This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-732 
entitled 'Department of Homeland Security: Opportunities Exist to 
Better Evaluate and Coordinate Border and Maritime Research and 
Development' which was released on September 25, 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: 

Report to the Congressional Requesters: 

September 2013: 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Opportunities Exist to Better Evaluate and Coordinate Border and 
Maritime Research and Development: 

GAO-13-732: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-732 a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Conducting border and maritime R&D to develop technologies for 
detecting, preventing, and mitigating terrorist threats is vital to 
enhancing the security of the nation. S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO 
conduct these R&D activities and S&T has responsibility for 
coordinating and integrating R&D activities across DHS. The Centers of 
Excellence are a network of university R&D centers that provide DHS 
with tools, expertise, and access to research facilities and 
laboratories, among other things. GAO was asked to review DHS’s border 
and maritime R&D efforts. 

This report addresses (1) the results of DHS border and maritime 
security R&D efforts and the extent to which DHS has obtained and 
evaluated feedback on these efforts, and (2) the extent that DHS 
coordinates its border and maritime R&D efforts internally and 
externally with other federal agencies and the private sector. GAO 
reviewed completed and ongoing R&D project information and 
documentation from fiscal years 2010 through 2013 and interviewed DHS 
component officials, among other actions. 

What GAO Found: 

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012, the Department of Homeland 
Security’s (DHS) border and maritime research and development (R&D) 
components reported producing 97 R&D deliverables at an estimated cost 
of $177 million. The type of border and maritime R&D deliverables 
produced by DHS’s Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, the Coast 
Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) varied, and 
R&D customers we met with reported mixed views on the impact of the 
R&D deliverables they received. These deliverables were wide-ranging 
in their cost and scale, and included knowledge products and reports, 
technology prototypes, and software (as shown in the figure below). 
The Coast Guard and DNDO reported having processes in place to collect 
and evaluate feedback from its customers regarding the results of R&D 
deliverables. However, S&T has not established timeframes and 
milestones for collecting and evaluating feedback from its customers 
on the extent to which the deliverables it provides to DHS components—-
such as US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—-are meeting its 
customer’s needs. Doing so could help S&T better determine the 
usefulness and impact of its R&D projects and deliverables and make 
better-informed decisions regarding future work. 

DHS has taken actions and is working to develop departmental policies 
to better define and coordinate R&D, but additional actions could 
strengthen internal and external coordination of border and maritime 
R&D. S&T’s Borders and Maritime Security Division, the Coast Guard, 
and DNDO reported taking a range of actions to coordinate with their 
internal DHS customers to ensure, among other things, that R&D is 
addressing high priority needs. However, work remains to be done at 
the agency level to ensure border and maritime R&D efforts are 
mutually reinforcing and are being directed towards the highest 
priority needs. For example, officials from university centers of 
excellence reported difficulties in determining DHS headquarters 
contacts, and officials from the primary land-border security R&D 
center reported delayed and canceled projects due to the inability to 
obtain data. DHS could help ensure that the approximately $3 million 
to $4 million a year dedicated to the university Centers of Excellence 
is used more effectively by more carefully considering potential 
challenges with regard to data needs, access issues and data 
limitations before approving projects. 

Figure: Examples of DHS S&T and Coast Guard Border and Maritime R&D 
Projects: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Mobile Surveillance System Imager/Radar Upgrade, a retrofit kit 
developed by S&T BMD for CBP tested at the Arizona-Mexico border. 

Source: GAO. 

Shipboard Vessel Entanglement System developed by the Coast Guard and 
others for use on Coast Guard vessels. 

Source: USCG. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DHS S&T establish timeframes and milestones for 
collecting and evaluating feedback from its customers to determine the 
usefulness and impact of its R&D efforts, and ensure that potential 
challenges with regard to data reliability, accessibility, and 
availability are reviewed and understood before approving Centers of 
Excellence R&D projects. DHS concurred with GAO’s recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-732]. For more 
information, contact David Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

R&D Results Include Knowledge Products, Technology Prototypes, and 
Software, but S&T Should Do More to Obtain Feedback and Evaluate the 
Impact of Its Efforts: 

DHS Has Taken Steps to Coordinate Border and Maritime R&D, but 
Opportunities Exist to Further Strengthen Internal and External 
Coordination: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Border and Maritime 
List of Completed and Discontinued Research and Development (R&D) 
Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: R&D Budgets for DHS for Science and Technology Directorate, 
the Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Fiscal 
Years 2010-2013: 

Table 2: Current DHS Border and Maritime Projects by Component: 

Table 3: Number of R&D Deliverables Reported for Fiscal Years 2010 
through 2012: 

Table 4: Type of Project Deliverable Provided to Customers, as 
Reported by R&D Performer: 

Table 5: Science and Technology Directorate Borders and Maritime 
Security Division (S&T BMD) Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 
Deliverables and Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness: 

Table 6: Coast Guard Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 Deliverables and 
Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness: 

Table 7: Select Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Deliverables 
and Project Outcomes: 

Table 8: List of United States Coast Guard - Homeland Security R&D 
Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012: 

Table 9: Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime 
Security Division (BMD) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 
2012: 

Table 10: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) R&D Project 
Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012: 

Table 11: S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) R&D Project 
Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012: 

Table 12: List of DHS Discontinued Border and Maritime R&D Projects 
for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Mobile Surveillance System Imager/Radar Upgrade -A Retrofit 
Kit Developed by S&T BMD for CBP Tested at the Arizona-Mexico Border: 

Figure 2: Vessel Entanglement System Developed by DOD and the Coast 
Guard: 

Abbreviations: 

ASP: Advanced Spectroscopic Portal: 

BMD: Borders and Maritime Security Division: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

CIMES: Center for Island, Maritime, and Extreme Environment Security: 

COE: Centers of Excellence: 

COTS: commercial off-the-shelf: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DNDO: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

IV&V: Independent Verification and Validation: 

MARLIN: Multi-modal Automated Resolution, Location, and Identification 
of Nuclear Material: 

MIREES: Center for Maritime, Island and Remote and Extreme Environment 
Security: 

MSS: Mobile Surveillance System: 

NCBSI: National Center for Border Security and Immigration: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OTIA: Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition: 

PI: principal investigator: 

R&D: research and development: 

RDT&E: Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation: 

RPM: radiation portal monitor: 

S&T: Science and Technology: 

SIMON: Smart Integration Manager Ontologically Networked: 

SMS: Sensor Management System: 

SNM: special nuclear material: 

SQUID: Safe Quick Undercarriage Immobilization Device: 

TARD: Transformational and Applied Research Directorate: 

USCG: U.S. Coast Guard: 

WMD: weapons of mass destruction: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 25, 2013: 

The Honorable Lamar Smith: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Ralph M. Hall: 
House of Representatives: 

Conducting border and maritime research and development (R&D) to 
deliver technologies for detecting, preventing, and mitigating 
terrorist threats is vital to enhancing the security of the nation. 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducts research, 
development, testing, and evaluation of new technologies that are 
intended to achieve a range of homeland security goals, including 
detecting and preventing the unauthorized entry of persons or 
contraband into the United States; preventing and responding to 
nuclear, biological, explosive, and other types of attacks; and 
securing U.S. ports and inland waterways. DHS's Science and Technology 
(S&T) Directorate, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office (DNDO) conduct these R&D activities, although S&T has 
overall responsibility for coordinating and integrating R&D activities 
across DHS.[Footnote 1] S&T funding for R&D grew steadily until 2010 
and has served a wide variety of research areas. S&T also carries out 
R&D through its Office of University Programs, which manages and 
coordinates 12 University Centers of Excellence. The Centers of 
Excellence are a network of university R&D centers that provide DHS 
with tools, technologies, subject matter expertise, and access to 
laboratories and research facilities, among other things. Recently, 
Congress and others have raised questions about S&T's ability to 
demonstrate the impact of its investments--in terms of value, tangible 
products, and advances to the homeland security mission--as well as 
questions about the extent to which S&T is leveraging R&D already 
under way in the private sector and at other governmental agencies, 
including the Department of Defense. Accordingly, Congress has 
directed S&T to demonstrate how its R&D efforts are timely, with 
results well defined, and based on clear and sensible priorities. 
[Footnote 2] 

In September 2012, we reported that DHS did not have a department-wide 
policy defining R&D or guidance directing its components how to report 
R&D activities.[Footnote 3] As a result, DHS did not know its total 
annual investment in R&D, which limited the department's ability to 
oversee components' R&D efforts and align them with agency-wide R&D 
goals and priorities. We also reported that DHS's R&D efforts were 
fragmented and overlapping, which increased the risk of unnecessary 
duplication. Specifically, DHS had not developed a policy defining who 
was responsible for coordinating R&D and what processes should be used 
to coordinate it, and did not have mechanisms to track all R&D 
activities at DHS that could help prevent overlap, fragmentation, or 
unnecessary duplication. We 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 agreed with these recommendations and planned to make 
decisions about how to address these actions by May 2013. As of August 
2013, DHS had not made a decision about how it specifically plans to 
address these recommendations. 

In addition to our work on R&D across DHS, we have also reported 
extensively on the challenges that DHS has faced in deploying 
technologies and infrastructure to secure U.S. land borders and the 
maritime sector.[Footnote 4] These continued challenges highlight the 
importance of effectively conducting, testing, and evaluating R&D 
technologies before they are transitioned to the customers who will 
operationally deploy them. For example, in November 2011, we reported 
on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) technology 
deployment plan for the Arizona border--the Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology Plan--which was expected to cost approximately 
$1.5 billion over 10 years.[Footnote 5] Specifically, we reported that 
CBP did not have the information needed to fully support and implement 
the technology deployment plan in accordance with DHS and Office of 
Management and Budget guidance. Further, in September 2010, we 
reported on the challenges DHS faced in its efforts to test, evaluate, 
and operationalize maritime container security technologies.[Footnote 
6] We have also reported on DHS's efforts and challenges in developing 
technologies--such as sensors and transponders--capable of detecting 
and tracking small vessels in ports, technologies for detecting and 
reporting intrusions into and the tracking of cargo containers as they 
pass through the global supply chain, and the scanning of cargo 
through advanced automated radiography systems.[Footnote 7] 

As the result of past technology challenges and questions about the 
extent to which border and maritime R&D investments are being overseen 
and coordinated effectively across DHS, you requested that we review 
DHS's border and maritime R&D efforts. Accordingly, this report 
addresses the following two questions: 

1. What have been the results of DHS's border and maritime security 
R&D and to what extent has DHS obtained and evaluated feedback on 
these efforts? 

2. To what extent does DHS coordinate its border and maritime R&D 
efforts internally (with other DHS components and end users) and 
externally with other federal agencies and the private sector? 

To answer the first objective, we focused our review on the components 
and offices receiving direct R&D appropriations related to border and 
maritime security--specifically, DHS S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO. 
To determine the results of DHS's recent R&D efforts, we asked 
officials from each R&D office to identify the deliverables their 
offices produced from fiscal years 2010 through 2012, including the 
cost of each deliverable. We corroborated the DHS-identified lists of 
deliverables and their costs with varied documentary evidence, 
including congressional budget justifications, DHS materials prepared 
for independently produced R&D reviews, and other published material. 
We determined that the information on deliverables and costs was 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of providing an overview of 
Border and Maritime R&D; limitations to the data are noted in the 
report. For each component, we selected deliverables to reflect a 
range of product types and recipients and then asked DHS to identify 
the customers that received those deliverables. For the purposes of 
this report, we relied on DHS to identify who its customers were--in 
other words, those agencies that worked closest to S&T over the course 
of a project. We also refer to the reports, prototypes, software, or 
other project outputs as R&D deliverables. We selected these 
definitions because they are in keeping with those used by S&T. Given 
that S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO have different roles with respect 
to conducting and managing R&D, we selected different numbers of 
deliverables to review within each component. Specifically, given 
S&T's role as the lead R&D agency for DHS and its wider variety of 
customers, we interviewed every customer of S&T Border and Maritime 
Security Division's identified deliverables (20 of 20 deliverables). 
We met with 35 percent of the customers of the Coast Guard's completed 
deliverables (8 of 23 deliverables) and 12 percent of the customers of 
DNDO's deliverables (5 of 42 deliverables, which included one 
discontinued project). We met with fewer DNDO customers because the 
majority of DNDO's R&D projects are merged into new or continuing DNDO 
R&D efforts. Further, these efforts do not transition to customers 
outside of DNDO. In other words, DNDO's R&D customers were other DNDO 
R&D offices, and accordingly, we selected a smaller number of these 
DNDO project managers for follow-up. To corroborate customer views on 
the effectiveness, timeliness, and other aspects of the deliverables, 
we interviewed multiple customers per deliverable where possible and 
also validated customer views with the relevant DHS project managers 
where possible. Further, we evaluated DHS's efforts to assess the 
impact of its R&D against selected best practices from the National 
Academy of Sciences for evaluating the relevance and impact of R&D and 
best practices for project management.[Footnote 8] 

To evaluate DHS's ongoing R&D efforts, we met with S&T Borders and 
Maritime Security officials and Coast Guard, DNDO, and S&T Office of 
University Programs officials. We corroborated information received on 
DHS R&D efforts through interviews with CBP (including the Office of 
Technology Innovation and Acquisition, Office of Border Patrol, Office 
of Air and Marine, Office of Information and Technology, and Office of 
Field Operations) and interviews with officials from three DHS 
University Centers of Excellence. Further, we conducted site visits to 
the Coast Guard's Research and Development Center in New London, 
Connecticut; CBP's Office of Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, Arizona; 
and one of DNDO's research contractors in North Billerica, 
Massachusetts, to observe and discuss DHS R&D projects and R&D 
results. The results of the site visits are not generalizable to all 
R&D projects, but provided important observations and insights into 
border and maritime R&D efforts across three different components. To 
address the second objective, we used the information we gathered 
above and insights from our interviews with DHS components, R&D 
project managers, and R&D customers to identify how DHS coordinates 
its R&D efforts internally, externally, on a per-project basis, and 
with the private sector. We compared these efforts with DHS's 
strategic plans, project management plans, and other published 
guidance related to coordination, as well as with best practices for 
coordination among federal agencies and best practices for effective 
evaluation design.[Footnote 9] To evaluate DHS's efforts to conduct 
and coordinate R&D with its university research partners, we 
interviewed five universities representing three DHS Centers of 
Excellence that conduct border and maritime R&D--including a site 
visit to the University of Arizona, Tucson. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through September 
2013 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. 

Background: 

DHS Border and Maritime R&D Roles, Responsibilities, and Processes: 

Within DHS, three components have responsibilities for conducting 
border and maritime R&D--S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO. S&T has five 
technical divisions responsible for managing the directorate's R&D 
portfolio and coordinating with other DHS components to identify R&D 
priorities and needs.[Footnote 10] The Borders and Maritime Security 
Division (BMD) is responsible for most of S&T's border and maritime 
related R&D, and its primary DHS customer is CBP. Most of S&T's R&D 
portfolio consists of applied and developmental R&D, which is R&D that 
can be transitioned to use within 3 years, as opposed to longer-term 
basic research.[Footnote 11] In addition to conducting projects for 
its DHS customers, S&T conducts projects for other federal agencies 
and first responders. 

Side bar: 

S&T BMD: 

The Borders and Maritime Security Division is one of six technical 
divisions within S&T. It works to provide technical solutions to DHS 
operating components, such as CBP, in order to secure U.S. air, land, 
and maritime boundaries, including U.S. ports of entry, vast stretches 
of remote terrain, and inland waterways. BMD funds, directs, and 
manages the research, development, prototyping, and test and 
evaluation of technical solutions for border, maritime, and cargo 
security. 

Below: Tunnel with lighting, ventilation, and full standing headroom. 

[End of side bar] 

The S&T Office of University Programs also manages the DHS Centers of 
Excellence, which constitute a network of universities that conduct 
research for DHS component agencies on topics ranging from animal 
disease defense to catastrophic event preparedness.[Footnote 12] Of 
the nine funded centers, two are dedicated to border and maritime R&D--
The National Center for Border Security and Immigration (NCBSI), led 
by the University of Arizona in Tucson and the University of Texas at 
El Paso, and the Center for Maritime, Island and Remote and Extreme 
Environment Security (MIREES), led by the University of Hawaii and 
Stevens Institute of Technology.[Footnote 13] Centers are typically 
funded through cooperative agreements for 5-to-6 year periods, with a 
review period each year.[Footnote 14] Ideas for projects to be 
undertaken by the centers are solicited at technical workshops with 
component-level subject matter experts, where the centers and DHS 
officials discuss technical or informational challenges. The Office of 
University Programs drafts these topics into research questions which 
the Office publishes in a funding opportunity announcement. The Office 
of University Programs then examines proposals it receives based on 
how the research could potentially further DHS's mission. Centers also 
hold annual meetings where officials are expected to brief DHS 
leadership on their work and their plans. Additionally, DHS 
stakeholders will give presentations on their technology needs and 
challenges. The centers are then expected to incorporate these needs 
and challenges into their programs. 

Side bar: 

S&T University Programs—Centers of Excellence: 

Each center is university-led or co-led in collaboration with partners 
from other institutions, agencies, national laboratories, think tanks, 
and the private sector. 

Below: unmanned port security vessel. 

Source: University of Hawaii. 

[End of side bar] 

The Coast Guard is a multimission, maritime military service within 
DHS.[Footnote 15] The Coast Guard's R&D efforts are conducted and 
managed by its Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E) 
Program, which consists of the Office of RDT&E and the Research and 
Development Center. The center performs research, development, 
testing, and evaluation in support of all Coast Guard missions, as 
required.[Footnote 16] The majority of the Coast Guard's R&D products 
are knowledge products, such as acquisition analysis studies or 
technical reports, as opposed to specific pieces of technology or 
prototypes. Its end users are typically other units within the Coast 
Guard, such as its Office of Boat Forces or Deployable Specialized 
Forces. 

Side bar: 

Coast Guard: 

The Coast Guard’s Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) 
program supports the Coast Guard’s various missions by helping 
transition new technologies into the service’s operational forces. The 
program is composed of the Office of RDT&E near Coast Guard 
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the Research and Development 
Center (RDC) at New London, Conn. 

Below: Coast Guard Biometrics Identification. 

Source: USCG. 

[End of side bar] 

DNDO also conducts R&D applicable to border and maritime security, as 
it relates to its mission of detecting the use of an unauthorized 
nuclear explosive device, fissile material, or radiological material 
in the United States.[Footnote 17] After its establishment, in 2005, 
DNDO assumed responsibility from S&T for certain nuclear and 
radiological R&D activities, and its R&D efforts are primarily 
conducted and managed by its Transformational and Applied Research 
Directorate (TARD).[Footnote 18] DNDO's R&D efforts result in 
technology prototypes, development of software, and computer modeling 
for the detection of radioactive and nuclear materials. These efforts 
are crosscutting, meaning they can be used in more than just a border 
and maritime environment. 

Side bar: 

DNDO: 

The Transformational & Applied Research Directorate seeks to develop 
technologies that will have a dramatic impact on capabilities to 
detect nuclear threats. The Transformational & Applied Research 
Directorate consists of staff focusing in these areas: Exploratory 
Research Program (ERP), Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), 
Academic Research Initiative (ARI), and Advanced Technology 
Demonstration (ATD). 

Below: handheld radiation detectors. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of side bar] 

Each of DHS's border and maritime R&D organizations uses a different 
process to determine which R&D projects to pursue. S&T BMD reaches out 
to DHS-level officials as well as with operational-level end users, 
such as Border Patrol agents, to discuss needs, resources, and 
priorities and to determine which projects to initiate and also which 
projects should be continued or discontinued. BMD officials said that 
depending upon whom they speak with--that is, headquarters-level 
officials versus field-level operators--they often receive different 
answers regarding needs and priorities. Further, it is the role of the 
S&T project manager to facilitate agreement and consensus among the 
different offices within the component. The Coast Guard seeks input 
from its internal offices and its long-term strategies to identify 
capability gaps or ideas for new technological solutions, which are 
then evaluated based on available funding and other priorities into a 
prioritized ranking of projects that can be typically executed within 
2 fiscal years. Some projects require more than 2 years. DNDO 
officials stated that their process for selecting and prioritizing 
projects is based on a review of capability gaps and government 
priorities in accordance with the Global Nuclear Detection 
Architecture as well as the Nuclear Defense R&D Road Map fiscal years 
2013 to 2017. DNDO officials also stated that they consider what 
technologies exist before considering advanced technology development 
and their goal is to complete an R&D project with a proof-of-concept 
study or a prototype. 

DHS's Border and Maritime R&D Budget and Projects: 

The S&T Directorate, DNDO, and the Coast Guard are each appropriated 
funding for R&D. Table 1 provides DHS's R&D budgets from fiscal years 
2010 through 2013 for the various entities that conduct border and 
maritime R&D. A portion of each component's budget is dedicated to 
border and maritime R&D. However, as we reported in September 2012, 
DHS did not know how much its components invest in R&D, making it 
difficult to oversee R&D efforts across the department. For example, 
we reported that data DHS submitted to OMB showed that DHS's R&D 
budget authority and outlays were underreported because DNDO did not 
properly report its R&D budget authority and outlays to OMB for fiscal 
years 2010 through 2013. Specifically, for fiscal years 2010 through 
2013, DHS underreported its total R&D budget authority by at least 
$293 million and outlays for R&D by at least $282 million because DNDO 
did not accurately report the data.[Footnote 19] We also identified an 
additional $255 million in R&D obligations for fiscal year 2011 by 
other DHS components. Further, we found that DNDO did not report 
certain R&D budget data to OMB, and R&D budget accounts include a mix 
of R&D and non-R&D spending, further complicating DHS's ability to 
identify its total investment in R&D. 

Table 1: R&D Budgets for DHS for Science and Technology Directorate, 
the Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Fiscal 
Years 2010-2013: 

S&T Research and Development, Acquisitions and Operations[A]; 
2010 (enacted): $856 million; 
2011 (enacted): $626 million; 
2012 (enacted): $533 million; 
2013 (enacted): $674 million. 

Coast Guard Research and Development; 
2010 (enacted): $24.7 million; 
2011 (enacted): $24.7 million; 
2012 (enacted): $27.8 million; 
2013 (enacted): $19.6 million. 

DNDO Transformational Research and Development; 
2010 (enacted): $109 million; 
2011 (enacted): $96 million; 
2012 (enacted): $40 million; 
2013 (enacted): $74.7 million. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] This includes S&T's five divisions, University Programs, and 
Laboratory Facilities. 

[End of table] 

As of June 2013, DHS had 95 ongoing R&D projects related to border and 
maritime security. See table 2 below for the number and total 
anticipated cost of ongoing border and maritime R&D projects by 
performing office. 

Table 2: Current DHS Border and Maritime Projects by Component: 

Performing office: S&T Borders and Maritime Security Division; 
Number of current projects: 11; 
Total anticipated project costs from start to end[A]: $178.4 million. 

Performing office: S&T University Programs[B]; 
Number of current projects: 34; 
Total anticipated project costs from start to end[A]: $23.2 million. 

Performing office: Coast Guard[C]; 
Number of current projects: 22; 
Total anticipated project costs from start to end[A]: $53 million. 

Performing office: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; 
Number of current projects: 28; 
Total anticipated project costs from start to end[A]: $70.5 million. 

Performing office: Total; 
Number of current projects: 95; 
Total anticipated project costs from start to end[A]: $325.1 million. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] These amounts represent DHS's estimates of total project costs, 
including funding expended as well projected costs for fiscal years 
2014-2018. According to GAO's prior work, these amounts may be 
understated as they may not capture additionally contracted work. 
These projects are ongoing as of fiscal year 2013. 

[B] This represents all border and maritime R&D across seven Centers 
of Excellence. 

[C] Coast Guard homeland security projects--each project in the Coast 
Guard's Research Development Test and Evaluation Program portfolio is 
funded with a Research Development Test and Evaluation, Acquisitions, 
Construction & Improvement, or Operating Expenses appropriation. 

[End of table] 

It is important to note the total amount of resources and spending 
dedicated to R&D projects, and the final result and impact of these 
projects can vary dramatically based on the scope and purpose of the 
project. Some R&D projects aim to produce a specific prototype or 
piece of technology for an end user, such as sensors that CBP can use 
to better detect tunnels, nonlethal weapons Coast Guard can use to 
disable a boat's outboard engines, or a range of contraband marker 
systems. Other projects may produce software to integrate information 
technology systems, such as software to integrate and display 
information gathered by multiple sensor systems. Finally, other 
projects may produce a report or knowledge product, which aims to 
inform an acquisition decision, such as providing the preliminary 
research required for developing a statement of work--a key step in 
the acquisition process. Individual R&D projects can range in cost 
from several thousand dollars to millions per fiscal year. 

R&D Results Include Knowledge Products, Technology Prototypes, and 
Software, but S&T Should Do More to Obtain Feedback and Evaluate the 
Impact of Its Efforts: 

Costs and Types of Completed Border and Maritime R&D Projects Varied: 

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012, DHS border and maritime R&D 
agencies reported producing 97 deliverables at an estimated cost of 
about $177 million and 29 discontinued projects at a cost of about $48 
million.[Footnote 20] An R&D deliverable can yield a variety of 
results. For example, an R&D deliverable, such as a report or a 
prototype, can be provided to a customer and then transitioned into an 
acquisition program or further developed by that customer; delivered, 
but not used for various reasons, or discontinued prior to delivery. 
[Footnote 21] 

Twenty-nine projects were discontinued prior to their delivery to a 
customer. There were a variety of reasons that projects were 
discontinued, and it is important to note that the discontinuation of 
a project or deliverable did not necessarily mean that it was a failed 
R&D project. In some cases, the R&D results demonstrated that there 
was no technologically feasible option to address a problem or that a 
certain type of technology would not provide the desired solution. For 
example, DHS's Office of University program officials stated that they 
expect to routinely discontinue projects that are not demonstrably 
innovative, progressing, or have no identifiable end user, and 
reallocate resources to new innovative projects or to projects with 
specified customer interest. Further, according to the officials, 
project discontinuation is a good outcome in many circumstances where 
research success cannot be foretold. These officials added that it is 
a necessary part of a portfolio-based research strategy. Office of 
University program R&D and discontinued research projects are 
discussed in more detail later in this report. 

Projects are also discontinued or merged into other projects because 
of a lack of available data, budget cuts, or DHS management 
determining that a project was no longer a priority to its potential 
customers. For example, S&T BMD officials stated insufficient funding 
resulted in the discontinuation of 2 projects, and for 2 other 
projects, the customer's priorities shifted and the R&D was 
terminated. In addition, DNDO stated that it determined that some 
methods for detection of shielded nuclear material were feasible but 
too costly and that certain detection devices would be too large for 
practical use in the field, so the R&D was discontinued. Table 3 
provides the costs of R&D projects with deliverables, including 
discontinued projects, for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. See 
appendix I for a list of all the R&D projects and their deliverables 
for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 by component or office, project 
type, and their associated costs. 

Table 3: Number of R&D Deliverables Reported for Fiscal Years 2010 
through 2012: 

R&D performer: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; 
Number of deliverables provided to a customer: 36; 
Total amount expended: $115.9 million; 
Number of projects or deliverables that were discontinued: 6; 
Total amount expended for discontinued R&D[A]: $15.4 million. 

R&D performer: Coast Guard; 
Number of deliverables provided to a customer: 23; 
Total amount expended: $26.4 million; 
Number of projects or deliverables that were discontinued: 0; 
Total amount expended for discontinued R&D[A]: Not applicable. 

R&D performer: S&T Borders and Maritime Security Division; 
Number of deliverables provided to a customer: 20; 
Total amount expended: $28.7 million; 
Number of projects or deliverables that were discontinued: 4[B]; 
Total amount expended for discontinued R&D[A]: $33.0 million. 

R&D performer: S&T Borders and Maritime Security Division; 
Number of deliverables provided to a customer: 18; 
Total amount expended: $6.1 million; 
Number of projects or deliverables that were discontinued: 19; 
Total amount expended for discontinued R&D[A]: Unknown. 

Total delivered deliverables: 97; 
Total amount expended: $177.1 million; 
Total discontinued projects: 29; 
Total amount expended for discontinued R&D[A]: $48.4 million. 

Total deliverables or projects (delivered and discontinued): 126. 

Total expended (delivered and discontinued): $225.5 million. 

Source: DHS data. 

[A] These amounts are a portion of the costs and are likely 
understated, as BMD was unable to provide GAO with the costs of 
development of specific deliverables because of shared costs, and 
specific projects costs were not available for all Centers of 
Excellence projects by individual project due to the nature of grant 
funding reporting. 

[B] Each DHS S&T BMD project can have multiple deliverables. The S&T 
BMD number represents projects, not deliverables. 

[End of table] 

DHS R&D deliverables were wide-ranging in their cost, scope, and 
scale. For example, agencies reported producing deliverables ranging 
from the development of imaging and radar prototypes to container 
screening devices and written market analyses of commercially 
available technologies. These 97 deliverables fell into three general 
categories: (1) knowledge products or reports; (2) technology 
prototypes; and (3) software, as listed in table 4. 

Table 4: Type of Project Deliverable Provided to Customers, as 
Reported by R&D Performer: 

R&D performer: S&T Borders and Maritime Security Division; 
Knowledge product or report: 5; 
Technology prototype: 11; 
Software: 4; 
Total: 20. 

R&D performer: S&T Centers of Excellence; 
Knowledge product or report: 9; 
Technology prototype: 1; 
Software: 8; 
Total: 18. 

R&D performer: US Coast Guard; 
Knowledge product or report: 21; 
Technology prototype: 1; 
Software: 1; 
Total: 23. 

R&D performer: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; 
Knowledge product or report: 3; 
Technology prototype: 15; 
Software: 18; 
Total: 36. 

R&D performer: Total; 
Knowledge product or report: 38; 
Technology prototype: 28; 
Software: 31; 
Total: 97. 

Source: DHS. 

[End of table] 

Knowledge products or reports: Thirty-eight of the 97 deliverables (39 
percent) resulted in knowledge products that contained analysis and 
comparison testing of technologies, summarized field testing of 
technologies, or developed reference materials for use by DHS 
components. For example, one of the DHS Centers of Excellence 
developed formulas and models to assist in randomizing Coast Guard 
patrol routes and connecting networks together to assist in the 
detection of small vessels. Additionally, the Coast Guard conducted a 
technology evaluation to help its acquisition office determine the 
best tactical radios for use by law enforcement boarding teams. 

Technology prototypes: Twenty-eight of the 97 deliverables (29 
percent) resulted in technology prototypes, such as the development of 
new sensors, imaging equipment, or devices for detecting nuclear 
material. For example, S&T BMD developed prototype radar and upgraded 
video systems for use by Border Patrol agents and a prototype scanner 
to screen interior areas of small aircraft without removing panels or 
the aircraft skin. See figure 1 for an example of a prototype product 
developed by BMD for CBP. 

Figure 1: Mobile Surveillance System Imager/Radar Upgrade -A Retrofit 
Kit Developed by S&T BMD for CBP Tested at the Arizona-Mexico Border: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: DHS. 

[End of figure] 

Software: Thirty-one of the 97 deliverables (32 percent) resulted in 
the development of software, such as algorithms used in detection 
systems. For example, BMD developed software that enables intelligence 
personnel to quickly survey large areas of ocean and find vessels of 
interest. Additionally, DNDO developed software that extracts data 
from radiation portal monitors and uses the data to improve algorithms 
used in detecting radioactive material. 

Customers Reported Mixed Views on the Impact of DHS's Border and 
Maritime R&D Project Deliverables: 

S&T BMD, the Coast Guard, and DNDO's R&D customers had mixed views 
regarding the impact of the R&D products or deliverables they 
received. Of the 126 R&D deliverables or projects DHS completed or 
discontinued from fiscal years 2010 through 2012, we interviewed DHS-
identified customers or other relevant officials for 33 of these (19 
customers and 6 program managers of 20 S&T BMD deliverables, 8 Coast 
Guard customers or other relevant officials of 8 deliverables or 
completed projects, and 2 DNDO project managers of 5 projects. Given 
our scope, we discussed ongoing and completed projects managed by 
S&T's Office of University Programs with Coast Guard and CBP, but did 
not systematically follow up with the recipients of each deliverable 
produced by the border and maritime related Centers of Excellence. 

S&T BMD: 

Of the 20 S&T BMD deliverables, the customers of 7 deliverables stated 
that the deliverables met their office's needs, customers of 7 did 
not, and customers of 4 did not know, and customers for 2 could not be 
identified, as detailed below in table 5. For example, customers 
within CBP's Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition reported 
that BMD's analysis and test results on aircraft-based use of wide 
area surveillance technology helped CBP to make a decision on whether 
it should pursue acquiring such technology. Another customer (DHS 
personnel assigned to the Joint Interagency Task Force South United 
States Southern Command) reported that software developed by BMD to 
enable analysts to quickly find and characterize small maritime 
vessels in an image showing large areas of ocean was highly valuable 
and met their office's needs. 

Table 5: Science and Technology Directorate Borders and Maritime 
Security Division (S&T BMD) Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 
Deliverables and Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness: 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Safe Quick Undercarriage Immobilization 
Device; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Border Patrol; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Unknown. 
S&T involvement ended prior to Customer involvement. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: P25 Blue Force Tracking; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Border Patrol, Office of 
Information Technology; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Smart Integration Manager Ontologically 
Networked; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Air and Marine Operations Center; 
Coast Guard; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. 
Project is delayed. May meet needs in the future. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Sensor Management System; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Air and Marine; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. 
Project is delayed. May meet needs in the future. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Riverine Airboat; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Air and Marine; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. 
Prototype did not meet CBP needs. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Shipboard Automatic Identification System 
and Radar Contact Reporting System; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Air and Marine, Air and 
Marine Operations Center; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Unknown. 
Customers identified by S&T were not familiar with project. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Maritime Asset Tag Tracking System; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Field Operations; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. Not 
used, pending results from another project. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Container Security Device; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Field Operations; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. Not 
used, pending results from another project. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Ground RADAR Comparison Testing; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Technology Innovation and 
Acquisition; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. Met 
customer needs and informed additional testing. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Wide Area Airborne Sensor System; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Technology Innovation and 
Acquisition; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. Met 
customer needs and informed additional testing. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Wide Area Airborne Sensor Fixed Wing 
Testing; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Technology Innovation 
and Acquisition; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. Met 
customer needs and informed additional testing. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Wide Area Motion Imagery; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: Unknown; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Unknown. 
S&T and CBP were unable to identify a customer. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Aviation Scanner; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Field Operations; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. CBP 
determined technology was not needed, but additional testing is 
planned to identify other potential uses. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Tipsheet Review And Correlation EnhanceR; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: Joint Interagency Task Force South; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. 
Technology met customer needs. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Low Light Camera; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: Joint Interagency Task Force South; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. 
Technology met customer needs. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Container Security Test Bed; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: No. 
Unclear if it has been used by CBP or if it has met CBP needs. Has 
been used by vendors for testing. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: VizTools; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: Coast Guard; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Yes. 
Prototype used to inform enterprise wide system. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Tethered Aerostat Radar Adjunct Radar 
Processor System; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: Unknown; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Unknown. 
Customer could not be identified by S&T and the Coast Guard. After 
prototype was destroyed in a storm, R&D was not continued. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Mobile Surveillance System Imager Upgrade; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Technology Innovation and 
Acquisition; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Unknown. 
Testing is ongoing. 

S&T BMD project deliverable: Carrizo Cane; 
Customer identified by S&T BMD: CBP/Office of Border Patrol; 
Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met needs: Unknown. 
Project was transferred to US Department of Agriculture. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and S&T BMD data. 

[End of table] 

Conversely, of 20 deliverables, customers of 7 deliverables reported 
that the deliverable did not meet their office's needs. In cases where 
customers said that the deliverables were not meeting their needs, the 
customers explained that budget changes, other ongoing testing 
efforts, or changes in mission priorities were the reasons 
deliverables had not met their needs, and customers pointed out that 
their relationship with S&T had been positive and highly 
collaborative. In other cases, customers pointed out that while the 
deliverable had not been used as intended, it informed their office's 
decision making and helped to rule out certain technologies as 
possibilities. In this regard, the customers felt the R&D was 
successful, despite the fact that the deliverable had not or was not 
being used. Further, customers of 4 deliverables did not know or could 
not determine if the deliverable met their office's needs, and 
customers for 2 deliverables could not be identified by S&T, CBP, or 
the Coast Guard. BMD officials described, for example, why some of 
these older projects did not have identifiable customers and also 
described actions it had taken to help ensure that new projects have 
clear, committed customers. Under S&T's former process for initiating 
projects--which was carried out under S&T's former Undersecretary and 
dissolved by its current Undersecretary--BMD officials said that the 
potential existed to engage in R&D without a clear commitment from a 
customer. In February 2012, S&T issued a new project management guide 
that requires project managers to specify the customer by office and 
name, and to describe customer support for the project, including how 
the customer has demonstrated commitment for and support of the 
project. BMD officials said they believed this new process would 
prevent future R&D funding from going towards projects without a clear 
customer. 

Coast Guard: 

The Coast Guard reported producing 23 deliverables from fiscal year 
2010 through fiscal year 2012, and we met with officials involved with 
8 of those projects, as listed in table 6. For 4 of 8 deliverables, 
Coast Guard officials reported that the deliverables had met internal 
Coast Guard needs. For example, one customer reported using a Coast 
Guard report on secure tactical radio communications systems to jump-
start market research and to help develop a statement of work in 
developing the acquisition documents for the new radios. The customer 
said that the Coast Guard report did a good job of defining 
requirements and summarizing the needs of the operational end users--
in this case, Coast Guard boarding teams. Ultimately, the customer 
said 762 radios were acquired and end users reported the radios were a 
vast improvement over what they had possessed in the past. For 3 of 8 
deliverables, the impact was unknown because the research was ongoing. 
Finally, for 1 of 8 deliverables, the customer was unknown or could 
not be determined. For example, for the Low-Cost Swimmer Detection 
System, DHS S&T was identified as the customer, but an S&T official we 
spoke with said that S&T was the project manager and the Coast Guard 
was actually the customer. Ultimately, the project did not continue 
due to changes in Coast Guard budget priorities. 

Regarding the 15 Coast Guard deliverables we did not discuss with 
customers, many of these were identified by the Coast Guard as 
deliverables but were different in nature from the deliverables 
discussed with S&T's customers. Further, the nature of the customers 
was different, too, since in some cases the customer was the Coast 
Guard's own R&D Center in order to support maintaining the R&D 
Center's capabilities for conducting technological and analytical 
support. For instance, while many of S&T's deliverables were 
prototypes or demonstrations for customers outside of S&T, the Coast 
Guard's deliverables were used within the Coast Guard and included 
such things as the independent validation and verification of the 
Coast Guard's maritime security risk analysis model, analysis support, 
and the Deepwater Horizon spill response. 

Table 6: Coast Guard Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 Deliverables and 
Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness: 

Project name: Automated Scene Understanding and Situational Awareness 
(Visualization Tools)[A]; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: S&T; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Unknown, project is 
ongoing. Unknown if it has or will meet customer's needs. The Coast 
Guard identified this as a deliverable, but S&T said the Coast Guard 
was the recipient. Deliverable was used to inform other work, but is 
limited by budget priorities. 

Project name: Systematic Analysis of Deepwater Horizon Spill Response 
Technology; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Coast Guard Research and 
Development Center and Director of Acquisition Services; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Yes, project met 
customer needs and additional research is ongoing.[B] 

Project name: Office of Naval Research Ship Stopping by Propeller 
Entanglement; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Coast Guard Office of Specialized 
Capabilities; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Unknown, project is 
ongoing; Unknown if it has or will meet customer needs. 

Project name: Integration of Law Enforcement Databases into Coast Guard 
Biometric System; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Coast Guard Research and 
Development Center; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Unknown, project is 
ongoing: Unknown if it has or will meet customer's needs. 

Project name: Secure Tactical Connectivity [A]; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Coast Guard Deployable Operations 
Group; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Yes, project 
deliverable met customer's needs. 

Project name: Low Cost Swimmer Detection System [A]; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Unknown; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Unknown. DHS customer 
could not be identified. Project ended with funding priority changes. 

Project name: Support for Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission 
Analyses; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Coast Guard Research and 
Development Center and Office of Performance Management & Assessment; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Yes, customer is 
within the Coast Guard, and documents are meeting Coast Guard's 
needs.[B 

Project name: Polar Icebreaker Business Case Analysis; 
Customer identified by Coast Guard: Coast Guard Research and 
Development Center and Acquisition Program Manager, Surface; 
Customer reporting on whether project met needs: Yes, customers are 
internal to the Coast Guard and congressional requesters, and 
documents are meeting the Coast Guard's needs.[B] 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data. 

[A] DHS S&T was the project sponsor and Coast Guard R&D Center was the 
project executor. 

[B] Customer feedback was provided by the Coast Guard R&D Center. 

[End of table] 

DNDO: 

DNDO reported producing 42 deliverables--which encompassed 6 
discontinued projects and 36 projects that were either transitioned to 
the next phase of DNDO R&D or were completed and ended from fiscal 
years 2010 through 2012. We met with officials involved with 5 of 
those projects, as listed in table 7. According to DNDO 
Transformational and Applied Research Directorate (TARD) officials, 
they consider a project completed when it results in either a 
prototype or a knowledge product for integration into an acquisition 
program. Specifically, 17 of 36 projects were part of another ongoing 
DNDO project or Small Business Innovative Research project and 19 of 
31 projects were commercialized or concluded. DNDO R&D is different 
from the R&D of S&T or the Coast Guard for many reasons. For one, a 
DNDO project may start at a very low technology readiness level, in 
other words at the basic research level, but may end up being merged 
into other similar efforts in order to achieve a higher project goal. 
In these cases, the R&D customers are DNDO project managers, rather 
than an external DHS customer, such as CBP. We discussed 5 DNDO R&D 
deliverables at various R&D phases with DNDO officials--4 of which 
were deliverables from ongoing or completed projects and 1 of which 
was a discontinued project, as shown below in table 7. 

Table 7: Select Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Deliverables 
and Project Outcomes: 

Project name: Contextually-Aware Expert-System for Automated Threat 
Assessment; 
Customer identified by DNDO: DNDO Transformational and Applied 
Research Directorate; 
Customer reporting on project met needs: Unknown, project is ongoing. 
Technology transitioned to another project. The project was one of 
DNDO's first broad agency agreements geared toward the national 
laboratories. The project's goal was to design a large data repository 
and use it to develop software that could be accessed by CBP officials 
when reviewing a single piece of cargo to determine its possible 
contents in a rapid manner. 

Project name: High Yield Pulsed Neutron Generator; 
Customer identified by DNDO: DNDO Transformational and Applied 
Research Directorate and outside entities; 
Customer reporting on project met needs: Yes, project was completed 
and commercialized. Adelphi Technologies developed a product out of 
this project and won a 2012 R&D award. The product that was developed 
was sold to universities and national labs. DNDO officials consider 
this a great success. 

Project name: Study of Fast Neutron Signatures and Measurement 
Techniques for SNM Detection; 
Customer identified by DNDO: DNDO Transformational and Applied 
Research Directorate; 
Customer reporting on project met needs: Yes, project was completed. 
The study findings suggest that conventional thermal neutron detection 
approaches with moderation are the preferred method for detecting 
neutron emitting sources in cargo. Study informed DNDO's decision 
making process as it pursues alternatives to Helium-3 for neutron 
detector systems. 

Project name: Advanced Technology Demonstration for Shielded Nuclear 
Alarm Resolution Program - Multimodal Automated Resolution, Location, 
and Identification of Nuclear Material; 
Customer identified by DNDO: DNDO Transformational and Applied 
Research Directorate; 
Customer reporting on project met needs: Yes, project is ongoing. 
Technology transitioned to another ongoing project. 

Project name: Mapping isotopic distributions in cargo (FINDER) to 
detect Shielded Special Nuclear Material (SNM) and its configuration; 
Customer identified by DNDO: DNDO Transformational and Applied Research 
Directorate; 
Customer reporting on project met needs: Yes, project was 
discontinued. Technology found not feasible. Lessons learned informed 
other R&D. 

Source: GAO analysis of DNDO data. 

[End of table] 

Given the different nature of DNDO's R&D efforts, we discussed the 
outcomes of DNDO's completed deliverables with their project managers 
and senior DNDO officials. DNDO TARD officials stated that their 
primary customers are themselves and DNDO's Acquisitions Directorate. 
We also met with officials from the DNDO directorates responsible for 
taking early-stage R&D work and moving it toward later-stage 
development and acquisitions. These officials said that the early 
stage R&D at DNDO feeds into the prioritized ranking of gaps in the 
global nuclear detection architecture[Footnote 22], as well as into 
the analysis-of-alternatives phase of DNDO's solutions development 
process. Two of the 5 projects we discussed had moved from early-stage 
R&D into other projects further along in DNDO's project management 
process. Two of the 5 projects were completed, with 1 project 
providing information that informed DNDO decision-making processes, 
and the other project resulting in a commercialized product. Last, 
with regard to the 1 discontinued project, DNDO officials said there 
were many lessons learned, but that the particular project's 
technology was determined to be too expensive to continue pursuing. 

Feedback Processes and Evaluation: 

Both the Coast Guard and DNDO reported having processes in place for 
gathering the views of customers regarding the results of R&D 
deliverables. For example, the Coast Guard RDT&E Program has a process 
in place for surveying its customers following the completion of a 
project and reported using this information for future R&D planning. 
The Coast Guard's survey instrument seeks feedback on the following 
items: customer satisfaction, timeliness, utility, and communications, 
among other things. The feedback step is part of the Coast Guard's 
Continuous Project Process. We reviewed 5 completed surveys from Coast 
Guard customers. The feedback included specific suggestions for 
improvements in the R&D process and positive comments regarding 
meeting customer needs and communication. 

DNDO officials identified several ways in which they seek feedback 
from customers on the usefulness of their deliverables. For instance, 
in its solutions development process guide, DNDO provides direction to 
project managers on engaging in initial, small-quantity production of 
a system so that the customer can thoroughly test the system in order 
to gain a reasonable degree of confidence as to whether the system 
actually performs to the agreed upon requirements before contracts for 
mass production are signed. For example, during the development of the 
Multimodal Automated Resolution, Location, and Identification of 
Nuclear Material project, DNDO managers reported gaining feedback from 
CBP officials through their participation in the R&D, since it is CBP 
who will be the eventual end user of the technology.[Footnote 23] DNDO 
also details in its solutions development process guide how it works 
with customers to test fielded technology solutions, including 
documenting lessons learned and obtaining feedback as part of its R&D 
continuous development process. DNDO's internal R&D customers (other 
directorates) stated that they provided feedback on DNDO's R&D efforts 
through other mechanisms such as letters prioritizing technology needs 
and gaps. Coast Guard and DNDO officials also stated that it is not 
difficult to obtain feedback from their R&D customers, since their 
customers are generally within their own organizations. 

Though S&T Borders and Maritime Security project managers seek 
feedback during their project execution, BMD does not gather and 
evaluate feedback from its customers to determine the impact of its 
completed R&D efforts and deliverables, making it difficult to 
determine if the R&D is meeting customer needs. Further, in some 
cases, the customer of S&T's R&D was not clear. For example, on BMD's 
Wide Area Motion Imagery project, BMD officials said that CBP was the 
customer of this deliverable, but CBP officials we spoke with did not 
know who was using the results of the R&D. However, on a project 
level, BMD officials stated that their office prepared reports related 
to this project and was told that the reports were helpful in CBP's 
broader consideration of options for new airborne sensor systems. In 
another S&T project, a Coast Guard customer identified by BMD was 
involved in testing the technology (the Tethered Aerostat Radio 
Processor) for BMD, but was not involved in the request for the R&D or 
in a position to make a determination on the extent to which the 
project met the Coast Guard's needs. Similarly, a CBP customer 
identified by BMD was aware of two R&D deliverables that BMD said were 
transitioned to his office, but the official was unable to provide 
additional information on the project's impact.[Footnote 24] As we 
mentioned above, S&T recently made policy changes that require project 
managers to specify a project's customer by office and name and to 
describe customer support for the project at a project's outset. This 
change should help assist S&T in seeking feedback from its customers 
upon completion of a project. 

For five projects, S&T BMD project managers and customers we met with 
could not provide definitive information on whether the deliverables 
had achieved their intended goals. For example, S&T and CBP officials 
agreed that R&D efforts on the Aviation Scanner project--a prototype 
scanner to screen interior areas of small aircraft without removing 
panels of the aircraft skin; however, the impact on CBP's mission 
needs or its future acquisitions is unknown pending future 
demonstration and testing in 2013. The National Academy of Sciences 
have stated that evaluating the relevance and impact of R&D is a key 
stage of the R&D process and that measuring the impact of R&D 
activities requires looking to the end users and stakeholders for an 
evaluation of the impact of a research program, such as through 
polling or systematic outreach.[Footnote 25] 

According to S&T BMD officials, since they deal with multiple DHS 
components and are not within the same agencies as its customers, it 
is sometimes difficult to identify who the customer of the R&D is and 
also difficult to determine what the impact of the R&D was. S&T 
officials also stated that in S&T's 2012 update to its project 
management guide, in its project closeout process, S&T has included a 
step to collect feedback from all relevant customers and a template 
for collecting this feedback. However, the S&T officials stated that 
this has not yet been carried out and that much work remains to be 
done to ensure this outreach and feedback is collected. BMD officials 
agreed that a more rigorous feedback process would provide S&T 
leadership a better understanding of how S&T is serving its customers 
and public. 

While S&T has developed a process and template to collect feedback at 
the end of each project and incorporated this into its project 
management plan, it does not plan to survey customers each time it 
provides a deliverable to the customer. As previously noted, S&T 
projects are often conducted over several years before they are 
concluded or in some cases merged into other projects. These projects 
also often produce multiple deliverables for a customer that meet a 
specific operational need. For example, the Ground Based Technologies 
project began in fiscal year 2006 and is slated to continue through 
fiscal year 2018. During this period, S&T has provided multiple R&D 
deliverables to CBP--including test results comparing different ground 
based radar systems, as previously mentioned. The National Academy of 
Sciences has stated that feedback from both R&D failures and successes 
may be communicated to stakeholders and used to modify future 
investments. Moreover, S&T has not established timeframes and 
milestones for when it will begin collecting and evaluating feedback 
on these projects nor stated if and when it plans to begin gathering 
feedback on deliverables, and incorporate it into its broader 
processes for setting R&D priorities and portfolios. According to A 
Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, which provides 
standards for project managers, specific goals and objectives should 
be conceptualized, defined, and documented in the planning process, 
along with the appropriate steps, time frames, and milestones needed 
to achieve those results.[Footnote 26] Establishing time frames and 
milestones for collecting and evaluating feedback from its customers 
could help S&T better determine the usefulness and impact of its R&D 
projects and deliverables and make better-informed decisions regarding 
future work. 

DHS Has Taken Steps to Coordinate Border and Maritime R&D, but 
Opportunities Exist to Further Strengthen Internal and External 
Coordination: 

DHS Uses Various Approaches to Internally Coordinate R&D; Broader 
Efforts to Develop Departmental Policies for Overseeing and 
Coordinating R&D Are Ongoing: 

S&T's BMD, the Coast Guard, and DNDO reported taking a range of 
actions to coordinate with one another and their customers to ensure 
that R&D is addressing high priority needs. Officials from BMD 
identified several ways in which it coordinates R&D activities with 
its customers, which are primarily offices within CBP. 

* Agency details and Integrated Product Teams: BMD officials reported 
having a person detailed to CBP's Office of Technology Innovation and 
Acquisition and identified its integrated product teams, such as its 
cross border tunnel threat team, and jointly funded projects as ways 
in which the division works to ensure its R&D efforts are coordinated 
with CBP.[Footnote 27] 

* Joint strategies: To improve coordination with its customers, in 
2012, S&T began developing joint R&D strategic plans with various CBP 
offices that are designed to help ensure projects are addressing the 
highest-priority needs. S&T officials developed a draft strategy with 
the Office of Border Patrol in June 2013 and are planning throughout 
the rest of 2013 to develop strategies with other CBP offices, as well 
as a strategy with the Coast Guard in early 2014. BMD officials said 
that CBP's Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition--which aims 
to ensure CBP's technology efforts are integrated across CBP and 
assists in managing new technology acquisitions--will be a signatory 
participant on all of the strategies. BMD also plans to develop 
broader component-level plans in the future. Presently, BMD uses 
letters of intent and technology transition agreements to coordinate 
with customers on a project-by-project level. These agreements 
identify specific project objectives and are detailed to an individual 
project.[Footnote 28] 

Officials from the Coast Guard's R&D Center identified several ways in 
which it coordinates with its customers (which are typically other 
offices within the Coast Guard). 

* Annual project cycle: Officials identified the Coast Guard's annual 
project cycle as one of its primary mechanisms for coordinating with 
its internal customers to ensure that R&D efforts are addressing the 
most pressing operational needs. The annual project cycle involves the 
selection and ranking of its R&D portfolio extending out 2 fiscal 
years. To develop this portfolio, the Coast Guard has both an annual 
idea submission process and annual workshops, where officials develop 
the R&D Center project portfolio.[Footnote 29] Ideas for new projects 
can come from any rank or office, and R&D Center officials said that 
they will consider all the ideas they receive. 

* Technology transition agreements: The Coast Guard RDT&E Program also 
uses internal technology transition agreements to ensure that internal 
Coast Guard customers and stakeholders are prepared to move forward 
with an R&D prototype product when delivered. These technology 
transition agreements are non-binding agreements, internal to the 
Coast Guard, for ensuring the coordination and transition of R&D 
products. 

* Technology summits: In an effort to enhance awareness of R&D efforts 
across DHS, in February 2012, the Coast Guard hosted a joint science 
and technology summit wherein the Coast Guard, BMD, and S&T Office of 
University Programs officials gave overview briefs of their respective 
work. The summit discussion included such topics as the value of 
routine meetings between the Coast Guard's R&D program and various S&T 
divisions, as well as the successes that S&T has had working with CBP 
and the potential for the Coast Guard to determine if it can identify 
and replicate successful ways to increase its interactions with S&T. 

DNDO also has several mechanisms for coordinating its R&D efforts that 
vary depending upon the maturity of the technology. For technologies 
that are close to deployable, DNDO's Architecture and Plans 
Directorate, which does not conduct R&D, engages directly with CBP and 
other potential customers to identify what technology enhancements the 
components need and then formulates plans and recommendations for 
solutions. For example, DNDO officials testified in 2010 that DNDO had 
outfitted the Coast Guard with over 5,000 personal radiation 
detectors, and officials from the Architecture and Plans Directorate 
reported working closely with the Coast Guard to add a radiological 
nuclear module to the Coast Guard's terrorism risk model. DNDO's 
Transformational and Applied Research Directorate, which does conduct 
R&D, works with less mature technologies and therefore does not always 
interact directly with the operational components. 

While BMD, the Coast Guard, and DNDO were each taking actions to 
coordinate with their R&D customers, work remains to be done at the 
departmental level to ensure border and maritime R&D efforts are 
mutually reinforcing and are being directed toward the highest 
priority needs.[Footnote 30] We recently highlighted coordination of 
R&D efforts as a challenge for DHS and we made recommendations for 
improving coordination. We reported that S&T, which is statutorily 
required to coordinate R&D efforts across the department, has taken 
some steps to coordinate R&D efforts across DHS, but that the 
department's R&D efforts are fragmented and overlapping, which 
increases the risk of unnecessary duplication.[Footnote 31] We 
recommended in September 2012 that DHS develop a description of the 
department's processes and roles and responsibilities for overseeing 
and coordinating R&D investments and efforts. As of June 2013, DHS had 
not made a decision about how it specifically planned to address these 
recommendations. BMD officials reported in June 2013 that the 
directorate's efforts would likely begin at the project and office 
levels (specifically through the office level strategic plans S&T's 
Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency is developing with 
CBP and the Coast Guard), and from there, move to a departmental 
level. Until DHS has made broader determination about what policies 
and procedures will govern the roles and responsibilities for 
coordinating R&D, it will be unclear what the effectiveness of the 
various coordination approaches are. 

Opportunities Exist for DHS to Enhance Coordination with Universities 
Conducting Research on Its Behalf: 

DHS S&T Office of University Programs officials discussed the variety 
of ways in which centers and DHS components collaborate and share 
information, and 4 of 5 center officials we met with were generally 
satisfied with the level of communication and collaboration between 
their centers and DHS. Projects at the centers have 5-year work plans 
that go through a mid-point review process with component-agency input 
where they can be reevaluated and modified. To solicit ideas for new 
projects, the Office of University Programs holds technical workshops 
with component-level subject matter experts. The component subject 
matter experts will discuss a technical or informational challenge 
they have, and as a group, the workshop participants will discuss what 
key research questions need to be addressed imminently. The Office of 
University Programs will draft these issues into more formalized 
research questions and put them out to the universities and centers. 
The office then examines proposals it receives based on how the 
research can further DHS's missions. Office of University Programs 
officials stated that the office's process for soliciting research 
topics and evaluating proposals is good and that it keeps the centers 
flexible. Center officials also reported collaborating on a variety of 
projects with non-DHS customers, such as DOD (specifically the Army 
Research Laboratory and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research), 
NOAA, the National Institute of Health, the National Science 
Foundation, and the Department of Justice. 

However, officials from DHS's primary land border security Center of 
Excellence reported challenges with respect to a lack of clarity 
regarding protocols for access to DHS information when conducting R&D. 
Specifically, officials from this center reported that they have been 
regularly unable to obtain data from CBP to complete research it was 
conducting on CBP's behalf, which resulted in delays and terminated 
R&D projects. These officials reported that of 4 discontinued projects 
and 9 completed projects, 4 projects experienced delays, incomplete 
data, or incorrect data. Office of University Programs staff stated 
that misunderstandings surrounding procedures regarding 
nongovernmental personnel access to data can be a challenge.[Footnote 
32] 

DHS Office of University Programs officials said in June 2013 that 
they have not fully developed all of the procedures regarding sharing 
government data. However, the officials said that under the terms of 
the cooperative agreements between the Office of University Programs 
and the centers, CBP has no obligation to provide government-generated 
data of any kind. The officials said that this is because universities 
generally operate under the principle of publishing at will, which 
could limit the ability of DHS to restrict the publication of 
potentially sensitive information. The Office of University Programs 
provides several avenues for DHS components to be involved with the 
centers and potential projects, including writing funding opportunity 
announcements for centers, selecting projects to fund, reviewing and 
negotiating work plans, and recommending corrections. But given the 
challenges raised by the primary border security center, the Office of 
University Programs could help ensure that the approximately $3 
million to $4 million a year dedicated to each university center is 
used more effectively by more carefully considering data needs, 
potential access issues, and potential data limitations with its 
federal partners before approving projects. We have previously stated 
that identifying data sources and collection procedures is one of the 
five key steps to an effective evaluation design.[Footnote 33] 
Further, we have stated that in selecting a product's design, agencies 
should determine a design's limitations as a result of the information 
required or the scope and methodology--such as questionable data 
quality or reliability, inability to access certain types of data, or 
security classifications or confidentiality restrictions--and to 
address how these limitations will affect the product. Given the 
challenges raised by officials from both universities leading the R&D 
for land border security, a more rigorous review of potential data-
related challenges and limitations at the start of a project could 
help R&D customers (such as CBP) identify data requirements and 
potential limitations up front so that money is not allocated to 
projects that potentially cannot be completed. DHS Office of 
University Programs officials agreed that making sure their clients 
take additional steps to identify data requirements up front could 
help address these challenges. 

DHS Has Taken Steps to Coordinate with and Leverage R&D Efforts of 
Other Federal Agencies: 

DHS's R&D agencies reported regularly coordinating with the Department 
of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) in the development 
of new border and maritime security technologies on both an individual 
project level and at a departmental level. For example, officials from 
S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO each reported having productive 
relationships with several DOD offices--including the Office of Naval 
Research; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency; the Army Night Vision 
Center; and the Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command. 
Specifically, DNDO officials said DNDO has an interagency agreement 
with DOD to develop long range nuclear detection devices. DNDO also 
has a memorandum of understanding with DOD's Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency, DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Office 
of the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate national 
nuclear detection R&D programs. Further, Coast Guard officials 
reported partnering with the Navy to develop unmanned aerial 
surveillance technologies capable of launching from the deck of a 
cutter and to develop systems to disable a boat's outboard engines, as 
shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Vessel Entanglement System Developed by DOD and the Coast 
Guard: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: USCG. 

[End of figure] 

Additionally, Coast Guard, DNDO, and S&T have used the facilities at 
several of DOE's national laboratories, including the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory, the Savannah River National Laboratory, 
and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Within S&T, the Office 
of National Laboratories is responsible for helping facilitate 
cooperative agreements between the national labs and DHS components 
and is to review all statements of work issued from DHS to the 
national laboratories. However, we reported in September 2012 that 11 
DHS components had reimbursed the national laboratories for R&D 
between fiscal years 2010 and 2013, but the Office of National 
Laboratories could not provide us with any information on those 
activities and told us it did not track them.[Footnote 34] Instead, 
the Office of National Laboratories told us it used other means to 
monitor DHS work at the laboratories such as relationships with 
components and S&T, reviewing task orders sent to the laboratories 
from DHS, visiting laboratories, and laboratories self-reporting their 
work. 

Though it does not report conducting R&D, offices within CBP also 
reported coordinating directly with DOD offices--such the Joint Non-
Lethal Weapons Program, Army Research, Development, and Engineering 
Command, and the Army's Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Office-
-in the development and testing of particular technologies. For 
example, CBP's Office of Air and Marine reported visiting the Navy's 
laboratory facilities to learn more about the Navy's efforts to 
develop a device capable of disabling a boat's outboard engine through 
a directed energy source. The Navy was conducting this research in 
collaboration with the Coast Guard and the officials from the Office 
of Air and Marine asked to be kept apprised of the project's progress 
and to be allowed to participate in any testing and demonstrations of 
prototypes. DHS officials also reported participating with DOD on a 
variety of working groups, including the Air Domain Working Group and 
the Executive Aviation Commonality Working Group. 

These collaborative relationships have had benefits for DOD as well. 
For instance, officials from the Office of Air and Marine reported 
working with the Navy when it was developing new ocean surveying 
software for tracking vessel movements. The Navy needed a specific 
number of testing hours on an air platform as well as sensor operators 
familiar with sea search radar systems before the software could move 
ahead in its development. The Office of Air and Marine and the Navy 
agreed, via a memorandum of agreement, to adapt the Navy's software to 
three different types of Office of Air and Marine aircraft. The Navy 
funded the nonrecurring engineering and the Office of Air and Marine 
paid to install and integrate the software on its aircraft. 
Additionally, officials from CBP reported working with DOD to conduct 
joint testing on a vehicle immobilization device. The officials said 
that DOD had the funding to do the testing, but needed vehicles, which 
CBP had. CBP conducted the field testing of the devices and shared the 
data with DOD. In a 2011 testimony, a senior DOD official said that 
DOD and DHS were cosponsoring a tunnel detection capability 
demonstration and that technologies resulting from these efforts were 
expected to be fielded domestically and abroad. 

Despite successes in the development of new security technologies, DHS 
and DOD have had fewer successes in the repurposing of already-
existing DOD technologies for border and maritime security. CBP has an 
agreement with S&T to work with DOD on repurposing its technologies, 
such as laser scopes, radios, and surveillance equipment and DHS and 
DOD have tested some of these technologies in south Texas, but have 
identified several challenges with using the equipment. For example, 
the laser scopes used by DOD do not meet the eye safety requirements 
in place for federal law enforcement officers operating within U.S. 
borders. Second, radios that are developed by DOD for use in foreign 
countries do not always meet Federal Communications Commission 
requirements for use in the United States and cannot be easily 
reprogrammed. Additionally, use of certain surveillance aircraft used 
by DOD overseas is restricted in U.S. airspace and such aircraft 
therefore cannot be used by CBP. Officials from CBP's Office of Field 
Operations said that they were offered equipment from DOD, but were 
unable to acquire it because it did not meet specific CBP security 
requirements and was not compatible with CBP's existing operations and 
maintenance contracts. Specifically, Office of Field Operations 
officials said their office cannot service DOD's equipment with its 
existing vendor service contracts, and that operations and maintenance 
is a major factor in whether CBP can add something new to its fleet. 
For instance, officials from the Office of Field Operations said their 
office was offered DOD small X-ray vans. The office sent officials to 
inspect the vans and they concluded it would have required a 
substantial investment on CBP's part to get the vans into working 
condition and to upgrade them so that they could be integrated into 
CBP's existing fleet. DHS and DOD officials indicated that they would 
continue to work closely together to evaluate opportunities for 
integrating DOD equipment into DHS's homeland security efforts. 

DHS Uses Workshops and Other Means to Coordinate Efforts with the 
Private Sector, but Most Coordination Takes Place on a Project Level: 

S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO coordinate with the private sector on a 
project level, as well as through conferences, industry days, and 
workshops. S&T refers to its external coordination efforts as 
technology foraging and it identified several ways in which it 
coordinates its border and maritime R&D efforts with the private 
sector. The six BMD program managers we spoke with--who were 
responsible for managing projects resulting in 18 R&D deliverables and 
3 of BMD's current portfolios--said that at the start of every new 
project, they canvass industry experts to gather information on the 
current state of the art technologies, to gain expertise, and to 
identify where DHS's R&D efforts would be most beneficial. For 
example, as part of its project to research technologies to detect 
cross-border underground tunnels, BMD reached out to officials in the 
mining and oil industries to discuss their respective areas of 
expertise in using underground sensor systems. From this, BMD 
determined that the currently available technologies were not ideal 
for the type of detection capabilities DHS needed and used this 
information in developing a more effective sensor system for DHS. 

The Coast Guard also identified several avenues through which it 
coordinates with the private sector. For instance, the Coast Guard's 
RDT&E Program uses broad agency announcements to survey industry to 
learn what technologies are already available. The Coast Guard also 
uses cooperative research and development agreements under the 
Technology Transfer Act to partner with industry on R&D projects and 
in July 2013 reported having six such agreements underway. Further, 
since 2000, the Coast Guard RDT&E Program has participated in the 
Coast Guard Innovation Exposition, which has assisted in informing 
Coast Guard decision makers about research that is completed, 
underway, or planned. The Innovation Exposition was designed to 
provide a forum to exchange ideas and collaborate within the Coast 
Guard and with its government, industry, and academic partners. 
Because of budget constraints, the Coast Guard suspended the 
exposition beyond 2011 and has stated that it is reevaluating the 
goals and outcomes of the expositions in terms of their cost and 
benefits. 

DNDO reported engaging in similar forms of private industry outreach. 
For instance, DNDO hosts an annual industry day that is attended by 
officials from industry, academia, national laboratories, and others. 
As part of the industry day, DNDO reported collaborating with the 
private sector to discuss ways to enhance existing radiation detection 
devices and develop new technologies that will meet the needs of 
federal, state, and local law enforcement officials through programs 
such as the Commercial First initiative and the Graduated Radiation 
and Nuclear Detector Evaluation and Reporting program. DNDO officials 
reported signing an industry engagement policy in April 2013 which 
stated how DNDO plans to meet directly with vendors to learn about new 
technologies. The policy provides guidance and a standard operating 
procedure for DNDO employees on holding structured meetings with 
vendors and exchanging information when researching commercially 
available technologies. It also identifies fundamental procurement 
principles, and provides guidance for meeting with vendors and 
industry representatives. 

Beyond its project-level outreach, DHS S&T officials identified what 
they refer to as technology foraging as the directorate's approach for 
identifying and adapting already-available technologies in the private 
sector. In a draft June 2013 document, S&T stated that technology 
foraging is a formal and structured method for identifying 
technologies and research and that project managers should use this 
knowledge to, in part, conduct more informed project planning. To help 
integrate technology foraging into its regular project management, S&T 
established a Technology Foraging Office within its Research and 
Development Partnerships Group. S&T officials reported that staff from 
this office is available to provide technology foraging services to 
S&T project managers upon request. For example, in July 2013, S&T 
reported leveraging a coastal-weather radar system at the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to supplement software 
S&T developed that lets the Coast Guard sweep a bay with radar as a 
way to track small anonymous boats or other vessels that transport 
drugs or other illegal contraband. Further, S&T invested $11 million 
in a private, not-for-profit strategic investment firm designed to 
coordinate advances in commercial technologies with the needs of the 
U.S. intelligence and security communities. S&T officials reported 
that this investment was designed to support technology foraging 
efforts.[Footnote 35] 

Conclusions: 

Securing the nation's land borders and waterways is a complicated 
undertaking requiring many elements, including effective and 
coordinated R&D programs. Border and maritime R&D efforts at DHS in 
recent years have resulted in dozens of deliverables to various DHS 
components. But these products have had varying levels of impact on 
DHS's ability to acquire new security technologies or to advance its 
homeland security missions. Establishing timeframes and milestones for 
collecting and evaluating feedback from its customers on the 
usefulness and impact of the R&D projects and deliverables they 
receive could help S&T ensure that the technologies being developed 
and delivered to the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other DHS components are 
meeting customer needs and achieving their intended goals. Further, 
DHS has made progress leveraging the expertise and resources of 
academia through its Centers of Excellence, but has faced canceled and 
delayed projects in some areas because of a lack of data from DHS. By 
ensuring that potential challenges and limitations with regard to data 
quality, accessibility, and availability are reviewed and understood 
prior to approving projects, DHS can help ensure that it focuses its 
resources on those projects that are better positioned for success. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that DHS effectively manages and coordinates its border 
and maritime R&D efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security instruct the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to: 

* establish timeframes and milestones for collecting and evaluating 
feedback from its customers to determine the usefulness and impact of 
its R&D projects and deliverables, and use it to make better-informed 
decisions regarding future work, and: 

* ensure that design limitations with regard to data reliability, 
accessibility, and availability are reviewed and understood before 
approving Center of Excellence R&D projects. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for its review and comment. 
DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in full in 
appendix II, and concurred with our recommendations. DHS also 
described actions it plans to take to address the recommendations. 
Specifically, according to DHS, all DHS S&T project plans will be 
modified to require formalized feedback from its R&D customers at key 
project milestones, such as testing or transition of a deliverable. 
Further, to improve its consideration of potential data needs, access 
issues, and data limitations, DHS S&T plans to develop standard 
guidelines and protocols for all centers of excellence, which would 
describe, for example, how data sets must be modified to enable use in 
open-source, unrestricted research formats. DHS S&T also plans to 
encourage centers to voluntarily convene workshops to engage both 
researchers and DHS components to better understand constraints and to 
develop protocols for acquiring and using government data. DHS plans 
to complete these efforts by September 30, 2014. Such actions should 
address the overall intent of our recommendations. 

DHS also provided written technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested 
parties. This report is also available at no charge on GAO's website 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Border and Maritime 
List of Completed and Discontinued Research and Development (R&D) 
Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012: 

Table 8: List of United States Coast Guard - Homeland Security R&D 
Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012: 

United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) - Homeland Security Related 
Projects: 

Number: 1; 
Project name: Maritime Mass Rescue Interventions; 
Project description: Study of available interventions (methods and 
tools) for use by rescuers or good Samaritans in maritime mass rescue 
incidents; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $135,500. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: Automatic Identification System in Maritime Aids to 
Navigation Analysis; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks a more economical and 
efficient solution for active aids to navigation than the current 
radar beacons; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $167,173. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Automated Scene Understanding and Situational 
Awareness[C]; 
Project description: The command center watchstander is burdened with 
increasing quantities of maritime domain sensors and situational 
information; 
Product type[A]: Letter, Brief, Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $5,712,916. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Deepwater Horizon Response; 
Project description: The federal on scene commander requires 
investigation of various concepts/technologies to support spill 
response efforts with respect to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $33,784. 

Number: 5; 
Project name: Systematic Analysis of Deepwater Horizon Spill 
Response Technology; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks to improve understanding of 
how technologies worked in Deepwater Horizon and what opportunities 
for improvement should be pursued; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $263,309. 

Number: 6; 
Project name: Office of Naval Research Ship Stopping by Propeller 
Entanglement; 
Project description: The Coast Guard, DHS and Department of Defense 
(DOD) seek to improve capability to non-lethally stop a non compliant 
large vessel; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $75,779. 

Number: 7; 
Project name: Test and Evaluation for Weapons of Mass Destruction 
(WMD) Response Pilot Program; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks to evaluate function of 
first responders in pre-selected new WMD personal protective equipment; 
Product type[A]: Prototype Equipment and report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $5,502,743. 

Number: 8; 
Project name: Integration of Law Enforcement Databases into Coast 
Guard Biometric System; 
Project description: The Coast Guard law enforcement and intelligence 
communities lack single point of entry access to federal databases to 
support search and enroll during at sea biometrics; 
Product type[A]: Brief; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $810,195. 

Number: 9; 
Project name: Biometric Sector San Juan Helpdesk Support; 
Project description: Fast-paced proof of concept requires operational 
support to ensure the proper operation of prototype systems, adequate 
training, train the trainer, and collection of operational metrics; 
Product type[A]: Transition plan: pilot plan including concept of 
operations, instruction plan and quick reference guide; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,567,716. 

Number: 10; 
Project name: Secure Tactical Connectivity[C]; 
Project description: Coast Guard boarding teams seek to improve 
reliability of voice and data communications between boarded vessels 
and support commands; 
Product type[A]: Technology capabilities and alternative analysis, 
test and evaluation results; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $991,095. 

Number: 11; 
Project name: Non-Pyrotechnic Flashbang Grenade; 
Project description: Coast Guard tactical teams lack a diversionary 
device with the effects of conventional flashbangs without incurring 
secondary threats from excessive smoke or possible fire; 
Product type[A]: Market survey report, requirements definition report, 
and feasibility report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $355,958. 

Number: 12; 
Project name: Hidden Compartment Contraband Detection; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks to improve current 
capabilities to detect contraband in hidden compartments; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $217,916. 

Number: 13; 
Project name: Low Cost Swimmer Detection System[C]; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks low-cost underwater threat 
detection systems for protection of critical infrastructure; 
Product type[A]: None[D]; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $33,900. 

Number: 14; 
Project name: Barrier System Study Update; 
Project description: The information on current barrier technology 
countermeasures is not sufficient for decision making on their value 
in protecting High Value maritime assets from waterborne threats; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $60,168. 

Number: 15; 
Project name: Support for Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission 
Analyses; 
Project description: Coast Guard mission analysis reports guide future 
acquisition and mission development needs in the Arctic and Antarctic 
high latitude regions; 
Product type[A]: Analysis report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $2,300,502. 

Number: 16; 
Project name: Polar Icebreaker Business Case Analysis; 
Project description: No current summary of information is available to 
support decision makers with regards to the requirements, options, and 
cost of sustainment of the Coast Guard Polar icebreaking capability; 
Product type[A]: Independent report on a business case analysis, 
independent analysis, business case study, brief; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,658,048. 

Number: 17; 
Project name: Ultra-High Frequency Operational Communications; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks to improve the ultra-high 
frequency radio communications capability introduced by the Rescue 21 
system, affecting intra-Coast Guard communications as well as Coast 
Guard communications with other government agencies and port partners; 
Product type[A]: Brief and feasibility study; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $375,564. 

Number: 18; 
Project name: Blue Force Tracking; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks to improve the ability to 
track/identify its own assets and people automatically during various 
mission conditions; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $452,814. 

Number: 19; 
Project name: Fleet Mix Analysis-Phase 2; 
Project description: The Coast Guard seeks to develop fiscally 
constrained fleet mixes to support leadership decision making; 
Product type[A]: Case analysis; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $840,461. 

Number: 20; 
Project name: USCG Sensor Operational Performance Data; 
Project description: The Coast Guard lacks sensor performance data 
needed as input to simulation models used to support acquisitions and 
future force mix decisions; 
Product type[A]: Prototype Software and report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $2,926.743. 

Number: 21; 
Project name: Maritime Security Risk Analysis Methodology 
Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V); 
Project description: Understanding of how new explosive detection 
technologies and field operations can be effectively employed in the 
maritime environment; 
Product type[A]: IV&V and accreditation plan, IV&V report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $366,761. 

Number: 22; 
Project name: Analysis Support for Coast Guard Unmanned Aerial 
System Implementation; 
Project description: Coast Guard seeks to improve its understanding of 
how land-based unmanned aerial system can be operated to support its 
missions; 
Product type[A]: Execution plan, procurement plan, & lessons learned 
Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $981,916. 

Number: 23; 
Project name: Independent Analysis and Assessment of Fused Intel; 
Project description: The Coast Guard needs improved capability to 
effectively collect and correlate data and/or reduce data corruption 
from multiple inputs; 
Product type[A]: Independent assessment, field test and report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $571,905. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] The Coast Guard provided the product type. 

[B] Costs represent Total Project value, i.e., direct and government 
staff labor & overhead costs, and may contain multiple years of 
funding and funding prior to fiscal year 2010. Each project in the 
Coast Guard's Research Development Test and Evaluation Program 
portfolio is funded with a Research Development Test and Evaluation, 
Acquisitions, Construction & Improvement, or Operating Expenses 
appropriation. 

[C] DHS S&T was the project sponsor and Coast Guard R&D Center was the 
project executor. 

[D] S&T informed us they were the project manager and this resulted in 
a comparison report. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime 
Security Division (BMD) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 
2012: 

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security 
Division (BMD) Project Deliverables: 

Number: 1; 
Project name: Safe Quick Undercarriage Immobilization Device (SQUID); 
Project description: Prototype of a remotely operated mechanical 
vehicle stopping device; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $850,000. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: P25 Based Blue Force Tracking; 
Project description: Asset tracking capability that employs existing 
P25 radio infrastructure; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $250,000. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Smart Integration Manager Ontologically Networked 
(SIMON); 
Project description: SIMON is an integration platform for data-
producing systems, and an integration process for streamlining the 
modernization and modularization of new and existing systems; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $3,990,000. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Sensor Management System (SMS); 
Project description: A real-time sensor integration and distribution 
system. SMS is used to incorporate local and regional sensor data to 
help enhance track picture at command centers; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: Not Available. 

Number: 5; 
Project name: US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Riverine Airboat 
Ballistic Protection; 
Project description: Prototype riverine airboat system that provides 
ballistic protection to operators; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $376,000. 

Number: 6; 
Project name: Shipboard Automatic Identification System and Radar 
Contact Reporting System; 
Project description: Use participating maritime vessels as "additional 
eyes" to help detect and track other boats by exfiltrating vessel's on-
board radar data and relaying received automatic identification system 
messages via satellite link to a ground node; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $1,175,000. 

Number: 7; 
Project name: Maritime Asset Tag Tracking System; 
Project description: Provides communications of an unauthorized 
container door opening or tampering detection, along with tracking 
information, to a central data collection system; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $5,800,000. 

Number: 8; 
Project name: Container Security Device; 
Project description: Provides warning of unauthorized container door 
opening or tampering; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: [Empty]. 

Number: 9; 
Project name: Ground RADAR Comparison Testing; 
Project description: Provide CBP's Office of Technology Innovation and 
Acquisition (OTIA) with performance data and suitability information 
for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) radars that could be used on 
towers or Mobile Surveillance Systems for border surveillance. To be 
utilized for requirements development and procurement specifications; 
Product type[A]: Report on field tests; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $1,925,000. 

Number: 10; 
Project name: Wide Area Airborne Sensor System Testing; 
Project description: Report delivered to CBP and the Coast Guard on 
test and evaluation of the system in the Tucson Sector, to assist 
future acquisition assessment; 
Product type[A]: Report on field tests; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $373,171. 

Number: 11; 
Project name: Wide Area Airborne Sensor System Testing; 
Project description: Report delivered to CBP and the Coast Guard on 
test and evaluation of the system in the Tucson Sector, to assist 
future acquisition assessment; 
Product type[A]: Report on field tests; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $358,871. 

Number: 12; 
Project name: Wide Area Motion Imagery; 
Project description: Report delivered to CBP and the Coast Guard on 
test and evaluation of the system in the Tucson Sector, to assist 
future acquisition assessment; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $183,393. 

Number: 13; 
Project name: Aviation Scanner; 
Project description: Prototype system to examine the interior voids of 
light aircraft without removing panels or aircraft skin/covers; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $1,000,000. 

Number: 14; 
Project name: Tipsheet Review And Correlation EnhanceR; 
Project description: Software application that enables operators to 
quickly survey large areas of ocean and find vessels of interest; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: Not Available. 

Number: 15; 
Project name: Low-light Camera; 
Project description: Track low observable targets; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: Not Available. 

Number: 16; 
Project name: Container Security Test Bed; 
Project description: Technology to "sniff" maritime containers for 
materials of interest. The test bed is a spin-off being used by 
community for realistic testing of new cargo security technology; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $3,400,000. 

Number: 17; 
Project name: Viz Tools; 
Project description: Defined business process and user interface 
requirements for future operational requirements document; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $2,676,000. 

Number: 18; 
Project name: Tethered Aerostat Radar Adjunct Radar Processor System; 
Project description: Provides for the detection, tracking and 
reporting on vessel activity in the Mona Passage (strait between 
Puerto Rico and Hispaniola); 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $800,000. 

Number: 19; 
Project name: Mobile Surveillance System (MSS) Imager/Radar Upgrade; 
Project description: Retrofit kit to enhance radar, imager, and 
graphical user interface/mapping for CBP's current MSS units; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $2,500,000. 

Number: 20; 
Project name: Carrizo Cane; 
Project description: Research into the use of biological control agent 
to eliminate non-native weeds that create a security hazard along the 
southwest border. Included quarantine, rearing, and field deployment 
studies. The US Department of Agriculture is funding scale-up and 
deployment; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: Funding for projects may contain S & T and 
component funds: $3,000,000. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] Funding for projects may contain S&T and component funds. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) R&D Project 
Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012: 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Projects: 

Number: 1; 
Project name: Passive Detection of Shielded Special Nuclear Material 
(SNM); 
Project description: Development of a system of algorithms, 
intermediate-scale neutron and gamma-ray counters, and performance 
metrics to passively identify the presence of SNM by neutron-induced 
nuclear fission reactions that create bursts of many neutrons and gamma 
rays; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $6,436,314. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: Integrating Portal Monitors with 
Project description: Individual Source Identification, Tracking; 
Development of a portal-less monitor, the Roadside Tracker integrating 
both video and gamma ray imagining technology; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $6,732,483. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Contextually-Aware Expert-System for Automated Threat 
Assessment; 
Project description: Combine gamma and neutron measurements with non-
radiation and contextual information to vastly improve threat/non-
threat discrimination and radiation alarm resolution through the use 
of training tables and machine learning; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $6,087,722. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Physics and Algorithm Enhancements for a Validated 
MCNP/X Monte Carlo Simulation Tool; 
Project description: Develop and implement several key physics and 
algorithm enhancements in areas where the code was lacking, 
improvements in evaluated data and benchmark measurements for the 
MCNP/MCNPX Monte Carlo codes for active and passive detection systems; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $5,152,060. 

Number: 5; 
Project name: SoftWare for Optimization of Radiation Detectors; 
Project description: Development of an object-oriented and vertically-
integrated radiation transport simulation and analysis system and 
provides an end-to-end environment for simulating gamma-ray 
background, nuisance sources, and targets of interest; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $4,493,957. 

Number: 6; 
Project name: Detection of Heavily Shielded Nuclear Contraband through 
Muon Radiography with Advanced Micro-pattern Detectors; 
Project description: Development of a muon radiography proof of 
concept prototype that utilizes a gas electron multiplier detector, 
promising shorter interrogation time and better spatial resolution 
compared with more traditional passive portal systems that detect 
dense objects such as special nuclear material; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $748,671. 

Number: 7; 
Project name: Large Area X-ray Detector for Cargo Inspection; 
Project description: Development of a stacked array of cesium iodide 
panel detectors for significant improvement in detection capability 
for both contraband and special nuclear material at the required scan 
throughput; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $2,694,293. 

Number: 8; 
Project name: Data Fusion for Nuclear Threat Detection; 
Project description: Production of receiver/operator characteristic 
curves and analytical determination of the amount of, and the reasons 
for, improvements of decisions based on fused data rather than simple 
Boolean combinations of decisions; 
Product type[A]: Study; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $843,744. 

Number: 9; 
Project name: A Framework for Developing Novel Detection Systems 
Focused on Interdicting Shielded Helium Enriched Uranium (HEU); 
Project description: Demonstrate the ability to develop and deploy new 
detector concepts with fully integrated signal and information analysis 
to attain breakthrough improvements in the nation's ability to detect 
domestic nuclear threats through the smuggled HEU interdiction through 
enhanced analysis and detection framework, which comprises four 
research teams (areas) covering: detectors, systems analysis, radiation 
transport and inversion, and a social science and policy; 
Product type[A]: Software-modeling; 
$4,959,000. 

Number: 10; 
Project name: Interdicting Smuggled Nuclear Material; 
Project description: Development of interdiction models, solution 
algorithms, insights and specific recommendations for optimally 
prioritizing sites for locating radiation detectors to thwart an 
intelligent and informed smuggler of nuclear material over a global 
transportation network, and to develop tools for rapid computation of 
physics-based detection probabilities that parametrically address a 
range of detectors, types of special nuclear material, and local 
conditions that in concert determine detection probabilities; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,571,906. 

Number: 11; 
Project name: Multi-layered system level screening for port security; 
Project description: Explore how a systems approach can be used to 
design and analyze systems for detecting nuclear material at our 
nation's ports. The team developed a risk-based framework for 
screening cargo containers for nuclear material and developed an 
expert judgment tool to rank nuclear threat risk levels for incoming 
vessels; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $119,922. 

Number: 12; 
Project name: Stand-Off Radiation Detection System; 
Project description: Mobile passive detection systems with a goal of 
detection at a distance, 1mC at 100 meters. The unit has a backplane 
made of cesium iodide logs and a passive mask/antimask on either side 
enabling dual sided coded aperture imaging; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $5,466,047. 

Number: 13; 
Project name: Mobile Imaging and Spectroscopic Threat Identification; 
Project description: Mobile passive detection systems with a goal of 
detection at a distance, 1mC at 100m. The unit uses an array of high 
purity germanium (HPGe) detectors for high-resolution spectral 
triggering of the sodium iodide based coded aperture imager; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $9,733,776. 

Number: 14; 
Project name: Tri-Modal Imager; 
Project description: Mobile passive detection systems with a goal of 
detection at a distance, 1mC at 100m. The imager has a 2-dimensional 
active mask and backplane constructed from sodium iodide to provide 
coded aperture and Compton imaging capability; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $7,125,290. 

Number: 15; 
Project name: Integrated Muon Tomography, Gamma and Neutron Detector; 
Project description: Development of a proof of concept system that 
integrated both gamma detection and muon tomography for the detection 
of radiological/nuclear material; 
Product type[A]: Proof of concept; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $140,143. 

Number: 16; 
Project name: Target-Linked Radiation Imaging for Standoff Detection; 
Project description: Demonstrate the benefit of fusing target tracking 
data directly into radiation imaging algorithms by building a target-
linked radiation Imaging system that integrates a state-of-the-art 
video tracking system with advanced cadmium zinc telluride detector 
technology; 
Product type[A]: [Empty]; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $3,116,158. 

Number: 17; 
Project name: Advanced Technology Demonstration for Shielded Nuclear 
Alarm Resolution Program; 
Project description: Development of an active interrogation system for 
scanning cargo containers with a 9 MeV CW bremsstrahlung photon source 
capable of detecting high-Z utilizing prompt neutrons from 
photofission to detect the presence of fissionable material, and 
nuclear resonance fluorescence to identify isotopic content; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $17,541,191. 

Number: 18; 
Project name: Standalone Multiple Anomaly Recognition Technique 
Advanced Non Intrusive Inspection Algorithm; 
Project description: Development of an image processing algorithm to 
determine the most likely locations of contraband in radiographic 
images taken by nonintrusive inspection systems of cargo containers; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,079,335. 

Number: 19; 
Project name: High Yield Pulsed Neutron Generator; 
Project description: Development of pulsed neutron generator using the 
deuterium-deuterium reaction with a high average yield and pulse 
lengths varying from 100 microseconds to 2 microsecond with a fall 
time of less than 1 microsecond; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,114,300. 

Number: 20; 
Project name: Intelligent Radiation Sensor System--General Electric; 
Project description: Demonstrate the advanced technologies required to 
improve the ability to detect, localize, and identify radiological 
sources by integrating data from multiple portable radiation detectors. 
In the system, small networked detectors transmit radiation data and 
their location to a base station, which fuses data from all detectors 
and determines if detection has occurred. If a source has been 
detected, the system then uses the available information to locate and 
identify the source. This information is transmitted back to the 
user(s) in the array. The system takes into account directional 
detectors; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $8,058,598. 

Number: 21; 
Project name: Intelligent Radiation Sensor System--Passport Systems; 
Project description: Demonstrate the advanced technologies required to 
improve the ability to detect, localize, and identify radiological 
sources by integrating data from multiple portable radiation detectors. 
In this system, small networked detectors coupled with a smart phone 
processor system. The smart phone is used to gather data from nearby 
neighbors and perform a local particle filter calculation. These 
results are passed to the user and the neighboring detectors. If a base 
station is employed, the results are sent to a base station; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $7,832,542. 

Number: 22; 
Project name: Intelligent Radiation Sensor System--Smith Systems; 
Project description: Demonstrate the advanced technologies required to 
improve the ability to detect, localize, and identify radiological 
sources by integrating data from multiple portable radiation detectors. 
In this system, small networked detectors transmit radiation data and 
their location to a base station, which uses a number of algorithms to 
determine if detection has occurred. Their primary algorithm is a 
particle filter. If detection has occurred, the system attempts to 
location and identify the source using a series of algorithms. This 
system employs an ultra wide band networking method that allows 3-
dimensional positioning in a Global Positioning System-denied 
environment; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $4,900,906. 

Number: 23; 
Project name: Web-Based Computer Simulation of Radiological Detection 
Scenario Training; 
Project description: Container Security Initiative will take an 
existing simulation development tool, assess the feasibility of 
creating two virtual working detectors, create a new web-based 
interface where the detectors can be virtually controlled, and 
establish the web-delivery and administration software specifications 
for this new approach to training on these instruments; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,113,500. 

Number: 24; 
Project name: Realistic and Adaptive Interactive Learning System; 
Project description: Propose an innovative approach that brings all of 
these elements together to develop simulation software that provides 
physically realistic and effective preventative radiation/nuclear 
detection training to first responders by first adding radiation 
transport algorithms to an existing video game engine which will be 
used to generate training scenarios based on real locations, and then 
testing the accuracy of those simulations by comparing the virtual 
environment with data collected from real world measurements; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,153,254. 

Number: 25; 
Project name: Near Term Replacement for Large Helium-3 Tubes; 
Project description: Development and characterization of portal-sized 
neutron detector modules consisting of layers of 6LiF/ZnS scintillating 
materials and wavelength shifting fibers; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $562,115. 

Number: 26; 
Project name: Development of a 3/6/9 MeV X-ray Generator; 
Project description: Development of a next generation X-ray generator 
that can deliver photon energies of 3, 6, and 9 MeV in discrete and 
interleaved modes at a repetition rate of 800-1000 Hertz in the x-band 
microwave frequency; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,113,500. 

Number: 27; 
Neutron Straw-Based Replacement for Advanced Spectroscopic Portal 
(ASP) and Radiation Portal Monitors(RPM) Helium-3 detectors; 
Project description: Development of portal monitor replacements using 
boron-coated straw proportional counters embedded in a moderator; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $501,075. 

Number: 28; 
Project name: High Sensitivity Detection and Identification of 
Radiological Threats in Low Scatter-to Clutter Ratio Environments; 
Project description: Develop and demonstrate novel radiological 
background characterization approaches that will improve the detection 
capability of both fixed, passive ASP systems, as well as handheld and 
moviel isotope identifiers. Capability will be directly demonstrated by 
integrating these algorithms with RadSeeker detector technology. These 
algorithms will result in the ability to perform clutter suppression 
yielding de-noised gamma-ray signatures of significantly higher 
accuracy needed for detection and identification of low activity 
threats; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $466,035. 

Number: 29; 
Project name: Cost Effective Neutron Straw-Based Replacement for ASP 
and RPM Helium-3 detectors; 
Project description: Development of large diameter boron-coated straws 
embedded in a moderator as a cost-effective replacement for helium-3 
in radiation portal monitors; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $442,976. 

Number: 30; 
Project name: RadMATE - a Mobile RAD/NUC Reachback App; 
Project description: Development of a smart phone application that 
DNDO calls RadMATE. The vision for RadMATE is to be available to 
operators in the field primarily to simplify and expedite Reachback, 
but additionally to provide needed information (e.g. tables to 
classify sources as innocent or of major concern) and operating 
procedures when a radiological source is encountered in the field. 
This will considerably minimize the burden on operators and eliminate 
the need for a specialized laptop computer with custom Reachback 
software. It will also ensure that Reachback communications are 
consistent, complete and more accurate; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $168,513. 

Number: 31; 
Project name: Spectroscopic Portal, Active Interrogation, Radiography 
Threat Alarming; 
Project description: Development of a Smartphone application for 
radiological threat adjudication to support law enforcement and first 
responder adjudication of anomalous gamma ray spectra collected on 
handheld or personal radioisotope identification and spectroscopic 
personal radiation detector devices; 
Product type[A]: Software-algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $169,335. 

Number: 32; 
Project name: Non-Radioactive Alternative to Replace Radioactive 
Sources in Commercial Applications; 
Project description: Design, build, test, and evaluate an engineering 
prototype neutron generator for Am-Be replacement that is to scale and 
function to simulate ruggedness and suitability for borehole 
applications; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $817,178. 

Number: 33; 
Project name: Proof of Concept Demonstration of a Compact Accelerator; 
Project description: Research and development to design, build, and 
demonstrate use of a portable, cost efficient electron accelerator for 
non-intrusive inspection and verification applications; 
Product type[A]: Prototype; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,392,875. 

Number: 34; 
Project name: Bayesian Optimization Algorithm for Automated Spectral 
Identification of Nuclear Material; 
Project description: Idea is to apply large-scale optimization 
algorithms (branch and bound) to mixture analysis, use a Bayesian 
network to incorporate expert knowledge into optimization algorithms, 
and demonstrate measurable performance gains in RN ID for various 
detector materials; 
Product type[A]: Software-Algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $820,593. 

Number: 35; 
Project name: Advanced Technology Research Algorithms for Shielded 
Nuclear Material Detection; 
Project description: Developing a set of algorithms to locate high-Z 
material in radiography images; 
Product type[A]: Software-Algorithms; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $985,022. 

Number: 36; 
Project name: Study of Fast Neutron Signatures and Measurement 
Techniques for Shield Nuclear Material (SNM) Detection; 
Project description: Study investigating the benefits of fast vs. 
thermal neutron signatures for detection of SNM in passive 
applications; will explore different types of detectors (high pressure 
He-4, single crystal organic scintillators, and plastics), sources (Cf-
252, gamma), backgrounds, and cargos (represented by moderators); 
Product type[A]: Study; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $291,114. 

Source: DHS. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) R&D Project 
Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012: 

S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) Projects: 

Number: 1; 
Project name: The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Changes in Wait Times 
at Ports of Entry; 
Project description: The Impact on the U.S. economy of changes in wait 
times at ports of entry; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $200,000. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: Analytical Method to Identify the Number of Containers 
to Inspect at U.S. Ports to Deter Terrorist Attacks; 
Project description: Analytical method to identify the number of 
containers to inspect at U.S. ports to deter terrorist attacks; 
Product type[A]: Published report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $80,000. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons in Container 
Freight Through Detection and Retaliation; 
Project description: Deterring the smuggling of nuclear weapons in 
container freight through detection and retaliation; 
Product type[A]: Published report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $80,000. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Application of the Advanced Circulation Coastal 
Circulation Model for Predicting Near Shore and Inner Shore Transport 
of Oil from the Horizon Oil Spill; 
Project description: This rapid response project adapted the center's 
storm surge models to forecast oil landfall during the Gulf Coast 
Horizon Oil Spill. The work was coordinated with Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
Product type[A]: Report, software, training; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $300,000. 

Number: 5; 
Project name: Coast Guard Search and Rescue Visual Analytics; 
Project description: Coast Guard Search and Rescue Visual Analytics-
interactive resource allocation tool for search and rescue missions 
and stations; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $500,000. 

Number: 6; 
Project name: Boat Allocation Module; 
Project description: Boat Allocation Module--operations research 
resource allocation capability for Coast Guard boat stations; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $150,000. 

Number: 7; 
Project name: Maritime Risk; 
Project description: Risk analysis for maritime traffic in Delaware 
River; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $600,000. 

Number: 8; 
Project name: Fisheries Law Enforcement; 
Project description: Targeted risk-based decision support tool for 
Coast Guard operations; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $350,000. 

Number: 9; 
Project name: Migrant Population Characteristics and Flows; 
Project description: This study has sought to develop new statistics 
that will significantly improve understanding of both the level of 
legal and illegal immigration through the United States. and the 
specific demographic attributes of these individuals, and thus enable 
better informed decision making regarding public services usage, 
criminal activity, and immigrant assimilation; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $206,000. 

Number: 10; 
Project name: Checkpoint Study; 
Project description: Provides Office of Border Patrol recommendations 
for improved data collection, performance metrics, community impact 
assessment and resource allocation tools; 
Product type[A]: Report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $1,000,000. 

Number: 11; 
Project name: How Will We Know?: Measures of Border Control; 
Project description: The project's goal is to recommend a ¯standard 
for border enforcement effectiveness based on a review of existing 
research, interviews with Border Patrol and other DHS personnel, and an 
assessment of the available data; 
Product type[A]: Analysis/report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $87,875. 

Number: 12; 
Project name: Organization and Networks of Transnational Gangs; 
Project description: The two primary objectives of this study 
include: (1) further understanding the organizational structure and 
sophistication of transnational criminal gangs and their capacity to 
facilitate mobility and migration through Mexico into the United 
States; and (2) further understanding the dynamic social networks of 
transnational criminal gangs and their capacity to facilitate mobility 
and migration through Mexico into the United States; 
Product type[A]: Study/report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $228,378. 

Number: 13; 
Project name: Risk-based Allocation of Border Security Assets; 
Project description: The methods and tools offer approaches to 
allocating border security assets based on criteria of risk. In this 
project, we asked: what risk-based resource allocation approaches are 
most effective and how does effectiveness depend on the operational 
environment; 
Product type[A]: Study/report; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $224,181. 

Number: 14; 
Project name: Decision Support Systems; 
Project description: Software for data display and fusion was enhanced; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $457,512. 

Number: 15; 
Project name: Satellite Detection and Tracking of Ships and Ice; 
Project description: We have produced near-real-time sea ice imagery 
and sea ice concentration products. These products are critical aids to 
operating ships safely in regions where sea ice (and potentially marine 
mammals) represent hazards; 
Product type[A]: Prototype. 

Number: 16; 
Project name: Ship Detection using Multi/Hyperspectral Images; 
Project description: Analysis of imagery and development of software 
for sensor information and anomaly detections; 
Product type[A]: Software/report. 

Number: 17; 
Project name: Satellite Detection and Tracking of Ships; 
Project description: Software for constellation optimization was 
developed and evaluated; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: (for #15, 16, 17) $851,000. 

Number: 18; 
Project name: PROTECT: Port Resilience Operational 
Project description: Tactical Enforcement to Combat Terrorism; 
Randomized inspection scheduling tool for Coast Guard surveillance 
operations; 
Product type[A]: Software; 
Total Project Cost[B]: $813,845[D]. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] This project was co-funded between OUP grant monies and RDC RDT&E 
funding. RDC is the USCG Project Manager and obtained support from OUP 
COEs using Basic Ordering Agreement task orders to develop and test 
software prototype. OUP contribution to software development is 
complete. However, USCG PROTECT software development and testing is 
ongoing. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: List of DHS Discontinued Border and Maritime R&D Projects 
for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012: 

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security 
Division (BMD): 

Number: 1; 
Project name: Border and Maritime Systems Basic Research; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reduced funding and strategic move to 
reduce basic research; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: Complex Systems Analysis and Basic Research; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reduced funding and strategic move to 
reduce basic research; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Can Scan; 
Reason for discontinuation: Stopped at preliminary review due to lack 
of CBP acquisition funding; 
Project costs[A]: $13 million. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Safe Container; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reduced funding in fiscal year 2012; 
Project costs[A]: $20 million. 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO): 

Number: 1; 
Project name: Mapping isotopic distributions in cargo (FINDER) to 
detect Special Nuclear Material and its configuration; 
Reason for discontinuation: Technology found not feasible; 
Project costs[A]: $4,780,427. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: Directed-Radiation for Active-Interrogation near 
Coastal Cities; 
Reason for discontinuation: Technology found not feasible; 
Project costs[A]: $2,190,600. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Shielded Nuclear Alarm Resolution System; 
Reason for discontinuation: Technology found not feasible; 
Project costs[A]: $7,462,370. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Intensity-Modulated Advanced X-Ray Source; 
Reason for discontinuation: Technology found not feasible; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 5; 
Project name: A Fast Pulse, Portable Neutron Source for Special 
Nuclear Materials Detection; 
Reason for discontinuation: Technology found not feasible; 
Project costs[A]: $557,143. 

Number: 6; 
Project name: Demonstration of Close Proximity Gravity Detection for 
Shielded Fissile Materials in Vessels; 
Reason for discontinuation: Technology found not feasible; 
Project costs[A]: $440,229. 

S&T Office of University Programs (OUP): 

Number: 1; 
Project name: Reduction of False Alarm Rates; 
Reason for discontinuation: Data not provided by DHS at 
sector/headquarters level--Principle Investigator (PI) did not make 
progress in finding alternate testing data; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 2; 
Project name: Fusion of Spatial-Temporal Sensor Data; 
Reason for discontinuation: PI did not make progress--lack of adequate 
funding; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 3; 
Project name: Dynamic Resource Allocation Using Market-based Methods; 
Reason for discontinuation: PI did not make progress--lack of 
adequate funding; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 4; 
Project name: Border Security Risk Assessment and Maturity Model; 
Reason for discontinuation: PI did not make progress; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 5; 
Project name: K-12 Summer Seminar Camps; 
Reason for discontinuation: Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as 
focus shifted to higher education; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 6; 
Project name: Maritime Domain Awareness Curricular Sequence; 
Reason for discontinuation: Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as 
focus shifted to higher education; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 7; 
Project name: Preparing Rural and Alaska Native Students for DHS 
Careers; 
Reason for discontinuation: Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as 
focus shifted to higher education; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 8; 
Project name: Advanced High Frequency Radar Design: An integrative 
Approach of Novel Antennas, Propagation Modeling, and Digital Signal 
Processing Performance Optimization Algorithms; 
Reason for discontinuation: Discontinued by Center for Island, 
Maritime, and Extreme Environment Security (CIMES) Director when 
antennas seemed unlikely candidates for transition to stakeholders; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 9; 
Project name: Project 2.1: Resiliency Modeling; 
Reason for discontinuation: Insufficient funding; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 10; 
Project name: Project 2.2: Resilient and Cognitive Port Infrastructure 
Systems and Enterprises; 
Reason for discontinuation: Insufficient funding; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 11; 
Project name: Estimates of the Unauthorized Population and Visa 
Overstays; 
Reason for discontinuation: PI opted out; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 12; 
Project name: Effective Bi-national Border Security Governance; 
Reason for discontinuation: No progress made towards tangible outcomes; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 13; 
Project name: CIMES Summer Undergraduate Research Program and Visiting 
Faculty; 
Reason for discontinuation: Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as 
focus shifted to higher education; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 14; 
Project name: Pattern Analyses from Remote Sensing Data; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reason for discontinuation not provided; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 15; 
Project name: Detection and Tracking of Hidden Objects; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reason for discontinuation not provided; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 16; 
Project name: Wireless Sensor Network Development; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reason for discontinuation not provided; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 17; 
Project name: Sensor Fusion for Intent and Hotspot Detection; 

Reason for discontinuation: Reason for discontinuation not provided; 

Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 18; 
Project name: Vehicle Detection, Identification and Screening; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reason for discontinuation not provided; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Number: 19; 
Project name: Extended Battery Life for Sensor Networks; 
Reason for discontinuation: Reason for discontinuation not provided; 
Project costs[A]: Not Available. 

Source: DHS. 

[A] Due to the nature of funding of R&D and grant funding, individual 
project costs were not readily available. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

September 13, 2013: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-13-732, "Department of Homeland Security: 
Opportunities Exist to Better Evaluate and Coordinate Border and 
Maritime Research and Development" 

Dear Mr. Maurer: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate mission is to 
strengthen America's security and resiliency by providing knowledge 
products and innovative technology solutions for the Homeland Security 
Enterprise (HSE). S&T does this by: 

* focusing operationally by providing the HSE with strategic and 
focused technology options and operational process enhancements, 

* providing innovative systems-based solutions to complex homeland 
security problems, and. 

* building partnerships with the technical depth and reach to 
discover, adapt, and leverage technology solutions developed by 
federal agencies and laboratories; state, local, and tribal 
governments; and the private sector—across the United States and 
internationally. 

The draft report contained two recommendations, with which DHS 
concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security instruct the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to: 

Recommendation 1: Establish timeframes and milestones for collecting 
and evaluating feedback from its customers to determine the usefulness 
and impact of its R&D projects and deliverables, and use it to make 
better-informed decisions regarding future work. 

Response: Concur. In support of its mission to provide knowledge 
products and innovative technology solutions for the HSE, S&T's 
project managers, as a standard business practice, routinely seek and 
provide opportunities to gather customer feedback during project 
execution. Timely and pertinent situational awareness on all projects 
is ensured by encouraging customers to participate in design reviews, 
prototype tests, and demonstrations for the expressed purpose of 
gathering feedback for current development projects. For example, when 
prototypes are first fielded, they are typically operated by customers 
(i.e., end-users, not developers) in operational settings for extended 
periods of time. User feedback is sought and modifications are made on 
the basis of customer experiences and the refinement of operational 
requirements. 

Feedback to guide future work is also gathered at the DHS S&T annual 
portfolio review, which includes stakeholders and customers. S&T is 
also developing R&D Strategies with DHS Components and will update 
them annually on the basis of customer feedback. In addition, by March 
31, 2014, all S&T project plans will be modified to include a 
milestone requiring formalized feedback from its customers. This 
milestone will be tied to a significant project event (e.g., Go/No 
Decisions, Test, Deliverable/Transition, etc.), but will be completed 
at least annually. The feedback obtained will be used to make better 
informed decisions for the associated project and future R&D efforts. 

S&T has also established and is implementing a Project Management 
Guide to enhance overall project management at all stages of 
development. As recognized in the draft GAO report, a Customer Survey 
Template is included as an appendix in the Guide. This survey will be 
completed by customers at the conclusion of the project to inform 
future R&D projects. Estimated Completion Date (ECD): September 30, 
2014. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure that design limitations with regard to data 
reliability, accessibility, and availability are reviewed and 
understood before approving Center of Excellence R&D projects. 

Response: Concur. DHS agrees it should carefully consider potential 
data needs, access issues, and data limitations before approving 
Center of Excellence (COE) projects and S&T's Office of University 
Programs has already made significant strides to strengthen efforts in 
this regard. For example, its current standard practice is to restrict 
project funding until the COEs submit detailed work plans and 
requisite supporting materials, including the agreement of a DHS 
Component to provide any required support personnel, facilities, or 
data. 

To further facilitate the COEs' access to DHS information, including 
investigator-initiated projects, S&T is working to develop standard 
guidelines and protocols that would apply universally to all COEs. 
These protocols will describe how data sets must be modified to enable 
their use in open-source, unrestricted research formats by making 
anonymous specific references to individuals, locations, demographic 
characteristics, or law enforcement issues. To improve information 
access, S&T is also encouraging COEs to voluntarily convene workshops 
that will engage both researchers and DHS Components to better 
understand constraints to and develop protocols for acquiring and 
using government data. ECD: September 30, 2014. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Chris Currie (Assistant 
Director), Aditi Archer, Charlotte Gamble, and Gary Malavenda made key 
contributions to this report, and Michele Fejfar, Robert Fletcher, and 
Richard Hung assisted with design and methodology. Frances Cook 
provided legal support. Jessica Orr and Eric Hauswirth provided 
assistance in report preparation. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 302,116 
Stat. 2135, 2163-64 (codified as amended at 6 U.S.C. § 182). 

[2] H.R. Rep. No. 112-91, at 126-27 (2011). 

[3] 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). 

[4] GAO, Border Security: DHS's Progress and Challenges in Securing 
U.S. Borders, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-414T] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2013). 

[5] GAO, Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on 
Plans and Costs Is Needed before Proceeding, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-222] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 
2011). 

[6] GAO, Supply Chain Security: DHS Should Test and Evaluate Container 
Security Technologies Consistent with All Identified Operational 
Scenarios to Ensure the Technologies Will Function as Intended, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-887] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 29, 2010). 

[7] GAO, Maritime Security: Responses to Questions for the Record, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-140R] (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 22, 2010). 

[8] National Academy of Sciences, "Best Practices in Assessment of 
Research and Development Organizations." The National Academies Press, 
(Washington, D.C.: 2012). Project Management Institute, A Guide to the 
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Fifth Edition, 
(Newton Square, PA: 2013). 

[9] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005), and GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G] (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

[10] These divisions are the Borders and Maritime Division, the 
Chemical/Biological Defense Division, the Cyber Security Division, the 
Explosives Division, and the Resilient Systems Division (which was 
formerly two separate divisions-Human Factors and Infrastructure 
Protection and Disaster Management). 

[11] As defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (OMB 
Circular No. A-11 Section 84), 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 toward 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. 
Developmental research 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. 

[12] The centers were established by the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, as amended (6 U.S.C. § 188(b)(2)(A)), which states, "The 
Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and 
Technology, shall designate a university-based center or several 
university based centers for homeland security. The purpose of the 
center or these centers shall be to establish a coordinated, 
university-based system to enhance the Nation's homeland security." 

[13] Two other centers, Coastal Hazards and Visual and Data Analytics, 
have also conducted research in support of the Coast Guard. Given the 
scope of our audit, we did not interview officials with these centers. 

[14] Annual progress reviews may result in several outcomes, from no 
changes to a center to corrective actions or reduction in funding. The 
Office of University Programs also conducts a formal midterm review 
with subject matter experts to decide, among other things, which 
research areas will be continued. A cooperative agreement is a legally 
binding agreement that establishes terms and conditions (such as what 
work will be completed and when), as well as roles and 
responsibilities. 

[15] When the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the Coast 
Guard to the newly established DHS, it provided that the Coast Guard 
is to be maintained as a distinct entity within the department and 
that the authorities, functions, and capabilities of the Coast Guard 
to perform its missions are to be maintained intact. Pub. L. No. 107-
296, § 888, 116 Stat. 2135, 2249 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 468). 

[16] The Coast Guard's 11 major missions are (1) ports, waterways, and 
coastal security; (2) drug interdiction; (3) aids to navigation; (4) 
search and rescue; (5) living marine resources; (6) marine safety; (7) 
defense readiness; (8) migrant interdiction; (9) marine environmental 
protection; (10) ice operations; and (11) other law enforcement. 

[17] DNDO was established by National Security Presidential Directive 
43, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 14, and the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act). Pub. L. No. 
109-347, § 501(a), 120 Stat. 1884, 1932 (codified at 6 U.S.C. §§ 591-
596). 

[18] See 6 U.S.C. § 592 (codifying the DNDO mission as including a 
number of R&D activities, including conducting an "aggressive, 
expedited, evolutionary, and transformational program of research and 
development"). 

[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-837].  

[20] These amounts are a portion of the costs and are likely 
understated, as BMD was unable to provide GAO with cost information of 
specific transitions because of shared costs, and specific projects 
costs were not available for all Centers of Excellence by project. 

[21] S&T defines a transition as a project output that is provided to 
a customer (such as CBP) that it puts into operational use and for 
which it assumes all of the operation and maintenance costs. All other 
project outputs provided to customers are called deliverables. 

[22] The global nuclear detection architecture is an integrated system 
of radiation detection equipment and interdiction activities to combat 
nuclear smuggling in foreign countries, at the U.S. border, and inside 
the United States. 

[23] Multimodal Automated Resolution, Location and Identification of 
Nuclear Material (MARLIN)--the project seeks to optimize and 
characterize the ability of emerging technology to clear benign 
vehicles and containerized cargo of nuclear and radiological threats 
regardless of the shielding level in primary mode--the project costs 
approximately $17.5 million. 

[24] The two projects were the Shipboard Automatic Identification 
System and Radar Contact Reporting System. 

[25] National Academy of Sciences, Best Practices in Assessment of 
Research and Development Organizations.2012. 

[26] Project Management Institute Inc., A Guide to the Project 
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Fifth Edition, (Newton 
Square, PA: 2013). All rights reserved. 

[27] In the integrated product teams, S&T officials interface directly 
with technology end users regarding their capability gaps and efforts 
already taken to address them. The integrated product teams were a 
formal institution under S&T's previous Under Secretary, but were 
since disbanded and are now maintained informally only in select topic 
areas. 

[28] A technology transfer agreement is a non-binding agreement 
between participants to pursue common objectives and execute programs 
toward mutually beneficial objectives. A technology transfer agreement 
describes the following: customer operational need, desired 
deliverable(s) to meet this need, high level technical requirements, 
project schedule and funding, transition approach, and integration 
strategy. 

[29] The Coast Guard's annual workshops focus on defined gap areas, 
such as underwater security needs or cyber security. The workshops are 
attended by high ranking Coast Guard officials, DHS and Department of 
Defense officials, experts in the particular topic, and anyone else 
with a vested interest (such as recreational boating groups). 

[30] Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that 
is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when 
the organizations act alone. Further, we have reported that agencies 
can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by defining and 
articulating common outcomes, identifying and addressing needs by 
leveraging resources, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. 

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-837]. 

[32] Under the terms and conditions of a cooperative agreement, 
university center researchers are prohibited from using or generating 
sensitive or classified information. However, centers operating under 
contracts managed directly by the component agencies, such as a Basic 
Ordering Agreement, could issue task orders to the centers of 
excellence that could include conditions allowing the sharing of 
sensitive information. 

[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G]. 

[34] We received obligations data for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, 
funding data for fiscal year 2012, and projected funding data for 
fiscal year 2013. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-837]. 

[35] In addition to its technology foraging and investments, officials 
from BMD presented at numerous international conferences in 2012, 
including an April 2012 US-Canada border security summit; a May 2012 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization symposium on port and regional 
maritime security in Lerici, Italy; and a June 2012 workshop on 
innovation in border control in Copenhagen, Denmark. 

[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]