This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-900 
entitled 'Department of Homeland Security: Progress and Challenges in 
Implementing the Department's Acquisition Oversight Plan' which was 
released on June 13, 2007. 

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. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

June 2007: 

Department Of Homeland Security: 

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

GAO-07-900: 

GAO Highlights: 

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

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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

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

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

What GAO Found: 

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

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

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

What GAO Recommends: 

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

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-900]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John Hutton at (202) 512-
4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

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

The CPO Faces Challenges in Implementing Reviews and Corrective 
Actions: 

External Reviews and Knowledge Sharing Could Improve Acquisition 
Oversight: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Four Oversight Plan Reviews: 

Table 2: Potential Problems with Acquisition Planning Reviews: 

Figure: 

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

Abbreviations: 

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 12, 2007: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results in Brief: 

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

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

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

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

Background: 

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

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

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DHS (data); GAO (analysis and presentation). 

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

[End of figure] 

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

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

Table 1: Four Oversight Plan Reviews: 

Self-assessment. 

Description: HCA for each component assesses the component's staff, 
processes, and programs; 
Frequency: Annually; 
Status: Components completed first assessment as of March 2007. 

Operational status reviews. 

Description: The component assesses the status of the acquisition 
function and submits a quarterly narrative and data on performance 
metrics to the CPO, and the CPO holds a quarterly meeting with each 
individual HCA to discuss the results; The HCA has 30 days to provide 
the CPO with an action plan in response to the review and is 
responsible to ensure that action items are completed; 
Frequency: Quarterly; 
Status: Components have submitted their reports as of May 2007 and the 
CPO review is under way. 

On-site reviews. 

Description: A matrixed DHS team led by the CPO reviews each 
component's compliance with acquisition regulations, contract 
administration, use of good business judgment, and verification of 
procurement data; The head of the component is responsible for ensuring 
that the findings of the reviews are acted upon and closed out in a 
timely manner; 
Frequency: Minimum of once every 3 years (rotating) unless compelling 
reasons necessitate more frequent reviews; 
Status: Office of Procurement Operations review began in March 2007; 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) review to start in June 
2007. 

Acquisition planning reviews. 

Description: This review has three elements: (1) Individual Acquisition 
Plans-The CPO reviews component's acquisition plans that exceed a 
contract value of $50 million for most components.[A]; 
Frequency: Ongoing; 
Status: CPO review of acquisition plans under way. 

Description: (2) Acquisition Planning Review-Component HCAs review 
programs and assess acquisition planning process; 
Frequency: Annually; 
Status: Not implemented as planned. 

Description: (3) Advanced Acquisition Planning (AAP) database- 
Components are required to enter information on all acquisitions over 
$100,000 into the database; 
Frequency: Quarterly; 
Status: Components enter information into the database. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[A] The CPO reviews acquisitions that exceed $5 million for Secret 
Service and FLETC. 

[End of table] 

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

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

Table 2: Potential Problems with Acquisition Planning Reviews: 

CPO reviews certain individual acquisition plans. 

Purpose: The CPO reviews certain acquisition plans to ensure that each 
complies with regulations and policies and also provides 
recommendations and guidance; 
Potential Problems: The CPO's review is advisory because the component 
HCA is responsible to ensure that the plan complies with regulations 
and that the resulting acquisition meets the component's mission 
requirements in an efficient and effective manner; The HCA is not 
required to incorporate the CPO's comments into the plan. Instead, the 
HCA must document in the contract file how the comments were addressed; 
As a result, the CPO has little assurance that review comments are 
included in the final versions of the acquisition plans. 

HCAs review their component's acquisition planning process each year. 

Purpose: Annual reviews are intended to ensure the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the components' acquisition planning process; 
Potential Problems: The CPO does not monitor whether HCAs complete the 
annual acquisition planning reviews; Most component HCAs were not aware 
of the requirement to complete an annual acquisition planning review 
and had not done so; As a result, HCAs and the CPO may not identify and 
address poor acquisition planning processes or opportunities to 
strengthen processes. 

HCAs update the AAP database. 

Purpose: HCAs are to provide data into the database to publicize 
contracting opportunities and to assist components in managing 
schedules for planned acquisitions; 
Potential Problems: The CPO has not established an effective mechanism 
to monitor the database: 
In reviewing individual acquisition plans, the CPO has not been able to 
establish a process that allows them to check that required information 
is entered into the database; During the first on-site review at the 
Office of Procurement Operations, CPO officials indicated they could 
not verify the accuracy and completeness of Office of Procurement 
Operations' information in the database--as it had intended--because 
the database does not retain historical data for comparing the database 
to documents; As a result, the CPO's visibility into the components' 
planning activities is limited. 

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

[End of table] 

The CPO Faces Challenges in Implementing Reviews and Corrective 
Actions: 

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

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

External Reviews and Knowledge Sharing Could Improve Acquisition 
Oversight: 

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

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

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

Conclusion: 

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

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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

* Reevaluate the approach to oversight of acquisition planning reviews 
and determine whether the mechanisms under the plan are sufficient to 
monitor component actions and improve component acquisition planning 
efforts. 

* Request a periodic external assessment of the oversight plan 
implementation and ensure findings are communicated to and addressed by 
appropriate officials. 

* Develop additional opportunities to share lessons learned from 
oversight reviews with DHS components. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed by: 

John Hutton, Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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

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

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

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

June 12, 2007: 

Mr. John Hutton, Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Hutton: 

Re: Draft report GAO-07-900, "Department of Homeland Security: Progress 
and Challenges in Implementing the Department's Acquisition Oversight 
Plan." 

GAO notes "The acquisition oversight plan generally incorporates basic 
principles of an effective and accountable acquisition function and 
includes mechanisms to monitor acquisition performance. Specifically, 
the plan incorporates DHS policy, internal controls, and elements of an 
effective acquisition function: organizational alignment and 
leadership, policies and processes, human capital, knowledge and 
information management, and financial accountability." GAO also 
acknowledges that the CPO has helped several components reengineer 
processes that may improve acquisition performance over time. 

Attached are comments on the specific recommendations but we also 
wanted to address the issue of the Chief Procurement Officer's (CPO) 
authority over the Heads of Contracting Activities (HCA) at the DHS 
Components. The report states that "the CPO lacks sufficient authority 
to ensure components comply with the [oversight] plan" and restates an 
earlier GAO recommendation in GAO audit 05-179, Homeland Security 
Successes and Challenges in DHS's Efforts to Create an Effective 
Acquisition Organization, that "the Secretary of Homeland Security 
provides the CPO with sufficient enforcement authority to effectively 
oversee the Department's acquisition and manage risks"-a recommendation 
that has yet to be implemented. We respectfully do not agree with this 
recommendation. CPO has sufficient authority, including the ability to 
revoke or restrict the HCAs contracting authority, and the ability to 
concur in selection and performance of HCAs. Nevertheless, we concur 
with a prior GAO recommendation regarding a weakness in our current 
Acquisition Line of Business Management Directive and are in the 
process of modifying it to ensure that no DHS contracting organization 
is exempt from the directive. 

In testimony June 7, 2007, before the US Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight 
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of 
Columbia, Under Secretary for Management Paul A. Schneider cited the 
Services Acquisition Reform Act which was enacted as part of Title XIV 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 
108-136, Nov. 24, 2003) (41 U.S.C. 414(a)), as the authority for the 
Under Secretary for Management and the Chief Procurement Officer for 
managing and directing the procurement function at the Department. 

As the Chief Acquisition Officer, the Under Secretary's authorities 
include in part: 

* Monitoring the performance of acquisition activities and acquisition 
programs of the Department, evaluating the performance of those 
programs on the basis of applicable performance measurements and 
advising the Secretary regarding the appropriate business strategy to 
achieve the mission of the Department. 

* Making acquisitions consistent with applicable laws and establishing 
clear lines of authority, accountability and responsibility for 
acquisition decision making within the Department. 

* Managing the direction of acquisition policy for the Department 
including implementation of the unique acquisition policies, regulation 
and standards of the Department. 

These authorities also devolve to the Chief Procurement Officer who 
reports to the Under Secretary. 

The following is the Departmental response to the recommendations 
contained in the report. 

Recommendation 1. Reevaluate the approach to oversight of acquisition 
planning reviews and determine whether the mechanism under the plan is 
sufficient to monitor component actions and improve component 
acquisition planning efforts. 

Concur. DHS will take several steps to address this recommendation. 
First, DHS will include a review of acquisition plans as part of future 
on-site reviews to ensure that Office of the Chief Procurement Officer 
(OCPO) comments and recommendations on acquisition plans have been 
sufficiently addressed in the final acquisition plans. It is noted that 
if during the CPO review of an Acquisition Plan there are instances of 
a failure to comply with specific statutory or regulatory requirements, 
those are highlighted as mandatory comments that must be incorporated 
before proceeding, as opposed to the reviewers opinions on improving 
the plan as presented. Second, the CPO will develop a training module 
for presentation to Component HCAs and other relevant component 
personnel to emphasize this requirement and modify the Operational 
Assessment to include an annual reporting requirement on the 
Acquisition Planning review. Finally, the Advanced Acquisition Planning 
(AAP) database is a Web based reporting tool that satisfies the 
requirement for advanced acquisition planning as set forth in FAR Part 
7 and is also a database from which the Small Business forecast is 
drawn. Upon discovery of the limited data availability on the Website 
hosting this database, CPO directed that the database be modified to 
address the data availability and archiving issue to ensure that full 
year data is available at any time and that archived data is available 
and easily accessed. 

Recommendation 2. Request a periodic external assessment of the 
oversight plan implementation and ensure findings are communicated to 
and addressed by appropriate officials. 

Concur. The first priority of the Acquisition Oversight office is to 
complete the initial comprehensive on-site reviews of each component. 
Plans, activities and schedules to accomplish that by the 4tH Quarter 
of FY 08 are in place. In the coming months the Acquisition Oversight 
office will explore opportunities for establishing a periodic third 
party review of the DHS Oversight program. This third party will likely 
be an outside agency such as the Federal Acquisition Institute or the 
Defense Acquisition University or another entity with a sufficient 
knowledge base in Federal Acquisition to be able to provide meaningful, 
constructive criticism of the program. 

Recommendation 3. Develop additional opportunities to share lessons 
learned from oversight reviews with DHS components. 

Concur. Steps are being taken in two specific areas to address this 
effort. First, the quarterly Operational Assessments, which are a 
common collection of acquisition and contracting related data, are 
being reviewed independently with each Head of Contracting Activity by 
the Acquisition Oversight office to ensure a common understanding of 
the information requested and consistent responses so that data can be 
consolidated and compared across components. The Oversight office is 
receiving positive feedback from the component HCAs interviewed to date 
that the data collection has already shown benefits to the HCAs by 
highlighting information that had otherwise been overlooked in their 
own assessments. The goal of this effort is to be able to consolidate 
the information in order to identify any outliers from a particular 
component in order for the CPO to specifically address them with the 
HCA. 

In addition, these reports, aggregated over a fiscal year will be used 
by the CPO to establish specific performance goals that the CPO sets 
for all of the HCAs in the Department. Second, the results of the 
comprehensive on-site reviews will be similarly aggregated to provide 
the CPO with an overarching view of the state of the acquisition and 
procurement function in the Department. As analyses are completed this 
will become a routine agenda item for the DHS CAO council, made up of 
the collective HCAs from all components which meets every month. The 
CPO will explore the recommendation that other analyses, reports or the 
results of reviews be shared across the entire DHS Acquisition 
community, bearing in mind that many of the reports will be component 
or program specific. 

We thank you again for the opportunity to review this most important 
report and provide comments. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

(120651) 

FOOTNOTES 

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

[2] DHS Management Directive 0784, Acquisition Oversight Program. 

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

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

[5] These components have their own internal procurement offices 
because they joined DHS with their own contracting support. 

[6] GAO-06-996. 

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

[8] GAO-06-996. 

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

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

[11] See GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington D.C.: November 
1999). 

[12] GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: