Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Department of Homeland Security's Acquisition Data 


Management Systems 


OIG-10-42 January 2010 
 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 

 January 25, 2010 

Preface 

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

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. 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 strengths and weaknesses of the department’s acquisition data 

management and reporting practices. It 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. 

Richard L. Skinner 


Inspector General 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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

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

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

Inaccurate and Incomplete DHS Acquisition Data........................................................3 


Recommendations........................................................................................................10 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................11 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................13 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.......................................15 


Appendix C: Summary of FPDS-NG Discrepancies.................................................23 


Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report........................................................24 


Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................25 


Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 


FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 


FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 


FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 


FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation 


GAO Government Accountability Office 


ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 


OCPO Office of Chief Procurement Officer 


OIG Office of Inspector General 


OMB Office of Management and Budget 


OPO Office of Procurement Operations 


TSA Transportation Security Administration 


USSS United States Secret Service 

OIG
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

Collecting and reporting data about government procurements 

provides assurance that federal acquisitions are awarded and 

distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable manner. Our objective 

was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland 

Security’s internal controls for managing and reporting acquisition 

data. 

The Department of Homeland Security did not always report 

complete and accurate acquisition data in the Federal Procurement 

Data System-Next Generation, which is used to create recurring 

and special reports to the President, Congress, the general public, 

and others. Our review of 180 sampled contract files revealed a 

94.5% accuracy rate. For 464 of 8,460 (5.5%) data fields 

reviewed, procurement file documentation did not match the 

information reported in the Federal Procurement Data SystemNext Generation. For example, these discrepancies included 24 

instances where the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation had an incorrect zip code listed for the principal place 

of performance. Zip code information is used to populate 

government reports showing the state, city, county and 

congressional district where the federal funds are being spent. 

We attribute these discrepancies to human errors, the department’s 

lack of management controls, and user limitations with the Federal 

Procurement Data System-Next Generation’s auto-populated field 

elements. Additionally, there were 12 contract files valued at more 

than $31 million that could not be located by acquisition personnel, 

preventing us from assessing the accuracy of those contracts. As a 

result, the department may be reporting inaccurate acquisitions 

data and not providing the public with full transparency and 

accountability on some government activities. 

We are making three recommendations in this report regarding the 

need for better guidance and increased accountability to ensure the 

integrity of reported acquisition data. The department’s Acting 

Chief Procurement Officer concurred with the recommendations 

and provided information on plans and actions to strengthen 

policies, procedures, and controls for reporting acquisition data. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 1 
Background 

Collecting and reporting data about government procurements 

provides assurance that federal acquisitions are awarded and 

distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable manner. These 

acquisitions must be transparent to the public, and reported clearly, 

accurately, and in a timely manner. The government must 

demonstrate that funds are used for authorized purposes and that 

steps are taken to prevent instances of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Complete and accurate acquisitions data is important to ensure 

programs meet specific procurement performance goals and 

targets. 

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy within the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) plays a central role in developing 

the policies and practices that federal agencies use to acquire the 

goods and services they need to carry out their responsibilities. 

This office employs several tools to collect, develop, and 

disseminate government-wide procurement data for use by federal 

agencies and the general public. The most significant tool federal 

agencies use is the Federal Procurement Data System-Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG), which captures numerous elements of 

procurement performance. 

FPDS-NG contains data that the federal government uses to create 

recurring and special reports to the President, Congress, 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), federal executive 

agencies, and the general public. The data is also used to populate 

the USAspending.gov website in accordance with the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. USAspending.gov 

is a single searchable website accessible by the public that includes 

information for each federal award, such as name, location, and 

unique identifier of the entity receiving the award; amount of the 

award; and information on the award such as transaction type and 

the funding agency. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.604 requires that the 

Senior Procurement Executive in coordination with the head of 

contracting activity be responsible for developing and monitoring a 

process to ensure timely and accurate reporting of contractual 

actions in FPDS-NG. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

requires that executive agencies annually certify that the data 

reported in FPDS-NG is valid and complete. 

The FPDS-NG Manual and Data Dictionary outlines data 

input requirements for each data element as mandatory, optional, 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 2 
not required, and not applicable. Mandatory fields must be 

completed before a record is generated, otherwise an error message 

will be displayed. Optional fields may be left blank. Some 

agencies require the completion of specific optional fields. Other 

fields are completed by system generated information or 

automatically pulled from other sources. 

Although DHS instructs its components to follow the data input 

requirements outlined in the FPDS-NG Manual and Data 

Dictionary, component acquisition personnel may decide to 

report optional data in FPDS-NG for a particular contract action. 

As such, Office of Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) personnel 

indicated that any data reported is important and 

information shown in the optional or not required data element 

fields should be noted as discrepancies when it is incorrect. 

Although the FPDS-NG Manual and Data Dictionary indicates that 

data input is optional or not required for a number of field 

elements, including socio economic data, some of this 

information is auto-populated into FPDS-NG, and thus should be 

reviewed and verified by the responsible acquisition personnel. 

According to DHS officials, the department has taken steps to 

improve the verification, validation, and certification of FPDS-NG 

data for its components, which includes monthly, quarterly, and 

annual reviews of a sample of contract files for comparison to 

FPDS-NG. Despite these efforts, recent work conducted by the 

Office of Inspector General and GAO showed that some of DHS’ 

acquisition data was unreliable and questionable. 

Results of Audit 

Inaccurate and Incomplete DHS Acquisition Data 

We reviewed 180 DHS procurement files from six department 

components and compared the information with the corresponding 

information reported in FPDS-NG. We determined that 94.5% of 

the information reviewed was accurately reported in FPDS-NG. 

Four hundred sixty four of the 8,460 data fields reviewed (5.5%) 

were inaccurate or incomplete for 134 procurements reported in 

FPDS-NG. These discrepancies included: 

�	 35 instances of inaccuracies for small business and socio 

economic data. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 3 
�	 33 inconsistent or incomplete acquisition data on 


competitive practices. 


�	 188 instances of erroneous information pertaining to the 

contractor and its services. 

�	 136 incorrect date field elements. 

�	 38 inaccurate dollar amount field elements. 

�	 34 other data errors pertaining to the type of contract, 

procurement identifier, modification number, and reason 

for modification. 

Accurate and complete data is necessary to provide transparency 

and accountability over government operations. It is also 

imperative that the department have accurate data to evaluate its 

operations and make future management decisions.1 

Small Business and Socio Economic Data 

We identified 35 instances of incorrect or incomplete small 

business and socio economic data reported in FPDS-NG. Small 

business and socio economic acquisition data identify federal 

agencies’ results in providing contracting opportunities to small 

businesses owned by women, veterans, service disabled veterans, 

small disadvantaged businesses, or businesses located in 

historically underutilized business zones. Small business and socio 

economic data are performance metrics DHS components are 

required to report quarterly to OCPO to ensure that contracting 

dollars are being used to increase participation in the federal 

marketplace by these businesses. 

The most discrepancies noted during our review pertained to 

contracting officer’s business size determination and for 

documentation to support socio economic data. These 

discrepancies could result in the department under reporting its 

success in meeting its small business goals. For example, the 

FPDS-NG record for one contract action valued at $1.419 million 

showed that it was not awarded to a small business; however, the 

Central Contractor Registration2

 information in the contract file 

1

 Appendix C provides details of the identified FPDS-NG discrepancies. 


2

 The Central Contractor Registration data base is the primary government repository for contractor 


information required for the conduct of business with the government. 


DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 4 
showed that the vendor was a small business according to the 

assigned North America Industry Classification System3

 code. 

Further, there was not always a copy of the Central Contractor 

Registration in the contract file to support the contractor’s socio 

economic data at the time the contract was awarded. For instance, 

a contractor was reported in FPDS-NG as a woman owned 

business without documentation to support the data as reported in 

FPDS-NG. Because the small business or socio economic status of 

an entity may change during the life of a business, it is important to 

capture and maintain the status shown in the Central Contractor 

Registration at the time the contract action is awarded. 

Competition Data 

We identified 33 instances of inconsistent or incomplete 

acquisition data on competitive practices reported in FPDS-NG. 

Competitive practices are a performance metric that DHS 

components are required to report quarterly to OCPO to ensure that 

contract dollars are being awarded competitively. When 

components fail to promote competition to the maximum extent 

practical, they may be missing out on opportunities to reduce cost 

and improve quality. 

FPDS-NG captures several elements pertaining to competitive 

practices, including the extent competed, type of set aside, reason 

not competed, solicitation procedures, and number of offers 

received. 

The most discrepancies pertaining to competitive practices were 

for the number of offers received and the extent competed. The 

number of offers received represents the actual number of offers or 

bids received in response to the solicitation. Documentation of the 

offers was not always maintained in the contract file to support the 

number reported or there were more offers in the file than reflected 

in the FPDS-NG record. 

Also, the extent competed data element field was not always 

completed in FPDS-NG as required by DHS. Extent competed 

represents the competitive nature of the contract, such as full and 

open competition, not available for competition, and not competed. 

3

 The North American Industry Classification System is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in 

classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data 

related to the U.S. business economy. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 5 
Five small business set-aside contract actions were not accurately 

reported in FPDS-NG, even though the contract documentation 

showed that these actions were set-asides. For example, one 

contract valued at $3 million was not reported in FPDS-NG as a 

set-aside, but documentation in the contract file showed that the 

funds were set-aside for and awarded to an 8(a) firm. 

Contractor and Contractor Services Data 

We identified 188 discrepancies between the contractor 

information in the contract file and the data in FPDS-NG. 

Contractor data includes information such as the contractor name, 

street address, city, zip code, product or service code, and the 

principal place of performance zip code. 

We identified 24 instances with incorrect zip codes. The place of 

performance zip code data field is required for all awards, 

including modifications and changes and provides the public with 

information on where tax dollars are being spent. The accuracy of 

the place of performance zip code is important because FPDS-NG 

uses this data to automatically populate other data fields, including 

the congressional district and the state, county, city, and country 

for the primary place of contract performance. 

For example, a contract specialist misinterpreted how to report the 

principal place of performance for a product manufactured in 

Germany but purchased from a New Jersey based supplier. This 

contract action, valued at $17.032 million, was reported in 

FPDS-NG with the place of performance zip code for Germany 

rather than the appropriate New Jersey zip code. 

Dates 

We identified 136 discrepancies between various dates reported in 

FPDS-NG compared to documentation in the contract file. 

Procurement dates are required to be reported in FPDS-NG to 

ensure the transparency of time periods for government 

obligations. These dates include: 

� The signature date on the award document, when signed by 

a contracting officer, is the date the government is 

obligated for payment of goods or services. This is the date 

that a mutually binding agreement was reached. We noted 

35 errors in this area. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 6 
�	 The effective date of the contract is when the acquired 

goods are to be delivered or services are to begin. We 

noted 52 errors in this area. 

�	 The completion date reported identifies when service will 

be concluded and how long the government is obligated. 

We noted 26 errors in this area. 

�	 The remaining 23 discrepancies related to the ultimate 

completion date and the indefinite delivery vehicle last 

order date. 

One contract action valued at $424,665 was reported in FPDS-NG 

as signed on October 18, 2007; however, according to the contract 

documentation and the component’s Deputy Chief for 

Procurement, the executed delivery task order was actually signed 

on September 18, 2007. 

Dollar Amounts 

We identified 38 instances with inaccurate dollar amounts reported 

in FPDS-NG. Dollar amounts reported for a contract action in 

FPDS-NG provide the general public with information about how 

much the federal government has obligated or potentially may 

obligate for that particular contract action. Dollar amounts 

reported are to include the action obligation, base and exercised 

options, and base and all options values. This data is reported in 

FPDS-NG and then directed into the publically available website, 

USAspending.gov. 

For example, one contract action reported $2.1 million for the base 

and all options value in FPDS-NG, but the contract file 

documentation indicated a base and all options value of 

$145 million. This contract action represents the acquisition of 

temporary housing units, two-bedroom park model or 

manufactured homes, to be available and hauled where needed in 

response to major hurricanes. 

Factors Contributing to Inaccurate and Incomplete 

Acquisition Data 

Inaccurate and incomplete data elements for contract actions 

reported in FPDS-NG are caused by human errors, user limitations 

with the FPDS-NG’s auto-populated data, and the department’s 

lack of management controls. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 7 
Accountability 

Contract specialists and officers did not ensure each FPDS-NG 

record was reviewed for accuracy and completeness; and correct 

discrepancies found. The FAR requires that designated officials, 

such as the contracting officer, ensure that accurate data is reported 

in FPDS-NG; however, DHS has not consistently held employees 

accountable for reporting accurate acquisition data in FPDS-NG. 

Only two of the six DHS components reviewed have incorporated 

the accuracy of FPDS-NG data in their acquisition personnel 

performance standards. 

Data Validation 

Some inaccurate and incomplete field elements went undetected by 

acquisition personnel due to a reliance on the FPDS-NG validation 

function. According to the FPDS-NG Manual, the validation 

function is used by acquisition personnel when a record is 

complete, and it determines whether there are any errors. When 

there are errors, the screen will display red error messages at the 

top of the document and must be corrected in order to validate and 

approve the action in the system. However, the manual further 

indicates that the validation function does not verify the accuracy 

of the document, and it is incumbent on the contracting officers 

and agencies to assure the accuracy of all information submitted. 

Guidance issued by the department in June 2007, directs 

contracting officers from all components to ensure that the “Extent 

Competed” field for all types of contract actions was completed in 

FPDS-NG. However, since the FPDS-NG recognizes this data 

field as optional versus a mandatory data field for specific types of 

contract actions, the validation function will not identify this as an 

error if the field is left blank. Some acquisition personnel rely on 

the FPDS-NG validation feature to confirm that mandatory fields 

for a specific type of contract action are complete and to check for 

related information in other fields. 

Auto Populated Data 

Although contracting officers may identify a discrepancy, in some 

cases, they are unable to correct the FPDS-NG record. The 

FPDS-NG’s auto-populated data fields, such as the vendor name, 

street, city, zip code, socio economic data and competitive 

information caused other discrepancies. These fields are populated 

from the parent contract or the Central Contracting Registration, 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 8 
which may not have the most current information and cannot be 

edited by the acquisition personnel. 

One contract action valued at $796,000 for telephone supplies was 

reported in FPDS-NG as other than small business. However, the 

contract/delivery order maintained in the contract file showed that 

the award was to a small business. FPDS-NG was auto-populated 

from the parent contract and the contracting officer did not have 

the ability to manually correct the business size determination. As 

a result, this contract award was not counted towards the 

department meeting its small business goals. 

Department Level Controls 

DHS policy supplements government-wide requirements; however, 

the department does not have sufficient internal controls to ensure 

the quality of data reported in FPDS-NG. The department does not 

require personnel to follow-up and initiate corrective actions when 

they identify errors. DHS does not require acquisition personnel to 

maintain documentation in the contract file when discrepancies are 

identified in FPDS-NG and whether any effort was made to 

improve the quality of information. 

DHS does not always ensure that documentation to support 

acquisition data reported in FPDS-NG is maintained in the contract 

file. For the time of the procurement, we could not verify and 

validate the socio economic data or product or service information 

for 13 contract actions because the supporting documentation was 

not in the contract files. One of these contract actions valued at 

$1.136 million was reported as a woman, minority, and Asian 

Indian owned business in FPDS-NG. However, the contract file 

did not include a copy of the Central Contractor Registration or 

evidence to substantiate all of these designators. 

Other Observations 

Acquisition personnel could not locate 12 contract files that were 

part of our review at four DHS components. According to 

FPDS-NG, these contract actions were valued at over $31 million 

and were awarded for various goods and services as shown in 

Table 1. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 9 
Table 1 

Listing of Missing Contract Files 

DHS 

Component 

Product or Service Description Action 

Obligation 

ICE Passenger Air Charter Service $12,859,488 

FEMA Meals Ready to Eat 3,894,354 

FEMA Not Available 3,435,000 

FEMA Flood Risk Assessment 3,039,960 

FEMA Microsoft License 1,854,119 

TSA Data Center 1,777,161 

FEMA Video Equipment and 

Maintenance 1,454,429 

TSA Develop Systems 1,246,352 

TSA Help Desk Services 1,150,110 

OPO Automatic Data Processing 

Components 

285,238 

FEMA License 233,100 

FEMA Not Available 206,753 

TOTAL $31,436,064 

Contract files were missing because some of the DHS components 

lacked inventory controls to ensure that documentary support for 

acquisition decisions and data is available when files are 

transferred between offices or when there is recurrent staff 

turnover. For instance, we were told by ICE personnel that the 

contracting officer assigned to the $12.859 million contract for air 

charter services was no longer employed with the agency, and 

therefore the component was unable to locate the contract file. In 

another instance, the OPO contract for automatic data processing 

components and support was transferred from one location to 

another within the agency resulting in the contract file being 

misplaced in the process. When contract files are missing, there is 

uncertainty that proper contracting procedures were followed, 

limited contractor accountability for goods and services, and 

limited assurance that tax dollars were appropriately spent. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Acting Chief Procurement Officer: 

Recommendation #1: Incorporate the accuracy of FPDS-NG data 

in the performance standards for acquisition personnel to 

emphasize and enforce the importance of this data. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 10 
Recommendation #2: Develop additional training and 

supplemental guidance to the FPDS-NG manual for the component 

personnel to follow that will ensure the responsible individuals are 

accurately entering and reviewing the data reported in the system. 

Create an action plan to outline how the standardized training will 

be provided to ensure consistency and address common errors 

among all DHS acquisition personnel. The action plan should 

include metrics that will be used to demonstrate the effectiveness 

of the newly developed training and guidance. 

Recommendation #3: Coordinate with DHS component heads of 

contracting activity to develop a standardized system to track and 

maintain control of the contract files in each DHS component. 

Controls should ensure that all contract files are properly returned 

and stored when no longer in use or when the responsible or 

designated acquisition personnel are no longer employed at their 

respective component. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The Acting Chief Procurement Officer concurred with our 

recommendations and has provided information on how the department 

will improve policies, procedures, and controls for reporting acquisition 

data in the Federal Procurement Data System. OCPO’s response also 

suggested revisions to the report to recognize ongoing efforts undertaken 

to improve DHS FPDS data. Where appropriate, we modified the report 

to incorporate the suggested revisions. Finally, OCPO questioned figures 

presented in Appendix C. The information provided in the report is 

accurate. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 1 

OCPO Concurs. OCPO plans to issue a memorandum to the heads of 

contracting activities requiring that the accuracy of FPDS data be included 

in the FY 2010 performance standards for all acquisition personnel 

responsible for FPDS-NG data accuracy. In addition, the department's 

FPDS working group will develop a methodology for utilizing the FPDS 

validation process to identify the extent of employee compliance with this 

performance standard. 

OIG Analysis: This recommendation is resolved, but will remain open 

until we have obtained and reviewed the memorandum to the heads of 

contracting activities. We will also review the working group’s 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 11 
methodology for utilizing the FPDS validation process to identify the 

extent of employee compliance with this performance standard. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 2 

OCPO Concurs. OCPO’s response indicated that the office is developing 

additional training for contracting personnel during FY 10. The training 

focuses on those elements with compliance rates lower than 90 percent. 

OCPO has formed an FPDS-NG working group that is responsible for 

addressing FPDS issues, including improving input accuracy, addressing 

system problems, and providing guidance on the annual FPDS validation 

and certification. OCPO has also developed a series of data flags that will 

be provided to the heads of contracting activities on a monthly basis to 

assist them with identifying and correcting FPDS errors. With regard to 

metrics, OCPO believes that annual validation/certification is the metric 

for measuring improvement, since it represents the validation and 

certification of the key FPDS elements identified by the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy. 

OIG Analysis: This recommendation is resolved, but will remain open 

until we have reviewed the additional training to improve FPDS accuracy 

and a sample of the monthly data flag reports. Further, we need to review 

OCPO’s action plan demonstrating how OCPO will ensure these new 

processes will improve accuracy rates since the current validation and 

certification process continues to allow discrepancies. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 3 

OCPO Concurs. OCPO concurred in principle with our recommendation. 

OCPO agreed that each head of contracting activity should have an 

established system for tracking and controlling contract files. However, 

OCPO responded that given the unique nature and operating differences of 

each component, a DHS-wide system would be impractical and may 

create inefficiencies or other process impediments. OCPO will conduct an 

oversight review of each head of contracting activity system during 

FY 2010 to assure that each has the necessary controls for tracking the 

location of contract files and is operating so that contract files can be 

located when needed. 

OIG Analysis: This recommendation is resolved, but will remain open 

until we have reviewed the head of contracting activity oversight review 

and OCPO has established protocols to ensure contract files can be located 

when needed. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 12 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our audit objective was to determine the effectiveness of DHS’ 

internal controls for reporting complete and accurate acquisition 

data. We reviewed OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 

General Service Administration, and DHS documentation and 

manuals related to acquisition data, including the FPDS-NG 

Manual, Data Dictionary, and Web site, Acquisition.gov, and 

USAspending.gov. We reviewed DHS OCPO documentation, 

including policies, procedures, and memorandums. We also 

reviewed prior DHS Office of Inspector General and Government 

Accountability Office audit reports, and the fiscal year 2008 

FPDS-NG data accuracy results as reported to the OMB, for the 

executive departments for the President’s cabinet. 

In addition, we conducted site visits at and reviewed and analyzed 

contract files and documentation from six of ten components of 

DHS with heads of contracting activity. The six components are as 

follows: 

� Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

� Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 

� Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

� Office of Procurement Operations (OPO) 

� Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

� United States Secret Service (USSS) 

During the period April 2009 through August 2009, we 

interviewed acquisition personnel, including the heads of 

contracting activity, at the six components and the Office of 

Selective Acquisitions at DHS and component locations in 

Arlington, VA, Burlington, VT, Glynco, GA, Cheltenham, MD, 

Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, D.C. We also interviewed 

OCPO acquisition personnel in Washington, D.C. 

We analyzed the FPDS-NG data for FAR based contract actions 

awarded by the six components from October 1, 2007, to March 

31, 2009. We randomly selected 30 contract actions greater than 

$100,000 for each of the components. At OPO, we selected 15 

contract actions for OPO and 15 contract actions for OPO’s subagency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We could not 

perform statistical sampling at the six components we tested 

because of limited time and resources. Our results cannot be 

projected to the universe of FPDS-NG reporting for the 

departmental or individual components. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 13 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

At each of the six components, we compared the FPDS-NG data to 

the contract files. We did not audit the reliability of FPDS-NG as a 

system, but compared data in the system to data in the contract 

files. We do not draw any conclusions on the operation of 

FPDS-NG. 

We conducted this performance audit between March 2009 and 

October 2009 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. 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 14 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 15
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 16
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 17
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 18
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 19
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 20
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 21
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 22
 
 

 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Appendix C 

Summary of FPDS-NG Discrepancies 

All Six DHS Components FEMA FLETC ICE OPO TSA USSS # of 

Data Element # of Discrepancies Discrepancies

1A Procurement Identifier (PIID) 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 

1B Modification No 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

1C Referenced IDV ID 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 

6A Type of Contract 6 1 0 2 4 1 14 

6F Performance-Based Servi. Acq. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

6M Description of Req't (YES/NO) 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 

6Q Number of Actions 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

12A IVD Type 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

12B Award Type 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

12C Reason for Modification 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Contract and Transaction Information 34 

3A Base & All Options Value 12 1 1 2 6 1 23 

3B Base & Exercised Options Value 5 0 0 1 3 2 11 

3C Action Obligation 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 

Dollar Values Total 38 

2A Date Signed 7 8 3 4 9 4 35 

2B Effective Date 13 7 6 9 8 9 52 

2C Completion Date: 0 2 10 10 0 4 26 

2D Est. Ultimate Completion Date 8 2 6 1 2 3 22 

2E Indef. Deliv.Vehicle Last Order Date 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Dates Total 136 

Product or Service Information 5 0 0 0 4 0 9 

8A Product/Service Code 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 

8G Principal NAICS Code 3 0 0 2 0 3 8 

9A DUNS No. 1 1 3 1 5 6 17 

9B Contractor Name from Contract 0 0 3 1 1 2 7 

9C Principal Place of Perform.Code (State,Location,Country) 0 7 2 2 2 1 14 

9D Princi.Place of Perf City Name 0 8 3 2 2 1 16 

9F CRS District - Contractor 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 

9G Cong'l District Place of Perform. 0 7 3 2 2 1 15 

9K Place of Perf. Zipcode(+4) 5 9 5 2 2 1 24 

13GG Vendor Name 0 0 3 1 1 3 8 

13JJ Street 5 5 4 4 6 5 29 

13KK Street2 (2nd line of Address) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

13MM City 0 4 3 3 6 5 21 

13NN State 0 0 3 1 4 4 12 

Contractor and its Product or Services Total 188 

10A Extent Competed 3 0 0 2 0 4 9 

10C Reason Not Competed 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 

10D Number of Offers Received 4 1 4 7 0 0 16 

10M Solicitation Procedures 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 

10N Type of Set Aside 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 

Competition Information Total 33 

11A Contracting Officer's Determination of Business Size 1 2 2 2 0 4 11 

Socio Economic Data 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 

13AA Black Owned 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

13BB Hispanic Owned 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 

13N 8 (a) Firm 5 0 0 0 0 1 6 

13O Hub Zone 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 

13P SDB 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

13U Women Owned 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 

13 V Veteran Owned 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 

13UA Minority Owned Business 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 

13W Service Disabled Vet 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

13Z Asian Pacific 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Small Business and Socio Economic Data Total 35 

Total 91 70 68 71 77 87 464 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 23
 
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Patrick O’Malley, Director 

Cheryl Jones, Project Leader 

Edward Jeye, Auditor-in-Charge 

Aldon Hedman, Auditor 

Amy Nase, Auditor 

Michael Brunelle, Program Analyst 

Keith Lutgen, Program Analyst 

James Bess, Referencer 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 

Page 24 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

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 

Under Secretary for Management 

DHS Audit Liaison 

FEMA Audit Liaison 

FLETC Audit Liaison 

ICE Audit Liaison 

OPO Audit Liaison 

TSA Audit Liaison 

USSS Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

DHS’ Acquisition Data Management Systems 


Page 25
 
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.