This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-766T 
entitled 'Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination 
of Research and Development Efforts Could Be Strengthened' which was 
released on July 17, 2013. 

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 Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
U.S. Senate: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 
Wednesday, July 17, 2013: 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Oversight and Coordination of Research and Development Efforts Could 
Be Strengthened: 

Statement of Dave C. Maurer, Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice: 

GAO-13-766T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-766T, a testimony before the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Conducting R&D on technologies for detecting, preventing, and 
mitigating terrorist threats is vital to enhancing the security of the 
nation. Since its creation, DHS has spent billions of dollars 
researching and developing technologies used to support its missions 
including securing the border, detecting nuclear devices, and 
screening airline passengers and baggage for explosives, among others. 
Within DHS, S&T conducts and is responsible for coordinating R&D 
across the department, but other components, such as the Coast Guard 
and DNDO, also conduct R&D to support their respective missions. 
This statement discusses (1) how much DHS invests in R&D and the 
extent to which DHS has policies and guidance for defining R&D and 
overseeing R&D resources and efforts across the department, and (2) 
the extent to which R&D is coordinated within DHS to prevent overlap, 
fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication. This statement is based on 
GAO’s September 2012 report on DHS R&D efforts, along with selected 
updates conducted in June 2013 and July 2013. To conduct the selected 
updates, GAO interviewed agency officials on the status of 
implementing GAO’s recommendations. 

What GAO Found: 

In September 2012, GAO reported that the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) does not know the total amount its components invest in 
research and development (R&D) and does not have policies and guidance 
for defining R&D and overseeing R&D resources across the department. 
According to DHS, its Science & Technology Directorate (S&T), Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and U. S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) 
are the only components that conduct R&D, and GAO found that these are 
the only components that report budget authority, obligations, or 
outlays for R&D activities to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) as part of the budget process. However, GAO identified an 
additional $255 million in R&D obligations made by other DHS 
components. According to DHS, it is difficult to identify all R&D 
investments across the department because DHS does not have a 
department wide policy defining R&D or guidance directing components 
how to report all R&D spending and activities. As a result, it is 
difficult for DHS to oversee components’ R&D efforts and align them 
with agency wide R&D goals and priorities. GAO recommended that DHS 
develop specific policies and guidance to assist DHS components in 
better understanding how to report R&D activities, and better position 
DHS to determine how much the agency invests in R&D to effectively 
oversee these investments. DHS concurred with the recommendation and 
reported that it planned to evaluate the most effective path to guide 
R&D across the department. GAO will continue to monitor DHS’s efforts 
to develop its approach for defining and overseeing R&D at the 
department. 

In September 2012, GAO also reported that S&T has taken some steps to 
coordinate R&D efforts across DHS, but the department's R&D efforts 
are fragmented and overlapping, which increases the risk of 
unnecessary duplication. R&D at DHS is inherently fragmented because 
S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO were each given R&D responsibilities in 
law, and other DHS components may pursue and conduct their own R&D 
efforts as long as those activities are coordinated through S&T. S&T 
uses various mechanisms to coordinate its R&D efforts including 
component liaisons, component R&D agreements, joint R&D strategies, 
and integrated R&D product teams composed of S&T and component 
officials. However, GAO identified 35 instances of overlap among 
contracts that DHS components awarded for R&D projects. While GAO did 
not identify instances of unnecessary duplication among these 
contracts, DHS has not developed a policy defining who is responsible 
for coordinating R&D and what processes should be used to coordinate 
it, and does not have mechanisms to track all R&D activities at DHS 
that could help prevent overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary 
duplication. GAO recommended that DHS develop a policy defining the 
roles and responsibilities for coordinating R&D, and establish a 
mechanism to track all R&D projects to help DHS mitigate existing 
fragmentation and overlap, and reduce the risk of unnecessary 
duplication. DHS concurred with the recommendation and reported that 
S&T is conducting portfolio reviews across the agency, as required by 
a fiscal year 2013 appropriation requirement, aimed at coordinating 
R&D activities. We will continue to monitor DHS’s efforts to develop a 
policy to better coordinate and track R&D activities at the department. 

What GAO Recommends: 

In its September 2012 report, GAO recommended that DHS develop 
policies and guidance for defining, reporting and coordinating R&D 
activities across the department; and that DHS establish a mechanism 
to track R&D projects. DHS concurred with GAO’s recommendations and 
has actions underway to address them. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-766T]. For more 
information, contact Dave Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our prior work examining the 
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) research and development (R&D) 
efforts. Conducting R&D on technologies for detecting, preventing, and 
mitigating terrorist threats is vital to enhancing the security of the 
nation. DHS, through its Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), 
conducts research, development, testing, and evaluation of new 
technologies that are intended to strengthen the United States' 
ability to prevent and respond to nuclear, biological, explosive, and 
other types of attacks within the United States. S&T also has 
responsibility for coordinating and integrating all such activities of 
the department, as provided by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 
[Footnote 1] Although S&T conducts R&D and has responsibility for 
coordinating R&D, other DHS components, including the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office (DNDO) and the U. S. Coast Guard, conduct R&D in 
support of their respective missions. 

Since it began operations in 2003, DHS, through both S&T and other 
components, has spent billions of dollars researching and developing 
technologies used to support a wide range of missions, including 
securing the border, detecting nuclear devices, and screening airline 
passengers and baggage for explosives, among others. In June 2009, the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) reported on S&T's 
structure, processes, and the execution of its cross-government 
leadership role.[Footnote 2] NAPA reported that although S&T was 
charged by statute to provide a leading role in guiding homeland-
security related research, S&T has no authority over other federal 
agencies that conduct homeland-security related research, and that the 
weaknesses in S&T's strategic planning increased the risk for 
duplication of efforts. NAPA recommended, among other things, that S&T 
follow the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and GAO guidance in 
formulating a strategic plan to guide its work. In July 2012, S&T 
provided a draft strategy that identifies the roles and 
responsibilities for coordinating homeland security science and 
technology related functions across the U.S. government to the White 
House's Office of Science & Technology Policy for review. As of July 
2013, the White House had not yet approved that draft. 

DHS uses several mechanisms to report R&D spending, including budget 
authority (the legal authorization to obligate funds), obligations 
(binding agreements to make a payment for services), and outlays 
(payments to liquidate obligations representing amount expended). 
Further, OMB requires agencies to submit data on R&D programs as part 
of their annual budget submissions on investments for basic research, 
applied research, development, R&D facilities construction, and major 
equipment for R&D using OMB's definition of R&D. According to OMB, R&D 
activities comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in 
order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, 
culture, and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise 
new applications.[Footnote 3] R&D is further broken down into the 
categories of basic research, applied research, and 
development.[Footnote 4] DHS is one of nine federal agencies that 
reported a total of $5 billion in budget authority in fiscal year 2011 
for homeland security R&D.[Footnote 5] Moreover, GAO is statutorily 
required to identify and report annually to Congress on federal 
programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives that have duplicative 
goals and activities.[Footnote 6] The annual reports describe areas in 
which we found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication 
among federal programs.[Footnote 7] 

My statement today is based on our September 2012 report, including 
selected updates conducted in June 2013 and July 2013 related to DHS's 
R&D efforts and its oversight of R&D efforts across the department. 
[Footnote 8] Like the report, this statement addresses (1) how much 
DHS invests in R&D and the extent to which it has policies and 
guidance for defining R&D and overseeing R&D resources and efforts 
across the department, and (2) the extent to which R&D is coordinated 
within DHS to prevent overlap, fragmentation, and unnecessary 
duplication across the department. For our September 2012 report, 
among other things, we analyzed data related to DHS's R&D budget 
authority for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 and R&D contracts issued 
by components to private industry and universities for fiscal years 
2007 through 2011. Further, we analyzed data from the Department of 
Energy's (DOE) national laboratories from fiscal years 2010 through 
2012 to identify how much DHS components obligated for R&D-related 
work at the national laboratories. For the selected updates, we 
interviewed agency officials on DHS's progress in implementing our 
recommendations. More detailed information on the scope and 
methodology appears in our September 2012 report. We conducted this 
work 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 the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

DHS Does Not Know Its Total Investment in R&D, and Policies and 
Guidance Could Help Strengthen Oversight of R&D Efforts: 

In September 2012, we reported that DHS does not know how much its 
components invest in R&D, making it difficult to oversee R&D efforts 
across the department. According to DHS budget officials, S&T, DNDO, 
and the U.S. Coast Guard are the only components that conduct R&D and 
we found that they are the only components that report budget 
authority, obligations, or outlays for R&D activities to OMB as part 
of the budget process. However, we reported that the data DHS 
submitted to OMB underreported DHS's R&D obligations because DHS 
components obligated money for R&D contracts that were not reported to 
OMB as R&D. Specifically, for fiscal year 2011, we identified an 
additional $255 million in R&D obligations by other DHS components. 
These obligations included DHS components providing S&T with funding 
to conduct R&D on their behalf and components obligating funds through 
contracts directly to industry, universities, or with DOE's national 
laboratories for R&D. 

Further, we reported that the data for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 
DHS submitted to OMB also underreported DHS's R&D budget authority and 
outlays because DNDO did not properly report at least $293 million in 
R&D budget authority and at least $282 million in R&D 
outlays.[Footnote 9] We reported that DHS budget officials agreed that 
DHS underreported its R&D spending and when asked, could not provide a 
reason why the omission was not flagged by DHS review. 

In addition, we reported that DHS's R&D budget accounts include a mix 
of R&D and non-R&D spending. For fiscal year 2011, we estimated that 
78 percent of S&T's Research, Development, Acquisition, & Operations 
account, 51 percent of DNDO's Research, Development, & Operations 
account, and 43 percent of the Coast Guard's R&D budget account fund 
R&D activities. As a result, this further complicates DHS's ability to 
identify its total investment in R&D. 

We also reported in September 2012 that DHS does not have a 
departmentwide policy defining R&D or guidance directing components 
how to report R&D activities. As a result, it is difficult to identify 
the department's total investment in R&D, which limits DHS's ability 
to oversee components' R&D efforts and align them with agencywide R&D 
goals and priorities, in accordance with Standards for Internal 
Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 10] DHS officials told us 
that DHS uses OMB's definition of R&D, but the definition is broad and 
its application may not be uniform across components, and thus, R&D 
investments may not always be identified as R&D. We found that the 
variation in R&D definitions may contribute to the unreliability of 
the reporting mechanisms for R&D investments in budget development and 
execution, as discussed above. 

Officials at DHS's Program Accountability and Risk Management office, 
responsible for DHS's overall acquisition governance process, agreed 
the department had not developed policies or guidance on how 
components should define and oversee R&D investments and efforts. At 
the time of our report, they stated that they were in the process of 
updating Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 to include additional 
sections pertaining to nonacquisition investments and that such R&D 
policy and guidance could be incorporated into such updates in the 
future.[Footnote 11] We recommended that DHS develop and implement 
policies and guidance for defining and overseeing R&D at the 
department that includes a well-understood definition of R&D that 
provides reasonable assurance that reliable accounting and reporting 
of R&D resources and activities for internal and external use are 
achieved. DHS agreed with our recommendation stating that it planned 
to evaluate the most effective path forward to guide uniform treatment 
of R&D across the department in compliance with OMB rules and was 
considering a management directive, multi-component steering 
committee, or new policy guidance to help better oversee and 
coordinate R&D. DHS planned to complete these efforts by May 1, 2013, 
but as of June 2013, the department had not yet determined which 
approach it would implement to address our findings and 
recommendations. We will continue to monitor DHS's efforts to develop 
its approach for defining and overseeing R&D at the department. 

S&T Coordinates Some R&D at DHS, but DHS R&D Is Fragmented and 
Overlapping, Increasing the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication: 

S&T Has Taken Some Actions to Coordinate R&D across DHS: 

We reported in September 2012 that S&T has developed coordination 
practices that fall into four general categories: (1) S&T component 
liaisons, (2) R&D agreements between component heads and S&T, (3) 
joint R&D strategies between S&T and components, and (4) various R&D 
coordination teams made up of S&T and component project managers, as 
discussed below. 

S&T component liaisons. In September 2012, we reported that S&T 
officials stated that one of the primary ways that S&T mitigates the 
risk of overlap and duplication is through component liaisons staffed 
at S&T and S&T officials staffed at component agencies. According to 
S&T officials, these component liaisons have been integral to S&T's 
coordination efforts. We reported that S&T had eight liaisons from the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), National 
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Secret Service, and 
the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, S&T had seven employees detailed to 
other components, including CBP, the Secret Service, DHS's Office of 
Policy, DHS's Tactical Communications Program Office, DNDO, and TSA, 
as well as two liaisons at Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
and DHS's Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

R&D agreements between component heads and S&T. We reported that S&T 
signed high-level agreements with CBP and the Secret Service to help 
coordinate activities and address components' strategic operational 
problems within 2 years of initiation. S&T also had three memorandums 
of agreement and 42 technology transition agreements with DHS 
components as a means to coordinate R&D efforts. 

Joint R&D strategies between S&T and components. We reported that S&T 
and TSA issued a joint R&D strategy for aviation security that 
identified TSA's R&D priorities based on gaps in TSA's current 
capabilities. We reported that S&T intended to work with the Secret 
Service, CBP, ICE, and FEMA to build component-specific R&D strategies 
linked to component acquisition programs, but we did not receive 
information on when S&T planned to complete those strategies at the 
time of our report. 

R&D coordination teams. In September 2012, we reported that S&T's 
previous Under Secretary instituted the Capstone Integrated Product 
Teams (IPT) process as the primary mechanism for coordinating R&D 
efforts between S&T and components. Additionally, the IPT process 
included teams to coordinate R&D at the project level by soliciting 
input from components to identify and address technology gaps and 
needs, among other things. We reported that the IPT process was no 
longer in place to coordinate R&D activities at the component level, 
but IPTs were being used by the division directors to coordinate R&D 
activities at the project level. Additionally, we reported that, in 
the fall of 2011, S&T began implementing two new coordination teams--a 
cross-functional team composed of S&T personnel focusing on strategic 
priorities and an integral partner team--led by S&T's newly created 
Acquisition Support and Operations Analysis division, to focus on 
components' operational needs. According to S&T division directors, 
these new teams were not fully implemented at the time of our 
September 2012 report, and they used established relationships with 
components through the IPT process to identify components needs and 
coordinate R&D. In July 2013, we requested information from DHS on 
when these coordination teams would be fully implemented but did not 
receive that information. 

R&D Activities are Fragmented and Overlapping: 

Despite S&T's efforts to coordinate R&D activities, in September 2012, 
we reported that R&D at DHS is inherently fragmented because several 
components within DHS--S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO--were each given 
R&D responsibilities in law, and other DHS components may pursue and 
conduct their own R&D efforts as long as those activities are 
coordinated through S&T. Fragmentation among R&D efforts at DHS may be 
advantageous if the department determines that it could gain better or 
faster results by having multiple components engage in R&D activities 
toward a similar goal; however, it can be disadvantageous if those 
activities are uncoordinated or unintentionally overlapping or 
duplicative. Specifically, we found at least six department components 
involved in R&D activities in our review of data on about 15,000 
federal procurement contract actions coded as R&D taken by DHS 
components from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. We examined 47 R&D 
contracts awarded by these components and found 35 instances among 29 
contracts in which the contracts overlapped with activities conducted 
elsewhere in the department. Taken together, these 29 contracts were 
worth about $66 million. In one example of the overlap, we found that 
two DHS components awarded five separate contracts that each addressed 
detection of the same chemical. 

While we did not identify instances of unnecessary duplication among 
these contracts, DHS has not developed a policy defining who is 
responsible for coordinating R&D activities at DHS that could help 
prevent overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication. We 
reported in September 2012 that DHS did not have tracking mechanisms 
or policies to help ensure that overlap is avoided and efforts are 
better coordinated consistent with Standards for Internal Control in 
the Federal Government.[Footnote 12] According to S&T officials, a 
process does not exist at DHS or within S&T to prevent overlap or 
unnecessary duplication but that relationships with components 
mitigate that risk. They also stated that S&T has improved 
interactions with components over time. We reported that the existence 
of overlapping R&D activities coupled with the lack of policies and 
guidance defining R&D and coordination processes is an indication that 
not all R&D activities at DHS are coordinated to ensure that R&D is 
not unnecessarily duplicative. Furthermore, we reported in September 
2012 that neither DHS nor S&T tracked all ongoing R&D projects across 
the department, including R&D activities contracted through the 
national laboratories. As part of our review, we identified 11 
components that reimbursed the national laboratories for R&D from 
fiscal years 2010 through 2012, but S&T's Office of National 
Laboratories could not provide us with any information on those 
activities and told us it did not track them. According to S&T, the 
Office of National Laboratories' ability to provide information on 
activities across the department is limited by components 
inconsistently operating within the defined process for working with 
the national laboratories.[Footnote 13] As a result, we recommended 
that DHS develop and implement policies and guidance for overseeing 
R&D that includes a description of the department's process and roles 
and responsibilities for overseeing and coordinating R&D investments 
and efforts, and a mechanism to track existing R&D projects and their 
associated costs across the department. DHS agreed with our 
recommendation stating that S&T is implementing a collaborative, end-
user focused strategy to coordinate and interact with components to 
better ensure S&T's efforts align with components' needs and that it 
is considering developing new policy guidance for R&D activities 
across the department. As of June 2013, DHS has not developed new 
policy guidance but is conducting portfolio reviews across the 
department, as directed in committee reports accompanying the fiscal 
year 2013 DHS appropriation act, aimed at coordinating R&D activities. 
[Footnote 14] A policy that defines roles and responsibilities for 
coordinating R&D and coordination processes, as well as a mechanism 
that tracks all DHS R&D projects, could better position DHS to 
mitigate the risk of overlapping and unnecessarily duplicative R&D 
projects. We will continue to monitor DHS's efforts to develop a 
policy to better coordinate and track R&D activities at the department. 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee, 
this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to 
any questions you may have at this time. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

If you or your staff have any questions about this statement please 
contact Dave Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or Maurerd@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this statement. Other individuals 
making key contributions to this testimony include: Emily Gunn, Tracey 
King, Gary Malavenda, and Linda Miller. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 302,116 Stat. 2135, 2163-64 (codified as 
amended at 6 U.S.C. § 182). 

[2] National Academy of Public Administration, Department of Homeland 
Security Science and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to 
Protect America (Washington D.C.: June 2009). 

[3] OMB Circular No. A-11 Section 84.4. This definition includes 
administrative expenses for R&D, but excludes physical assets for R&D 
(such as R&D equipment and facilities), routine testing, quality 
control mapping, collection of general-purpose statistics, 
experimental production, routine monitoring and evaluation of an 
operational program and the training of scientific and technical 
personnel. 

[4] According to OMB, basic research is a systematic study directed 
toward a fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects 
of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications 
towards processes or products in mind. Applied research is a 
systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the 
means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. Development 
is a systematic application of knowledge or understanding, directed 
toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or 
methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes 
and new processes to meet specific requirements. OMB Circular No. A-11 
Section 84. 

[5] The other agencies conducting homeland security R&D included the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Health and 
Human Services; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the 
Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. 

[6] Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 
Note. 

[7] Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more 
than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad 
area of national interest. Overlap occurs when multiple programs have 
similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve 
those goals, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap may result from 
statutory or other limitations beyond the agency's control. 
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaging 
in the same activities or providing the same services to the same 
beneficiaries. GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: March 1, 2011). GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce 
Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance 
Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions 
Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve 
Other Financial Benefits, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP] (Washington, D.C.: April 9, 
2013). 

[8] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination 
of Research and Development Should Be Strengthened, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-837] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.12, 
2012). [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP]. GAO, 
Department of Homeland Security: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen 
Efficiency and Effectiveness, Achieve Cost Savings, and Improve 
Management Functions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-547T] (Washington, D.C.: April 26, 
2013). GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities to 
Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication through Enhanced 
Performance Management and Oversight, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-590T] (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 
2013). 

[9] At the time of our report, budget figures for fiscal year 2013 
were agency estimates. 

[10] Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state 
that policies and mechanisms are needed to enforce management's 
directives, such as the process of adhering to requirements for budget 
development and execution and to ensure the reliability of those and 
other reports for internal and external use. GAO, Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 1999). 

[11] Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 defines policy and 
provides guidance for managing and tracking DHS's acquisition programs, 

[12] GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 
state that policies and procedures ensure that the necessary 
activities occur at all levels and functions of the organization--not 
just from top-level leadership. This ensures that all levels of the 
organization are coordinating effectively and as part of a larger 
strategy. Additionally, internal control standards provide that 
agencies should communicate necessary information effectively by 
ensuring that they are communicating with, and obtaining information 
from, external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the 
agency achieving its goals. 

[13] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave DHS the authority to use 
DOE laboratories to conduct R&D and established S&T's Office of 
National Laboratories to be responsible for coordinating and using the 
national laboratories. Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 309, 116 Stat. 2135, 
2172 (2002) (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 189).Additionally, DHS Directive 
143 further directs ONL to serve as the primary point of contact to 
recommend contracting activity approval for work by the national 
laboratories, and review all statements of work issued from DHS and 
directed to the national laboratories. 

[14] See S. Rep. No. 112-169, at 15-16 (2012). 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]