This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-332 
entitled 'Homeland Security Acquisitions: DHS Could Better Manage Its 
Portfolio to Address Funding Gaps and Improve Communications with 
Congress' which was released on April 17, 2014. 

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 Congressional Requesters: 

April 2014: 

Homeland Security Acquisitions: 

DHS Could Better Manage Its Portfolio to Address Funding Gaps and 
Improve Communications with Congress: 

GAO-14-332: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-332, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Each year, DHS invests billions of dollars in major acquisition 
programs. In fiscal year 2013 alone, DHS reported it was investing 
more than $9.6 billion in its major acquisition portfolio. In the 
past, GAO has identified shortcomings in DHS's ability to manage its 
major acquisitions. In September 2012, GAO reported that the most 
prevalent challenge facing DHS's major acquisition programs was 
funding instability—-changes in programs' funding plans over time. 
Funding instability increases the risk of cost growth, schedule slips, 
and capability shortfalls. 

In response to congressional requests, this report addresses (1) the 
prevalence of funding instability at DHS and its effects on major 
acquisition programs, if any; (2) the extent to which DHS develops 
multi-year funding plans in accordance with key portfolio management 
practices; and (3) the extent to which DHS has complied with reporting 
requirements for major acquisition programs' multi-year funding plans. 
GAO reviewed DHS's three most recent annual funding plans and funding 
and acquisition decisions, interviewed headquarters and component 
officials, and solicited input from 35 of DHS's largest acquisition 
program offices. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO found that the funding plans for all 35 of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) acquisition programs it reviewed changed to 
some degree from fiscal years 2012 to 2014, though the instability 
affected some programs more than others. Program officials reported 
that funding instability negatively affected 17 of the 35 programs, 
contributing to schedule slips, cost growth, and capability 
reductions. DHS officials at headquarters, components, and program 
offices identified internal and external factors that contributed to 
funding instability. These included changes in department-wide 
priorities and congressional funding decisions. Going forward, DHS's 
largest acquisition programs will likely experience more funding 
instability because the department's plans for its acquisition 
portfolio are not currently affordable. In December 2012, DHS issued 
an internal memo stating that the department's aggregate 5-year 
funding requirements for its major acquisition programs exceeded 
expected resources by 30 percent. This acknowledgment was a positive 
step toward addressing the department's funding gap, and DHS has 
established a full-funding certification requirement to help address 
it. Nevertheless, the department has not approved most of its major 
acquisition programs' cost estimates. As a result, DHS's understanding 
of its major acquisition programs' funding requirements is limited, 
and the funding gap may be greater than the department has suggested. 

DHS has not consistently developed its multi-year funding plans in 
accordance with key portfolio management practices that would help the 
department optimize the return on its acquisition investments. DHS's 
resource allocation guidance reflects some but not all of these key 
practices, and the department is working to address the shortfalls. In 
addition, the 30 percent funding gap indicates that DHS leadership has 
not effectively prioritized its acquisition needs, even though the 
department's resource allocation guidance fully reflects this key 
practice. To help address its funding issues, the department is 
piloting a four-pronged portfolio management initiative intended to 
provide a framework for information to flow between four key councils 
and boards. As identified in the table below, there are opportunities 
for DHS leadership to improve governance in each of these four 
management areas, but senior DHS officials do not expect the 
initiative will be fully implemented in the near term, so it is too 
soon to tell how effective it will be. 

Table: Opportunities for DHS Leadership to Improve Governance in Four 
Management Areas: 

Strategic Direction: 
Provide planning guidance each year. 

Requirements Reviews: 
Establish priorities across functional portfolios. 

Resource Allocation: 
Recommend tradeoffs across DHS's major acquisition portfolio. 

Program Governance: 
Assess program-specific affordability tradeoffs. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of table] 

DHS has met statutory reporting requirements for its major acquisition 
programs' multi-year funding plans through its annual Future Years 
Homeland Security Program reports. However, the department has 
opportunities to improve how it communicates its acquisition funding 
needs to Congress in the future. Most notably, DHS does not currently 
link its major acquisition programs to the homeland security strategy, 
and its annual report does not identify acquisition programs' funding 
gaps. Adding this information would provide Congress valuable insights 
into DHS's acquisition funding needs. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends DHS take nine actions to better manage its portfolio 
and improve communications with Congress. DHS concurred with GAO's 
recommendations and stated that it addressed one in March 2014. DHS 
presented plans to address the other eight, but GAO does not believe 
the plan for one of them is fully responsive. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-332]. For more 
information, contact Michele Mackin at (202) 512-4841 or 
mackinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Many DHS Acquisition Program Offices Attribute Poor Performance to 
Funding Instability, Which Could Worsen in the Future: 

Key Portfolio Management Practices Could Help DHS Manage Its 
Acquisition Funding Gap: 

DHS Has Met Statutory FYHSP Reporting Requirements, but It Could 
Better Communicate Acquisition Funding Needs to Congress: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Key Portfolio Management Practices: 

Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Assessment of DHS's Resource Allocation Guidance against 
GAO's Key Portfolio-Management Practices: 

Table 2: GAO Assessment of DHS's Efforts to Meet Statutory FYHSP 
Reporting Requirements: 

Table 3: Dates DHS Submitted Budget Requests and FYHSP Reports to 
Congress: 

Table 4: Planned, Requested, Enacted, and Revised Enacted Funding 
Levels Presented in the Acquisition Funding Plan Charts: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: DHS's Annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution 
Process: 

Figure 2: DHS Acquisition Life Cycle: 

Figure 3: DHS's Acquisition Management Structure: 

Figure 4: Risk MAP's Funding Plan--Changes from Fiscal Years 2012-2014: 

Figure 5: Causes and Effects of Funding Instability Commonly Cited by 
DHS Officials: 

Figure 6: GAO-Identified Opportunities for Governance Bodies in DHS's 
IILCM Initiative: 

Figure 7: Proportion of Major Acquisition Programs Identified in 
Recent FYHSP Reports: 

Figure 8: Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): 

Figure 9: Border Patrol Facilities: 

Figure 10: Facilities Management & Engineering (FM&E) Tactical 
Infrastructure: 

Figure 11: Land Border Integration (LBI): 

Figure 12: Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Systems Program: 

Figure 13: Strategic Air and Marine Plan (STAMP): 

Figure 14: Mobile Assets Program (MAP): 

Figure 15: Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN): 

Figure 16: Infrastructure Transformation Program (ITP): 

Figure 17: Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning (Risk MAP): 

Figure 18: IT Infrastructure: 

Figure 19: National Cybersecurity and Protection System (NCPS): 

Figure 20: Next Generation Network Priority Service (NGN-PS): 

Figure 21: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
Technology (US-VISIT): 

Figure 22: BioWatch Gen-3: 

Figure 23: National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center 
(NBACC) Facility: 

Figure 24: National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF): 

Figure 25: Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP): 

Figure 26: Information Technology Infrastructure Program (ITIP): 

Figure 27: Passenger Screening Program (PSP): 

Figure 28: Secure Flight: 

Figure 29: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing (TWIC): 

Figure 30: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR): 

Figure 31: Fast Response Cutter (FRC): 

Figure 32: Long Range Surveillance Aircraft (HC-130H/J): 

Figure 33: HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA): 

Figure 34: HH-60 Conversion Projects: 

Figure 35: HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects: 

Figure 36: Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment: 

Figure 37: National Security Cutter (NSC): 

Figure 38: Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS): 

Figure 39: Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC): 

Figure 40: Rescue 21: 

Figure 41: Response Boat-Medium (RB-M): 

Figure 42: Transformation: 

Abbreviations: 

ADE: Acquisition Decision Event: 

ARB: Acquisition Review Board: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

CFO: Chief Financial Officer: 

CIO: Chief Information Officer: 

ConOps: Concept of Operations: 

CRC: Capabilities and Requirements Council: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FYHSP: Future Years Homeland Security Program: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IILCM: Integrated Investment Life Cycle Management: 

IPG: Integrated Planning Guidance: 

IT: Information Technology: 

JRC: Joint Requirements Council: 

The manual: DHS Instruction Manual 102-01-001 Acquisition Management 
Instruction/Guidebook: 

MD 102: DHS Acquisition Management Directive 102-01: 

NPPD: National Protection and Programs Directorate: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PA&E: Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation: 

PARM: Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management: 

PPBE: Planning, programming, budgeting, and execution: 

PRB: Program Review Board: 

Risk MAP: Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning: 

TSA: Transportation Security Administration: 

USM: Under Secretary for Management: 

[End of section] 

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

April 17, 2014: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jeff Duncan: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invests extensively in 
acquisition programs to help execute its many critical missions. DHS 
and its underlying components are acquiring systems to help secure the 
border, increase marine safety, screen travelers, enhance cyber 
security, improve disaster response, and execute a wide variety of 
other operations. DHS's major acquisition programs are typically 
expected to cost at least $300 million and span several years. To help 
manage these programs, DHS develops multiyear funding plans 
establishing the programs' resource requirements going forward. In 
2011, DHS reported to Congress that it planned to ultimately invest 
$167 billion in its major acquisition programs. In fiscal year 2013 
alone, DHS reported it planned to spend more than $9.6 billion on 
these programs, including all acquisition, planning, maintenance, and 
investment support costs. 

We have highlighted DHS acquisition management issues in our high-risk 
list since 2005.[Footnote 1] Over the past several years, our work has 
identified significant shortcomings in the department's ability to 
manage an expanding portfolio of major acquisitions.[Footnote 2] For 
example, in September 2012, we reported that 43 of 63 major 
acquisition programs lacked a department-approved baseline, which 
establishes a program's cost, schedule, and performance goals. 
[Footnote 3] We also reported that program officials identified 
funding instability as the most prevalent challenge facing DHS's major 
acquisition programs. Funding instability occurs when a program's 
multiyear funding plan changes over time--either increases or 
decreases--and the program manager may have to make repeated 
adjustments to the program as a result. In the past, we have found 
that funding instability increases the risk of cost growth, schedule 
slips, and capability shortfalls.[Footnote 4] While our prior report 
identified funding instability as a factor contributing to these 
problems, the scope of that report did not include an assessment of 
the extent to which funding profiles had changed over time for 
individual programs or the specific impacts of those changes on 
program outcomes. 

In response to our previous recommendations, DHS has taken steps to 
improve acquisition management by dedicating additional resources to 
acquisition oversight and documenting major acquisition decisions in a 
more transparent and consistent manner. However, many of our 
recommendations remain open, including our recommendation that DHS 
prioritize its major acquisition programs department-wide and ensure 
that its acquisition portfolio is consistent with anticipated resource 
constraints.[Footnote 5] 

You asked us to assess how DHS uses multiyear funding plans to sustain 
the department's acquisition efforts. Specifically, this report 
addresses (1) the prevalence of funding instability at DHS, and its 
effects on major acquisition programs, if any; (2) the extent to which 
DHS develops multiyear funding plans in accordance with key portfolio 
management practices; and (3) the extent to which DHS has complied 
with reporting requirements for its major acquisition programs' 
multiyear funding plans. 

To determine the specific impacts of funding instability on DHS's 
major acquisition programs, if any, we identified how annual funding 
levels for 35 of the department's 40 largest acquisition programs 
changed across the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 Future Years 
Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) reports, which present 5-year 
funding plans for DHS's major acquisition programs.[Footnote 6] 
Officials identified errors in the FYHSP reports for 18 of the 35 
programs, and we corrected these errors when conducting our analysis. 
We did not assess 5 of the 40 programs because they did not appear in 
two or more of DHS's FYHSP reports, and thus we were unable to analyze 
any changes to funding levels over time. We also collected testimonial 
evidence about the causes and effects of funding instability from all 
35 of the program offices in our scope. To determine the extent to 
which DHS develops multiyear funding plans in accordance with key 
portfolio management practices, we compared the department's resource 
allocation guidance to key practices we established in a September 
2012 report and identified any significant gaps.[Footnote 7] 
Additionally, we interviewed acquisition and financial management 
officials at DHS headquarters and nine components that sponsor 39 of 
DHS's 40 largest acquisition programs to understand DHS's process for 
developing multiyear funding plans.[Footnote 8] We also reviewed 
funding and acquisition management decisions. To determine the extent 
to which DHS has complied with reporting requirements for its major 
acquisition programs' multiyear funding plans, we assessed the fiscal 
years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports against requirements 
established in U.S. Code and congressional reports. We also 
interviewed DHS officials responsible for producing the FYHSP reports. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to April 2014 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: 

Since fiscal year 2005, DHS has been required by federal law to issue 
annual reports identifying estimated expenditures and proposed 
appropriations for, among other things, major acquisition programs for 
the current budget year and the four succeeding fiscal years.[Footnote 
9] Among other things, these reports identify how the department's 
major acquisition programs' multiyear funding plans change from year 
to year. DHS leverages two management systems to develop these funding 
plans: (1) the resource allocation system and (2) the acquisition 
management system. 

Resource allocation system: 

DHS has established a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution 
(PPBE) process to allocate resources. DHS's PPBE process produces the 
multi-year funding plans presented in the Future Years Homeland 
Security Program (FYHSP), a database that contains, among other 
things, 5-year funding plans for DHS's major acquisition programs. DHS 
guidance states that the 5-year plans in the FYHSP should allow the 
department to achieve its goals more efficiently than an incremental 
approach based on 1-year plans. DHS guidance also states that the 
FYHSP articulates how the department will achieve its strategic goals 
within fiscal constraints. 

According to DHS guidance, at the outset of the annual PPBE process, 
the department's Office of Policy and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 
should provide planning and fiscal guidance, respectively, to the 
department's 16 component agencies, such as Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the 
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). In accordance 
with this planning and fiscal guidance, the components should produce 
5-year funding plans that are submitted to the CFO and reviewed by 
DHS's senior leaders, including the DHS Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary. DHS's senior leadership is expected to modify the plans in 
accordance with their priorities and assessments, and submit them to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which uses the plans to 
inform the President's annual budget request. Figure 1 depicts DHS's 
annual PPBE process. 

Figure 1: DHS's Annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution 
Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Planning: 
DHS's Office of Policy issues planning guidance to the department's 
components; 
DHS's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) issues fiscal guidance to the 
department's components. 

Programming: 
DHS's components use the planning and fiscal guidance to develop 
5-year funding plans and submit them to DHS headquarters for review; 
The DHS Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and other senior leaders review 
the components' plans and modify them in accordance with their 
priorities and assessments; resource allocation decisions are 
documented in formal memos. 

Budgeting: 
DHS's components use the resource allocation decision memos to develop 
1-year budget justifications and submit them to DHS's CFO; 
DHS's CFO reviews the justifications for consistency with senior 
leaders resource allocation decisions, then submits them to OMB; 
OMB works with DHS headquarters and the components to finalize the 
justifications, which are subsequently submitted to Congress. 

Execution: 
The DHS components use resources appropriated by Congress to execute 
their missions. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS guidance. 

[End of figure] 

Federal law requires DHS to submit an annual FYHSP report to Congress 
at or about the same time as the President's budget request. This 
FYHSP report presents the 5-year funding plans in the FYHSP database 
at that time. 

Within DHS's Office of the CFO, the Office of Program Analysis and 
Evaluation (PA&E) is responsible for establishing policies for the 
PPBE process and overseeing the development of the FYHSP.[Footnote 10] 
In this role, PA&E reviews the components' 5-year funding plans, 
advises DHS's senior leaders on resource allocation issues, maintains 
the FYHSP database, and submits the annual FYHSP report to Congress. 
PA&E also coordinates with DHS's Office of Policy on the department's 
long-term strategic planning efforts, analyzing budget submissions, 
cost estimates, and resource constraints. 

Acquisition management system: 

DHS Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 (MD 102) and DHS 
Instruction Manual 102-01-001 Acquisition Management Instruction/ 
Guidebook (the manual) establish the department's policies and 
processes for managing major acquisition programs. MD 102 provides 
guidance to program managers to help determine funding needs, 
capability requirements, and schedule; the manual establishes that 
acquisition decision authorities shall ensure these program managers 
have the funding needed to successfully execute their acquisition 
programs. DHS's Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Management 
(USM) serve as the decision authorities for the department's largest 
acquisition programs: those with life-cycle cost estimates of $1 
billion or greater. Component Acquisition Executives--the most senior 
acquisition management officials within the respective components--may 
serve as the acquisition decision authorities for programs with cost 
estimates below $1 billion. MD 102 establishes that a major 
acquisition program's decision authority shall review the program at a 
series of five predetermined Acquisition Decision Events (ADE) to 
assess whether a major program is ready to proceed through acquisition 
life-cycle phases. Figure 2 depicts the acquisition life cycle 
established in MD 102. 

Figure 2: DHS Acquisition Life Cycle: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Acquisition phase: Need: DHS officials identify the need for a new 
acquisition program; 
Acquisition decision events (ADE): ADE 1. 

Acquisition phase: Analyze/select: Program manager reviews alternative 
approaches to meeting the need, and recommends a best option to the 
decision authority; 
Acquisition decision events (ADE): ADE 2A. 

Acquisition phase: Obtain: Program manager develops, tests, and 
evaluates the selected option; programs may proceed through ADE 2B, 
which focuses on an individual project; and ADE 2C, which focuses on 
low rate initial production issues; 
Acquisition decision events (ADE): ADE 2B, ADE 2C, ADE 3. 

Acquisition phase: Produce/deploy/support: DHS delivers the new 
capability to its operators, and maintains the capability until it is 
retired; post-deployment activities tend to account for up to 70 
percent of an acquisition program's life-cycle costs. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS guidance. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to serving as the decision authority for certain large 
programs, the USM also serves as DHS's Chief Acquisition Officer, and 
in this role is responsible for the management and oversight of the 
department's acquisition policies and procedures. The USM is supported 
by DHS's Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM), 
which is responsible for DHS's overall acquisition governance process. 
Additionally, program managers within DHS's components are responsible 
for their respective acquisition programs. Figure 3 depicts DHS's 
acquisition management structure. 

Figure 3: DHS's Acquisition Management Structure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: chart] 

Top level: [department level]; 
* Secretary: 
- Deputy Secretary. 

Second level: 
* Under Secretary for Management: [department level]; 
- Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management; [department 
level]; 
* Component Head (3) [Component level]. 

Third level, reporting to Component Head: 
* Component Acquisition Executive: 
- Program management office (multiple) [program level]. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS acquisition policy. 

[End of figure] 

Many DHS Acquisition Program Offices Attribute Poor Performance to 
Funding Instability, Which Could Worsen in the Future: 

The funding plans for all 35 of the acquisition programs we reviewed 
changed to some degree from fiscal years 2012 to 2014, although the 
instability affected some programs more than others. DHS headquarters 
officials explained that the effects of funding plan changes can vary 
based on the type of program and where it is in the acquisition life 
cycle. About half of the program offices reported that funding 
instability contributed to poor performance: schedule slips, cost 
growth, and capability reductions. For example, funding instability 
delayed one program responsible for raising public awareness of 
natural disaster risks, and increased construction costs for a 
facility that tests for animal diseases. DHS officials at 
headquarters, components, and program offices identified internal 
factors--such as changes in department-wide priorities--and external 
factors--such as continuing resolutions--that contributed to the 
funding instability.[Footnote 11] Going forward, DHS's largest 
acquisition programs will likely experience more funding instability 
because the department's plans for its major acquisition portfolio are 
not currently affordable. In December 2012, DHS issued an internal 
memo stating that the department's aggregate 5-year funding 
requirements for its major acquisition programs exceeded expected 
resources by 30 percent. This acknowledgment was a positive step 
toward addressing the department's funding gap, and DHS has 
established a full-funding certification requirement to help address 
it. Nevertheless, the department has not approved most of its major 
acquisition programs' cost estimates. As a result, DHS's understanding 
of its major acquisition programs' funding requirements is limited, 
and the funding gap may be greater than the department has suggested. 

Almost Half of DHS's Largest Acquisition Programs Reported that 
Funding Instability Contributed to Schedule Slips, Cost Growth, or 
Capability Reductions: 

We assessed the funding plans for 35 of DHS's largest acquisition 
programs over a 3-year period through an analysis of the department's 
fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports. We found that the 
funding plans for all 35 of the programs changed to some degree during 
that time.[Footnote 12] However, we did not find that the degree of 
the change dictated the magnitude of any resulting effects. We 
discussed the effects of funding plan changes with officials at all 
levels of DHS--headquarters, components, and programs--to gain an 
understanding of why certain programs were negatively affected while 
others were not. DHS headquarters officials told us the effects of 
funding plan changes can vary based on the type of program and where 
it is in the acquisition life cycle, and that as a result, certain 
programs can manage the changes more easily than others. For example, 
these officials told us that funding plan changes have a more negative 
effect on programs that need to develop technologies prior to 
production, or require multiyear production efforts. DHS officials 
also stated that programs in the planning phase can manage funding 
plan changes more easily than programs that are in production or 
deployment. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials 
told us that their programs were not negatively affected by funding 
plan changes because the agency had flexibility in how it allocated 
its appropriations and leveraged carryover funds. 

Seventeen of the 35 program offices reported that funding plan changes 
contributed to schedule slips, cost growth, or capability reductions, 
creating instability for their programs. Officials from 15 of the 17 
programs reported schedule slips or the need to resequence the 
delivery of capabilities, 8 reported cost growth, and 7 reported 
capability reductions. For example, officials from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning 
(Risk MAP) program told us that this funding instability has delayed 
program implementation. The $4 billion Risk MAP program is designed to 
deliver data that raise public awareness of natural hazards in order 
to reduce risks to people and property. Figure 4 illustrates how the 
Risk MAP program's funding plan changed across the 2012, 2013, and 
2014 FYHSP reports. 

Figure 4: Risk MAP's Funding Plan--Changes from Fiscal Years 2012-2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

FY12	FY13	FY14 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $240.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $244.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $215.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $328.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $235.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $205.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $334.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $256.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $206.4 million. 

38 percent decrease between the fiscal year 2014 funding levels from 
the fiscal year 2012 and 2014 FYHSP reports. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $297.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $259.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $207.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $174.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $263.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $209.5 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

Note: The Risk MAP funding plan includes planning, acquisition, 
maintenance, and personnel funding. DHS did not delineate between 
these four funding categories in its fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report, 
but it did so in the fiscal year 2012 and 2014 reports, and it plans 
to do so in the fiscal year 2015 report. Table 4 in appendix III 
identifies what each of the values in the funding plan chart 
represents in terms of planned, requested, enacted, and revised 
enacted funding levels. 

[End of figure] 

In this example, the Risk MAP program's funding plan changed 
considerably across the three 5-year timeframes. The largest change to 
the program's funding plan occurred between the fiscal year 2012 and 
2014 FYHSP reports, and it reduced the program's fiscal year 2014 
funding level by 38 percent. This translated to a $128 million 
reduction from what the program office had previously expected to 
receive in fiscal year 2014. In addition, the program's planned 
funding level for fiscal year 2015 decreased by more than $89 million 
from the fiscal year 2012 FYHSP to the 2014 FYHSP. 

In another example, the $5.7 billion National Bio and Agro-Defense 
Facility program office, which is constructing a facility that tests 
for animal diseases, reported that funding instability has delayed 
facility construction and increased projected construction costs. 
Additionally, funding instability caused CBP's $6.3 billion Border 
Patrol Facilities program to defer maintenance and capital investments 
to replace outdated structures. Sidebars throughout this report 
present six other examples of how funding instability has impacted 
some of the 17 programs. 

DHS personnel at different levels within the department identified 
internal and external causes of funding instability. In some cases, 
these causes may be proactive decisions, driven by poor program 
performance or agency reprioritization, but in other cases, they are 
not. Internal causes include changes in the department's mission and 
priorities, poor program cost estimates, and requirements changes. 
External causes include continuing resolutions and congressional 
funding decisions. Figure 5 presents the causes and effects of funding 
instability commonly cited by DHS officials. 

Figure 5: Causes and Effects of Funding Instability Commonly Cited by 
DHS Officials: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Causes: Internal: 

DHS headquarters officials identified:
* Changes in department priorities; 
* Senior leaders' decisions about individual programs, 

Component officials identified: 
* Poor cost estimates; 
* Unstable requirements. 

Program officials identified: 
* Mission and requirements changes; 
* Component funding reductions; 
* Other programs' funding needs. 

Causes: External: 

DHS officials at all levels identified: 
* Continuing resolutions; 
* Congressional funding decisions. 

Funding instability: 

Effects: 
Schedule slips which can lead to cost growth. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

DHS May Face More Funding Instability in the Future Because Its Major 
Acquisition Portfolio Is Not Currently Affordable: 

In December 2012, DHS's CFO issued an internal memo stating that the 
aggregate 5-year funding requirements for the department's major 
acquisitions would likely exceed available resources by approximately 
30 percent from fiscal years 2014 to 2018. This acknowledgment was a 
positive step toward addressing the department's challenges in that it 
clearly identified the need to improve the affordability of the 
department's plans for its major acquisition portfolio. Additionally, 
to help address the acquisition funding gap, the memo requires that 
components' senior financial officers certify that their major 
acquisition programs have adequate resources to execute their programs 
through the 5-year FYHSP period. In 2013, DHS certified that six major 
acquisitions met this requirement and were fully funded. It is 
unlikely, however, that DHS can close the acquisition funding gap 
without making tradeoff decisions that will create additional funding 
instability. As a result, some of DHS's largest acquisition programs 
could experience schedule slips and cost growth over the next 5 years, 
which is likely to affect the department's ability to deliver as much 
capability as previously planned. 

Side bar: 

Funding Instability Impact: 
Program Name: National Security Cutter; Component: Coast Guard; 
Program Description: Replaces the High Endurance Cutter, which 
performs law enforcement, defense, and search and rescue operations; 
Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $24.3B; Effect of Funding Instability: 
Contributed to production delays and cost growth. 

[End of side bar] 

From fiscal years 2003 to 2013, DHS's budget nearly doubled--from 
$31.2 to $60.7 billion--and DHS leadership did not consistently 
address affordability issues during that time. DHS headquarters 
officials told us that acquisition decision authorities allowed 
programs to proceed with acquisition activities without proposing 
plans to address significant funding gaps. We have previously reported 
that an agency generally has two options for addressing affordability 
issues when a program faces a funding gap: (1) modify the program's 
capability requirements to meet its funding constraints, or (2) modify 
the program's funding plans to meet existing requirements.[Footnote 
13] However, DHS leadership did not consistently direct unaffordable 
programs to pursue such options. 

Additionally, according to DHS headquarters personnel, DHS leadership 
was not aware of some programs' funding gaps because component and 
program officials did not consistently identify all expected costs. 
Headquarters personnel explained it was difficult to hold program 
offices accountable for understating costs early in the acquisition 
life cycle because DHS has had high levels of program manager 
turnover. Furthermore, many programs lacked approved baselines, which 
formally establish cost estimates and are necessary to accurately 
assess program performance. In September 2012, we recommended that DHS 
modify its acquisition policy to state that program managers should 
remain with their programs until the next major milestone when 
possible. We also recommended that the USM approve all major 
acquisition program baselines.[Footnote 14] DHS has not yet addressed 
the first recommendation and while it has made progress in addressing 
the second recommendation, as of November 2013, DHS officials reported 
that 21 of 46 programs still lacked approved baselines.[Footnote 15] 

Side bar: 

Funding Instability Impact: 
Program Name: Next Generation Network Priority Service; Component: 
NPPD; Program Description: Provides priority telecommunications 
capabilities; Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $696M; Effects of Funding 
Instability: Delayed capability deliveries; further funding reductions 
could cause a schedule breach, and technology could be obsolete by the 
time it is fielded. 

[End of side bar] 

In 2013, DHS made little progress in addressing the department's major 
acquisition funding gap, and, based on our analysis of the 
department's cost estimates, this gap may be even greater than DHS has 
suggested. In December 2013, PA&E officials told us that DHS's major 
acquisition funding gap remained approximately 30 percent--the same 
size identified in the DHS CFO's December 2012 memo. However, we found 
this figure is based on unreliable cost estimates, which have been an 
enduring challenge for DHS.[Footnote 16] DHS recognizes the need to 
improve its cost estimates, and in December 2013, PARM officials told 
us they had approved the life cycle cost estimates for 20 of the 
department's major acquisition programs, which currently number 88. 
They told us they are focused on first developing life-cycle cost 
estimates for acquisition programs that are in the Obtain phase and 
are expected to cost more than $1 billion. However, the PARM officials 
explained that DHS still needs to increase its cost estimating 
capacity because the department does not have enough resources to 
produce cost estimates for all of these programs. Additionally, once 
these cost estimates are approved, PARM officials stated that the 
estimates should be revisited annually. They explained that cost 
estimates should account for real world changes, and that major 
acquisition programs should update their cost estimates each year to 
ensure DHS's annual resource allocation process is informed by current 
cost data. DHS officials stated they have taken steps to increase 
their cost estimating capabilities by establishing a cost estimating 
Center of Excellence and hiring additional cost estimators. 

Going forward, DHS officials anticipate the department's budget will 
grow more slowly than it has in the past, and perhaps even shrink in 
future years. For example, the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2014 was $726 million less than the 2013 level. As a result, it 
is unlikely DHS will be able to close its major acquisition funding 
gap without further modifications to its largest acquisition programs' 
funding plans. 

Key Portfolio Management Practices Could Help DHS Manage Its 
Acquisition Funding Gap: 

DHS has not consistently developed its multiyear funding plans in 
accordance with key portfolio management practices we have identified 
that would help the department optimize the return on its acquisition 
investments. DHS's resource allocation guidance reflects some but not 
all of these key practices, and the department has developed a 
Portfolio Governance Concept of Operations (ConOps) that could improve 
its guidance. In addition, DHS's 30 percent funding gap indicates that 
its leadership has not effectively prioritized its acquisition needs, 
even though the department's resource allocation guidance fully 
reflects this particular key practice. The department is working to 
improve portfolio management and better prioritize its acquisition 
funding needs through a four-pronged Integrated Investment Life Cycle 
Management (IILCM) pilot. The IILCM is intended to provide a framework 
for information to flow between councils and boards responsible for 
(a) strategic direction, (b) requirements reviews, (c) resource 
allocation, and (d) program governance. There are opportunities for 
DHS leadership to improve governance in each of these four management 
areas, but senior DHS officials do not expect the IILCM will be fully 
implemented in the near term, so it is too soon to tell how effective 
it will be. 

DHS's Resource Allocation Guidance Reflects Some but Not All Key 
Portfolio Management Practices: 

DHS's resource allocation guidance reflects some key portfolio 
management practices that would help the department optimize the 
return on investments as it manages its acquisition funding issues, 
but it does not fully reflect others.[Footnote 17] In our past work, 
we have found that successful commercial companies use a disciplined 
and integrated approach to prioritize needs and allocate 
resources.[Footnote 18] As a result, these organizations can avoid 
pursuing more projects than their resources can support and better 
optimize the return on their investments. This approach, known as 
portfolio management, requires companies to view each of their 
investments as contributing to a collective whole, rather than as 
independent and unrelated. With this perspective, companies can 
effectively (1) identify and prioritize opportunities, and (2) 
allocate available resources to support the highest priority--or most 
promising--opportunities. Over the past several years, we have 
examined the practices that private and public sector entities use to 
achieve a balanced mix of new projects, and based on this work, we 
identified four key practice areas for portfolio management. 

Table 1 presents our assessment of DHS's resource allocation guidance 
against our key portfolio management practices. 

Table 1: Assessment of DHS's Resource Allocation Guidance against 
GAO's Key Portfolio-Management Practices: 

Key practice area: Clearly define and empower leadership; 
Summary of key practices: Portfolio managers, with the support of 
cross-functional teams, should be empowered to make investment 
decisions and held accountable for outcomes; 
Resource allocation guidance: DHS policy reflects key practices. 

Key practice area: Establish standard assessment criteria and 
demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the portfolio; 
Summary of key practices: Investments should be ranked and selected 
using a disciplined process to assess the costs, benefits, and risks 
of alternative products to ensure transparency and comparability 
across alternatives; 
Resource allocation guidance: DHS policy does not reflect key 
practices. 

Key practice area: Prioritize investments by integrating the 
requirements, acquisition, and budget processes; 
Summary of key practices: Organizations should use long-range planning 
and an integrated approach to prioritize needs and allocate resources 
in accordance with strategic goals, so they can avoid pursuing more 
products than they can afford and optimize return on investment; 
Resource allocation guidance: DHS policy reflects key practices. 

Key practice area: Continually make go/no-go decisions to rebalance 
the portfolio; 
Summary of key practices: Reviews should be scheduled (1) annually to 
consider proposed changes, (2) as new opportunities are identified, 
(3) whenever a program breaches its objectives, and (4) after 
investments are completed. Information gathered during these reviews 
should be used to adjust and balance the portfolio to achieve 
strategic outcomes; 
Resource allocation guidance: DHS policy minimally reflects key 
practices. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data and commercial best practices for 
portfolio management. 

Note: Appendices I and II present a more detailed description of our 
key portfolio management practices and how we assessed DHS's resource 
allocation guidance. 

[End of table] 

Side bar: 

Funding Instability Impact: 
Program Name: IT Infrastructure; Component: ICE; Program Description: 
Secures the IT environment, and improves information sharing; Life-
Cycle Cost Estimate: $4.4B; Effects of Funding Instability: Caused 
delays and impaired the program's mission goals; prevented updates and 
maintenance of equipment reaching the end of its useful life cycle. 

[End of side bar] 

PA&E officials acknowledge that DHS's resource allocation guidance 
should be updated to better reflect key portfolio management 
practices, and we found that DHS's Chief Information Officer (CIO) is 
well positioned to help with these updates. In April 2013, DHS's CIO 
issued a Portfolio Governance ConOps that reflects almost all of our 
key portfolio management practices. The Portfolio Governance ConOps is 
intended to minimize duplication and improve the alignment of DHS's 
Information Technology (IT) investments with the department's 
strategic goals. Among other things, the Portfolio Governance ConOps 
establishes that DHS should (1) use standard assessment criteria, and 
(2) continually rebalance its portfolio. Although the Portfolio 
Governance ConOps was initially developed to help manage IT 
acquisitions, PA&E officials believe it should be integrated into 
DHS's broader portfolio management process as part of the IILCM 
initiative. These ConOps, if adopted and implemented more broadly, 
could enhance DHS's resource allocation guidance, and help the 
department optimize the return on its investments as it manages 
department-wide acquisition funding issues. 

DHS Leadership Has Not Effectively Prioritized Acquisition Funding 
Needs, and It Is Too Soon to Tell if DHS's Proposed Solution Will 
Address Existing Issues: 

DHS's 30 percent acquisition funding gap suggests that the 
department's leadership has not effectively prioritized its 
acquisition funding needs, even though the department's resource 
allocation guidance fully reflects this particular key practice. 
Additionally, the department is poorly prepared to manage its 
affordability challenges and mitigate the resulting effects of funding 
instability. DHS is pursuing the IILCM to better prioritize its 
acquisition funding needs through an enhanced management structure, 
but as this initiative is currently a pilot and senior DHS officials 
do not expect it to be fully implemented in the near term, it is too 
soon to tell how effective it will be. 

The IILCM is intended to improve the flow of information between four 
different bodies--some proposed and some already established--
responsible for strategic direction, requirements reviews, resource 
allocation, and program governance. As envisioned, the Department 
Strategy Council would be responsible for prioritizing DHS's strategic 
goals; the Capabilities and Requirements Council (CRC) would translate 
these strategic goals into operational requirements; and the Program 
Review Board (PRB) would allocate resources to programs to meet CRC-
defined operational requirements. These first three bodies would be 
responsible for making decisions across DHS's portfolio of 
investments, which includes major acquisitions. The fourth body, the 
Acquisition Review Board (ARB), would oversee how individual 
acquisition programs use PRB-allocated resources to acquire new 
capabilities. 

Figure 6 sets forth the anticipated roles and responsibilities for 
each governance body and areas where we identified existing gaps based 
on DHS guidance or key portfolio management practices. 

Figure 6: GAO-Identified Opportunities for Governance Bodies in DHS's 
IILCM Initiative: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Portfolio management: 

Management area: Governance bodies; 
Strategic direction: Department Strategy Council (proposed); 
Requirements reviews: Capabilities and Requirements Council (piloted); 
Resource allocation: Program Review Board (established); 
Program governance: Acquisition Review Board (established). 

Management area: Roles and responsibilities; 
Strategic direction: Prioritizes the department's strategic goals; 
Requirements reviews: Translates the strategic goals into operational 
requirements; 
Resource allocation: Allocates the resources needed to meet the 
operational requirements; 
Program governance: Oversees how programs use the resources to acquire 
new capabilities. 

Management area: GAO-identified opportunities for improvement; 
Strategic direction: The Department Strategy Council could provide 
components guidance each year; 
Requirements reviews: The Capabilities and Requirements Council could 
establish priorities across functional portfolios; 
Resource allocation: The Program Review Board could recommend 
tradeoffs across DHS's major acquisition portfolio; 
Program governance: The Acquisition Review Board could assess program-
specific affordability tradeoffs at all meetings. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Our observations on each of these management areas are further 
delineated below. 

Strategic Direction: 

DHS's Office of Policy will be the executive agent for the Department 
Strategy Council once it is established. Currently, DHS's PPBE 
Operating Handbook instructs the Office of Policy to issue Integrated 
Planning Guidance (IPG) each year outlining the DHS Secretary's policy 
and planning priorities for 5-year budget time frames, such as fiscal 
years 2014 through 2018. The IPG is intended to be the key product 
developed in the planning phase of PPBE, and should provide general 
risk management guidance for prioritizing programming and budget 
proposals within the department. We found the Office of Policy did not 
produce an IPG during the fiscal year 2015 budget cycle. The Assistant 
Secretary for Strategy, Planning, Analysis & Risk explained the Office 
of Policy did not do so because the fiscal year 2015 planning guidance 
did not vary greatly from the previous year. Under the IILCM, the 
Department Strategy Council would be responsible for endorsing IPGs 
annually, and the Deputy Secretary would be responsible for approving 
them. Annually updated IPGs could help components prioritize their 
activities in a constrained budget environment and help mitigate the 
negative effects of funding instability by focusing components on DHS 
leadership's highest priorities. 

Requirements Reviews: 

Side bar: 

Funding Instability Impact: 
Program Name: Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems; Component: CBP; 
Program Description: Provides technology to inspect large volumes of 
traffic at the border and quickly detect a wide range of contraband; 
Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $3.1B; Effects of Funding Instability: 
Caused delays that may prevent deployment to new ports; program may 
not be able to recapitalize technology or meet all requirements. 

[End of side bar] 

DHS established the Joint Requirements Council (JRC) in 2003 to 
identify crosscutting opportunities and common requirements among DHS 
components and help determine how DHS should use its resources. The 
JRC stopped meeting in 2006 after the council's chair was assigned to 
other duties within the department, and in 2008, we recommended the 
council be reinstated.[Footnote 19] DHS concurred, stating that the 
CRC would replace the JRC, but progress has been slow. In June 2013, 
DHS initiated a CRC pilot to consider tradeoffs across acquisition 
programs within the department's cybersecurity portfolio. However, 
this pilot was limited in scope and did not include a range of 
tradeoffs across multiple functional portfolios. For example, the CRC 
did not consider whether cybersecurity investments are a higher 
priority than investments in domain awareness or law enforcement 
functions, in accordance with key portfolio management practices. 

Resource Allocation: 

Side bar: 

Funding Instability Impact: 
Program Name: Land Border Integration; Component: CBP; Program 
Description: Provides end users advanced information that enhances 
intelligence and targeting; Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $2.2B; Effects 
of Funding Instability: Delayed technology deployments that would 
improve tracking of pedestrians and outbound traffic. 

[End of side bar] 

PA&E officials identified the department's PRB as DHS's main forum for 
prioritizing resource allocations, but we found that the PRB has 
generally delegated acquisition funding decisions to the components. 
The PRB, established in March 2008, is chaired by DHS's Deputy 
Secretary and is composed of senior representatives from each DHS 
component. During the programming phase of PPBE, the PRB meets to 
review funding issues selected by DHS leadership, such as aircraft 
procurements spanning multiple components.[Footnote 20] These reviews 
inform the DHS Secretary's and Deputy Secretary's resource allocation 
decisions. However, we found that DHS rarely adjusts funding levels 
for major acquisition programs through these resource allocation 
decisions. Instead, acquisition funding decisions are generally 
delegated to the components, which are expected to independently 
manage their funding gaps. For example, in 2012, DHS conducted several 
portfolio reviews in preparation for a PRB meeting focused on DHS's 
major investments, but the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary 
ultimately decided not to hold this PRB meeting; a forum of component-
level management officials was convened in its place. With its 
department-wide perspective and high-ranking membership, the PRB could 
be well suited to prioritize investments department-wide, in 
accordance with key portfolio management practices. For example, the 
PRB could recommend tradeoffs that maximize DHS's opportunities to 
achieve its strategic goals and minimize the negative effects of DHS's 
acquisition funding gap. PA&E officials noted that, ultimately, the 
department's new Secretary and Deputy Secretary, who were sworn in on 
December 23, 2013, will be responsible for any adjustments to PRB 
reviews. 

Program Governance: 

Side bar: 

Funding Instability Impact: 
Program Name: Strategic Air and Marine Plan; Component: CBP; Program 
Description: Recapitalizes aircraft, marine vessels, sensors, and 
supporting systems; Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: $2.1B; Effects of 
Funding Instability: Delayed aircraft deliveries, causing major delays 
and cost growth. 

[End of side bar] 

DHS's ARB, which was established in November 2008, is responsible for 
acquisition program governance, and DHS guidance states that it shall 
review, among other things, the affordability of all major acquisition 
programs.[Footnote 21] However, this board has rarely directed 
programs to make affordability tradeoffs, even in light of the 
department's 30 percent funding gap for its major acquisitions. The 
ARB is responsible for reviewing major acquisition programs for proper 
management, oversight, accountability, and alignment with the 
department's strategic functions at ADEs and other meetings as needed, 
such as program health reviews or status updates. The ARB is generally 
chaired by the USM or Deputy Secretary, and is comprised of 
individuals who manage the department's mission objectives, resources, 
and contracts, including the CFO and Chief Procurement Officer, the 
Component Acquisition Executive responsible for the program being 
reviewed, and user representatives from the component sponsoring the 
capability. Nonetheless, we found that the board rarely recommended 
tradeoffs individual programs could make to improve their 
affordability, by modifying requirements, for example. The ARB met 13 
times in fiscal year 2013, but it only directed programs to make 
affordability tradeoffs twice. In one instance, the ARB directed the 
Coast Guard's Fast Response Cutter program to revise its acquisition 
plan and program baseline so they were consistent with the Coast 
Guard's funding plans. In another, the ARB directed CBP to adjust 
multiple programs in accordance with department-directed fiscal 
reductions. However, these instances were exceptions. Going forward, 
the ARB meetings could be effective venues for assessing affordability 
tradeoffs within specific programs, providing DHS leadership 
opportunities to proactively address the department's major 
acquisition funding gap. 

DHS Has Met Statutory FYHSP Reporting Requirements, but It Could 
Better Communicate Acquisition Funding Needs to Congress: 

DHS has met the FYHSP reporting requirements established by law, 
including those that are based on the Department of Defense's Future 
Years Defense Program. However, DHS has opportunities to better 
communicate its acquisition funding needs to Congress in accordance 
with best practices. Table 2 presents our assessment of DHS's efforts 
to meet the statutory FYHSP reporting requirements over the last three 
reports, produced for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014. 

Table 2: GAO Assessment of DHS's Efforts to Meet Statutory FYHSP 
Reporting Requirements: 

FYHSP report requirement: Include the same type of information, 
organizational structure, and level of detail as the Future Years 
Defense Program; 
GAO assessment: DHS has met this requirement, but it could better 
communicate acquisition funding needs to Congress, as identified below. 

FYHSP report requirement: Cover the fiscal year with respect to which 
the budget is submitted and at least the 4 succeeding fiscal years; 
GAO assessment: DHS has met this requirement by presenting, among 
other things, the 5-year funding plans for its major acquisition 
programs, but it has not done so clearly and consistently. 

FYHSP report requirement: The total amounts of estimated expenditures 
and proposed appropriations are consistent with the amounts specified 
in program and budget information submitted to Congress; 
GAO assessment: DHS has met this requirement, but it could enhance 
future FYHSP reports by including major acquisition programs' cost 
estimates and identifying their funding gaps, if any. 

FYHSP report requirement: Set forth the department's homeland security 
strategy and explain how it correlates to resource allocations; 
GAO assessment: DHS has met this requirement, but it could enhance 
future FYHSP reports by clearly linking its major acquisition programs 
to the homeland security strategy. 

FYHSP report requirement: Submit annual report to Congress "at or 
about the same time" as the department's budget request; 
GAO assessment: DHS has implemented this requirement by establishing 
an internal goal of 90 days; 
the department submitted the FYHSP reports to Congress 93, 130, and 23 
days after its budget submissions for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 
2014 respectively. 

Source: GAO analysis of 6 U.S.C. § 454, 10 U.S.C. § 221, and fiscal 
years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports. 

[End of table] 

Additionally, a 2013 Senate Report required that the fiscal year 2014 
FYHSP report present the funding plans for all major 
acquisitions.[Footnote 22] The fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report accounted 
for a greater proportion of major acquisition programs than prior 
years' reports, but it did not account for all of the programs on the 
department's major acquisition oversight list. Moving forward, DHS 
officials said they will work to include all of the programs on DHS's 
major acquisition oversight list in their annual FYHSP reports. 

Recent FYHSP Reports Met Statutory Reporting Requirements, but DHS 
Could Enhance Acquisition Funding Information in the Future: 

DHS met the statutory FYHSP reporting requirements for fiscal years 
2012, 2013, and 2014. These requirements were enacted in 2002 and went 
into effect in fiscal year 2005. They are largely based on the 
Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program, which 
communicates that department's 5-year funding plans.[Footnote 23] 
However, DHS did not submit FYHSP reports to Congress for fiscal years 
2010 and 2011, though officials said that they circulated draft 
reports within the department and shared them with OMB. DHS officials 
explained that DHS did not submit the fiscal year 2010 report to 
Congress because it did not reflect the new administration's 
priorities, and did not submit the fiscal year 2011 report because it 
did not account for the results of the Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review taking place at that time. The Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review is intended to outline a strategic framework to guide homeland 
security activities. 

Over the past several years, DHS has enhanced its FYHSP reports. Since 
DHS submitted the initial FYHSP report for fiscal year 2005, 
subsequent FYHSP reports have generally provided Congress an 
increasing amount of information about major acquisition programs' 
funding plans. DHS officials attributed the FYHSP report improvements 
to several factors, including organizational maturity, an improved 
FYHSP database, and greater component accountability. However, DHS has 
additional opportunities to improve future FYHSP reports in accordance 
with best practices. We have previously established that an agency's 
management should ensure that there is adequate communication with 
external stakeholders--such as Congress--who have a significant impact 
on the agency's ability to achieve its goals.[Footnote 24] 

The following provides additional information on the reporting 
requirements and areas where DHS could enhance the information it 
provides to Congress. 

Presenting Major Acquisition Programs' 5-year Funding Plans: 

The fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports cover the fiscal 
year with respect to which the budget is submitted and at least the 4 
succeeding fiscal years, as required by law.[Footnote 25] 
Additionally, these FYHSP reports generally identified 5-year funding 
plans for DHS's major acquisition programs, accounting for planning, 
acquisition, maintenance, and personnel funding for each program. 
However, we found that the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report did not 
account for all of these funding categories for the Coast Guard's 
acquisition programs, even though the report states that it did. 
Instead, DHS officials explained that the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP 
report only accounted for the Coast Guard acquisition programs' 
acquisition funding. It did not account for planning, maintenance, and 
personnel funding.[Footnote 26] 

Reflecting Estimated Expenditures and Proposed Appropriations in 
Budget Requests: 

The fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports' estimated 
expenditures and proposed appropriations were consistent with the 
amounts specified in DHS's respective budget requests, in accordance 
with statutory requirements. However, the FYHSP reports could better 
identify the gaps, if any, between major acquisition programs' cost 
estimates and funding plans. Each year, DHS's budget request outlines 
the department's funding plans for the forthcoming fiscal year, which 
is the first of the 5 years included in the annual FYHSP report. For 
example, DHS's fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report accounted for the 
department's fiscal year 2014 budget request, as well as fiscal years 
2015-18. We found that the proposed appropriations were consistent 
across the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports and budget 
requests, respectively. However, the FYHSP reports did not identify 
how major acquisition programs' annual cost estimates compared to 
their funding plans, or identify the associated funding gaps, if any. 
Presenting acquisition programs' cost estimates in conjunction with 
their funding plans would allow Congress to identify individual 
programs' funding gaps, and better understand how anticipated resource 
constraints could affect the department's largest investments. 

Linking Major Acquisition Programs to the Homeland Security Strategy: 

The fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports set forth DHS's 
homeland security strategy and explained how it correlated to the 
department's resource allocations, as required by law. But DHS could 
better communicate how major acquisition programs contribute to the 
homeland security strategy. None of these three reports consistently 
identified how individual acquisition programs would help DHS achieve 
its goals. DHS officials acknowledged that they could clarify the 
linkage between major acquisition programs and DHS mission goals, and 
said they are working to do so. Clearly linking individual acquisition 
programs to DHS's mission goals would help Congress better understand 
how the department's largest investments contribute to the homeland 
security strategy, and inform congressional decisions about 
appropriating limited resources across DHS's major acquisition 
portfolio. 

Submitting FYHSP Reports in a Timely Manner: 

FYHSP reports are required by law to be submitted to Congress "at or 
about the same time" as the department's budget request. In 
implementing this requirement, DHS officials said their goal is to 
submit the FYHSP reports to Congress no later than 90 days after the 
department's budget request is submitted. They explained the 90-day 
goal was largely based on the level of collaboration required to 
gather and verify data from the components and OMB. Table 3 identifies 
when DHS submitted recent FYHSP reports and budget requests to 
Congress. 

Table 3: Dates DHS Submitted Budget Requests and FYHSP Reports to 
Congress: 

Fiscal year: Date of budget request; 
2012: February 14; 
2013: February 13; 
2014: April 10. 

Fiscal year: Date of FYHSP report; 
2012: May 18; 
2013: June 22; 
2014: May 3. 

Fiscal year: Number of days later; 
2012: 93; 
2013: 130; 
2014: 23. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documentation. 

[End of table] 

PA&E officials said they have not always achieved their 90-day goal 
because OMB has not provided DHS funding guidance for future fiscal 
years until a few weeks before the department's budget is submitted to 
Congress. In accounting for this guidance, PA&E officials said they 
have traded timeliness for accuracy. Moving forward, DHS officials 
said that they are working with headquarters and component officials 
to provide OMB a draft FYHSP earlier in the annual budget cycle. 

DHS's Fiscal Year 2014 FYHSP Report Did Not Account for All Major 
Acquisition Programs, but Did Account for a Greater Proportion of 
Programs than Prior Reports: 

DHS's fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report did not account for all of the 
department's major acquisition programs in accordance with a 2013 
Senate Report requirement. However, it did account for a greater 
proportion of programs than previous FYHSP reports, and PA&E officials 
said they intend to include all major acquisition programs in future 
FYHSP reports. Figure 7 identifies the proportion of major acquisition 
programs identified in the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP 
reports. 

Figure 7: Proportion of Major Acquisition Programs Identified in 
Recent FYHSP Reports: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Total number of major acquisition programs: 82; 
Number of major acquisition programs in Future Years Homeland Security 
Program (FYHSP) report: 58. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Total number of major acquisition programs: 129; 
Number of major acquisition programs in Future Years Homeland Security 
Program (FYHSP) report: 113. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Total number of major acquisition programs: 123; 
Number of major acquisition programs in Future Years Homeland Security 
Program (FYHSP) report: 110. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documentation. 

[End of figure] 

PA&E officials responsible for producing the annual FYHSP reports said 
that they previously excluded major acquisition programs that the USM 
included on the department's major acquisition oversight list because 
the programs (1) provided services, (2) had not yet been formally 
initiated, or (3) were expected to cost less than $300 million. 
Additionally, the officials said some of the exclusions were 
inadvertent omissions. The PA&E officials said that an internal data 
quality management plan was implemented in 2013 in an effort to 
improve the consistency of data reported through the FYHSP system. 
Doing so will help Congress identify and assess how much DHS plans to 
invest across its major acquisition portfolio and the overall 
affordability of the department's multiyear funding plans. 

Conclusions: 

Previously, we made several broad recommendations to improve DHS 
acquisition management, including a recommendation that DHS prioritize 
major acquisition programs department-wide and ensure that its 
acquisition portfolio is consistent with anticipated resource 
constraints. DHS concurred with these recommendations, and the 
department is working to address them. However, based on the funding 
instability we identified across annual FYHSP reports, it appears that 
short-term budget decisions continue to supersede a more strategic 
approach to prioritizing the department's acquisitions. In the 
meantime, the CFO's effort to quantify the funding gap for the major 
acquisition portfolio is positive, in that it conveys the fact that 
the department cannot afford the programs it has underway. However, 
this gap is likely to increase as more cost estimates are approved. In 
today's tightened fiscal climate, DHS can no longer count on an 
increased budget to offset the risks inherent in this scenario. As a 
result, DHS's largest acquisition programs will likely experience 
schedule slips, cost growth, and capability reductions in the coming 
years if the funding instability we have highlighted worsens. 

We have identified opportunities that could help mitigate this 
situation, ranging from a portfolio-based approach to the department's 
resource allocation guidance to making proactive trade-off decisions 
among and within major programs. Within the framework of the 
overarching governance initiative that DHS leadership is piloting, 
such opportunities exist. Even though the initiative is in the 
relatively early stages of maturity, the boards and councils, 
comprised of senior department officials, need not wait for the 
initiative to be finalized to begin taking such actions. Further, 
while DHS's annual FYHSP reports meet statutory requirements, the 
department could use these reports to provide Congress additional 
information about its major acquisition programs as the department 
works to address its major acquisition portfolio's funding gap. 

Recommendations: 

To enhance DHS's resource allocation guidance, we recommend that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security update the guidance to fully reflect 
the following 2 portfolio-management practices: 

* Establish standard assessment criteria to ensure transparency and 
comparability across alternatives, and: 

* Continually make go/no-go decisions to rebalance the portfolio. 

To better prioritize investments in an integrated manner and allocate 
resources accordingly, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security take the following 4 actions as DHS continues to develop, 
pilot, and implement the IILCM: 

* Require the Department Strategy Council, or another body responsible 
for strategic direction, to issue Integrated Planning Guidance 
annually, in accordance with DHS guidance; 

* Require the CRC, or another body responsible for requirements 
reviews, to establish priorities across functional portfolios, such as 
cybersecurity, domain awareness, and law enforcement; 

* Establish that the PRB should recommend tradeoffs across DHS's major 
acquisition portfolio to address its major acquisition funding gap; 
and: 

* Require the ARB to assess program-specific affordability tradeoffs 
at all of its meetings. 

To better communicate acquisition funding needs to Congress, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security enhance the content 
of future FYHSP reports--for fiscal years 2016-20 and beyond--by 
taking the following 3 actions: 

* Present acquisition programs' annual cost estimates and any 
anticipated funding gaps, 

* Clearly link major acquisition programs to the homeland security 
strategy, and: 

* Include all of the programs on DHS's major acquisition oversight 
list. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this product to DHS for comment. In its written 
comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DHS concurred with all nine of 
our recommendations and provided estimated completion dates for eight 
of them. In one case, DHS provided evidence that it has complied with 
the recommendation and we agree. In another case, we do not believe 
that DHS's planned action will fully address our recommendation. 

The department requested that the third recommendation--to issue 
Integrated Planning Guidance annually--be considered resolved because 
the guidance for fiscal years 2016-2020 was issued in March 2014, 
while our draft report was out for comment. Because DHS had not issued 
this guidance for one year only (the fiscal year 2015 budget cycle) 
and rectified the situation the following year, we agree that the 
action meets the intent of this recommendation. 

In response to our seventh recommendation, that future FYHSP reports 
present acquisition programs' annual cost estimates and any 
anticipated funding gaps, DHS stated that the department's 
Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report provides the cost estimate 
information. However, our analysis of these reports found that they do 
not present acquisition programs' cost estimates on a year-by-year 
basis. Rather, they provide a single dollar figure identifying the 
programs' cost estimates over the entirety of their respective life 
cycles. This presentation does not allow Congress to identify how the 
funding plans presented in the FYHSP report compare to the programs' 
annual cost estimates and does not consistently inform Congress of 
anticipated funding gaps during the FYHSP-report periods. Therefore, 
we believe that the department will need to take additional steps to 
address this recommendation. 

DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated into the 
report as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 12 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4841 or mackinm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Michele Mackin: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

The objectives of this audit were designed to help Congress understand 
how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses multiyear funding 
plans to sustain the department's acquisition efforts. We assessed (1) 
the prevalence of funding instability at DHS, and its effects on major 
acquisition programs, if any; (2) the extent to which DHS develops 
multiyear funding plans in accordance with key portfolio management 
practices; and (3) the extent to which DHS has complied with reporting 
requirements for its major acquisition programs' multiyear funding 
plans. 

For the first objective, we identified how annual funding levels for 
35 of the department's 40 largest acquisition programs changed across 
the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 Future Years Homeland Security 
Program (FYHSP) reports, which present 5-year funding plans for DHS's 
major acquisition programs. We used DHS's fiscal year 2013 major 
acquisition oversight list to identify the 40 programs. We did not 
assess 5 of those programs because DHS did not include them in two or 
more of their FYHSP reports, and thus we were unable to analyze any 
changes to funding levels over time. For the 35 programs in our scope, 
we produced charts depicting how their funding plans changed over 
successive FYHSP reports. These charts are presented in appendix III. 
To determine the reliability of the FYHSP information, we examined the 
data for outliers and obvious errors, and sent our acquisition funding 
plan charts to knowledgeable officials at DHS headquarters, the 
components, and program offices. We asked officials to identify any 
inaccuracies through written responses, and we received feedback from 
officials representing all 35 of the programs. These responses 
indicated that the FYHSP information was inaccurate for 18 of the 35 
programs. We used evidence from DHS headquarters and the program 
offices to correct the acquisition funding plan charts for these 
programs. For example, PA&E provided us the evidence necessary to 
correct the Coast Guard information presented in the fiscal year 2013 
FYHSP report. We also collected testimonial evidence from officials 
representing all 35 of the programs in our scope to identify the 
causes and effects of the funding instability. 

For the second objective, we compared the department's resource 
allocation guidance to key practices we established in a September 
2012 report and identified any significant shortfalls.[Footnote 27] 
These practices are set forth in appendix II. Specifically, we 
assessed DHS Management Directive Number 1330 and DHS's Planning, 
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Operating Handbook, which DHS 
officials identified as the department's primary resource allocation 
guidance documents. If these documents reflected a key practice, we 
assigned the document a score of 4 for that practice. If the document 
did not reflect the key practice, we assigned it a score of 0. We then 
took the average score for all the key practices in a particular area--
as identified in appendix II--to establish an overall score for each 
key practice area. We concluded that key practice areas that scored a 
4 were reflected in the policy, those that scored a 1 were minimally 
reflected, and those that scored a 0 were not reflected. We 
subsequently met with officials from the Office of Program Analysis 
and Evaluation to discuss our analysis, identify relevant sections of 
the documents that we had not yet accounted for, and solicit their 
thoughts on those key practices that were not reflected in the policy. 
Additionally, we interviewed acquisition and financial management 
officials at DHS headquarters and nine component agencies sponsoring 
39 of DHS's 40 largest acquisition programs to understand DHS's 
process for developing multiyear funding plans.[Footnote 28] We also 
interviewed these officials to better understand DHS's Integrated 
Investment Life Cycle Management initiative--the department's proposed 
solution for improving portfolio management, which is currently being 
piloted. We also reviewed (a) all acquisition decision memos from 
fiscal year 2013 to identify affordability tradeoffs made during 
acquisition reviews, (b) all funding certification memos from December 
2012 through August 2013 to determine how DHS applied the funding 
certification requirement, and (c) summary documentation of all 
acquisition-related guidance issued through the fiscal year 2014 
resource allocation decision memos. 

For the third objective, we assessed the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 
2014 FYHSP reports against requirements established in federal law and 
congressional reports. We also interviewed DHS officials responsible 
for producing the FYHSP reports to understand their interpretation of 
the FYHSP reporting requirements, and the causes of any reporting 
shortfalls. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to April 2014 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Key Portfolio Management Practices: 

To help determine the extent to which DHS develops multiyear funding 
plans in accordance with key portfolio management practices, we 
assessed the department's resource allocation guidance using key 
practices we established in September 2012 and identified any 
significant shortfalls.[Footnote 29] These portfolio management 
practices--organized into four key practice areas--can improve 
outcomes when managing a portfolio of multiple acquisition programs. 
The key portfolio management practices are presented below. 

Clearly define and empower leadership: 

* Those responsible for product investment decisions and oversight 
should be clearly identified and held accountable for outcomes. 

* Portfolio managers should be empowered to make decisions about the 
best way to invest resources. 

* Portfolio managers should be supported with cross-functional teams 
composed of representatives from key functional areas. 

Establish standard assessment criteria, and demonstrate comprehensive 
knowledge of the portfolio: 

* Specific criteria should be used to ensure transparency and 
comparability across alternatives. 

* Investments should be ranked and selected using a disciplined 
process to assess the costs, benefits, and risks of alternative 
products. 

* Knowledge should encompass the entire portfolio, including needs, 
gaps, and how to best meet the gaps. 

Prioritize investments by integrating the requirements, acquisition, 
and budget processes. 

* Requirements, acquisition, and budget processes should be connected 
to promote stability and accountability. 

* Organizations should use an integrated approach to prioritize needs 
and allocate resources, so they can avoid pursuing more products than 
they can afford, and optimize return on investment. 

* Resource allocation across the portfolio should align with strategic 
goals/objectives, and investment review policy should use long-range 
planning. 

Continually make go/no-go decisions to rebalance the portfolio: 

* Program requirements should be reviewed annually to make 
recommendations on proposed changes/descoping options. 

* As potential new products are identified, portfolios should be 
rebalanced based on those that add the most value. 

* If project estimates breach established thresholds, the product 
should be immediately reassessed within the context of the portfolio 
to determine whether it is still relevant and affordable. 

* Agencies should use information gathered from post-implementation 
reviews of investments, as well as information learned from other 
organizations, to fine-tune the investment process and the portfolios 
to shape strategic outcomes. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Acquisition Funding Plan Charts: 

To help determine the prevalence of funding instability at DHS, and 
its effects on major acquisition programs, if any, we identified how 
annual funding levels for 35 of the department's 40 largest 
acquisition programs changed across the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 
2014 FYHSP reports, which present 5-year funding plans for DHS's major 
acquisition programs. We did not assess the 5 remaining programs 
because their funding plans were not included in at least two FYHSP 
reports, and thus we were unable to analyze any changes to funding 
levels over time. The funding plans account for planning, acquisition, 
maintenance, and personnel funding. DHS delineated between the four 
funding categories in the fiscal years 2012 and 2014 FYHSP reports, 
but did not delineate between them in the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP 
report. 

We used the three FYHSP reports to produce charts depicting how the 
funding plans changed for all 35 of the programs. To determine the 
reliability of the FYHSP information, we examined the data for 
outliers and obvious errors, and sent our acquisition funding plan 
charts to knowledgeable officials at DHS headquarters, the components, 
and program offices. We asked officials to identify any inaccuracies 
through written responses, and we received feedback from officials 
representing all 35 of the programs. These responses indicated that 
the FYHSP information was inaccurate for 18 of the 35 programs. We 
used evidence from DHS headquarters and the program offices to correct 
the acquisition funding plan charts for these programs. For example, 
PA&E provided us the evidence necessary to correct the Coast Guard 
information presented in the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report. 

The acquisition funding plan charts are presented below. They present 
a unique value for each fiscal year and FYHSP report. Table 4 explains 
what each value represents in terms of planned, requested, enacted, 
and revised enacted funding levels. 

Table 4: Planned, Requested, Enacted, and Revised Enacted Funding 
Levels Presented in the Acquisition Funding Plan Charts: 

FYHSP report: Fiscal years 2012-2016; 
Fiscal year 2012: Requested; 
Fiscal year 2013: Planned; 
Fiscal year 2014: Planned; 
Fiscal year 2015: Planned; 
Fiscal year 2016: Planned. 

FYHSP report: Fiscal years 2013-2017; 
Fiscal year 2012: Enacted; 
Fiscal year 2013: Requested; 
Fiscal year 2014: Planned; 
Fiscal year 2015: Planned; 
Fiscal year 2016: Planned. 

FYHSP report: Fiscal years 2014-2018; 
Fiscal year 2012: Revised enacted; 
Fiscal year 2013: Enacted; 
Fiscal year 2014: Requested; 
Fiscal year 2015: Planned; 
Fiscal year 2016: Planned. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[End of table] 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP): 

Figure 8: Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $169.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $169.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $140 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $164.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $140.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $140.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $167.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $145.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $140.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $169.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $148.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $140.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $172.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $151.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $140.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 9: Border Patrol Facilities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $133.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $140.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $135.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $135.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $201.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $136.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $138.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $205.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $202.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $141.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $209.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $199.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $143.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $185.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $195.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 10: Facilities Management & Engineering (FM&E) Tactical 
Infrastructure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $64.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $62 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $62 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $66.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $55.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $62 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $68.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $75.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $49.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $70.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $77.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $49.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $72.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $79.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $49.0 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Land Border Integration (LBI): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $76.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $80 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $76.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $80 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $77.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $74.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $79.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $74.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $80.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $73.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Systems Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $176.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $124.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $148.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $182.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $117.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $149.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $185.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $119.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $112.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $188.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $121.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $112.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $194.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $123.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $112.3 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 13: Strategic Air and Marine Plan (STAMP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $109.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $138.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $138.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $122.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $67.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $139.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $124.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $70.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $74.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $126.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $65.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $84.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $168.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $38.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $84.1 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 14: Mobile Assets Program (MAP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $85.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $85.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $73.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $85.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $45.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $91.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $85.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $46.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $53.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $85.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $46.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $53.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $85.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $46.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $53.1 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO): 

Figure 15: Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $44.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $44.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $44 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $44.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $42.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $44.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $44.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $41.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $77.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $45.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $41.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $77.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $46.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $41.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $62.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 16: Infrastructure Transformation Program (ITP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $89.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $69.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $144.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $198.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $122.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $144.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $115.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $80.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $228.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $72.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $38.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $124.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $72.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $39.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $126.0 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): 

Figure 17: Risk Mapping, Analysis and Planning (Risk MAP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $240.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $244.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $215.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $328.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $235.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $205.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $334.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $256.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $206.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $297.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $259.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $207.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $174.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $263.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $209.5 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 

Figure 18: IT Infrastructure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $338.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $237.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $232.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $467.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $241.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $188.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $481.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $245.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $188.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $576.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $250.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $188.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $455.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $254.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $189.0 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD): 

Figure 19: National Cybersecurity and Protection System (NCPS): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $233.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $233.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $229 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $312.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $345.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $328 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $387.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $428.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $406.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $433.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $431.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $453.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $468.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $437.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $407.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 20: Next Generation Network Priority Service (NGN-PS): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $25.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $25.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $24.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $25.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $20 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $25.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $25.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $26.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $21.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $25.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $26.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $79.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $25.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $27.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $79.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 21: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
Technology (US-VISIT): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $318.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $333.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $306.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $361.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $279.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $306.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $368.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $285.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $376.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $291.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $383.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $297.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Office of Health Affairs (OHA): 

Figure 22: BioWatch Gen-3: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $27.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $24 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $25.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $238.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $39.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $25.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $280.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $39.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $275.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $39.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $232.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $39.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Science and Technology (S&T): 

Figure 23: National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center 
(NBACC) Facility: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $31.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $29 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $29 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $32.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $32.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $32.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $34.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $33.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $34.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $35.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $34.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $37.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $37.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $35.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $37.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 24: National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $150 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $40 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $50 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $250 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $75 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $50 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $300 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $714 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $20 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $225 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $60 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $175 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA): 

Figure 25: Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $746.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $699.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $698.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $744.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $575.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $686.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $744.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $575.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $531.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $744.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $575.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $530.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $744.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $575.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $546.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 26: Information Technology Infrastructure Program (ITIP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $281.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $229.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $224.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $296.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $203.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $229.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $301.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $203.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $232.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $307.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $203.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $232.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $312.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $203.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $236.6 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 27: Passenger Screening Program (PSP): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $316.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $251.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $251.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $318.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $180.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $274.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $318.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $182.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $165.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $318.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $182.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $165.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $318.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $182.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $168.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 28: Secure Flight: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $92.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $92.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $101.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $94.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $107.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $99.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $97.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $107.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $105.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $100.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $107.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $106.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $103.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $107.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $108.0 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 29: Transportation Worker Identification Credentialing (TWIC): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $8.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $8.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $29.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $43.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $47.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $43.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $82.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $31.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $34.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $12.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $26.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $27.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $8.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $26.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $31.4 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

United States Coast Guard (USCG): 

Figure 30: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $69.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $73.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $100.04 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $71.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $76.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $102.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $72.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $77.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $102.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $68.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $78.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $96.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $79.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $79.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $128.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 31: Fast Response Cutter (FRC): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $403.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $424.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $399.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $433.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $229.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $229.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $442.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $458.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $173.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $466.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $480.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $230.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $501.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $360 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $230.4 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 32: Long Range Surveillance Aircraft (HC-130H/J): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $403.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $424.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $399.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $433.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $229.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $229.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $442.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $458.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $173.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $466.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $480.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $230.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $501.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $360 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $230.4 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 33: HC-144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $240.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $266.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $229.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $173.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $203.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $235.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $223.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $421.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $130.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $229.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $448.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $242.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $312.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $492.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $292.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 34: HH-60 Conversion Projects: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $190.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $190.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $228.0 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $146.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $137.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $173.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $164.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $140.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $174.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $160.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $142.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $315.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $171.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $145.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $324.4 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 35: HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $295.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $339.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $53.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $313.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $362.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $61.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $321.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $397.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $42.8 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $329.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $405.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $103.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $341.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $414.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $109.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 36: Medium Endurance Cutter Sustainment: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $47.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $47.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $13.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $13.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $0.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $0.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $0.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0.3 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 37: National Security Cutter (NSC): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $122.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $397.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $197.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $820.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $803.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $767.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $856.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $118.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $734.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $930.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $142.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $852.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $139.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $184.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $222.6 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 38: Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $31.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $31.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $29.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $33.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $33.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $32 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $40.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $40.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $40 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $28.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $28.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $31 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $28.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $28.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $27 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 39: Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $25 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $25 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $25 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $60 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $30 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $30 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $100 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $50 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $25 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $640 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $40 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $65 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $760 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $200 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $200 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 40: Rescue 21: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $143.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $143.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $142.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $79.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $78.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $76.9 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $80.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $80.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $77.6 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $82.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $82.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $78.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $82.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $82.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $79.2 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 41: Response Boat-Medium (RB-M): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $122.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $138.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $138.7 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $75.9 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $40.1 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $40.1 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $63.7 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $51.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $51.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $28.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $63.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $28.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $64.6 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $0. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): 

Figure 42: Transformation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $255.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $358.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $190.5 million. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $198.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $283.5 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $155.2 million. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $123.0 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $212.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $176.4 million. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $63.3 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $74.8 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $177.3 million. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Fiscal year 2012 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 
report: $67.2 million; 
Fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report: $76.4 million; 
Fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report: $180.9 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, D.C. 205289: 

April 4, 2014: 

Michele Mackin: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-14-332, "Homeland Security Acquisitions: DHS Could
Better Manage Its Portfolio to Address Funding Gaps and Improve 
Communications with Congress" 

Dear Ms. Mackin: 

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 Department is pleased to note GAO's recognition that DHS has taken 
positive steps to address the variance between acquisition cost 
estimates and funding, increase cost estimating capabilities, improve 
portfolio management and better prioritize its acquisition funding 
needs. GAO also acknowledged that recent Future Years Homeland 
Security Program (FYHSP) Reports met reporting requirements 
established by law. DHS has efforts underway to better prioritize 
funding needs and narrow any gaps between requirements articulated 
through program cost estimates and projected funding. This includes 
the requirement for senior financial officials to provide funds 
certification at major milestone decision events, and ensuring 
appropriate affordability tradeoffs are made both during acquisition 
review and as part of annual capital budgeting. In addition, to 
regular review of major acquisition programs by the Under Secretary
for Management through the Acquisition Review Board (ARB), senior 
leadership is frequently reviewing high visibility programs to ensure 
DHS is diagnosing potential issues early to proactively address 
acquisition program deficiencies. These on-going efforts highlight the
Department's commitment to better acquisition and resource management. 

The report contained nine recommendations with which the Department 
concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security: 

Recommendation 1: Update the guidance to fully reflect the following 
portfolio-management practice - Establish standard assessment criteria 
to ensure transparency and comparability across alternatives. 

Response: Concur. DHS will update guidance with standard assessment 
criteria at the appropriate level of detail to ensure transparency and 
comparability across alternatives. The following guides will 
incorporate or refer to the criteria when developed: 

* Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Handbook (Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer); 

* Portfolio Guidance Concept of Operations (Office of the Chief 
Information Officer). 

Estimated Completion Date (ECD): December 31,2014. 

Interim milestones: 

- Charter working group to develop standard assessment criteria 
(August 31, 2014); 

- Refine criteria with Component and stakeholder input (October 31, 
2014); 

- Publish update to guidance (December 31, 2014). 

Recommendation 2: Update the guidance to fully reflect the following 
portfolio-management practice - Continually make go/no-go decisions to 
rebalance the portfolio. 

Response: Concur. Decisions on whether to continue, pause, scope or 
reshape acquisition programs will continue to be made both in 
acquisition review (e.g., ARB) based on the maturity and health of 
acquisitions at key lifecycle milestones, and annually in the program 
and budget review based on portfolio affordability. DHS will continue 
to improve the thoroughness of capital budgeting by arranging 
acquisitions by portfolio, improving integration of existing annual
portfolio reviews and associated findings in annual programming and 
budgeting, and ensuring leadership has visibility into tradeoffs 
available within funding constraints. ECD: August 31, 2015. 

Interim milestones: 

- Strengthen mechanisms for portfolio governance bodies to provide 
prioritization and input into resource allocation with enterprise 
service proposals (June 30, 2014); 

- Clearly indicate all major capital investments in resource 
allocation decisions (July 31, 2014); 

- Incorporate standard assessment criteria in guidance (January 31, 
2015); 

- Conduct portfolio reviews supporting the fiscal year (FY) 2017-2021 
resource allocation cycle (June 30, 2015); 

- Present go/no-go recommendations to leadership in balancing the 
capital budget (August 31, 2015). 

Recommendation 3: Require the Department Strategy Council, or another 
body responsible for strategic direction, to issue Integrated Planning 
Guidance annually, in accordance with DRS guidance. 

Response: Concur. Currently the DRS Office of Policy, supported by the 
DRS Office of the Chief Financial Officer, stewards development of 
annual Integrated Planning Guidance (IPG) which is issued by the 
Secretary or Deputy Secretary and outlines planning priorities to link
strategy development with program and budget formulation. 

The IPG is to be published annually as the final output of the 
planning phase of planning, programing, budget, and execution (PPBE), 
as currently required in Management Directive (MD)-1330, "Planning, 
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution." The Department has already
implemented the intent of this recommendation, and issued the FY 2016-
FY 2020 Integrated Planning Guidance in March 2014. Accordingly, DRS 
requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and closed. 

Recommendation 4: Require the Capabilities and Requirements Council 
(CRC), or another body responsible for requirements review, to 
establish priorities across functional portfolios, such as 
cybersecurity, domain awareness, and law enforcement. 

Response: Concur. Currently most requirements development occurs in 
individual DRS Component organizations, with no formal structure and 
capacity to harmonize Department-wide capability needs. The Department 
has acknowledged the need to develop repeatable management policy and 
doctrine for oversight of joint capabilities and requirements
development and assessment. 

In 2013, the Management Directorate worked with the Science and 
Technology Directorate, Office of Acquisition Support and Operations 
Analysis, and the DRS Office of Policy to examine and pilot 
improvements to investment lifecycle management. This included how
assessments across Components of a capabilities baseline, future 
requirements, and portfolio management could be leveraged as a primary 
means of prioritizing capabilities and to inform tradeoffs in the 
allocation of program resources. 

As the findings of the pilot are reviewed and incorporated with 
efforts to strengthen and improve acquisition oversight, the 
Department intends to establish a senior level body with the authority
to oversee requirements review across functional portfolios. ECD: May 
31, 2014. 

Interim milestones: 

- Review lessons learned from investment lifecycle management pilots 
(April 30, 2014); 

- Charter a governing body to establish priorities across portfolios 
(May 31, 2014). 

Recommendation 5: Establish that the Program Review Board (PRB) should 
recommend tradeoffs across DRS's major acquisition portfolio to 
address its major acquisition funding gap. 

Response: Concur. The existing PRB considers tradeoffs among the 
mission activities of the Department to provide recommendations on 
resource allocation to the Deputy Secretary. Major acquisition 
programs are a subset of the mission activities. One of the inputs 
this group reviews is the multi-year capital budget and how it 
supports DRS missions. In accordance with MD-1330, this is 
accomplished through programming and by systematic review of time-phased
resource requirements including investments, the estimated costs of 
programs, and projected performance. ECD: December 31, 2014. 

Interim Milestones: 

- Provide alternatives to the PRB in the FY 2016-2020 PPBE cycle 
recommending tradeoffs to address affordability of relevant 
acquisitions (August 31 ~ 2014); 

- Issue updated Management Directive 1330 with this requirement 
(December 31, 2014). 

Recommendation 6: Require the ARB to assess program-specific 
affordability tradeoffs at all of its meetings. 

Response: Concur. The DRS Chief Financial Officer will update the memo 
entitled "Certification of Acquisition Funding," dated December 3, 
2012. The update will include guidance to prepare and discuss program-
specific affordability tradeoffs at all ARB meetings. When ARB 
affordability discussions result in specific tradeoffs, those 
tradeoffs will be documented, as appropriate, in the corresponding 
Acquisition Decision Memorandum. Further, when necessary, the 
program's Acquisition Program Baseline will be updated to address the
specific changes. ECD: April 30, 2014. 

Recommendation 7: Present acquisition programs annual cost estimates 
and any anticipated funding gaps. 

Response: Concur. On a quarterly basis, the DRS Office of Program 
Accountability and Risk Management produces a Comprehensive 
Acquisition Status Report (CASR) to Congress that includes the cost 
estimate for all major Department acquisition programs. On an annual 
basis the report is updated with a program inventory matching the DRS 
major acquisition oversight list in parallel with publication of the 
FYRSP report. The annual CASR provides the cost estimate information 
necessary to better communicate acquisition funding needs to Congress 
including any change since last reported. It also displays the project 
request for the budget year projections for the next three years. ECD: 
April 30, 2014. 

Recommendation 8: Clearly link major acquisition programs to the 
homeland security strategy. 

Response: Concur. The FY2015-2019 FYHSP report will include alignment 
of major acquisition programs to homeland security missions and goals 
as articulated in the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. This 
will be part of the detailed appendix to the report. ECD: April 30, 
2014. 

Recommendation 9: Include all of the programs on DHS's major 
acquisition oversight list. 

Response: Concur. The FY2015-2019 FYHSP report will include all of the 
acquisition programs listed in the most recent DHS major acquisition 
oversight list (MAOL), the 2013 MAOL. This will be part of the 
detailed appendix to the report. ECD: April 30, 2014. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously submitted 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 V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Michele Mackin, (202) 512-4841 or mackinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Katherine Trimble (Assistant 
Director), Nathan Tranquilli (Analyst-in-Charge), Peter Anderson, 
Stephen V. Marchesani, Mara McMillen, Ellen Ramachandran, Sylvia 
Schatz, and Levine Thomas made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2005). 

[2] For examples, see GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Requires More 
Disciplined Investment Management to Help Meet Mission Needs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 18, 2012); Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of 
Selected Complex Acquisitions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP] (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 
2010); and Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major 
Programs Lack Appropriate Oversight, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-29] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 
2008). 

[3] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833]. 

[4] GAO, Best Practices: Better Matching of Needs and Resources Will 
Lead to Better Weapon System Outcomes, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-288] (Washington, D.C.: March 8, 
2001). 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833]. 

[6] For example, the fiscal year 2012 FYHSP report included funding 
plans for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. 

[7] We established GAO's key portfolio management practices in 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833]. See appendix II. 

[8] We did not interview acquisition and financial management 
officials from the Office of Health Affairs because it only sponsored 
1 of DHS's 40 largest acquisition programs: BioWatch. However, we did 
collect testimonial evidence from the BioWatch program office 
directly, and that information is included in our analysis. 

[9] 6 U.S.C. § 454 establishes that the FYHSP is DHS's 5-year funding 
plan for programs approved by the Secretary that are to support the 
department's strategic plan. 

[10] DHS is required by law to include the same type of information, 
organizational structure, and level of detail in the FYHSP as the 
Department of Defense is required to include in its Future Years 
Defense Program. 

[11] A continuing resolution is an appropriation act in the form of a 
joint resolution enacted by Congress and signed into law by the 
President to provide budget authority for Federal agencies, specific 
activities, or both to continue in operation until the regular 
appropriation acts are enacted. 

[12] Appendix III presents charts for all 35 of the acquisition 
programs we reviewed, identifying how their funding plans changed 
across the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 FYHSP reports. 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-918]. 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833]. 

[15] In May 2013, the USM waived the baseline requirement for 42 
additional programs because they were in the sustainment phase. 

[16] In [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833], we 
reported that only 12 of the 71 major acquisition programs we reviewed 
met most of DHS's criteria for reliable cost estimates. 

[17] DHS's resource allocation guidance is established in two key 
documents: Management Directive Number 1330 (MD 1330) and DHS's PPBE 
Operating Handbook. MD 1330, which was issued in February 2005, 
constitutes DHS's formal resource allocation guidance. MD 1330 is 
supplemented by the more recently issued PPBE Operating Handbook, 
which was revised in June 2012. 

[18] GAO, Best Practices: An Integrated Portfolio Management Approach 
to Weapon System Investments Could Improve DOD's Acquisition Outcomes, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-388] (Washington, D.C.: 
March 30, 2007). 

[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-29]. 

[20] In May 2013, the DHS Office of Inspector General reported that 
the department did not fully coordinate the acquisition of H-60 
helicopters used by the Coast Guard and CBP. See DHS' H-60 Helicopter 
Programs, OIG-13-89 REVISED (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2013). 

[21] MD 102 and the manual. 

[22] S. Rep. No. 112-169, at 24-25 (2012). 

[23] 10 U.S.C. § 221. 

[24] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[25] 6 U.S.C. § 454. 

[26] The Coast Guard acquisition funding plan charts we present in 
appendix III account for all four funding categories. PA&E provided us 
the evidence necessary to correct the Coast Guard information 
presented in the fiscal year 2013 FYHSP report. 

[27] We established GAO's key portfolio management practices in 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833]. 

[28] We did not interview acquisition and financial management 
officials from the Office of Health Affairs because it only sponsored 
1 of DHS's 40 largest acquisition programs: BioWatch. However, we did 
collect testimonial evidence from the BioWatch program office 
directly, and that information is included in our analysis. 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833]. 

[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]