Review of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation Laboratory’s 

Forensic DNA Case Backlog

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Report 10-39

August 2010
1 

Introduction

Forensic DNA casework testing involves the identification and 

evaluation of biological evidence using DNA technologies. Forensic DNA 

analysis is an important tool in law enforcement and counterterrorism 

investigations. DNA analysis can be used to implicate or eliminate a 

suspect, solve cases that had previously been thought of as unsolvable, link 

evidence from different crime scenes, or aid in the identification of victims. 

Forensic DNA can be obtained from crime scenes or evidentiary items 

such as envelopes, clothing, and drinking glasses and compared to samples 

collected from known persons in an attempt to identify a perpetrator to a 

crime. A single forensic case can contain multiple pieces of evidence, each 

of which may yield several samples. For example, in a sexual assault case, 

DNA evidence left behind by a perpetrator may be collected from the victim’s 

body, clothing, and the physical location where the assault occurred. 

In addition to collecting forensic DNA evidence from crime scenes, 

evidentiary items, or victims, DNA samples can be collected from persons 

who have been charged or convicted of certain crimes. These convicted 

offender DNA samples are uploaded into the Combined DNA Index System 

(CODIS) to be compared with DNA profiles generated from evidence 

collected from crime scenes and victims in an attempt to identify potential 

perpetrators.1

 1

 CODIS is a database of local, state, and national DNA profiles from convicted 

offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence, and missing persons. Every state has a statutory 

provision establishing a DNA database that allows for the collection of DNA profiles from 

offenders convicted of particular crimes. CODIS software enables local, state, and national 

law enforcement crime laboratories to compare DNA profiles electronically, thereby linking 

crimes to each other and identifying suspects by matching DNA profiles from crime scenes 

with profiles from convicted offenders. As of April 2010, there are over 8.5 million offender 

and forensic profiles in the National DNA Index System, which is the national database in 

CODIS.

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory (FBI Laboratory) 

conducts analyses of forensic DNA cases as well as of convicted offender 

samples. However, the FBI Laboratory has backlogs in conducting analyses 

in both areas. 
2 

The FBI Laboratory’s backlog in analyzing and uploading convicted 

offender samples is mainly caused by recent federal legislation that 

expanded the scope of DNA sample collection from violent convicted federal 

offenders to include anyone who commits a federal offense as well as nonU.S. citizens who are detained in the United States.2

 State and local forensic 

laboratories are also experiencing backlogs in analyzing and uploading 

convicted offender DNA samples. Among other measures, the backlogs at 

the state and local level have prompted the federal government to initiate 

grant programs to reduce the number of backlogged convicted offender 

samples nationwide.3

According to the FBI, at its height in 2009, the convicted offender 

sample backlog contained over 300,000 samples.4

 2

 Legislation that expanded the scope of DNA collection includes the 2001 U.S. 

Patriot Act, which added qualifying offenses to the collection of DNA samples from convicted 

offenders; The Justice for All Act of 2004, which expanded the offenses for convicted 

offenders to include any federal offense; and The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, which

directed that the Attorney General may collect DNA samples from individuals who are 

arrested or from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the 

United States.

3

 For example, the Department of Justice’s Convicted Offender DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program provided $32 million in grant funding from fiscal years 2005 to 2009 to 

help states reduce the backlog of convicted offender DNA samples. 

4

 According to the FBI, the number of convicted offender samples received rose from 

7,833 in 2004, to 73,635 in 2005, to 99,215 in 2006, to 75,294 in 2007, to 76,932 in 2008, 

and 96,973 in 2009.

 Despite the increase in 

the number of convicted offender samples that are collected, the FBI 

Laboratory has reduced the size of its convicted offender backlog by 

implementing automated processes to analyze the samples. In addition, the 

FBI stated that it was able to reduce the backlog by shifting between 5 and 9 

casework positions to address the skyrocketing convicted offender demand. 

As a result, the FBI Laboratory anticipates eliminating the convicted offender

backlog completely by September 2010. 

In contrast to the decreasing size of its convicted offender backlog, the 

FBI Laboratory’s backlog of forensic DNA cases is large and growing. 

Forensic DNA testing is more complex, time consuming, and it does not lend 

itself to the same level of automation that can be used for testing convicted 

offender samples. Because of the persistent backlog in the FBI Laboratory’s 

forensic DNA case backlog, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review to examine the Laboratory’s 

efforts to reduce its forensic DNA case backlog. Our review also examined 

the amount of time contributors wait to receive DNA test results for forensic 

DNA cases. 
3 

FBI Laboratory Forensic DNA Analysis

The FBI Laboratory plays an important role in the analysis of forensic 

DNA cases. Contributors from FBI field offices, other federal agencies, 

United States Attorney’s Offices, and state and local agencies that do not 

have a forensic laboratory in their jurisdiction send cases for forensic 

examination to the FBI Laboratory. The FBI Laboratory provides forensic 

examinations and reports, technical support, expert witness testimony, and 

training to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

The FBI Laboratory is comprised of nine caseworking units, two of 

which perform DNA analysis.5 The Nuclear DNA Unit primarily examines 

biological fluid stains, such as blood and semen, whereas the Mitochondrial 

DNA Unit tests evidence that is not suitable for nuclear DNA testing, such as 

naturally shed hairs, hair fragments, bones, and teeth. Cases within the 

Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Units are broken down into program types 

included in Exhibit 1.6

 5

 The nine caseworking units are the Nuclear DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, Trace 

Evidence, Firearms and Toolmarks, Latent Print Operations, Questioned Documents, 

Chemistry, Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records, and Explosive Units. 

6

 A nuclear DNA profile will generate a profile that identifies an individual with 

almost 100 percent accuracy, while unique identifications to an individual are not possible 

using a mitochondrial profile. Mitochondrial DNA profiles only link individuals’ maternal 

lineage.
4 

EXHIBIT 1: PROGRAM TYPE DEFINITIONS

Program Definition

Criminal Traditional FBI law enforcement jurisdiction, such as violent crime, 

public corruption, organized crime, and civil rights violations

Missing Persons Cases in which DNA profiles of missing- and unidentified-persons

remains are compared to biological relatives for identification

Indian Country

Cases consisting of evidence from federally recognized tribes, 

including death investigations, child sexual and physical abuse, 

violent felony assault, drugs and gangs, and financial crimes 

District of Columbia

Metropolitan Police 

Department (MPD)

Currently being outsourced to a private laboratory, but were 

completed by the FBI in the past

Terrorist Explosive 

Device Analytical 

Center (TEDAC)

Improvised Explosive Devices sent from warzones worldwide as a 

means to gather intelligence7

Intelligence (INTEL) Counterterrorism cases, including domestic terrorism, INTEL cases 

exclude TEDAC cases 

Source: The FBI Laboratory

The forensic DNA case backlog at the FBI Laboratory can have 

significant effects. Backlogs may delay legal proceedings that are waiting on 

the results of DNA analysis. Backlogs can also prevent the timely capture of 

criminals, prolong the incarceration of innocent people who could be 

exonerated by DNA evidence, and adversely affect families of missing 

persons waiting for positive identification of remains. Additionally, delays 

may increase the costs to contributors who must turn to private laboratories

for testing because the FBI Laboratory is not able to produce timely results. 

As detailed below, the FBI Laboratory has a significant forensic DNA 

case backlog, and the backlog is growing. During our review, we found 

issues that we believe affect the FBI Laboratory’s ability to reduce the 

backlog. Because of the importance of these problems, we are providing the 

 7

 TEDAC was conceived in response to the need to combat improvised explosive 

devices (IED) in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the FBI, the mission of TEDAC is to 

coordinate and manage the unified effort of law enforcement, intelligence, and military 

assets for the forensic and technical exploitation of IEDs of interest to the U.S. government 

worldwide, in an effort to provide actionable intelligence to the offensive missions against 

terrorism and to the Force Protection mission. For example, DNA analysis may help 

determine the source of the device. According to the FBI, TEDAC submissions to the FBI 

Laboratory’s DNA units grew from 273 in 2005 to 525 in 2009. 
5 

FBI with our findings and recommendations to help it address these findings

expeditiously.8

 8

 Because this is a technical assistance report rather than a full-scale audit report, it 

is not intended to comply with the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government 

Auditing Standards. We intend to follow up on these interim findings to assess the FBI’s 

progress in addressing the issues identified in this report.

 

OIG Results in Brief

Our review determined that as of March 2010, the FBI Laboratory had 

a backlog of 3,211 forensic DNA cases. Given the FBI Laboratory’s current 

rate of work, no new staff, and without any new cases, it would take the FBI 

Laboratory about 2 years to eliminate its existing forensic DNA case backlog. 

According to the FBI they are in the process of bringing on board 17 

additional forensic examiners; however, hiring and training the new 

personnel could take significant time (12-18 months for training personnel 

new to DNA examination) and therefore would not have a significant impact 

on the current backlog for almost two years. As of March 2010, over 2,700 

nuclear DNA cases and almost 500 mitochondrial DNA cases were 

backlogged.

In addition, quarterly backlog reports from both the Nuclear and 

Mitochondrial DNA Units of the FBI Laboratory from fiscal year (FY) 2009 

through the second quarter of FY 2010 indicate that the backlog of DNA 

casework samples is increasing, as illustrated in Exhibit 2.
6 

EXHIBIT 2: NUMBER OF CASES IN BACKLOG

BY UNIT FOR FYs 2009 – 2010 

Source: The FBI Laboratory, Nuclear (nDNA) and Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Units’ 

case management systems

We found that the backlog of cases in the Nuclear DNA Unit has grown 

by almost 40 percent (757 cases) from the first quarter of FY 2009 through 

the second quarter of FY 2010. Additionally, in the Mitochondrial DNA Unit, 

the backlog has grown by almost 130 percent (276 cases) during the same 

time period. 

As a result of the backlog, the time it takes the FBI Laboratory to 

return results to contributors is lengthy. Exhibit 3 summarizes the average 

time from case submission to the FBI Laboratory until unit results are issued 

to contributors, separated by case program type. Depending on the 

program type, the length of time for contributors to receive DNA case results 

after submission of evidence varies from approximately 150 days to over

600 days.
7 

EXHIBIT 3: FYs 2008 - 2009 AVERAGE TIME FROM EVIDENCE 

SUBMISSION UNTIL REPORT BY PROGRAM TYPE9

Source: The FBI Laboratory, Nuclear (nDNA) and Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Units’ 

case management systems

While the demand on the FBI Laboratory to conduct forensic DNA 

testing has increased substantially, the FBI Laboratory has struggled to 

increase its capacity to meet this growing demand. As part of the FBI’s 

efforts to reduce the forensic DNA case backlog and minimize workflow 

bottlenecks, the FBI Laboratory is pursuing various strategies, such as 

laboratory information management system implementation, strategic 

management, human resource, and outsourcing. However, these strategies 

are ongoing and have not yet reduced the forensic DNA case backlog at the 

FBI Laboratory.

We also determined that the absence of a modern laboratory 

information management system at the FBI Laboratory has hindered its 

ability to keep pace with the demand for its services. Since September 

2003, the FBI has spent over $10 million on developing a laboratory 

 9

 Due to the limited number of submissions, the Mitochondrial DNA Unit does not 

capture or report statistics separately for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police 

Department. These statistics are included as a part of the Criminal case statistics within the 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit.
8 

information management system.10

 10 In September 2003, the FBI awarded JusticeTrax, Inc. a contract to implement a 

laboratory information management system. In March 2006, the FBI terminated the 

contract with JusticeTrax due to the contractor’s inability to meet specific FBI security 

requirements. This resulted in an overall loss of nearly $1.2 million. In June 2005, the FBI 

Laboratory started to pursue another software package and, as of March 2010, has spent 

nearly $8.9 million on this new laboratory information management system, which is still 

under development.

 Over 6 years later, such a system is still 

under development and the FBI Laboratory is incapable of generating an 

electronic chain-of-custody document, tracking laboratory-wide evidence 

workflows, and producing laboratory-wide statistical reports to identify 

problems and delays.

In another effort to help reduce the backlog, the FBI Laboratory has 

implemented outsourcing agreements with both public and private 

laboratories. While some of the outsourcing efforts are in development, 

others have been in place for several years. However, thus far, these 

agreements have not reduced the forensic DNA backlog at the FBI 

Laboratory.

The following sections of this report provide more detail on these 

findings.
9 

FBI Laboratory Performance Statistics

When requesting forensic analysis services from the FBI Laboratory, 

contributors send cases, which are comprised of multiple pieces of evidence, 

to the FBI Laboratory’s Evidence Control Unit.

11

 11 TEDAC cases are not handled through the Evidence Control Unit; instead, they are 

delivered directly to caseworking units by TEDAC personnel.

 The Evidence Control Unit 

creates an examination plan that lists which items should be forwarded to 

which examination unit. The forensic examiner in each examination unit

determines what type of forensic testing is required for each piece of 

evidence within a case. Evidence can require testing in multiple caseworking 

units, but some pieces of evidence from a case may not require any DNA 

testing.

Evidence Control Unit personnel physically transport evidence to and 

from the caseworking units for testing and maintain a paper-based chain-ofcustody to record inter-unit exchange of evidence. Evidence sent to a DNA 

unit is tested by a unit biologist, and a unit examiner analyzes test results 

and issues a report to the case contributor.

Determining backlog statistics and tracking cases through the FBI 

Laboratory is labor intensive because the FBI’s evidence tracking system is 

not automated. To determine a DNA unit’s work distribution by program 

type, we obtained case listings from the Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA

Units. We calculated that in FYs 2008 and 2009, the Nuclear DNA Unit 

received 2,843 cases, and the Mitochondrial DNA Unit received 1,452 cases. 

The bulk of the Nuclear DNA Unit’s workload is made up of criminal cases, 

while the majority of the Mitochondrial DNA Unit’s workload is made up of 

TEDAC cases. Exhibit 4 illustrates cases the Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA

Units received for the 2-year period, broken down by program type.
10

EXHIBIT 4: CASES RECEIVED PER PROGRAM 

FOR FYs 2008 – 200912 

Source: The FBI Laboratory, Nuclear (nDNA) and Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Units’ case 

management systems

During our review, we found it difficult to generate summary statistics 

across units because the FBI Laboratory does not have a functional

laboratory information management system and no FBI Laboratory-wide 

definition of “backlog.” For example, personnel in the Mitochondrial DNA

Unit classified a backlogged case to be any case that was not currently being 

analyzed. In contrast, personnel in the Nuclear DNA Unit determined a case 

to be backlogged if the Unit had possession of evidence, but a final report 

containing the examination results was not issued to the contributor. 

Because the Nuclear DNA Unit contains the majority of the forensic DNA 

backlog at the FBI Laboratory, we adopted the Nuclear DNA Unit’s definition 

of backlog and applied it to the Mitochondrial DNA Unit. Based on this 

definition, the DNA case backlog at the FBI Laboratory as of March 2010 is 

illustrated in Exhibit 5.

 12 The Mitochondrial DNA Unit had three cases classified as both Indian Country and 

Missing Persons, and we included the three cases in Indian Country. Additionally, there was 

one case classified as Missing Persons and Intelligence, and we included this case in Missing 

Persons. As noted in footnote 9, due to the limited number of submissions, the 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit does not capture or report statistics separately for the District of 

Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. The statistics are included as a part of the 

Criminal case statistics within the Unit.
11

EXHIBIT 5: FORENSIC DNA CASE BACKLOG AT 

THE FBI LABORATORY AS OF MARCH 2010

Source: The FBI Laboratory, Nuclear (nDNA) and Mitochondrial

DNA (mtDNA) Units’ case management systems

External influences usually determine the order in which DNA cases 

are analyzed by the FBI Laboratory. For example, upcoming trial dates are 

the primary influence on case completion. Other considerations include FBI 

initiatives, the FBI Director’s priorities, and media attention on a case.13

 13 The FBI Director's priorities include counter-terrorism, intelligence, cyberbased/high technology crimes, public corruption, civil rights, major white-collar crimes, and 

significant violent crime.

 

However, because the Nuclear DNA Unit has 10 to 15 cases with 

approaching trial dates at all times, it is difficult for the Unit to work on 

cases that are not driven by trial dates. 

As illustrated in Exhibit 6, the backlog in each unit varies by program 

type. 
12

EXHIBIT 6: FORENSIC DNA CASE BACKLOG 

BY PROGRAM TYPE AS OF APRIL 201014

Source: The FBI Laboratory, Nuclear (nDNA) and Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Units’ case 

management systems

 

Exhibit 6 shows that the Nuclear DNA Unit’s Missing Persons cases are 

the largest portion of the backlog, with 1,147 cases or 42 percent of its 

backlog. According to FBI Laboratory personnel, Missing Persons cases often 

lack a trial date and a suspect, which are driving factors in case 

prioritization. As a result, these cases are often not a high priority. In the 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit, TEDAC cases comprise the majority of its 

backlogged cases, totaling 324 cases or 66 percent of its backlog.

Another troubling aspect of the backlog is the length of time 

contributors have to wait for results. A strategic initiative of the FBI 

Laboratory is to reduce the turnaround time for DNA analysis in each unit to 

60 days, and also to reduce the FBI Laboratory’s forensic casework backlog. 

We calculated, by program type, the average number of days from when 

evidence arrived at the FBI Laboratory to its acceptance at the DNA units 

and the average amount of time it spent in the DNA units. Exhibit 7 

 14 The Nuclear DNA Unit provided us with a backlog breakdown by program based 

on April 2, 2010, backlog information. At that time, the number of cases in the backlog had 

increased by 9 cases in comparison to the FY 2010 second quarter backlog statistics. The 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit provided us with a backlog breakdown by program based on 

April 22, 2010, backlog information. At that time, the number of cases in the backlog 

remained the same in comparison to the FY 2010 second quarter backlog statistics. 
13

provides the results of those calculations. On average, only two programs in 

the Mitochondrial DNA Unit met the target 60-day processing time. No 

programs in the Nuclear DNA Unit met the target. Notably, Missing Persons 

cases on average take 635 days for contributors to receive results from the 

Nuclear DNA Unit, and about half of that time was spent in the Evidence 

Control Unit or other caseworking units.

EXHIBIT 7: AVERAGE TURNAROUND TIME FOR REPORTED CASES BY 

PROGRAM TYPE IN THE DNA UNITS FOR FYs 2008 – 2009

Source: The FBI Laboratory, Nuclear (nDNA) and Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Units’ case 

management systems 
14

Besides the target of 60 days, TEDAC has its own prioritization system, 

and codes cases as red (high priority), amber (medium priority), or green 

(low priority). TEDAC sets the due date for DNA analysis based on that 

priority at 5, 30, or 120 days, respectively. According to the FBI, the 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit has met the priority red and amber turnaround times 

in FY 2009. However, we determined that TEDAC cases, on average, take 

268 days in the Nuclear DNA Unit and 167 days in the Mitochondrial DNA

Unit, not including the time spent in other caseworking units.

According to FBI Laboratory personnel, Indian Country cases are 

expected to have examination reports issued within 90 days. We found that 

Indian Country cases on average take 163 days for the Nuclear DNA Unit 

and 54 days for the Mitochondrial DNA Unit to complete.

As noted above, backlogged cases can have significant impacts. For 

example, delays at the FBI Laboratory can extend the time it takes to link a 

perpetrator to a crime, free innocent persons from incarceration, or identify

the remains of a missing person. Untimely analysis of TEDAC submissions of 

improvised explosive devices could also affect the prevention of future 

terrorist attacks by delaying efforts to identify the maker of the improvised 

explosive device or the source of its components. 

In addition, the timeliness of DNA analysis has an effect on victims’ 

families. For example, in one Missing Persons case, the remains of two 

children were found and preliminarily identified based on age and clothing 

recognition. To issue death certificates, DNA analysis confirming the identity 

of the victims was necessary. However, it took the FBI Laboratory more 

than 3 months to complete the testing for a positive match. The mother of 

the deceased children called the contributor daily for notification on the 

progress of the testing. The contributor could not provide a positive match 

until the DNA analysis was completed. 

As noted above, the prioritization of casework has left Missing Persons 

cases at the bottom of the FBI Laboratory’s forensic DNA case backlog. As a 

result, Missing Persons cases comprise 42 percent of the Nuclear DNA Unit 

backlog and 19 percent of the Mitochondrial DNA Unit backlog, including 

cases dating back to 2001. Although the conventional approach to locating 

a missing person is to initiate a criminal investigation into the

disappearance, in many cases the investigation begins at a different point— 

when human remains are found. The FBI Laboratory’s low prioritization of 

these cases can have a broader effect because many missing persons are 

victims of homicide. Therefore, even if a perpetrator is not identified, DNA 

profiles from crime scenes could be uploaded and potentially linked to each 

other in CODIS, thereby aiding homicide investigations and potentially 
15

leading to the identification of a suspect. Delays in the analysis process can 

delay these efforts. 

The timeliness of the DNA analysis results also has a financial impact 

on contributors. In one example, the FBI Laboratory was not able to analyze 

DNA evidence in time for a trial date scheduled in 60 days. The FBI 

Laboratory informed the FBI field office that contributed the case that the 

earliest the DNA test results would be ready was within 90 days. Because of 

the Speedy Trial Act and necessity of the DNA test results, the contributor 

had to pay a private laboratory several thousand dollars to analyze the test 

results in time for the trial.

The FBI Laboratory’s Efforts to Reduce the Backlog

Our review found that the FBI Laboratory is making various efforts to 

attempt to address its forensic DNA backlog, including laboratory information 

management system implementation, strategic management, human 

resource initiatives, and outsourcing strategies. We examine these efforts in 

the following sections. 

Laboratory Information Management System

Within the DNA units there are distinct evidence and process tracking 

systems. However, the FBI Laboratory does not have a laboratory 

information management system with the capability to generate statistical 

reports to help manage laboratory operations, such as the length of time it 

takes to examine evidence or where delays are occurring. Therefore, the 

FBI Laboratory cannot electronically determine where the DNA evidence is 

located during the examination process and what work remains to be 

completed within the units. 

A laboratory information management system can provide many useful 

functions, including the ability to track evidence throughout the analysis 

process; Internet capabilities that allow external agencies to review and 

request information about evidence they have submitted; extensive 

reporting, workload analysis, and responses to ad-hoc queries; on-line help; 

and data searching. Because of the absence of an automated system, the 

FBI Laboratory’s Evidence Control Unit uses a paper-based chain-of-custody 

document that tracks the flow of evidence throughout the FBI Laboratory. 

The accuracy of a chain-of-custody document is vital when presenting DNA 

evidence in court and an automated system could result in improved forensic 

evidence control. 
16

Since September 2003, the FBI has spent over $10 million in pursuit of 

a laboratory information management system. Initially, the FBI awarded a 

contract to JusticeTrax, Inc. to implement a commercial-off-the-shelf 

system. In March 2006, the FBI terminated the contract with JusticeTrax, 

Inc. because the contractor could not meet specific FBI security 

requirements. This resulted in a loss of nearly $1.2 million in wasted 

development costs.15

In September 2005, before the contract for JusticeTrax, Inc., was fully 

terminated, the FBI Laboratory transferred to the Office of the Chief 

Information Officer (OCIO) $1 million earmarked for the development of 

INNOVARi. The OCIO used these funds to purchase licenses for an FBI-wide 

enterprise software to support the INNOVARi project.

 

Following the failed attempt to implement a commercial-off-the-shelf

system, the FBI Laboratory decided to develop its own laboratory 

information management system. As of March 2010, nearly $8.9 million has 

been spent on the successor system being developed by the FBI Laboratory,

known as INNOVARi. 

16

The OCIO exercised an existing Intergovernmental Agreement to 

deliver INNOVARi development support services through which the OCIO and 

the FBI Laboratory collectively spent over $5 million. The work was 

ultimately sub-contracted to Sapient to provide these services to the FBI 

Laboratory.

 The OCIO acquired 

software support services for the FBI Laboratory and agreed to provide the 

interface, known as an information portal, necessary for FBI Laboratory 

employees to access INNOVARi.

17

Testing for the pilot phase of INNOVARi began in September 2006 in 

the FBI Laboratory’s Trace Evidence and Evidence Control Units. An FBI 

Laboratory employee told us that the initial information portal used during 

the pilot phase was not acceptable and had numerous security issues that 

 

 15 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General audit report entitled, 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Implementation of the Laboratory Information 

Management System, Audit Report 06-33 (June 2006), i. 

16 The OCIO purchased licenses for a Business Process Management software that 

can be used in many business environments. According to FBI Laboratory personnel, this 

software was used by other FBI divisions to simplify workflows and business processes 

unique to each division within which it was implemented. 

17 Sapient was contracted to provide consulting services to develop the INNOVARi 

system. The OCIO contracted with Northrop Grumman to develop and maintain the 

information portal for which INNOVARi was to interface.
17

could not be resolved. For example, during pilot testing the FBI Laboratory

discovered that the OCIO-maintained information portal allowed anyone with 

access to the system the ability to create a new case file, a duty which could 

be outside of a user’s scope of work. Ultimately, because of these security 

issues the implementation of INNOVARi has been delayed. 

In addition, further delays were caused by coordination issues within 

the FBI. According to FBI correspondence, the lack of coordination at FBI 

Headquarters resulted in 39 weeks of project delays. As a result, four of the 

six Sapient team members supporting the INNOVARi effort, including 

Sapient’s Project Lead and Chief Architect, were assigned to other federal 

government projects. These coordination issues postponed development, 

testing, and integration of INNOVARi.

FBI Laboratory personnel told us that they believed that Sapient has, 

to date, fully met the obligations detailed in its contract with the FBI 

Laboratory and that INNOVARi was scheduled to be implemented in the 

Evidence Control Unit by June 2010. According to FBI Laboratory personnel, 

INNOVARi will allow the Evidence Control Unit to barcode all evidence 

received by contributors and maintain its chain-of-custody document 

electronically.

However, the FBI has not met this projected schedule because the new 

information portal, currently managed by the Information Technology 

Services Division, only recently received a 180-day security accreditation, 

and FBI Laboratory personnel will not allow the information portal to host 

INNOVARi until the portal receives a permanent authority to operate. 

In addition, FBI Laboratory DNA forensic specialists expressed concern 

that because INNOVARi is not a commercial-off-the-shelf laboratory 

information management system, it will never be fully capable of capturing 

the workflows of distinct forensic units. Until the new information portal is

implemented, the FBI Laboratory cannot ensure the functionality of 

INNOVARi to the FBI Laboratory users. A key member of the INNOVARi 

project implementation team informed the OIG that if the FBI Laboratory

was to abandon INNOVARi in lieu of a commercial-off-the-shelf system, the 

new system would face the same information portal difficulties that have 

prevented the timely implementation of INNOVARi. 

Through our discussions with personnel at the FBI Laboratory and the 

Information Technology Operations Division, and our review of pertinent 

correspondence and agreements, we concluded that the laboratory 

information management system implementation project does not appear to 

have been managed effectively. As of March 2010, the FBI has spent nearly
18

$8.9 million and almost 5 years in its attempts to implement INNOVARi. 

Although we have seen some improvement in the project’s status, INNOVARi 

has experienced numerous problems, including stop-work delays, 

information portal deficiencies, failures during pilot testing, disagreements 

between the FBI Laboratory and the OCIO, and claims that a contractor 

supporting a portion of the information portal project was not providing an 

adequate level of customer support. We believe the project has reached a 

critical phase, and we are concerned that the project could fail or be 

terminated, only to start over again. 

The FBI Laboratory’s Strategy Management System

The FBI has implemented a bureau-wide Strategy Management 

System to guide strategy development and decision-making processes 

regarding its national security and criminal missions. An effective Strategy 

Management System provides a set of measures to monitor strategic 

performance, creates a vehicle to assign accountability for specific 

performance objectives and measures, and enables more objective and 

strategic resource allocation decisions.

Within the past year, the FBI Laboratory has implemented its strategic 

plan for achieving goals and allocating resources in line with the FBI’s 

Strategy Management System. As part of its strategic plan, the FBI 

Laboratory is seeking to reduce backlogs and turnaround times for all 

submitted cases by compiling best practices from other government entities, 

gathering statistics on examiners’ time spent away from casework duties, 

reviewing case acceptance policies, and exploring options for the 

development of a laboratory information management system. We plan to 

monitor how this assists the FBI Laboratory in reducing backlogs and 

turnaround times.

Although the FBI Laboratory reports to the Science and Technology 

Branch, the FBI Laboratory developed its strategy before the Science and 

Technology Branch’s Strategy was created. Because the FBI Laboratory’s 

strategy was created first, the FBI Laboratory is now trying to align its goals 

with the goals of the Science and Technology Branch. For example, in April

2010, the FBI Laboratory began reporting Strategy Management System

progress on a quarterly basis to the Science and Technology Branch. 

However, the FBI Laboratory’s ability to produce and report relevant data is 

limited because it does not have a laboratory information management 

system and cannot generate statistics throughout the FBI Laboratory. 

Instead, the FBI Laboratory has to compile piecemeal statistics based on 

records maintained in each caseworking unit.
19

We also noted that the FBI Laboratory’s reporting requirements to the 

Science and Technology Branch had to be tailored to reflect the information 

that the FBI Laboratory was able to generate. For example, the FBI 

Laboratory could not provide statistics on average casework processing time 

that the Science and Technology Branch requested. Instead, the FBI 

Laboratory provided the “Number of Forensic Transactions Completed.” This 

creates an information gap, which may hinder the FBI in making informed 

decisions regarding resource allocation and future strategic planning.

Additionally, we observed that there is no standard reporting criteria 

for the FBI Laboratory’s Strategic Management System quarterly reports,

and definitions of its performance metrics have not been explicitly shared 

among the units gathering statistics. Without this shared understanding of 

reporting requirements, we are concerned that the FBI Laboratory’s 

workload reports to the Science and Technology Branch will be inconsistent. 

The FBI Laboratory’s Human Resource Management

According to the FBI, additional staff with the expertise to perform 

DNA analysis would assist in reducing the backlog.18

 18 The FBI stated that since 2004 it has requested almost $120 million for DNA 

analysis and almost $260 million for TEDAC, but only half of the DNA and 2 percent of the 

TEDAC resources have been included within prior administration budgets. 

 The FBI reports that 

the Nuclear DNA Unit has 21 funded examiner positions, and is in the 

process of bringing on board additional forensic examiners. Of the 21 

examiner positions, 9 are on-board qualified examiners, 8 are examiners-intraining, and 4 are examiner candidates undergoing background 

investigations. New hires are required to undergo a background 

investigation in addition to completing a 12 - 18 month training program 

before they can conduct casework. This puts a strain on existing forensic 

examiner resources because current on-board examiners conduct the 

training, taking time away from casework. 

According to the FBI, less than 50 percent of a Nuclear DNA 

examiner’s time is spent on analyzing DNA evidence. We found that the

balance of their time is spent performing supervisory and managerial tasks, 

making phone calls to contributors to obtain case specific information and to 

provide status updates; testifying in court; and providing DNA training to 

other federal components. 

However, because examiners did not record their time before July 

2009, and their current, informal method for tracking time does not quantify 

the amount of time spent on casework, we cannot independently determine

the amount of time that examiners spend on casework or their other duties.
20

Without formal time tracking procedures, FBI Laboratory managers do 

not know how examiners are spending their time and where there could be 

areas for efficiency improvements. After our inquiries on this issue, the FBI 

Laboratory agreed with the need to implement formalized procedures to 

track time to better gauge what percentage of time is spent on actual 

casework. 

The FBI’s Outsourcing Efforts

To help reduce the forensic DNA case backlog, the FBI has 

implemented several outsourcing agreements with both public and private 

laboratories. The FBI has current and planned outsourcing agreements with 

the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, and for the Missing 

Persons, Indian Country, and TEDAC programs.

In 2004, the FBI Laboratory signed an agreement with the District of 

Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to provide laboratory facilities and 

services and to help the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

establish its own forensic DNA analysis capabilities. However, because of 

space constraints at the FBI Laboratory, the District of Columbia 

Metropolitan Police Department (Metropolitan Police Department) and the 

FBI Laboratory agreed in September 2008 to outsource police cases to a 

private laboratory for testing. Based on this agreement, the Metropolitan 

Police Department will reimburse the FBI up to $4 million for the FBI 

Laboratory to assist it with forensic examiner training and forensic testing of 

material connected with criminal cases.

To obtain DNA analysis, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police 

Department sends a request to the FBI Laboratory Nuclear DNA Unit to 

create a new case. The Nuclear DNA Unit considers these cases as a part of 

the Nuclear DNA backlog, although the Police Department physically 

maintains the forensic evidence at its facility. According to FBI Laboratory

personnel, the Metropolitan Police Department cannot locate evidence for 

over 200 cases, which comprises almost half of the backlogged Police 

Department cases. As a result, the Nuclear DNA Unit has instructed the 

Metropolitan Police Department to ensure that future evidence has been 

located and prepared prior to submission of an exam request. 
21

In addition to the agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department, 

the FBI Laboratory also has cooperative agreements with three regional 

forensic laboratories to provide mitochondrial DNA analysis to other federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies.19 As part of these outsourcing 

agreements, the FBI reimburses each of the partner laboratories for 

expenses related to mitochondrial DNA analysis, including salaries. Each 

laboratory is projected to complete 120 mitochondrial DNA cases a year. 

These cases are sent directly to the partner laboratories from law 

enforcement contributors and are tracked by the FBI Laboratory.20

 19 The FBI Laboratory had regional forensic laboratory agreements with the Arizona 

Department of Public Safety, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, the Connecticut 

Department of Public Safety, and the New Jersey Department of Public Safety. At the end 

of FY 2009, the FBI Laboratory and the Connecticut Department of Public Safety ended their 

agreement.

20 Our analysis of the FBI Laboratory’s Mitochondrial DNA Unit’s backlog did not 

include backlog statistics from the partner laboratories because these cases are sent directly 

to the partner laboratories.

 

According to FBI Laboratory personnel, the FBI Laboratory has decided to 

pursue a similar outsourcing agreement for testing of nuclear DNA Missing 

Persons case evidence.

According to the FBI, the regional mitochondrial DNA outsourcing 

program contributed to a decrease in the FBI Laboratory’s mitochondrial 

DNA backlog from 678 cases at the end of FY 2006 to 255 cases at the end 

of FY 2008. This outsourcing program has relieved the Mitochondrial DNA 

Unit from processing new cases that were sent to these regional 

laboratories. However, we found that from FY 2009 through March 2010, 

the backlog has increased to 489 cases. FBI Laboratory personnel informed 

us that because of the unexpected volume of TEDAC submissions, the 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit at the FBI Laboratory workload has increased 

significantly.

In addition to the outsourcing efforts described above, the FBI has 

discussed outsourcing plans for Indian Country and TEDAC cases. Because 

of the long turnaround times for Indian Country cases, which as discussed 

above average 163 days in the Nuclear DNA Unit and 54 days for the 

Mitochondrial DNA Unit, contributors have sought to develop an agreement 

that will allow them to directly submit Indian Country case evidence to 

partner public laboratories and the FBI would reimburse these laboratories 

for the cost of DNA analysis. 
22

As of April 2010, TEDAC is seeking to either outsource high priority 

cases from the FBI Laboratory or create a permanent, TEDAC-specific 

laboratory. An FBI Laboratory official told us that TEDAC operations take up 

considerable storage space at the FBI Laboratory. The official expressed 

concern that if another catastrophe, similar to the events of 

September 11, 2001, were to occur, the FBI Laboratory would not have 

adequate space to safely store and manage evidence from such an event. 

Conclusion

The FBI Laboratory’s forensic DNA analysis units have a significant 

backlog, with over 3,200 backlogged cases awaiting DNA analysis as of 

March 2010, and this backlog is growing. Since October 2008 the backlog of 

forensic DNA cases has increased in the Nuclear DNA Unit by almost 

40 percent and in the Mitochondrial DNA Unit by almost 130 percent. At the 

current rate of work, the forensic DNA case backlog would require about

2 years to complete, even without the addition of any new cases.

Missing Persons cases composed the highest number of backlogged 

cases, with 1,241 cases or 39 percent of the forensic DNA case backlog as of 

April 2010. Additionally, the backlog contained 770 Criminal cases, 457 

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department cases, 391 TEDAC 

cases, 223 Indian Country cases, and 138 Intelligence cases.

The average time that it takes the FBI Laboratory to provide DNA 

testing results to contributors is lengthy, ranging from approximately 

150 days to over 600 days. On average, two programs in the Mitochondrial 

DNA Unit provided DNA test results within 60 days to contributors, while 

none of the Nuclear DNA Unit programs provided test results in this 

timeframe. Missing Persons cases on average take 635 days for contributors 

to receive results from the Nuclear DNA Unit. This backlog can have 

significant consequences for the FBI’s law enforcement and counterterrorism 

efforts. For example, the forensic DNA case backlog can extend the time it 

takes to link a perpetrator to a crime, free innocent persons from

incarceration, or identify the remains of a missing person. Untimely analysis 

of TEDAC submissions of improvised explosive devices could also affect the 

prevention of future terrorist attacks by delaying efforts to identify the 

maker of the improvised explosive device or the source of its components. 

According to the FBI, additional staffing with the expertise to perform 

DNA analysis would assist in reducing the backlog, and the FBI Laboratory is 

pursuing various strategies to help reduce the forensic DNA case backlog. 

However, the FBI Laboratory still has not been able to implement an 

automated laboratory information management system. Since September 
23

2005, the FBI Laboratory has spent nearly $8.9 million developing INNOVARi 

as such a system, and according to FBI Laboratory personnel, the 

implementation of INNOVARi has experienced significant delays as the result 

of information portal deficiencies. We are also concerned that INNOVARi 

may experience unforeseen operational problems once the current 

information portal receives permanent authority to operate or that the 

project may be terminated, only to start over again. 

While the FBI Laboratory has implemented several outsourcing 

agreements with both public and private laboratories, we also have concerns 

whether these efforts will significantly contribute to a decrease in the FBI 

Laboratory’s forensic DNA case backlog.

Recommendations

The FBI Laboratory is undertaking several strategies to support case 

contributors and reduce its DNA backlog in forensic casework. However, 

because of the significance of the issues we found, we are making five

recommendations to help improve FBI Laboratory operations: 

1. Standardize FBI Laboratory-wide definitions for calculating backlog 

within caseworking units.

2. Ensure the availability of an information portal that has received 

permanent authority to operate for FBI Laboratory users to access a 

laboratory information management system.

3. Establish formal time tracking procedures and definitions in the FBI 

Laboratory to accurately capture time spent conducting forensic DNA 

casework.

4. Coordinate with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police 

Department to resolve the more than 200 instances of missing case 

evidence.

5. Examine the effect of outsourcing agreements on the overall DNA 

forensic casework backlog and the time contributors wait for test 

results. 
APPENDIX I 

FBI RESPONSE TO OIG TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

24
 

u.s. Department of Justice 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Washington, D. C. :20.';:]5-000 1 

July 28, 20 10 

Cynthia A. Schnedar 

Deputy Inspector General 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Dear Ms. Schnedar: 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the opportunity to review 

and respond to your draft audit interim technical assistance report entitled, "Review of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory's Forensic DNA Case Backlog" (hereinafter 

"Report"). 

We are pleased the Report acknowledges the FBI's work on the convicted 

offender backlog. The FBI has in eight months nearly cut in half the convicted offender backlog 

from its December 2009 peak of 312,000 samples to a current backlog of approximately 165,000 

samples. We are on track to eliminate that remaining backlog entirely by September oftrus year. 

As we reported to you, the FBI shifted vital Laboratory resources from casework to address the 

massive growth of convicted otlender samples following legislative changes in 200 1,2004, and 

2005. This shift of resources, combined with other Laboratory initiatives, enabled the FBI to 

address the backlog created by skyrocketing demand. 

The shift in resources to the convicted offender backlog took resources away from 

DNA forensic casework. That loss of resources coincided with new demands on DNA forensic 

caseworkers. The Laboratory has taken on significant new DNA casework in the last several 

years. First, as described in your Report, the FBI works with the Terrorist Explosive Device 

Analytical Center (TEDAC) to provide forensic and technical exploitation of Improvised 

Explosive Devices (IEDs) collected from war zones as a means to gather intelligence. TEDAC 

was established in 2003, and annual TEDAC submissions to the Laboratory's DNA units 

doubled between 2005 and 2009. Second, in 2000, the FBI established a Missing Persons 

program. Standing alone, the Missing Persons program now accounts for approximately 1,241 

cases in the Laboratory's DNA casework backlog. 

Significant portions of the FBI's requests for additional DNA resources were 

rejected during that same period of time. As noted in your Report, since 2004, the FBI has 

requested almost $120 million for DNA analysis and almost $260 million for TEDAC, but only 

half of the DNA and two percent of the TEDAC resources have been included within prior 

administration budgets. In addition, during the same period oftime, the FBI made recurring 

requests for additional DNA personneL Cumulatively, the FBI requested 149 more DNA 

positions than it received. The FBI believes that our backlog numbers could be significantly 

lower had resources kept pace with the escalating submissions. Nevertheless, as you know, we 

have pursued other strategies to address the growing number of case submissions and we are 
making progress on the backlog: over the last five months, the backlog of nuclear DNA cases has 

dropped. 

The FBI looks forward to the continuation of this audit and its fuller accounting of 

the resource issues that affected our ability to address the growing number of casc submissions. 

The auditing team has not yet conducted interviews at TEDAC or of the FBI Lab's Assistant 

Director, which the FBI views as imperative to obtain a full understanding of these issues. 

In conclusion, based upon a review of the Report, the FBI concurs with the five 

interim recommendations directed to the FBI. The FBI appreciates the professionalism exhibited 

by your staff to complete this interim Report. Enelosed herein are the FBI's responses to the 

recommendations. Please feel free to contact me at 202-324-2901 should you have any questions 

or need further infonnation. 

Sincerely yours, 

y~Amy Jo Lyons ~ Assistant Director 

Inspection Division 

Enclosure 

2 

25
 
OIG Audit of FBI's Forensic DNA Sampling Backlog 

Responses to Recommendations 

I. Standardize FBI Laboratory-wide definitions for calculating backlog withi" 

caseworkil'g ullits. 

Concur. The FBI Laboratory Division (Lab) will standardize FBI Laboratorywide definitions for calculating backlog within caseworking units. Currently, the Lab 

incl udes in a backlog count all cases pending completion at the Lab. The Lab will 

consider alternate definitions of backlog to allow for program-specific analysis time 

considerations and customer requirements. 

1. Ensure the availability of all ill/ormation portalJor FB} Laboratory IIsers to access 

a laboratory ill/ormation management system. 

Concur. Effective 6/3/2010, the FBI's Security Division (SeeD) granted an 

Authority to Operate for VIDAR for a period of 180 days. VIDAR hosts three tools: 1) 

the Infonnation Portal; 2) INNOV ARi; and 3) Collaboration. To ensure the availability 

of the Infonnation Portal, SeeD has also established a Plan of Action and Milestone 

(POA&M) list to mitigate the existing Operational and Technical Control vulnerabilities. 

Each month, SecD updates the POA&M "work-off' dates to indicate a Target Date for 

compl etion. (Sec Secret document attached to these responses.) 

In addition, the FBI Lab has funded the acquisition of hardware and software that 

has been installed by the Operational Technology Division (OTO) in Quantico during 

2010 at their faci lity. This has permitted the Lab to currently have an instance of the 

TNNOV ARi application operatin g on the Quantico-based environment to support user 

acceptance testing and training. The Quantico-based environment is undergoing its own 

certification and accreditation process, which is being overseen by OTD, and would have 

the capability of accommodating a production environment in the future ifrequired by 

the Lab. [fa Quantico-based environment is used in the future as the production 

environment for the Lab's information management system, then the use of an enterprise 

Infonnation Portal would not be required to access the system. 

Lastly, the FBI Assistant Director responsible for the Lab has recently initiated a 

comprehensive review to detennine laboratory information needs. Depending on the 

outcome of this review, the Infonnation Portal needs of the Lab could change. 

3. Establish formal time tracking procedures and defim'tions ill the FBI Laboratory 10 

accurately capture lime spelll COlldliclit'g/orelJsic DNA casework. 

Concur. The Nuclear DNA Unit (nDNAU) has purchased Easy Projects.Net. 

This Commercial-off-the-Shelf product is a proj ect management, task, and time tracking 

software tool. The nDNAU will host EasyProjects.Net on its DNA Local Area Network 

to manage its resource allocation and to centralize its program management. Easy 

Projects.Net will enabl e the nDNAU to track the time Forensic Examiners spend 

1 

26
 
perfonning forensic case work and other tasks. The unit's managers will use Easy 

Project.Net's project management feature to assign and define tasks as well as track the 

progress of individual projects. 

tn the near future, the Mitochondrial DNA Unit wi ll implement the same proj ect 

management, task. and time tracking software tool. 

4. Coordinate with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to resolve 

the more thall 200 instances of missing e"idellce. 

Concur. In early 20 1 0, a Lab review of the Distri ct of Columbia Metropolitan Police 

Department (MPD) cases identified case req uests that had been forwarded to the FBt 

Laboratory. but that had not yet been entered into the unit's Case Manangcment system. 

MPD had earlier estimated that there were ;'more than 200," but the FBI's review with 

them identified 160. These requests were originally submitted to register them for 

serological and nuclear DNA analysis under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between MPD and the FBI; however, because MPD had not yet submitted 

evidence, they remained inactive. The nDNAU has worked with MPD to review these 

160 cases and MPD has confirmed that it is not able to forward evidence for testing at 

this time. These cases have been closed by the nDNAU and removed from its active 

casework inventory. The closure of these cases docs not preclude M.PD from submitting 

evidence in these matters through subsequent examination requests for potential future 

anal ysis under the terms of the MOA. The FBI requests that this recommendation be 

closed. 

5. Examine the effect of outsourcing agreemellls on the overall DNA forensic 

casework backlog and the time contributors ",aitfor test results. 

Concur. The effects on the DNA casework backlog will be monitored for the fo llowing 

outsourcing agreements. 

• Cooperati ve Agreement with Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Bureau of 

Criminal Apprehension 

• Memorandum of Agreement with the Washington, DC's Metropolitan Police 

Department 

• Cooperative Agreement with three Regional Mitochondrial DNA Laboratories 

2 

27
 
28

APPENDIX II

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO 

CLOSE THE REPORT

The OIG provided a draft of this technical assistance report to the FBI. 

The FBI response is incorporated in Appendix I. The following provides the 

OIG analysis of the response and summary of actions necessary to close the 

report.

The FBI stated in its response that over the last 5 months, the backlog 

of nuclear DNA cases has decreased. During our review which ended in 

April 2010, we report there has been a steady increase in the Nuclear DNA 

Unit’s case backlog since October 2008. Backlog numbers can fluctuate from 

month to month. We believe that our long-term trend calculations of the 

Nuclear DNA Unit’s backlog present a more accurate picture of the backlog 

than short-term calculations.

Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report

1. Resolved. The FBI concurred with our recommendation to standardize 

FBI Laboratory-wide definitions for calculating backlog within 

caseworking units. This recommendation can be closed when we receive

evidence that the FBI Laboratory has established a uniform definition of 

backlog in caseworking units to be used when calculating and reporting 

performance statistics. Additionally, please provide clarification as to 

why alternate definitions of backlog are necessary to allow for programspecific analysis time considerations and customer requirements. 

2. Resolved. The FBI concurred with our recommendation to ensure the 

availability of an information portal that has received permanent 

authority to operate for FBI Laboratory users to access a laboratory 

information management system. This recommendation can be closed 

when we receive evidence that full security accreditation and a 

permanent authority to operate has been granted to an information 

portal through which the FBI Laboratory can deliver INNOVARi to its 

users. If the review initiated by the Assistant Director produces a 

decision that would lead the FBI Laboratory to abandon the INNOVARi 

project, please provide us with evidence of this review and a plan 

detailing alternative options to provide the FBI Laboratory with a 

laboratory information management system in a timely manner.
29

3. Resolved. The FBI concurred with our recommendation to establish 

formal time tracking procedures and definitions in the FBI Laboratory to 

accurately capture time spent conducting forensic DNA casework. This 

recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that the 

Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Units are using this project management, 

task, and time-tracking software tool to capture unit hours spent on 

casework and other duties.

4. Resolved. The FBI concurred with our recommendation to coordinate 

with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to resolve 

the over 200 instances of missing case evidence. This recommendation 

can be closed when we receive evidence of the FBI Laboratory’s review 

of the Metropolitan Police Department’s case requests and the 

documentation and justification for the removal of the 160 cases from 

the Nuclear DNA Unit’s active case inventory.

5. Resolved. The FBI concurred with our recommendation to examine the 

effect of outsourcing agreements on the overall DNA forensic casework 

backlog and the time contributors wait for test results. This 

recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation outlining 

the FBI Laboratory’s specific monitoring plans for all outsourcing 

agreements including what data they will be monitoring and how often,

as well as how the data will be used to gauge performance.