Department of Homeland Security’s 

Procurement and Program Management 

Operations

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audits 

OIG-05-53 September 2005
Office of Inspector 

General 

U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528

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, 

effectiveness, and efficiency within the department. 

At the request of the Secretary, this report assesses the weaknesses of the DHS’ 

procurement and program management operations. 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. It is 

our hope that 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

Adherence to Ethical Conduct ............................................................................................ 2

Program Management......................................................................................................... 3

Procurement Management .................................................................................................. 6

Recommendations............................................................................................................... 8

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ....................................................................... 9 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope and Methodology............................................. 11 

Appendix B: Management’s Comments to the Draft Report ...... ...................... 12 

Appendix C: Bibliograhpy......................................................................16 

Appendix D: DHS Procuremnt Statistics......................................................20 

Appendix E: Major Contributors to this Report..............................................23 

Appendix F: Report Distribution...............................................................24

Abbreviations

ASI Acquisition Solutions, Inc 

CAPS Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies 

IRB Investment Review Board

OCPO Office of Chief Procurement Officer 

TSA Transportation Security Administration

 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

Page 1 

OIG Audit 

Report

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

At the request of the Secretary, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), in 

coordination with the Office of Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO), 

conducted an assessment of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’) 

procurement and program management operations. Our purpose was to 

identify significant weaknesses that may threaten the integrity of these 

operations. We will use this assessment to identify priorities for future OIG 

audit work. 

We conducted this assessment between April 1, 2005 and April 29, 2005. We 

reviewed prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) and OIG reports, 

interviewed DHS procurement and project management personnel, and 

obtained input from OCPO. A bibliography of the OIG and GAO reports 

reviewed is attached in Appendix C. The nature and brevity of this 

assessment precluded the use of our normal audit protocols; therefore, this 

review was not conducted in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. (Refer to Appendix A – Purpose, Scope, and 

Methodology)
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 2 

Background 

DHS purchased almost $9.8 billion of goods and services in fiscal year (FY) 

2004 through a variety of procurement methods such as contracts, delivery 

orders, interagency agreements, and purchase cards. In making these 

procurements, DHS processed almost 60,000 procurement actions, not 

including credit card purchases. DHS procurement statistics are attached in 

Appendix D. 

We identified a number of vulnerabilities and potential vulnerabilities that 

need to be addressed. These vulnerabilities fall into three general categories: 

adherence to ethical conduct, program management, and procurement 

management. 

Adherence to Ethical Conduct 

Executive Order 12674, dated April 12, 1989, as amended, addresses 

principles of ethical conduct and requires the avoidance of improper practices 

and conflicts of interest, which in the procurement context can result in fraud, 

inappropriate use of sole source contracts and cost-reimbursement type 

contracts as well as excessive award fee evaluations. For example, the 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR 

Part 2635, prohibit soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, 

gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone 

who (a) has or is seeking to obtain Government business with the employee’s 

agency, (b) conducts activities that are regulated by the employee’s agency, or 

(c) has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or 

nonperformance of the employee’s official duties. These requirements apply 

to program personnel who are involved in the procurement process as well as 

to procurement personnel and other employees of the Executive Branch. 

Section 2638.703 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires an 

agency ethics orientation of at least one hour for all new employees and that 

each employee receive a copy of the Standards of Ethical Conduct. These 

standards cover such issues as: gifts from outside sources, gifts between 

employees, conflicting financial interests, impartiality in performing official 

duties, seeking other employment, misuse of position, and outside activities. 

In addition, agencies are required to provide annual ethics training for 

contracting officers among other employees. 

Section 423 of Title 41 United States Code, among other things, prohibits a 

former official’s acceptance of compensation from a contractor as an 

employee, officer, director, or consultant of the contractor within a period of 

one year after the former official was significantly involved in the award or 

administration of a contract in excess of $10 million. This restriction applies 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 3 

to contracting officers, program managers, source selection authority, 

members of source selection evaluation boards, or chiefs of financial or 

technical evaluation teams, among others. Additionally, Section 423 requires 

agency officials participating personally and substantially in certain 

procurements to report any offers of employement from competing 

contractors and to reject the offer or disqualify themselves from further 

participation in the procurement. 

We recently identified an instance where a Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) program official exercised improper influences on 

procurements. The TSA program official bypassed procurement internal 

controls. During the administration of a contract for the Transportation 

Services Operation Center, he procured over $500,000 of decorative items i.e., 

art and silk plants, and miscellaneous artwork and decorations from a tool 

company who had previously never sold such merchandise. The TSA 

program official required the contractor to revise invoices to hide the true 

nature of these purchases. By insisting that the tool company submit invoices 

before the final costs were known, he also approved more than $83,000 in 

overpayments to the tool company. The TSA program official had a prior 

business and personal relationship with the tool company and its owners. 

Within weeks of his resignation from TSA, the individual started a new 

business with the tool company’s owners. This incident is currently under 

investigation. 

DHS’ close relationship with the private sector resulting from its many 

partnership arrangements, raises concerns that the minimal initial and annual 

Government ethics training may be insufficient to address standards of 

conduct issues as they apply to procurement. Senior program and 

procurement officials would benefit from expanded training and guidance on 

their procurement ethics responsibilities and the consequences of violating 

procurement ethics standards both before and after their federal employment 

tenure. 

In an effort to detect and prevent procurement fraud within DHS, we are 

participating on the Procurement Fraud Working Group, a multi-agency effort 

involving the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and numerous 

federal law enforcement offices. Our investigators are actively reviewing 

suspect procurements and providing fraud awareness and prevention outreach 

to DHS procurement officials. 

Program Management 

Program management can be defined as the application of the systems 

approach to the planning and execution of a set of interrelated tasks which, 

when completed, satisfies some technical, business or social objective. This is 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 4 

especially true for technological programs, whose objectives are explicitly 

stated in terms of time, cost and performance requirements. Federal agencies 

frequently apply program management techniques to oversee complex 

acquisition programs. The systems approach emphasizes treating the program 

components as a whole to maximize product performance while 

simultaneously minimizing program costs and development time. This 

approach uses such techniques as systems engineering and analysis, simulated 

models, earned value management, integrated master plans and schedule, 

work breakdown structures, test and evaluation, and integrated product and 

process development. 

DHS Needs More Certified Program Managers 

 

Some DHS organizational components have reported a shortage of certified 

program managers to manage the Department’s programs. DHS has identified 

110 major programs, but only 93 out of 175 program managers are currently 

certified. Complex and high dollar contracts require multiple program 

managers. For example, the Deepwater program had 74 program management 

staff members supporting the program during FY 2003. 

DHS has recently taken steps to improve the quantity and quality of program 

management within the department. In May 2004, DHS instituted a program 

management certification process which requires increasing levels of program 

management certification (Levels I – III) based on varying levels of training 

and experience. A higher level certification is required to manage a higher 

dollar value program. For example, Level I Certification is required for 

programs with annual costs ranging from $5 – 50 million or life-cycle costs 

ranging from $20 – 100 million. Level III certification is required for 

programs with annual costs exceeding $100 million or life-cycle costs 

exceeding $200 million. 

Lack of Department-wide Policies and Procedures for Program 

Management Exists

No DHS organization is responsible for establishing department-wide policies 

and procedures for program management. This function is critical, given the 

numerous mission-critical programs underway that are managed by DHS 

components. Some DHS organizational components have reported 

establishing program management processes within their components. We 

were not able to assess the adequacy or consistency of these processes due to 

the limited duration of our review. However, the need for effective 

department-wide standards for program management processes should not be 

underestimated. We plan to do additional work in this area as part of our 

procurement operations strategy. The Science and Technology Directorate 

recently established the Homeland Security Institute as a Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center to provide independent analysis on 

program management issues. While this is an important first step, the 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 5 

department’s need for an internal advocate for effective program management 

remains unfilled. 

Investment Review Board (IRB) Process Needs Strengthening

Both DHS organizational components and the GAO have identified problems 

with DHS IRB practices to date. DHS instituted the IRB process to integrate 

capital planning and investment control, ensure investments support DHS’ 

missions, and consolidate duplicative efforts. The DHS model does not have 

much of the DOD model’s detailed departmental reviews, which provide 

decision makers with advice from functional experts, such as operational test 

evaluators and independent cost estimators. Also, the IRB process 

emphasizes approval and scoring of a specific program plan, rather than 

selection from various alternatives. 

DHS organizational components have reported problems with the IRB 

process, including: 

• unclear as to what steps program managers have to complete during the 

IRB process; 

• substantial amounts of required documentation with no standards for many 

of the documentation requirements; 

• lack of a dedicated IRB staff to review the documentation and provide the 

required necessary independent advice; and 

• lengthy period for programs to obtain funding through the IRB process, 

thereby jeopardizing mission accomplishment. 

The GAO also identified several problems with the current IRB process, 

including: 

• mechanisms not in place to ensure that designs perform as expected and 

resources match customer needs before investing additional resources; 

• need for program managers to receive formal training on the IRB process; 

• established standards do not exist for required documentation and 

documents are rejected with little or no explanation; 

• no requirement for critical system and subsystem reviews before 

production decisions, and 

• in practice, major services acquistions are not subject to IRB review. 

GAO’s recommendations include strengthening IRB policies, increasing 

stakeholder input, providing formal training on IRB requirements, and using 

the IRB to review major service acquisitions. DHS has agreed to implement 

GAO’s recommendations. While we agree with GAO’s specific 

recommendations, we believe that more fundamental changes are warranted in 

the department’s management and oversight of complex programs in general. 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 6 

Contract Technical Requirements are Sometimes Inadequately Defined

Several DHS procurements have encountered problems because contract 

technical and performance requirements were not well defined. For 

example, the Geographic Information System (GIS) supporting the United 

States Coast Guard’s Port Security Assessment Program is being developed 

without identified GIS functional requirements. Likewise, the Transportation 

Security Administration has not established a complete plan identifying 

specific system functionality that will be delivered with its Computer-Assisted 

Passenger Prescreening System. Best practices in industry call for carefully 

identifying the functional requirements. 

Audits by both GAO and our office have found that inadequate contract 

technical requirements, such as statements of work or specifications, can 

result in substantial cost growth, lengthy schedule delays and occasional 

failure to meet critical mission requirements. For example, TSA faced 

particular performance specification, scheduling, and cost growth challenges 

in administering the NCS Pearson contract for hiring airport security 

screeners. By approving programs without adequately defined technical 

requirements, DHS risks likely adverse cost and schedule consequences. 

Other Federal agencies use a combination of procurement and program 

management oversight to improve contract technical requirements. 

Over-Emphasis on Expediting Contract Awards May Jeopardize 

Departmental Effectiveness

We have reported instances, particularly at TSA, where contracts have been 

expedited to quickly improve the nation’s security status, especially in 

response to Congressionally imposed deadlines in the aftermath of 9/11. 

Some DHS procurement offices report a continuing perceived need to award 

contracts quickly. However, programs developed at top speed can sometimes 

overlook key issues during program planning and development of mission 

requirements. Also, an over-emphasis on expedient contract awards may 

hinder competition, which frequently results in increased costs. Finally, 

expediting program schedules and contract awards may limit the time 

available for procurement planning and development of adequate contract 

technical requirements leading to higher costs, schedule delays, or even 

failures to meet critical mission requirements. 

Procurement Management 

Seven of the eight procurement organizations currently housed within DHS 

are procurement offices that joined DHS from their legacy agencies. The 

eighth organization, the Office of Procurement Operations, was created to 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 7 

serve the needs of DHS organizations that did not have dedicated procurement 

support, such as the Science and Technology Directorate and the Information 

Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. 

Disparities in Staffing Among DHS Procurement Organizations Exist

DHS procurement organizations have substantial disparities in the amount of 

awards per procurement staff person. We looked at data from both the Office 

of Personnel Management’s FEDSCOPE database and OCPO to determine 

the number of procurement staff assigned to each office. The amount of 

awards per procurement staff person using this data ranges from a low of 

about $3 million up to $30 million depending on the DHS procurement 

organization. Staffing and contract award data for each procurement 

organization is included in Appendix D. Since procurement staff throughout 

DHS is severely limited, DHS needs to organize and use available 

procurement staff in the most effective manner. 

In addition, some DHS procurement offices may be significantly understaffed, 

based on separate studies by the Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies 

(CAPS) and Acquisition Solutions, Inc. (ASI). The CAPS study found that 

the average amount spent per procurement employee was $5.3 million for 

Aerospace/Defense contractors1

. The ASI compared average spending per 

procurement employee in other federal agencies with similar buying profiles 

and found average spending per employee ratios ranging from $6.3 million to 

$8.8 million. DHS’ average spending per procurement employee of $12 - $13 

million is significantly higher than either of these studies with some DHS 

offices spending an average of $25 - 30 million per person. Many 

procurement offices have reported that their lack of staffing prevents proper 

procurement planning and severely limits their ability to monitor contractor 

performance and conduct effective contract administration. 

The GAO reported that the Office of Procurement Operations lacks sufficient 

staff and relies on interagency agreements to manage the workload. The 

Office of Procurement Operations used interagency agreements to process 

over 80% of its procurement during FY 2004 compared to the DHS average of 

about 31%. GAO recommended that DHS conduct a department-wide 

assessment of the staffing patterns within its eight procurement offices, and 

take steps to correct workload imbalances by re-aligning resources. 

 

OCPO Lacks Sufficient Staff and Authority to Conduct Effective 

Oversight 

 

The GAO reported that, until recently, OCPO had only two people to conduct 

oversight on the eight separate procurement offices and almost $9.8 billion in 

 

1

 ASI, working with OCPO, determined that the Aerospace/Defense category of contractors best matched DHS’ 

contracting profile. 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 8 

procurement activity during FY 2004. The fiscal year 2005 budget provided 

OCPO with five additional staff, but GAO could not conclusively determine 

that the increase would be adequate to implement the oversight program. 

GAO also stated that OCPO has unclear authority to ensure compliance with 

DHS procurement policies and procedures. GAO recommended that DHS 

provide OCPO with sufficient resources and enforcement authority to enable 

effective department-wide oversight of acquisition policies and procedures. 

Independent OCPO oversight could help DHS ensure the integrity of the 

procurement process. 

A number of other Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and 

Energy, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration use 

independent oversight in both the procurement and program management 

areas to help improve agency operations and ensure compliance with agency 

policies and procedures. The effectiveness of these organizations is enhanced 

by their independence and direct line of reporting to the head of their agency. 

Conclusion: DHS’ vulnerability to procurement fraud, waste, and abuse can 

be reduced by emphasizing procurement ethics responsibilities and providing 

a robust support structure for both program and procurement management.

Recommendations 

We recommend that DHS: 

1. Require expanded procurement ethics training for senior program and 

procurement officials. 

2. Ensure procurement and program management oversight processes monitor 

departmental procurement activities for potential standards of conduct 

violations. 

3. Create and staff a DHS organization that will: 

a. develop program management policies and procedures; 

b. provide independent technical support to DHS senior management and 

organizational component program managers on an as-required basis; 

and 

c. identify and foster best practices. 

4. Optimize procurement organization resources and structure across DHS, 

based on analysis and recommendations from OCPO. 

5. Provide OCPO with sufficient staff and authority to effectively conduct 

oversight of DHS’ procurement operations. 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 9 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We obtained written comments as well as a plan of action (Appendix B) on a 

draft of this report from DHS. DHS concurred with our recommendations. 

Below is a summary of DHS’ response to each recommendation and our 

assessment of the response. 

Recommendation 1: Require expanded procurement ethics training for senior 

program and procurement officials. 

 

DHS concurred, and is moving ahead with implementation. The training 

program will be completed by December 2005 and delivered to senior leaders 

by March 2006. We consider this recommendation to be resolved, and will 

close it when implementation is complete. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure procurement and program management 

oversight processes monitor departmental procurement activities for potential 

standards of conduct violations. 

DHS concurred, and is moving ahead with implementation. DHS is finalizing 

a Management Directive on the Acquisition Oversight Program that will 

increase the Department’s ability to monitor procurement activities for 

potential standards of conduct violations. We consider this recommendation 

to be resolved, and will close it when implementation is complete. 

Recommendation 3: Create and staff a DHS organization that will: 

a. develop program management policies and procedures; 

b. provide independent technical support to DHS senior management and 

organizational component program managers on an as-required basis; and 

c. identify and foster best practices. 

DHS concurred, and is moving ahead with implementation. DHS has included 

in the FY 2007 budget authorization and funding to establish a Departmental 

Program Management (PM) Office within the Office of the CPO. In the 

interim, DHS will attempt to fund 2-3 staff members for program management 

support in FY 2006 pending resolution of the FY 2006 appropriations bill. 

We consider this recommendation to be resolved, and will close it when 

implementation is complete. 

Recommendation 4: Optimize procurement organization resources and 

structure across DHS, based on analysis and recommendations from OCPO. 

DHS concurred, and is taking steps to address staffing shortages and 

disparities. CPO has provided input to the CFO for the FY 2007 to FY 2011 

budgets to support increased staffing. In addition, several DHS organizational 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 10 

elements are working to address staffing shortfalls within existing budgets in 

advance of FY 2007. We consider this recommendation to be resolved, and 

will close it when implementation is complete. 

Recommendation 5: Provide OCPO with sufficient staff and authority to 

effectively conduct oversight of DHS’ procurement operations. 

DHS concurred and is taking steps to address staffing shortages and authority. 

Procurement staffing for oversight responsibility has increased from two to 

seven and ten additional personnel are requested in the FY 2007 budget 

request. DHS is also finalizing a Management Directive on the Acquisition 

Oversight Program that will provide formal authority to conduct oversight. 

We consider this recommendation to be resolved, and will close it when 

implementation is complete.
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 11 

 

We conducted this assessment between April 1, 2005 and April 29, 2005. We 

reviewed prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) and OIG reports, 

interviewed DHS procurement and project management personnel, and 

obtained input from OCPO. A bibliography of the OIG and GAO reports 

reviewed is attached in Appendix C. The nature and brevity of this 

assessment precluded the use of our normal audit protocols; therefore, this 

review was not conducted in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Had we followed such standards, other matters may have 

come to our attention. 

Throughout this assessment, we worked closely with OCPO in identifying 

vulnerabilities and developing recommendations. Various procurement and 

program officials within the organizational elements also participated and 

provided valuable insights into DHS procurement and program management 

operations.

 
Appendix B 

Management’s Comments to the Draft Report 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 12 
Appendix B 

Management’s Comments to the Draft Report 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 13 
Appendix B 

Management’s Comments to the Draft Report 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 14 
Appendix B 

Management’s Comments to the Draft Report 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 15 
Appendix C 

Bibliography 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

Page 16 

Department of Homeland Security – Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

Documents 

• “Irregularities in the Development of the Transportation Security Operations Center” 

(OIG-05-18, March 2005) 

• “Review of the Port Security Grant Program” (OIG-05-10, January 2005) 

• “Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security” 

(OIG-05-06, December 2004) 

• “Re-Engining of the HH-65 Helicopter United States Coast Guard” (OIG-04-50, 

September 2004) 

• “Evaluation of TSA’s Contract for the Installation and Maintenance of Explosive 

Detection Equipment at United States Airports” (OIG-04-44, September 2004) 

• “DHS Challenges in Consolidating Terrorist Watch List Information” (OIG-04-31, 

August 2004) 

• “Improvements Needed to DHS’ Information Technology Management Structure” 

(OIG-04-30, July 2004) 

• “Survey of the Science and Technology Directorate” (OIG-04-24, March 2004) 

• “Review of the Status of Department of Homeland Security Efforts to Address Its 

Major Management Challenges” (OIG-04-21, March 2004) 

• “An Audit of FEMA’s Acquisition Workforce” (OIG-04-12, March 2004) 

• “Semiannual Report to the Congress” October 1, 2003 – March 31, 2004 

• “Survey of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate” 

(OIG-04-13, February 2004) 

• “Semiannual Report to the Congress” October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Documents 

• “Homeland Security Successes and Challenges in DHS’s Efforts to Create an 

Effective Acquisition Organization” (GAO-05-179, March 2005) 

• “Homeland Security Overview of Department of Homeland Security Management 

Challenges” (GAO-05-573T, April 2005) 

• “Coast Guard Preliminary Observations on the Condition of Deepwater Legacy 

Assets and Acquisition Management Challenges” (GAO-05-307T, April 2005) 

• “Defense Logistics High-Level DOD Coordination Is Needed to Further Improve the 

Management of the Army’s LOGCAP Contract” (GAO-05-328, March 2005) 

• “Defense Acquisitions Assessments of Selected Major Weapon Programs” (GAO05-301, March 2005) 

• “Contract Management Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on Department of 

Defense Service Contracts” (GAO-05-274, March 2005) 

• “Defense Acquisitions changes in E-10A Acquisition Strategy Needed before 

Development Starts” (GAO-05-273, March 2005) 

• “Department of Energy Further Actions Are Needed to Strengthen Contract 

Management for Major Projects” (GAO-05-123, March 2005) 

• “Transportation Security Systematic Planning Needed to Optimize Resources” 

(GAO-05-357T, February 2005) 

• “Homeland Security Some Progress Made, but Many Challenges Remain on U.S. 

Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program” (GAO-05-202, 

February 2005) 

• “Wastewater Facilities Experts’ Views on How Federal Funds Should Be Spent to 

Improve Security” (GAO-05-165, January 2005) 
Appendix C 

Bibliography

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 17 

• “Coast Guard Station Readiness Improving, but Resource Challenges and 

Management Concerns Remain” (GAO-05-161, January 2005) 

• “Homeland Security Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges Regarding the 

National Strategy for Homeland Security” (GAO-05-33, January 2005) 

• “Homeland Security Further Actions Needed to Coordinate Federal Agencies’ 

Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices” (GAO-05-49, November 

2004) 

• “Homeland Security Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration 

Programs” (GAO-05-81, October 2004) 

• “Maritime Security Better Planning Needed to Help Ensure an Effective Port 

Security Assessment Program” (GAO-04-1062, September 2004) 

• “Homeland Security Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable 

Communications Between First Responders” (GAO-04-1057T, September 2004) 

• “Border Security State Department Rollout of Biometric Visas on Schedule, but 

Guidance Is Lagging” (GAO-04-1001, September 2004) 

• “Information Technology Major Federal Networks That Support Homeland Security 

Functions” (GAO-04-375, September 2004) 

• “Taxpayer Information Data Sharing and Analysis May Enhance Tax Compliance 

and Improve Immigration Eligibility Decisions” (GAO-04-972T, July 2004) 

• “Homeland Security Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better Manage 

First Responder Grants In the National Capital Region” (GAO-04-904T, June 2004) 

• “Transportation Security R&D TSA and DHS Are Researching and Developing 

Technologies, but Need to Improve R&D Management” (GAO-04-890, September 

2004) 

• “Homeland Security Efforts Under Way to Develop Enterprise Architecture, but 

Much Work Remains” (GAO-04-777, August 2004) 

• “Contract Management Guidance Needed to Promote Competition for Defense Task 

Orders” (GAO-04-874, July 2004) 

• “Critical Infrastructure Protection Improving Information Sharing with Infrastructure 

Sectors” (GAO-04-780, July 2004) 

• “Maritime Security Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and Facilitate 

Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification System” (GAO-04-868, July 

2004) 

• “Aviation Security Challenges in Using Biometric Technologies” (GAO-04-785T, 

May 2004) 

• “Homeland Security Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation 

Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications” (GAO-04-740, 

July 2004) 

• “Information Technology Early Releases of Customs Trade System Operating but 

Pattern of Cost and Schedule Problems Needs to Be Addressed” (GAO-04-719, May 

2004) 

• “Coast Guard Station Spending Requirements Met, But Better Processes Needed to 

Track Designated Funds” (GAO-04-704, May 2004) 

• “Department of Homeland Security Formidable Information and Technology 

Management Challenge Requires Institutional Approach” (GAO-04-702, August 

2004) 

• “Critical Infrastructure Protection Establishing Effective Information Sharing with 

Infrastructure Sectors” (GAO-04-699T, April 2004) 

• “Coast Guard Deepwater Program Acquisition Schedule Update Needed” (GAO-04-

695, June 2004) 
Appendix C 

Bibliography

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 18 

• “Homeland Security Performance of Information System to Monitor Foreign 

Students and Exchange Visitors Has Improved, but Issues Remain” (GAO-04-690, 

June 2004) 

• “Homeland Security Communication Protocols and Risk Communication Principles 

Can Assist in Refining the Advisory System” (GAO-04-682, June 2004) 

• “Defense Acquisitions Knowledge of Software Supplies Needed to Manage Risks” 

(GAO-04-678, May 2004) 

• “Homeland Security DHS Needs a Strategy to Use DOE’s Laboratories for Research 

on Nuclear Biological, and Chemical Detection and Response Technologies” (GAO04-653, May 2004) 

• “Transportation Security Administration High-Level Attention Needed to Strengthen 

Acquisition Function” (GAO-04-544, May 2004) 

• “Information Technology Homeland Security Should Better Balance Need for 

System Integration Strategy with Spending for New and Enhanced Systems” (GAO04-509, May 2004) 

• “Coast Guard Key Management and Budget Challenges for Fiscal Year 2004 and 

Beyond” (GAO-04-636T, April 2004) 

• “Project SAFECOM Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 

Requires Stronger Collaboration” (GAO-04-494, April 2004) 

• “Critical Infrastructure Protection Challenges and Efforts to Secure Control 

Systems” (GAO-04-628T, March 2004) 

• “Coast Guard: Replacement of HH-65 Helicopter Engine” (GAO-04-595, March 

2004) 

• “Homeland Security Risk Communication Principles May Assist in Refinement of 

the Homeland Security Advisory System” (GAO-04-538T, March 2004) 

• “Aviation Security Challenges Delay Implementation of Computer-Assisted 

Passenger Prescreening System” (GAO-04-504T, March 2004) 

• “Agencies’ Use of Procurement Flexibilities Provided in the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002” (GAO-04-447R, March 2004) 

• “Contract Management Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program Needs Increased 

Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight” (GAO-04-380, March 2004) 

• “Aviation Security Challenges Exist in Stabilizing and Enhancing Passenger and 

Baggage Screening Operations” (GAO-04-440T, February 2004) 

• “Best Practices – Using A Knowledge-Based Approach To Improve Weapon 

Acquisition” (GAO-04-386SP, January 2004) 

• “The Department of Homeland Security Needs to Fully Adopt a Knowledge-based 

Approach to Its Counter-MANPADS Development Program” (GAO-04-341R, 

January 2004) 

• “Information Technology OMB and Department of Homeland Security Investment 

Reviews” (GAO-04-323, February 2004) 

• “Defense Acquisitions DOD’s Revised Policy Emphasizes Best Practices, but More 

Controls Are Needed” (GAO-04-53, November 2003) 

• “Homeland Security Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs” 

(GAO-03-1146T, September 2003) 

• “Coast Guard New Communication System to Support Search and Rescue Faces 

Challenges” (GAO-03-1111, September 2003) 

• “Post-Hearing Question From the May 8, 2003, Hearing on Barriers to Information 

Sharing at the Department of Homeland Security” (GAO-03-985R, July 2003) 

• “Contract Management High-Level Attention Needed to Transform DOD Services 

Acquisition” (GAO-03-935, September 2003) 

• “Contract Reform DOE’s Policies and Practices in Competing Research Laboratory 

Contracts” (GAO-03-932T, July 2003) 
Appendix C 

Bibliography

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 19 

• “Contract Management INS Contracting Weaknesses Need Attention from the 

Department of Homeland Security” (GAO-03-799, July 2003) 

• “Container Security Expansion of Key Customs Programs Will Require Greater 

Attention to Critical Success Factors” (GAO-03-770, July 2003) 

• “Coast Guard Challenges during the Transition to the Department of Homeland 

Security” (GAO-03-594T, April 2003) 

• “Department of Energy Status of Contract and Project Management Reforms” 

(GAO-03-570T, March 2003) 

• “Information Technology Homeland Security Needs to Improve Entry Exit System 

Expenditure Planning” (GAO-03-563, June 2003) 

• “Border Security: Challenges in Implementing Border Technology” (GAO-03-546T, 

March 2003) 

• “Program Evaluation An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help 

Build Agency Capacity” (GAO-03-454, May 2003) 

• “Acquisition Workforce: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Future Needs” (GAO03-55, December 2002) 

• “Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Management: Opportunities to Promote 

Initiatives That Could Reduce Support-Related Costs” (GAO-02-1000, September 

2002) 

• “Customs Service Modernization Management Improvements Needed on High-risk 

Automated Commercial Environment Project” (GAO–02-545, May 2002) 

General Services Administration OIG Document 

• “Audit of Federal Technology Service’s Client Support Center, Great Lakes Region” 

(Report Number A040117/T/5/Z05002, December 9, 2004) 

Other Documents 

• Cleland, David I. and William R. King, Project Management Handbook, 2nd ed. New 

York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988. 

• Defense Acquisition Guidebook, http://akss.dau.mil/dag/ accessed 4/25/05. 

• Glossary, Defense Acquisition Acronyms and Terms, 11th ed. Fort Belvoir, VA, the 

Defense Acquisition University Press, September 2003. 
Appendix D 

DHS Procurement Statistics

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 20 

Obligations and Procurement Actions2

 

2

 The data is based on preliminary reports from the Office of Chief Procurement Officer and therefore is subject to 

change. The data does not include grants and purchase cards, but does include interagency agreements. 

 FY 2004 

 Obligations Procurement 

Organizational Element $ (millions) Actions 

Customs & Border Protection $981 3,861 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center $117 2,971 

Immigration & Customs Enforcement $848 7,705 

Transportation Security Administration $1,683 1,458 

Office of Procurement Operations $1,926 2,581 

U.S. Secret Service $68 1,220 

U.S. Coast Guard $2,111 36,630 

Emergency Preparedness and Response $1,515 3,554 

Total $9,249 59,980 

 
Appendix D 

DHS Procurement Statistics 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

Page 21 

Acquisition Staffing and Workload3

Organizational Element 

Number of 

Procurement

Personnel *

FY 2004 

Procurement 

Obligations 

$ (millions) 

Procurement 

Spending per 

Staff Member 

$ (millions) 

Customs & Border Protection 74 $981 $13.3 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center 34 117 3.4 

Immigration & Customs Enforcement 78 848 10.9 

Transportation Security Administration 67 1,683 25.1 

Office of Procurement Operations 73 1,926 26.4 

U.S. Secret Service 21 68 3.2 

U.S. Coast Guard 346 2,111 6.1 

EP&R 55 1,515 27.5 

Total 748 $9,249 $12.4** 

 

 

 * Includes GS-1102 Contracting, GS-1105 Purchasing and GS-1106 Procurement Clerical 

 and Technician. 

 ** While some DHS procurement organizations reported discrepancies with the data that we 

 used, the reported discrepancies were not significant enough to change our conclusion that 

 substantial differences exist in average contract awards per procurement person between the 

 DHS procurement organizations. 

 

3 The data is based on preliminary reports from the Office of Chief Procurement Officer and therefore is subject to 

change. The data does not include grants and purchase cards, but does include interagency agreements. Minor 

differences may exist between different tables in this appendix due to rounding. 
Appendix D 

DHS Procurement Statistics 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 22 

Program Manager (PM) Certification

 

PMs certified* and 

the level held. 

 Total Level Level Level Total 

Organizational Element (OE) PMs I II III Certified 

Percent of 

Certified 

PMs 

by OE 

Customs & Border Protection 23 0 1 2 3 13% 

Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center 2 1 0 1 2 100% 

Immigration & Customs 

Enforcement 10 3 0 1 4 40% 

Transportation Security 

Administration 62 14 29 13 56 90% 

Office of Procurement 

Operations 37 1 0 5 6 16% 

U.S. Secret Service 1 1 0 0 1 100% 

U.S. Coast Guard 31 2 6 13 21 68% 

EP&R 9 0 0 0 0 0% 

Total 175 22 36 35 93 53% 

 

* PM certification indicates a level of experience within the procurement area. Level I is the basic or beginner level and 

Level III is the most advanced or mastery of the skills levels. Each certification level requires the holder to have 

completed selected training courses. In addition to the formal education requirements the holder must have a minimum 

amount of years of experience. 
Appendix E 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

Page 23 

Judy Leonhardt, Director, Acquisition Management 

David O’Connell, Audit Manager 

Egenia Adekunjo, Management Analyst 

Trudi Powell, Auditor 

 Ken Valrance, Auditor 
Appendix F 

Report Distribution

Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

Page 24 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Under Secretary, Management 

Assistant Secretary, Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary, Policy 

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs 

Senior Procurement Executive 

DHS GAO/OIG Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees as Appropriate 
Assessment of Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement and Program Management Operations 

 

Page 25 

Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

at (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG web site at 

www.dhs.gov. 

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 the OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; or write to Department of Homeland 

Security, Washington, DC 20528, Attn: Office of Inspector General, Investigations 

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