; 
Amount[A]: $6,158,949; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOI; 
Bureau: National Park Service; 
Amount[A]: $14,703,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOI; Subtotal; 
Amount[A]: $25,411,949. 
			
Agency: DOJ; 
Bureau: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; 
Amount[A]: $48,024,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Bureau: Drug Enforcement Agency; 
Amount[A]: $74,772,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Bureau: Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Amount[A]: $139,225,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Bureau: Chief Information Officer (DOJ-wide support); 
Amount[A]: $800,000; 
Timeline[B]: 36. 

Agency: DOJ; Subtotal; 
Amount[A]: $262,821,000. 

Agency: DOT; 
Bureau: Federal Aviation Administration; 
Amount[A]: $58,062,020; 
Timeline[B]: 48. 
			
Agency: Treasury; 
Bureau: Internal Revenue Service; 
Amount[A]: $4,409,000; 
Timeline[B]: 28. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Bureau: Inspector General for Tax Administration; 
Amount[A]: $892,000; 
Timeline[B]: 28. 

Agency: Treasury; Subtotal; 
Amount[A]: $5,301,000. 
			
Agency: NASA; 
Bureau: NASA; 
Amount[A]: $740,000; 
Timeline[B]: 24. 
			
Agency: TVA; 
Bureau: Tennessee Valley Authority; 
Amount[A]: $10,687,857; 
Timeline[B]: 48. 
			
Agency: USPS; 
Bureau: Inspection Service; 
Amount[A]: $1,761,760; 
Timeline[B]: 12. 
			
Agency: Total; 
Amount[A]: $1,008,552,502. 

[A] Amount specified will be transferred to the agency following the 
notification period. If actual project costs differ from the 
transferred amount, such discrepancies will be disposed of in 
accordance with the CSEA. Due to rounding, amounts may differ from 
figures included in the President's Budget. 

[B] Timeline indicated represents the estimated time to completion of 
spectrum relocation activities, in months, beginning from the date of 
the transfer of funds to the agency. 

Source: OMB. 

[End of figure] 

ICE's subsequent transfer request of November 2007 was for an 
additional $35.6 million to cover relocation expenses for an additional 
547 systems and 1 frequency assignment[Footnote 12] that had not been 
accounted for in ICE's initial estimate of September 2005 or its 
original transfer request of February 2007. ICE also noted that many of 
its offices had not been included in its original transfer request. ICE 
staff told us that the initial estimate was completed when DHS was 
being set up and confusion existed from the combining of agencies and 
offices.[Footnote 13] ICE staff said that the original estimate had not 
been well coordinated among ICE offices and was simply a poorly crafted 
estimate. Nonetheless, ICE and DHS officials approved the initial 
estimate and original transfer request and submitted them to NTIA and 
OMB. According to an OMB staffer, ICE's initial estimate was based on 
an inadequate inventory of ICE's deployed systems, leading to the need 
for additional funding to cover relocation of these systems. 

OMB and NTIA Did Not Require Sufficient Detail from ICE, Resulting in 
Limited Assurance That the Estimate Reflected a Thorough Assessment of 
ICE's Spectrum Relocation Needs: 

NTIA staff told us that while they provided guidance and a format for 
ICE to submit spectrum relocation information for its initial estimate, 
they did not require ICE to provide the detail requested, including 
costs by equipment, location, system, or frequency. With regard to the 
original transfer requests, OMB provided the affected federal entities 
with some guidance and a template for submitting information. But this 
template asked for information at a high level, and the guidance did 
not seek specifics to support the amounts requested. With regard to 
subsequent transfer requests, OMB staff told us that they provided no 
written guidance or criteria for the federal entities to use in 
developing their requests. OMB staff noted that they do expect to 
receive certain information from the agencies, including reasons for 
the subsequent request, information on costs, information on options 
the agency considered, and information to show that the agency will 
only use the funding to achieve comparable capability and not enhanced 
capability. 

In conducting their reviews of ICE's initial estimate, original 
transfer request, and subsequent transfer request, OMB and NTIA 
accepted ICE's estimate and did not require ICE to provide the details 
suggested in the CSEA or requested in NTIA's correspondence, resulting 
in limited assurance that DHS or ICE had conducted a thorough 
assessment of ICE's spectrum relocation needs. According to ICE staff, 
the agency's subsequent request for almost $35.6 million from the Fund 
covers all of its frequencies and is a thorough assessment of ICE's 
spectrum relocation needs for its analog systems. While ICE's 
subsequent request does provide much more thorough detail in relation 
to the new equipment it will need to purchase, ICE still has not 
provided a complete breakout of costs by location, systems, or 
frequency. Such information would have allowed ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA 
to cross check information and better validate the equipment inventory 
provided. 

Although OMB is currently reviewing additional subsequent transfer 
requests, and could receive more, the agency has not established any 
written guidance for preparing subsequent transfer requests. Yet 
preparation of thorough and properly vetted requests is essential 
because NTIA staff told us they do not have the staff resources to 
validate the information on a large number of systems and OMB staff 
stated that they do not have the technical capability to always do an 
in-depth technical analysis of an agency's submissions regarding 
relocation costs. For example, in its subsequent transfer request for 
almost $35.6 million, ICE submitted a list of equipment that it would 
need to purchase in moving to its new frequency assignments, such as 
video recording and receiver kits, transmitters, and antennas. ICE 
included the estimated costs and quantities for each piece of 
equipment. OMB and NTIA told us that the validation of those costs must 
come in large part from the agency or department itself. They said that 
they rely on the agencies and departments to have the most thorough 
understanding of their inventories and equipment needs. However, they 
said they would question a specific piece of equipment or a quantity if 
something looked unusual. OMB staff told us they review agency 
submissions for reasonableness, consistency with the CSEA, and cost- 
effectiveness, and that they compare the equipment requested with the 
agencies' needs and missions. 

Conclusions: 

A large proportion of the responsibility for accurately assessing 
spectrum relocation funding needs falls to the individual agencies that 
must relocate. Although guidance for estimating spectrum relocation 
funding needs was provided in the CSEA and by NTIA and OMB, ICE did not 
ensure that it was covering all of its equipment inventory, the needs 
of all its offices, and including all of its frequency assignments in 
its initial estimate or its original transfer request. By not 
undertaking a comprehensive assessment of its needs, ICE underestimated 
those needs by 10-fold. Although we were told that additional 
subsequent transfer requests are expected, OMB has not established 
written criteria regarding information to be provided in support of the 
requests. Going forward, OMB, in consultation with NTIA, should require 
from the agencies enough detail and information to be confident that 
the agencies have conducted a thorough and properly vetted assessment 
of spectrum relocation needs when submitting subsequent requests for 
funding. It is important to make sure that subsequent transfer requests 
truly represent the best cost estimates of the agencies. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Because it is important that federal agencies present accurate 
estimates when determining their spectrum relocation needs so that 
additional subsequent transfer requests--and, thus, further depletion 
of the Spectrum Relocation Fund--can be avoided, we are recommending 
that the Director of OMB take the following action: 

* In consultation with NTIA, establish written criteria for agencies to 
follow when submitting supplemental requests for spectrum relocation 
funding, communicate these criteria to each of the affected federal 
entities, and require that these criteria be followed before OMB 
approves subsequent requests. These criteria should be designed to 
better assure OMB (and NTIA in its consultative role) that the 
requesting agency has conducted a thorough assessment of its spectrum 
relocation needs, and that the estimate has been properly vetted 
throughout the agency or department involved. For example, these 
criteria could include, but not be limited to, requiring agencies to 
provide replacement costs by equipment, location, system, or frequency 
and requiring agencies to break out expenses into standard categories. 
Until such criteria can be developed, OMB might consider using, as an 
interim requirement, the guidance set forth in NTIA's February 2005 
letter to the agencies, including NTIA's template and executive 
summary. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, DHS, and the Department of 
Commerce for their review and comment. OMB provided oral comments. OMB 
staff said that they were considering our recommendation. They also 
provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as 
appropriate. They further provided additional documentation and we made 
changes to our report based on this documentation. 

DHS provided oral comments, comments via e-mail, and written comments. 
DHS's written comments, reprinted in enclosure I of our report, note 
that DHS believes our recommendation would be beneficial if adopted. 
However, DHS's letter states that the agency does not believe that our 
report sufficiently reflects action taken by DHS and ICE, noting 
submissions from ICE to OMB in relation to ICE's subsequent transfer 
request. DHS states that its subsequent transfer request submission 
included a tactical plan, complete inventory of current equipment, 
office locations, and pricing information on the analog replacement 
equipment. Most of our report deals with the insufficiency of ICE's 
original request for $3.6 million. With regard to ICE's subsequent 
request, we acknowledge in our report that ICE submitted more thorough 
information in support of that request, although we maintain that a 
complete breakout of costs by location, system, or frequency would have 
been helpful to ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA in validating that request. 

With regard to DHS's oral and e-mail comments, we incorporated the 
department's technical comments into the report, as appropriate. Most 
of DHS's comments related to ICE's need to transition from analog to 
digital surveillance systems in the future. We referred to this issue 
in footnote 7 of our report. As we stated there, our report deals only 
with ICE's original and approved subsequent transfer request, which 
involved conversion from analog to analog equipment. However, DHS notes 
that any criteria established for future subsequent transfer requests 
(per our recommendation) should also be oriented toward the unique 
characteristics of surveillance systems and the missions of federal law 
enforcement agencies. We agree. If OMB should decide to implement our 
recommendation, we urge DHS and the other affected federal entities to 
work with OMB and NTIA to ensure that the criteria developed meet the 
spectrum relocation needs of the various federal entities. DHS also 
noted that some of its subsequent request was related to acquiring new 
analog equipment because many of the devices currently deployed in the 
field cannot be modified or repaired. We believe these types of costs 
should have been identified by ICE as part of its original transfer 
request and are thus included in the missed relocation costs identified 
in our report. Finally, ICE noted that it provided an itemized listing 
of equipment needs for its subsequent transfer request that was broken 
down by offices. While ICE provided a thorough listing of equipment, we 
maintain that providing information broken out by locations, systems, 
and frequencies--to the greatest extent possible--would have allowed 
ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA to cross-check information and better assure 
that all funding needs have been identified. 

NTIA provided oral and e-mail comments. Overall, NTIA disagrees with 
the emphasis that we placed on ICE not having provided information for 
any of its estimates broken out by system, location, or frequency. NTIA 
said that, due to the nature of ICE's surveillance system, NTIA 
considers it to be one system, operating in one location (the United 
States and its possessions), and that all of the equipment on this one 
system was multi-frequency equipment that could have used any of ICE's 
frequencies, making whether ICE had four or five frequencies irrelevant 
to ICE's relocation costs. NTIA said that ICE gave the agency exactly 
the type of information that NTIA expected to receive about ICE's type 
of system. However, we maintain that had more information been 
provided, it would have produced a better estimate, and ICE, DHS, OMB, 
and NTIA would have been better able to validate the estimate. While we 
do not take a position on what constitutes a "system," we believe that 
any definition should provide the ability to track specific costs for 
replacement. Lumping all of ICE's equipment into one system, as NTIA 
suggests, does not provide sufficient detail for tracking costs. With 
regard to breaking out relocation expenses by location, ICE 
documentation lists offices as part of the costs missed. We do not 
agree with NTIA that ICE's operating "location" should be "the United 
States and its possessions," as that again lumps costs together and 
does not allow sufficient detail for tracking costs. With regard to 
breaking out relocation expenses by frequency, ICE noted on several 
occasions that the missed frequency affected its costs, and OMB's 
November 2007 Report to Congress that accompanied ICE's subsequent 
transfer request states this as well. 

We will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Director of OMB, the Secretary of Commerce, and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. We will make copies available to others 
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge 
on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2843 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 were 
Faye Morrison (Assistant Director), Eli Albagli (Senior Analyst), Colin 
Fallon, David Hooper, Madhav Panwar, and Mindi Weisenbloom. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

List of Committees: 

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

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations: 

United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard Durbin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Sam Brownback:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations: 

United States Senate:
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 R. Obey:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John D. Dingell:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joe Barton:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Alan Mollohan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Josï¿½ E. Serrano:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ralph Regula:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

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

The Honorable Edward J. Markey:
Chairman:
The Honorable Cliff Stearns:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: 

Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov] 

September 5, 2008: 

Mr. Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

RE: Draft Report GAO-08-846R, Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent 
Transfer-Assessment of the Explanation that Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement Provided for Its Subsequent Transfer from the Spectrum 
Relocation Fund (GAO Job Code 543199): 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
draft report. The report is an assessment of the explanation for the 
subsequent transfer of funds from the Spectrum Relocation Fund as the 
transfer exceeded ten percent of the original transfer. 

GAO makes no recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security. 
The draft report recommends that the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) establish clear criteria, in consultation 
with the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), for agencies to follow when 
submitting supplemental requests for spectrum relocation funding, 
communicate these criteria to each of the affected federal entities, 
and require that these criteria be followed before OMB approves 
subsequent requests. The recommendation would be beneficial if adopted. 

We believe that the draft does not sufficiently reflect action taken by 
DHS and its component, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 
regarding aspects of the transfer. Specifically, in May 2007, with the 
full support of the DHS Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), 
ICE submitted to OMB and NTIA a revised $72.3 million funding request 
above the initially provided $3.5 million for the purchase of digital 
video equipment to transition ICE operations from the Advanced Wireless 
Services (AWS) band. The submission included a tactical plan, complete 
inventory of current equipment, office locations, and pricing of 
replacement (analog) equipment in support of the funding request. OMB's 
review of the ICE submission, along with subsequent estimates resulted 
in ICE being granted an additional $35.57 million for the purchase of 
analog replacement equipment. This additional funding was provided to 
meet the DHS OCIO established aggressive twelve month timeline to 
release the encumbered Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) frequencies to 
the FCC license winners. OMB further directed ICE to coordinate with 
other affected law enforcement agencies to develop a common digital 
solution. OMB agreed to consider providing additional AWS Spectrum Fund 
funds once a common digital solution has been adopted. 

ICE successfully met the expeditious release of encumbered AWS 
frequencies to the FCC license winners on March 26, 2008 by immediately 
employing all of the initial $3.5 million AWS funds along with 
additional DHS OCIO contingency funds (with OMB agreement) as phase one 
of the tactical plan. Due to the significant funding shortfall and 
tight time line, ICE was required to temporarily reduce surveillance 
capability by over 50% in order to successfully meet the deadline. The 
additional $35.5 million funding shall be applied to fully restore 
analog operational capability in phase two of the tactical plan. This 
will fully migrate all inventoried surveillance equipment to the new 
spectrum obtained above 1755MHz. Phase three of the plan shall complete 
the migration to digital services once a digital standard is adopted by 
the federal law enforcement community and additional funding is 
provided by OMB. 

Technical comments have been provided under separate cover. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Gerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Title II of Pub. L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991-3997 (Dec. 
23, 2004). 

[2] "Eligible relocation expenses" are those costs incurred by a 
federal entity to achieve comparable capability of systems, regardless 
of whether that capability is achieved by relocating to a new frequency 
assignment or utilizing an alternative technology. 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 
923(g)(3). 

[3] NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management is responsible for managing 
the federal government's use of radio frequency spectrum. 

[4] The 1710-1755 MHz band of spectrum was paired with the 2110-2155 
MHz band for the auction. Although the auction raised $13.7 billion, 
the portion of the auction proceeds associated with the transferred 
government spectrum amounted to almost $6.9 billion and was deposited 
into the Fund. 

[5] 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 928(d)(3). 

[6] Under the CSEA, an eligible federal entity may receive more than 
one transfer from the Fund, but if the sum of the subsequent transfer 
or transfers exceeds 10 percent of the original transfer, certain 
procedures apply. These procedures include prior approval by OMB and 
notice to the cognizant congressional committees (i.e., the Committees 
on Appropriations and Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations and Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate) and the Comptroller General 
of the United States. 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 928(e)(1)(B). 

[7] ICE has proposed using a two-phase relocation plan amounting to 
$108 million. The first phase would cover analog-to-analog equipment 
conversion, and the second phase would cover analog-to-digital 
equipment conversion. ICE originally intended to ask for money for both 
phases in its 2007 subsequent transfer request. However, according to 
ICE staff, the agency received guidance from OMB to submit at a later 
date its request for monies to cover digital equipment. Thus, it is 
likely that, in the future, ICE will submit another request for a 
subsequent transfer from the Fund for conversion to digital equipment. 
This report deals only with ICE's original February 2007 transfer of 
almost $3.6 million and its November 2007 subsequent transfer of more 
than $35 million for analog equipment. 

[8] 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 928(e)(1)(B). 

[9] NTIA was to provide FCC with these estimates on behalf of the 
federal entities and after review by OMB. 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 923(g)(4)(A). 
NTIA also was to provide a copy of the estimates to the cognizant 
congressional committees for approval and to GAO. 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 
923(g)(5). The CSEA also provided that the conclusion of the auction by 
FCC was contingent on minimum proceeds. Specifically, auction proceeds 
must be equal to at least 110 percent of the total estimated relocation 
costs for FCC to be able to conclude the auction. 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 
309(j)(16)(B). 

[10] DHS submitted relocation estimates for the following four 
entities: Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Secret Service, and 
the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[11] Under the CSEA, the plan--describing specifically how the sums 
transferred from the Fund will be used to pay relocation costs and the 
timelines for relocation--was to be submitted to the cognizant 
committees for approval, and to the Comptroller General. 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 
928(d)(2). 

[12] Staff from NTIA told us that they discovered in September 2005 
that ICE had five frequency assignments, not four as ICE had originally 
reported. According to NTIA e-mail documentation, NTIA communicated 
this information to ICE in September 2005. According to NTIA staff, 
they asked ICE staff on several occasions following September 2005 if 
systems and equipment on this fifth frequency would also require 
relocation monies from the Fund. NTIA staff said that some agencies had 
frequency assignments that they were not using, so it was possible that 
ICE was not using the fifth frequency and, therefore, would require no 
relocation funding for it. NTIA staff said that they would not change 
the number of ICE's frequency assignments with relation to reporting 
ICE's needs from the Fund until they were informed by DHS or ICE that 
the agency was using that assignment and would need money from the Fund 
for relocation costs. NTIA staff said that they did not receive 
information from DHS or ICE about needing relocation monies for the 
fifth frequency assignment until DHS made its subsequent request for 
spectrum relocation funding to OMB in 2007. OMB staff said that they 
did not receive information from DHS or NTIA about ICE's fifth 
frequency assignment prior to submitting their February 2007 Report to 
Congress, even though both ICE and NTIA had known since September 2005 
about the existence of the fifth frequency assignment. 

[13] Pursuant to Section 1502 of the Department of Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002)), 
multiple federal agencies were consolidated into the new Department of 
Homeland Security in 2003, including the U.S. Customs Service, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Protective 
Service. Elements of these organizations became ICE. For a complete 
listing of DHS agencies and offices, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/editorial_0133.shtm]. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

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

*** End of document. ***