Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Coast Guard's Blueprint for Acquisition 
 

Reform Needs Improved Oversight 
 

OIG-10-84 April 2010 
Office ofInspector General 

u.s. Department ofHomeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

APR 26 2010 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (DIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector GeneralAct of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the U.S. Coast Guard's implementation of its Blueprint for 

Acquisition Reform. The report is based on interviews with employees and officials of 

relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable 

documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

.~~.F,(.••

Richard L. Skinner
 

Inspector General
 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1
 


Background..........................................................................................................................2
 


Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................3
 


Better Measures Needed to Assess Acquisition Improvements ....................................3 
 

Prioritization of Action Items Needed ...........................................................................4 
 

Recommendations................................................................................................................5
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................................6 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.........................................................8 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.........................................9 
 

Appendix C: Development and Tracking of Blueprint Action Items........................12 
 

Appendix D: Prior Reports Related to Coast Guard Acquisition Reform.................13 
 

Appendix E: Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................14 
 

Appendix F: Report Distribution ..............................................................................15 
 

Abbreviations 

Blueprint Blueprint for Acquisition Reform / Blueprint for Continuous 

Improvement 
 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 

GAO Government Accountability Office 
 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
 
OIG
 


Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Coast Guard began realigning its acquisition function in 2007 

in response to issues reported by our office and the Government 

Accountability Office. The Coast Guard’s Blueprint for 

Acquisition Reform sets forth objectives and specific action items 

for improving its acquisition function and contracting capabilities. 

We conducted this audit to determine the progress the U.S. Coast 

Guard has made in implementing its Blueprint. 

The Coast Guard can improve Blueprint implementation oversight 

by (1) establishing a method to measure outcomes of completed 

Blueprint action items, and (2) prioritizing the action items. The 

Coast Guard uses the percentage of Blueprint action items 

completed to report accomplishment, even though this information 

does not measure improvements to acquisition functions. The 

Coast Guard also has not established priorities for initiating or 

completing the action items or evaluated the impact of missed 

completion milestone dates. As a result, the Coast Guard may not 

have an accurate assessment of its progress in improving its 

acquisition function. 

We are recommending that the Coast Guard establish better 

measures and priorities for successful implementation of its 

Blueprint for Acquisition Reform. The Coast Guard concurred 

with the recommendations and has taken action to implement 

them. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 


Page 1 

Background 

Over the past 5 years, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and the Department of Homeland Security Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) have issued a number of audit reports 

citing systemic issues in the Coast Guard’s systems acquisition 

function and structure related to effective program management, 

contractor oversight, adequate staffing, data tracking, and 

performance measures (see Appendix D). As a result, in 2007, the 

Coast Guard began realigning its acquisition function. 

To enhance mission execution, the Coast Guard developed a 

Blueprint for Acquisition Reform (Blueprint), which sets forth a 

number of specific tasks for improving the acquisition function and 

contracting capabilities. The Blueprint consists of action items in 

four major areas defined by the GAO Framework for Assessing the 

Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies.1

 The framework 

provides general guidance to evaluate an agency’s acquisition 

function and identifies areas that need improvement. The 

following four major areas are included in the framework: 

Organizational Alignment: Focuses on organizational placement 

and effectiveness of the acquisition function to ensure that it 

continues to provide needed services. 

Policies and Processes: Develops the Coast Guard’s acquisition 

management functions to support the acquisition mission 

efficiently and consistently. 

Human Capital: Documents the Acquisition Directorate’s 

strategy for hiring, training, and retaining a workforce with the 

necessary skills, certifications, and experience to manage and 

monitor complex acquisition programs. 

Information Management and Stewardship: Documents the 

Acquisition Directorate’s efforts to collect, analyze, and act on 

data that identify opportunities to reduce costs, improve 

performance, measure contract compliance, and provide better 

management of acquisition investments. 

1 Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies, GAO-05-218G, September 2005. 

The GAO Framework is included in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s Guidelines for Assessing 

Acquisition Function, May 2008. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 

Page 2 
The Coast Guard publishes an updated Blueprint annually, making 

it available to the public on the Coast Guard website, and provides 

copies to Congress, DHS, GAO, and the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Results of Audit 

The Coast Guard can improve Blueprint implementation oversight by 

(1) establishing a method to measure outcomes of completed Blueprint action 

items, and (2) prioritizing the action items. The Coast Guard uses the percentage 

of Blueprint action items completed to report accomplishment, even though this 

information does not measure improvements to acquisition functions. The Coast 

Guard also has not established priorities for initiating or completing the action 

items or evaluated the impact of missed completion milestone dates. As a result, 

the Coast Guard may not have an accurate assessment of its progress in improving 

its acquisition function. 

Better Measures Needed to Assess Acquisition Improvements 

The Coast Guard has not instituted a methodology, including baselines 

and overarching program goals, against which to accurately assess and 

report on overall improvements to its acquisition function. Instead, the 

Coast Guard measures Blueprint implementation progress based on the 

number of action items completed. 

The Coast Guard annually develops the Blueprint action items based on 

suggestions for improvements and best practices and then assigns the action 

items to acquisition personnel for completion. The Coast Guard uses input 

from program managers, division chiefs, and office chiefs to establish 

accountability and the estimated completion date for each action item. The 

Coast Guard also has a process for closing and verifying completion of the 

action items and determining next steps (see Appendix C). 

Personnel in the Office of Strategic Planning and Communications report 

progress in completing action items to the Assistant Commandant for 

Acquisition and the Vice Commandant on a biweekly basis. In these 

reports, the Coast Guard uses the total number of completed action items 

to measure the progress toward improvement of the acquisition function. 

The Coast Guard uses this simplified measurement approach because it 

allows accomplishments to be measured and action item completion to be 

verified. 

In the current version of the Blueprint, dated July 2009, the Coast Guard 

noted it had completed 131 of 215 (61%) action items. They include the 

following: 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 

Page 3 
�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

Reorganizing and aligning responsibilities by creating a single 

acquisition office that manages all projects, 

Developing the Acquisition Human Capital Strategic Plan, 

Updating the Major Systems Acquisition Manual used for 

managing projects in the new organization, 

Developing project management information systems, and 

Certifying all program and project managers with the proper 

program management skill level required to manage projects. 

In the fourth version of the Blueprint issued in July 2009, the Coast Guard 

changed the title to Blueprint for Continuous Improvement in recognition 

of the incremental improvements made. 

Measuring action items completed does not provide the Coast Guard with 

an accurate assessment of progress. The Coast Guard may be overstating 

its accomplishments by measuring outputs instead of performance 

outcomes. For example, the Coast Guard initiated an effort to adopt 

tenure service agreements for employees by the first quarter of Fiscal Year 

2011. One of the action items was to perform initial research on the 

feasibility of adopting the service agreements. Another action item was to 

draft a memorandum proposing the service agreements to the Coast 

Guard. Although both action items were reported as completed, the new 

service agreements have not yet been adopted. 

In another example, the Coast Guard wanted to expand and build upon 

existing surveys to solicit views on the effectiveness of communications, 

acquisition processes, and other areas needing improvement. The Coast 

Guard closed the action after redesigning the customer and employee 

survey questionnaires and included the action in its overall measure of 

accomplishment. However, the Coast Guard did not distribute the survey, 

analyze the results, or use the results to improve communications and 

acquisition processes. Because developing the survey alone did not 

accomplish the objective of soliciting customer and employee views, the 

Coast Guard overstated its progress toward improvement by identifying 

this as a completed action. 

Prioritization of Action Items Needed 

The Coast Guard does not establish priorities among the action items or 

identify interrelationships and the sequence for accomplishing tasks in a 

building block approach. The Coast Guard monitors individual action 

items only to ensure that they meet their assigned completion dates. Staff 

members may revise action item completion dates without evaluating the 

effect on other action items or the overall improvement program. The 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 

Page 4 
Coast Guard scheduled 158 action items for completion by the end of 

Fiscal Year 2009, of which 36 (23%) were rescheduled without 

determining the impact on acquisition improvements. 

For example, an action item scheduled for completion in the second 

quarter of Fiscal Year 2008 was extended twice and rescheduled for the 

first quarter of Fiscal Year 2010. The Coast Guard completed this 

fundamental action item on December 23, 2009. This action item was to 

examine existing infrastructure in order to allow executive leadership to 

establish an appropriate forum to promote integration and coordination 

among the agency’s budgetary processes and human capital, acquisition, 

and financial management functions. Extending the completion date may 

put a critical acquisition operating process at risk because of the delay in 

coordinating these functions. 

The Coast Guard stated that quarterly meetings are held with the Office of 

Strategic Planning and Communications and the Assistant Commandant 

for Acquisition to report and discuss progress, delays, and rescheduling of 

action items. Though the goal of these quarterly meetings is to review 

action items and prioritize work, the Coast Guard did not justify any 

schedule changes or decisions made during these meetings. If a particular 

action item is not completed during the year, the Coast Guard does not 

revise the action item completion date until the annual review of the 

Blueprint. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard: 

Recommendation #1: Establish a more effective methodology for 

assessing progress in implementing the Blueprint for Acquisition 

Reform by measuring outcomes and not outputs. 

Recommendation #2: Establish priorities among the action items, 

identifying interrelationships and the sequence for accomplishing 

tasks in a building block approach. 

Recommendation #3: Evaluate and take corrective actions to 

mitigate the effect of delayed completion of action items on 

acquisition reform. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 


Page 5 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The Coast Guard concurred with two of the recommendations and 

partially concurred with the remaining recommendation in the 

report. The Coast Guard has begun formulating plans to implement 

the recommendations contained in the report. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 1: 

The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to establish 

a more effective methodology for assessing progress in 

implementing the Blueprint for Acquisition Reform by measuring 

outcomes and not outputs. The Coast Guard stated that a plan is 

being developed to implement baseline measurements and increase 

the effectiveness of outcome reporting. In the next revision of the 

Blueprint, the Coast Guard will align all action items with specific 

goals for the acquisition enterprise and measurable performance 

objectives to provide traceability. The Coast Guard is continuing 

its research for additional ways to refine measurements for action 

item outcomes and long term effects on the acquisition enterprise. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation resolved and open until plans to 

implement baseline measurements and increase the effectiveness 

of outcome reporting are developed and implemented. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 2: 

The Coast Guard concurred in part with our recommendation to 

establish priorities among the action items, identifying 

interrelationships and the sequence for accomplishing tasks in a 

building block approach. The Coast Guard stated that action items 

in the current and past editions of the Blueprint were prioritized 

based on due dates established during senior leadership discussion 

sessions. In the next update to the Blueprint for Continuous 

Improvement, the Coast Guard will systematically prioritize action 

items based on established criteria. Additionally, the Coast Guard 

is working to modify the Blueprint action plan to better 

demonstrate interrelationships and sequencing of action items as 

they relate to acquisition enterprise goals and their measurable 

performance objectives. 

The Coast Guard disagrees that staff may be revising action item 

completion dates without evaluating the effect on other action 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 

Page 6 
items or the impact on the overall improvement program. During 

the annual leadership discussion sessions, Acquisition Directorate 

senior leadership, office and division chiefs, and members of the 

Senior Executive Service review each request to change an action 

item completion date, including justification provided by the action 

owners. 

The Coast Guard further stated that in the future, the prioritization 

process will be systematically documented and published to 

increase transparency, including full documentation of all changes 

to the previously established completion dates. 

OIG Analysis 

The Coast Guard acknowledges that the process for prioritization 

can be more transparent. Our review of action items disclosed that 

over 20% of assigned completion dates slipped without full 

documentation of the reasons for these decisions. The actions 

taken by the Coast Guard to systematically document the process 

for prioritizing action items and to make the process more 

transparent addresses the intent of our recommendation. We 

consider this recommendation resolved and open until systematic 

documentation and publication of the prioritization process is 

completed. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 3: 

The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation to evaluate 

and take corrective actions to mitigate the effect of delayed 

completion of action items on acquisition reform. The Coast 

Guard stated that in future editions of the Blueprint, it will clearly 

prioritize and link action items to specific goals and measureable 

objectives, enabling Coast Guard leadership and action item 

owners to better understand the impact of postponing action items. 

Action item owners will be required to provide a detailed impact 

statement for a delayed action item to enhance transparency, so 

Coast Guard leadership can make informed decisions on whether 

to delay completion of an action item. 

OIG Analysis 

We consider this recommendation resolved and open until new 

requirements described above are incorporated into the next 

version of the Blueprint. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 

Page 7 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The purpose of this audit was to determine the progress the U.S. 

Coast Guard has made in implementing its Blueprint, including 

reasons for not meeting pre-established milestones. We reviewed 

internal controls pertinent to our overall objective. We analyzed 

supporting documentation for select action items implemented, 

interviewed key personnel, and observed operations for several 

management information systems. 

During our audit, we visited the U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition 

Directorate in Washington, D.C. We reviewed U.S. Coast Guard’s 

implementation of action items in the different Blueprint versions. 

�

�

�

Blueprint for Acquisition Reform, Version 2, dated July 2007 

Blueprint for Acquisition Reform, Version 3, dated July 2008 

Blueprint for Continuous Improvement, Version 4, dated July 

2009 

We selected a judgmental sample of 28 of 132 action items in the 

Blueprint based on action items in the four major areas defined by 

the GAO Framework. Of the 28 action items selected, we 

reviewed 8 that were reported closed in Version 3, 9 that should 

have been completed in Version 3 by the time of our review, and 

11 reported closed in Version 4. Our review included the 

scheduling and prioritization of action items, analysis of 

supporting documentation, and observation and testing of the 

completed action items. 

We reviewed the development and tracking of Blueprint action 

items; Major Systems Acquisition Manual updates for action items 

selected; Program and Project Manager certification for projects; 

compared and analyzed scheduled completion dates for action 

items in Blueprint Versions 2, 3, and 4 and actions taken to ensure 

that internal controls for the new organization are in place, 

monitored, and tested. 

We conducted this performance audit between July and November 

2009 under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to 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. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 


Page 8 

Commandant U.S. Department ~" 2100 Second Streel. S, W" SlOp 7245

Homeland Security Uniu,d SlalCS Coast Guard Washington, DC 20593.()1)())

SlaffSymbol:CG-823

Phone: (202) 312-3533 United Stat88 Fax: (202) 372-2311 Coast Guard

7501

APR - 7 2010

MEMORANDUM

From: T. W. JONES, CAPT /, Reply to Audit Manager,

COMDT (CG-82) Attn of: Mark Kulwicki

(202) 372-3533

To: Assistant Inspector General for Audits

Subj: RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT, "COAST GUARD'S BLUEPRINT FOR

ACQUISITION REFORM NEEDS IMPROVED OVERSIGHT'

Ref: (a) Office ofthe Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report ofMarch 2010

1. This letter transmits the Coast Guard's response to the Office ofInspector General's (OIG)

draft report findings and recommendations in reference (a).

2. Coast Guard concurs with recommendations #1 and #3, and concurs in-part with #2.

Recommendations will be addressed in the next revision ofthe Blueprint in summer 2010.

3. Ifyou have any questions, my point of contact is Mr. Mark Kulwicki at (202) 372-3533.

Alternately, our ChiefofExtemal Coordination in the Office ofBudget & Programs,

Commander Todd Offutt, can be reached at (202) 372-3535.

#

Enclosure: (1) USCG Comments

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 
 

Page 9
 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) RESPONSE

ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

lNSPEcrOR GENERAL DRAFT REPORT

TITLE: "Coast Guard's Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved

Planning and Oversight"

COAST GUARD'S GENERAL COMMENTS ON DRS OIG FINDINGS:

The Coast Guard concurs with the draft report's three recommendations and has been

working to address them in the next revision ofthe Blueprint (summer 201 0). Through

the Blueprint and complemenlary strategies. policies and processes, the Coast GWU'd is

fully committed to the evolution and correct alignment of authority and responsibility in

its acquisition enterprise. The Coast Guard looks fOlWard to continuing to refine these

efforts to ensure that they meet the expectations ofstakeholders, which includes the OiG,

Congress and others.

The Coast Guard values and recognizes that the Blueprint and its action item matrix are

constantly evolving tools for planning, executing and assessing progress in the service's

acquisition enterprise. In addition to the findings noted in the report, the Coast Guard

recommends that the OIG report acknowledge the Coast Guard has demonstrated a

commitment to oversight ofBlueprint for Continuous Improvement implementation by

developing a strategic planning process that incorporates feedback from stakeholders,

provides visibility to Coast Guard leadership and validation of action oompletion, as

shown in Appendix C ofthe subject draft report.

Recommendations

OIG RecommendatioD #1: Establish a more effective methodology for assessing

progress in implementing the Blueprintfor Acquisition Reform by measuring outcomes

and oot outputs.

USCG Response: Concur. The Coast Guard is developing a pian to implement baseline

measurements and increase effectiveness ofprocess outcome reporting. In the next

revision ofthe Blueprint, the Coast Guard will align all action items with specific goals

for the acquisition enterprise. The acquisition enterprise goals will have measurable

perfonnance objectives to provide trnceability between completion of action items and

achievement of goals. The Coast Guard is also continuing its research for additional

ways to refine how it measures action item outcomes and long term effects on the

acquisition enterprise.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 
 

Page 10
 

OIG ReeomRl~DdatioD#2: Establish priorities among the action items, identifying

interrelationships and the sequem:e for aODOfl1plishing tasks in a buikling block approach.

USCG Response: Concur in part. Action items in currmt and past editions ofthe

Blueprint arc prioritized based on due dates established during senior leadmhip

discussion sessions. In the next update to the Blueprinlfor Continuous Impro~l, the

Coast Guard will systematically prioritize action items based on established criteria.

Additionally, the Coast Guard is working 10 modify the Blucprinl action plan to bette:.-

demonstrate intc:rn:latiooships and sequencing of action items as they relate to acquisition

enterprise goals and their measurable performance objectives.

1beCoast Guard disagrees with the finding that staffmay revise action item completion

dates without evaluating the effed on other action items or the overall improvement

program. During the annual leadership discussion sessions, CG-9 Senior L.eadership,

Office and Division Chiefs, and mcmbersofthe Senior Executive Service, review each

request to change an action item completion date, including justification provided by the

action owners.

In the futu:re, the prioritization process will be systematically documented and published

10 increase transparency, including full documentation ofall changes 10 the previously

established completion dates.

OIG R«omm~lId.tioD#3: Evaluate and take corrective actions to mitigate the effed of

delayed completion of action items on acquisition reform.

USCG Response: Concur. In future editions ofthe Blueprint, the Coast Guard will

clearly prioritize and link action items to specific goal~ and mea.'1urable objectives,

enabling Coast Guard leadership and action item owners to better understand the impact

of postponing action items. Action owners will be required 10 provide a detailed impact

statement for a delayed action item to enhance transparency so Coast Guard leadership

can make informed decisions on whether 10 delay completion of an action item.

With respect to extending completion dates, the Coast Guard completed action items as

soon as practicable based on necessary coordination and collaboration with related

offices. In some cases, action could not be completed until the Mission Support

Organization, which is the acquisition enterprise's parent organization in the chain of

command, was established and labor relations negotiations were completed in June 2009.

Afterwards, the Coast Guard chartered an Executive Oversight Council to coordinate key

acquisition and financial management functions across the Mission Support Organization

llrld with other key Coast Guard stakeholders.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 
 

Page 11
 

Appendix C 

Development and Tracking of Blueprint Action Items This flowchart shows the process for the tracking and closing of action items for the Blueprint. The Coast Guard gathers suggestions from all acquisition personnel for potential action items to improve the acquisitions functions. The Office of Strategic Planning and Communications, CG-925, compiles the suggestions. Program managers review the action items for recommendation to the Commandant. After approval by the Commandant, the Coast Guard publishes the action items in the Blueprint. The Office of Strategic Planning and Communication also tracks the completion of the action items and reports progress to the Assistant Commandant for Acquisition and the Vice Commandant on a biweekly basis. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 

Source: U.S. Coast Guard 

Page 12 
Appendix D 

Prior Reports Related to Coast Guard Acquisition Reform 

Report Title Date Issued 

Contract Management: Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program 

Needs Increased Attention to Management and Contractor 

Oversight, GAO-04-380 

March 9, 2004 

Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Acquisition Schedule Update 

Needed, GAO-04-695 

June 14, 2004 

Coast Guard: Preliminary Observations on the Condition of 

Deepwater Legacy Assets and Acquisition Management 

Challenges, GAO-05-307T 

April 20, 2005 

Coast Guard: Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and 

Program Management Has Improved, but Continued Monitoring 

is Warranted, GAO-06-546 

April 28, 2006 

Improvements Needed in the U.S. Coast Guard’s Acquisition and 

Implementation Deepwater Information Technology System, 

OIG-06-55 

August 11, 2006 

Acquisition of the National Security Cutter, OIG-07-23 January 23, 2007 

110’/123’ Maritime Patrol Boat Modernization Project, 

OIG-07-27 

February 9, 2007 

Coast Guard: As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard Is 

Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying Its 

Disciplined Acquisition Approach, GAO-09-682 

July 14, 2009 

To obtain copies of GAO reports, visit www.gao.gov. 

To obtain copies of OIG reports, visit www.dhs.gov/oig. 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 


Page 13 

Appendix E 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Brooke Bebow, Director 

Carlos Berrios, Audit Manager 

Jeanette Hyatt, Auditor 

Kevin King, Auditor 

Rebecca Mogg, Program Analyst 

Lindsay Kirchoffner, Program Analyst 

James Bess, Referencer 

Lorinda Couch, Desk Officer 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 


Page 14 

Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Commandant 

Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Coast Guard’s Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Planning and Oversight 
 

Page 15
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.