prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: To help manage its multi-billion dollar acquisition investments, DHS has established policies and processes for acquisition management, requirements development, test and evaluation, and resource allocation  The department uses these policies and processes to deliver systems that are intended to close critical capability gaps, helping enable DHS to execute its missions and achieve its goals  DHS policies and processes for managing its major acquisition programs are primarily set forth in its Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 and Acquisition Management Instruction 102-01-001  DHS issued the initial version of this directive in November 2008 in an effort to establish an acquisition management system that effectively provides required capability to operators in support of the department’s missions  DHS’s Under Secretary for Management is currently designated as the department’s Chief Acquisition Officer and, as such, is responsible for managing the implementation of the department’s acquisition policies  DHS’s Under Secretary for Management serves as the acquisition decision authority for the department’s largest acquisition programs, those with LCCEs of $1 billion or greater  Component Acquisition Executives—the most senior acquisition management officials within each of DHS’s components—may be delegated acquisition decision authority for programs with cost estimates between $300 million and less than $1 billion  Table 1 identifies how DHS has categorized the 28 major acquisition programs we review in this report, and table 7 in appendix III specifically identifies the programs within each level  DHS acquisition management policy establishes that a major acquisition program’s decision authority shall review the program at a series of predetermined acquisition decision events to assess whether the major program is ready to proceed through the acquisition life-cycle phases  Depending on the program, these events can occur within months of each other, or be spread over several years  Figure 1 depicts the acquisition life cycle established in DHS acquisition management policy  An important aspect of an acquisition decision event is the decision authority’s review and approval of key acquisition documents  See table 2 for a description of the type of key acquisition documents requiring department-level approval before a program moves to the next acquisition phase  DHS acquisition management policy establishes that the APB is the agreement between program, component, and department-level officials establishing how systems will perform, when they will be delivered, and what they will cost  Specifically, the APB establishes a program’s schedule, costs, and key performance parameters  DHS defines key performance parameters as a program’s most important and non- negotiable requirements that a system must meet to fulfill its fundamental purpose  For example, a key performance parameter for an aircraft may be airspeed and a key performance parameter for a surveillance system may be detection range  The APB schedule, costs, and key performance parameters are defined in terms of an objective and minimum threshold value  According to DHS policy, if a program fails to meet any schedule, cost, or performance threshold approved in the APB, it is considered to be in breach  Programs in breach are required to notify their acquisition decision authority and develop a remediation plan that outlines a time frame for the program to return to its APB parameters, re-baseline—that is, establish new schedule, cost, or performance goals—or have a DHS-led program review that results in recommendations for a revised baseline  In addition to the acquisition decision authority, other bodies and senior officials support DHS’s acquisition management function: The Acquisition Review Board reviews major acquisition programs for proper management, oversight, accountability, and alignment with the department’s strategic functions at acquisition decision events and other meetings as needed  The board is chaired by the acquisition decision authority or a designee and consists of individuals who manage DHS’s mission objectives, resources, and contracts  The Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) is responsible for DHS’s overall acquisition governance process, supports the Acquisition Review Board, and reports directly to the Under Secretary for Management  PARM develops and updates program management policies and practices, reviews major programs, provides guidance for workforce planning activities, provides support to program managers, and collects program performance data  Components, such as U S  Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, and the U S  Coast Guard sponsor specific acquisition programs  The head of each component is responsible for oversight of major acquisition programs once the programs complete delivery of all planned capabilities to end users  Component Acquisition Executives within the components are responsible for overseeing the execution of their respective portfolios  Program management offices, also within the components, are responsible for planning and executing DHS’s individual programs  They are expected to do so within the cost, schedule, and performance parameters established in their APBs  If they cannot do so, programs are considered to be in breach and must take specific steps, as noted above  Figure 2 depicts the relationship between acquisition managers at the department, component, and program level  DHS established a Joint Requirements Council (JRC) to develop and lead a component-driven joint requirements process for the department  The JRC has issued policies outlining a process for analyzing and validating capability gaps, needs, and requirements  The JRC consists of a chair and 14 members who are senior executives or officers that represent key DHS headquarters offices and seven of the department’s operational components  The JRC chair rotates annually among the seven operational components  JRC members represent the views of their components or office leadership, endorse and prioritize validated capability needs and operational requirements (user-defined performance parameters outlining what a system must do), and make recommendations that are supported by analytical rigor  Figure 3 depicts the current headquarters and component members of the JRC  The JRC provides input to two senior-level entities: The Acquisition Review Board—as a member, the JRC chair advises the board on capability gaps, needs, and requirements at key milestones in the acquisition life cycle  The Deputy’s Management Action Group, which the Secretary established in April 2014, is a decision-making body that is chaired by the Deputy Secretary  Its membership consists of the DHS Chief of Staff, DHS Under Secretaries, senior operational component deputies and select support component deputies, and the Chief Financial Officer  The group provides recommendations to the Deputy Secretary for consideration in the annual resource allocation process that reflects DHS’s investment priorities  The group reviews JRC- validated capability needs and recommendations, provides direction and guidance to the JRC, and endorses or directs related follow-on JRC activities  The JRC is responsible for validating proposed capability needs and requirements for all major acquisitions, as well as for programs that are joint or of interest to the Deputy’s Management Action Group, regardless of level  See table 3 for a description of the key requirements documents requiring JRC validation  In general, the DHS requirements development process moves from broad mission needs and capability gaps to operational requirements  See figure 4  In May 2009, DHS established policies that describe processes for testing the capabilities delivered by the department’s major acquisition programs  The primary purpose of test and evaluation is to provide timely, accurate information to managers, decision makers, and other stakeholders to reduce programmatic, financial, schedule, and performance risks  We provide an overview of each of the 28 programs’ test activities in the individual program assessments presented in appendix I  DHS testing policy assigns specific responsibilities to particular individuals and entities throughout the department: Program managers have overall responsibility for planning and executing their programs’ testing strategies, including scheduling and funding test activities and delivering systems for testing  They are also responsible for controlling developmental testing, which is used to assist in the development and maturation of products, manufacturing, or support processes  Developmental testing includes engineering- type tests used to verify that design risks are minimized, substantiate achievement of contract technical performance, and certify readiness for operational testing  Operational test agents are responsible for planning, conducting, and reporting on operational test and evaluation, which is intended to identify whether a system can meet its key performance parameters and provide an evaluation of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and cybersecurity of a system in a realistic environment  Operational effectiveness refers to the overall ability of a system to provide a desired capability when used by representative personnel  Operational suitability refers to the degree to which a system can be placed into field use and sustained satisfactorily  The operational test agents may be organic to the component, another government agency, or a contractor, but must be independent of the developer in order to present credible, objective, and unbiased conclusions  The Director, Office of Test and Evaluation is responsible for approving major acquisition programs’ operational test agent and test and evaluation master plans, among other things  A program’s test and evaluation master plan must describe the developmental and operational testing needed to determine technical performance and operational effectiveness, suitability, and cybersecurity  As appropriate, the Director is also responsible for observing operational tests, reviewing operational test agents’ reports, and assessing the reports  Prior to a program’s acquisition decision event 3, the Director provides the program’s acquisition decision authority a letter of assessment that includes an appraisal of the program’s operational test, a concurrence or non-concurrence with the operational test agent’s evaluation, and any further independent analysis  As an acquisition program proceeds through its life cycle, the testing emphasis moves gradually from developmental testing to operational testing  See figure 5  DHS has established a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process to allocate resources to acquisition programs and other entities throughout the department  DHS uses this process to produce the department’s annual budget request and multi-year funding plans presented in the FYHSP, a database that contains, among other things, 5-year funding plans for DHS’s major acquisition programs  According to DHS guidance, the 5-year plans 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  At the outset of the annual resource allocation process, the department’s Offices of Policy and Chief Financial Officer provide planning and fiscal guidance, respectively, to the department’s components  In accordance with this guidance, the components should submit 5-year funding plans to the Chief Financial Officer  These plans are subsequently reviewed by DHS’s senior leaders, including the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary  DHS’s senior leaders are expected to modify the plans in accordance with their priorities and assessments, and they document their decisions in formal resource allocation decision memorandums  DHS submits the revised funding plans to the Office of Management and Budget, which uses them to inform the President’s annual budget request—a document sent to Congress requesting new budget authority for federal programs, among other things  In some cases, the funding appropriated to certain accounts in a given fiscal year can be carried over to subsequent fiscal years  Figure 6 depicts DHS’s annual resource allocation process  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 report presents the 5-year funding plans in the FYHSP database at that time  Two offices within DHS’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer support the annual resource allocation process: The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) is responsible for establishing policies for the annual resource allocation process and overseeing the development of the FYHSP  In this role, PA&E develops the Chief Financial Officer’s planning and fiscal guidance, 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  The Cost Analysis Division is responsible for reviewing, analyzing, and evaluating acquisition programs’ LCCEs to ensure the cost of DHS programs are presented accurately and completely, in support of resource requests  This division also supports affordability assessments of the department’s budget, in coordination with PA&E, and develops independent cost estimates for major acquisition programs upon request by DHS’s Under Secretary for Management or Chief Financial Officer  Of the 24 programs we assessed with approved schedule and cost goals, 10 were on track to meet those goals during 2017  The other 14 programs were not on track because they changed or breached their schedule goals, cost goals, or both  We found that most programs updated their cost estimates in response to requirements DHS established in January 2016 that are intended to provide decision makers with more timely information  These actions are in accordance with GAO’s best practice to regularly update cost estimates and we plan to use these updated estimates to measure programs’ cost changes going forward  Based on our April 2014 recommendation, DHS revised the format of its fiscal year 2018–2022 FYHSP report to Congress to include acquisition affordability tables for select major acquisition programs  However, the report shows—and our analysis of programs’ current cost estimates confirms— that some programs face acquisition funding gaps in fiscal year 2018  We also reviewed 4 programs that were early in the acquisition process and planned to establish department-approved schedule and cost goals in calendar year 2017  However, these programs were delayed in getting department approval for their initial APBs for various reasons and, therefore, we excluded them from our assessment of whether programs were on track to meet their schedule and cost goals during 2017  DHS leadership subsequently approved initial APBs for 2 particularly complex and costly programs—a border wall system along the southwest U S  border and the Coast Guard’s Heavy Polar Icebreaker—in January 2018  We plan to assess these programs in next year’s review, but provide more details on all 4 additional programs we reviewed in the individual assessments in appendix I  Table 4 summarizes our findings and we present more detailed information after the table  From January 2017 to January 2018, 10 of the 24 programs we assessed with department-approved APBs were on track to meet their schedule and cost goals  This is fewer than our last annual review in which we found that 17 of the 26 programs we assessed were on track during 2016  Three of the 10 programs on track during 2017 were on track against initial schedule and cost goals; that is, the schedule and cost estimates in the baseline DHS leadership initially approved after the department’s acquisition management policy went into effect in November 2008  The other 7 programs had re-baselined prior to January 2017 and were on track against revised schedules and cost estimates that reflected past schedule slips, cost growth, or both  However, some of the programs on track in 2017 identified risks that may lead to schedule slips or cost growth in the future  For example, officials from the Technology Infrastructure Modernization program told us that staffing challenges may impede their ability to execute the program in accordance with its current APB  We also identified 2 programs that are in the process of re-baselining or plan to re-baseline in the near future to account for significant program changes or to add capabilities  For example, the Next Generation Networks Priority Services program plans to update its APB to establish schedule, cost, and performance goals for the next increment, which is intended to address landline capabilities for providing government officials emergency telecommunication services  During 2017, 14 of the 24 programs we assessed with department- approved APBs were not on track  Twelve of these programs had at least one major acquisition milestone that slipped, including 6 of these programs that also changed or breached their cost goals  Two additional programs changed or breached only their cost goals  As of January 2018, 6 of the 12 programs that experienced a schedule slip were in breach and had not yet revised their goals  Therefore, the magnitude of the schedule slips is unknown  For the remaining 6 programs, the change in schedule during 2017 ranged from a delay of 6 months to 66 months  Figure 7 identifies the programs that experienced schedule slips and the extent to which their major milestones slipped in 2017, as well as—for additional context—in prior years  While there are various reasons for schedule delays, the result is that end users may not get needed capabilities when they originally anticipated  Examples of the reasons why these key milestones slipped in 2017 include the following: New requirements: For example, the Passenger Screening Program re-baselined in May 2017 for the fifth time since its initial APB was approved in January 2012  This latest re-baseline was to remediate a 17-month breach caused by delays in incorporating new cybersecurity requirements in one of the program’s transportation security equipment technologies, known as the Credential Authentication Technology  The program now plans to achieve full operational capability for this system by December 2023—more than 9 years later than it initially planned  In another example, the Tactical Communications Modernization program re-baselined in November 2017—4 months after the program notified DHS leadership that it would not achieve full operational capability as planned  The reason for this re-baseline was to resolve issues related to federal information security requirements  The program now plans to achieve this milestone by March 2019, which is more than a year later than its initial APB threshold  Technical challenges: For example, the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program re-baselined in June 2017 to account for significant coverage gaps identified during the deployment of phase 1 sensors and to establish cost, schedule, and performance goals for phase 3 tools  The program’s full operational capability date slipped almost 4 years after this milestone was redefined as the point in time at which phase 1–3 tools are available to all participating civilian agencies  Additionally, the Automated Commercial Environment program declared a schedule breach in April 2017—its second in less than a year—after encountering difficulties developing its remaining functionality  These difficulties have caused further delays to the program’s final acquisition milestone decision  External factors: Officials from the Logistics Supply Chain Management System program notified DHS leadership in September 2017 that the program would not complete all required activities to achieve acquisition decision event 3 and subsequent events, including full operational capability  The primary reason for the delay was because program staff were deployed to support response and recovery efforts during the 2017 hurricane season  Additionally, the Medium Lift Helicopter program experienced delays in getting key acquisition documents approved in time to achieve its acquisition decision event 3  These delays were attributed, in part, to DHS leadership directing Customs and Border Protection to develop a comprehensive border plan that included the helicopter’s capabilities  We elaborate on the reasons for all 12 programs’ schedule slips in the individual assessments in appendix I  Of the 14 programs not on track during 2017, 8 revised or breached their established cost goals  Four of these 8 programs revised their cost goals when they re-baselined to address new requirements and technical challenges, among other things  When the Passenger Screening Program re-baselined in May 2017, the program’s APB threshold for its life-cycle costs increased $418 million (8 percent) over its previous APB  However, the revised threshold is $1 billion below the threshold established in the program’s initial APB, which was approved in January 2012  From 2012 to 2015, the program’s scope was reduced in response to funding constraints  However, emerging threats drove the program to increase capability requirements, which has subsequently increased costs  When the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program re- baselined in June 2017, the APB threshold for life-cycle costs decreased by $15 million (1 percent)  However, the program shifted some acquisition costs to operations and maintenance (O&M) to be consistent with DHS’s new common appropriations structure  This, in addition to other changes, increased the APB threshold for O&M by $631 million (3,712 percent)  When the National Security Cutter program re-baselined in November 2017 to account for a ninth ship—as directed by Congress—the APB cost thresholds for acquisition and O&M increased by $453 million (8 percent) and $123 million (1 percent), respectively  When the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s TECS Modernization program re-baselined in November 2017 in preparation for acquisition decision event 3, the APB cost thresholds increased overall  Specifically, the acquisition cost threshold decreased by $14 million (6 percent) when the program included actual costs through fiscal year 2016, among other things, and the O&M cost threshold increased by $147 million (92 percent) when the program extended the estimate by 4 years and included support costs for an additional 11 years  The other 4 programs breached their established cost goals during 2017  The Medium Lift Helicopter and Electronic Baggage Screening programs breached certain APB cost thresholds when they shifted costs between categories, such as O&M to acquisitions or vice versa, to be consistent with DHS’s new common appropriations structure  The Tactical Communications Modernization program experienced a cost breach primarily because of increases in costs for contractor labor and support for facilities and infrastructure  The program’s APB cost threshold for O&M increased by $110 million (23 percent) when it re-baselined in November 2017  The Automated Commercial Environment program experienced a cost breach because it had to extend its contracts to address the development difficulties discussed above  The magnitude of the program’s cost goal changes is not yet known because the program does not plan to revise its APB until August 2018  We elaborate on the reasons for all 8 programs’ cost goal changes or breaches in the individual program assessments in appendix I  In January 2016, based on several of our past recommendations, DHS required major acquisition programs to begin submitting to headquarters (1) detailed data on program affordability, such as updates to the program’s LCCE and funding source information, to help inform the department’s annual resource allocation process, and (2) an annual LCCE update  These requirements are intended to provide more timely information that may improve DHS’s efforts to address acquisition program affordability issues, as well as internal and external oversight of programs’ progress against its cost goals  These actions are in accordance with GAO’s cost estimating best practices, which state that cost estimates should be updated with actual costs so that they are always relevant and current  As a result, we have used these sources to provide the programs’ current estimate in the individual assessments in appendix I, as appropriate, and plan to use these data sources to measure programs’ cost changes going forward  According to officials from the Cost Analysis Division, a program’s annual LCCE update should inform the affordability submission to support the annual resource allocation process and can be completed at any point during the fiscal year leading up to this process  We examined documentation to ascertain whether the programs we reviewed complied with the two requirements  For the 24 programs we assessed with department-approved APBs, we found the following: All 24 programs submitted the detailed data on program affordability to headquarters by June 2017 to inform the fiscal year 2019 resource allocation cycle  Most programs’ submissions accounted for changes since the program’s last LCCE was approved by DHS’s Chief Financial Officer, except three  For example, the Long Range Surveillance Aircraft program’s submission reflected no updates from its November 2011 LCCE because the program was in the process of re-baselining to account for significant changes  The program began re-baselining nearly 3 years ago and has been delayed for various reasons, including challenges with the vendor hired to complete a revision of the program’s LCCE  Eighteen of the 24 programs submitted annual LCCE updates  Three programs—Automated Commercial Environment, H-65, and Transformation—did not submit an annual LCCE update because they were in breach  The other 3 programs—all within the Coast Guard—did not submit an annual LCCE because, according to Coast Guard officials, they have limited internal cost estimating capability and rely on outside sources for this service, which led to delays in completing the annual LCCEs for these programs  Coast Guard officials said they are reviewing options to resolve these delays and improve the Coast Guard’s cost estimating capability  Cost Analysis Division officials anticipate the Coast Guard will increase compliance with the annual LCCE requirement in fiscal year 2018  They also plan to update the annual LCCE template to include additional information, such as comparisons of the updated estimates to the program’s APB cost goals and projected funding  In addition, DHS revised the format of its FYHSP report to Congress, improving insight into major programs’ acquisition funding, but decreasing insight into O&M funding  In April 2014, we found that DHS could better communicate its funding needs for acquisition programs to Congress and recommended that DHS enhance the content for future FYHSP reports by presenting programs’ annual cost estimates and any anticipated funding gaps, among other things  DHS concurred with the recommendation and, for the first time, included acquisition affordability tables that presented programs’ annual acquisition cost estimates compared to projected acquisition funding for select major acquisition programs in its FYHSP report for fiscal years 2018–2022  However, DHS no longer reported O&M funding for individual programs  DHS reported in the FYHSP that it focused on acquisition information because O&M funding estimates are generally stable year-to-year and components manage O&M in various ways, such as by individual program or across a portfolio of programs  By removing O&M funding information in the FYHSP for all programs, DHS presents an incomplete picture of programs’ full funding needs and affordability  In April 2018, we assessed the extent to which DHS had accounted for O&M costs and funding in greater detail and recommended that DHS reverse the exclusion of O&M funding at the acquisition program level in its FYHSP report to Congress for all components  DHS officials stated that they plan to re-introduce O&M funding for major acquisition programs in the FYHSP report for fiscal years 2019–2023 based on multiple internal discussions about the best way to present a more comprehensive view of programs’ total costs and feedback from key stakeholders, such as the Office of Management and Budget  Based on the information presented in the FYHSP report for fiscal years 2018–2022, DHS’s acquisition portfolio is not affordable over the next 5 years  For example, the report contained acquisition affordability tables for 18 of the 24 programs we assessed that have approved APBs  Of these 18 programs, 9 were projected to have an acquisition affordability gap in fiscal year 2018  However, some of these projections are outdated since the FYHSP report—which was issued in September 2017—relied on cost information as of April 2016  Therefore, we updated these tables using the programs’ current acquisition cost estimate presented in the individual assessments in appendix I  Based on our assessment of programs’ current cost estimates, we also found that a total of 9 programs are projected to have an acquisition affordability gap in fiscal year 2018  However, 3 of these 9 programs were different programs than those identified based on the FYHSP report  Of the 9 programs we identified with a projected acquisition affordability gap in fiscal year 2018, we found the following: Five programs identified other funding, such as funding from previous fiscal years that remained available for obligation—known as carryover funding—which would address their projected acquisition funding gap  For example, in the FYHSP report, DHS projected allocating approximately $16 million in funding for the Technology Infrastructure Modernization program in fiscal year 2018 to cover an estimated $16 million in acquisition costs  However, in its November 2017 annual LCCE update, this program’s acquisition cost increased to almost $30 million, resulting in a projected acquisition affordability gap of almost 45 percent  The program plans to realign $57 million in O&M carryover funding to cover this and any future acquisition shortfalls  Four programs did not identify other funding that would address their projected acquisition funding gap, which increases the likelihood that they will cost more and take longer to deliver capabilities to end users than expected  For example, in the FYHSP report, DHS projected allocating $109 million in funding for the Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems program in fiscal year 2018 to cover an estimated $103 million in acquisition costs  However, in its April 2017 annual LCCE update, this program’s acquisition costs increased to nearly $186 million, resulting in a projected acquisition affordability gap of 41 percent  The program identified only $2 5 million in fiscal year 2017 acquisition carryover funding  Further, 5 of the 24 programs we assessed were not included in the fiscal years 2018–2022 FYHSP report because they were no longer expected to receive acquisition funding  Officials from 3 of these 5 programs projected funding gaps that could cause future program execution challenges, such as schedule slips or cost growth  For example, the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility anticipates a projected funding shortfall of approximately $90 million over the next 5 years, which officials said could delay a number of activities to make the facility operational  We elaborate on programs’ affordability over the next 5 years in the individual program assessments in appendix I  We assessed DHS’s policies outlining the department’s processes for acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements and found that, when considered collectively, they generally reflect key portfolio management practices  In March 2007, we examined the practices that private sector entities use to achieve a balanced mix of new projects and found that successful commercial companies use a disciplined and integrated approach to prioritize needs and allocate resources when making 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  Based on this and other work, we identified four key practice areas for portfolio management in September 2012  We previously assessed DHS’s acquisition management and resource allocation policies against our key portfolio management practices in September 2012 and April 2014, respectively  We found that the policies in place at the time of our reviews did not fully reflect all of the key portfolio management practices and recommended that DHS revise its policies to do so  DHS concurred with our recommendations and subsequently took actions to mature and solidify the department’s portfolio management processes and policies  In April 2014, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum titled Strengthening Departmental Unity of Effort, which aimed to strengthen DHS’s structures and processes to improve departmental cohesiveness and operational effectiveness, among other things  The memorandum identified several initial focus areas intended to build organizational capacity, one of which centered on improving and integrating the department’s processes for acquisition oversight, resource allocation, and joint requirements analysis  To improve these processes, the memorandum directed senior DHS leaders to update the existing acquisition management and resource allocation processes, as well as lead an expedited review to provide alternatives for developing and facilitating a component-driven joint requirements process, which ultimately led to the re-establishment of the JRC  In response to our recommendations and the Unity of Effort memorandum, DHS issued new policies outlining the acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements processes in 2016  We assessed these policies and found that, when considered collectively, they generally reflect the key portfolio management practices, as shown in table 5  Because DHS’s new policies were issued in 2016, we did not specifically assess DHS’s implementation of them  However, we did review documentation resulting from the acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements processes since January 2016 to get a sense of how the department began implementation  Examples of how DHS’s policies reflect the key portfolio management practices and their implementation status are outlined below  Clearly define and empower leadership: the policies identify the roles and responsibilities for decision makers in the acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements processes, as well as establish cross-functional teams to support those decision makers  For example, to fulfill the role of acquisition decision authority, the Under Secretary for Management is supported by the Acquisition Review Board, which consists of key DHS senior leaders responsible for managing the department’s finances, contracts, and testing, among other things  We reviewed the memorandums issued since January 2016 that document Acquisition Review Board decisions and found that, through this group, DHS has taken steps to manage across programs through its acquisition management process  For example, after reviewing the status of several individual Customs and Border Protection programs in 2016, the Acquisition Review Board identified the need for a comprehensive border plan that depicts the component’s current land, maritime, and air domain awareness capabilities  In October 2016, the Deputy Under Secretary for Management—who was serving as acquisition decision authority at the time—directed Customs and Border Protection to develop such a plan  The plan is to consist of separate analyses for each of the three domains—starting with land— that reflect end users’ capability requirements for systems, such as Integrated Fixed Towers, Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft, and Medium Lift Helicopter, that address relevant domain threats  As of February 2018, Customs and Border Protection had not yet completed the analysis for land domain awareness capabilities  Establish standard assessment criteria and demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the portfolio: the policies establish standard criteria for assessing major acquisition programs through the acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements processes  For example, the updated resource allocation handbook established that PA&E conduct annual assessments of all major investments using standard criteria in five main categories— contribution to DHS’s mission, program health, risk, resources, and governance—to assess the portfolio of investments and present alternatives for leadership decision  PA&E officials told us they used these criteria when assessing components’ resource allocation requests during development of the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget to develop funding options for the Deputy’s Management Action Group, which is responsible for making resource allocation recommendations for the Secretary’s approval  PA&E presented its funding options by DHS mission, which, according to officials associated with the Deputy’s Management Action Group, allowed the group to make cross-component allocation decisions that directly aligned with the department’s strategic goals  We could not verify these officials’ assertions based on the documentation we were provided, but will continue to monitor PA&E’s assessment of major acquisition programs against the standard criteria as the department’s implementation of its resource allocation policies matures  In addition, PARM formally established its Acquisition Program Health Assessments in October 2016 after more than a year of development and pilot efforts  These assessments are intended to monitor major acquisition programs quarterly (both on an individual program level and in aggregate) by rating programs against standard criteria in several categories—such as program management, financial management, and human capital—that DHS deemed important for successful program execution  We reviewed the quarterly reports issued from January 2016 to April 2017 and found that they primarily focused on individual programs  The portfolio-level information contained in these reports was limited to program results grouped in various categories, such as by component, by acquisition life-cycle phase, and by investment type (e g , information technology)  PARM officials said they plan to use the health assessments as a portfolio management tool in the future and are working to determine how to best to analyze and present portfolio-level data  We will continue to track PARM’s implementation of the health assessment process moving forward through GAO’s High Risk work to determine DHS’s progress in demonstrating that major acquisition programs are on track to achieve their established goals  Prioritize investments by integrating the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes: the policies identify areas where DHS’s requirements, acquisition management, and resource allocation processes are integrated and establish processes for prioritizing investments  For example, the updated resource allocation policies require reviews of DHS’s major acquisition portfolio during this annual process  When the portfolio faces a funding gap, programs are to be returned to their respective components for scope or funding adjustments, or prioritized by department leadership to identify an affordable set of programs  For the fiscal year 2018 resource allocation cycle, PA&E officials provided an example where DHS leadership directed components to identify funding from alternative sources to fund specific purposes related to DHS’s mission to prevent terrorism and enhance security  However, as previously discussed, the resulting FYHSP report for fiscal years 2018–2022 showed that DHS’s portfolio of major acquisition programs is not affordable over the next 5 years  In addition, the requirements policies established the Joint Assessment of Requirements, an annual process to prioritize emerging and existing requirements to inform the department’s resource allocation decisions  As we found in October 2016, the JRC plans to implement the Joint Assessment of Requirements through a 3-year phased approach that is expected to be fully implemented in time to inform DHS’s fiscal year 2021 budget request  In fiscal year 2016, the JRC completed the first phase, which included (1) developing initial criteria to evaluate emerging requirements, and (2) evaluating and prioritizing a sample of those requirements against the initial criteria  Based on these results, JRC officials told us in September 2017 that they are working to develop assessment metrics for the criteria as part of the next phase  We will continue to track the JRC’s progress through GAO’s High Risk work to determine DHS’s progress to effectively operate the JRC  Continually make go/no go decisions to rebalance the portfolio: the requirements policies outlining the Joint Assessment of Requirements process also reflected the key practices to conduct reviews (1) annually to make requirement scoping adjustments as priorities change and (2) when new investments are identified  However, as previously discussed, the JRC is still in the process of implementing this process  We consider this overall key practice area to be partially met because DHS’s policies do not reflect the key practice (3) to reassess programs that breach established thresholds within the context of the portfolio to determine if the program remains relevant and affordable  PARM officials told us that—in practice—DHS reassesses programs in the context of their component’s overall acquisition portfolio based on a certification of funds memorandum submitted to DHS’s Chief Financial Officer when programs re-baseline as a result of a cost, schedule, or performance breach  The memorandum is intended to enable the Acquisition Review Board to discuss affordability by certifying a program’s funding levels and identifying trade-offs necessary to address any projected funding gaps  We previously found that the certification of funds memorandum was an effective tool for DHS leadership to assess program affordability  However, DHS’s acquisition management policy requires components to submit this memorandum prior to most acquisition decision events, but not when a program re-baselines as a result of a cost, schedule, or performance breach  During our review of programs’ progress against schedule and cost goals in 2017, we found one instance where a component did not follow the practice to submit this memorandum when one of its programs re-baselined as a result of a breach  Specifically, Customs and Border Protection did not submit a certification of funds memorandum when the Tactical Communications Modernization program re-baselined in November 2017 as a result of a schedule and cost breach  Nevertheless, DHS leadership approved the program’s revised APB and removed it from breach status, even though DHS’s Chief Financial Officer identified that the program’s revised LCCE was not affordable  PARM officials stated that this instance was an oversight because, at the time, the department was still determining when certification of funds memorandums should be submitted  According to the federal standards for internal control, documentation of internal control practices is necessary so that they can be implemented effectively  By amending its acquisition management policy to require a certification when a program re-baselines as a result of a cost, schedule, or performance breach, DHS can ensure that leadership receives the necessary information to reassess that program’s affordability in the context of a larger portfolio  PARM officials stated that, moving forward, components will be required to submit a certification of funds memorandum for each program when a new APB is submitted for DHS leadership approval  In contrast, the acquisition management policy does reflect the key practice (4) to use information gathered from post-implementation reviews to fine tune investment processes and the portfolio to achieve strategic outcomes  For example, DHS’s acquisition management policy requires programs to conduct post-implementation reviews 6 to 18 months after initial operational capability to identify and document any deployment or implementation and coordination issues, how they were resolved, and how they could be prevented in the future  These reviews are intended to help identify capability gaps that may inform future acquisitions, among other things  However, PARM officials said that they do not consider the results of the post-implementation reviews when managing the department’s current acquisition portfolio because these reviews are typically conducted after program oversight shifts from PARM to the component  While post-implementation reviews are conducted later in the acquisition life cycle, the insights they provide could be leveraged by other programs in the acquisition portfolio, not just the program under review  For example, the Integrated Fixed Towers program completed a post-implementation review in June 2016 after its initial deployment of capabilities to the Arizona border  The review found that changes in illegal traffic patterns as a result of the program’s deployment may be predicted, and other technologies may be able to compensate for changes in these patterns  This information could help other programs under development plan for similar outcomes or enable DHS to change deployment plans for existing programs to address changes in threats  PARM has an opportunity to use the results from programs’ post- implementation reviews since it is responsible for overseeing the department’s acquisition portfolio by monitoring each investment’s cost, schedule, and performance against established baselines  Federal standards for internal control state that management should obtain data on a timely basis so that they can be used for effective monitoring and that separate evaluations may provide feedback on the effectiveness of ongoing monitoring  By leveraging the results from post-implementation reviews in its monitoring efforts, PARM may be better able to ensure that programs in the current acquisition portfolio achieve their baselines  PARM officials stated they have generally focused on leveraging information gathered from canceled acquisition programs, such as where and why plans went wrong  However, they agreed that they could better leverage post- implementation review information gathered from programs that complete planned capability deployments  DHS’s mission to safeguard the American people and homeland requires a broad portfolio of acquisitions  However, the performance of DHS’s major acquisition portfolio during 2017 did not improve compared to our last review because we found that more programs will require more time and may require more money to complete than initially planned  DHS is collecting more timely cost estimate information on its acquisition programs to make more informed investment decisions  Yet DHS continues to face challenges in funding its acquisition portfolio, which highlights the need for disciplined policies that reflect best practices to ensure that the department does not pursue more programs than it can afford  DHS leadership has taken positive steps in recent years by strengthening its policies for acquisition management and resource allocation, and establishing policies related to requirements  Collectively, these policies reflect an integrated approach to managing investments  However, opportunities remain to further strengthen the acquisition management policy by documenting DHS’s current practice to reassess programs that breach their established cost, schedule, or performance thresholds to ensure they are still worth pursuing within the context of the portfolio  Additionally, leveraging information learned once programs complete deployment across the acquisition portfolio could help ensure that programs stay on track against their baselines in the first place  This is particularly relevant because DHS is initiating a number of complex and costly acquisition programs, such as development of a wall system along the southwest border and the Coast Guard’s Heavy Polar Icebreaker, which could benefit from this type of information  We are making the following two recommendations to DHS: The Under Secretary for Management should update DHS’s acquisition management policy to require components to submit a certification of funds memorandum when a major acquisition program re-baselines in response to a breach  (Recommendation 1) The Under Secretary for Management should require PARM to assess the results of major acquisition programs’ post-implementation reviews and identify opportunities to improve performance across the acquisition portfolio  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment  In its comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DHS concurred with both of our recommendations and identified actions it planned to take to address them  DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or makm@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  This appendix presents individual assessments for each of the 28 programs we reviewed  Each assessment presents information current as of January 2018  They include standard elements, such as an image, a program description, and summaries of the program’s progress in meeting cost and schedule goals, performance and testing activities, and program management-related issues, such as staffing  Each assessment also includes the following figures: Fiscal Years 2018–2022 Affordability  This figure compares the funding plan presented in the Future Years Homeland Security Program report to Congress for fiscal years 2018–2022 to the program’s current cost estimate  We use this funding plan because the data are approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Office of Management and Budget, and was submitted to Congress to inform the fiscal year 2018 budget process  The figure only presents acquisition funding because DHS did not report operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs in its funding plan to Congress  In addition, the data do not account for other potential funding sources, such as carryover  Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) vs  Current Estimate  This figure compares the program’s cost thresholds from the initial APB approved after DHS’s acquisition management policy went into effect in November 2008 and the program’s current DHS-approved APB to the program’s expected costs as of January 2018  The source for the current estimate is the most recent cost data we collected (i e , a department-approved life-cycle cost estimate, updated life-cycle cost estimates submitted during the resource allocation process to inform the fiscal year 2019 budget request, or a fiscal year 2017 annual life- cycle cost estimate update)  Schedule Changes  This figure consists of two timelines that identify key milestones for the program  The first timeline is based on the initial APB DHS leadership approved after the department’s current acquisition management policy went into effect  The second timeline identifies when the program expected to reach its major milestones as of January 2018 and includes milestones introduced after the program’s initial APB  Dates shown are based on the program’s APB threshold dates or updates provided by the program office  Test Status  This table identifies key recent and upcoming test events  It also includes DHS’s Director, Office of Test and Evaluation’s assessment of programs’ test results, if an assessment was conducted  Staffing Profile  This figure identifies the total number of staff a program needs (measured in full time equivalents) including how many are considered critical and how many staff the program actually has  Lastly, each program assessment summarizes comments provided by the program office and identifies whether the program provided technical comments  AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT (ACE) CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The ACE program is developing software that will electronically collect and process information submitted by the international trade community  ACE is intended to provide private and public sector stakeholders access to information, enhance the government’s ability to determine whether cargo should be admitted into the United States, and increase the efficiency of operations at U S  ports by eliminating manual and duplicative trade processes, and enabling faster decision making  Final deployment and operational testing of ACE functionality delayed  Program plans to identify an approach to address collections functionality in March 2018  We last reported on this program in March 2018 and April 2017 (GAO-18-271, GAO-17-346SP)  CBP declared a cost and schedule breach in April 2017—5 months after re-baselining the program in response to a prior breach—because of difficulties developing the collections aspect of ACE’s remaining functionality, which collects and processes duties owed on imported goods  CBP reported that its officials were not versed in the complexities of collections in the legacy system and underestimated the level of effort required to integrate collections capabilities into ACE  As a result, the program delayed final deployment of ACE functionality several times and missed the deadlines for completing the remaining milestones in its current acquisition program baseline (APB), including achieving acquisition decision event (ADE) 3 and full operational capability (FOC) by the revised dates of June 2017 and September 2017, respectively  Additional coding and testing to complete ACE development also required contract extensions that exceeded the current APB cost thresholds  The program subsequently decoupled collections from ACE’s remaining functionality to permit deployment of the other post-release capabilities—such as liquidations and reconciliation—using a phased approach between September 2017 and February 2018  In November 2017, CBP officials estimated that efforts to decouple collections from post-release functionality would be an additional $32 million in acquisition costs  CBP officials plan to cover these costs with $18 million in fiscal year 2017 carryover funding and by reprogramming $14 million from ACE disaster recovery funding  CBP is in the process of determining a path forward for collections, which is due to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership by the end of March 2018  CBP then plans to update the program’s acquisition documentation, including APB and life- cycle cost estimate, by August 2018  Until then, the time frame for completing ACE’s remaining milestones and true cost of the program, including the cost to complete collections development is unknown  The program was not included in DHS’s funding plan to Congress for fiscal years 2018 to 2022 because DHS did not report operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  CBP officials anticipate receiving approximately $535 million in O&M funding over this 5-year period  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT (ACE) When DHS leadership re-baselined ACE’s cost, schedule, and performance parameters in 2013, the program adopted an agile software development methodology to accelerate software creation and increase flexibility in the development process  As of October 2017, the ACE program office oversees 11 agile teams that conduct development and O&M activities  CBP officials said they extended the program’s agile development contracts in 2017 to permit further development of the collections function  In identifying a path forward for collections, CBP officials stated there are three main options: 1  leave collections in the legacy system, 2  continue to pursue development and deployment in ACE, or 3  move collections to a different program altogether  The program previously experienced a schedule breach in June 2016 because it delayed events to address external stakeholders’ concerns about transitioning to ACE  According to CBP officials, CBP has signed a memorandum of understanding with each of the 22 partner agencies responsible for clearing or licensing cargo that provides access to ACE  As of February 2018, 21 of the partner agencies had transitioned to ACE and the program was piloting a solution for the remaining partner  In September 2017, CBP reported that ACE continued to lack a director of testing and evaluation  CBP officials said they do not plan to fill this vacancy despite plans to conduct further testing because existing staff have successfully covered the workload and a large portion of testing has already been completed  CBP officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The Biometric Entry-Exit Program is developing capabilities to enhance traveler identification upon departure from the U S  at air, land, and sea ports of entries by collecting biometric data, such as fingerprints and facial recognition  The program plans to match this data to biometric data obtained from travelers upon their arrival into the U S  to identify foreign nationals that stay in the U S  beyond their authorized periods of admission and verify the identities of travelers leaving the U S  CBP completed four biometric pilot programs and selected a solution for development  DHS has explored biometric exit capabilities since 2009, but was directed to expedite implementation in March 2017  GAO last reported on this program in February 2017 (GAO- 17-170)  In June 2017, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Under Secretary for Management (USM) granted the Biometric Entry-Exit Program acquisition decision event (ADE) 1 approval after CBP completed several pilot initiatives to study the feasibility of proposed biometric exit solutions at air and land ports of entry  The USM also authorized the program to continue testing a pilot exit solution at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and conduct technology demonstrations as needed, but directed the program to achieve ADE 2A prior to deploying a solution to the 20 U S  airports with the most international flights  CBP officials initially planned to achieve ADE 2A approval in September 2017—the point at which the program would establish cost, schedule, and performance goals in a DHS-approved acquisition program baseline (APB)—and pursue separate ADE 2B decisions to initiate development of a biometric solution for each type of port of entry, starting with air  As of December 2017, the program had yet to conduct its ADE 2A because CBP officials have had to resolve several issues identified by the Joint Requirements Council that has delayed approval of the program’s operational requirements document (ORD)  In January 2018, CBP officials said the program plans to conduct ADE 2A in February or March 2018 and is aiming for ADE 2B for the biometric air solution in December 2018  In December 2015, Congress established an account to be used for the development and implementation of the biometric entry-exit system starting in 2017  Specifically, Congress provided that half the amount collected from fee increases for certain visa applications from fiscal years 2016 through 2025—up to $1 billion—would be available to DHS until expended  In February 2017, DHS leadership approved the program to use about $73 million of this funding in fiscal year 2017 for information technology investments and programmatic and operational support, among other things  In September 2017, DHS’s Chief Financial Officer approved the program’s life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE), which CBP expects to refine as the program progresses to meet the fee-funding limit  According to CBP officials, the current funding structure poses challenges because the fees will fluctuate based on immigration rates  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of a traveler to different sources—one technology compared the photo to the traveler’s passport upon entrance to the U S ; the other technology compared the photo to a gallery of photos based on the outbound flight manifest during an airline’s boarding process  According to CBP officials, the facial recognition technology that matched photos during an airline’s boarding process was the most viable approach and served as the foundation for its development of the ADE 2A acquisition documents  Officials stated a similar approach may be feasible for land border crossings, but will require further planning  In January 2018, CBP officials stated they were developing a test and evaluation master plan—which will outline the developmental and operational test approach—for the biometric exit air solution  DHS’s Director, Office of Test and Evaluation will need to review and approve this plan prior to the program’s ADE 2B  Since 1996, several federal statutes have required development of an entry and exit system for foreign nationals  DHS has been exploring biometric exit capabilities since 2009 and an Executive Order issued in March 2017 directed DHS to expedite the implementation of the biometric entry-exit system  The Biometric Entry-Exit Program plans to develop a capability to match a traveler’s biometric data against data contained in existing DHS biometric data repositories— primarily the National Protection and Program Directorate’s IDENT system  DHS is in the process of replacing and modernizing IDENT through the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology (HART) program because IDENT is at risk of failure  However, HART has experienced delays, which could affect the Biometric Entry-Exit Program’s development progress  For the air biometric solution, CBP plans to pursue a public/private partnership in which airlines and airports invest in the equipment to collect biometric data  According to CBP officials, this approach could reduce program costs and improve the passenger boarding process  In August 2017, CBP officials told GAO that several airlines have expressed interest in partnering with the program, including one that expanded CBP’s pilot of facial recognition matching for outbound flights to additional gates at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport  CBP officials reported a staffing gap of 14 full time equivalent staff which the program plans to fill once partnerships with airlines are established  CBP officials stated that authorized funds are collected from visa fee increases that expire in fiscal year 2025  Beyond 2025, officials stated that additional funding will need to be appropriated or the fee increases extended to continue the program  They added that fee collections are currently below forecasted levels and may come under the current $1 billion limit  CBP officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The border wall system is intended to prevent the illegal entry of people, drugs, and other contraband by enhancing and adding to the 654 miles of existing barriers along the U S  southwest border  CBP plans to create a border enforcement zone between a primary barrier—such as a fence—and a secondary barrier  To establish the enforcement zone, the wall system may also include detection technology, surveillance cameras, lighting, and roads for maintenance and patrolling  CBP has evaluated prototypes for new barrier designs, but risks with planned detection technologies exist  CBP is leveraging staff and the contracting strategy from prior border fencing programs  GAO last reported on the existing Southwest border barriers in February 2017 (GAO-17-331)  In April 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership granted CBP permission to procure barrier prototypes to inform new design standards and approved the construction of the first segment of the wall system  CBP subsequently awarded 8 task orders with a total value of over $3 million for the development of prototypes and selected San Diego as the first segment  CBP plans to replace an existing 14 miles of primary and secondary barriers in San Diego  DHS plans to use fiscal year 2017 funding for the replacement of the primary barrier, which it plans to rebuild to existing design standards  DHS has requested funding for replacement of the secondary barrier beginning in fiscal year 2018 that it plans to rebuild to new design standards once established  DHS leadership plans to approve acquisition documentation—including an acquisition program baseline (APB) and a life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE)—for each segment to determine affordability prior to authorizing construction  However, CBP officials said they do not plan to develop an APB for the San Diego segment because DHS already approved construction  In January 2018, DHS leadership approved an APB establishing cost, schedule, and performance goals for a second segment in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV), which will extend an existing barrier by 60 miles  To inform leadership’s decision, DHS headquarters conducted an independent cost estimate, which CBP adopted as the program’s LCCE  The LCCE includes costs for both the San Diego and RGV segments  However, DHS officials stated that the amounts in the LCCE are not releasable until CBP evaluates the prototypes, determines, and designs a final solution for the San Diego secondary barrier, and updates the LCCE—which is not expected to be complete until June 2018  The costs presented here are only for the RGV segment  CBP reported that construction of the RGV segment would be sufficiently funded if it receives $1 3 billion of acquisition funding in fiscal year 2018  However, CBP identified a shortfall in operations and maintenance (O&M) funding from fiscal years 2019 to 2022 that it plans to cover with existing funding from the Tactical Infrastructure program, which will be responsible for maintenance of the wall system as segments are complete  If funded, the program expects to achieve full operational capability for the RGV segment in March 2023  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) The Border Wall System Program was initiated in response to an Executive Order issued in January 2017 stating that the executive branch is to secure the southern border through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border of the U S  To expedite the acquisition planning process, CBP officials said they leveraged expertise from staff that worked on previous border fencing programs and were familiar with implementation challenges, such as land access  CBP intends to prioritize segments based on threat levels, land ownership, and geography, among other things  From fiscal years 2007 to 2015, CBP spent approximately $2 3 billion to construct pedestrian and vehicle fencing along the southwest border  CBP’s Tactical Infrastructure program is responsible for sustaining this fencing and other infrastructure—such as gates, roads, and bridges— over its lifetime  CBP plans to continue coordinating with the U S  Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for engineering support and for awarding and oversight of construction contracts  CBP anticipates that all contract awards issued by USACE in support of the RGV segment will be firm fixed price  If appropriations are received, the program plans to award construction contracts for the first portion of RGV in May 2018 and for the secondary barrier in San Diego in August 2018  In February 2018, CBP officials stated that staffing the program office is a challenge because funding has not yet been received  CBP officials said that existing work for the program is being handled by current CBP staff  CBP officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS (IFT) CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The IFT program helps the Border Patrol detect, track, identify, and classify illegal entries in remote areas  IFT consists of fixed surveillance tower systems equipped with ground surveillance radar, daylight and infrared cameras, and communications systems linking the towers to command and control centers  CBP plans to deliver or upgrade approximately 53 IFT systems across six areas of responsibility (AoR) in Arizona: Nogales, Douglas, Sonoita, Ajo, Tucson, and Casa Grande  System acceptance test completed in Douglas AoR and requirements were met  Program is adequately staffed, but simultaneous deployments in the future may have a negative impact  GAO last reported on this program in November and April 2017 (GAO-18-119, GAO-17-346SP)  In December 2017, CBP declared a schedule breach of the IFT program’s current acquisition program baseline (APB) because the program did not receive the funding needed to complete planned deployments on time to achieve its full operational capability (FOC) date of September 2020  The program’s FOC date previously slipped 5 years because of delays in the initial contract award process and funding shortfalls  CBP completed IFT deployments to the Douglas AoR in June 2017 and anticipates completing deployments to the Sonoita AoR in December 2017, as scheduled  However, in September 2017, CBP officials stated that they requested—but did not receive—additional funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address new IFT requirements, including camera upgrades and replacement of existing tower systems deployed under a legacy program  In January 2015, Border Patrol requested the program prioritize replacement of the legacy systems in the Tucson and Ajo AoRs because the technology was obsolete and more expensive to maintain than the IFT technology planned for deployment in other AoRs  Without additional funding, CBP officials stated that they would be unable to exercise the contract options for the remaining AoRs on time  In June 2017, the program updated its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE), which is slightly less than its current APB cost thresholds  This LCCE update includes estimated costs for the new requirements  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  CBP identified $8 million in acquisition carryover funding for fiscal year 2018 and officials anticipate receiving $126 million in O&M funding to cover $100 million in O&M costs over the next 5 years  The program plans to submit a revised APB to DHS leadership by June 2018  However, the FOC date may be further delayed because of land access issues  CBP officials told GAO that they have not yet reached an agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation—a sovereign Native American Nation—to access tribal lands, which these officials said is necessary for the construction of IFTs in the Ajo and Casa Grande AoRs  10/15 Initial operational capability (Nogales) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS (IFT) When CBP initiated the IFT program, it decided to procure a non-developmental system, and it required that prospective contractors demonstrate their systems prior to CBP awarding the contract  The program awarded the contract to EFW, Inc  in February 2014, but the award was protested  GAO sustained the protest and CBP had to reevaluate the offerors’ proposals before it again decided to award the contract to EFW, Inc  As a result, EFW, Inc  could not initiate work at the deployment sites until fiscal year 2015  According to CBP officials, the number of IFT systems deployed to a single AoR is subject to change based on assessments by the Border Patrol  DHS leadership directed CBP to develop a comprehensive border plan in October 2016 that includes IFT capabilities and—when preparing for the last budget cycle—the program estimated costs for expansion to the southwest border beginning in fiscal year 2019  In September 2017, CBP officials told GAO that they did not have any current staffing gaps  However, CBP officials added that if the program receives full funding and reaches an agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation to initiate IFT deployments to the Ajo and Casa Grande AoRs, while concurrently deploying capability to the Sonoita and Tucson sectors, they will be short on government and contracted staff  CBP officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  MEDIUM LIFT HELICOPTER (UH-60) CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) UH-60 is a medium-lift helicopter that CBP uses for law enforcement and border security operations, air and mobility support and transport, search and rescue, and other missions  CBP’s UH-60 fleet consists of 20 aircraft acquired from the U S  Army in three different models  CBP previously acquired 4 modern UH-60M aircraft and converted 6 of its older 16 UH-60A aircraft into more capable UH-60L models  CBP is replacing the remaining 10 UH-60A with reconfigured Army HH-60L aircraft  CBP test agent and the Army completed testing of reconfigured HH-60L prototype  CBP has initiated efforts to acquire additional converted HH-60L aircraft from the Army  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  The program breached the cost and schedule goals in its acquisition program baseline (APB) and, as of December 2017, CBP officials stated they were in the process of developing the breach notification required under the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) acquisition policy  In its annual life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) update, the program shifted some operations and maintenance (O&M) costs to acquisitions to be consistent with DHS’s new appropriation structure  For example, the program shifted costs for recurring upgrades from O&M to acquisition because these upgrades require development and production  As a result, the program’s updated acquisition cost estimate exceeded the APB acquisition cost threshold, which constitutes a cost breach under DHS’s acquisition policy  CBP officials stated that they did not initially declare a cost breach because the program’s total LCCE was within the APB threshold  The program also did not hold its acquisition decision event (ADE) 3 by the APB deadline of September 2017  The ADE 3 is intended to approve the transfer of CBP’s remaining UH-60A aircraft for reconfigured Army HH60-L aircraft based on an evaluation of a reconfigured prototype  According to CBP officials, the program did not complete the required acquisition documentation by the ADE 3 deadline, in part, because DHS leadership directed CBP to develop a comprehensive border plan in October 2016 that includes UH-60 capabilities  It is unclear when the ADE 3 will occur because, as of December 2017, several documents were pending validation by the Joint Requirements Council  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  In addition, CBP officials previously told GAO that UH-60 O&M is funded through a separate, central funding account for all of CBP’s air and marine assets  CBP officials stated that the projected acquisition funding gap in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 is primarily for replacing obsolete parts that were previously considered O&M  According to these officials, the Army conducts an annual obsolescence study that will help CBP identify and prioritize replacements across the UH-60 fleet based on available funding levels  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) MEDIUM LIFT HELICOPTER (UH-60) CBP previously acquired UH-60 as a part of its Strategic Air and Marine Program (StAMP)  In July 2016, DHS leadership designated UH-60 as a separate and distinct major acquisition program  CBP initially planned to convert all 16 of its UH-60A aircraft into UH-60L models, but changed its strategy once it learned the Army planned to divest several HH-60L aircraft that could more easily be converted into UH-60L aircraft for CBP missions  CBP officials anticipated the new strategy could reduce the program’s costs by an estimated $70 million, accelerate its schedule, and result in newer aircraft since the Army’s HH-60L airframes had fewer operating hours than CBP’s existing UH-60A aircraft  In September 2017, CBP officials told GAO they had initiated efforts to acquire additional HH-60L aircraft by conducting a study of current capability gaps and drafting a mission need statement  As of September 2017, program officials confirmed that they maintain a consolidated program office where the same staff from StAMP continue to support all remaining acquisitions, including the UH-60  However, these officials stated that they plan to realign staff to a dedicated asset over time  Program officials also stated that the program has hired a dedicated cost estimator and would like to hire additional staff to focus on procuring spare parts and common component issues, such as radio replacements, for CBP’s air and marine assets  CBP officials reiterated that the changes in acquisition costs were primarily a result of cost realignment and that the program’s total life-cycle cost is still within the initial APB LCCE goals  CBP officials also stated that—to supplement Army test data—the program’s OTA participated in the flight tests and will provide a formal report on the results  MULTI-ROLE ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT (MEA) CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) MEA are fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft that can be configured to perform multiple missions including maritime, air, and land interdiction, as well as signals detection to support law enforcement  The current MEA configuration is equipped with marine search radar and an electro-optical/infrared sensor to support maritime and land surveillance and airborne tracking missions  MEA will replace CBP’s fleet of aging C-12, PA-42, and BE-20 aircraft  Testing of new configuration planned for May 2018, but requirements not yet defined  Began retrofitting accepted MEA with new mission system in fiscal year 2017  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17- 346SP)  According to CBP officials, the program is on track to meet the cost and schedule goals in its current acquisition program baseline (APB) for 16 maritime interdiction MEA and is actively pursuing additional aircraft  In April 2016, CBP developed a report that identified capability needs in three mission areas and proposed increasing the program’s total to 38 aircraft by adding 13 air and 6 land interdiction MEA, and 3 signals detection MEA  The Joint Requirements Council endorsed CBP’s findings, but recommended CBP develop a number of requirements documents—including an operational requirements document—to fully validate the findings  As of September 2017, CBP officials told GAO they were in the process of updating these documents to focus on air interdiction capabilities—the next MEA configuration  These officials stated that completing these documents has been delayed, in part, because Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership directed CBP to develop a comprehensive border plan in October 2016 that includes MEA capabilities  Despite not yet completing all the updated documents, DHS leadership approved CBP’s request to procure MEA 17 in September 2017 after the congressional conferees agreed to an additional aircraft beyond DHS’s budget request  CBP anticipates delivery of MEA 17 by September 2018, which is within the program’s full operational capability (FOC) date  However, if the program receives approval to acquire additional aircraft, the FOC date will be extended  The program completed an annual life-cycle cost estimate update, which exceeds the program’s current APB cost thresholds, because it reflects costs for all 38 aircraft, among other reasons  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  In addition, CBP officials previously told GAO that MEA’s O&M is funded through a separate, central funding account for all of CBP’s air and marine assets  In September 2017, CBP officials said that the program was fully funded for 17 aircraft but had some affordability challenges with spare parts, which they are working with CBP and DHS headquarters to address  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) MULTI-ROLE ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT (MEA) CBP is replacing the mission system processor on the MEA with a system used by the U S  Navy and U S  Coast Guard that is intended to enhance operator interface and sensor management, as well as replace obsolete equipment  CBP’s OTA tested a prototype of the processor during an operational assessment in July 2015  The OTA found that the MEA had resolved issues found during prior testing, but also made 29 additional recommendations and findings to improve the aircraft and new mission system’s effectiveness  DHS’s Director, Office of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) concurred with the OTA’s findings  CBP previously acquired MEA as a part of its Strategic Air and Marine Program (StAMP)  In July 2016, DHS leadership designated MEA as a separate and distinct major acquisition program  CBP initially planned to procure 50 MEA and awarded the first production contract in September 2009  However, the aircraft did not perform well during testing  In October 2014, DHS leadership said CBP could not procure or accept transfer of additional MEA without approval  CBP procured 12 aircraft under the initial contract and—with DHS approval—CBP awarded a new indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract in September 2016 for 1 base year and four 1-year options to support procurement of additional aircraft  In December 2017, CBP officials said the program had received 12 aircraft and awarded contracts for 5 more  According to program officials, MEA 13-16 will be delivered with the new mission system and CBP began retrofitting previously delivered aircraft in fiscal year 2017  As of September 2017, program officials confirmed that they maintain a consolidated program office where the same staff from StAMP continue to support all remaining acquisitions, including MEA  However, these officials stated that they plan to re-align staff to a dedicated asset over time  Program officials also stated that the program has hired a dedicated cost estimator and would like to hire additional staff to focus on procuring spare parts and common component issues, such as radio replacements, for CBP’s air and marine assets  CBP officials stated that delays in receiving approval of the program’s requirements documents may pose a risk to exercising options for additional MEA on an existing contract, which could stop production and increase contract costs associated with procuring future aircraft  CBP officials added that air and marine requirements officers continue to produce documentation requested by the Joint Requirements Council to provide sufficient context for the mission need and border security  CBP officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The NII Systems Program supports CBP’s interdiction of weapons of mass destruction, contraband such as narcotics, and illegal aliens being smuggled into the United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate commerce  CBP officers use large- and small-scale NII systems at air, sea, and land ports of entry; border checkpoints; and international mail facilities to examine the contents of containers, railcars, vehicles, baggage, and mail  CBP initiated efforts for future NII requirements and procurements  66 percent staffing gap contributed to delays in NII deployments  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  The NII Systems Program is on track to meet its approved schedule and cost goals  The estimates in the program’s annual life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) update continued to decrease overall compared to its approved acquisition program baseline (APB) cost thresholds  Specifically, compared to the prior year’s estimate, the program’s acquisition costs decreased by $96 million and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs increased by $22 million  However, the LCCE update only estimated costs through fiscal year 2026—9 years short of the program’s final year  The LCCE primarily decreased because of a reduction of 1,977 planned additional and replacement NII systems  CBP officials said fewer large- and small-scale systems are needed because some systems have longer estimated lives than expected, and systems procured have better capability  CBP officials do not anticipate that the reduction in quantities will have an adverse effect on operations because they stated that the new systems can provide dual purpose capabilities (i e , one system can replace multiple separate systems)  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  CBP officials anticipate receiving approximately $605 million of O&M funding over this 5-year period to cover about $626 million in estimated O&M costs, which includes $100 million to operate and maintain radiation detection equipment acquired by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office  These officials also identified $37 million in carryover funding to cover the remaining $21 million of O&M estimated costs  However, the program is projected to have a $266 million acquisition funding gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 The program has a plan to address funding shortfalls but, according to CBP officials, it has not yet needed to implement the strategies in this plan because of several factors, including cost reductions achieved through combined life-cycle contracts and lower-than-expected actual technology costs in fiscal year 2016  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trucks as they are driven through the inspection portals—low dose X-ray to inspect the truck cab and high dose X-ray to inspect the cargo trailer  In March 2017, the Joint Requirements Council validated a capability analysis report that assessed current capability gaps in NII operations to assist with identifying potential upgrades to existing systems and developing requirements for future systems  According to program officials, CBP plans to review and update, as necessary, the mission need statement in fiscal year 2018  Additionally, program officials are preparing a consolidated acquisition plan for future procurements  These officials said CBP has not yet determined whether future procurements would be included into the current NII Systems Program of record or constitute a new acquisition program  CBP’s ability to successfully execute the existing NII Systems Program and plan for future efforts may be at risk because of understaffing  As of January 2018, the NII Systems Program continued to face a staffing gap of approximately 66 percent, including critical vacancies such as the acquisition program manager and a logistics program manager  Officials also noted that a lack of adequate personnel to procure, test, and deploy NII systems forces the program to prioritize its acquisitions, which can result in delays of NII deployments and testing efforts  For example, one manufacturer increased its output rate of NII systems, but the program did not have the staff to accept the systems at the increased rate  Officials anticipate the program may remain understaffed until CBP completes a reorganization that started more than a year ago, in which acquisition programs are realigned from a mission-support office to their operational entity  CBP officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  REMOTE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (RVSS) CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The RVSS program helps the Border Patrol detect, track, identify and classify illegal entries across U S borders  RVSS consists of daylight and infrared video cameras mounted on fixed towers and buildings with communications systems that link to command and control centers  From 1995 to 2005, CBP deployed approximately 310 RVSS towers along the U S  northern and southern borders, and initiated efforts to upgrade legacy RVSS towers in Arizona in 2011  Program does not plan to conduct additional operational testing on future deployments  Once funded, program plans to award a new contract for deployments in sectors along the southwest border  GAO last reported on this program in November 2017 (GAO-18-119)  In April 2016, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership elevated RVSS from a level 3 program—which focused on upgrading legacy RVSS in Arizona—to a level 1 program after approving CBP’s plan to expand deployments to the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) sector and adding an additional 6 sectors along the southwest border  At this time, DHS leadership approved the program to move forward with deployments to two RGV stations, which can be completed as options under the program’s existing contract  However, the program was required to re-baseline to account for its expanded scope and conduct an acquisition decision event (ADE) to obtain approval for additional deployments  As of January 2018, the program had not yet conducted its ADE or obtained DHS approval for an acquisition program baseline (APB) that established cost, schedule, and performance goals for the expanded program  In September 2017, CBP officials told us that they had drafted the APB and other required documentation, such as a life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE), but were unsure when the ADE would occur because the program had not received funding for the additional deployments  In addition, the ADE may have been delayed because DHS leadership directed CBP to develop a comprehensive border plan in October 2016 that includes RVSS capabilities  In September 2017, DHS leadership approved the RVSS’s revised LCCE which totaled nearly $4 billion for all program costs from fiscal years 2011 through 2042, including expansion along the southwest border and new initiatives such as a pilot for relocatable RVSS towers  DHS conducted an independent cost estimate for the program, which DHS cost estimating officials stated was within 2 percent of the program’s LCCE  RVSS was not included in DHS’s funding plan to Congress for fiscal years 2018 to 2022 because it had not yet been elevated to a level 1 program at the time the plan was developed  CBP officials stated that the program has received acquisition funding to cover the approved RGV deployments  However, CBP officials told GAO that the program may also assume responsibility for maintaining all legacy RVSS, but has not received adequate operations and maintenance funding to do so  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) REMOTE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (RVSS) In July 2013, CBP awarded a firm fixed-price contract for a commercially available, non-developmental system  This contract covered the program’s initial scope to deploy upgraded RVSS in Arizona and two stations within the RGV sector, which can be completed as options  According to CBP officials, the program will need to award a new contract to cover expansion to the remaining six sectors along the southwest border  In September 2017, CBP officials said that the request for proposals for the new contract had been drafted but it cannot be released until the program receives funding  CBP officials told GAO that RVSS is coordinating with CBP’s Border Wall System Program on some planned deployments within the RGV sector  For example, CBP is considering moving 2 of the planned RVSS towers to be co-located with the planned barrier, which officials stated may provide better surveillance  If the Border Wall System Program does not receive funding, CBP officials said the towers will be placed in the originally planned locations  CBP officials stated that the RVSS program requires additional staff for contracting activities, maintenance activities for legacy RVSS, and for relocatable tower pilot deployments  To mitigate the staffing gap, CBP officials said they prioritize responsibilities of current personnel to meet program execution needs  CBP officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) The TACCOM program is intended to upgrade land mobile radio infrastructure and equipment to support approximately 95,000 users at CBP and other federal agencies  It is replacing obsolete radio systems with modern digital systems across various sectors located in 19 different service areas, linking these service areas to one another through a nationwide network, and building new communications towers to expand coverage in 5 of the 19 service areas  Issues related to security requirements have delayed full operational capability by more than a year  Program is being re-organized under Border Patrol, but still faces staffing challenges  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In November 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership re-baselined the TACCOM program, removing it from breach status after the program experienced a schedule slip and cost growth  In July 2017, CBP officials notified DHS leadership that the program would not achieve full operational capability (FOC) as planned due to issues related to federal information security requirements  The program now plans to achieve FOC by March 2019—more than a year later than its initial acquisition program baseline (APB) deadline  According to CBP officials, FOC will include planned upgrades to the San Diego system, which requires transitioning management of the legacy system from the Department of Justice to DHS  In August 2017, CBP officials stated that both agencies were reviewing an agreement with plans to complete the transition in fiscal year 2018  CBP officials stated that the program realized it would exceed its initial APB cost thresholds as it was developing its annual life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) update and subsequently submitted a revised LCCE for DHS leadership approval  The program’s costs primarily grew because of increases in costs for contractor labor and support for facilities and infrastructure  CBP officials said the program’s initial estimates were immature; however, DHS leadership approved the initial LCCE in December 2015—4 years after the program began sustaining capabilities  DHS’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) approved the program’s revised LCCE in November 2017, but noted that the program’s estimate exceeded its available funding and requested that the program address the affordability gap before it was re-baselined  CBP officials said that they are conducting an affordability analysis, which they anticipate will be completed by March 2018  Nevertheless, DHS leadership approved the program’s re-baseline in November 2017  CBP officials subsequently identified errors in the approved APB cost threshold tables and provided revised amounts, which are presented here  The program was not included in DHS’s funding plan to Congress for fiscal years 2018 to 2022 because DHS did not report operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  CBP officials anticipate receiving approximately $120 million in O&M funding over this 5-year period  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) CBP officials told GAO that in January 2018, the program will move from a mission support office to a joint program office under Border Patrol as a part of CBP’s reorganization that started more than a year ago  The goal of this move is to make CBP land mobile radio capabilities seamless by combining the mission critical voice functions of Air and Marine Operations, the Border Patrol, and the Office of Field Operations—the TACCOM program’s primary customers—under one organizational leader, the Border Patrol Chief  CBP officials anticipate that the current TACCOM program structure will remain in place after this move with the exception of the program’s engineers, which will move to CBP’s Office of Information and Technology but be assigned to support TACCOM full time  In August 2017, CBP officials told GAO they were in the process of hiring staff to fill the program’s vacant positions  They added that the fiscal year 2019 budget contains plans for additional infrastructure enhancements, which will require technical staff to assist in the planning and execution of these efforts and may put additional strain on the program’s limited government technical staff  They noted that the hiring and retention of qualified land mobile radio engineers and information technology technical staff is a challenge because of competition with the private sector, among other factors  In addition to maintenance of the CBP Land Mobile Radio System that provides critical communication needs for CBP agents and officers protecting U S  borders, CBP officials stated the TACCOM program is providing infrastructure, such as building an engineering lab to facilitate design, development, test, and evaluation activities, to support improvements in CBP’s current and future Land Mobile Radio Systems  CBP officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) TECS (not an acronym) is a law-enforcement information system that has been in place since the 1980s and helps CBP officials determine the admissibility of persons entering the United States at border crossings, ports of entry, and prescreening sites located abroad  CBP initiated efforts to modernize TECS to provide users with enhanced capabilities for accessing and managing data  Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a separate TECS Modernization program  System operationally effective and suitable, but cybersecurity testing needed  CBP working to address and prevent major system outages  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In July 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership granted the program acquisition decision event (ADE) 3 approval, but required CBP to conduct follow-on operational test and evaluation (OT&E) before declaring full operational capability (FOC)  This is more than a 2-year delay from CBP’s initial FOC date and a 9-month delay from its most recent revised FOC date  DHS approved the fourth version of the program’s acquisition program baseline (APB) in July 2016  In this APB, CBP split FOC into two separate operational capability milestones at its data centers to better reflect the program’s activities  CBP delivered operational capability at the primary data center in Decemberas scheduled—which provides redundant TECS access to minimize downtime during system maintenance or unscheduled outages  However, not all test results were available in time for the program’s ADE 3 decision, which contributed to DHS leadership’s decision to delay declaring FOC  2016, which included transitioning all TECS users to the modernized system  CBP delivered operational capability at the secondary data center in June 2017—The program updated its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) for ADE 3, which is within its current APB cost thresholds  However, the LCCE only included costs through fiscal year 2021—7 years short of DHS’s guidance that states program cost estimates should cover at least 10 years from the FOC date  Nevertheless, DHS granted the program ADE 3 approval without an understanding of the program’s full life-cycle costs, as required by its acquisition policy  CBP officials plan to update the LCCE by the end of calendar year 2018 to include costs for future years and other items, such as costs associated with follow-on OT&E and moving the data centers to a cloud environment—a CBP-wide initiative  The program was not included in DHS’s funding plan to Congress for fiscal years 2018 to 2022 because DHS did not report operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  CBP officials anticipate receiving approximately $205 million in O&M funding over the next 4 years and have identified carryover for each year  However, CBP officials said there may be a small funding gap starting in fiscal year 2020, but they expect to achieve savings by migrating the data centers to a cloud environment  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Since the program has completed development, CBP is focused on ensuring that the modernized TECS system works as intended by addressing operational issues as they are identified  For example, on January 2, 2017, a primary TECS Modernization application experienced a major outage that resulted in long airport delays  In August 2017, CBP officials said they continually monitor system health through a 24/7 operations center and have established a group dedicated to addressing the issues related to the January 2, 2017, outage  In September 2017, DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that nearly 100 outages, periods of latency, or degraded service were reported for three TECS Modernization applications between June 2016 and March 2017  The OIG also found that CBP’s monthly reports on TECS system availability did not include periods of slowness or service interruptions that were caused by external factors  For example, the January 2, 2017, incident was identified in CBP outage reports, but was not captured in the monthly report because it was caused by a change to an external feed to the TECS system  CBP officials clarified that the monthly reports only account for interruptions that result in a full loss of operations for all TECS system users  The OIG recommended that CBP develop a plan to address factors that contributed to challenges regarding availability of primary traveler screening applications, among other things  CBP concurred with the recommendations  On January 1, 2018, the TECS system experienced another major outage that caused long airport delays; CBP officials said this incident is under review  CBP officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LSCMS) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) LSCMS is a computer-based tracking system that FEMA officials use to track shipments during disaster-response efforts  It is largely based on commercial-off-the- shelf software  FEMA initially deployed LSCMS in 2005, and initiated efforts to enhance the system in 2009  According to FEMA officials, LSCMS can identify when a shipment leaves a warehouse and the location of a shipment after it reaches a FEMA staging area near a disaster location  FEMA now anticipates reaching full operational capability by June 2019, up to 6 months late  Recent testing shows progress, but additional operational testing delayed to May 2018  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In November 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership approved a revised acquisition program baseline (APB) after the LSCMS program experienced a schedule breach  In September 2017, FEMA officials notified DHS leadership that it would not complete all required activities—including follow-on operational test and evaluation (OT&E)—to achieve acquisition decision event (ADE) 3 and full operational capability (FOC) by its initial APB dates of September 2018 and December 2018, respectively  According to FEMA officials, the delay was primarily caused by the need to deploy LSCMS program personnel in support of response and recovery efforts during the 2017 hurricane season  The program now plans to achieve FOC by June 2019—up to 6 months later than initially planned  DHS leadership authorized LSCMS to resume all development and acquisition efforts in March 2016 after a nearly 2-year program pause following program management issues  In October 2017, FEMA officials told GAO that they had completed several development efforts—such as integration with DHS’s asset management system—and were in the process of adding Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) to allow LSCMS to interface with its partners’ information systems  The program’s annual life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) update continued to be within its APB cost thresholds  However, the program’s APB thresholds are not adjusted to account for risk, which increases the chance that the program could experience a cost breach  As of November 2017, FEMA officials did not anticipate that its schedule delays would lead to a cost breach  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LSCMS) The LSCMS program previously experienced significant execution challenges because of poor governance  FEMA initially deployed the enhanced LSCMS in 2013 without DHS leadership approval, a DOT&E letter of assessment, or a DHS-approved APB documenting the program’s costs, schedule, and performance parameters, as required by DHS’s acquisition policy  DHS’s Office of Inspector General also found that neither DHS nor FEMA leadership ensured the program office identified all mission needs before selecting a solution  In response, DHS leadership paused all LSCMS development efforts in April 2014 until the program addressed these issues, among others  FEMA subsequently completed an analysis of alternatives and developed an APB based on this assessment  DHS leadership approved the APB in December 2015 and authorized FEMA to resume all LSCMS development and acquisition efforts in March 2016  In October 2017, FEMA officials told GAO that the LSCMS program had minimal staffing shortages and was working to recruit additional staff  Officials previously attributed the program’s governance and testing challenges, in part, to staffing shortages and we previously found that it only had 7 of the 22 5 full time equivalents it needed in fiscal year 2014  Although the program has obtained more staff since then, FEMA officials noted in October 2017 that during disasters—such as 2017 hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria—LSCMS program personnel are deployed to support response and recovery efforts, which leave program positions vacant for the duration of the deployment  FEMA officials stated that during the response to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2017, LSCMS processed supply chain transactions that exceeded the total number of transactions from the preceding 12 years—which includes the response to Hurricane Katrina  They added that the program provided support for nearly 130 million meals in 2017 compared to a total of approximately 84 million from the 12 previous years  FEMA officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) Since the 1980s, TECS (not an acronym) has provided case management, intelligence reporting, and information sharing capabilities to support ICE’s mission to investigate and enforce border control, customs, and immigration laws  ICE initiated efforts to modernize TECS in 2009 to replace aging functionality and provide end users with additional functionality to meet mission needs  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) executes a separate TECS Modernization program  Conducted additional testing of a revised key performance parameter and cybersecurity  Program has improved integration with external systems  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In November 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership approved a revised life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) and acquisition program baseline (APB) in preparation for the program’s acquisition decision event (ADE) 3 following deployment of final functionality  According to ICE officials, the program completed deployment of full operational capability (FOC) functionality in August 2017—4 months earlier than initially planned  FOC functionality included enhancements to case management capabilities, such as improved system search capabilities  The functionality was deployed in conjunction with enhancements and fixes for initial operational capability (IOC) functionality  The program achieved IOC in June 2016, which entailed delivering 80 percent of the modernized TECS functionality and successfully transitioning ICE off the legacy system  The overall cost thresholds in the current APB increased compared to the program’s prior APB from July 2016  Specifically, the acquisition cost threshold decreased by $14 million and the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost threshold increased by $147 million  These costs changed for various reasons, such as the following: The acquisition cost threshold decreased when ICE included actual costs through fiscal year 2016 and accounted for funding shortfalls  ICE officials told GAO that the program experienced a funding shortfall in fiscal year 2017 that led it to adjust spending under multiple contracts and shift some costs to fiscal year 2018  The O&M cost threshold increased when ICE extended the estimate from fiscal years 2024 to 2028 and continued contractor and systems engineering support for an additional 11 years  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  ICE officials anticipate receiving approximately $94 million in O&M funding to cover an estimated $105 million in O&M costs over this 5-year period  ICE officials said that they are pursuing strategies to reduce future O&M costs, such as awarding a competitive contract in March 2018 for O&M activities and any future enhancements  ICE officials continue to work closely with CBP to provide users access to various systems through the modernized TECS system  The program previously worked to resolve technical problems with CBP support services that emerged during final integration testing of the ICE and CBP modernized TECS systems, which contributed to a 3-month delay in achieving IOC  Users reported during initial OT&E that the modernized ICE TECS system was an improvement over the legacy system but they requested better integration with external systems, such as CBP’s Seized Assets and Case Tracking System (SEACATS), which they use to determine the disposition of seized assets for case management and reporting purposes  According to ICE officials, CBP subsequently decided to modernize SEACATS  ICE officials stated that they have coordinated closely with CBP to integrate the two modernized systems and ensure un-interrupted access to SEACATS for TECS users  For example, ICE developed a workaround so that TECS users maintain access to the latest seizure data available from the modernized SEACATS  ICE officials added that they continue to make improvements in interfaces with other external systems as prioritized by end users  In July 2017, ICE reported that the program was fully staffed  ICE officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  CONTINUOUS DIAGNOSTICS AND MITIGATION (CDM) NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE (NPPD) The CDM program aims to strengthen the cybersecurity of the federal government’s networks at more than 65 participating civilian agencies by providing tools and dashboards that continually monitor and report on network vulnerabilities  Tools are delivered in four phases: phase 1 and 2 tools report vulnerabilities in hardware and software, and user access controls, respectively; phase 3 tools will report on efforts to prevent attacks; and phase 4 tools will provide encryption to protect network data  Program revised its key performance parameters and test and evaluation master plan as a part of its rebaseline  Program plans to change its acquisition strategy and continues to face workforce challenges  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In June 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership re-baselined the CDM program for the third time to approve initiating development of phase 3 and to address challenges encountered during phase 1  Specifically, contractors previously found large gaps—ranging from 19 to 384 percent—in the actual number of devices needing phase 1 tools than what was originally reported by 12 agencies  The operations and maintenance (O&M) cost thresholds increased by $631 million when the program shifted some potential acquisition costs to beThe program’s new acquisition program baseline (APB) modified the program’s cost, schedule, and performance parameters  For example: consistent with DHS’s new appropriation structure, among other things  The O&M cost thresholds previously decreased by $1 2 billion, in part, because DHS leadership determined the program would only fund CDM tools for the first 2 years after deployment  The acquisition costs did not increase despite phase 1 challenges, in part, because coverage for the U S  Postal Service— The program’s full operational capability (FOC) date slipped almost 4 years after which had the largest gap in estimated devices—will no longer be funded by the CDM program  it was redefined from deployment of phase 1-3 tools at 5 agencies to the availability of these tools to all participating agencies  However, the program’s costs will increase and its FOC date may slip further once the program establishes goals for phase 4  NPPD officials said they were unable to complete planning efforts for phase 4 in time to incorporate it into the most recent APB revision and, therefore, plan to re-baseline the CDM program again in 2018  The CDM program identified a potential acquisition affordability gap in fiscal year 2018 based on its revised life-cycle cost estimate, which it addressed by adjusting the phase 3 schedule to shift some acquisition costs out to fiscal year 2020  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  However, the program anticipates receiving approximately $281 million in O&M funding over the 5-year period  12/16 Phase 1 initial operational capability (IOC) National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) CONTINUOUS DIAGNOSTICS AND MITIGATION (CDM) The CDM program updated its acquisition plan as a part of its re-baselining efforts, which reflects a change in strategy for procuring CDM tools and integration services for participating agencies through the General Services Administration (GSA)  Previously, the CDM program issued task orders for these tools and services through blanket purchase agreements established under vendors’ GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts  These agreements are set to expire in August 2018  Going forward, the program plans to use an existing GSA government-wide acquisition contract—known as Alliant—to obtain CDM tools and services  According to NPPD officials, the new acquisition strategy is intended to provide greater flexibility in contracting for current capabilities and to support future capabilities  It will also allow participating agencies to order additional CDM-approved products or services from GSA’s schedule for information technology equipment, software, and services; however, as of September 2017, NPPD officials stated they were in the process of determining how this process will work  NPPD officials said that the program continues to face workforce challenges related to managing the program’s change in contracts and planning for phase 4  In February 2018, NPPD officials stated that they had on-boarded 5 staff to help address the program’s reported fiscal year 2017 gap of 16 full time equivalents  They noted that another 5 candidates were in the hiring process and that NPPD continues to work with officials from DHS’s Office of the Chief Security Officer to reduce continued challenges in onboarding new staff due to the lengthy security clearance process  In addition to activities outlined in this assessment, NPPD officials stated that the CDM program continues to manage its budget to ensure program costs match available funding, and is leveraging the collective buying power of federal agencies and strategic sourcing to achieve government cost savings on CDM products  NPPD officials also stated that, as of December 2017, CDM has deployed agency dashboards to 23 agencies and was conducting and testing information exchanges of data between agency dashboards and the federal dashboard  HOMELAND ADVANCED RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY (HART) NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE (NPPD) HART will replace and modernize the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) legacy biometric identification system—known as IDENT—which shares information on foreign nationals with U S  government and foreign partners to facilitate legitimate travel, trade, and immigration  NPPD plans to develop HART in four increments: increments 1 and 2 will replace and enhance IDENT functionality; increments 3 and 4 will provide additional biometric services, as well as a web portal and new tools for analysis and reporting  Key performance parameters will be demonstrated as capability is developed  Program has developed mitigation plans to address workforce risks  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In June 2017, NPPD declared a schedule breach when it determined the HART program would not be able to meet its initial acquisition program baseline (APB) milestones  DHS leadership approved the program’s APB in April 2016 and authorized the program to initiate development efforts for increments 1 and 2 in October 2016  NPPD officials attribute the schedule slip to multiple delays in awarding the contract for increments 1 and 2 as a result of issues with the request for proposals (RFP)  The program released the RFP in February 2017 and awarded the contract in September 2017—approximately 9 months later than NPPD officials had planned  However, the program experienced additional delays after a bid protest to the contract award was filed with GAO in October 2017  GAO subsequently denied the protest and NPPD officials said the program plans to initiate work with the contractor in March 2018  HART initially planned to achieve initial operational capability (IOC) with the deployment of increment 1 in December 2018, at which point program officials anticipated beginning to transition users from IDENT to HART  However, it is unclear when this will now occur, which is a significant challenge because IDENT is at risk of failure and may be unable to fully support requirements related to new programs— such as Customs and Border Protection’s Biometric Entry-Exit  As a result, delays in HART could contribute to delays in other DHS acquisition programs  The program updated its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) in June 2017 to inform the budget process  This LCCE is within its current APB cost thresholds, but does not account for the contractor’s solution  The program plans to update its LCCE and other acquisition documentation, such as its APB, after initiating work with the contractor  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  However, the program anticipates receiving approximately $1 3 billion in O&M funding to cover $1 5 billion in O&M costs  NPPD officials explained that the current O&M cost estimate includes costs for maintaining IDENT  Future LCCE updates will reflect delivery of services through HART, which NPPD officials anticipate will be more cost effective  National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) HOMELAND ADVANCED RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY (HART) NPPD officials told GAO they are currently planning for increments 3 and 4 and plan to refine the cost, schedule, and performance goals for these increments in its next APB  NPPD plans to pursue a separate contract for the development and delivery of increments 3 and 4  However, the program will require DHS leadership approval prior to initiating these development efforts  In September 2017, NPPD officials told GAO they had hired two staff and planned to hire additional staff to address the program’s staffing gap of 5 5 full time equivalents  In response to DHS leadership’s direction, the program coordinated with DHS’s Chief Technology Officer to assess the skills and functions of staff necessary to execute the program and to develop the HART staffing plan  In its June 2017 staffing plan, the program identified workforce risks, including the potential for experiencing insufficient technical skillsets and inadequate resources to simultaneously execute development of HART and operate IDENT  To mitigate these risks, the program plans to develop a training plan to address the gap in skills, leverage support within the program by cross- training staff, and issue contracts for additional support as needed, among other things  However, if the program does not have adequate staff to complete these efforts, it may experience further schedule delays  NPPD officials stated that the program’s schedule delays pose a challenge because IDENT remains at risk of failure despite incremental improvements to extend its service life and may be unable to fully support new customer requirements or requirements related to new programs  They added that the program has a risk management process, which it is using to manage a variety of identified risks—including several related to workforce  They noted that these risks have not yet materialized  NPPD officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY PROTECTION SYSTEM (NCPS) NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE (NPPD) NCPS is intended to defend the federal civilian government from cyber threats  NCPS develops and delivers capabilities through a series of “blocks ” Blocks 1 0, 2 0, and 2 1 are fully deployed and provide intrusion-detection and analytic capabilities across the government  The NCPS program is currently deploying EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated (EA) to provide intrusion-prevention capabilities and plans to deliver block 2 2 to improve information sharing across agencies  A at 95 percent of agencies and departments  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  NPPD officials said the program is on track to meet the schedule and cost goals in its current acquisition program baseline (APB), which reflected changes resulting from the adoption of some of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) capabilities for block 2 2 rather than developing custom solutions  However, challenges in completing test plans delayed testing: Initial operational test and evaluation (OT&E) for EA transition to sustainment— slipped from September 2016 to May 2017  The initial test event for block 2 2—intended to inform the ADE 2C for deploying additional block 2 2 capabilities—slipped from March 2017 to September 2017  As of August 2017, NPPD officials said NCPS had adopted all planned HSIN capabilities but one because of security concerns, which HSIN is addressing by piloting a new tool  The program updated its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) in June 2017 to inform the budget process, which is within its current APB cost thresholds  However, the program plans to update the LCCE again to support the EA, and costs through fiscal year 2022  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  NPPD officials anticipate receiving $1 8 billion in O&M funding over this 5-year period  The program is also projected to have an $83 million surplus in acquisition funding over this 5-year period, which NPPD officials anticipate will be less once the LCCE revision is complete  National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY PROTECTION SYSTEM (NCPS) A intrusion-prevention capabilities have been primarily provided through sole source contracts with internet service providers (ISP) and a contract to provide basic intrusion-prevention services  In December 2015, Congress required DHS to make available for use by federal agencies, certain capabilities, such as those provided by NCPS’s EA at approximately 93 percent of civilian federal agencies and departments and, in January 2018, NPPD officials said NCPS was up to 95 percent  According to NPPD officials, the program first focused on integrating EA for individual agencies and departments, but stated that they continue to work with all agencies and departments to provide EA services and approximately 95 percent of the federal civilian  gov user population is protected by at least one EA and an OA of NCPS block 2 2 information sharing capabilities in 2017  NPPD officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  NEXT GENERATION NETWORKS PRIORITY SERVICES (NGN-PS) NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE (NPPD) NGN-PS is intended to address an emerging capability gap in the government’s emergency telecommunications service, which prioritizes select officials’ phone calls when networks are overwhelmed  NPPD executes NGN-PS through commercial telecommunications service providers, which addresses the government’s requirements as they modernize their own networks  NPPD is executing NGN-PS in two phases—(1) voice and (2) data and video  Initial operational capability for voice phase wireless capabilities achieved in August 2017  Acquisition of data and video phase capabilities to begin in September 2021  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In November 2017, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Chief Financial Officer approved a revised life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) for NGN-PS, which includes costs for the entire program’s voice phase and eliminates operations and maintenance (O&M) costs  The program removed O&M costs because capabilities acquired through NGN-PS are transferred to and funded through NPPD’s Priority Telecommunications Service (PTS) once they become operational  NGN-PS is currently focused on delivering its voice phase, which is divided into three increments: Increment 1 maintains current priority service on long distance calls as commercial service providers update their networks; Increment 2 delivers wireless capabilities; and Increment 3 is intended to address landline capabilities  The program’s previous LCCE and current acquisition program baseline (APB) only include costs associated with increments 1 and 2  NPPD officials told GAO they plan to update the program’s APB in January 2018 to include costs, schedule, and performance goals for increment 3 and expect to receive DHS leadership approval to initiate development by August 2018  NGN-PS remains on track to meet its cost and schedule goals for the first two increments of the voice phase  The program’s full operational capability (FOC) for increment 1 previously slipped from June 2017 to March 2019, which NPPD officials attributed to funding shortfalls  NGN-PS achieved initial operational capability (IOC) for increment 2 wireless capabilities in August 2017 when priority service via cellular towers was demonstrated by the program’s largest service provider  The program projects an acquisition affordability gap of $92 million from fiscal years 2018 to 2022  However, DHS’s current funding plan does not include funding for increment 3, which accounts for the funding shortfall in fiscal years 2021 and 2022  NPPD officials said they anticipate receiving an additional $79 million in acquisition funding over this 2-year period, but will continue to prioritize capabilities if additional funding is not provided  These officials also said the program has achieved cost savings on increments 1 and 2 that will mitigate some of the projected shortfall in fiscal years 2018 and 2019  National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) NEXT GENERATION NETWORKS PRIORITY SERVICES (NGN-PS) NGN-PS was established in response to an Executive Order requiring the federal government to have the ability to communicate at all times during all circumstances to ensure national security and manage emergencies  A Presidential Policy Directive issued in July 2016 superseded previous directives requiring continuous communication services for select government officials  According to NPPD officials, the new directive validates the program’s requirements for the voice phase and was used to develop requirements for the video and data phase  The program expects to begin the acquisition of the phase 2 for video and data in September 2021  In July 2017, NPPD reported that the program needed a systems engineer and was mitigating the vacancy with contracted support staff  The program also identified a need for an additional systems engineer and program support staff starting in fiscal year 2019 to support the start of increment 3  In August 2017, NPPD officials told GAO they continue to face challenges hiring and retaining engineers with adequate experience because of competition with the private sector  The program has historically mitigated staffing gaps by leveraging support from contracted and PTS program staff, as needed  In addition to activities identified in this assessment, NPPD officials stated that the program has received Joint Requirements Council validation of the phase 2 concept of operations and DHS leadership approval of the phase 2 operational requirements document  As of January 2018, the updated APB was in the approval process  NPPD officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY (NBAF) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE (S&T) The NBAF program is constructing a state-of-the-art laboratory in Manhattan, Kansas to replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center  The facility will enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct research, develop vaccines, and provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities to protect against foreign animal, emerging, and zoonotic diseases that threaten the nation’s food supply, agricultural economy, and public health  Commissioning process underway, but performance will not be demonstrated until construction is complete  NBAF adequately staffed, but staffing needs will change as operational stand-up activities begin  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  The program’s annual life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) update is within its current acquisition program baseline (APB) cost thresholds and, according to NBAF officials, the program remains on track to meet its schedule goals  In August 2017, NBAF officials said that construction activities thus far—such as pouring concrete for the main laboratory and steel framing—have proceeded as anticipated and will continue through December 2020  NBAF officials told GAO the program has already received full acquisition funding for facility construction efforts through federal appropriations and gift funds from the state of Kansas  As construction continues, the program plans to begin operational stand-up activities for the facility  However, a potential affordability gap may delay the program’s ability to complete these stand-up activities, which are needed to begin conducting laboratory operations  The program was not included in DHS’s funding plan to Congress for fiscal years 2018 to 2022 because DHS did not report operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  However, NBAF officials anticipate receiving only $149 million in O&M funding to cover an estimated $239 million in O&M costs over the next 5 years, resulting in a projected shortfall of approximately $90 million  NBAF officials stated the O&M funding gap could delay a number of operational stand-up activities, including plans to award a management operations and research support contract in October 2018, the purchase of laboratory and information technology equipment, and hiring of operations management staff  According to NBAF officials, if operational stand-up activities are delayed, there is a risk the facility will not be fully operational by December 2022, as is currently planned  This may delay the transition from the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which is nearing the end of its useful life  NBAF officials reported that S&T plans to communicate the program’s future funding needs to DHS leadership through the annual budget process  If the program does not receive the funding it requests, these officials stated that S&T will prioritize the operational stand-up activities that best reduce the risk of schedule delays  Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY (NBAF) NBAF officials reported that they coordinate regularly with key stakeholders  For example, they hold regular coordination meetings with USDA officials to discuss NBAF operations, including operational stand-up activities and future procurement  The NBAF program office has also begun outreach to the federal regulators responsible for awarding the registrations needed for NBAF to conduct laboratory operations to begin planning for this authorization process  The NBAF program office is currently fully staffed  However, NBAF officials reported the program’s staffing needs will change in the coming years, as the program progresses through construction and begins operational stand-up of the facility  For example, over the next 5 years, the program will need to hire an operations director, bio-risk manager, chief information officer, and facility manager, among others, for NBAF operations management  However, the projected O&M funding shortfall during this same period could affect the program’s ability to hire new staff when needed and complete operational stand-up activities on time  NBAF officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  ELECTRONIC BAGGAGE SCREENING PROGRAM (EBSP) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) Established in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, EBSP tests, procures, and deploys transportation security equipment, such as explosives trace detectors and explosives detection systems, across approximately 440 U S  airports to ensure 100 percent of checked baggage is screened for explosives  EBSP is primarily focused on delivering new systems with enhanced screening capabilities and developing software upgrades for existing systems  Program is incorporating requirements to address cybersecurity risk for existing systems  EBSP plans to pursue a new procurement approach in 2018, and staffing challenges exist  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In the program’s annual life-cycle cost estimate update, its operations and maintenance (O&M) costs exceeded the acquisition program baseline (APB) cost threshold, which constitutes a breach under the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) acquisition policy  The O&M costs increased when TSA accounted for updated maintenance costs and quantities, and shifted salaries from acquisition to O&M to align with DHS’s new appropriation structure  TSA officials said they did not submit a breach notification because they considered the movement of salaries to be an administrative change  The program plans to update its APB in calendar year 2018 to reflect a new plan for procuring equipment under its current acquisition strategy  TSA officials said this APB will also reflect the cost changes  In May 2016, DHS leadership approved a revised APB for EBSP, which reflects its current acquisition strategy to competitively procure systems on an ongoing basis using qualified product lists  The program’s revised APB cost thresholds decreased compared to its initial APB, which TSA officials attributed to various reasons, including shortening the program’s end date by 3 years and lower than anticipated actual costs, among other things  TSA officials told GAO that one of their primary challenges is funding, and the program is projected to face a $72 million acquisition funding shortfall in fiscal year 2018  TSA identified $70 million in carryover funding to address this gap  To mitigate anticipated funding gaps in future years, TSA officials said they may shift projects from one fiscal year to another or cancel them altogether, which may result in the delay or elimination of screening capabilities  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  TSA anticipates receiving $980 million in O&M funding over this 5-year period to cover $1 billion in O&M costs  TSA officials anticipate achieving the program’s final APB milestone—initial operational capability (IOC) for systems that detect additional materials and provide an advanced threat detection algorithm—by its revised threshold date  Previously, EBSP planned to award contracts for these systems in September 2015 and September 2018, respectively  Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ELECTRONIC BAGGAGE SCREENING PROGRAM (EBSP) As of December 2017, EBSP had deployed 1,664 explosives detection systems and 2,638 explosives trace detectors nationwide  In 2018, EBSP plans to pursue a new competitive procurement approach to replace and update existing systems that will include: New contract vehicles to better align EBSP procurement activities with the program’s strategic roadmap  Updates to EBSP’s vendor qualification process to allow for vendor collaboration before testing  Transitioning from procuring systems with different sizes and speeds to two types: (1) inline systems that integrate with a baggage handling system and are linked through a network and (2) standalone systems that may be integrated with a baggage handling system, but not linked to a network  The program is in the process of updating its acquisition documentation to reflect this new procurement approach and TSA officials anticipate opening a qualified products list for new systems starting in June 2018  TSA officials said that staffing remains a challenge for the program because of cuts in government and contracted mission support staff and critical vacancies, including a division director  In September 2017, TSA reported that existing personnel across the program have assumed responsibilities of these positions, but workloads are unsustainable at current staffing levels  TSA officials stated that EBSP continues to procure, test, and deploy equipment and capabilities to recapitalize older equipment, improve security screening capability at airports, and enhance the detection capabilities of the fleet  They added that TSA employs extensive testing to verify the suitability and effectiveness of equipment to meet requirements  Moving forward, EBSP intends to establish IOC milestones for new technologies and capabilities, while allowing TSA the flexibility to make risk-based decisions  TSA officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  PASSENGER SCREENING PROGRAM (PSP) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established PSP in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001  PSP identifies, tests, procures, deploys, and sustains transportation security equipment across approximately 440 U S  airports to help TSA officers identify threats concealed on people and in their carryon items  The program aims to increase threat detection capabilities, improve the efficiency of passenger screening, and balance passenger privacy and security  Started testing on the Credential Authentication Technology in TSA Precheck lanes during 2017  Critical staffing vacancies persist and may delay followon acquisition planning efforts  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  In May 2017, the DHS Under Secretary for Management (USM) approved the sixth version of the PSP acquisition program baseline (APB) and subsequently removed the program from breach status  In January 2016, TSA declared a schedule breach of a key milestone—acquisition decision event (ADE) 3—for the Credential Authentication Technology (CAT) because of delays in incorporating new cybersecurity requirements  Consistent with previous versions of the program’s APB, the new baseline modified the program’s cost, schedule, and performance parameters  For example, the program established the following: Separate CAT milestone dates for TSA Precheck and standard lanes  TSA officials stated there is no capability difference between screening lanes, but an initial focus on TSA Precheck lanes will assist with demonstrating CAT requirements and resolving past testing issues that contributed to an initial 4-year delay to CAT’s full operational capability (FOC) date  PSP now plans to reach FOC for CAT more than 5 years later than its revised target of June 2018 and more than 9 years later than initially planned  New FOC dates for other technologies, which TSA officials said are expected to be more realistic about delivery dates and account for changes in some FOC quantities  For example, TSA requested and received approval in September 2017 to increase FOC quantities for second generation Advanced Technology (AT-2) TierI systems to meet increasing passenger volume and expected airport growth  In May 2017, the USM also directed the program to revise its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) in response to less-than-expected funding levels  The new LCCE also shifted some acquisition costs to operations and maintenance (O&M) to be consistent with DHS’s new appropriation structure  TSA officials believe the new funding profile will be sufficient to sustain legacy PSP equipment, but will significantly limit the program’s ability to enhance existing equipment capabilities and support operational needs  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained O&M funding for individual programs  TSA anticipates receiving $906 million in O&M funding over this 5-year period to cover $923 million in O&M costs  05/17 APB version 6 0 approved 03/20 CAT ADE 3 (precheck lanes) 09/21 CAT ADE 3 (standard lanes) 12/21 CAT FOC (precheck lanes) 12/23 CAT FOC (standard lanes) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) PASSENGER SCREENING PROGRAM (PSP) Automated screening lanes operational utility assessment AT-2 tier II follow-on operational test & evaluation (OT&E) TSA employs two acquisition strategies to acquire PSP systems: Qualified Product List (QPL) approach—used for proven technologies when capability requirements are rigid and contractors’ systems are mature  Any contractors’ systems that demonstrate they meet the capability requirements are added to the QPL  TSA has used this approach to acquire the second generation AT-2 systems, Bottled Liquid Scanners, and Explosive Trace Detectors  Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) approach—used when capability requirements are flexible and contractors’ systems are evolving  Under this approach, PSP uses a series of development contracts to enhance systems’ capabilities over time  PSP is currently using this approach to acquire CAT  TSA planned to initiate new acquisition programs starting in fiscal year 2018 that will replace PSP, but this effort may be at risk because of understaffing  In August 2017, TSA reported that its checkpoint screening division—whose staff is concurrently responsible for PSP and its follow-on programs—continued to have staffing vacancies, including project managers, analysts, and a deputy program manager  TSA is mitigating these gaps with existing staff and, according to TSA officials, the staffing challenges may decrease because the new programs may be delayed in response to funding cuts  TSA officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION (TIM) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) The TIM program was initiated to address shortfalls in TSA’s threat assessment screening and vetting functions by providing a modern and centralized end-to-end credentialing system  The TIM system will manage credential applications and the review process for millions of transportation workers and travelers across three segment populations: maritime, surface, and aviation  It will support large programs, such as TSA Precheck and the Transportation Worker Identification Credential  Operational testing identified limitations with the system; cybersecurity has not been assessed  Staffing gaps in key areas, such as systems engineering and testing, are a significant program risk  GAO last reported on this program in October and April 2017 (GAO-18-46, GAO-17- 346SP)  The TIM program is on track to meet the cost and schedule goals in its current acquisition program baseline (APB)  In September 2016, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Under Secretary for Management approved the TIM program’s revised APB—which reflected a new technical approach to deploy capabilities using an agile development methodology—and subsequently removed the program from breach status, authorizing TSA to resume new development after a nearly 22-month pause  DHS leadership paused new development in January 2015 after the program breached its initial APB goals for various reasons, including technical challenges, insufficient contractor performance, and the addition of new requirements after DHS leadership had approved the program’s initial acquisition strategy  The program now plans to achieve full operational capability (FOC) in March 2022 and its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) increased to account for this 6-year schedule slip and integration with the Transportation Vetting System, among other things  Since the program’s re-baseline, it has been developing and deploying capabilities in 2-month incremental agile releases, such as functionality to transition TSA Precheck program to the TIM system  The program updated its LCCE in November 2017 to inform a program review with DHS leadership, which is within its current APB cost thresholds  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for individual programs  TSA officials anticipate receiving approximately $318 million in O&M funding over this 5-year period, which includes nearly $118 million in fees from vetting programs  TSA officials plan to realign $57 million to cover the projected acquisition shortfall, and said any additional surplus funding available in fiscal year 2022 would be used to implement new system requirements identified by the program’s customers  In November 2017, TSA officials identified several program and technical risks that could affect the program’s cost, schedule, and performance  These risks include an increase in new requirements and increased risk of system vulnerabilities and cyberattacks if the program does not identify a provider to perform software updates on open source code  TSA officials are working to mitigate these risks  Transportation Security Administration (TSA) TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION (TIM) Under the program’s new technical approach, TSA plans to replace the TIM system’s existing commercial-off-the-shelf applications with open source applications—software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone—and move to a new virtual environment  The program’s new agile development methodology develops, tests, and deploys capabilities using an iterative, rather than a sequential approach  Consistent with this strategy, TSA awarded task orders in 2016 and 2017 totaling $34 5 million to the program’s existing contractor for agile design and development services, and plans to competitively award a new contract by May 2018  In October 2017, GAO found that TSA had not fully implemented several leading practices to ensure successful agile adoption  GAO also found that TSA and DHS needed to conduct more effective oversight of the TIM program to reduce the risk of repeating past mistakes  DHS concurred with all 14 recommendations made by GAO to improve program execution and oversight, and identified actions DHS and TSA can take to address them  TSA reported that staffing challenges are a significant risk to the program’s success and identified gaps in key areas—such as systems engineering, testing, and agile development  Program officials told GAO these positions cannot be filled because of a hiring freeze within TSA, which the component has imposed to assess their current workforce and restructure, if necessary  Program officials told GAO they requested waivers from the hiring freeze and, as of January 2018, they had received approval to hire 4 additional staff  TSA officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The USCG uses the FRC to conduct search and rescue, migrant and drug interdiction, and other law enforcement missions  The FRC carries one cutter boat on board and is able to conduct operations in moderate sea conditions  The FRC replaces the USCG’s Island Class patrol boat and provides improved fuel capacity, surveillance, and communications interoperability with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Defense assets  FRC found operationally effective and suitable, and all key performance parameters validated  Main diesel engine issues persist, which may require further retrofits  GAO last reported on this program in March and April 2017 (GAO-17-218, GAO-17- 346SP)  According to USCG officials, the FRC program is on track to meet its current cost and schedule goals  The USCG plans to acquire 58 FRCs and, as of September 2017, 25 had been delivered and 19 were on contract  To inform the budget process, the program updated its life-cycle cost estimate in June 2017, which is within its current acquisition program baseline (APB) cost thresholds  Previously, the program’s initial operational capability (IOC) date slipped after a bid protest related to the program’s initial contract award—now known as phase 1—and the need for structural modifications  USCG officials attributed the 5-year slip in the program’s full operational capability (FOC) date to a decrease in annual procurement quantities under the phase 1 contract  Specifically, in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the quantities decreased from 6 FRCs per year to 4  In May 2014, the USCG determined that it would procure only 32 of the 58 FRCs through this contract and initiated efforts to conduct a full and open competition for the remaining 26 vessels—known as phase 2  In May 2016, the USCG awarded the phase 2 contract for the remaining 26 FRCs, which has a potential value of $1 42 billion  Under the phase 2 contract, the USCG can procure 4 to 6 FRCs per option period  The USCG ordered 6 FRCs at the time of the phase 2 award and, in June 2017, exercised an option for an additional 6 FRCs  The USCG has established that the annual procurement quantity will be dictated by funding levels, and funding shortfalls could cause further schedule delays  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because—as we found in April 2015—DHS’s funding plan to Congress does not contain operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for USCG programs  USCG officials anticipate receiving $1 6 billion in O&M funding over this 5-year period  USCG officials stated that they expect to exercise an option for 4 FRCs in fiscal year 2018 and that the USCG plans to prioritize acquisition funding in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 to procure the final 10 hulls and complete procurement of all 58 FRCs  United States Coast Guard (USCG) FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC) The USCG continues to work with the contractor—Bollinger Shipyards, LLC—to address issues covered by the warranty and acceptance clauses for each ship  For example, 18 engines—9 operational engines and 9 spare engines—have been replaced under the program’s warranty  According to USCG documentation, 65 percent of the current issues with the engines have been resolved through retrofits; however, additional problems with the engines have been identified since our April 2017 review  For example, issues with water pump shafts are currently being examined through a root cause analysis and will be redesigned and are scheduled to undergo retrofits starting in December 2018  We previously found that the FRC’s warranty resulted in improved cost and quality by requiring the shipbuilder to pay for the repair of defects  As of September 2017, USCG officials said the replacements and retrofits completed under the program’s warranty allowed the USCG to avoid an estimated $104 million in potential unplanned costs—of which $63 million is related to the engines  The FRC program does not have any critical staffing vacancies, but the USCG identified insufficient staffing for shore-side support groups as a potential risk that could affect the asset’s operations  These groups provide maintenance to the FRCs while they are in port  In order to mitigate this staffing issue, the USCG is using commercial contracts for maintenance to supplement the capacity of the USCG’s maintenance staff  USCG officials stated that the FRC program is fully funded, executable, and on track to reach FOC by March of 2027  They added that FRCs were recently delivered to locations in Mississippi, Alaska, and Hawaii  USCG officials stated that FRCs are integral to USCG operations, such as providing critical support during the recent hurricane season, and that the program office continues to work with the contractor and stakeholders to quickly and properly address issues with FRCs as they are identified  USCG officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  H-65 CONVERSION/SUSTAINMENT PROGRAM (H-65) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The H-65 aircraft is a short-range helicopter that the USCG uses to fulfill its missions, including search and rescue, ports and waterways security, marine safety, and defense readiness  The H-65 acquisition program increased the fleet’s size by 7 aircraft, added armament capabilities, upgraded navigation systems, and replaced each of the helicopters’ engines  The program is currently focused on upgrades to radar sensors, the automatic flight control system (AFCS), and avionics  Operational assessment of avionics upgrade planned to start in February 2018  Program fully staffed, but schedule slips raise risks with future staffing requirements  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  As of November 2017, the program remains in breach of its current acquisition program baseline (APB)  In November 2016, the USCG notified Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership that it would not complete all activities required—including developmental testing and an operational assessment—to achieve acquisition decision event (ADE) 2C for low-rate initial production of the avionics and AFCS upgrades by its current APB threshold date of March 2017  USCG officials primarily attributed these delays to an underestimation of the technical effort necessary to meet the requirements and have subsequently worked with the contractor to continue development of avionic upgrades  In January 2017, DHS leadership directed the program to update its APB, life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) and test and evaluation master plan by May 2017  However, the USCG did not meet this deadline, in part, because it decided to add a service life extension program (SLEP) to the H-65 program  The SLEP is expected to extend the current 20,000 flight hour service life of each aircraft by another 10,000 flight hours by replacing obsolete aircraft components  USCG officials stated that this will allow the USCG to delay purchasing new aircraft to prioritize funding for the Offshore Patrol Cutter  USCG officials plan to obtain approval for the SLEP when the program submits its revised APB for DHS approval, which is expected by March 2018  The program is revising its LCCE, but provided an update in June 2017 to inform the budget process  This update exceeds its current APB thresholds because it includes an initial estimate for the SLEP  The USCG estimates that the SLEP will cost $54 million for the entire fleet  USCG officials attributed the increase in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs to the additional extension of the aircraft’s operational life  The program’s O&M costs previously increased due to the USCG’s decision to extend the aircraft’s operational life from 2030 to 2039  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because— as we found in April 2015—DHS’s funding plan to Congress does not contain O&M funding for USCG programs  USCG officials anticipate receiving $1 6 billion in O&M funding over this 5-year period  United States Coast Guard (USCG) H-65 CONVERSION/SUSTAINMENT PROGRAM (H-65) The USCG awarded new contracts to Rockwell Collins—the original equipment manufacturer of the legacy AFCS and avionics—to address the challenges encountered with development of the new upgrades  Specifically, the program awarded new contracts to support continued development of the AFCS and avionics upgrades in July 2016 and March 2017, respectively  As of September 2017, the combined value of both contracts totaled more than $15 million  The USCG cancelled development of a dedicated surface search radar capability for the H-65 in 2014, but USCG officials said a commercial off-the-shelf weather radar with surface search capability will be installed as part of the avionics upgrade  USCG officials said there is some risk involved with extending the aircrafts’ service life beyond 20,000 flight hours since it has never been done by other agencies that operate the H-65  However, USCG officials stated that the aircraft manufacturer, Airbus, assisted the USCG’s chief aeronautical engineer in identifying specific parts needing replacement and is providing support  In July 2017, the USCG reported that the program was fully staffed, but that the schedule slips have introduced potential risks with future staffing requirements  The program is mitigating these risks by extending some military personnel and ensuring rotating personnel are replaced by new staff with the expertise needed to complete the program’s planned activities, such as testing  USCG officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The program is intended to assist the USCG in maintaining the capability to access the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions  The USCG requires its icebreaking fleet to conduct multiple missions, including defense readiness; marine environmental protection; ports, waterway, and coastal security; and search and rescue  The USCG plans to acquire three heavy icebreakers to recapitalize the only existing operational heavy icebreaker, which is nearing the end of its service life  Program initiated model testing of hull and propulsion systems, which will inform design decisions  Program office integrates USCG and Navy personnel, but funding responsibilities may cause challenges  GAO last reported on this program in September 2017 (GAO-17-698R)  In June 2014, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership granted the program acquisition decision event (ADE) 1 approval  The Acting Under Secretary for Management also acknowledged the USCG’s need to accelerate the acquisition process to mitigate gaps in the heavy icebreaking capability because the service life of the USCG’s only heavy polar icebreaker, which had already been extended, could end as early as 2020  In January 2018, DHS leadership approved the program’s initial acquisition program baseline (APB) establishing cost, schedule, and performance goals  The USCG planned to achieve a combined ADE 2A and 2B by December 2017, which would authorize the initiation of development efforts  According to DHS officials, this milestone was delayed to February 2018 to allow for the completion of required acquisition documents to inform the decision, such as the program’s life-cycle cost estimate and APB  The USCG is partnering with the Navy to leverage shipbuilding expertise and engaging early with potential shipbuilders through industry studies to mitigate some risks associated with the program’s accelerated acquisition schedule  However, GAO previously found that the program faces challenges in implementing the accelerated schedule  For example, the first icebreaker—which is preliminarily estimated to cost about $750 million to design and construct—would need to be fully funded in fiscal year 2019 at the same time the USCG is expecting to prioritize funding for the Offshore Patrol Cutter  In fiscal year 2017, the Consolidated Appropriations Act or associated explanatory materials, reflected funding for the program, including $150 million for advance procurement of heavy polar icebreakers and $25 million to the USCG for programmatic costs, respectively  USCG officials stated that the Navy funding could cover most of the design costs but would not cover long lead items or construction costs for any of the ships  They further stated that uncertainties with the amount and source of future appropriations have made planning the icebreaker acquisition challenging  United States Coast Guard (USCG) DHS leadership approved four key performance parameters (KPP) related to the ship’s ability to independently break through ice, the ship’s operating duration, and communications  In May 2017, the USCG began model testing of potential hull designs and propulsion configurations  USCG officials explained that the hulls of icebreakers are unique from other ships because they must balance a hull design optimized for icebreaking, which are generally broad and blunt, against a hull design optimized for seakeeping, which are generally narrow and streamlined  USCG officials noted that the power demands and propulsion system for the ship are dependent on the hull design  USCG officials stated that maneuverability was identified as a challenge during model testing and explained that azimuthing propulsors—propellers that sit below the ship and can rotate 360 degrees—offered better maneuverability than traditional propulsion systems  USCG officials said these propulsors are widely used on commercial ships, but may need modification to meet the USCG’s requirements  USCG officials anticipate results from the model testing to be completed by March 2018 and plan to use these results to inform the final specifications for the ships  The USCG established an integrated heavy polar icebreaker program office with the Navy and in 2017, DHS, the USCG, and Navy entered into several agreements that outline oversight roles, among other things  For example, these agreements state that the program will follow DHS acquisition policies with DHS leadership serving as the acquisition decision authority for program milestones  However, the Navy will review and approve acquisition documents before the program seeks DHS approval  These agreements also state that the program’s contracting actions could be funded by either USCG or Navy appropriations, and the source of the appropriations will award the contract  The program plans to competitively award a contract, which would include options for the detail design and construction for all three ships to a single shipbuilder by June 2019  Program officials stated they plan to award the contract under full and open competition to obtain competitive prices and include the construction of the three ships as options to accommodate the program’s funding uncertainties  In February 2017, the USCG awarded contracts to five shipbuilders—valued at approximately $4 million each—for design studies which will inform program decisions  Program officials stated that under these design studies contracts, the shipbuilders developed several potential ship designs and preliminary costs, with a focus on alternative propulsion options and hull designs  In August 2017, USCG officials told GAO that the program’s staffing gap was not negatively impacting program efforts  USCG officials stated that the program office had completed requirements for ADE 2A and 2B, and is on track to release the request for proposals for the detail design and construction contract by March 2018  These officials added that, during 2017, the program office refined the program’s requirements, completed ice and open water model testing, and partnered with five industry teams to evaluate multiple design solutions  USCG officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC-130H/J) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The USCG uses HC-130H and HC-130J aircraft to conduct search and rescue missions, transport cargo and personnel, support law enforcement, and execute other operations  Both aircraft are quad-engine propeller-driven platforms  The HC-130J is a modernized version of the HC-130H, which has advanced engines, propellers, and equipment that provide enhanced speed, altitude, range, and surveillance capabilities  Performance testing of new mission system processor complete  Transfer of HC-130H aircraft to other agencies ongoing  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 (GAO-17-346SP)  During 2017, the USCG continued a nearly 3-year effort to re-baseline the program— which includes revisions to the program’s life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) and acquisition program baseline (APB)—to account for significant changes  Specifically, the USCG decided to pursue an all HC-130J fleet and, in fiscal year 2014, Congress directed the transfer of 7 HC-130H aircraft to the U S  Air Force  The USCG was in the process of upgrading these aircraft, but cancelled further HC-130H upgrades  In September 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership directed the USCG to submit the revised APB by January 2018  According to USCG officials, the re-baseline has been delayed, in part, because Congress also directed the USCG to conduct a multi-phased analysis of its mission needs  In November 2016, the USCG submitted the results of its analysis for fixed- wing aircraft, which confirmed the planned total quantity of 22 HC-130J aircraft and an annual flight-hour goal of 800 hours per aircraft  USCG officials said the results of the analysis will be reflected in the program’s revised LCCE and subsequent APB, but noted that challenges with the vendor hired to complete the LCCE revision have also contributed to delays  The program submitted cost information in June 2017 to inform the budget process, but it reflected no updates from the program’s November 2011 LCCE  USCG officials previously attributed the acquisition cost growth and schedule slip from the program’s initial APB to the increase in HC-130J quantities from 6 to 22  However, when the revised LCCE is complete, estimated costs may decrease since the HC-130J aircraft are less expensive to maintain  As of December 2017, USCG officials stated they had received 11 HC-130J aircraft and had awarded contracts for 3 more—some of which were not requested  USCG officials previously stated that the program needs to acquire 1-2 HC-130J aircraft per year to meet its full operational capability (FOC) date  However, it is unclear how the USCG will meet its FOC date because it only requested funding for 1 aircraft over the next 5 years  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because—as we found in April 2015—DHS’s funding plan to Congress does not contain operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for USCG programs  USCG officials anticipate receiving approximately $1 4 billion in O&M funding over this 5- year period  United States Coast Guard (USCG) LONG RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC-130H/J) In December 2013, Congress directed the transfer of 7 HC-130H aircraft to the U S  Air Force for modifications—which consists of upgrades and installing a fire retardant delivery system—and subsequent transfer to the U S  Forest Service  This direction factored into the USCG’s decision to pursue an all HC-130J fleet  As of December 2017, the Forest Service had not yet received any modified aircraft primarily because of issues with contractors  According to USCG officials, the original contract the Air Force awarded to install the fire retardant delivery system in May 2016 was terminated 7 months later due to an unqualified vendor and a new contract has not yet been awarded  In the meantime, the Forest Service is using 2 of the 7 HC-130Hs  USCG officials said these aircraft are not modified, but outfitted with a less effective firefighting device  As of November 2017, the USCG plans to operate 14 of its HC-130H aircraft until the end of their service lives or until they can be replaced with new HC-130J aircraft  However, as previously discussed, the USCG has not requested funding for the additional HC-130J aircraft to support this plan  In October 2017, USCG officials reported that they were in the process of hiring staff to address the program’s staffing gap  USCG officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate  MEDIUM RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC-144A/ C-27J) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The USCG uses HC-144A and C-27J aircraft to conduct all types of missions, including search and rescue and disaster response  All 32 aircraft—18 HC-144A aircraft and 14 C-27J aircraft—are twin-engine propeller driven platforms  The interior of both aircraft are able to be re-configured to accommodate cargo, personnel or medical transports  Developmental testing of new mission system processor is ongoing  Program continues to face challenges related to purchasing spare parts and accessing technical data  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 and March 2015 (GAO-17-346SP, GAO-15-325)  USCG officials said the program is on track to meet the cost and schedule goals in its current acquisition program baseline (APB), which Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership approved in August 2016 to reflect the restructuring of the HC-144A acquisition program  The USCG initially planned to procure a total of 36 HC-144A aircraft, but reduced that number to the 18 it had already procured after Congress directed the transfer of 14 C-27J aircraft from the U S  Air Force to the USCG in fiscal year 2014  The program’s APB divides the program into two phases: phase 1 includes acceptance of the 18 HC-144A aircraft and upgrades to the aircraft’s mission and flight management systems, and phase 2 includes acceptance of and modifications to the C-27J aircraft to meet the USCG’s mission needs  In October 2017, USCG officials told GAO that the program had initiated phase 1 efforts to upgrade the first HC-144A aircraft  The USCG plans to complete upgrades on all HC-144As by the end of fiscal year 2021  For phase 2, the USCG has accepted all 14 C-27Js from the U S  Air Force and plans to complete the modification of all C-27Js by March 2025 to achieve full operational capability (FOC)  To inform the budget process, the program updated its life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) in June 2017, which is within its current APB cost thresholds  This estimate includes C-27J modification costs, such as installation of a new sensor package and new mission system processor  The program’s LCCE for the 36 HC-144A aircraft previously increased to $28 7 billion in 2012 when the USCG accounted for 5 years of additional costs, among other things  The current LCCE represents a considerable decrease, but also reflects a reduction in the number of aircraft and planned flight hours  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because—as we found in April 2015—DHS’s funding plan to Congress does not contain operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for USCG programs  USCG officials anticipate receiving nearly $1 7 billion in total funding over this 5-year period to cover nearly $1 8 billion in total costs  United States Coast Guard (USCG) MEDIUM RANGE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HC-144A/C-27J) The USCG still faces challenges in transitioning the C-27J into the USCG fleet  In March 2015, GAO found that the successful and cost-effective fielding of the C-27J aircraft is contingent on the USCG’s ability to address risk areas including, purchasing spare parts and accessing technical data, among other issues  According to USCG officials, the program continues to face challenges purchasing spare parts and accessing technical data  The program is reliant on the aircraft original equipment manufacturer for about 35 percent of spare C-27J parts  For other parts, USCG officials said that the USCG continues to look for ways to provide the same or similar parts for the aircraft at a faster rate and the USCG plans to award contracts to two additional manufacturers in calendar year 2018  USCG officials stated that retrieving technical data for the C-27J aircraft remains a challenge, but the USCG is working with the Department of Defense to obtain rights to data currently owned by the original equipment manufacturer  Once the USCG receives appropriate rights to C-27J technical data, the USCG officials said they can begin modification of the aircraft  The USCG also plans to purchase the same surface search radar used on the HC-144A or the HC-130J for the C-27J, which will give the USCG some commonality in maintenance, logistics, and training for this aspect of the aircraft  In October 2017, USCG officials told GAO that the program’s staffing is adequate and the gap has not negatively affected the program  USCG officials stated that the program remains on track to meet the cost, schedule, and performance goals outlined in its current APB and that they monitor APB key parameters in accordance with DHS guidance  These officials added that market research continues to increase supply chain sources and to identify products for new mission systems  USCG officials also provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER (NSC) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The USCG uses the NSC to conduct search and rescue, migrant and drug interdiction, environmental protection, and other missions  The NSC replaces and provides improved capabilities over the USCG’s High Endurance Cutters  The NSC carries helicopters and cutter boats, provides an extended on-scene presence at forward deployed locations, and operates worldwide  Follow-on operational testing began in October 2017, but cybersecurity testing delayed  The USCG is conducting a study to determine root cause of propulsion system issues  GAO last reported on this program in March and April 2017 (GAO-17-218, GAO-17- 346SP)  In November 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership approved a revised acquisition program baseline (APB), which accounted for the addition of a ninth NSC to the program of record  The USCG originally planned to acquire only eight NSCs; however, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Congress directed that not less than $640 million be immediately available and allotted to contract for the production of a ninth NSC  In December 2016, the USCG awarded a contract to produce the ninth NSC and, as of November 2017, six NSCs had been delivered and three were under construction  The USCG anticipates delivery of the ninth NSC in September 2020, which coincides with the program’s prior APB threshold date for full operational capability (FOC)  However, the revised APB extends this date by 1 year to account for any risks in delivering the additional ship  The program’s FOC date previously slipped 4 years, which USCG officials attributed to funding shortfalls, among other things  The ninth NSC contributed to a $453 million and $123 million increase in the program’s APB cost thresholds for acquisition and operations and maintenance (O&M), respectively  However, the program’s revised life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) is still lower than its initial estimate for eight ships, which USCG officials attribute to more accurate estimates  The revised LCCE also included costs for several design changes the USCG has had to implement on equipment with known issues  As of September 2017, 12 equipment systems required design changes, which totaled an estimated cost of over $260 million  This work includes structural enhancement work on the first two NSCs and the replacement of the gantry crane, which aids in the deployment of cutter boats  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because— as we found in April 2015—DHS’s funding plan to Congress does not contain O&M funding for USCG programs  USCG officials anticipate receiving approximately $2 1 billion in O&M funding over this 5-year period to cover the NSC’s estimated $1 8 billion in O&M costs, but stated it will refine its annual budget request based on the program’s needs each year  The USCG also identified carryover funding to cover the projected acquisition funding shortfall in fiscal year 2018  United States Coast Guard (USCG) NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER (NSC) The NSC program does not have any critical staffing vacancies  However, in July 2017, the program reported that the greatest staffing challenge is a potential extension to the program’s end date if the USCG acquires more than 9 NSCs  If this occurs, the program office must reassess future staffing requirements to ensure adequate program oversight continues until the last NSC completes post-delivery activities  In addition, the USCG has made changes to its staffing model for operating the NSCs  The USCG initially planned to implement a crew rotational concept in which crews would rotate while NSCs were underway to achieve a goal of 230 days away from the cutter’s homeport  In February 2018, USCG officials told GAO they abandoned the crew rotational concept because the concept did not provide the USCG with the expected return on investment  Instead, USCG officials said a new plan has been implemented that does not rotate crew and is anticipated to increase the days away from home port from the current capability of 185 days to 200 days  USCG officials stated that NSCs had a record year of narcotics seizures in 2017  In addition to the test activities identified in this assessment, USCG officials stated that the first follow-on OT&E event was completed in December 2017 and the first cybersecurity test event is scheduled for February 2018  They also noted that the shipbuilder continues to show improving cost performance and is completing construction within budget  USCG officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER (OPC) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) The USCG plans to use the OPC to conduct patrols for homeland security, law enforcement, and search and rescue operations  The OPC is being designed for long-distance transit, extended on-scene presence, and operations with deployable aircraft and small boats  It is intended to replace the USCG’s aging Medium Endurance Cutters (MEC) and bridge the operational capabilities provided by the Fast Response Cutters and National Security Cutters (NSC)  Program plans to refine the ship’s design, as needed, based on early operational assessment results  Program’s acquisition strategy incorporated some best practices  GAO last reported on this program in April and June 2017 (GAO-17-346SP, GAO-17-654T)  According to USCG officials, the OPC program is on track to meet its cost and schedule goals  In September 2014, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership approved the program’s current acquisition program baseline (APB), which accounts for schedule slips resulting from delays in awarding the program’s initial contracts and a subsequent bid protest  The USCG expects to start construction of the first OPC in fiscal year 2019 and procure a total of 25 ships  The USCG plans to initially fund one OPC per year and eventually two OPCs per year until all 25 OPCs are delivered  USCG officials have stated that additional OPC delays will decrease the USCG’s operational capacity because the MECs will likely require increased downtime for maintenance and other issues, reducing their availability  In January 2016, DHS leadership directed the USCG to revise the OPC life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) and submit it for approval within 6 months of awarding the detailed design and construction contract for the ships—which the USCG subsequently awarded in September 2016  In June 2017, the program submitted an updated LCCE to inform the budget process that—while not approved by DHS leadership—accounts for the contract award and the program’s schedule slips  As of December 2017, the program’s revised LCCE still had not been approved  It is unclear whether it will address other issues, such as an increase in the estimated weight of each ship  The OPC’s initial LCCE was based in large part on the estimated weight of each ship  However, in November 2017, USCG officials said the ship is expected to weigh up to 35 percent more than originally estimated  Nevertheless, USCG officials expect to procure all 25 OPCs for the program’s APB objective cost of $10 5 billion because the contractor identified cost efficiencies to compensate for the increased weight  GAO previously raised questions about the OPC’s affordability and its effect on other USCG acquisition programs, such as the Heavy Polar Icebreaker  Specifically, GAO noted that the OPC procurement will consume about two-thirds of the USCG’s planned acquisition budget between fiscal years 2018 and 2032 based on recent funding history  The program’s affordability gap from fiscal years 2020 to 2022 may be overstated because—as we found in April 2015—DHS’s funding plan to Congress does not report operations and maintenance (O&M) funding for USCG programs  USCG officials anticipate receiving $103 million in O&M funding over this 5-year period  United States Coast Guard (USCG) OFFSHORE PATROL CUTTER (OPC) The USCG is in the process of completing the design of the OPC before starting construction, which is in-line with GAO shipbuilding best practices  In addition, USCG officials stated that the program is using state-of-the-market technology that has been proven on other ships as opposed to state-of-the-art technology, which lowers the risk of the program  The USCG used a two-phased down-select strategy to select a contractor to deliver the OPC  For phase 1, the USCG conducted a full and open competition and selected three contractors to perform preliminary design work  For phase 2, the USCG selected one of the phase 1 contractors—Eastern Shipbuilding—to develop a detailed design of the OPC and construct no more than the first 11 ships  The contract—worth approximately $110 million—includes separate options for each ship  The options for ships 10 and 11 were unpriced and included in the solicitation as an incentive to convert the contract type from fixed price incentive to firm fixed price  These options will be included in a repricing proposal submitted by the contractor for ships 6-9 after delivery of the first ship  USCG officials have stated the USCG will decide whether to exercise the option for ships 10 and 11 based on the contractor’s re-pricing proposal for ships 6-9  The USCG plans to re-compete the contract for the remaining 14-16 ships  The OPC program continued to increase its required staffing level and the USCG reported that adjustments to staffing will continue as the program matures  The program faces shortages including engineers, a logistics manager, and a technical director, but USCG officials said they are hiring staff to address these gaps  USCG officials stated that the OPC program is fully funded, executable, and on track to award construction for the first OPC in September 2018  These officials said design efforts are on track and the contractor is meeting the milestones to deliver the first OPC in 2021  USCG officials noted that they are continuing to increase staff at the contractor’s facility to prepare for the start of construction for the first OPC  USCG officials also provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) The Transformation program was established in 2006 to transition USCIS from a fragmented, paper-based filing environment to a consolidated, paperless environment for processing immigration and citizenship applications  The program developed a new system architecture and delivers capability through releases that correspond to new product lines within four lines of business: Citizenship, Immigrant, Non-Immigrant, and Humanitarian  Revision of key performance parameters and test and evaluation master plan in progress  Program is reorganizing to leverage expertise within USCIS and revise its approach  GAO last reported on this program in April 2017 and July 2016 (GAO-17-346SP, GAO-16- 467)  The program remains in breach of its current acquisition program baseline (APB)  In September 2016, the Transformation program experienced a schedule breach when it failed to complete deployment of all the product lines associated with the Citizenship line of business  The deployment was delayed because of challenges processing new product lines on the new system architecture and other technical issues with the case management system  Prior to the breach, the program deployed six product lines, which supported approximately 24 percent of the total workload processed by USCIS in fiscal year 2016  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership previously re- baselined the program in April 2015 after USCIS determined that it could not use any of the architecture delivered under its initial strategy, despite having invested more than $475 million in its development  In December 2016, DHS leadership directed USCIS to stop planning and development for new product lines, develop a breach remediation plan, and update its acquisition documentation  In February 2017, DHS leadership approved the program’s remediation plan and the program has since made progress in implementing this plan  However, DHS leadership elected to continue with the program’s pause in new development following program reviews in March 2017, July 2017, and October 2017  USCIS officials said they are revising the program’s acquisition documents—including its APB and life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE)—and plan to re-baseline by March 2018  The program updated the total costs in its LCCE to inform the budget process, but these costs do not reflect the program’s re-baselining plans  As a result, the status of the program against its cost and schedule goals is unclear  However, the program is more than 3 years past its original full operational capability (FOC) date  The affordability gap from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 may be overstated because DHS’s funding plan to Congress no longer contained operations and maintenance funding for individual programs  USCIS uses revenue from premium processing fees to fund the Transformation program and routinely collects more fees than the program’s estimated costs  USCIS officials told GAO that the program office underwent a reorganization in January 2017 to help address the program’s recent challenges  This effort included dismantling the program office and repositioning Transformation under the USCIS Office of Information Technology so the program could leverage expertise in areas such as engineering within USCIS  USCIS officials reported that the program no longer plans to deliver capability by product lines because this strategy focused too narrowly on the automation of forms associated with the lines of business  Going forward, USCIS officials said the program plans to develop capabilities that will address broader objectives, such as reducing the time it takes to process applications and decisions  The program previously made significant changes after it experienced a 5-month delay with its first release, which was deployed in May 2012  DHS attributed this delay to weak contractor performance and pursuing an unnecessarily complex system, among other things  To address these issues, the Office of Management and Budget, DHS, and USCIS determined the program should implement a new acquisition strategy, which allowed for an agile software development methodology and increased competition for development work  This strategy was reflected in the program’s April 2015 re-baseline  USCIS officials told GAO that they plan to address the Transformation program’s staffing gap now that the reorganization is complete  USCIS officials provided technical comments on a draft of this assessment, which GAO incorporated as appropriate  To help determine the extent to which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken actions to enhance its policies and processes to better reflect key portfolio management practices, we assessed the department’s requirements, acquisition management, and resource allocation policies using key practices we established in September 2012  These key practices are based on our past work, in which we examined the practices that private sector entities use to achieve a balanced mix of new projects and found that successful commercial companies use a disciplined and integrated approach to prioritize needs and allocate resources  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  The objectives of this audit were designed to provide congressional committees insight into the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) major acquisition programs  We assessed the extent to which (1) DHS’s major acquisition programs are on track to meet their schedule and cost goals and (2) DHS has taken actions to enhance its policies and processes to better reflect key portfolio management practices  To answer these questions, we reviewed 28 of DHS’s 79 major acquisition programs  We reviewed all 16 of DHS’s Level 1 acquisition programs— those with life-cycle cost estimates (LCCE) of $1 billion or more—that had at least one project, increment, or segment in the Obtain phase—the stage in the acquisition life cycle when programs develop, test, and evaluate systems—at the initiation of our audit  Additionally, we reviewed 12 other major acquisition programs—including 8 Level 1 programs that either had not yet entered or were beyond the Obtain phase, and 4 Level 2 programs that have LCCEs between $300 million and less than $1 billion—that we identified were at risk of not meeting their cost estimates, schedules, or capability requirements based on our past work and discussions with DHS officials  Specifically, we met with representatives from DHS’s Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM)—DHS’s main body for acquisition oversight—as a part of our scoping effort to determine which programs (if any) were facing difficulties in meeting their cost estimates, schedules, or capability requirements  The 28 selected programs were sponsored by eight different components, and they are identified in table 7, along with our rationale for selecting them  To determine the extent to which DHS’s major acquisition programs are on track to meet their schedule and cost goals, we collected key acquisition documentation for each of the 28 programs, such as all LCCEs and acquisition program baselines (APB) approved at the department level since DHS’s current acquisition management policy went into effect in November 2008  DHS policy establishes that all major acquisition programs should have a department-approved APB, which establishes a program’s critical cost, schedule, and performance parameters, before they initiate efforts to obtain new capabilities  Twenty four of the 28 programs had one or more department-approved LCCEs and APBs between November 2008 and December 31, 2017  We used these APBs to establish the initial and current cost and schedule goals for the programs  We then developed a data collection instrument to help validate the information from the APBs and collect similar information from programs without department-approved APBs  Specifically, for each program, we pre-populated a data collection instrument to the extent possible with the schedule and cost information we had collected from the APBs and our 2017 assessment (if applicable) to identify schedule and cost goal changes, if any, since (a) the program’s initial baseline was approved and (b) January 2017—the data cut-off date of the report we issued in April 2017  We shared our data collection instruments with officials from the program offices to confirm or correct our initial analysis and to collect additional information to enhance the timeliness and comprehensiveness of our data sets  We then met with program officials to identify causes and effects associated with any identified schedule and cost goal changes  Subsequently, we drafted preliminary assessments for each of the 28 programs, shared them with program and component officials, and gave these officials an opportunity to submit comments to help us correct any inaccuracies, which we accounted for as appropriate (such as when new information was available)  Additionally, in July 2017, we collected copies of the detailed data on affordability that programs submitted to inform the fiscal year 2019 resource allocation process  We also collected copies of any annual LCCE updates programs submitted in fiscal year 2017  For each of the 24 programs with a department-approved APB, we compared (a) the most recent cost data we collected (i e , a department-approved LCCE, the detailed LCCE information submitted during the resource allocation process, a fiscal year 2017 annual LCCE update, or an update provided by the program office) to (b) DHS’s funding plan presented in the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) report to Congress for fiscal years 2018–2022, which presents 5-year funding plans for DHS’s major acquisition programs, to assess the extent to which a program was projected to have an acquisition funding gap in fiscal year 2018  Through this process, we determined that our data elements were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this engagement  The FYHSP reports information by the department’s new common appropriation structure, which created standard appropriation fund types including (1) procurement, construction, and improvements and (2) operations and support  We refer to these types of funding as (1) acquisition and (2) operations and maintenance throughout this report  which are listed in appendix II—and identified any significant shortfalls  Specifically, we assessed the joint requirements directives and instruction manual; DHS’s Acquisition Management Directive 102-01, Acquisition Management Instruction 102-01-001, and other related guidance; and DHS’s resource allocation directive, instruction, and handbook  First, we assessed each group of policies against the key practices using the following ratings: Met—the documents fully reflected the key practice  Partially met—the documents reflected some, but not all parts of the key practice  Not met—the documents did not reflect the key practice  We shared our preliminary analysis for each group of policies with the DHS officials responsible for implementing them—specifically, the Joint Requirements Council (JRC), PARM, and the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E)—to discuss our findings, identify relevant sections of the documents we had not yet accounted for, and solicit their thoughts on those key practices that were not reflected in the policies  Second, we used the scores for each group of policies to develop a department-wide rating for each key practice  When applicable, we weighted the department-wide rating based on the intent of the key practice  For example, the department-wide rating for the key practice related to resource allocation across the portfolio was based more heavily on the rating for the resource allocation policies, rather than the ratings for the requirements or acquisition management policies  Third, we rolled-up the ratings for all the key practices in a particular area—as identified in appendix II—to establish a department-wide overall rating for each key practice area  We concluded that a key practice area was met if all ratings for the individual key practices in that area were met; partially met if the ratings for the individual key practices in that area were all partially met or a mix of met and not met; or not met if the ratings for the individual key practices in that area were all not met  In addition, we reviewed documentation that resulted from DHS’s requirements, acquisition management, and resource allocation processes since January 2016 to get a sense of how the department has implemented its current policies  For example, we reviewed JRC- validated requirements documents; acquisition decision memorandums; Acquisition Program Health Assessment reports; and documentation related to the development of DHS’s fiscal year 2018 budget request and the fiscal year 2018–2022 FYHSP report, including resource allocation guidance, presentations to DHS leadership, and preliminary decisions  We also interviewed officials from the JRC, PARM, PA&E, and the Deputy’s Management Action Group to identify any current and planned initiatives to improve management of the department’s portfolio of major acquisition programs  We then compared our assessment of DHS’s current policies, practices, and planned initiatives to our previous findings and the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 through May 2018 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  In addition to the contact listed above, Rick Cederholm (Assistant Director), Aryn Ehlow (Analyst-in-Charge), Pete Anderson, Lorraine Ettaro, Helena Johnson, TyAnn Lee, Alexis Olson, Sylvia Schatz, Roxanna Sun, and Lindsay Taylor made key contributions to this report  Other contributors included Mathew Bader, Carissa Bryant, Andrew Burton, Erin Butkowski, Lisa Canini, Jenny Chow, John Crawford, Lindsey Cross, Laurier R  Fish, Betsy Gregory-Hosler, Claire Li, Sarah Martin, Marycella Mierez, Erin O’Brien, Katherine Pfeiffer, John Rastler, Ashley Rawson, Andrew Redd, Jill Schofield, Charlie Shivers III, and Jeanne Sung  DHS Program Costs: Reporting Program-Level Operations and Support Costs to Congress Would Improve Oversight  GAO-18-344  Washington, D C : April 25, 2018  Homeland Security Acquisitions: Identifying All Non-Major Acquisitions Would Advance Ongoing Efforts to Improve Management  GAO-17-396  Washington, D C : April 13, 2017  Homeland Security Acquisitions: Earlier Requirements Definition and Clear Documentation of Key Decisions Could Facilitate Ongoing Progress  GAO-17-346SP  Washington, D C : April 6, 2017  Coast Guard Cutters: Depot Maintenance Is Affecting Operational Availability and Cost Estimates Should Reflect Actual Expenditures  GAO-17-218  Washington, D C : March 2, 2017  Homeland Security Acquisitions: Joint Requirements Council’s Initial Approach Is Generally Sound and It Is Developing a Process to Inform Investment Priorities  GAO-17-171  Washington, D C : October 24, 2016  Homeland Security Acquisitions: DHS Has Strengthened Management, but Execution and Affordability Concerns Endure  GAO-16-338SP  Washington, D C : March 31, 2016  National Security Cutter: Enhanced Oversight Needed to Ensure Problems Discovered during Testing and Operations Are Addressed  GAO-16-148  Washington, D C : January 12, 2016  TSA Acquisitions: Further Actions Needed to Improve Efficiency of Screening Technology Test and Evaluation  GAO-16-117  Washington, D C : December 17, 2015  Homeland Security Acquisitions: Major Program Assessments Reveal Actions Needed to Improve Accountability  GAO-15-171SP  Washington, D C : April 22, 2015  Coast Guard Aircraft: Transfer of Fixed-Wing C-27J Aircraft Is Complex and Further Fleet Purchases Should Coincide with Study Results  GAO-15-325  Washington, D C : March 26, 2015  Homeland Security Acquisitions: DHS Should Better Define Oversight Roles and Improve Program Reporting to Congress  GAO-15-292  Washington, D C : March 12, 2015  Coast Guard Acquisitions: Better Information on Performance and Funding Needed to Address Shortfalls  GAO-14-450  Washington, D C : June 5, 2014  Homeland Security Acquisitions: DHS Could Better Manage Its Portfolio to Address Funding Gaps and Improve Communications with Congress  GAO-14-332  Washington, D C : April 17, 2014  Homeland Security: DHS Requires More Disciplined Investment Management to Help Meet Mission Needs  GAO-12-833  Washington, D C : September 18, 2012  Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex Acquisitions  GAO-10-588SP  Washington, D C : June 30, 2010  Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs Lack Appropriate Oversight  GAO-09-29  Washington, D C : November 18, 2008 
Report 2:  1119 / P L  105-85 of November 18, 1997), which granted the Navy the authority to use a single contract for the procurement of the first four Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines  The 4 boats were scheduled to be procured during the 5-year period FY1998-FY2002 in annual quantities of 1-1-0-1-1  Congress provided the authority granted in Section 121(b) at least in part to reduce the combined procurement cost of the four submarines  Using MYP was not an option for the Virginia-class program at that time because the Navy had not even begun, let alone finished, construction of the first Virginia-class submarine, and consequently could not demonstrate that it had a stable design for the program  When Section 121(b) was enacted, there was no name for the contracting authority it provided  The term block buy contracting came into use later, when observers needed a term to refer to the kind of contracting authority that Congress authorized in Section 121(b)  As discussed in the next section, this can cause confusion, because the term block buy was already being used in discussions of DOD acquisition to refer to something else  What's the difference between block buy cont r acting and block buys? In discussions of defense procurement, the term "block buy" by itself (without "contracting" at the end) is sometimes used to refer to something quite different from block buy contracting—namely, the simple act of funding the procurement of more than one copy of an item in a single year, particularly when no more than one item of that kind might normally be funded in a single year  For example, when Congress funded the procurement of two aircraft carriers in FY1983, and another two in FY1988, these acts were each referred to as block buys, because aircraft carriers are normally procured one at a time, several years apart from one another  This alternate meaning of the term block buy predates by many years the emergence of the term block buy contracting  The term block buy is still used in this alternate manner, which can lead to confusion in discussions of defense procurement  For example, for FY2017, the Air Force requested funding for procuring five Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) for its EELV Launch Services (ELS) program  At the same time, Navy officials sometimes refer to the use of block buy contracts for the first four Virginia-class submarines, and in the LCS program, as block buys, when they might be more specifically referred to as instances of block buy contract ing   How much can BBC save, compared with MYP? BBC can reduce the unit procurement costs of ships by amounts less than or perhaps comparable to those of MYP, if the authority granted for using BBC explicitly includes authority for making economic order quantity (EOQ) purchases of components  If the authority granted for using BBC does not explicitly include authority for making EOQ purchases, then the savings from BBC will be less  Potential savings under BBC might also be less than those under MYP if the BBC contract does not include a cancellation penalty, or includes one that is more limited than typically found in an MYP contract, because this might give the contractor less confidence than would be the case under an MYP contract that the future stream of business will materialize as planned, which in turn might reduce the amount of money the contractor invests to optimize its workforce and production facilities for producing the items to be procured under the contract  How frequently has BBC been used? Since its use at the start of the Virginia-class program, BBC has been used very rarely  The Navy did not use it again in a shipbuilding program until December 2010, when it awarded two block buy contracts, each covering 10 LCSs to be procured over the six-year period FY2010-FY2015, to the two LCS builders  (Each contract was later amended to include an 11 th ship in FY2016, making for a total of 22 ships under the two contracts ) A third example is the John Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler program, in which the Navy is using a block buy contract to procure the first six ships in the program  A fourth example, arguably, is the Air Force's KC-46 aerial refueling tanker program, which is employing a fixed price incentive fee (FPIF) development contract that includes a "back end" commitment to procure certain minimum numbers of KC-46s in certain fiscal years  When might BBC be suitable as an alternative to MYP? BBC might be particularly suitable as an alternative to MYP in cases where using a multiyear contract can reduce costs, but the program in question cannot meet all the statutory criteria needed to qualify for MYP  As shown in the case of the first four Virginia-class boats, this can occur at or near the start of a procurement program, when design stability has not been demonstrated through the production of at least a few of the items to be procured (or, for a shipbuilding program, at least one ship)  What i s the difference between an MYP or block buy contract and a contract with options? The military services sometimes use contracts with options to procure multiple copies of an item that are procured over a period of several years  The Navy, for example, used a contract with options to procure Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class dry cargo ships that were procured over a period of several years  A contract with options can be viewed as somewhat similar to an MYP or block buy contract in that a single contract is used to procure several years' worth of procurement of a given kind of item  There is, however, a key difference between an MYP or block buy contract and a contract with options: In a contract with options, the service is under no obligation to exercise any of the options, and a service can choose to not exercise an option without having to make a penalty payment to the contractor  In contrast, in an MYP or block buy contract, the service is under an obligation to continue implementing the contract beyond the first year, provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funds  If the service chooses to terminate an MYP or block buy contract, and does so as a termination for government convenience rather than as a termination for contractor default, then the contractor can, under the contract's termination for convenience clause, seek a payment from the government for cost incurred for work that is complete or in process at the time of termination, and may include the cost of some of the investments made in anticipation of the MYP or block buy contract being fully implemented  The contractor can do this even if the MYP or block buy contract does not elsewhere include a provision for a cancellation penalty  As a result of this key difference, although a contract with options looks like a multiyear contract, it operates more like a series of annual contracts, and it cannot achieve the kinds of savings that are possible under MYP and BBC  Potential issues for Congress concerning MYP and BBC include whether to use MYP and BBC in the future more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used; and whether to create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent statute that governs the use of MYP  Should MYP and BBC in the future be used more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used? Supporters of using MYP and BBC more frequently in the future might argue the following: Since MYP and BBC can reduce procurement costs, making greater use of MYP and BBC can help DOD get more value out of its available procurement funding  This can be particularly important if DOD's budget in real (i e , inflation-adjusted) terms remains flat or declines in coming years, as many observers anticipate  The risks of using MYP have been reduced by Section 811 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act ( H R  4986 / P L  110-181 of January 28, 2008), which amended 10 U S C  2306b to strengthen the process for ensuring that programs proposed for MYP meet certain criteria (see " Permanent Statute Governing MYP ")  Since the value of MYP contracts equated to less than 8% of DOD's procurement budget in FY2012, compared to about 17% of DOD's procurement budget in FY2000, MYP likely could be used more frequently without exceeding past experience regarding the share of DOD's procurement budget accounted for by MYP contracts  Supporters of using MYP and BBC less frequently in the future, or at least no more frequently than now, might argue the following: Using MYP and BBC more frequently would further reduce Congress's and DOD's flexibility for making changes in DOD procurement programs in future years in response to changing strategic or budgetary circumstances  The risks of reducing flexibility in this regard are increased now because of uncertainties in the current strategic environment and because efforts to reduce federal budget deficits could include reducing DOD spending, which could lead to a reassessment of U S  defense strategy and associated DOD acquisition programs  Since actual savings from using MYP and BBC rather than annual contracting can be difficult to observe or verify, it is not clear that the financial benefits of using MYP or BBC more frequently in the future would be worth the resulting further reduction in Congress's and DOD's flexibility for making changes in procurement programs in future years in response to changing strategic or budgetary circumstances  Should Congress create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent statute (10 U S C  2306b) that governs the use of MYP? Supporters of creating a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC might argue the following: Such a statute could encourage greater use of BBC, and thereby increase savings in DOD procurement programs by giving BBC contracting a formal legal standing and by establishing a clear process for DOD program managers to use in assessing whether their programs might be considered suitable for BBC  Such a statute could make BBC more advantageous by including a provision that automatically grants EOQ authority to programs using BBC, as well as provisions establishing qualifying criteria and other conditions intended to reduce the risks of using BBC  Opponents of creating a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC might argue the following: A key advantage of BBC is that it is not governed by a permanent statute  The lack of such a statute gives DOD and Congress full flexibility in determining when and how to use BBC for programs that may not qualify for MYP, but for which a multiyear contract of some kind might produce substantial savings  Such a statute could encourage DOD program managers to pursue their programs using BBC rather than MYP  This could reduce discipline in DOD multiyear contracting if the qualifying criteria in the BBC statute are less demanding than the qualifying criteria in 10 U S C  2306b  Should the Coast Guard should begin making use of MYP and BBC? Although the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Coast Guard is a military service and a branch of the U S  Armed Forces at all times (14 U S C  1), and 10 U S C  2306b provides authority for using MYP not only to DOD, but also to the Coast Guard (and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well)  In addition, Section 311 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 ( S  140 / P L  115-282 of December 4, 2018) provides permanent authority for the Coast Guard to use block buy contracting with EOQ purchases of components in its major acquisition programs  The authority is now codified at 14 U S C  1137  As discussed earlier in this report, the Navy in recent years has made extensive use of MYP and BBC in its ship and aircraft acquisition programs, reducing the collective costs of those programs, the Navy estimates, by billions of dollars  The Coast Guard, like the Navy, procures ships and aircraft  In contrast to the Navy, however, the Coast Guard has never used MYP or BBC in its ship or aircraft acquisition programs  Instead, the Coast has tended to use contracts with options  As discussed earlier, although a contract with options looks like a multiyear contract, it operates more like a series of annual contracts, and it cannot achieve the kinds of savings that are possible under MYP and BBC  CRS in recent years has testified and reported on the possibility of using BBC or MYP in Coast Guard ship acquisition programs, particularly the Coast Guard's 25-ship Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) program and the Coast Guard's three-ship polar icebreaker program  CRS estimates that using multiyear contracting rather than contracts with options for the entire 25-ship OPC program could reduce the cost of the OPC program by about $1 billion  The OPC program is the Coast Guard's top-priority acquisition program, and it represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce the acquisition cost of a Coast Guard acquisition program by an estimated $1 billion  CRS also estimates that using BBC for a three-ship polar icebreaker program could reduce the cost of that program by upwards of $150 million  The Coast Guard has expressed some interest in using BBC in the polar icebreaker program, but its baseline acquisition strategy for that program, like its current acquisition strategy for the OPC program, is to use a contract with options  As part of its FY2020 budget submission, the Department of Defense is proposing continued funding for implementing several MYP contracts initiated in fiscal years prior to FY2020, but it has not highlighted any requests for authority for new MYP or block buy contracts for major acquisition programs that would begin in FY2020  Appendix A  Text of 10 U S C  2306b The text of 10 U S C  2306b as of April 29, 2019, is as follows: §2306b  Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property (a) In General -To the extent that funds are otherwise available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property whenever the head of that agency finds each of the following: (1) That the use of such a contract will result in significant savings of the total anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts  (2) That the minimum need for the property to be purchased is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of production rate, procurement rate, and total quantities  (3) That there is a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period the head of the agency will request funding for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation  (4) That there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with such property are not excessive  (5) That the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic  (6) In the case of a purchase by the Department of Defense, that the use of such a contract will promote the national security of the United States  (7) In the case of a contract in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000,000, that the conditions required by subparagraphs (C) through (F) of subsection (i)(3) will be met, in accordance with the Secretary's certification and determination under such subsection, by such contract  (b) Regulations -(1) Each official named in paragraph (2) shall prescribe acquisition regulations for the agency or agencies under the jurisdiction of such official to promote the use of multiyear contracting as authorized by subsection (a) in a manner that will allow the most efficient use of multiyear contracting  (2)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the regulations applicable to the Department of Defense  (B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe the regulations applicable to the Coast Guard, except that the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense shall apply to the Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the Navy  (C) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall prescribe the regulations applicable to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (c) Contract Cancellations -The regulations may provide for cancellation provisions in multiyear contracts to the extent that such provisions are necessary and in the best interests of the United States  The cancellation provisions may include consideration of both recurring and nonrecurring costs of the contractor associated with the production of the items to be delivered under the contract  (d) Participation by Subcontractors, Vendors, and Suppliers -In order to broaden the defense industrial base, the regulations shall provide that, to the extent practicable- (1) multiyear contracting under subsection (a) shall be used in such a manner as to seek, retain, and promote the use under such contracts of companies that are subcontractors, vendors, or suppliers; and (2) upon accrual of any payment or other benefit under such a multiyear contract to any subcontractor, vendor, or supplier company participating in such contract, such payment or benefit shall be delivered to such company in the most expeditious manner practicable  (e) Protection of Existing Authority -The regulations shall provide that, to the extent practicable, the administration of this section, and of the regulations prescribed under this section, shall not be carried out in a manner to preclude or curtail the existing ability of an agency- (1) to provide for competition in the production of items to be delivered under such a contract; or (2) to provide for termination of a prime contract the performance of which is deficient with respect to cost, quality, or schedule  (f) Cancellation or Termination for Insufficient Funding -In the event funds are not made available for the continuation of a contract made under this section into a subsequent fiscal year, the contract shall be canceled or terminated  The costs of cancellation or termination may be paid from- (1) appropriations originally available for the performance of the contract concerned; (2) appropriations currently available for procurement of the type of property concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or (3) funds appropriated for those payments  (g) Contract Cancellation Ceilings Exceeding $100,000,000 -(1) Before any contract described in subsection (a) that contains a clause setting forth a cancellation ceiling in excess of $100,000,000 may be awarded, the head of the agency concerned shall give written notification of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to the congressional defense committees, and such contract may not then be awarded until the end of a period of 30 days beginning on the date of such notification  (2) In the case of a contract described in subsection (a) with a cancellation ceiling described in paragraph (1), if the budget for the contract does not include proposed funding for the costs of contract cancellation up to the cancellation ceiling established in the contract, the head of the agency concerned shall, as part of the certification required by subsection (i)(1)(A),1 give written notification to the congressional defense committees of- (A) the cancellation ceiling amounts planned for each program year in the proposed multiyear procurement contract, together with the reasons for the amounts planned; (B) the extent to which costs of contract cancellation are not included in the budget for the contract; and (C) a financial risk assessment of not including budgeting for costs of contract cancellation  (h) Defense Acquisitions of Weapon Systems -In the case of the Department of Defense, the authority under subsection (a) includes authority to enter into the following multiyear contracts in accordance with this section: (1) A multiyear contract for the purchase of a weapon system, items and services associated with a weapon system, and logistics support for a weapon system  (2) A multiyear contract for advance procurement of components, parts, and materials necessary to the manufacture of a weapon system, including a multiyear contract for such advance procurement that is entered into in order to achieve economic-lot purchases and more efficient production rates  (i) Defense Acquisitions Specifically Authorized by Law -(1) In the case of the Department of Defense, a multiyear contract in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000,000 may not be entered into under this section unless the contract is specifically authorized by law in an Act other than an appropriations Act  (2) In submitting a request for a specific authorization by law to carry out a defense acquisition program using multiyear contract authority under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall include in the request the following: (A) A report containing preliminary findings of the agency head required in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a), together with the basis for such findings  (B) Confirmation that the preliminary findings of the agency head under subparagraph (A) were supported by a preliminary cost analysis performed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation  (3) A multiyear contract may not be entered into under this section for a defense acquisition program that has been specifically authorized by law to be carried out using multiyear contract authority unless the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing, not later than 30 days before entry into the contract, that each of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) The Secretary has determined that each of the requirements in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) will be met by such contract and has provided the basis for such determination to the congressional defense committees  (B) The Secretary's determination under subparagraph (A) was made after completion of a cost analysis conducted on the basis of section 2334(e)(2) 1 of this title, and the analysis supports the determination  (C) The system being acquired pursuant to such contract has not been determined to have experienced cost growth in excess of the critical cost growth threshold pursuant to section 2433(d) of this title within 5 years prior to the date the Secretary anticipates such contract (or a contract for advance procurement entered into consistent with the authorization for such contract) will be awarded  (D) A sufficient number of end items of the system being acquired under such contract have been delivered at or within the most current estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost for such system to determine that current estimates of such unit costs are realistic  (E) During the fiscal year in which such contract is to be awarded, sufficient funds will be available to perform the contract in such fiscal year, and the future-years defense program for such fiscal year will include the funding required to execute the program without cancellation  (F) The contract is a fixed price type contract  (G) The proposed multiyear contract provides for production at not less than minimum economic rates given the existing tooling and facilities  (4) If for any fiscal year a multiyear contract to be entered into under this section is authorized by law for a particular procurement program and that authorization is subject to certain conditions established by law (including a condition as to cost savings to be achieved under the multiyear contract in comparison to specified other contracts) and if it appears (after negotiations with contractors) that such savings cannot be achieved, but that significant savings could nevertheless be achieved through the use of a multiyear contract rather than specified other contracts, the President may submit to Congress a request for relief from the specified cost savings that must be achieved through multiyear contracting for that program  Any such request by the President shall include details about the request for a multiyear contract, including details about the negotiated contract terms and conditions  (5)(A) The Secretary may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for procurement of a complete and usable end item  (B) The Secretary may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year for advance procurement under a contract for the purchase of property only for the procurement of those long-lead items necessary in order to meet a planned delivery schedule for complete major end items that are programmed under the contract to be acquired with funds appropriated for a subsequent fiscal year (including an economic order quantity of such long-lead items when authorized by law)  (6) The Secretary may make the certification under paragraph (3) notwithstanding the fact that one or more of the conditions of such certification are not met, if the Secretary determines that, due to exceptional circumstances, proceeding with a multiyear contract under this section is in the best interest of the Department of Defense and the Secretary provides the basis for such determination with the certification  (7) The Secretary may not delegate the authority to make the certification under paragraph (3) or the determination under paragraph (6) to an official below the level of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics  (j) Defense Contract Options for Varying Quantities -The Secretary of Defense may instruct the Secretary of the military department concerned to incorporate into a proposed multiyear contract negotiated priced options for varying the quantities of end items to be procured over the period of the contract  (k) Multiyear Contract Defined -For the purposes of this section, a multiyear contract is a contract for the purchase of property for more than one, but not more than five, program years  Such a contract may provide that performance under the contract during the second and subsequent years of the contract is contingent upon the appropriation of funds and (if it does so provide) may provide for a cancellation payment to be made to the contractor if such appropriations are not made  (l) Various Additional Requirements With Respect to Multiyear Defense Contracts -(1)(A) The head of an agency may not initiate a contract described in subparagraph (B) unless the congressional defense committees are notified of the proposed contract at least 30 days in advance of the award of the proposed contract  (B) Subparagraph (A) applies to the following contracts: (i) A multiyear contract- (I) that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one year of the contract; or (II) that includes an unfunded contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000  (ii) Any contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one year  (2) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear contract for which the economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at least to the limits of the Government's liability  (3) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear procurement contract for any system (or component thereof) if the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless authority for the contract is specifically provided in an appropriations Act  (4) Each report required by paragraph (5) with respect to a contract (or contract extension) shall contain the following: (A) The amount of total obligational authority under the contract (or contract extension) and the percentage that such amount represents of- (i) the applicable procurement account; and (ii) the agency procurement total  (B) The amount of total obligational authority under all multiyear procurements of the agency concerned (determined without regard to the amount of the multiyear contract (or contract extension)) under multiyear contracts in effect at the time the report is submitted and the percentage that such amount represents of- (i) the applicable procurement account; and (ii) the agency procurement total  (C) The amount equal to the sum of the amounts under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and the percentage that such amount represents of- (i) the applicable procurement account; and (ii) the agency procurement total  (D) The amount of total obligational authority under all Department of Defense multiyear procurements (determined without regard to the amount of the multiyear contract (or contract extension)), including any multiyear contract (or contract extension) that has been authorized by the Congress but not yet entered into, and the percentage that such amount represents of the procurement accounts of the Department of Defense treated in the aggregate  (5) The head of an agency may not enter into a multiyear contract (or extend an existing multiyear contract), the value of which would exceed $500,000,000 (when entered into or when extended, as the case may be), until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report containing the information described in paragraph (4) with respect to the contract (or contract extension)  (6) The head of an agency may not terminate a multiyear procurement contract until 10 days after the date on which notice of the proposed termination is provided to the congressional defense committees  (7) The execution of multiyear contracting authority shall require the use of a present value analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement  (8) This subsection does not apply to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or to the Coast Guard  (9) In this subsection: (A) The term "applicable procurement account" means, with respect to a multiyear procurement contract (or contract extension), the appropriation account from which payments to execute the contract will be made  (B) The term "agency procurement total" means the procurement accounts of the agency entering into a multiyear procurement contract (or contract extension) treated in the aggregate  (m) Increased Funding and Reprogramming Requests -Any request for increased funding for the procurement of a major system under a multiyear contract authorized under this section shall be accompanied by an explanation of how the request for increased funding affects the determinations made by the Secretary under subsection (i)  Appendix B  Programs Approved for MYP in Annual DOD Appropriations Acts Since FY1990 This appendix presents, in two tables, programs approved for MYP in annual DOD appropriations acts since FY1990  Table B-1 covers FY2011 to the present, and Table B-2 covers FY1990 through FY2010 

ground_truth: Full implementation of GPRAMA could facilitate efforts to reform the federal government and make it more effective. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to review the act's implementation. This report assesses how GPRAMA implementation has affected the federal government's progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing cross-cutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed statutory requirements, OMB guidance, and GAO's recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the key governance challenges. GAO also interviewed OMB staff and surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,395 federal managers from 24 agencies on various performance and management topics. With a 67 percent response rate, the survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have made some progress in more fully implementing the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), but GAO's work and 2017 survey of federal managers highlight numerous areas where improvements are needed. Cross-cutting issues: Various GPRAMA provisions are aimed at addressing cross-cutting issues, such as cross-agency and agency priority goals and related data-driven reviews of progress towards those goals. To ensure alignment with the current administration's priorities, OMB's 2017 guidance removed the priority status of those goals, which stopped quarterly data-driven reviews and related public progress reports until new goals are published. OMB plans to resume implementation of these provisions in February 2018. GPRAMA also requires OMB and agencies to implement an inventory of federal programs, which could help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In October 2014, GAO found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory. Since then, OMB has postponed updating the inventory, citing among other reasons the passage of subsequent laws. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory and specific time frames for doing so. A systematic approach to developing the inventory could help ensure it provides useful information for decision makers and the public. Performance information: Survey results show federal managers generally reported no improvements in their use of performance information in decision making for various management activities, or practices that can enhance such use, since GAO's 2013 survey. For example, the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities (an estimated 33 percent in 2017) is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013 (44 percent). In contrast, managers who were familiar with and whose programs were subject to quarterly data-driven reviews reported that those reviews were used to make progress toward agency priority goals. Identifying and sharing practices to expand the use of such reviews—for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could lead to increased use of performance information. Daily operations: Agencies have made progress in developing results-oriented cultures but need to take additional actions. GAO's past work found that high-performing organizations use performance management systems to help individuals connect their daily activities to organizational goals. In 2017, about half of federal managers reported using performance information when setting expectations with employees (no change from GAO's last survey in 2013). Transparent and open government: GAO's past work identified a number of needed improvements to Performance.gov, the central government-wide website required by GPRAMA. The site is to provide quarterly updates on priority goals in effect through September 2017, but those updates stopped in December 2016. According to OMB, the existing information for cross-agency priority goals is the final update, and agencies should publish final updates on their priority goals in annual performance reports. Performance.gov does not provide users with this information, thereby limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results. In addition to following through on plans to resume implementation of key GPRAMA provisions, GAO recommends that OMB (1) consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory, (2) revise guidance to provide specific time frames for inventory implementation, (3) identify and share practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews, and (4) update Performance.gov to explain that reporting on priority goals was suspended and provide the location of final progress updates. OMB staff agreed with these recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: GPRAMA significantly enhances GPRA, the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve longstanding performance and management problems in the federal government and provide greater accountability for results  Congress passed GPRAMA in 2010 to address a number of persistent federal performance challenges, including focusing attention on crosscutting issues and enhancing the use and usefulness of performance information  OMB and agencies are to establish various government-wide and agency-specific performance goals, in line with GPRAMA requirements or OMB guidance  These include the following: Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: CAP goals are crosscutting and include outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of policy areas as well as goals for management improvements needed across the government  OMB is to coordinate with agencies to establish CAP goals at least every 4 years  OMB is also required to coordinate with agencies to develop annual federal government performance plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be achieved toward the CAP goals  Strategic objectives: A strategic objective is the outcome or impact the agency is intending to achieve through its various programs and initiatives  Agencies establish strategic objectives in their strategic plans and may update the objectives during the annual update of performance plans  Agency priority goals (APG): At the agency level, every 2 years, GPRAMA requires that the heads of certain agencies, in consultation with OMB, identify a subset of agency performance goals as APGs  These goals are to reflect the agencies’ highest priorities  They should be informed by the CAP goals as well as consultations with relevant congressional committees and other interested parties  In a schedule established by GPRAMA, OMB and agencies are to develop and publish new CAP goals, APGs, and strategic plans (with updated strategic objectives) in February 2018  GPRAMA and related OMB guidance require agencies to regularly assess their progress in achieving goals and objectives through performance reviews  Data-driven reviews: Agency leaders and managers are to use regular meetings, at least quarterly, to review data and drive progress toward key performance goals and other management-improvement priorities  For each APG, GPRAMA requires agency leaders to conduct reviews at least quarterly to assess progress toward the goal, determine the risk of the goal not being met, and develop strategies to improve performance  Similarly, the Director of OMB, with relevant parties, is to review progress toward each CAP goal  Strategic reviews: OMB guidance directs agency leaders to annually assess progress toward achieving each strategic objective using a broad range of evidence  GPRAMA establishes certain senior leadership positions and a council, as described below  Chief Operating Officer (COO): The deputy agency head, or equivalent, is designated COO, with overall responsibility for improving agency management and performance  Performance Improvement Officer (PIO): Agency heads are to designate a senior executive within the agency as the PIO  The PIO reports directly to the COO and assists the agency head and COO with various performance management activities  Goal leaders: Goal leaders are responsible for developing strategies to achieve goals, managing execution, and regularly reviewing performance  GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and agency performance goals, including APGs  OMB guidance directs agencies to designate goal leaders for strategic objectives  Performance Improvement Council (PIC): The PIC is charged with assisting OMB to improve the performance of the federal government and achieve the CAP goals  The PIC is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB and includes agency PIOs from each of the 24 CFO Act agencies as well as other PIOs and individuals designated by the chair  Among its responsibilities, the PIC is to work to resolve government-wide or crosscutting performance issues, and facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies  GPRAMA includes several provisions related to providing the public and Congress with information, as described below  Performance gov: GPRAMA calls for a single, government-wide performance website to communicate government-wide and agency performance information  Among other things, the website— implemented by OMB as Performance gov—is to include (1) quarterly progress updates on CAP goals and APGs; (2) an inventory of all federal programs; and (3) agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports  Reporting burden: GPRAMA establishes a process to reexamine the usefulness of certain existing congressional reporting requirements  Specifically, GPRAMA requires an annual review (including congressional consultation), based on OMB guidance, of agencies’ reporting requirements to Congress  Additionally, OMB is to include in the budget a list of plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative and may submit legislation to eliminate or consolidate such plans or reports  In early 2017, the administration announced several efforts that are intended to improve government performance  The 2018 Budget Blueprint states that the President’s Management Agenda will seek to improve the federal government’s effectiveness by using evidence-based approaches, balancing flexibility with accountability to better achieve results, improving mission support functions, and developing and monitoring critical performance measures  In addition, OMB issued several memoranda detailing the administration’s plans to improve government performance by reorganizing the government, reducing the federal workforce, and reducing federal agency burden  A number of these efforts, which are to leverage GPRAMA and our past work, have the potential to further progress in addressing key governance challenges  As part of reorganization efforts, OMB and agencies are developing government-wide and agency reform plans, respectively, that are to leverage various GPRAMA provisions  For example, an April 2017 memorandum states that OMB intends to monitor implementation of the reform plans using CAP goals, APGs, annual strategic reviews, and Performance gov  The government-wide plan also is to include crosscutting reform proposals, such as merging agencies or programs that have similar missions  To that end, the memorandum states agencies should consider our reports, including our work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as well as inspectors general reports  Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve, such as those related to ensuring public health, providing homeland security, and promoting economic development, require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector  For more than 2 decades, we have reported on agencies’ missed opportunities for improved collaboration through the effective implementation of GPRA and, more recently, GPRAMA  Our reports also have demonstrated that collaboration across agencies is critical to address issues of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication as well as many of the areas on our High-Risk List  Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: Since 2011, our annual reports have identified 133 crosscutting areas that require the coordinated effort of more than one federal organization, level of government, or sector  For instance, for the area of federal grant awards, we found in January 2017 that the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service, Food and Nutrition Service, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had not established guidance and formal processes to ensure their grant-management staff review applications for potential duplication and overlap among grants in their agencies before awarding  We recommended that these agencies do so, and they agreed  As of August 2017, these agencies had taken several actions to address the recommendation  For example, the Department of the Interior (Interior) provided documentation showing that the Fish and Wildlife Service now requires discretionary grant applicants to provide a statement that addresses whether there is any overlap or duplication of proposed projects or activities to be funded by the grant  Fish and Wildlife also updated its guidance to grant awarding offices instructing them to perform a potential overlap and duplication review of all selected applicants prior to award  Our Action Tracker provides details on the status of actions from our annual reports  Within the 133 crosscutting areas, since 2011 we have identified 315 targeted actions where opportunities exist to better manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, including 29 new actions in our most recent report issued in April 2017  We found that the executive branch and Congress addressed 145 (46 percent) of the 315 actions  For example, in November 2014, we recommended that the U S  Coast Guard and Consumer Product Safety Commission establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a memorandum of understanding) to facilitate information sharing; better leverage their resources; and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap that we identified  In response to this recommendation, the two agencies signed a formal policy document to govern their coordination in May 2015  This policy document outlined procedures for determining jurisdictional authority for recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items  Specifically, the procedures clarified that upon receiving notice of a possible defect, the agency receiving such notice shall determine whether the item properly falls within its jurisdiction, and if not, initiate discussions to determine the appropriate jurisdiction  These new procedures should help the agencies share information and leverage each other’s resources so they can better ensure that recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items are fully regulated  However, more work is needed on the remaining 170 actions (54 percent) that have not been fully addressed  For example, in July 2016, we reported that four federal agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice—manage at least 10 efforts to collect data on sexual violence, which differ in target population, terminology, measurements, and methodology  We found that data collection efforts use 23 different terms to describe sexual violence  Data collection efforts also differed in how they categorized particular acts of sexual violence, the context in which data were collected, data sources, units of measurement, and time frames  We recommended that OMB convene an interagency forum to better manage fragmentation of efforts to collect sexual violence data  In commenting on that report, OMB stated it would consider implementing the action in the future but did not believe it was the most effective use of resources at that time, in part because the agencies were not far enough along in their research  In response, we stated that given the number of federal data collection efforts, the range of differences across them, and the potential for causing confusion, it would be beneficial for agencies to discuss these differences and determine whether they are, in fact, necessary  As of July 2017, OMB had not provided an update on the status of this recommendation  High-Risk List: Since the early 1990s, our high-risk program has focused attention on government operations with greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or that are in need of transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges  As of February 2017, there were 34 high-risk areas covering a wide range of issues including human capital management, modernizing the U S  financial regulatory system, and ensuring the security of federal information systems and cyber critical infrastructure  Many of these high- risk areas require a coordinated response from more than one branch of government, agency, or sector  In the time between our 2015 and 2017 High-Risk Updates, many of these high-risk areas on our list demonstrated solid progress  During that period, 15 high-risk areas fully met at least one of the five criteria required for removal from the High-Risk List  In many cases, progress was possible through the joint efforts of Congress and leadership and staff in agencies  For example, Congress passed over a dozen laws following our 2015 High-Risk Update to help address high-risk issues  In addition, in 2017, we removed one high-risk area on managing terrorism-related information, because significant progress had been made to strengthen how intelligence on terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement is shared among federal, state, local, tribal, international, and private sector partners  Despite this progress, continued oversight and attention is also warranted given the issue’s direct relevance to homeland security as well as the constant evolution of terrorist threats and changing technology  Our February 2017 High-Risk Update also highlighted a number of long- standing high-risk areas that require additional attention  We also added three new crosscutting areas to incorporate the management of federal programs that serve tribes and their members, the government’s environmental liabilities, and the 2020 decennial census  Based on our body of work on federal programs that serve tribes and their members, we concluded that federal agencies had (1) ineffectively administered Indian education and health care programs and (2) inefficiently fulfilled their responsibilities for managing the development of Indian energy resources  For example, we identified numerous challenges facing Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS), in administering education and health care services  We concluded that these challenges put the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk  In May 2017, we issued two additional reports on accountability for school construction and safety at schools funded by BIE  Although these agencies have taken some actions to address recommendations we made related to Indian programs, about 50 recommendations have yet to be fully resolved  We are monitoring federal efforts to address the unresolved recommendations  We also are reviewing IHS’s workforce, and tribal nations’ management and use of their energy resources  Many of the crosscutting areas highlighted by our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and designated as high-risk would benefit from enhanced collaboration among the federal agencies involved in them  GPRAMA establishes a framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government performance  Our survey results and past work demonstrate that agencies continue to face difficulties when working together on crosscutting issues, but also that implementing certain GPRAMA requirements can have a positive effect on collaboration  An item related to coordination in our survey of federal managers is statistically significantly lower in 2017, relative to our previous survey in 2013 and our initial survey in 1997  In 2017, an estimated 43 percent of managers agreed that they use information obtained from performance measurement to a great or very great extent when coordinating program efforts with internal or external organizations (compared to an estimated 50 percent in 2013 and an estimated 57 percent in 1997)  Moreover, our past work has found that agencies face a variety of challenges when working across organizational boundaries to deliver programs and improve performance  For example, our work has found that interagency groups have, at times, encountered difficulty clarifying roles and responsibilities or developing shared outcomes and performance measures  In contrast, our past work demonstrates that implementing GPRAMA provisions can improve collaboration  For example, in May 2016, we found that OMB and the PIC updated the governance structure for CAP goals to include both agency-level and Executive Office of the President goal leaders and held regular, senior-level reviews on CAP goal progress  Moreover, CAP goal teams told us that the CAP goal designation increased leadership attention and improved interagency collaboration on their crosscutting issues  Furthermore, our prior work has found that priority goals and related data-driven reviews have also been used to help manage crosscutting issues and enhance collaboration  Various GPRAMA requirements are aimed at improving agencies’ coordination of efforts to address crosscutting issues  As with our 2013 survey, our 2017 survey continues to show that CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews—also called quarterly performance reviews (QPR)—are associated with reported higher levels of collaboration with internal and external stakeholders  For example, our 2017 survey data indicate that about half of federal managers (an estimated 54 percent) reported they were somewhat or very familiar with CAP goals  Among these individuals, those who viewed their programs as contributing to CAP goals to a great or very great extent (36 percent) were more likely to report collaborating outside their program to a great or very great extent to help achieve CAP goals (62 percent), as shown in figure 2  Our analysis shows a similar pattern exists for APGs and QPRs  Our past work also has highlighted ways in which OMB and agencies could better implement GPRAMA’s crosscutting provisions—many of which have been addressed  A continued focus on fully and effectively implementing these provisions will be important as OMB and agencies establish new CAP goals and APGs, and assess progress toward them through related QPRs  Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: In May 2012 and June 2013, we found that OMB had not always identified relevant agencies and program activities as contributors to the initial set of CAP goals  OMB took actions in response to our recommendations to include relevant contributors  Our most recent review, in May 2016, found that all relevant contributors had been identified for a subsequent set of CAP goals  In that report, we also found that OMB and the PIC had improved implementation of the CAP goals, in part, by helping agencies build their capacity to contribute to implementing the goals  Appendix II summarizes our past recommendations related to GPRAMA and the actions agencies have taken to address them  Agency priority goals (APGs): In April 2013, we found that agencies did not fully explain the relationship between their APGs and crosscutting efforts  Identify contributors: Similar to OMB’s responsibilities with the CAP goals, agencies are to identify the various organizations and programs that contribute to each of their performance goals, including APGs  We found that agencies identified internal contributors for their APGs, but did not list external contributors in some cases  We recommended that the Director of OMB ensure that agencies adhere to OMB’s guidance for website updates by providing complete information about the organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities—both within and external to the agency— that contribute to each APG  In response, in April 2015, OMB asked agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, tax expenditures, and other activities contributing to their 2014-2015 APGs  Based on an analysis of the final quarterly updates for those APGs, published in December 2015, we found that agencies made progress in identifying external organizations and programs for their APGs  Describe how agency goals contribute to CAP goals: Agencies generally did not identify how their APGs contributed to CAP goals  We recommended that OMB direct agencies to describe in their performance plans how the agency’s performance goals—including APGs—contribute to any of the CAP goals as required by GPRAMA  In response, in July 2013, OMB updated its guidance directing agencies to include a list of the CAP goals to which the agency contributes and explain the agency’s contribution to them in their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports  Data-driven reviews: For their data-driven reviews of agency priority goals, agencies are to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel within and outside the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each goal  However, in February 2013, we found that most Performance Improvement Officers (PIO) we surveyed (16 of 24) indicated that there was little to no involvement in these reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals  We recommended that OMB and the PIC help agencies extend their QPRs to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their APGs  OMB staff told us that they generally concurred with the recommendation, but believed it would not always be appropriate to regularly include external representatives in agencies’ data-driven reviews, which they considered to be internal management meetings  In a subsequent review, we found in July 2015 that PIOs at 21 of the 22 agencies we surveyed said that their data-driven reviews had a positive effect on collaboration among officials from different offices or programs within the agency  Despite the positive effects, most agency PIOs (17) indicated that there continued to be little to no involvement in the reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals  In May 2016, OMB and PIC staff reported that, in response to our earlier recommendation, they were working with agencies to identify examples where agencies included representatives from outside organizations in data-driven reviews, and to identify promising practices based on those experiences  PIC staff told us they would disseminate any promising practices identified through the PIC Internal Reviews Working Group and other venues  In August 2017, OMB staff told us they plan to hold a summit with agencies later in the year to discuss implementing various performance management requirements, which could include agencies highlighting experiences and promising practices related to involving external officials in their data-driven reviews  We continue to believe data- driven reviews should include any relevant contributors from outside organizations and will continue to monitor progress  Despite the important role priority goals and related reviews can play in addressing crosscutting issues and enhancing collaboration, OMB recently removed the priority status of the current sets of priority goals  According to OMB staff, removing the priority designation from CAP goals and APGs returned them to regular performance goals, which are not subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of those reviews on Performance gov  In a June 2017 memorandum, OMB stated that CAP goals and APGs are intended to focus efforts toward achieving the priorities of current political leadership, and therefore reporting on the priority goals of the previous administration on Performance gov was discontinued for the remainder of the period covered by the goals (through September 30, 2017, the end of fiscal year 2017)  The memorandum further noted that agencies and teams working on those goals should continue working on the current goals where they align with the priorities of the current administration  Moreover, the memorandum states that agencies have flexibility in structuring their data-driven reviews, but they should continue such reviews focused on agency priorities  When asked about these actions, OMB staff told us that they believed they were working in line with the intentions of GPRAMA, which realigned the timing of goal setting with presidential terms, to better take into account changes in priorities  This is the first presidential transition since GPRAMA was enacted, and OMB staff told us they thought the act was unclear on how to handle priority goals during the changes in administrations and priorities  They stated that it was not practical to continue reporting on the priority goals of the prior administration as agencies worked to develop new strategic plans and priority goals for publication in February 2018  Hence, they told us OMB ended the current round of CAP goals and directed agencies to remove the priority designation from the APGs, returning them to regular performance goals  OMB staff further told us that although the guidance was published in a June 2017 memorandum, these decisions had been made and previously communicated to agencies during the transition in administrations  Therefore, reporting on the fiscal year 2014-2017 CAP goals, fiscal year 2016-2017 APGs, and related reviews stopped much earlier in the year, well before goal cycles were planned to be completed on September 30, 2017  OMB staff further stated that although the goals no longer had priority designations, work towards them largely continued in 2017  For example, one of the prior administration’s CAP goals was to modernize the federal permitting and review process for major infrastructure projects  OMB staff told us that they and agencies have continued many of the activities intended to achieve that goal, but they are no longer subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of these reviews on Performance gov  Moreover, they expect most of this work will continue towards a new and refocused CAP goal on infrastructure permitting modernization  OMB staff reaffirmed to us their intentions to resume implementation of CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews when the new planning and reporting cycle begins in February 2018  This is in line with stated plans to leverage various GPRAMA provisions to track progress of proposed government-wide and agency-specific reforms, as outlined in OMB’s April 2017 memorandum on the reform plans  In addition, OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance for implementing GPRAMA similarly focuses on continued implementation of the act  Additional aspects of GPRAMA implementation could similarly help improve the management of crosscutting issues  Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2012 guidance implementing GPRAMA established a process in which agencies, beginning in 2014, were to conduct leadership-driven, annual reviews of their progress toward achieving each strategic objective established in their strategic plans  As we found in July 2015, effectively implementing strategic reviews could help identify opportunities to reduce, eliminate, or better manage instances of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  Under OMB’s guidance, agencies are to identify the various organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities that contribute to each objective, both within and outside the agency  Where progress in achieving an objective is lagging, the reviews are intended to identify strategies for improvement, such as strengthening collaboration to better address crosscutting challenges, or using evidence to identify and implement more effective program designs  If successfully implemented in a way that is open, inclusive, and transparent—to Congress, delivery partners, and a full range of stakeholders—this approach could help decision makers assess the relative contributions of various programs to a given objective  Successful strategic reviews could also help decision makers identify and assess the interplay of public policy tools that are being used to ensure that those tools are effective and mutually reinforcing, and that results are being efficiently achieved  In July 2017, OMB released guidance which updated the status of the 2017 strategic reviews  Because agencies are currently developing new strategic goals and objectives, OMB stated that agencies may forego the reporting and categorization requirements for any current strategic objectives that an agency determines will be substantively different or no longer aligned with the current administration’s policy, legislative, regulatory, or budgetary priorities  In addition, OMB stated that while there will be no formal meetings between OMB and the agencies to discuss findings and related progress from the 2017 strategic reviews, it expects that agencies will continue to conduct strategic reviews or assess progress made toward strategic goals and objectives aligned with administration policy  Furthermore, OMB stated that during this transition year, updates of progress on agency strategic objectives will only be published in the agency’s annual performance report and will not be reported to Performance gov  Full reporting through Performance gov is to resume after new agency strategic plans are published in February 2018  Agencies are to include a progress update for strategic objectives as part of their progress update in their fiscal year 2017 annual performance reports  Agencies also must address next steps for performance improvement as part of their fiscal year 2019 annual performance plans  Program inventories: GPRAMA requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs, along with related budget and performance information, on a central government-wide website  Such a list could help decision makers and the public fully understand what the federal government does, how it does it, and how well it is doing  An inventory of federal programs could also be a critical tool to help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the federal government  Agencies developed initial program inventories in May 2013, but since then have not updated or more fully implemented these inventories  In October 2014, we found several issues limited the completeness, comparability, and usefulness of the May 2013 program inventories  OMB and agencies did not take a systematic approach to developing comprehensive inventories  For example, OMB’s guidance in Circular No  A-11 presented five possible approaches agencies could take to define their programs and noted that agencies could use one or more of those approaches in doing so  We found that because the agencies used inconsistent approaches to define their programs, the comparability of programs was limited within agencies as well as government-wide  In addition, we found that the inventories had limited usefulness for decision making, as they did not consistently provide the program and related budget and performance information required by GPRAMA  Moreover, we found that agencies did not solicit feedback on their inventories from external stakeholders—which can include Congress, state and local governments, third party service providers, and the public  Doing so would have provided OMB and agencies an opportunity to ensure they were presenting useful information for stakeholder decision making  We concluded that the ability to tag and sort information about programs through a more dynamic, web-based presentation could make the inventory more useful  In October 2014, we made several recommendations to OMB to update relevant guidance to help develop a more coherent picture of all federal programs and to better ensure relevant information is useful for decision makers  For example, we recommended that OMB revise its guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their approach to defining and identifying programs when developing or updating their inventories  OMB staff generally agreed with these recommendations, but have not yet taken any actions to implement them  OMB’s guidance for the program inventory has largely remained unchanged since 2014, when OMB postponed further development of the program inventory and eliminated portions of the guidance  For example, the guidance no longer describes, or provides directions for agencies to meet, GPRAMA’s requirements for presenting related budget or performance information for each program  OMB decided to postpone implementing a planned May 2014 update to the program inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the public spending reporting required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)  OMB subsequently stated that it would not begin implementing the program inventory until after the DATA Act was implemented in May 2017, despite requirements for regular updates to the program inventory to reflect current budget and performance information  The DATA Act is now being implemented, but OMB has postponed resuming the development of the program inventory  In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they are now considering how to align GPRAMA’s program inventory provisions with future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA)  This was reflected in OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance, which states that OMB is working with agencies to determine the right strategy to merge the implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements to the extent possible to avoid duplicating efforts  For example, PMIAA requires OMB to coordinate with agency Program Management Improvement Officers to conduct portfolio reviews of agency programs to assess the quality and effectiveness of program management  GPRAMA requires OMB to issue guidance for implementing the program inventory requirements, among other things  Moreover, federal internal control standards state that organizations should clearly define what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  As described above, OMB’s current guidance for the program inventory lacks some of those details—such as describing and providing direction to meet GPRAMA’s requirements for budget and performance information—in part because OMB is working with agencies to determine a strategy for implementation  Ensuring all GPRAMA requirements are covered and taking action on our past recommendations would help OMB improve its guidance to more fully implement the program inventory and improve its usefulness  To that end, in a report issued earlier this month, we identified a series of iterative steps that OMB could use in directing agencies to develop a useful inventory, as described in figure 3  A useful inventory would consist of all programs identified, information about each program, and the organizational structure of the programs  Our work showed that the principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including increased transparency for federal programs  Such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help OMB ensure the inventory is implemented in line with GPRAMA requirements and meets the needs of decision makers and the public, among others  OMB’s guidance also lacks specific time frames, with associated milestones for resuming implementation of the program inventory requirements  As part of PMIAA’s requirements, OMB is to issue standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies by December 2017  OMB staff told us that, within a year after that, they expect to issue further guidance on moving forward with resuming the program inventory  However, that general time frame was not reflected in the July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance  Providing specific time frames and associated milestones would bring the program inventory guidance in line with other portions of OMB’s guidance for implementing GPRAMA requirements, which contains a timeline of various performance planning and reporting requirements, including specific dates for meeting those requirements and related descriptions of required actions  For example, OMB’s July 2017 guidance identifies over 30 actions agencies should take between June 2017 and December 2018 to implement various GPRAMA provision  More specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation by allowing them to know what actions they would be expected to take and by when  Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones also would help ensure that external stakeholders are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories  Effectively implementing various GPRAMA tools could help inform assessments of the performance of tax expenditures, which are reductions in tax liabilities that result from preferential provisions (figure 4)  In fiscal year 2016, tax expenditures represented an estimated $1 4 trillion in forgone revenue, an amount greater than total discretionary spending that year  Despite the magnitude of these investments, our work has also shown that little has been done to determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their stated purposes and how their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs with similar goals  GPRAMA requires OMB to identify tax expenditures that contribute to the CAP goals  In addition, OMB guidance directs agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their strategic objectives and APGs  However, our past work reviewing GPRAMA implementation found that OMB and agencies rarely identified tax expenditures as contributors to these goals  Fully implementing our recommendation to identify how tax expenditures contribute to various goals could help the federal government establish a process for evaluating the performance of tax expenditures  To that end, in May 2017, we provided the Director of OMB with three priority recommendations that require attention: Develop framework for reviewing performance: In June 1994, and again in September 2005, we recommended that OMB develop a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance  We explained that the framework should (1) outline leadership responsibilities and coordination among agencies with related responsibilities, (2) set a review schedule, (3) identify review methods and ways to address the lack of credible tax expenditure performance information, and (4) identify resources needed for tax expenditure reviews  Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures  Inventory tax expenditures: In October 2014, we found that OMB had not included tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, and therefore was missing an opportunity to increase the transparency of tax expenditures and the outcomes to which they contribute  We recommended that OMB should designate tax expenditures as a program type in relevant guidance, and develop, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related budget and performance information  OMB staff said they neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommended actions  As noted earlier, OMB has not resumed updates to the program inventory  Therefore, OMB had not taken any actions in response to this recommendation, according to OMB staff as of July 2017  Identify contributions to agency goals: In July 2016, we found that agencies had made limited progress identifying tax expenditures’ contribution to agency goals, as directed by OMB guidance  As of January 2016, 7 of the 24 CFO Act agencies identified tax expenditures as contributing to their missions or goals  The 11 tax expenditure they identified—out of the 169 tax expenditures included in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017—represented approximately $31 9 billion of the $1 2 trillion in estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2015  (See figure 5 ) To help address this issue, we recommended that OMB, in collaboration with the Department of the Treasury, work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals, as appropriate  In particular, we recommended that they identify which specific tax expenditures contribute to specific strategic objectives and APGs  In July 2017, OMB staff said they had taken no actions to address the recommendation  Our July 2016 report also identified options for policymakers to further incorporate tax expenditures into federal budgeting processes, several of which options align with the recommendations discussed above  These options could help achieve various benefits, but we also reported that policymakers would need to consider challenges and tradeoffs in deciding whether or how to implement them  For example, one option was to require that all tax expenditures, or some subset of them, expire after a finite period  This option could result in greater oversight, requiring policymakers to explicitly decide whether to extend more or all tax expenditures  One consideration with this option is that it could lead to frequent changes in the tax code, such as from extended or expired tax expenditures, which can create uncertainty and make tax planning more difficult  Our previous work has shown that using performance information in decision making is essential to improving results  Performance information can be used across a range of management activities, such as setting priorities, allocating resources, or identifying problems to be addressed  However, our work continues to show that agencies can better use performance information in decision making, as shown in the example in the text box below  Department of Justice (DOJ) Could Better Analyze Performance Information to Reduce Backlog in Immigration Courts In June 2017, we found that the case backlog—cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year—at DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) courts more than doubled from fiscal years 2006 through 2015  Stakeholders identified various factors that potentially contributed to the backlog, including continuances—temporary case adjournments until a different day or time  Our analysis of continuance records showed that the use of continuances increased by 23 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2015  We found that EOIR collects continuance data but does not systematically assess them  Systematically analyzing the use of continuances could provide EOIR officials with valuable information about challenges the immigration courts may be experiencing, such as with operational issues like courtroom technology malfunctions, or areas that may merit additional guidance for immigration judges  Further, using this information to potentially address operational challenges could help that office meet its goals for completing cases in a timely manner  We recommended that the Director of EOIR systematically analyze immigration court continuance data to identify and address any operational challenges faced by courts or areas for additional guidance or training  EIOR agreed with this recommendation  EOIR stated that it supports conducting additional analysis of immigration court continuance data and recognizes that additional guidance or training regarding continuances may be beneficial to ensure that immigration judges use continuances appropriately in support of EOIR’s mission to adjudicate immigration cases in a careful and timely manner  We will monitor EOIR’s progress in taking these actions  Our 2017 survey of federal managers shows little change in their reported use of performance information  Using a set of survey questions, we previously developed an index that reflects the extent to which managers reported that their agencies used performance information for various management activities and decision making  The index suggests that government-wide use of performance information did not change significantly between 2013 and 2017, and it is statistically significantly lower relative to our 2007 survey, when we created the index  Figure 6 shows the questions included in the index and the government-wide results  In regard to individual survey items, in 2017 federal managers reported no changes or decreases in their use of performance information when compared to our last survey and when those survey items were first introduced  These results are generally consistent with our last few surveys  For example, in 2008 we found that there had been little change in federal managers’ reported use of performance information government-wide from 1997 to our 2007 survey  Citing those results, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that agencies were not consistently using performance information to improve their management and results  The report further stated that provisions in GPRAMA are intended to address those findings and increase the use of performance information to improve performance and results  However, five items that were highlighted in our 2008 statement on the 2007 survey results generally show no improvement when compared to the 2017 results, as shown in figure 7  The one exception is for managers’ reported use of performance information to refine program performance measures  While this item was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007—an estimated 46 percent to 53 percent—the 2017 result (43 percent) is a statistically significant decrease relative to 2013 and is not statistically different from the 2007 results  Another item, the use of performance information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes, also was statistically significantly lower in 2017 (47 percent) when compared to 2007 and 2013 (53 and 54 percent, respectively)  This is of particular concern as agencies are developing their reform plans  Moreover, when compared to our 1997 survey, the 2017 results show four of the five items are statistically significantly lower, and the remaining item—allocating resources—has not changed  Similarly, we found there was no improvement in 2017 for more recent survey items on other uses of performance information compared to the years in which they were introduced, as shown in figure 8  Although one item, on the use of performance information to develop program strategy, was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007 (an estimated 58 and 51 percent, respectively), the 2017 result (53 percent) does not represent a statistically significant change from either of those years  Another item, on the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities, is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013, when it was introduced (from 44 to 33 percent in 2017)  This is especially concerning because streamlining and reducing duplication are to be key parts of agencies’ reform plans  There is one area in the survey where we saw improvement: an estimated 46 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that employees who report to them pay attention to their agency’s use of performance information in management decision making  That is statistically significantly higher relative to 2013 (40 percent), as well as when compared to when the item was introduced in 2007 (37 percent)  For a new and related item in the 2017 survey that asked managers the amount of attention their employees pay to the use of performance information in decision making when compared to 3 years ago, we found an estimated 48 percent reported that employees pay about the same 33 percent reported that employees pay somewhat or a great deal more attention  In September 2005, we identified five practices that agencies can apply to enhance the use of performance information in their decision making and improve results: demonstrating management commitment; communicating performance information frequently and efficiently; improving the usefulness of performance information, such as by ensuring the accessibility of the information; developing the capacity to use performance information; and aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures  Many of the requirements put in place by GPRAMA reinforce the importance of these practices  Our 2017 survey of federal managers includes a number of items related to these practices  However, the 2017 results suggest that managers have not effectively adopted them  In the following sections, we examine several of the practices to enhance the use of performance information and their related survey items further  In doing so, we also highlight a subset of six survey items related to these practices that, while separate from those in our use of performance information index, we found in September 2014 to have a statistically significant and positive relationship with it  The commitment of agency leaders to results-oriented management is critical to increased use of performance information for policy and program decisions  GPRAMA requires top leadership involvement in performance management, including leading data-driven performance reviews  However, we have previously reported that improvements are needed to strengthen leadership’s commitment to use performance information, as discussed in the text box below  Department of Defense Should Strengthen Leadership Responsibilities for Using Performance Information In January 2005, we designated the Department of Defense’s (DOD) approach to business transformation as high-risk because DOD had not taken the necessary steps to achieve and sustain business reform on a broad, strategic, department-wide, and integrated basis  In the February 2017 update to our High-Risk List, we found that DOD had taken some positive steps to improve its business transformation efforts continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement, and leading regular DOD performance reviews regarding transformation goals and associated metrics and ensuring that business function leaders attend these reviews to facilitate problem solving  In July 2017, DOD officials told us that the department’s performance reviews have been put on hold until after the new Agency Strategic Plan is issued  We will review DOD’s updated Agency Strategic Plan when it is issued (expected in February 2018, as required by GPRAMA) to see if it addresses continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement  We will continue to monitor the status of these actions  GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D C : Feb  15, 2017)  Results from our 2017 survey show no statistically significant difference relative to 2013 in managers’ perceptions of leaders’ and supervisors’ attention and commitment to the use of performance information  (See figure 9 ) Three items are statistically significantly different from the years when they were introduced  Two items increased between 1997 and 2017: changes by management to my program(s) are based on results-oriented information (from an estimated 16 to 25 percent), and the individual I report to periodically reviews with me the outcomes of my program(s) (from 42 to 54 percent)  For the third item, top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to using performance information to guide decision making, results decreased from 49 percent in 2007 to 42 percent in 2017  New items in the 2017 survey show some improvement in management commitment to the use of performance information in decision making  An estimated 36 percent of federal managers reported that, when compared to 3 years ago, the individual they report to pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 46 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention  Additionally, an estimated 21 percent of federal managers said that, when compared to 3 years ago, the head of their agency pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 33 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention  Communicating performance information frequently and effectively throughout an agency can help to achieve the agency’s goals  GPRAMA includes requirements for communicating performance information, such as reporting progress updates for APGs at least quarterly  However, our prior work has found that some agencies could continue to improve in the communication of performance information, as illustrated by the example in the text box below  Department of Education (Education) Could Better Share Effective Practices across States in Grant Program Education awards 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants to states, which in turn competitively award funds to local organizations that use them to offer academic enrichment and other activities to improve students’ academic and behavioral outcomes  In April 2017, we found that states are experiencing substantial difficulty in sustaining their programs after 21st Century funding ends  We further found that Education was missing opportunities in its monitoring efforts to collect information on states’ strategies and practices for program sustainability—information that could be useful for sharing promising practices across states  We recommended that Education use the information it collects from its monitoring visits and ongoing interactions with states to share effective practices across states for sustaining their 21st Century programs once program funding ends  Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation but outlined steps it is taking to address it  We will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of this recommendation  There is no difference for two survey items on federal managers communicating performance information relative to 2013 or since those items were introduced in 2007  In 2017, we estimate that 44 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis  In addition, 34 percent agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level use performance information to share effective program approaches with others  Our 2017 survey data also indicate that agencies may not be effectively communicating to their employees about contributions to CAP goals or progress toward achieving APGs  Of the estimated 54 percent of federal managers who indicated they were familiar with CAP goals, 23 percent reported that their agency has communicated to its employees on those goals to a great or very great extent  Of the 74 percent of federal managers who indicated familiarity with APGs, 44 percent reported that their agency has communicated on progress toward achieving those goals to great or very great extent  Our prior work has shown that agencies should consider users’ differing needs—for accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, ease of use, timeliness, and validity, among others things—to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used  GPRAMA introduced several requirements that could help to address aspects of usefulness, such as requiring agencies to disclose more information about the accuracy and validity of their performance data and actions to address limitations to the data  However, agencies face challenges in ensuring their performance information is useful, with one instance from our past work described in the text box below  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Could Improve Usefulness of Information in Planned Grantee Portal EPA monitors performance reports and program-specific data from grantees to ensure that grants achieve environmental and other program results  However, in July 2016, we found that EPA’s 2014 internal analysis of its grants management business processes identified improvements that, if implemented into EPA’s planned web-based portal, could improve the accessibility and usefulness of information in grantee performance reports for EPA, grantees, and other users  We recommended, among other actions, that EPA incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web- based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility  EPA agreed with our recommendation but stated that it is a long- term initiative, subject to the agency’s budget process and replacement of its existing grants management system  As of May 2017, EPA officials said that they have not begun work on the web-based portal project, which is subject to the availability of funds  Federal managers generally responded similarly in 2017 on a variety of survey items related to usefulness, relative to earlier surveys  On a broadly worded item, less than half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level take steps to ensure that performance information is useful and appropriate  At an estimated 43 percent in 2017, this represents no statistically significant change compared to our last surveys in 2013 or 2007, when the item was introduced  Responses to four survey items indicate no changes in hindrances related to the usefulness of performance information  There is no statistically significant change in managers reporting hindrances compared to 1997 or 2013, as shown in figure 10  In addition, there was a statistically significant increase when compared to 2013 on only one of six items about managers’ views on the usefulness of performance information, as shown in figure 11  As the figure shows, approximately one-third to half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent on each item related to the usefulness of performance information  Although less than half of managers reported having sufficient information on validity of performance data used to make decisions, this represents a statistically significant increase to an estimated 42 percent in 2017 compared to 36 percent in 2013, and from 28 percent in 2000, when this item was introduced  This is a notable improvement because our September 2014 report found that the strongest driver of the use of performance information was whether federal managers had confidence in its validity  Our analysis suggests that easy access to performance information is related to the effective communication of performance information  Of the estimated 49 percent of federal managers in 2017 who agreed to a great or very great extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 63 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent  Conversely, of the 20 percent that agreed to a small or no extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 12 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent  Our prior work has shown that building capacity—including analytical tools and staff expertise—is critical to using performance information in a meaningful manner  GPRAMA lays out specific requirements that reinforce the importance of staff capacity to use performance information  GPRAMA directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to take certain actions to support agency hiring and training of performance management staff  Specifically, by January 2012, OPM was to identify skills and competencies needed by government personnel for setting goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance information for improving government efficiency and effectiveness  By January 2013, OPM was to incorporate these skills and competencies into relevant position classifications and to work with each agency to incorporate the identified skills into employee training  In April 2013, we found that OPM had completed its work on the first two responsibilities and taken steps to work with agencies to incorporate performance management staff competencies into training  However, OPM did not assess competency gaps among agency performance management staff to inform its work  Without this information, OPM, working with the PIC, was not well-positioned to focus on the most- needed resources and help other agencies use them  We recommended that the Director of OPM, in coordination with the PIC and the Chief Learning Officer Council, work with agencies to take the following three actions: 1  Identify competency areas needing improvement within agencies  2  Identify agency training that focuses on needed performance management competencies  3  Share information about available agency training on competency areas needing improvement  In July 2017, PIC staff stated they have not focused on identifying competency areas because the competencies do not resonate strongly with the performance community  Instead, staff said they identified a need for introductory training on performance management, which they have developed and piloted  They said that they are not sure when they will implement the training, since the PIC is reviewing priorities with its new executive director  We continue to believe that identifying the competency areas would be useful, and will monitor the PIC’s efforts to identify and share training  The need for performance management training is further highlighted by our survey results  Our 2017 survey shows no statistically significant change in managers’ responses about the availability of training on various performance management activities relative to 2013, including the use of performance information to make decisions  However, the response to each of the six questions related to specific training is statistically significantly higher relative to the year in which it was introduced, as shown in figure 12  Similarly, in 2017 there was no statistically significant change on four survey items related to agencies’ analysis and evaluation tools and staff’s skills and competencies when compared to 2013 or when these items were introduced  We estimate that in 2017 29 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing in resources to improve the agencies’ capacity to use performance information; 28 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing the resources needed to ensure that performance data are of sufficient quality; 33 percent of managers reported that they agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies have sufficient analytical tools for managers at their levels to collect, analyze, and use performance information; and 33 percent of managers reported that they agree to a great or very great extent that the programs they are involved with have sufficient staff with the knowledge and skills needed to analyze performance information  Performance reviews can serve as a strategy to bring leadership and other responsible parties together to review performance information and identify important opportunities to drive performance improvements  Our prior work has examined how different types of performance reviews—strategic reviews, data-driven reviews, and retrospective regulatory reviews—can contribute to agencies assessing progress toward desired results  Strategic reviews: As previously mentioned, in implementing GPRAMA, OMB established a review process in which agencies are to annually assess their progress in achieving each strategic objective in their strategic plans, known as strategic reviews  Given the long-term and complex nature of many outcomes, the strategic review should be informed by a variety of evidence regarding the implementation of strategies and their effectiveness in achieving outcomes  OMB’s guidance states that the strategic review process should consider multiple perspectives and sources of evidence to understand the progress made on each strategic objective  It further states that the results of these reviews should inform many of the decision-making processes at the agency, as well as decision making by the agency’s stakeholders, in areas such as long-term strategy, budget formulation, and risk management  In 2017, agencies are completing their fourth round of these reviews  Our prior work has identified ways in which agencies can effectively conduct these reviews and leverage the results that come from them  In July 2015, we identified seven practices federal agencies can employ to facilitate effective strategic reviews  (See sidebar ) In addition, earlier this month we reported on selected agencies’ experiences in implementing these reviews  Specifically, we found that (1) strategic reviews helped direct leadership attention to progress on strategic objectives, (2) agencies used existing management and performance processes to conduct the reviews, and (3) agencies refined their reviews by capturing lessons learned  Data-driven reviews: GPRAMA requires agencies to review progress toward APGs at least once a quarter  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that this approach is aimed at increasing the use of performance information to improve performance and results  In February 2013, we identified nine leading practices to promote successful data-driven performance reviews in the federal government  (See sidebar ) In July 2015, we found that most of the 24 CFO Act agencies were conducting their reviews in line with GPRAMA requirements and our leading practices  Moreover, agencies reported that their data-driven performance reviews had positive effects on progress toward agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold officials accountable for progress, and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations  Our 2017 survey shows that federal managers remain largely unfamiliar with their agency’s data-driven performance reviews, also known as quarterly performance reviews (QPRs)  An estimated 35 percent of managers reported familiarity with their agency’s QPRs  Survey results show that a greater percentage of Senior Executive Service (SES) managers than non-SES managers reported that they were familiar with QPRs  Approximately 50 percent of SES managers reported being somewhat or very familiar with QPRs; 34 percent of non-SES reported the same  However, for the estimated 35 percent of managers who reported familiarity with QPRs, the more they viewed their programs being subject to a QPR, the more likely they were to report their agency’s QPRs were driving results and conducted in line with our leading practices  Figure 13 shows several illustrative examples of these survey items  For example, of the estimated 48 percent of federal managers who reported their programs being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent, 83 percent also reported their agencies use QPRs to identify problems or opportunities associated with agency performance goals  Conversely, for the 24 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to QPRs to a small or no extent, 22 percent also reported the reviews were used for these purposes to a great or very great extent  Being subject to a QPR is also positively related to viewing QPRs as having led to similar meetings at lower levels  An estimated 62 percent of federal managers who reported being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent also reported their agencies have similar meetings at lower levels to a great or very great extent  An estimated 16 percent of federal managers subject to QPRs to a small or no extent reported the same  Despite the reported benefits of and results achieved through QPRs, as found by our past work and survey data, these reviews are not necessarily widespread  GPRAMA requires agencies to conduct QPRs for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals—generally 2 to 8 priority goals at each designated agency, with approximately 100 total government-wide  Moreover, these required reviews are at the department (or major independent agency) level  These reasons may explain why most managers reported they were not familiar with the reviews  As was described previously, our 2017 survey data show that the reported use of performance information in decision making generally has not improved and in some cases is lower than it was 20 years ago  Survey data also show that managers generally have not reported increases in their employment of practices that further promote the use of performance information in decision making  This suggests that agencies could increase the use of performance information in decision making and the likelihood of achieving desired results by going beyond the specific GPRAMA requirements and expanding their use of data-driven performance reviews—in line with leading practices—to more broadly cover other agency-wide performance goals, as well as goals at lower levels within the agency  For example, such reviews at the program level could help inform the previously mentioned portfolio reviews required by the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA)  We have already suggested expanding reviews to other performance goals  Our management agenda for the presidential and congressional transition includes a key action to expand the use of data-driven performance reviews to assess progress toward meeting agency performance goals  Our prior work has stated that although GPRAMA’s requirements apply at the agency-wide level, they can also serve as leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component agencies, offices, programs, and projects  In addition, federal internal control standards call for the design of appropriate control activities, such as top-level reviews of actual performance and reviews by management at the functional or activity level  The standards also recommend that management design control activities at the appropriate levels in the organizational structure  The July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance states that agency leaders, including various chief officer positions, are to conduct frequent data- driven reviews to drive improvements on various management functions  For example, the agency Chief Human Capital Officer is to conduct quarterly data-driven reviews (known as HRStat) to monitor the progress of human capital goals and measures contained in the human capital operating plan  Beyond these management areas, OMB’s guidance also states that agencies may expand quarterly progress reviews beyond APGs to include other goals and priorities  However, OMB’s guidance does not identify practices for agencies to expand the use of these reviews to other goals, such as other agency-wide performance goals or those at lower levels within the agency  As mentioned previously, one of the responsibilities of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) is to facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies  By working with the PIC to identify and share among agencies practices to expand the use of data- driven reviews, OMB could help agencies increase the use of performance information in decision making and achieve results  Retrospective regulatory reviews: In retrospective reviews, agencies evaluate how existing regulations are working in practice and whether they are achieving expected outcomes  GPRAMA requires agencies to identify and assess how their various program activities and other activities, including regulations, contribute to APGs  However, in April 2014, we found that agencies reported mixed experiences linking retrospective analyses to APGs  We recommended that OMB strengthen these reviews by issuing guidance for agencies to take actions to ensure that contributions made by regulations toward achieving APGs are properly considered, and improve how retrospective regulatory reviews can be used to help inform assessments of progress toward these APGs  OMB staff agreed with this recommendation and stated that the agency was working on strategies to help facilitate agencies’ ability to use retrospective reviews to inform APGs  To that end, in April 2017, OMB issued guidance to agencies that, among other things, emphasized the importance of performance measures related to evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs  OMB included explicit references to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, which directed agencies’ efforts to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews  Specifically, the updated guidance encourages agencies to establish and report “meaningful performance indicators and goals for the purpose of evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs ” The guidance further states that agencies’ efforts to improve such net benefits may be conducted as part of developing agency strategic and performance plans and priority goals  In July 2017, OMB confirmed that the updated guidance was issued, in part, to address our April 2014 recommendation  For several years, OMB has encouraged agencies to expand their use of evidence—performance measures, program evaluation results, and other relevant data analytics and research studies—in budget, management, and policy decisions with the goal of improving government effectiveness  In particular, OMB has encouraged agencies to strengthen their program evaluations—systematic studies that use research methods to address specific questions about program performance  Evaluation is closely related to performance measurement and reporting  Evaluations can be designed to better isolate the causal impact of programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in order to assess a program’s effectiveness  Thus, an evaluation study can provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually, explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or assessing whether one approach is more effective than another  Despite the valuable insights and information that program evaluations can provide, we continue to find that most federal managers lack access to or awareness of such studies  Our 2017 survey shows that an estimated 40 percent of managers reported that an evaluation had been completed within the past 5 years of any program, operation, or project in which they were involved—comparable to the results in our 2013 survey, when questions about program evaluations were added  In recent years, OMB has encouraged agencies to explore evidence-based tools to strengthen agency and grantee evaluation capacity, consider the effectiveness of their programs, and foster innovation rooted in research and rigorous evaluation  During the past 2 years, we examined several of those tools, as described below  Pay for success: Also known as social impact bonds, pay for success is a contracting mechanism under which investors provide the capital the government uses to provide a social service  The government specifies performance outcomes in pay for success contracts and generally includes a requirement that a program’s impact be independently evaluated  The evaluators also are to regularly review performance data, while those managing and investing in a project focus on performance and accountability, as shown in the figure 14  In September 2015, we found that the federal government’s involvement in pay for success had been limited  In addition, a formal mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success did not exist  We concluded that, given the evolving nature of pay for success, a mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate would increase access to leading practices  We therefore recommended that OMB establish a formal means for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success  OMB concurred and, in February 2016, announced that it had developed the Pay for Success Interagency Learning Network with representatives from 10 federal agencies to share lessons, hone policy, and strengthen implementation  Tiered evidence grants: Tiered evidence grants seek to incorporate evidence of effectiveness into grant making  Federal agencies establish tiers of grant funding based on the level of evidence grantees provide on their approaches to deliver social, educational, health, or other services  (See figure 15 ) Smaller awards are used to test new and innovative approaches, while larger awards are used to scale up approaches that have strong evidence of effectiveness  This creates incentives for grantees to use approaches supported by evidence and helps them build the capacity to conduct evaluations  In September 2016, we found that interagency collaboration had helped federal agencies that administer tiered evidence grants address challenges and share lessons learned  At that time, such collaborative efforts relied on informal networks  We recommended that OMB establish a formal means for agencies to collaborate on tiered evidence grants  OMB had no comment on the recommendation  In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they had established an interagency working group and other mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and disseminate information on tiered evidence grants  Performance partnerships: Performance partnerships allow federal agencies to provide grant recipients flexibility in how they use funding across two or more programs along with additional flexibilities  In exchange, the recipient commits to improve and assess progress toward agreed-upon outcomes  Figure 16 provides an overview of the performance partnership model  In April 2017, we examined two performance partnership initiatives authorized by Congress: the Environmental Protection Agency’s Performance Partnership Grants and the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, which allows funding from multiple programs across multiple agencies to be combined into pilot programs serving disconnected youth  For the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, we found that the agencies involved in the initiative had not fully identified the key financial and staff resources each agency would need to contribute over the lifetime of the initiative in line with leading practices for interagency collaboration  This was because agencies primarily had been focused on meeting near-term needs to support design and implementation  We also found that agencies had not developed criteria to help determine whether, how, and when to implement the flexibilities tested by the pilots in a broader context  (This is known as scalability ) Officials involved in the pilots told us it was too early in pilot implementation to determine such criteria  However, by not identifying these criteria while designing the pilots, they were risking not collecting needed data during pilot implementation  We recommended that OMB coordinate with federal agencies to identify (1) agency resource contributions needed for the lifetime of the pilots and (2) criteria and related data for assessing scalability  OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations  We continue to monitor progress on these recommendations  In 2003, we identified nine key practices for effective performance management that collectively create a “line of sight” between individual performance and organizational success  (See sidebar on next page ) Our recent work and the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers highlight areas where agencies have made progress but could take additional action to better reflect several of these practices, thereby better instilling results-oriented cultures  Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals: Our 2003 report found that high-performing organizations use their performance management systems to help individuals see the connection between their daily activities and organizational goals  The executive branch has taken several steps to link individual and organizational results  For example, in October 2000, OPM issued guidance to link SES performance expectations with GPRA-required goals  In January 2012, OPM and OMB released a government-wide SES performance appraisal system that provided agencies with a standard framework to manage the performance of SES members  However, our work continues to identify areas for improvement  Goal leaders and deputy goal leaders are responsible for achieving APGs, but our July 2014 review found that the performance plans for a sample of goal and deputy goal leaders generally did not link their individual performance and the broader goal  We recommended that OMB ensure that those plans demonstrate a clear connection with APGs  OMB staff generally agreed with our recommendation  In July 2017, OMB staff stated that components of both OMB and OPM guidance support accountability for agency priority goals  Despite this, we continue to believe that ensuring an explicit connection in performance plans to APGs will improve accountability, and that additional action is needed to do so  In May 2016, we found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had not aligned Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators’ performance expectations with its organizational goals for implementing the National Disaster Recovery Framework  We concluded that without this linkage, FEMA could not evaluate how effectively the coordinators performed in implementing the framework  We recommended that FEMA align performance expectations consistent with leading practices  The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation  In July 2017, FEMA stated that it is preparing the Field Leader Manual, which will define the core competencies and duties of coordinators  We will continue to monitor FEMA’s actions to implement this recommendation  Our 2017 survey also shows that this linkage could be improved for other federal employees  An estimated 58 percent of federal managers reported using performance information to a great or very great extent in setting expectations for employees they manage or supervise  The 2017 responses do not represent a statistically significant change when compared to our last survey in 2013 (62 percent) or to 1997 (61 percent), the year this survey item was introduced  Address organizational priorities: Our prior work showed that, by requiring and tracking follow-up actions on performance gaps, high- performing organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals accountable for making progress on their priorities  Our past and 2017 surveys have identified differences in responses between SES and non-SES managers reporting being held accountable for results  For example, in 2017, our survey results indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between SES and non-SES managers reporting to a great or very great extent that they were held accountable for results of the programs for which they are responsible  However, our 2017 survey shows no change compared to our last survey in either SES or non-SES managers reporting they were held accountable for results  There are statistically significant increases when compared to 1997, when these survey items were introduced  For example, an estimated 79 percent of SES managers and 64 percent of non-SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for results of the programs for which they are responsible in 2017  This does not represent a statistically significant change from our 2013 survey (80 percent and 67 percent, respectively), but it is statistically significantly higher than the 62 percent of SES managers and 54 percent of non-SES managers in 1997  (See figure 17 ) Similarly, as shown in figure 18, an estimated 71 percent of SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for accomplishing agency strategic goals in 2017  This represents no statistical change since 2013 (73 percent), but it is a statistically significant increase compared to when this item was introduced in 2003 (61 percent)  Additionally, as figure 18 shows, a gap between being held accountable for strategic goals and having the decision-making authority needed to help accomplish those goals has nearly closed, due to an increase in the latter survey item  The estimated 69 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great or very great extent in 2017 is a statistically significant increase relative to both 2013 (61 percent) and 1997 (51 percent)  As noted earlier, GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and APGs  Our past work has generally found that they are in place  GPRAMA also requires agencies to identify an agency official responsible for resolving major management challenges, which can help ensure accountability  (See sidebar ) However, in June 2016 we found that 17 of the 24 CFO Act agencies had not identified an agency official responsible for resolving each of their challenges, partly because OMB guidance was not clear that major management challenges should be identified in agency performance plans  We recommended that the 17 agencies identify such officials in their performance plans, and that OMB clarify its guidance  OMB revised its guidance accordingly in July 2016, and, as of July 2017, 7 of the 17 agencies had identified officials responsible for resolving major management challenges  Link pay to individual and organizational performance: High- performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to organizational results  Our work has found that agencies have made progress in this area  For example, in July 2013, we found that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lacked mechanisms to monitor how supervisors used its performance management system to recognize and reward performance  To help enhance the credibility of SEC’s performance management system, we recommended that it create mechanisms to monitor how supervisors use the performance management system  In a subsequent (December 2016) report, we found that, in response to our recommendation, SEC began monitoring how supervisors provide feedback, recognize and reward staff, and address poor performance  However, federal managers generally reported no change on three items related to recognizing and rewarding employee performance since our last survey in 2013 (figure 19)  One of those items—managers agreeing to a great or very great extent that employees in their agency receive positive recognition for helping the agency to accomplish its strategic goals—had a statistically significant increase between 1997 and 2017 (from an estimated 26 percent to 46 percent)  Make meaningful distinctions in performance: Effective performance management requires the organization’s leadership to meaningfully distinguish between acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals and to appropriately reward those who perform at the highest level  For example, in January 2015, we found disparities in performance ratings for SES among agencies  Across the 24 CFO Act agencies, the percent of SES rated at the highest level ranged from about 22 percent to 95 percent in fiscal year 2013  To help address these disparities, we recommended that the Director of OPM consider the need to refine the performance certifications guidelines addressing distinctions in performance  To address this recommendation, OPM informed us, in June 2015, that it had convened a cross-agency working group that developed a standard template for agencies to complete and post on a website to more transparently justify their SES ratings distributions  In May 2016, we found that about 74 percent of non-SES employees under a five-level appraisal system—the most commonly used system— were rated in the top two of five performance categories in 2013  We explored this issue further in our December 2016 review of human capital challenges at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which illustrates the importance of making meaningful distinctions in performance for non- SES employees  We found that in fiscal year 2014, about 73 percent of VHA employees were rated in the top two of five performance categories  This may have been due, in part, to a policy that did not require standards to be defined for each level of performance  We recommended that VHA ensure that meaningful distinctions are being made in employee performance ratings by reviewing and revising performance management policies consistent with leading practices, among other actions  The Department of Veterans Affairs partially concurred with our recommendation  In May 2017, the department stated that it had begun piloting a new performance management process and would analyze results at the end of fiscal year 2017  One key aspect of connecting daily operations to results is aligning program performance measures to agency-wide goals and objectives  However, in 2017, an estimated 50 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level took steps to create such an alignment  There has been no statistically significant change since this item was introduced in 2007  In addition, GPRAMA calls for agencies to develop a balanced set of performance measures, which reinforces the need for agencies to have a variety of measures across program areas  Our 2017 survey shows that managers have not reported any difference in the availability of performance measures for their programs when compared to the 2013 results  However, the 2017 result (an estimated 87 percent) represents a statistically significant increase when compared to 1997 (76 percent)  When asked about the availability of certain types of performance measures, three of the five types (outcome, output, and efficiency) were statistically significantly higher in 2017 when compared to our initial 1997 survey  However, when comparing 2017 results to those in 2013, two of the five types (output and quality) showed a statistically significant decrease, and the other types did not change  These are illustrated in figure 20  Beyond the survey results, our work has found that some agencies had not developed or used outcome measures, but have taken steps to do so  Agencies have been responsible for measuring program outcomes since GPRA was enacted in 1993  The text box below describes two illustrative examples from our past work  Examples of Agencies That Did Not Develop or Use Outcome Measures Patient access to electronic health information: In March 2017, we found that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had invested over $35 billion since 2009 to enhance patient access to electronic health information, among other things  HHS had not developed outcome measures to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts, which meant the department did not have information to determine whether the efforts were contributing to its overall goals  We recommended that HHS develop relevant outcome measures and HHS concurred  Safety interventions: According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), between 2011 and 2015, over 4,000 people died in crashes involving motor carriers each year  GAO, Motor Carriers: Better Information Needed to Assess Effectiveness and Efficiency of Safety Interventions, GAO-17-49 (Washington, D C : Oct  27, 2016)  Further OMB actions could also help agencies make progress in measuring the performance of different program types  In our June 2013 report on initial GPRAMA implementation, we found that agencies experienced common issues in measuring the performance of various types of programs, such as contracts and grants  We recommended that OMB work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to examine those difficulties  Although they took some actions, OMB and the PIC have not yet developed a comprehensive and detailed approach to address these issues  We concluded that, without such an approach, it would be difficult for the PIC and agencies to fully understand these measurement issues and develop a crosscutting approach to help address them  In August 2017, OMB staff stated that efforts related to the future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA) could help address this recommendation  As highlighted in table 1, our work continues to show why it is important for OMB and the PIC to take actions to more fully address our recommendation  Congress has passed legislation to increase the transparency and accessibility of federal performance and financial data  For example, GPRAMA modernized agency reporting requirements to ensure that they make timely, relevant data available to inform decision making by Congress and agency officials as well as improve transparency for the public  Results of our 2017 survey, however, show the need for improvements in the public availability of agency performance information  An estimated 17 percent of managers reported that their agency’s performance information is easily accessible to the public to a great or very great extent, the same percentage as in 2013  Moreover, of the 87 percent of managers that reported there are performance measures for the programs they are involved in, 25 percent reported that they use information obtained from performance measurement when informing the public about how programs are performing to a great or very great extent  This is not statistically different from the 30 percent estimated in 2013  The DATA Act, enacted in 2014, built on previous transparency legislation by expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their spending  The act significantly increases the types of data that must be reported, requires government-wide data standards, and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency and accountability of federal spending data  OMB provides websites and guidance to make agency performance and financial information available to the public; however, our prior work has identified a number of areas related to Performance gov and the DATA Act where OMB action is needed to improve the transparency and accessibility of this information  Performance gov: Since 2013, our work has identified a number of issues with Performance gov, the website intended to serve as a central source of information on the federal government’s goals and performance  Over time, we have recommended that OMB take a number of specific actions to improve the website  For example, in June 2013, we found that the website offered an inconsistent user experience and presented accessibility and navigation challenges  To clarify the purpose of the website and enhance its usability, we recommended that OMB take steps to systematically collect customer input  In August 2016, we reported that OMB was not meeting all of the reporting requirements for Performance gov, and did not have a plan to develop and improve the website  We recommended that OMB ensure that information presented on Performance gov consistently complies with reporting requirements and develop a plan for the website that includes, among other things, a customer outreach plan  OMB agreed with these recommendations and, in July 2017, OMB staff informed us that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance gov to improve the accessibility of information on the website  To inform this redesign, OMB staff said that they will consider our previous recommendations and plan to engage a wide group of stakeholders, including Congress, agency staff, and interested members of the public and outside organizations  OMB staff anticipated releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 and the redesigned website in February 2018  Under GPRAMA, OMB is required to make available, through Performance gov, quarterly updates on progress toward CAP goals and APGs  As described earlier, in June 2017 OMB announced that reporting to Performance gov has been discontinued through the end of fiscal year 2017 as agencies develop new priority goals  However, Performance gov does not state that it will not be updated, nor does it provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals  OMB’s guidance states that agencies should report the results of progress on their previous APGs in their annual performance reports for fiscal year 2017  Moreover, OMB staff told us that the existing updates on Performance gov for CAP goals, last updated in December 2016, represent the final updates on those goals, although they are not labeled as such on the website  As a result, those interested in progress updates and reported results for the previous priority goals may not know where they will be able to find this information, limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results for decision makers and the public  DATA Act: The DATA Act requires federal agencies to disclose their spending and link this to program activities so that policymakers and the public can more effectively track federal spending  The act has the potential to improve the accuracy and transparency of federal spending information and increase its usefulness for government decision making and oversight  Since the DATA Act became law, OMB and Treasury have taken significant steps to make more complete and accurate federal spending data available  These have included standardizing data element definitions to make it easier to compare different federal agencies’ financial information, and issuing guidance to help agencies submit required data  In May 2017, federal agencies started to report data under the standardized definitions developed under the act  We have made a number of recommendations to address challenges that could affect the consistency and quality of the data  Addressing these recommendations could help ensure that financial data are provided to the public in a transparent and useful manner  For example, in January 2016, we found some standardized data element definitions were imprecise or ambiguous, which could result in inconsistent or potentially misleading reporting  We recommended that OMB provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential issues with the clarity, consistency, and quality of reported data  OMB released guidance in May and November 2016, but in April 2017 we found that additional guidance was needed to help agencies implement certain data definitions to produce data that would be consistent and comparable across agencies  We are in the process of examining the quality of the data that was submitted by agencies in May 2017 and was made available to the public on an early version of the USAspending gov website  We expect to issue the results of this work in fall 2017  Our past work also identified a number of actions agencies need to take to make performance information more transparent  Increasing the accessibility of this information could enhance oversight and accountability of agency performance and results  CAP goals: In May 2016, we found that while selected CAP goal teams were working to develop performance measures to track progress, they were not consistently reporting on their efforts to develop these measures  We recommended that OMB report on Performance gov the actions that CAP goal teams are taking to develop performance measures and quarterly targets to help ensure that measures are aligned with major activities, and ensure that it is possible to track teams’ progress toward establishing measures  While OMB agreed with this recommendation, it did not address it before reporting on the CAP goals was discontinued, as discussed earlier  Customer service standards: As we described earlier, in 2017, an estimated 48 percent of federal managers that indicated they have performance measures for the programs they are involved in also agreed to a great or very great extent that they have customer service performance measures  There has been no statistically significant change relative to our last survey in 2013, or the initial survey in 1997  Relatedly, in October 2014, we reviewed customer service standards at five federal agencies  Customer service standards inform customers about what they have a right to expect when they request services, and the standards should include goals for the quality and timeliness of a service an agency provides to its customers  They should also be easily available to the public so that customers know what to expect, when to expect it, and from whom  In our review of standards at five agencies, however, we found that only Customs and Border Protection had standards that were easily available to the public  We recommended the other four agencies—the United States Forest Service, Federal Student Aid, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)—make their standards more easily accessible to the public  As of July 2017, only VBA had done so  Major management challenges: In June 2016, we found that 14 of the 24 CFO Act agencies did not describe their major management challenges in their performance plans, as required by GPRAMA  Furthermore, 22 of the 24 agencies reviewed did not report complete performance information for each of their major management challenges, including performance goals, milestones, indicators, and planned actions that they have developed to address such challenges  As a result, it was not always transparent what these agencies considered to be their major management challenges or how they planned to resolve these challenges  We recommended that the 22 agencies describe their major management challenges in their agency performance plans and include goals, measures, milestones, and information on planned actions and responsible officials  As of August 2017, 8 agencies—the U S  Agency for International Development, Small Business Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Departments of Education, State, and Veterans Affairs—had fully implemented our recommendations; the other 14 agencies had not  Quality of performance information: In September 2015, we found that six selected agencies reported limited information on the actions they are taking to ensure the quality of their performance information for selected APGs, as required by GPRAMA  We recommended that all six of the agencies work with OMB to fully report this information  In response, the Department of Homeland Security and NASA described how they ensure reliable performance information is reported to external audiences  As of June 2017, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and Labor had not yet taken actions to address this recommendation by providing more specific explanations of how they ensure reliable performance information is reported for their APGs  Unnecessary reports: GPRAMA requires that OMB guide an annual review of agencies’ plans and reports for Congress and include in the President’s budget a list of those plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative  However, in July 2017, we found that OMB did not implement the report review process on an annual basis, as required  We also found that OMB published the list of agency plans and reports on Performance gov, rather than in the President’s annual budget, where they may be more visible and useful to congressional decision makers and others  Therefore, we recommended that OMB instruct agencies to identify outdated or duplicative reports on an annual basis and submit or reference the list of identified plans and reports with the President’s annual budget  OMB agreed with these recommendations  In July 2017, OMB stated it would include a list of report modification proposals in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget as required by GPRAMA  For all of the unimplemented recommendations described above, we will continue to monitor agencies’ actions  In addition to providing access to performance and financial information, federal agencies can directly engage and collaborate with citizens, nonprofits, academic institutions, and other levels of government using open innovation strategies  Open innovation involves using various tools and approaches to harness the ideas, expertise, and resources of those outside an organization to address an issue or achieve specific goals  In October 2016, we found that in recent years agencies had frequently used five open innovation strategies—singularly or in combination—to collaborate with citizens and encourage their participation in agency initiatives  (See figure 21 ) Our October 2016 report found that agencies can use these strategies for a variety of purposes  To develop new ideas, solutions to specific problems, or new products: For example, from April 2015 to November 2016, the Department of Energy held a prize competition to create more efficient devices that would double the energy captured from ocean waves  According to the competition’s website, the winning team achieved a five-fold improvement  To enhance collaboration and agency capacity by leveraging external resources, knowledge, and expertise: For example, every 2 years since 2009, the Federal Highway Administration has regularly engaged stakeholders to identify and implement innovative ideas that have measurably improved the execution of highway construction projects  To collect the perspectives and preferences of a broad group of citizens and external stakeholders: For example, the Food and Drug Administration used in-person and online dialogue to engage outside stakeholders in the development of an online platform designed to make key datasets easily accessible to the public  Subsequently, in June 2017, we found that OMB, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the General Services Administration (GSA) developed resources to support the use of open innovation strategies by federal agencies  These resources included guidance, staff to assist agencies in implementing initiatives, and websites to improve access to relevant information  For example, GSA developed a step-by-step implementation guide, program management team, and website to help agency staff carry out prize competitions and challenges  Agencies have also developed their own resources, including guidance, staff positions, and websites, to reach specific audiences and to provide tailored support for open innovation strategies they use frequently  For example, NASA’s Solve website provides a central location for the public to find the agency’s challenges and citizen science projects, as well as links to relevant resources  We also evaluated key government-wide guidance for the five strategies listed above to determine the extent to which the guidance reflects leading practices for effectively implementing open innovation initiatives  We identified these practices in our October 2016 report  We found that the guidance for each strategy reflected these practices to differing extents, as shown in figure 22  We made 22 recommendations to GSA, OMB, and OSTP to enhance the guidance  GSA and OMB generally agreed with these recommendations and OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed  We will monitor their progress toward implementing these recommendations  GPRAMA provides important tools that can help decision makers better achieve results and address the federal government’s significant and long-standing governance challenges  Although OMB and agencies have made progress in improving implementation of the act over the years, our work has highlighted numerous opportunities for further improvements  In 2017, OMB removed the priority designation of CAP goals and APGs  For those goals, this action stopped related data-driven reviews and quarterly updates of progress on Performance gov until new priority goals are published next year  What OMB considers to be the final results of CAP goals for fiscal years 2014 to 2017 already are on Performance gov (although not labeled as such)  In addition, agencies may report on their former APGs in their annual fiscal year 2017 performance reports  However, Performance gov does not state that it will not be updated or provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals, limiting transparency and its value to the public  OMB has stated its plans to restart implementation of those provisions in February 2018, with the start of a new goal cycle  We believe it is critical for OMB to do so, given the important role those tools play in addressing key governance challenges and the results we have seen in better managing crosscutting areas and driving performance improvements across the government  In addition, OMB has postponed implementation of the federal program inventory  To date, the inventory has only been developed once, in 2013, despite requirements for regular updates to reflect current budget and performance information  OMB has given a variety of reasons for the delays over the past 4 years—most recently, to determine the right strategy to merge implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements  Although OMB staff told us that they expect to issue guidance by the end of 2018 to resume implementation of the program inventory requirements, they have not provided more specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements  Doing so would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation  Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones would help ensure that interested stakeholders, such as federal decision makers and the public, are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories, which in turn could help ensure the inventories meet stakeholders’ needs  A well-developed inventory would provide key program, budget, and performance information in one place to help federal decision makers better understand the federal investment and results in given policy areas, and better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  Information architecture offers one approach to developing an inventory  As OMB determines a strategy for implementing the program inventory and develops its guidance, considering such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help it ensure the inventory meets GPRAMA requirements as well as the needs of decision makers and the public  Moreover, such an approach could also help OMB implement our past recommendations related to the program inventory, which are intended to ensure the inventory provides more complete information and is useful to various stakeholders  Our survey of federal managers continues to generally show no improvement in their reported use of performance information in decision making, nor in the employment of practices that can enhance such use  One area where our survey data and past work show promise is through the use of regular, leadership-driven reviews of performance data at agencies, especially when conducted in line with related leading practices  However, GPRAMA only requires these data-driven reviews for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals, both within individual agencies as well as across the government  This is probably why most federal managers were not familiar with the reviews  Identifying and sharing practices for expanding the use of those reviews—such as for additional agency-wide performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could significantly enhance the use of performance information and drive to better and greater results  We are making the following four recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should update Performance gov to explain that quarterly reporting on the fiscal year 2014 through 2017 CAP goals and fiscal year 2016 and 2017 APGs was suspended, and provide the location of final progress updates for these goals  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance— through an update to its Circular No  A-11, a memorandum, or other means—to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory  (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should consider—as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory—using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed  (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond APGs, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  In comments provided orally and via email, OMB staff agreed with the recommendations in this report  OMB staff also asked us to (1) consider revising the draft title of the report, to better reflect progress in GPRAMA implementation, and (2) clarify our recommendations on issuing guidance for implementing the federal program inventory and expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews, by describing possible actions that could be taken to implement them  We agreed and made revisions accordingly  We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties  This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of our report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III  The GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) includes a statutory provision for us to periodically evaluate implementation of the act  Since 2012, we have issued over 30 products in response to this provision; this is the third summary report  This report assesses how implementation of GPRAMA has affected the federal government’s progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing crosscutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used in decision making, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government  We reviewed relevant statutory requirements, related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and our recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the four key governance challenges included in our reporting objectives  Specifically, since our last summary report in September 2015, we examined various aspects of GPRAMA implementation in 12 products that covered 35 agencies, including the 24 agencies covered under the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended (identified in table 2)  We interviewed OMB and Performance Improvement Council staff to obtain (1) their perspectives on GPRAMA implementation and progress on the four governance challenges, and (2) updates on the status of our past recommendations  We also received updates from other agencies on the status of our past recommendations to them related to GPRAMA implementation  To supplement this review, we administered our periodic survey of federal managers on organizational performance and management issues from November 2016 through March 2017  This survey is comparable to five previous surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013  We selected a stratified random sample of 4,395 people from a population of approximately 153,779 mid-level and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch agencies covered by the CFO Act, as shown in table 2  We obtained the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database as of September 30, 2015, which was the most recent fiscal year data available at the time  We used file designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory functions  In reporting survey data, we use the term “government-wide” and the phrases “across the government” or “overall” to refer to the 24 CFO Act executive branch agencies  We use the terms “federal managers” and “managers” to collectively refer to both managers and supervisors  We designed the questionnaire to obtain the observations and perceptions of respondents on various aspects of results-oriented management topics  These topics include the presence and use of performance measures, any hindrances to measuring performance and using performance information, agency climate, and program evaluation use  To assess implementation of GPRAMA, the questionnaire included questions to collect respondents’ views on various provisions of GPRAMA, such as cross-agency priority goals, agency priority goals, and related quarterly performance reviews  Similar to the five previous surveys, the sample was stratified by agency and by whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES)  The management levels covered general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15 and career SES or equivalent  Stratifying the sample in this way ensured that the population from which we sampled covered at least 90 percent of all mid- to upper-level managers and supervisors at the departments and agencies we surveyed  Most of the items on the questionnaire were closed-ended, meaning that depending on the particular item, respondents could choose one or more response categories or rate the strength of their perception on a 5-point extent scale ranging from “no extent” to “very great extent ” On most items, respondents also had an option of choosing the response category “no basis to judge/not applicable ” A few items had other options, such as “yes,” “no,” or “do not know,” or a 3-point familiarity scale (“not familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” and “very familiar”)  We asked many of the items on the questionnaire in our earlier surveys, though we introduced a number of new items in 2013, including the sections about GPRAMA and program evaluations  For 2017, we added a new question on use of performance information (question 12) and a new question on program evaluation (question 24)  Before administering the survey, questions were reviewed by our staff, including subject matter experts, a survey specialist, and a research methodologist  We also conducted pretests of the new questions with federal managers in several of the 24 CFO Act agencies  We changed the wording of subquestions or added clarifying examples based on pretester feedback  To administer the survey, we e-mailed managers in the sample to notify them of the survey’s availability on our website and we included instructions on how to access and complete the survey  To follow up with managers in the sample who did not respond to the initial notice, we emailed or called multiple times to encourage survey participation or provide technical assistance, as appropriate  Similar to our last survey, we worked with OPM to obtain the names of the managers and supervisors in our sample, except for those within selected subcomponents whose names were withheld from the EHRI database  Since Foreign Service officials from the Department of State (State) are not in the EHRI database, we drew a sample for that group with the assistance from State  We worked with officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to gain access to these individuals to maintain continuity of the population of managers surveyed from previous years  The Department of Justice (DOJ) was concerned about providing identifying information (e g , names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) of federal agents to us, so we administered the current survey to DOJ managers in our sample through DOJ officials  To identify the sample of managers whose names were withheld from the EHRI database, we provided DOJ with the last four digits of Social Security numbers, the subcomponent, duty location, and pay grade information  To ensure that DOJ managers received the same survey administration process as the rest of the managers in our sample to the extent possible, we provided DOJ with text for the survey activation and reminder e-mails similar to ones we emailed to managers at other agencies  DOJ administered the survey to these managers and emailed them one reminder to complete the survey  To help determine the reliability and accuracy of the EHRI data elements used to draw our sample of federal managers, we checked the data for reasonableness and the presence of any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness and reviewed past analyses of the reliability of this database  For example, we identified cases where the managers’ names were withheld and contacted OPM to discuss this issue  We also checked the names of the managers in our selected sample provided by OPM with the applicable agency contacts to verify these managers were still employed with the agency  We noted discrepancies when they occurred and excluded them from our population of interest, as applicable  On the basis of these procedures, we believe the data we used from the EHRI database are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of the survey  Of the 4,395 managers selected for the 2017 survey, we found that 388 of the sampled managers had retired, separated, or otherwise left the agency or had some other reason that excluded them from the population of interest  These exclusions included managers that the agency could not locate, and therefore we were unable to request that they participate in the survey  We received usable questionnaires from 2,726 sample respondents, for a weighted response rate of about 67 percent of the remaining eligible sample  The weighted response rate across 23 of the 24 agencies ranged from 57 percent to 82 percent, while DOJ had a weighted response rate of 36 percent  See the supplemental material for each agency’s response rate  We conducted a nonresponse bias analysis using information from the survey and sampling frame as available  The analysis confirmed discrepancies in the tendency to respond to the survey related to agency and SES status  The analysis also revealed some differences in response propensity by age and GS level; however, the direction and magnitude of the differences on these factors were not consistent across agencies or strata  Our data may be subject to bias from unmeasured sources for which we cannot control  Results, and in particular estimates from agencies with low response rates such as DOJ, should be interpreted with caution because these estimates are associated with a higher level of uncertainty  The overall survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers as described above  The responses of each eligible sample member who provided a usable questionnaire were weighted in the analyses to statistically account for all members of the population  All results are subject to some uncertainty or sampling error as well as nonsampling error, including the potential for nonresponse bias as noted above  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn  The magnitude of sampling error will vary across the particular surveys, groups, or items being compared because we (1) used complex survey designs that differed in the underlying sample sizes, usable sample respondents, and associated variances of estimates, and (2) conducted different types of statistical analyses  For example, the 2000 and 2007 surveys were designed to produce agency-level estimates and had effective sample sizes of 2,510 and 2,943, respectively  However, the 1997 and 2003 surveys were designed to obtain government-wide estimates only, and their sample sizes were 905 and 503, respectively  Consequently, in some instances, a difference of a certain magnitude may be statistically significant  In other instances, depending on the nature of the comparison being made, a difference of equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve statistical significance  Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  The percentage estimates presented in this report based on our sample for the 2017 survey have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus 5 5 percentage points of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted  We also note in this report when we are 95 percent confident that changes from 1997 or 2013 relative to 2017 are statistically significant  Online supplemental material shows the questions asked on the survey along with the percentage estimates and associated 95 percent confidence intervals for each item for each agency and government-wide  In a few instances, we report estimates with larger margins of error because we deemed them reliable representations of given findings due to the statistical significance of larger differences between comparison groups  In all cases, we report the applicable margins of error  In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors  For example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information available to respondents, or in how the data were entered into a database or analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results  With this survey, we took a number of steps to minimize these nonsampling errors  For example, our staff with subject matter expertise designed the questionnaire in collaboration with our survey specialists  As noted earlier, the new questions added to the survey were pretested to ensure they were relevant and clearly stated  When the data were analyzed, a second independent analyst on our staff verified the analysis programs to ensure the accuracy of the code and the appropriateness of the methods used for the computer-generated analysis  Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to have the data keyed into a database, thus avoiding a source of data entry error  To supplement descriptive analysis of the survey questions, we generated an index to gauge government-wide use of performance information  The index, which was identical to one we reported in 2014, averaged manager’s responses to 11 questions deemed to relate to the concept of performance information use  The index runs from 1 (corresponding to an average value of “to no extent”) to 5 (corresponding to an average value of “to a very great extent”)  We used Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency of the scale  Our government- wide index score weights each agency’s contribution equally, and provides a relative measure of the use of performance information over time rather than an absolute indicator of the government-wide level of use of performance information  We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to September 2017 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  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have taken some actions to address our recommendations related to implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA); however, the majority of recommendations remain open  Since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011, we have made 100 recommendations in 18 reports to OMB and agencies aimed at improving the act’s implementation (table 3)  Of those 100, OMB and the agencies have implemented 42 recommendations  Fifty-eight recommendations require additional action  Nearly half (47) of our recommendations are directed to OMB  For the 23 recommendations that OMB has implemented, many represent revisions to guidance to better reflect GPRAMA’s requirements or to enhance implementation  Many of the 24 recommendations to OMB that are not implemented deal with long-standing or complex challenges, on which OMB has taken limited action to date  Of those, we have designated 3 as priorities for OMB to address  Agencies have also taken some action on our recommendations, implementing 19 of the 53 recommendations we have made  The following tables present each of the 100 recommendations along with a summary of actions taken to address it  Tables 4 and 5 provide information about our recommendations to OMB that are implemented and not implemented, respectively  Tables 6 and 7 provide information about our recommendations to other agencies that are implemented and not implemented, respectively  In addition to the above contact, Benjamin T  Licht (Assistant Director) and Shannon Finnegan (Assistant Director) supervised this review and the development of the resulting report  Leah Q  Nash (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Fan (Analyst-in-Charge), and Adam Miles (Analyst-in- Charge) supervised the development and administration of the Federal Managers Survey and the resulting supplemental material  Peter Beck, Valerie Caracelli, Karin Fangman, Steven Flint, Robert Gebhart, Ricky Harrison Jr , John Hussey, Jill Lacey, Won Lee, Krista Loose, Meredith Moles, Anna Maria Ortiz, Steven Putansu, Alan Rozzi, Cindy Saunders, Stephanie Shipman, Shane Spencer, Andrew J  Stephens, and Brian Wanlass also made key contributions  Ann Czapiewski and Donna Miller developed the graphics for this report  John Ahern, Divya Bali, Jeff DeMarco, Alexandra Edwards, Ellen Grady, Jyoti Gupta, Erinn L  Sauer, and Katherine Wulff verified the information presented in this report  Managing for Results: Implementation of GPRA Modernization Act Has Yielded Mixed Progress in Addressing Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-15-819  Washington, D C : September 30, 2015  Managing For Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Supplemental Material for GAO-17-775: 2017 Survey of Federal Managers on Organizational Performance and Management Issues  GAO-17-776SP  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Program Evaluation: Annual Agency-wide Plans Could Enhance Leadership Support for Program Evaluations  GAO-17-743  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions  GAO-14-747  Washington, D C : September 26, 2014  Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Managing for Results: 2013 Federal Managers Survey on Organizational Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-13-518  GAO-13-519SP  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making  GAO-13-570  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results  GAO-08-1026T  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T  GAO-08-1036SP  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results  GAO-04-38  Washington, D C : March 10, 2004  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies  GAO-01-592  Washington, D C : May 25, 2001  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills  GAO-01-127  Washington, D C : October 20, 2000  The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven  GAO/GGD-97-109  Washington, D C : June 2, 1997  Federal Programs: Information Architecture Offers a Potential Approach for Inventory Development  GAO-17-739  Washington, D C : September 28, 2017  Managing for Results: Selected Agencies’ Experiences in Implementing Strategic Reviews  GAO-17-740R  Washington, D C : September 7, 2017  Federal Reports: OMB and Agencies Should More Fully Implement the Process to Streamline Reporting Requirements  GAO-17-616  Washington, D C : July 14, 2017  Open Innovation: Executive Branch Developed Resources to Support Implementation, but Guidance Could Better Reflect Leading Practices  GAO-17-507  Washington, D C : June 8, 2017  Performance Partnerships: Agencies Need to Better Identify Resource Contributions to Sustain Disconnected Youth Pilot Programs and Data to Assess Pilot Results  GAO-17-208  Washington, D C : April 18, 2017  Open Innovation: Practices to Engage Citizens and Effectively Implement Federal Initiatives  GAO-17-14  Washington, D C : October 13, 2016  Tiered Evidence Grants: Opportunities Exist to Share Lessons from Early Implementation and Inform Future Federal Efforts  GAO-16-818  Washington, D C : September 21, 2016  Performance gov: Long-Term Strategy Needed to Improve Website Usability  GAO-16-693  Washington, D C : August 30, 2016  Tax Expenditures: Opportunities Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance Processes to Increase Oversight  GAO-16-622  Washington, D C : July 7, 2016  Managing for Results: Agencies Need to Fully Identify and Report Major Management Challenges and Actions to Resolve them in their Agency Performance Plans  GAO-16-510  Washington, D C : June 15, 2016  Managing for Results: OMB Improved Implementation of Cross-Agency Priority Goals, But Could Be More Transparent About Measuring Progress  GAO-16-509  Washington, D C : May 20, 2016  Managing for Results: Greater Transparency Needed in Public Reporting on the Quality of Performance Information for Selected Agencies’ Priority Goals  GAO-15-788  Washington, D C : September 10, 2015  Pay for Success: Collaboration among Federal Agencies Would Be Helpful as Governments Explore New Financing Mechanisms  GAO-15-646  Washington, D C : September 9, 2015  Managing for Results: Practices for Effective Agency Strategic Reviews  GAO-15-602  Washington, D C : July 29, 2015  Managing for Results: Agencies Report Positive Effects of Data-Driven Reviews on Performance but Some Should Strengthen Practices  GAO-15-579  Washington, D C : July 7, 2015  Program Evaluation: Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, and Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity  GAO-15-25  Washington, D C : November 13, 2014  Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories  GAO-15-83  Washington, D C : October 31, 2014  Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service  GAO-15-84  Washington, D C : October 24, 2014  Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance  GAO-14-639  Washington, D C : July 22, 2014  Managing for Results: OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency Goals  GAO-14-526  Washington, D C : June 10, 2014  Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups  GAO-14-220  Washington, D C : February 14, 2014  Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance gov  GAO-13-517  Washington, D C : June 6, 2013  Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act  GAO-13-174  Washington, D C : April 19, 2013  Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed  GAO-13-356  Washington, D C : April 16, 2013  Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies  GAO-13-228  Washington, D C : February 27, 2013  Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making  GAO-12-621SP  Washington, D C : June 15, 2012  Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act  GAO-12-620R  Washington, D C : May 31, 2012  Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to Address Government Performance Issues  GAO-12-215R  Washington, D C : December 9, 2011 


Report 2:  1119 / P L  105-85 of November 18, 1997), which granted the Navy the authority to use a single contract for the procurement of the first four Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines  The 4 boats were scheduled to be procured during the 5-year period FY1998-FY2002 in annual quantities of 1-1-0-1-1  Congress provided the authority granted in Section 121(b) at least in part to reduce the combined procurement cost of the four submarines  Using MYP was not an option for the Virginia-class program at that time because the Navy had not even begun, let alone finished, construction of the first Virginia-class submarine, and consequently could not demonstrate that it had a stable design for the program  When Section 121(b) was enacted, there was no name for the contracting authority it provided  The term block buy contracting came into use later, when observers needed a term to refer to the kind of contracting authority that Congress authorized in Section 121(b)  As discussed in the next section, this can cause confusion, because the term block buy was already being used in discussions of DOD acquisition to refer to something else  What's the difference between block buy cont r acting and block buys? In discussions of defense procurement, the term "block buy" by itself (without "contracting" at the end) is sometimes used to refer to something quite different from block buy contracting—namely, the simple act of funding the procurement of more than one copy of an item in a single year, particularly when no more than one item of that kind might normally be funded in a single year  For example, when Congress funded the procurement of two aircraft carriers in FY1983, and another two in FY1988, these acts were each referred to as block buys, because aircraft carriers are normally procured one at a time, several years apart from one another  This alternate meaning of the term block buy predates by many years the emergence of the term block buy contracting  The term block buy is still used in this alternate manner, which can lead to confusion in discussions of defense procurement  For example, for FY2017, the Air Force requested funding for procuring five Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) for its EELV Launch Services (ELS) program  At the same time, Navy officials sometimes refer to the use of block buy contracts for the first four Virginia-class submarines, and in the LCS program, as block buys, when they might be more specifically referred to as instances of block buy contract ing   How much can BBC save, compared with MYP? BBC can reduce the unit procurement costs of ships by amounts less than or perhaps comparable to those of MYP, if the authority granted for using BBC explicitly includes authority for making economic order quantity (EOQ) purchases of components  If the authority granted for using BBC does not explicitly include authority for making EOQ purchases, then the savings from BBC will be less  Potential savings under BBC might also be less than those under MYP if the BBC contract does not include a cancellation penalty, or includes one that is more limited than typically found in an MYP contract, because this might give the contractor less confidence than would be the case under an MYP contract that the future stream of business will materialize as planned, which in turn might reduce the amount of money the contractor invests to optimize its workforce and production facilities for producing the items to be procured under the contract  How frequently has BBC been used? Since its use at the start of the Virginia-class program, BBC has been used very rarely  The Navy did not use it again in a shipbuilding program until December 2010, when it awarded two block buy contracts, each covering 10 LCSs to be procured over the six-year period FY2010-FY2015, to the two LCS builders  (Each contract was later amended to include an 11 th ship in FY2016, making for a total of 22 ships under the two contracts ) A third example is the John Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler program, in which the Navy is using a block buy contract to procure the first six ships in the program  A fourth example, arguably, is the Air Force's KC-46 aerial refueling tanker program, which is employing a fixed price incentive fee (FPIF) development contract that includes a "back end" commitment to procure certain minimum numbers of KC-46s in certain fiscal years  When might BBC be suitable as an alternative to MYP? BBC might be particularly suitable as an alternative to MYP in cases where using a multiyear contract can reduce costs, but the program in question cannot meet all the statutory criteria needed to qualify for MYP  As shown in the case of the first four Virginia-class boats, this can occur at or near the start of a procurement program, when design stability has not been demonstrated through the production of at least a few of the items to be procured (or, for a shipbuilding program, at least one ship)  What i s the difference between an MYP or block buy contract and a contract with options? The military services sometimes use contracts with options to procure multiple copies of an item that are procured over a period of several years  The Navy, for example, used a contract with options to procure Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class dry cargo ships that were procured over a period of several years  A contract with options can be viewed as somewhat similar to an MYP or block buy contract in that a single contract is used to procure several years' worth of procurement of a given kind of item  There is, however, a key difference between an MYP or block buy contract and a contract with options: In a contract with options, the service is under no obligation to exercise any of the options, and a service can choose to not exercise an option without having to make a penalty payment to the contractor  In contrast, in an MYP or block buy contract, the service is under an obligation to continue implementing the contract beyond the first year, provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funds  If the service chooses to terminate an MYP or block buy contract, and does so as a termination for government convenience rather than as a termination for contractor default, then the contractor can, under the contract's termination for convenience clause, seek a payment from the government for cost incurred for work that is complete or in process at the time of termination, and may include the cost of some of the investments made in anticipation of the MYP or block buy contract being fully implemented  The contractor can do this even if the MYP or block buy contract does not elsewhere include a provision for a cancellation penalty  As a result of this key difference, although a contract with options looks like a multiyear contract, it operates more like a series of annual contracts, and it cannot achieve the kinds of savings that are possible under MYP and BBC  Potential issues for Congress concerning MYP and BBC include whether to use MYP and BBC in the future more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used; and whether to create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent statute that governs the use of MYP  Should MYP and BBC in the future be used more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used? Supporters of using MYP and BBC more frequently in the future might argue the following: Since MYP and BBC can reduce procurement costs, making greater use of MYP and BBC can help DOD get more value out of its available procurement funding  This can be particularly important if DOD's budget in real (i e , inflation-adjusted) terms remains flat or declines in coming years, as many observers anticipate  The risks of using MYP have been reduced by Section 811 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act ( H R  4986 / P L  110-181 of January 28, 2008), which amended 10 U S C  2306b to strengthen the process for ensuring that programs proposed for MYP meet certain criteria (see " Permanent Statute Governing MYP ")  Since the value of MYP contracts equated to less than 8% of DOD's procurement budget in FY2012, compared to about 17% of DOD's procurement budget in FY2000, MYP likely could be used more frequently without exceeding past experience regarding the share of DOD's procurement budget accounted for by MYP contracts  Supporters of using MYP and BBC less frequently in the future, or at least no more frequently than now, might argue the following: Using MYP and BBC more frequently would further reduce Congress's and DOD's flexibility for making changes in DOD procurement programs in future years in response to changing strategic or budgetary circumstances  The risks of reducing flexibility in this regard are increased now because of uncertainties in the current strategic environment and because efforts to reduce federal budget deficits could include reducing DOD spending, which could lead to a reassessment of U S  defense strategy and associated DOD acquisition programs  Since actual savings from using MYP and BBC rather than annual contracting can be difficult to observe or verify, it is not clear that the financial benefits of using MYP or BBC more frequently in the future would be worth the resulting further reduction in Congress's and DOD's flexibility for making changes in procurement programs in future years in response to changing strategic or budgetary circumstances  Should Congress create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent statute (10 U S C  2306b) that governs the use of MYP? Supporters of creating a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC might argue the following: Such a statute could encourage greater use of BBC, and thereby increase savings in DOD procurement programs by giving BBC contracting a formal legal standing and by establishing a clear process for DOD program managers to use in assessing whether their programs might be considered suitable for BBC  Such a statute could make BBC more advantageous by including a provision that automatically grants EOQ authority to programs using BBC, as well as provisions establishing qualifying criteria and other conditions intended to reduce the risks of using BBC  Opponents of creating a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC might argue the following: A key advantage of BBC is that it is not governed by a permanent statute  The lack of such a statute gives DOD and Congress full flexibility in determining when and how to use BBC for programs that may not qualify for MYP, but for which a multiyear contract of some kind might produce substantial savings  Such a statute could encourage DOD program managers to pursue their programs using BBC rather than MYP  This could reduce discipline in DOD multiyear contracting if the qualifying criteria in the BBC statute are less demanding than the qualifying criteria in 10 U S C  2306b  Should the Coast Guard should begin making use of MYP and BBC? Although the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Coast Guard is a military service and a branch of the U S  Armed Forces at all times (14 U S C  1), and 10 U S C  2306b provides authority for using MYP not only to DOD, but also to the Coast Guard (and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well)  In addition, Section 311 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 ( S  140 / P L  115-282 of December 4, 2018) provides permanent authority for the Coast Guard to use block buy contracting with EOQ purchases of components in its major acquisition programs  The authority is now codified at 14 U S C  1137  As discussed earlier in this report, the Navy in recent years has made extensive use of MYP and BBC in its ship and aircraft acquisition programs, reducing the collective costs of those programs, the Navy estimates, by billions of dollars  The Coast Guard, like the Navy, procures ships and aircraft  In contrast to the Navy, however, the Coast Guard has never used MYP or BBC in its ship or aircraft acquisition programs  Instead, the Coast has tended to use contracts with options  As discussed earlier, although a contract with options looks like a multiyear contract, it operates more like a series of annual contracts, and it cannot achieve the kinds of savings that are possible under MYP and BBC  CRS in recent years has testified and reported on the possibility of using BBC or MYP in Coast Guard ship acquisition programs, particularly the Coast Guard's 25-ship Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) program and the Coast Guard's three-ship polar icebreaker program  CRS estimates that using multiyear contracting rather than contracts with options for the entire 25-ship OPC program could reduce the cost of the OPC program by about $1 billion  The OPC program is the Coast Guard's top-priority acquisition program, and it represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce the acquisition cost of a Coast Guard acquisition program by an estimated $1 billion  CRS also estimates that using BBC for a three-ship polar icebreaker program could reduce the cost of that program by upwards of $150 million  The Coast Guard has expressed some interest in using BBC in the polar icebreaker program, but its baseline acquisition strategy for that program, like its current acquisition strategy for the OPC program, is to use a contract with options  As part of its FY2020 budget submission, the Department of Defense is proposing continued funding for implementing several MYP contracts initiated in fiscal years prior to FY2020, but it has not highlighted any requests for authority for new MYP or block buy contracts for major acquisition programs that would begin in FY2020  Appendix A  Text of 10 U S C  2306b The text of 10 U S C  2306b as of April 29, 2019, is as follows: §2306b  Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property (a) In General -To the extent that funds are otherwise available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into multiyear contracts for the purchase of property whenever the head of that agency finds each of the following: (1) That the use of such a contract will result in significant savings of the total anticipated costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts  (2) That the minimum need for the property to be purchased is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of production rate, procurement rate, and total quantities  (3) That there is a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period the head of the agency will request funding for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation  (4) That there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with such property are not excessive  (5) That the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic  (6) In the case of a purchase by the Department of Defense, that the use of such a contract will promote the national security of the United States  (7) In the case of a contract in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000,000, that the conditions required by subparagraphs (C) through (F) of subsection (i)(3) will be met, in accordance with the Secretary's certification and determination under such subsection, by such contract  (b) Regulations -(1) Each official named in paragraph (2) shall prescribe acquisition regulations for the agency or agencies under the jurisdiction of such official to promote the use of multiyear contracting as authorized by subsection (a) in a manner that will allow the most efficient use of multiyear contracting  (2)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the regulations applicable to the Department of Defense  (B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe the regulations applicable to the Coast Guard, except that the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense shall apply to the Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the Navy  (C) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall prescribe the regulations applicable to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (c) Contract Cancellations -The regulations may provide for cancellation provisions in multiyear contracts to the extent that such provisions are necessary and in the best interests of the United States  The cancellation provisions may include consideration of both recurring and nonrecurring costs of the contractor associated with the production of the items to be delivered under the contract  (d) Participation by Subcontractors, Vendors, and Suppliers -In order to broaden the defense industrial base, the regulations shall provide that, to the extent practicable- (1) multiyear contracting under subsection (a) shall be used in such a manner as to seek, retain, and promote the use under such contracts of companies that are subcontractors, vendors, or suppliers; and (2) upon accrual of any payment or other benefit under such a multiyear contract to any subcontractor, vendor, or supplier company participating in such contract, such payment or benefit shall be delivered to such company in the most expeditious manner practicable  (e) Protection of Existing Authority -The regulations shall provide that, to the extent practicable, the administration of this section, and of the regulations prescribed under this section, shall not be carried out in a manner to preclude or curtail the existing ability of an agency- (1) to provide for competition in the production of items to be delivered under such a contract; or (2) to provide for termination of a prime contract the performance of which is deficient with respect to cost, quality, or schedule  (f) Cancellation or Termination for Insufficient Funding -In the event funds are not made available for the continuation of a contract made under this section into a subsequent fiscal year, the contract shall be canceled or terminated  The costs of cancellation or termination may be paid from- (1) appropriations originally available for the performance of the contract concerned; (2) appropriations currently available for procurement of the type of property concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or (3) funds appropriated for those payments  (g) Contract Cancellation Ceilings Exceeding $100,000,000 -(1) Before any contract described in subsection (a) that contains a clause setting forth a cancellation ceiling in excess of $100,000,000 may be awarded, the head of the agency concerned shall give written notification of the proposed contract and of the proposed cancellation ceiling for that contract to the congressional defense committees, and such contract may not then be awarded until the end of a period of 30 days beginning on the date of such notification  (2) In the case of a contract described in subsection (a) with a cancellation ceiling described in paragraph (1), if the budget for the contract does not include proposed funding for the costs of contract cancellation up to the cancellation ceiling established in the contract, the head of the agency concerned shall, as part of the certification required by subsection (i)(1)(A),1 give written notification to the congressional defense committees of- (A) the cancellation ceiling amounts planned for each program year in the proposed multiyear procurement contract, together with the reasons for the amounts planned; (B) the extent to which costs of contract cancellation are not included in the budget for the contract; and (C) a financial risk assessment of not including budgeting for costs of contract cancellation  (h) Defense Acquisitions of Weapon Systems -In the case of the Department of Defense, the authority under subsection (a) includes authority to enter into the following multiyear contracts in accordance with this section: (1) A multiyear contract for the purchase of a weapon system, items and services associated with a weapon system, and logistics support for a weapon system  (2) A multiyear contract for advance procurement of components, parts, and materials necessary to the manufacture of a weapon system, including a multiyear contract for such advance procurement that is entered into in order to achieve economic-lot purchases and more efficient production rates  (i) Defense Acquisitions Specifically Authorized by Law -(1) In the case of the Department of Defense, a multiyear contract in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000,000 may not be entered into under this section unless the contract is specifically authorized by law in an Act other than an appropriations Act  (2) In submitting a request for a specific authorization by law to carry out a defense acquisition program using multiyear contract authority under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall include in the request the following: (A) A report containing preliminary findings of the agency head required in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a), together with the basis for such findings  (B) Confirmation that the preliminary findings of the agency head under subparagraph (A) were supported by a preliminary cost analysis performed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation  (3) A multiyear contract may not be entered into under this section for a defense acquisition program that has been specifically authorized by law to be carried out using multiyear contract authority unless the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing, not later than 30 days before entry into the contract, that each of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) The Secretary has determined that each of the requirements in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) will be met by such contract and has provided the basis for such determination to the congressional defense committees  (B) The Secretary's determination under subparagraph (A) was made after completion of a cost analysis conducted on the basis of section 2334(e)(2) 1 of this title, and the analysis supports the determination  (C) The system being acquired pursuant to such contract has not been determined to have experienced cost growth in excess of the critical cost growth threshold pursuant to section 2433(d) of this title within 5 years prior to the date the Secretary anticipates such contract (or a contract for advance procurement entered into consistent with the authorization for such contract) will be awarded  (D) A sufficient number of end items of the system being acquired under such contract have been delivered at or within the most current estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost for such system to determine that current estimates of such unit costs are realistic  (E) During the fiscal year in which such contract is to be awarded, sufficient funds will be available to perform the contract in such fiscal year, and the future-years defense program for such fiscal year will include the funding required to execute the program without cancellation  (F) The contract is a fixed price type contract  (G) The proposed multiyear contract provides for production at not less than minimum economic rates given the existing tooling and facilities  (4) If for any fiscal year a multiyear contract to be entered into under this section is authorized by law for a particular procurement program and that authorization is subject to certain conditions established by law (including a condition as to cost savings to be achieved under the multiyear contract in comparison to specified other contracts) and if it appears (after negotiations with contractors) that such savings cannot be achieved, but that significant savings could nevertheless be achieved through the use of a multiyear contract rather than specified other contracts, the President may submit to Congress a request for relief from the specified cost savings that must be achieved through multiyear contracting for that program  Any such request by the President shall include details about the request for a multiyear contract, including details about the negotiated contract terms and conditions  (5)(A) The Secretary may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for procurement of a complete and usable end item  (B) The Secretary may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year for advance procurement under a contract for the purchase of property only for the procurement of those long-lead items necessary in order to meet a planned delivery schedule for complete major end items that are programmed under the contract to be acquired with funds appropriated for a subsequent fiscal year (including an economic order quantity of such long-lead items when authorized by law)  (6) The Secretary may make the certification under paragraph (3) notwithstanding the fact that one or more of the conditions of such certification are not met, if the Secretary determines that, due to exceptional circumstances, proceeding with a multiyear contract under this section is in the best interest of the Department of Defense and the Secretary provides the basis for such determination with the certification  (7) The Secretary may not delegate the authority to make the certification under paragraph (3) or the determination under paragraph (6) to an official below the level of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics  (j) Defense Contract Options for Varying Quantities -The Secretary of Defense may instruct the Secretary of the military department concerned to incorporate into a proposed multiyear contract negotiated priced options for varying the quantities of end items to be procured over the period of the contract  (k) Multiyear Contract Defined -For the purposes of this section, a multiyear contract is a contract for the purchase of property for more than one, but not more than five, program years  Such a contract may provide that performance under the contract during the second and subsequent years of the contract is contingent upon the appropriation of funds and (if it does so provide) may provide for a cancellation payment to be made to the contractor if such appropriations are not made  (l) Various Additional Requirements With Respect to Multiyear Defense Contracts -(1)(A) The head of an agency may not initiate a contract described in subparagraph (B) unless the congressional defense committees are notified of the proposed contract at least 30 days in advance of the award of the proposed contract  (B) Subparagraph (A) applies to the following contracts: (i) A multiyear contract- (I) that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one year of the contract; or (II) that includes an unfunded contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000  (ii) Any contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one year  (2) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear contract for which the economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at least to the limits of the Government's liability  (3) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear procurement contract for any system (or component thereof) if the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless authority for the contract is specifically provided in an appropriations Act  (4) Each report required by paragraph (5) with respect to a contract (or contract extension) shall contain the following: (A) The amount of total obligational authority under the contract (or contract extension) and the percentage that such amount represents of- (i) the applicable procurement account; and (ii) the agency procurement total  (B) The amount of total obligational authority under all multiyear procurements of the agency concerned (determined without regard to the amount of the multiyear contract (or contract extension)) under multiyear contracts in effect at the time the report is submitted and the percentage that such amount represents of- (i) the applicable procurement account; and (ii) the agency procurement total  (C) The amount equal to the sum of the amounts under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and the percentage that such amount represents of- (i) the applicable procurement account; and (ii) the agency procurement total  (D) The amount of total obligational authority under all Department of Defense multiyear procurements (determined without regard to the amount of the multiyear contract (or contract extension)), including any multiyear contract (or contract extension) that has been authorized by the Congress but not yet entered into, and the percentage that such amount represents of the procurement accounts of the Department of Defense treated in the aggregate  (5) The head of an agency may not enter into a multiyear contract (or extend an existing multiyear contract), the value of which would exceed $500,000,000 (when entered into or when extended, as the case may be), until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report containing the information described in paragraph (4) with respect to the contract (or contract extension)  (6) The head of an agency may not terminate a multiyear procurement contract until 10 days after the date on which notice of the proposed termination is provided to the congressional defense committees  (7) The execution of multiyear contracting authority shall require the use of a present value analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement  (8) This subsection does not apply to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or to the Coast Guard  (9) In this subsection: (A) The term "applicable procurement account" means, with respect to a multiyear procurement contract (or contract extension), the appropriation account from which payments to execute the contract will be made  (B) The term "agency procurement total" means the procurement accounts of the agency entering into a multiyear procurement contract (or contract extension) treated in the aggregate  (m) Increased Funding and Reprogramming Requests -Any request for increased funding for the procurement of a major system under a multiyear contract authorized under this section shall be accompanied by an explanation of how the request for increased funding affects the determinations made by the Secretary under subsection (i)  Appendix B  Programs Approved for MYP in Annual DOD Appropriations Acts Since FY1990 This appendix presents, in two tables, programs approved for MYP in annual DOD appropriations acts since FY1990  Table B-1 covers FY2011 to the present, and Table B-2 covers FY1990 through FY2010 

ground_truth: Each year, the DHS invests billions of dollars in a diverse portfolio of major acquisition programs to help execute its many critical missions. DHS's acquisition activities are on GAO's High Risk List, in part, because of management and funding issues. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2015 included a provision for GAO to review DHS's major acquisitions. This report, GAO's fourth annual review, assesses the extent to which: (1) DHS's major acquisition programs are on track to meet their schedule and cost goals, and (2) DHS has taken actions to enhance its policies and processes to better reflect key practices for effectively managing a portfolio of investments. GAO reviewed 28 acquisition programs, including DHS's largest programs that were in the process of obtaining new capabilities as of April 2017, and programs GAO or DHS identified as at risk of poor outcomes. GAO assessed cost and schedule progress against baselines, assessed DHS's policies and processes against GAO's key portfolio management practices, and met with relevant DHS officials. During 2017, 10 of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs GAO assessed that had approved schedule and cost goals were on track to meet those goals. GAO reviewed 28 programs in total, 4 of which were new programs that GAO did not assess because they did not establish cost and schedule goals before the end of calendar year 2017 as planned. The table shows the status of the 24 programs GAO assessed. Reasons for schedule delays or cost increases included technical challenges, changes in requirements, and external factors. Recent enhancements to DHS's acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements policies largely reflect key portfolio management practices (see table). However, DHS is in the early stages of implementing these policies. GAO identified two areas where DHS could strengthen its portfolio management policies and implementation efforts: DHS's policies do not reflect the key practice to reassess a program that breaches—or exceeds—its cost, schedule, or performance goals in the context of the portfolio to ensure it is still relevant or affordable. Acquisition management officials said that, in practice, they do so based on a certification of funds memorandum—a tool GAO has found to be effective for DHS leadership to assess program affordability—submitted by the component when one of its programs re-baselines in response to a breach. Documenting this practice in policy would help ensure DHS makes strategic investment decisions within its limited budget. DHS is not leveraging information gathered from reviews once programs complete implementation to manage its portfolio of active acquisition programs. DHS's acquisition policy requires programs to conduct post-implementation reviews after initial capabilities are deployed, which is in line with GAO's key practices. Acquisition management officials said they do not consider the results of these reviews in managing DHS's portfolio because the reviews are typically conducted after oversight for a program shifts to the components. Leveraging these results across DHS could enable DHS to address potential issues that may contribute to poor outcomes, such as schedule slips and cost growth, for other programs in its acquisition portfolio. GAO recommends DHS update its acquisition policy to require certification of fund memorandums when programs re-baseline as a result of a breach and assess programs' post-implementation reviews to improve performance across the acquisition portfolio. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations.