39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–436 

DHS ACQUISITION ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFICIENCY 

ACT 

MAY 6, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCCAUL, from the Committee on Homeland Security, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4228] 

The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4228) to require the Department of Homeland Security 

to improve discipline, accountability, and transparency in acquisition program management, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill 

as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 16 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 16 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 18 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 19 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 22 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 22 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 22 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 22 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 22 

Duplicative Federal Programs ................................................................................ 23 

Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ... 23 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 23 

Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 23 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 23 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 23 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 23 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 23 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 36 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 55 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

Sec. 3. Findings. 

Sec. 4. Definitions. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES 

Sec. 101. Acquisition authorities for Under Secretary for Management. 

Sec. 102. Acquisition authorities for Chief Financial Officer. 

Sec. 103. Acquisition authorities for Chief Information Officer. 

Sec. 104. Chief Procurement Officer. 

Sec. 105. Requirements to ensure greater accountability for acquisition programs. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE 

Sec. 201. Acquisition Review Board. 

Sec. 202. Requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs. 

Sec. 203. Government Accountability Office review of Board and of requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs. 

Sec. 204. Excluded Party List System waivers. 

Sec. 205. Inspector General oversight of suspension and debarment. 

TITLE III—ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY 

Sec. 301. Congressional notification and other requirements for major acquisition program breach. 

Sec. 302. Multiyear acquisition strategy. 

Sec. 303. Acquisition reports. 

Sec. 304. Government Accountability Office review of multiyear acquisition strategy. 

Sec. 305. Office of Inspector General report. 

SEC. 3. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The Department of Homeland Security does not consistently implement its 

policies and Government and private sector best practices for acquisitions and 

procurement. 

(2) It is difficult to determine the cost of the Department’s major acquisition 

programs because the Department has not provided consistent, comparable updates on an annual basis. As of January 2014, the Department identified over 

80 major acquisition programs costing over $300,000,000, and, based on 2011, 

estimates it plans to spend about $170,000,000,000 in the future on major acquisition programs. 

(3) Since 2005, the Government Accountability Office has placed Department 

acquisition management activities on its ‘‘High-Risk List’’, which identifies Government operations that have greater susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement or greater need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. 

(4) While the Department has taken actions to address some high-risk acquisition program management issues, many programs continue to experience challenges with funding instability, workforce shortfalls, reliable cost estimates, realistic schedules, agreed-upon baseline objectives, and consistent and reliable 

data needed to accurately measure program performance. 

(5) Of the 77 Department major acquisition programs in 2011, the Government Accountability Office identified 42 programs that experienced cost growth, 

schedule slips, or both. The Department reported that the magnitude of the cost 

growth for 16 of the 42 programs, which increased from almost $20,000,000,000 

to over $50,000,000,000 in 2011, had an aggregate increase of 166 percent. 

(6) In 2012, the Government Accountability Office found that only 20 of 63 

programs had Department-approved acquisition program baselines. The Government Accountability Office also reported that the Department planned to spend 

more than $105 billion on programs lacking acquisition program baselines. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this Act: 

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

(2) DEPARTMENT.—The term ‘‘Department’’ means the Department of Homeland Security. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

(3) CONGRESSIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEES.—The term ‘‘congressional homeland security committees’’ means— 

(A) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 

Senate; and 

(B) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and 

of the Senate. 

(b) ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

(1) ACQUISITION.—The term ‘‘acquisition’’ has the meaning provided in section 

131 of title 41, United States Code. 

(2) BEST PRACTICES.—The term ‘‘best practices’’, with respect to acquisition, 

means a knowledge-based approach to capability development that includes 

identifying and validating needs; assessing alternatives to select the most appropriate solution; clearly establishing well-defined requirements; developing realistic cost assessments and schedules; securing stable funding that matches resources to requirements; demonstrating technology, design, and manufacturing 

maturity; using milestones and exit criteria or specific accomplishments that 

demonstrate progress; adopting and executing standardized processes with 

known success across programs; establishing an adequate workforce that is 

qualified and sufficient to perform necessary functions; and integrating these 

capabilities into the Department’s mission and business operations. 

(c) AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS IN HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002.—Section 

2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘In this Act,’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In this Act,’’; 

(2) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(2)’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(B) The term ‘congressional homeland security committees’ means— 

‘‘(i) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 

Senate; and 

‘‘(ii) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and of the Senate, where appropriate.’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(b) ACQUISITION-RELATED DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the following definitions 

apply: 

‘‘(1) ACQUISITION.—The term ‘acquisition’ has the meaning provided in section 

131 of title 41, United States Code. 

‘‘(2) ACQUISITION DECISION AUTHORITY.—The term ‘acquisition decision authority’ means the authority, held by the Secretary acting through the Deputy 

Secretary or Under Secretary for Management— 

‘‘(A) to ensure compliance with Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives; 

‘‘(B) to review (including approving, halting, modifying, or cancelling) an 

acquisition program through the life cycle of the program; 

‘‘(C) to ensure that program managers have the resources necessary to 

successfully execute an approved acquisition program; and 

‘‘(D) to ensure good program management of cost, schedule, risk, and system performance of the acquisition, including assessing acquisition program 

baseline breaches and directing any corrective action for such breaches. 

‘‘(3) ACQUISITION DECISION EVENT.—The term ‘acquisition decision event’, with 

respect to an investment or acquisition program, means a predetermined point 

within the acquisition phases of the investment or acquisition program at which 

the investment or acquisition program will undergo a review prior to commencement of the next phase. 

‘‘(4) ACQUISITION DECISION MEMORANDUM.—The term ‘acquisition decision 

memorandum’, with respect to an acquisition, means the official acquisition decision event record that includes a documented record of decisions, exit criteria, 

and assigned actions for the acquisition as determined by the person exercising 

acquisition decision authority for the acquisition. 

‘‘(5) ACQUISITION PROGRAM BASELINE.—The term ‘acquisition program baseline’, with respect to an acquisition program, means a summary of the cost, 

schedule, and performance parameters, expressed in standard, measurable, 

quantitative terms, which must be met in order to accomplish the goals of the 

program. 

‘‘(6) CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The term ‘capability development plan’, 

with respect to a proposed acquisition, means the document that the Acquisition 

Review Board approves for the first acquisition decision event related to validating the need of a proposed acquisition. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

‘‘(7) COMPONENT ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE.—The term ‘Component Acquisition 

Executive’ means the senior acquisition official within a Component who is designated in writing by the Under Secretary for Management, in consultation 

with the Component head, with authority and responsibility for leading a process and staff to provide acquisition and program management oversight, policy, 

and guidance to ensure that statutory, regulatory, and higher level policy requirements are fulfilled, including compliance with Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives established by the Under Secretary for Management. 

‘‘(8) LIFE CYCLE COST.—The term ‘life cycle cost’, with respect to an acquisition program, means all costs associated with research, development, procurement, operation, integrated logistics support, and disposal under the program, 

including supporting infrastructure that plans, manages, and executes the program over its full life, and costs of common support items incurred as a result 

of the program. 

‘‘(9) MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM.—The term ‘major acquisition program’ 

means a Department acquisition program that is estimated by the Secretary to 

require an eventual total expenditure of at least $300,000,000 (based on fiscal 

year 2014 constant dollars) over its life cycle cost.’’. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES 

SEC. 101. ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES FOR UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT. 

Section 701 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘Procurement’’ and inserting ‘‘Acquisition 

and procurement’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) ACQUISITION AND RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1702(b) of title 41, United States 

Code, the Under Secretary for Management is the Chief Acquisition Officer of 

the Department. As Chief Acquisition Officer, the Under Secretary shall have 

the authority and perform the functions as specified in section 1702(b) of such 

title, and perform all other functions and responsibilities delegated by the Secretary or described in this subsection. 

‘‘(2) DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.—In addition to the authority and functions 

specified in section 1702(b) of title 41, United States Code, the duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Management related to acquisition include the following: 

‘‘(A) Advising the Secretary regarding acquisition management activities, 

taking into account risks of failure to achieve cost, schedule, or performance 

parameters, to ensure that the Department achieves its mission through 

the adoption of widely accepted program management best practices and 

standards. 

‘‘(B) Exercising the acquisition decision authority to approve, halt, modify 

(including the rescission of approvals of program milestones), or cancel 

major acquisition programs, unless the Under Secretary delegates the authority to a Component Acquisition Executive pursuant to paragraph (3). 

‘‘(C) Establishing policies for acquisition that implement an approach that 

takes into account risks of failure to achieve cost, schedule, or performance 

parameters that all Components of the Department shall comply with, including outlining relevant authorities for program managers to effectively 

manage acquisition programs. 

‘‘(D) Ensuring that each major acquisition program has a Department-approved acquisition program baseline. 

‘‘(E) Ensuring that the heads of Components and Component Acquisition 

Executives comply with Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 

and Department acquisition management directives. 

‘‘(F) Ensuring that grants and financial assistance are provided only to 

individuals and organizations that are not suspended or debarred. 

‘‘(G) Distributing guidance throughout the Department to ensure that 

contractors involved in acquisitions, particularly companies that access the 

Department’s information systems and technologies, adhere to internal cybersecurity policies established by the Department of Homeland Security. 

‘‘(3) DELEGATION OF ACQUISITION DECISION AUTHORITY.— 

‘‘(A) LEVEL 3 ACQUISITIONS.—The Under Secretary for Management may 

delegate acquisition decision authority in writing to the relevant Component Acquisition Executive for an acquisition program that has a life cycle 

cost estimate of less than $300,000,000. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

‘‘(B) LEVEL 2 ACQUISITIONS.—The Under Secretary for Management may 

delegate acquisition decision authority in writing to the relevant Component Acquisition Executive for a major acquisition program that has a life 

cycle cost estimate of at least $300,000,000 but not more than 

$1,000,000,000 if all of the following requirements are met: 

‘‘(i) The Component concerned possesses working policies, processes, 

and procedures that are consistent with Department-level acquisition 

policy. 

‘‘(ii) The Component Acquisition Executive has adequate, experienced, dedicated program management professional staff commensurate 

with the size of the delegated portfolio. 

‘‘(iii) Each major acquisition program concerned has written documentation showing that it has a Department-approved acquisition program baseline and it is meeting agreed-upon cost, schedule, and performance thresholds. 

‘‘(4) EXCLUDED PARTIES LIST SYSTEM CONSULTATION.—The Under Secretary for 

Management shall require that all Department contracting and procurement officials consult the Excluded Parties List System (or successor system) as maintained by the General Services Administration prior to awarding a contract or 

grant or entering into other transactions to ascertain whether the selected contractor is excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and 

certain types of Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits. 

‘‘(5) RELATIONSHIP TO UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.— 

Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the authority granted to the Under 

Secretary for Science and Technology under this Act. The Under Secretary for 

Management and the Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall cooperate in matters related to the coordination of acquisitions across the Department 

so that investments of the Directorate of Science and Technology can support 

current and future requirements of the Components.’’. 

SEC. 102. ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES FOR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. 

Section 702 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 342) is amended by 

adding at the end of subsection (b)(2) the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(J) Notwithstanding section 902 of title 31, United States Code, provide 

leadership over financial management policy and programs for the Department as they relate to the Department’s acquisitions programs, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management.’’. 

SEC. 103. ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES FOR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. 

Section 703 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 343) is amended by 

adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(c) ACQUISITION RESPONSIBILITIES.—Notwithstanding section 11315 of title 40, 

United States Code, the acquisition responsibilities of the Chief Information Officer, 

in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management, shall include the following: 

‘‘(1) Serve as the lead technical authority for information technology programs 

and establish departmental information technology priorities, policies, processes, standards, guidelines, and procedures. 

‘‘(2) Oversee the management of the Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture and ensure that, before each acquisition decision event, approved information technology acquisitions comply with departmental information technology 

management processes, technical requirements, and the Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture, and in any case in which information technology acquisitions do not comply with Departmental management directives, make recommendations to the Acquisition Review Board regarding such noncompliance. 

‘‘(3) Be responsible for providing recommendations to the Acquisition Review 

Board established in section 836 of this Act on information technology programs, and be responsible for developing information technology acquisition 

strategic guidance.’’. 

SEC. 104. CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 

et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 708. CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is a Chief Procurement Officer of the Department, who 

shall report directly to the Under Secretary for Management. The Chief Procurement Officer is the senior procurement executive for purposes of section 1702(c) of 

title 41, United States Code, and shall perform procurement functions as specified 

in such section. The Chief Procurement Officer also shall perform other functions 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

and responsibilities set forth in this section and as may be assigned by the Under 

Secretary for Management. 

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Chief Procurement Officer shall— 

‘‘(1) exercise leadership and authority to the extent delegated by the Under 

Secretary for Management over the Department procurement function; 

‘‘(2) issue acquisition regulations and policies; 

‘‘(3) account for the integrity, performance, and oversight of Department procurement and contracting functions and be responsible for ensuring that a procurement’s contracting strategy and plans are consistent with the intent and direction of the Acquisition Review Board established in section 836 of this Act; 

‘‘(4) serve as the Department’s business advisor and main liaison to industry 

on procurement-related issues by providing advice on industry engagement, acquisition policy, oversight of the procurement function, and development of the 

acquisition workforce; 

‘‘(5) oversee a centralized certification and training program, in consultation 

with the Under Secretary for Management, for the entire Department acquisition workforce while using, to the greatest extent practicable, best practices and 

acquisitions training opportunities already in existence within the Federal Government, the private sector, or universities and colleges, as appropriate, and including training on how best to identify actions that warrant referrals for suspension or debarment; 

‘‘(6) delegate or retain contracting authority, as appropriate, except as provided in section 701(d)(3) of this Act; 

‘‘(7) participate in the selection, and periodic performance review, of the head 

of each contracting activity within the Department; 

‘‘(8) collect baseline data and establish performance measures on the impact 

of strategic sourcing initiatives on the private sector, including, in particular, 

small businesses; and 

‘‘(9) ensure that a fair proportion (as defined pursuant to the Small Business 

Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)) of Federal contract and subcontract dollars are 

awarded to small businesses, maximize opportunities for small business participation, and ensure, to the extent practicable, small businesses that achieve 

qualified vendor status for security-related technologies are provided an opportunity to compete for contracts for such technology.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding after the item relating to section 707 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 708. Chief Procurement Officer.’’. 

SEC. 105. REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 

et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 709. REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH MECHANISM.—Within the Management Directorate, the Under Secretary for Management shall establish a mechanism to 

prioritize improving the accountability, standardization, and transparency of major 

acquisition programs of the Department in order to increase opportunities for effectiveness and efficiencies and to serve as the central oversight function of all Department acquisition programs. 

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.—The Under Secretary for Management shall designate an Executive Director to oversee the requirement under 

subsection (a). The Executive Director shall report directly to the Under Secretary 

and shall carry out the following responsibilities: 

‘‘(1) Monitor the performance of Department acquisition programs regularly 

between acquisition decision events to identify problems with cost, performance, 

or schedule that Components may need to address to prevent cost overruns, performance issues, or schedule delays. 

‘‘(2) Assist the Chief Acquisition Officer in managing the Department’s acquisition portfolio. 

‘‘(3) Conduct oversight of individual acquisition programs to implement Department acquisition program policy, procedures, and guidance with a priority 

on ensuring the data it collects and maintains from its Components is accurate 

and reliable. 

‘‘(4) Serve as the focal point within the Department for policy, process, and 

procedure regarding life cycle cost estimating and analysis. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

‘‘(5) Serve as the focal point and coordinator for the acquisition life cycle review process and as the executive secretariat for the Acquisition Review Board 

established under section 836 of this Act. 

‘‘(6) Advise the persons having acquisition decision authority in making acquisition decisions consistent with all applicable laws and in establishing clear 

lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility for acquisition decisionmaking within the Department. 

‘‘(7) Engage in the strategic planning and performance evaluation process required under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 

1105(a)(28), 1115, 1116, and 9703 of title 31, United States Code, by supporting 

the Chief Procurement Officer in developing strategies and specific plans for 

hiring, training, and professional development in order to rectify any deficiency 

within the Department’s acquisition workforce. 

‘‘(8) Oversee the Component Acquisition Executive structure to ensure it has 

sufficient capabilities and complies with Department policies. 

‘‘(9) Develop standardized certification standards in consultation with the 

Component Acquisition Executives for all acquisition program managers. 

‘‘(10) In the event that a program manager’s certification or actions need review for purposes of promotion or removal, provide input, in consultation with 

the relevant Component Acquisition Executive, into the relevant program manager’s performance evaluation, and report positive or negative experiences to 

the relevant certifying authority. 

‘‘(11) Provide technical support and assistance to Department acquisitions and 

acquisition personnel in conjunction with the Chief Procurement Officer. 

‘‘(12) Prepare the Department’s Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report, as 

required by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (division D of Public Law 113–6; 127 Stat. 343) and section 840 of this Act, and 

make such report available to congressional homeland security committees. 

‘‘(13) Prepare the Department’s Quarterly Program Accountability Report as 

required by section 840 of this Act, and make such report available to the congressional homeland security committees. 

‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMPONENTS.—Each head of a Component shall comply 

with Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition 

management directives established by the Under Secretary for Management. For 

each major acquisition program, each head of a Component shall— 

‘‘(1) establish a complete life cycle cost estimate with supporting documentation, including an acquisition program baseline; 

‘‘(2) verify each life cycle cost estimate against independent cost estimates, 

and reconcile any differences; 

‘‘(3) complete a cost-benefit analysis with supporting documentation; 

‘‘(4) develop and maintain a schedule that is consistent with scheduling best 

practices as identified by the Comptroller General of the United States, including, in appropriate cases, an integrated master schedule; and 

‘‘(5) ensure that all acquisition program information provided by the Component is complete, accurate, timely, and valid.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by adding after the 

item relating to section 708 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 709. Requirements to ensure greater accountability for acquisition programs.’’. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION PROGRAM 

MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE 

SEC. 201. ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(6 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 836. ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an Acquisition Review Board (in 

this section referred to as the ‘Board’) to strengthen accountability and uniformity 

within the Department acquisition review process, review major acquisition programs, and review the use of best practices. 

‘‘(b) COMPOSITION.—The Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary for Management 

shall serve as chair of the Board. The Secretary shall also ensure participation by 

other relevant Department officials, including at least two Component heads or 

their designees, as permanent members of the Board. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

‘‘(c) MEETINGS.—The Board shall meet every time a major acquisition program 

needs authorization to proceed from acquisition decision events through the acquisition life cycle and to consider any major acquisition program in breach as necessary. 

The Board may also be convened for non-major acquisitions that are deemed highrisk by the Executive Director referred to in section 709(b) of this Act. The Board 

shall also meet regularly for purposes of ensuring all acquisitions processes proceed 

in a timely fashion to achieve mission readiness. 

‘‘(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibilities of the Board are as follows: 

‘‘(1) Determine whether a proposed acquisition has met the requirements of 

key phases of the acquisition life cycle framework and is able to proceed to the 

next phase and eventual full production and deployment. 

‘‘(2) Oversee executable business strategy, resources, management, accountability, and alignment to strategic initiatives. 

‘‘(3) Support the person with acquisition decision authority for an acquisition 

in determining the appropriate direction for the acquisition at key acquisition 

decision events. 

‘‘(4) Conduct systematic reviews of acquisitions to ensure that they are progressing in compliance with the approved documents for their current acquisition phase. 

‘‘(5) Validate the acquisition documents of each major acquisition program, including the acquisition program baseline, to ensure the reliability of underlying 

data. 

‘‘(6) Ensure that practices are adopted and implemented to require consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives as part of 

the process for developing requirements for major acquisition programs prior to 

the initiation of the capability development plan, second acquisition decision 

event, including, at a minimum, the following practices: 

‘‘(A) Department officials responsible for acquisition, budget, and cost estimating functions are provided with the appropriate opportunity to develop 

estimates and raise cost and schedule matters before performance objectives are established for capabilities when feasible. 

‘‘(B) Full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, schedule, and 

performance objectives for each alternative is considered. 

‘‘(e) ACQUISITION PROGRAM BASELINE REPORT REQUIREMENT.—If the person exercising acquisition decision authority over a major acquisition program approves the 

program to proceed beyond the acquisition decision event requiring a capability development plan before it has a Department-approved acquisition program baseline, 

then the Under Secretary for Management shall create and approve an acquisition 

program baseline report on the decision, and the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(1) within seven days after an acquisition decision memorandum is signed, 

notify in writing the congressional homeland security committees of such decision; and 

‘‘(2) within 60 days after the acquisition decision memorandum is signed, submit a report to such committees stating the rationale for the decision and a plan 

of action to require an acquisition program baseline for the program. 

‘‘(f) BEST PRACTICES DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘best practices’ has the 

meaning provided in section 4(b) of the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by adding after the 

item relating to section 835 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 836. Acquisition Review Board.’’. 

SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE DUPLICATION IN ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(6 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new 

section: 

‘‘SEC. 837. REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE DUPLICATION IN ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH POLICIES.—In an effort to reduce duplication and 

inefficiency for all Department investments, including major acquisition programs, 

the Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management, 

shall establish Department-wide policies to integrate all phases of the investment 

life cycle and help the Department identify, validate, and prioritize standards for 

common Component requirements for major acquisition program requirements in 

order to increase opportunities for effectiveness and efficiencies. The policies shall 

also include strategic alternatives for developing and facilitating a Department 

Component-driven requirements process that includes oversight of a development 

test and evaluation capability; identification of priority gaps and overlaps in DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

ment capability needs; and provision of feasible technical alternatives, including innovative commercially available alternatives, to meet capability needs. 

‘‘(b) MECHANISMS TO CARRY OUT REQUIREMENT.—The Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management, shall coordinate the actions 

necessary to carry out subsection (a), using such mechanisms as considered necessary by the Secretary to help the Department reduce duplication and inefficiency 

for all Department investments, including major acquisition programs. 

‘‘(c) COORDINATION.—In coordinating the actions necessary to carry out subsection 

(a), the Deputy Secretary shall consult with the Under Secretary for Management, 

Component Acquisition Executives, and any other Department officials, including 

the Under Secretary for Science and Technology or his designee, with specific knowledge of Department or Component acquisition capabilities to prevent unnecessary 

duplication of requirements. 

‘‘(d) ADVISORS.—The Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretary 

for Management, shall seek and consider input within legal and ethical boundaries 

from members of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector, as appropriate, on matters within their authority and 

expertise in carrying out the Department’s mission. 

‘‘(e) MEETINGS.—The Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretary 

for Management, shall meet at least quarterly and communicate with Components 

often to ensure that Components do not overlap or duplicate spending or priorities 

on major investments and acquisition programs within their areas of responsibility. 

‘‘(f) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out this section, the responsibilities of the 

Deputy Secretary are as follows: 

‘‘(1) To review and validate the requirements documents of major investments 

and acquisition programs prior to acquisition decision events of the investments 

or programs. 

‘‘(2) To ensure the requirements and scope of a major investment or acquisition program are stable, measurable, achievable, at an acceptable risk level, and 

match the resources planned to be available. 

‘‘(3) Before any entity of the Department issues a solicitation for a new contract, coordinate with other Department entities as appropriate to prevent duplication and inefficiency and— 

‘‘(A) to implement portfolio reviews to identify common mission requirements and crosscutting opportunities among Components to harmonize investments and requirements and prevent overlap and duplication among 

Components; and 

‘‘(B) to the extent practicable, to standardize equipment purchases, 

streamline the acquisition process, improve efficiencies, and conduct best 

practices for strategic sourcing. 

‘‘(4) To ensure program managers of major investments and acquisition programs conduct analyses, giving particular attention to factors such as cost, 

schedule, risk, performance, and operational efficiency in order to determine 

that programs work as intended within cost and budget expectations. 

‘‘(5) To propose schedules for delivery of the operational capability needed to 

meet each Department investment and major acquisition program. 

‘‘(g) BEST PRACTICES DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘best practices’ has the 

meaning provided in section 4(b) of the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by adding after the 

item relating to section 836 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 837. Requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs.’’. 

SEC. 203. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REVIEW OF BOARD AND OF REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE DUPLICATION IN ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the effectiveness of the Acquisition Review Board established under 

section 836 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (as added by section 201) and the 

requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs established under section 837 of such Act (as added by section 202) in improving the Department’s acquisition management process. 

(b) SCOPE OF REPORT.—The review shall include the following: 

(1) An assessment of the effectiveness of the Department in increasing program management oversight, best practices and standards, and discipline 

among the Components of the Department, including in working together and 

in preventing overlap and duplication. 

(2) An assessment of the effectiveness of the Department in instilling program 

management discipline. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

(3) A statement of how regularly each major acquisition program is reviewed 

by the Board, how often the Board stops major acquisition programs from moving forward in the phases of the acquisition life cycle process, and the number 

of major acquisition programs that have been halted because of problems with 

operational effectiveness, schedule delays, or cost overruns. 

(c) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional homeland security committees a report on the review required by this section 

not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report shall 

be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex. 

SEC. 204. EXCLUDED PARTY LIST SYSTEM WAIVERS. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide notification to the congressional 

homeland security committees within five days after the issuance of a waiver by the 

Secretary of Federal requirements that an agency not engage in business with a 

contractor in the Excluded Party List System (or successor system) as maintained 

by the General Services Administration and an explanation for a finding by the Secretary that a compelling reason exists for this action. 

SEC. 205. INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT OF SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT. 

The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security— 

(1) may audit decisions about grant and procurement awards to identify instances where a contract or grant was improperly awarded to a suspended or 

debarred entity and whether corrective actions were taken to prevent recurrence; and 

(2) shall review the suspension and debarment program throughout the Department of Homeland Security to assess whether suspension and debarment 

criteria are consistently applied throughout the Department and whether disparities exist in the application of such criteria, particularly with respect to 

business size and categories. 

TITLE III—ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY 

SEC. 301. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM BREACH. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(6 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new 

section: 

‘‘SEC. 838. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM BREACH. 

‘‘(a) BREACH DEFINED.—The term ‘breach’, with respect to a major acquisition program, means a failure to meet any cost, schedule, or performance parameter specified in the acquisition program baseline. 

‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS WITHIN DEPARTMENT IF BREACH OCCURS.— 

‘‘(1) NOTIFICATIONS.— 

‘‘(A) NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL BREACH.—If a major acquisition program has a potential for a future breach, as determined by the program 

manager for that program, the program manager shall notify the person exercising acquisition decision authority for the program. 

‘‘(B) NOTIFICATION OF ACTUAL BREACH.—If an actual breach occurs in a 

major acquisition program, the program manager for that program shall notify the head of the Component concerned, the Component Acquisition Executive for the program, the Executive Director referred to in section 709(b) 

of this Act, the Under Secretary for Management, and the Deputy Secretary. 

‘‘(C) NOTIFICATION TO SECRETARY.—If a major acquisition program has an 

actual breach with a cost overrun greater than 20 percent or a schedule 

delay greater than 12 months from the costs or schedule set forth in the 

acquisition program baseline for the program, the Secretary and the Inspector General of the Department shall be notified not later than five business 

days after the actual breach is identified. 

‘‘(2) REMEDIATION PLAN AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an actual breach with a cost overrun 

greater than 15 percent or a schedule delay greater than 180 days from the 

costs or schedule set forth in the acquisition program baseline, a remediation plan and root cause analysis is required, and the Under Secretary for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Management or his designee shall establish a date for submission within 

the Department of a breach remediation plan and root cause analysis in accordance with this subsection. 

‘‘(B) REMEDIATION PLAN.—The remediation plan required under this subsection shall be submitted in writing to the head of the Component concerned, the Executive Director referred to in section 709(b) of this Act, and 

the Under Secretary for Management. The plan shall— 

‘‘(i) explain the circumstances of the breach; 

‘‘(ii) provide prior cost estimating information; 

‘‘(iii) propose corrective action to control cost growth, schedule delays, 

or performance issues; 

‘‘(iv) in coordination with Component Acquisition Executive, discuss 

all options considered, including the estimated impact on cost, schedule, or performance of the program if no changes are made to current 

requirements, the estimated cost of the program if requirements are 

modified, and the extent to which funding from other programs will 

need to be reduced to cover the cost growth of the program; and 

‘‘(v) explain the rationale for why the proposed corrective action is 

recommended. 

‘‘(C) ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS.—The root cause analysis required under this 

subsection shall determine the underlying cause or causes of shortcomings 

in cost, schedule, or performance of the program, including the role, if any, 

of the following: 

‘‘(i) Unrealistic performance expectations. 

‘‘(ii) Unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or schedule or changes in 

program requirements. 

‘‘(iii) Immature technologies or excessive manufacturing or integration risk. 

‘‘(iv) Unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology 

integration issues arising during program performance. 

‘‘(v) Changes in procurement quantities. 

‘‘(vi) Inadequate program funding or changes in planned out-year 

funding from one five-year funding plan to the next five-year funding 

plan as outlined in the Future Years Homeland Security Program required under section 874 of this Act. 

‘‘(vii) Legislative, legal, or regulatory changes. 

‘‘(viii) Inadequate program management personnel, including lack of 

training, credentials, certifications, or use of best practices. 

‘‘(3) CORRECTION OF BREACH.—The Under Secretary for Management or his 

designee shall establish a date for submission within the Department of a program of corrective action that ensures that one of the following actions has occurred: 

‘‘(A) The breach has been corrected and the program is again in compliance with the original acquisition program baseline parameters. 

‘‘(B) A revised acquisition program baseline has been approved. 

‘‘(C) The program has been halted or cancelled. 

‘‘(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION IF BREACH OCCURS.— 

‘‘(1) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—If a notification is made under subsection 

(b)(1)(B) for a breach in a major acquisition program with a cost overrun greater 

than 15 percent or a schedule delay greater than 180 days from the costs or 

schedule set forth in the acquisition program baseline, or with an anticipated 

failure for any key performance threshold or parameter specified in the acquisition program baseline, the Under Secretary for Management shall notify the 

congressional homeland security committees of the breach in the next quarterly 

Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report after the Under Secretary for Management receives the notification from the program manager under subsection 

(b)(1)(B). 

‘‘(2) SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCES IN COSTS OR SCHEDULE.—If a likely cost overrun 

is greater than 20 percent or a likely delay is greater than 12 months from the 

costs and schedule set forth in the acquisition program baseline for a major acquisition program, the Under Secretary for Management shall include in the notification required in (c)(1) a written certification, with supporting explanation, 

that— 

‘‘(A) the acquisition is essential to the accomplishment of the Department’s mission; 

‘‘(B) there are no alternatives to such capability or asset that will provide 

equal or greater capability in both a more cost-effective and timely manner; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

‘‘(C) the new acquisition schedule and estimates for total acquisition cost 

are reasonable; and 

‘‘(D) the management structure for the acquisition program is adequate 

to manage and control performance, cost, and schedule. 

‘‘(3) SUBMISSIONS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 calendar days after submission to such committees of a breach notification under paragraph (1) of this 

section for a major acquisition program, the Under Secretary for Management 

shall submit to such committees the following: 

‘‘(A) A copy of the remediation plan and the root cause analysis prepared 

under subsection (b)(2) for the program. 

‘‘(B) A statement describing the corrective action or actions that have occurred pursuant to subsection (b)(3) for the program, with a justification for 

the action or actions. 

‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL ACTIONS IF BREACH OCCURS.— ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—During the 90-day period following submission under subsection (c)(3) of a remediation plan, root cause 

analysis, and statement of corrective actions with respect to a major acquisition 

program, the Under Secretary for Management shall submit a certification described in paragraph (2) of this subsection to the congressional homeland security committees. If the Under Secretary for Management does not submit such 

certification by the end of such 90-day period, then funds appropriated to the 

major acquisition program shall not be obligated until the Under Secretary for 

Management submits such certification. 

‘‘(2) CERTIFICATION.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the certification described in this paragraph is a certification that— 

‘‘(A) the Department has adjusted or restructured the program in a manner that addresses the root cause or causes of the cost growth in the program; and 

‘‘(B) the Department has conducted a thorough review of the breached 

program’s acquisition decision event approvals and the current acquisition 

decision event approval for the breached program has been adjusted as necessary to account for the restructured program.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by adding after the 

item relating to section 837 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 838. Congressional notification and other requirements for major acquisition program breach.’’. 

SEC. 302. MULTIYEAR ACQUISITION STRATEGY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) AMENDMENT.—Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 (6 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 839. MULTIYEAR ACQUISITION STRATEGY. 

‘‘(a) MULTIYEAR ACQUISITION STRATEGY REQUIRED.—Not later than one year after 

the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate homeland security committees a multiyear acquisition strategy to guide the 

overall direction of the acquisitions of the Department while allowing flexibility to 

deal with ever-changing threats and risks and to help industry better understand, 

plan, and align resources to meet the future acquisition needs of the Department. 

The strategy shall be updated and included in each Future Years Homeland Security Program required under section 874 of this Act. 

‘‘(b) CONSULTATION.—In developing the strategy, the Secretary shall consult with 

others as the Secretary deems appropriate, including headquarters, Components, 

employees in the field, and when appropriate, individuals from industry and the 

academic community. 

‘‘(c) FORM OF STRATEGY.—The report shall be submitted in unclassified form but 

may include a classified annex for any sensitive or classified information if necessary. The Department also shall publish the plan in an unclassified format that 

is publicly available. 

‘‘(d) CONTENTS OF STRATEGY.—The strategy shall include the following: 

‘‘(1) PRIORITIZED LIST.—A systematic and integrated prioritized list developed 

by the Under Secretary for Management or his designee in coordination with 

all of the Component Acquisition Executives of Department major acquisition 

programs that Department and Component acquisition investments seek to address, that includes the expected security and economic benefit of the program 

or system and an analysis of how the security and economic benefit derived 

from the program or system will be measured. 

‘‘(2) INVENTORY.—A plan to develop a reliable Department-wide inventory of 

investments and real property assets to help the Department plan, budget, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

schedule, and acquire upgrades of its systems and equipment and plan for the 

acquisition and management of future systems and equipment. 

‘‘(3) FUNDING GAPS.—A plan to address funding gaps between funding requirements for major acquisition programs and known available resources including, 

to the maximum extent practicable, ways of leveraging best practices to identify 

and eliminate overpayment for items to prevent wasteful purchasing, achieve 

the greatest level of efficiency and cost savings by rationalizing purchases, 

aligning pricing for similar items, and utilizing purchase timing and economies 

of scale. 

‘‘(4) IDENTIFICATION OF CAPABILITIES.—An identification of test, evaluation, 

modeling, and simulation capabilities that will be required to support the acquisition of the technologies to meet the needs of the plan and ways to leverage 

to the greatest extent possible the emerging technology trends and research and 

development trends within the public and private sectors and an identification 

of ways to ensure that the appropriate technology is acquired and integrated 

into the Department’s operating doctrine and procured in ways that improve 

mission performance. 

‘‘(5) FOCUS ON FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS.—An assessment of ways the Department 

can improve its ability to test and acquire innovative solutions to allow needed 

incentives and protections for appropriate risk-taking in order to meet its acquisition needs with resiliency, agility, and responsiveness to assure the Nation’s 

homeland security and facilitate trade. 

‘‘(6) FOCUS ON INCENTIVES TO SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.—An assessment of 

ways the Department can develop incentives for program managers and senior 

Department acquisition officials to prevent cost overruns, avoid schedule delays, 

and achieve cost savings in major acquisition programs. 

‘‘(7) FOCUS ON ADDRESSING DELAYS AND BID PROTESTS.—An assessment of 

ways the Department can improve the acquisition process to minimize cost overruns in requirements development, procurement announcements, requests for 

proposals, evaluation of proposals, protests of decisions and awards and through 

the use of best practices as defined in section 4(b) of the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act and lessons learned by the Department and 

other Federal agencies. 

‘‘(8) FOCUS ON IMPROVING OUTREACH.—An identification and assessment of 

ways to increase opportunities for communication and collaboration with industry, small and disadvantaged businesses, intra-government entities, university 

centers of excellence, accredited certification and standards development organizations, and national laboratories to ensure that the Department understands 

the market for technologies, products, and innovation that is available to meet 

its mission needs to inform the requirements-setting process and before engaging in an acquisition, including— 

‘‘(A) methods designed especially to engage small and disadvantaged businesses and a cost-benefit analysis of the tradeoffs that small and disadvantaged businesses provide, barriers to entry for small and disadvantaged 

businesses, and unique requirements for small and disadvantaged businesses; and 

‘‘(B) within the Department Vendor Communication Plan and Market Research Guide, instructions for interaction by program managers with such 

entities to prevent misinterpretation of acquisition regulations and to permit freedom within legal and ethical boundaries for program managers to 

interact with such businesses with transparency. 

‘‘(9) COMPETITION.—A plan regarding competition as described in subsection 

(e). 

‘‘(10) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.—A plan regarding the Department acquisition 

workforce as described in subsection (f). 

‘‘(11) FEASIBILITY OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND PILOT PROGRAM.—An 

assessment of the feasibility of conducting a pilot program to establish an acquisition workforce development fund as described in subsection (g). 

‘‘(e) COMPETITION PLAN.—The strategy shall also include a plan (referred to in 

subsection (d)(9)) that shall address actions to ensure competition, or the option of 

competition, for major acquisition programs. The plan may include assessments of 

the following measures in appropriate cases if such measures are cost effective: 

‘‘(1) Competitive prototyping. 

‘‘(2) Dual-sourcing. 

‘‘(3) Unbundling of contracts. 

‘‘(4) Funding of next-generation prototype systems or subsystems. 

‘‘(5) Use of modular, open architectures to enable competition for upgrades. 

‘‘(6) Acquisition of complete technical data packages. 

‘‘(7) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

‘‘(8) Licensing of additional suppliers, including small businesses. 

‘‘(9) Periodic system or program reviews to address long-term competitive effects of program decisions. 

‘‘(f) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE PLAN.— 

‘‘(1) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.—The strategy shall also include a plan (referred to in subsection (d)(10)) to address Department acquisition workforce accountability and talent management that identifies the acquisition workforce 

needs of each Component performing acquisition functions and develops options 

for filling those needs with qualified individuals, including a cost-benefit analysis of contracting for acquisition assistance. 

‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL MATTERS COVERED.—The acquisition workforce plan shall address ways to— 

‘‘(A) improve the recruitment, hiring, training, and retention of Department acquisition workforce personnel, including contracting officer’s representatives, in order to retain highly qualified individuals that have experience in the acquisition life cycle, complex procurements, and management 

of large programs; 

‘‘(B) empower program managers to have the authority to manage their 

programs in an accountable and transparent manner as they work with the 

acquisition workforce; 

‘‘(C) prevent duplication within Department acquisition workforce training and certification requirements through leveraging already-existing 

training within the Federal Government, academic community, or private 

industry; 

‘‘(D) achieve integration and consistency with Government-wide training 

and accreditation standards, acquisition training tools, and training facilities; 

‘‘(E) designate the acquisition positions that will be necessary to support 

the Department acquisition requirements, including in the fields of— 

‘‘(i) program management; 

‘‘(ii) systems engineering; 

‘‘(iii) procurement, including contracting; 

‘‘(iv) test and evaluation; 

‘‘(v) life cycle logistics; 

‘‘(vi) cost estimating and program financial management; and 

‘‘(vii) additional disciplines appropriate to Department mission needs; 

‘‘(F) strengthen the performance of contracting officer’s representatives 

(as defined in Subpart 1.602-2 and Subpart 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation), including by— 

‘‘(i) assessing the extent to which contracting officer’s representatives 

are certified and receive training that is appropriate; 

‘‘(ii) determining what training is most effective with respect to the 

type and complexity of assignment; and 

‘‘(iii) implementing actions to improve training based on such assessment; and 

‘‘(G) identify ways to increase training for relevant investigators and 

auditors to examine fraud in major acquisition programs, including identifying opportunities to leverage existing Government and private sector resources in coordination with the Inspector General of the Department. 

‘‘(g) FEASIBILITY OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND PILOT PROGRAM.—The strategy shall also include an assessment (referred to in subsection (d)(11)) of the feasibility of conducting a pilot program to establish a Homeland Security Acquisition 

Workforce Development Fund (in this subsection referred to as the ‘Fund’) to ensure 

the Department acquisition workforce has the capacity, in both personnel and skills, 

needed to properly perform its mission and ensure that the Department receives the 

best value for the expenditure of public resources. The assessment shall address the 

following: 

‘‘(1) Ways to fund the Fund, including the use of direct appropriations, or the 

credit, transfer, or deposit of unobligated or unused funds from Department 

Components into the Fund to remain available for obligation in the fiscal year 

for which credited, transferred, or deposited and to remain available for successive fiscal years. 

‘‘(2) Ways to reward the Department acquisition workforce and program managers for good program management in controlling cost growth, limiting schedule delays, and ensuring operational effectiveness through providing a percentage of the savings or general acquisition bonuses. 

‘‘(3) Guidance for the administration of the Fund that includes provisions to 

do the following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

‘‘(A) Describe the costs and benefits associated with the use of direct appropriations or credit, transfer, or deposit of unobligated or unused funds 

to finance the Fund. 

‘‘(B) Describe the manner and timing for applications for amounts in the 

Fund to be submitted. 

‘‘(C) Explain the evaluation criteria to be used for approving or 

prioritizing applications for amounts in the Fund in any fiscal year. 

‘‘(D) Explain the mechanism to report to Congress on the implementation 

of the Fund on an ongoing basis. 

‘‘(E) Detail measurable performance metrics to determine if the Fund is 

meeting the objective to improve the acquisition workforce and to achieve 

cost savings in acquisition management.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by adding 

after the item relating to section 838 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 839. Multiyear acquisition strategy.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO FUTURE YEARS HOMELAND SECURITY PRO- GRAM.—Section 874(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 454(b)) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (2); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) include the multiyear acquisition strategy required under section 839 of 

this Act.’’. 

SEC. 303. ACQUISITION REPORTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(6 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new 

section: 

‘‘SEC. 840. ACQUISITION REPORTS. 

‘‘(a) COMPREHENSIVE ACQUISITION STATUS REPORT.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Management each year shall submit to the congressional homeland security committees, at the same time as the 

President’s budget is submitted for a fiscal year under section 1105(a) of title 

31, United States Code, a comprehensive acquisition status report. The report 

shall include the following: 

‘‘(A) The information required under the heading ‘Office of the Under Secretary for Management’ under Title I of division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74) (as required under the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–6). 

‘‘(B) A listing of programs that have been cancelled, modified, paused, or 

referred to the Under Secretary for Management or Deputy Secretary for 

additional oversight or action by the Board, Department Office of Inspector 

General, or the Comptroller General. 

‘‘(C) A listing of established Executive Steering Committees, which provide governance of a program or related set of programs and lower-tiered 

oversight, and support between acquisition decision events and Component 

reviews, including the mission and membership for each. 

‘‘(2) INFORMATION FOR MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—For each major acquisition program, the report shall include the following: 

‘‘(A) A narrative description, including current gaps and shortfalls, the capabilities to be fielded, and the number of planned increments or units. 

‘‘(B) Acquisition Review Board (or other board designated to review the 

acquisition) status of each acquisition, including the current acquisition 

phase, the date of the last review, and a listing of the required documents 

that have been reviewed with the dates reviewed or approved. 

‘‘(C) The most current, approved acquisition program baseline (including 

project schedules and events). 

‘‘(D) A comparison of the original acquisition program baseline, the current acquisition program baseline, and the current estimate. 

‘‘(E) Whether or not an independent verification and validation has been 

implemented, with an explanation for the decision and a summary of any 

findings. 

‘‘(F) A rating of cost risk, schedule risk, and technical risk associated with 

the program (including narrative descriptions and mitigation actions). 

‘‘(G) Contract status (including earned value management data as applicable). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

‘‘(H) A lifecycle cost of the acquisition, and time basis for the estimate. 

‘‘(3) UPDATES.—The Under Secretary shall submit quarterly updates to such 

report not later than 45 days after the completion of each quarter. 

‘‘(b) QUARTERLY PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT.—The Under Secretary for 

Management shall prepare a quarterly program accountability report to meet the 

Department’s mandate to perform program health assessments and improve program execution and governance. The report shall be submitted to the congressional 

homeland security committees.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is further amended by adding after the 

item relating to section 839 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 840. Acquisition reports.’’. 

SEC. 304. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REVIEW OF MULTIYEAR ACQUISITION 

STRATEGY. 

(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—After submission to Congress of the first multiyear acquisition strategy (pursuant to section 839 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

shall conduct a review of the plan within 180 days to analyze the viability of the 

plan’s effectiveness in the following: 

(1) Complying with the requirements in section 839 of the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, as added by section 302 of this Act. 

(2) Establishing clear connections between Department objectives and acquisition priorities. 

(3) Demonstrating that Department acquisition policy reflects program management best practices and standards. 

(4) Ensuring competition or the option of competition for major acquisition 

programs. 

(5) Considering potential cost savings through using already-existing technologies when developing acquisition program requirements. 

(6) Preventing duplication within Department acquisition workforce training 

requirements through leveraging already-existing training within the Federal 

Government, academic community, or private industry. 

(7) Providing incentives for program managers to reduce acquisition and procurement costs through the use of best practices and disciplined program management. 

(8) Assessing the feasibility of conducting a pilot program to establish a 

Homeland Security Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. 

(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional homeland security committees a report on the review required by this section. 

The report shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified 

annex. 

SEC. 305. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT. 

(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—No later than 2 years following the submission of the report submitted by the Comptroller General of the United States as required by section 304, the Department’s Inspector General shall conduct a review of whether the 

Department has complied with the multiyear acquisition strategy (pursuant to section 839 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and adhered to the strategies set 

forth in the plan. The review shall also consider whether the Department has complied with the requirements to provide the Acquisition Review Board with a capability development plan for each major acquisition program. 

(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Inspector General shall submit to the congressional 

homeland security committees a report of the review required by this section. The 

report shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 4228 is to require the Department of Homeland Security to improve discipline, accountability, and transparency in acquisition program management. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spends billions of 

taxpayer dollars each year in major acquisition programs to help 

protect the homeland. For example, in fiscal year 2013, DHS spent 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

almost $10 billion on acquisition programs for a variety of missions, such as border security, aviation passenger screening, and 

infrastructure protection. DHS will spend at least $300 million on 

each program and take years to develop and procure them. Despite 

the critical need to protect the homeland from terrorist attacks and 

other events, DHS acknowledges that its current major acquisition 

portfolio is unaffordable. Due to increasing fiscal constraints and 

persistent security risks, DHS must ensure its acquisition processes are effective and efficient to minimize cost overruns, schedule 

delays, and performance issues. The DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act addresses these issues and implements 

solutions to save taxpayer dollars and increase mission performance. 

Since 2005, the Comptroller General of the United States—the 

head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—has 

identified DHS’s acquisition management as an activity on GAO’s 

‘‘High Risk List,’’ which identifies programs highly susceptible to 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or most in need of broad 

reform. In April 2014, GAO noted weaknesses in DHS’s acquisition 

planning process and portfolio management. GAO found that, as of 

November 2013, DHS still lacked Acquisition Program Baselines 

for 21 of 46 major acquisition programs and, as of December 2013, 

DHS had only approved life cycle cost estimates for 20 of 80 major 

acquisition programs. Further, GAO found that DHS’ largest acquisition programs will likely experience schedule slips, cost growth, 

and capability reductions in the coming years if funding instability 

worsens. 

This year alone, there have been examples of poor DHS acquisition management. In March 2014, GAO found that U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection’s (CBP) Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, a plan including seven programs with estimated costs 

from $3 million to $961 million, does not include an Integrated 

Master Schedule in accordance with best practices nor does it have 

an independent cost estimate for its life cycle cost estimate. In January 2014, GAO found that CBP’s TECS Modernization program, 

estimated to cost $724 million, lacks a fully developed master 

schedule and is revising its schedule baseline for the second time 

in under a year. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) 

TECS Modernization program, estimated to cost $818 million, determined in June 2013 as unviable, is reassessing its design alternatives and schedule and cost estimates, which jeopardizes its ability to meet its 2015 deadline. 

GAO also reported in September 2012 that 42 DHS acquisition 

programs experienced cost growth, schedule delays, or both. GAO’s 

report noted that 16 programs incurred an aggregate total cost 

growth of 166 percent. However, the report noted that many acquisition programs lacked Acquisition Program Baselines-key documents detailing a program’s cost, schedule, and performance goals. 

As a result, GAO could not assess to what extent cost growth occurred in most major acquisition programs at DHS. 

In addition, the DHS Office of Inspector General reported in 

2013 that DHS lacked reliable Department-wide inventory data on 

legacy radio systems and mismanaged a $3 billion Departmentwide strategic sourcing contract to modernize these systems. The 

Inspector General also reported in 2013 that the U.S. Customs and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Border Protection and U.S. Coast Guard could have better coordinated on the acquisition and modification of DHS helicopters. Examples from GAO and the Inspector General highlight the need for 

a more disciplined, accountable, and transparent process to DHS’s 

acquisition management. 

Over ten years after the creation of the Department, DHS cannot 

rely on increased budgets to rectify past mistakes. DHS cannot continue to utilize immature processes for the management of acquisition functions. Combining 22 disparate agencies under one department was one of the most extensive reorganizations in the Federal 

Government since World War II. However, over ten years later, 

DHS must improve its management of major acquisitions. As the 

Department’s Chief Acquisition Officer, the Under Secretary for 

Management should have the authorities needed to hold programs 

accountable. 

The Committee believes that DHS must increase its communication with Congress. Improving transparency when cost, schedule, 

or performance issues arise will increase the Committee’s assurance that DHS has a plan to improve, track, and institutionalize 

lessons learned to prevent future issues. To date, DHS has lacked 

a strategy to guide the billions of dollars it spends on these major 

acquisition programs. A more strategic approach is needed to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent in the most efficient and effective 

manner. The DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act addresses these areas to improve the Department’s management and 

better secure the homeland. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held specifically on H.R. 4228. However, the 

Committee held oversight hearings related to acquisition issues addressed in H.R. 4228. These hearings are listed below. 

112th Congress 

On July 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management held a hearing entitled ‘‘Homeland Security Contracting: Does the Department Effectively Leverage Emerging Technologies?’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from 

Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting Inspector General, Department of 

Homeland Security; Mr. David Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team, Government Accountability Office; 

Mr. Rafael Borras, Under Secretary for Management and Chief Acquisition Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Tara 

O’Toole, Under Secretary, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Jim Williams, Vice Chair, 

Homeland Security Committee, TechAmerica; Mr. Marc Pearl, 

President and CEO, Homeland Security and Defense Business 

Council; and Mr. Scott Amey, General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight. 

On September 21, 2012, the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management held a hearing entitled ‘‘DHS Acquisition Management Challenges: Solutions for Saving Taxpayer Dollars.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. John Hutton, 

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Nick Nayak, Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Mark Borkowski, Assistant 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Commissioner, Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition, 

Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; 

Ms. Karen Shelton Waters, Assistant Administrator, Office of Acquisition, Transportation Security Administration, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

113th Congress 

On September 19, 2013, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Management Efficiency held a hearing entitled ‘‘DHS Acquisition 

Practices: Improving Outcomes for Taxpayers Using Defense and 

Private Sector Lessons Learned.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from Hon. Rafael Borras, Undersecretary for Management, 

Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Michele Mackin, Director, 

GAO; Ms. Anne Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, 

DHS Office of Inspector General; Mr. William C. Greenwalt, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Stan Soloway, 

President and CEO, Professional Services Council; Mr. David 

Berteau, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency met 

on March 26, 2014, to consider H.R. 4228, and ordered the measure 

forwarded to the Full Committee with a favorable recommendation, 

amended, by voice vote. The Committee took the following actions: 

The following amendments were offered: 

An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by MR. DUNCAN (#1); was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice vote. 

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. BARBER (#1A); was AGREED 

TO by voice vote. 

Consisting of the following amendments: 

An amendment: 

Page 17, line 6, insert after ‘‘including’’ the following: ‘‘, in particular,’’ 

An amendment: 

Page 22, beginning on line 17, strike ‘‘The Chief Financial Officer’’ and all that 

follows through ‘‘The Board shall’’ on line 20, and insert ‘‘The Secretary shall’’. 

An amendment: 

Page 40, lines 15 and 16, strike ‘‘ranked based on mission and greatest security 

risks to the homeland’’. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. DAINES (#1B); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

Page 42, insert after line 2 a new paragraph entitled ‘‘(6) Focus on incentives to 

save taxpayer dollars.’’ 

Page 42, line 3, strike ‘‘(6)’’ and insert ‘‘(7)’’. 

Page 42, line 13, strike ‘‘(7)’’ and insert ‘‘(8)’’. 

Page 43, line 16, strike ‘‘(8)’’ and insert ‘‘(9)’’. 

Page 43, line 18, strike ‘‘(9)’’ and insert ‘‘(10)’’. 

Page 43, line 21, strike ‘‘(10)’’ and insert ‘‘(11)’’. 

Page 44, line 2, strike ‘‘(d)(8)’’ and insert ‘‘(d)(9)’’. 

Page 45, line 1, strike ‘‘(d)(9)’’ and insert ‘‘(d)(10)’’. 

Page 46, line 21, strike ‘‘(d)(10)’’ and insert ‘‘(d)(11)’’.; 

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. O’ROURKE (#1C); was AGREED 

TO by voice vote. 

Consisting of the following amendments: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

An amendment: 

Page 21, starting on line 11, strike ‘‘For each major acquisition’’ and all that follows through the period on line 16, and insert the following: ‘‘For each major acquisition, each head of a Component shall— 

‘‘(1) establish a complete life cycle cost estimate with supporting documentation; 

‘‘(2) verify each life cycle cost estimate against independent cost estimates, and 

reconcile any differences; 

‘‘(3) complete a cost-benefit analysis with supporting documentation; 

‘‘(4) develop and maintain a schedule that is consistent with scheduling best 

practices as identified by the Comptroller General of the United States, including, in appropriate cases, an integrated master schedule; and 

‘‘(5) ensure that all acquisition program information provided by the Component 

is complete, accurate, timely, and valid. 

An amendment: 

Page 40, line 17, after ‘‘address’’ insert ‘‘, that includes the expected security benefit of the program or system and an analysis of how the security benefit derived 

from the program or system will be measured’’ 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 on the roster by MR. PAYNE (#1D); was ADOPTED by 

unanimous consent. 

Page 45, line 12, insert after ‘‘personnel’’ the following ‘‘, including contracting officer’s representatives,’’.; 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. PAYNE (#1E); was ADOPTED by unanimous consent. 

Page 46, after line 18, insert the following: 

‘‘(F) strengthen the performance of contracting officer’s representatives (as defined in Subpart 1.602-2 and Subpart 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation), including by- 

‘‘(i) assessing the extent to which contracting officer’s representatives are certified and receive training that is appropriate; 

‘‘(ii) determining what training is most effective with respect to the type and 

complexity of assignment; and ‘‘(ii) implementing actions to improve training 

based on such assessment.’’. 

Page 46, line 4, strike ‘‘and’’. 

Page 46, line 18, strike the period and insert ‘‘; and’’. 

The Committee met on April 30, 2014, to consider H.R. 4228, and 

ordered the measure to be reported to the House, with a favorable 

recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The Committee took the 

following actions: 

An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4228 offered 

by MR. DUNCAN (#1); was AGREED TO, amended, by voice vote. 

An en bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI (#1A); 

WAS AGREED TO BY VOICE VOTE. Consisting of the following amendments: 

An amendment: 

Page 11, after line 20, insert the following ‘‘(F) Ensuring that grants and financial 

Assistance are provided only to responsible individuals and organizations that are 

not excluded from government participation. 

An amendment: 

Page 13, after line 2, insert the following new paragraph entitled ‘‘(4) Excluded 

parties list system consultation.’’ 

An amendment: 

Page 16, line 22, insert before the semicolon at the end the following: ‘‘and including training on how best to identify actions that warrant referrals for suspension 

or debarment′′. 

An amendment: 

P. 17, line 11, strike ‘‘businesses and’’ and insert ‘‘businesses,’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Page 17, line 12, strike ‘‘participation.’’ and insert ‘‘participation, and ensure, to 

the extent practicable, small businesses that achieve qualified vendor status for 

security-related technologies are provided an opportunity to compete for contracts 

for such technology.’’ 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. BARLETTA (#1B); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

Page 48, line 12, strike ‘‘and’’. 

Page 48, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert ‘‘; and’’. 

Page 48, after line 25, insert the following: 

‘‘(G) identify ways to increase training for relevant investigators and auditors to 

examine fraud in major acquisition programs, including identifying opportunities 

to leverage existing Government and private sector resources in coordination with 

the Inspector General of the Department. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MS. CLARKE (#1C); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

Page 11, after line 20, insert the following: 

‘‘(F) Distributing guidance throughout the Department to ensure that contractors 

involved in acquisitions, particularly companies that access the Department’s information systems and technologies, adhere to internal cybersecurity policies established by the Department of Homeland Security. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. BARBER (#1D); was WITHDRAWN by 

unanimous consent. 

Page 17, after line 12, insert the following (and make appropriate technical and 

conforming amendments): 

‘‘(10) encourage the Department to enter into contracts with nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or are other severally disabled as defined under 

chapter 85 of title 41, United States Code (popularly referred to as the JavitsWagner-O’Day Act).’’. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. BARBER (#1E); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

At the end of title II (page 31, after line 17) insert the following new section (and 

conform the table of contents accordingly): 

‘‘Sec. 204. Suspension and Debarment Audits.’’ 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. O’ROURKE (#1F); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

Page 42, lines 2 and 4, after ‘‘security’’ insert ‘‘and economic’’. 

Page 43, line 15, after ‘‘security insert ‘‘and facilitate trade’’. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 on the roster by MS. JACKSON LEE (#1G); was 

ADOPTED by unanimous consent. 

At the end of title II (page 31, after line 17) insert the following new section (and 

conform the table of contents accordingly): 

‘‘Sec. 204. Excluded Party List System Waivers.’’ 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. DUNCAN (#1H); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

Page 6, line 3, insert after ‘‘Senate’’ the following’’: ‘‘, where appropriate’’. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 4228 offered by MR. O’ROURKE (#1I); was WITHDRWAN by 

unanimous consent. 

Page 41, line 13, strike ‘‘the academic community’’ and insert ‘‘civil liberties and 

academic communities’’. 

Page 43, after line 15, insert the a new paragraph entitled ‘‘(6) Civil Liberties Protections.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. 

No recorded votes were requested during consideration of 

H.R. 4228. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight hearings and 

made findings that are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 4228, the 

DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act, would result in 

no new or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax 

expenditures or revenues. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, a cost estimate provided by the Congressional 

Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974 was not made available to the Committee in time for 

the filing of this report. The Chairman of the Committee shall 

cause such estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record upon 

its receipt by the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 4228 contains the following general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome related goals and 

objectives authorized. 

The performance goals and objectives of H.R. 4228 include the 

development of a multiyear acquisition strategy to inform the overall direction of DHS’s acquisition programs. The bill requires the 

Government Accountability Office to review the effectiveness of the 

multiyear acquisition strategy, as well as, the Office of Inspector 

General to evaluate the extent to which DHS has complied with 

the strategy. The bill also mandates the Department to provide the 

Committee with acquisition reports to detail the performance of 

major acquisition programs. 

In addition, the Department shall notify the Committee in instances when certain cost, schedule, or performance issues occur. 

In these cases, the development of a remediation plan and root 

cause analysis will inform DHS’s approach on corrective actions 

and allow the Committee to hold the Department accountable for 

future acquisition issues. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The Committee finds that H.R. 4228 does not contain any provision that establishes or reauthorizes a program known to be duplicative of another Federal program. 

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED

TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the Rule XXI. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

An estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman of the 

Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee. 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 

resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the bill or 

joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local, or Tribal law, 

the Committee finds that H.R. 4228 does not preempt any State, 

local, or Tribal law. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that H.R. 4228 would require no directed rule makings. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short Title. 

This section provides that bill may be cited as the ‘‘DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act.’’ 

Sec. 2. Table of Contents. 

Sec. 3. Findings. 

This section provides the congressional findings on acquisition 

program management in the Department of Homeland Security. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

Sec. 4. Definitions. 

The following list of terms and positions are defined: ‘‘Secretary’’, 

‘‘Department’’, ‘‘congressional homeland security committees’’, ‘‘acquisition’’, ‘‘best practices’’, ‘‘acquisition decision authority’’, ‘‘acquisition decision event’’, ‘‘acquisition decision memorandum’’, ‘‘acquisition program baseline’’, ‘‘capability development plan’’, ‘‘component acquisition executive’’, ‘‘life cycle cost’’, and ‘‘major acquisition 

program’’. 

TITLE I-ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

Sec. 101. Acquisition Authorities for Under Secretary for Management. 

Section 101 designates the Under Secretary for Management 

(USM) as the Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) for DHS. It also 

specifies that the ability to exercise Acquisition Decision Authority 

(ADA) is held by the Secretary but may be delegated to the Deputy 

Secretary or USM in order to approve, halt, modify, or cancel major 

acquisition programs. It is the Committee’s intent that whoever 

holds the ADA will take action to stop or cancel failing programs. 

In particular, Section 101 requires that the USM take responsibility to ensure that every major acquisition program has a Department-approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The Committee finds it very concerning that according to an April 2014 

GAO report, as of November 2013, DHS officials reported that 21 

of 46 programs still lacked approved baselines and as of April 2014 

DHS has not approved most of its major acquisition programs’ cost 

estimates. 

Section 101 also requires that the USM ensure that the heads of 

Components and Component Acquisition Executives follow Federal 

law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives. It is the intent of the Committee that 

all of the Components with acquisition responsibilities follow these 

directives. Furthermore, it is the Committee’s view that decisionmaking authority and processes should not reside solely within Department Headquarters. Rather, the USM should transparently incorporate Components into unified decision-making processes and 

the analytic efforts that inform decision-making on major acquisition programs and non-major acquisition programs to meet U.S. 

homeland security missions in a cost effective manner. 

Section 101 also authorizes the USM to delegate the ADA to the 

relevant Component Acquisition Executive in certain instances. 

First, for non-major acquisition programs with a life cycle cost of 

less than $300 million, the USM may delegate the ADA to the relevant Component Acquisition Executive. Second, for major acquisition programs with a life cycle cost between $300 million and $1 

billion, the USM may delegate the ADA only if the following conditions are met: The Component shall have working policies, processes, and procedures that are consistent with DHS acquisition policy; possess adequate, experienced, dedicated program management 

professional staff proportionate to the size of the delegated portfolio; and each major acquisition program must have written documentation showing that it has a Department-approved APB and 

that it is meeting agreed-upon cost, schedule, and performance 

thresholds. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

The USM shall not have the authority to delegate the ADA for 

major acquisition programs with life cycle costs of over $1 billion. 

Furthermore, it is the Committee’s intention that the USM shall 

not delegate the ADA for any major acquisition program that has 

experienced an actual breach of a cost overrun greater than 15 percent of the APB or a schedule delay of more than 180 days in the 

delivery schedule specified in the APB. Section 101 also authorizes 

the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T) to cooperate 

in acquisitions so that S&T can support current and future requirements more effectively. 

Sec. 102. Acquisition authorities for Chief Financial Officer. 

Section 102 authorizes the Chief Financial Officer’s (CFO) responsibilities for providing leadership over financial management 

policy and programs for DHS as they relate to DHS acquisition programs in consultation with the USM. According to a 2014 GAO report, from fiscal years 2003 to 2013, DHS’s budget authority nearly 

doubled from about $31 to $61 billion. Yet, DHS’s leadership did 

not consistently address affordability issues during this time. In 

December 2012, the DHS Chief Financial Officer reported that 

major acquisition programs will cost 30 percent more than DHS’s 

current five-year funding plan. 

Unfortunately, according to GAO, in 2013, DHS made little 

progress in addressing the Department’s major acquisition funding 

gap and the 30 percent figure noted by DHS in 2012 was based on 

unreliable cost estimates, which raises concern that the funding 

gap may be even more significant. It is the Committee’s view that 

the CFO should take an active role to help DHS strengthen and enhance the programming and budgeting process by incorporating the 

results of strategic analysis and joint requirements planning into 

portfolios and increase DHS’s cost estimating capacity for major acquisition programs to help prevent cost overruns and schedule 

delays. 

The Committee intends to clarify and specify the role of the CFO 

with regard to the acquisition process at DHS. Nothing in this Act 

is intended to reduce or constrain the existing, government-wide 

CFO authorities that apply to the DHS CFO under current law. 

Sec. 103. Acquisition authorities for Chief Information Officer. 

Section 103 authorizes the Chief Information Officer (CIO)’s responsibilities to serve as the lead technical authority for IT programs, to oversee the management of the Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture, and to provide recommendations to the Acquisition Review Board on IT programs and IT acquisition strategic 

guidance. Section 103 also requires that if the CIO determines that 

there are any IT acquisitions that do not comply with Departmental management directives, the CIO shall provide recommendations to the Acquisition Review Board regarding noncompliance. It 

is the Committee’s view that the CIO should take an active role to 

prevent IT failures of major acquisition programs. The CIO should 

also consider the advantages of already-existing innovative commercial solutions that may have the ability to meet U.S. homeland 

security mission needs while providing solutions for lower costs. 

The Committee intends to clarify and specify the important role 

of the CIO in IT related acquisition programs at DHS. Nothing in 

this Act is intended to reduce or constrain the existing governmentVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

wide CIO authorities as they apply to the DHS CIO under current 

law. 

Sec. 104. Chief Procurement Officer. 

Section 104 authorizes the position of Chief Procurement Officer 

(CPO). This section does not create a new office within DHS because many of these responsibilities are currently being executed 

through the Office of the CPO. Nothing in this section or Act is intended to diminish CPO authority as currently exercised. Section 

104 authorizes that the CPO reports directly to the USM and is the 

senior procurement executive with responsibility over procurement 

and contracting. The CPO is also responsible for ensuring that 

DHS’s contracting strategy and plans are consistent with the intent 

and direction of the ARB. Section 104 also designates the CPO as 

the main liaison to industry and authorizes the CPO to oversee a 

certification and training program for DHS’s acquisition workforce 

that employs best practices used by others in the Federal Government and private sector. The Committee’s intention is not for DHS 

to duplicate the efforts of other Federal acquisition certification and 

training efforts but instead to leverage already existing efforts 

within the Federal Government, private sector, or universities and 

colleges as appropriate. 

This section also ensures that the CPO participates in the selection and performance review of the head of each contracting activity within DHS and that the CPO follows the requirements established in the Small Business Act. The Committee understands that 

according to the Small Business Dashboard, DHS exceeded the Department goal of over 30 percent and the Government-wide goal of 

23 percent for contracts awarded to Small Business and Small and 

Disadvantaged Business. Additionally, according to the FY12 Small 

Business Procurement Scorecard, DHS received an ‘‘A’’ rating. The 

Committee commends DHS’s efforts in this regard. The Committee 

commends the Department’s efforts to contract with nonprofit 

agencies employing persons who are blind or severely disabled as 

defined under Chapter 85 of Title 41, United States Code and encourages the CPO to continue such efforts. The Committee encourages the CPO to work toward developing a procurement goal and 

metrics for this initiative as part of its strategic planning process. 

The Committee urges DHS to think strategically to ensure that 

DHS clearly matches U.S. homeland security mission needs with 

the best business solutions available regardless of the size of business in order to serve U.S. Government interests most effectively. 

Sec. 105. Requirements to ensure greater accountability for acquisition programs. 

Section 105 authorizes the USM to establish a mechanism within 

the Management Directorate to improve the accountability, standardization, and transparency of major acquisition programs in 

order to increase effectiveness and efficiencies. This mechanism 

will serve as the central oversight function for all DHS acquisition 

programs. Section 105 does not create a new office within DHS because many of these responsibilities are being executed through the 

Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) Office. 

However, the Committee’s intention is not to codify PARM’s existing structure but rather to provide specific guidance of objectives 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

that DHS must meet while allowing DHS the flexibility to make 

adjustments to the structure as necessary. 

Section 105 also authorizes an Executive Director to report directly to the USM to hold responsibility for meeting the objectives 

as outlined in Section 105. The Executive Director’s responsibilities 

include regular monitoring of the performance of DHS acquisition 

programs between acquisition decision events. The Committee expects the Executive Director to take an active role in regularly reviewing all major acquisition programs and any non-major acquisition programs that the Executive Director deems as ‘‘high-risk’’ in 

order to prevent cost overruns, performance issues, or schedule 

delays before these problems occur. 

The Committee believes that non-major acquisitions that meet 

the following criteria should be deemed ‘‘high-risk’’: (a) Its importance to the Department’s strategic and performance plans is disproportionate to its life cycle cost; (b) it has high executive visibility; (c) it impacts more than one Component; (d) it has significant program or policy implications; or (e) the Deputy Secretary, 

Under Secretary for Management, or Acquisition Decision Authority recommends that the program is worthy of the Acquisition Review Board’s examination. 

The Executive Director shall also assist the USM in managing 

DHS’s acquisition portfolio; conducting oversight of all acquisition 

programs (major and non-major) to ensure that the programs have 

reliable and complete documentation; and serving as the focal point 

within DHS for acquisition policy, processes, and procedure regarding life cycle cost estimating and analysis. It is the Committee’s 

view that the Executive Director shall work in consultation with 

the USM and CFO to address funding shortfalls identified by DHS 

and GAO. 

Moreover, the Executive Director should support the CPO in developing strategies and specific plans to address DHS acquisition 

workforce needs; develop standardized certification standards in 

consultation with the Component Acquisition Executives for all acquisition program managers; and play a role in performance evaluations of acquisition program managers. The Executive Director 

shall also be responsible for preparing the DHS Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report (CASR) and Quarterly Program Accountability Report (QPAR). 

The Committee believes that carrying out DHS’s acquisition 

functions is a shared responsibility between DHS headquarters and 

its Components. However, Components have not always adhered to 

established DHS policies, which has contributed to cost overruns, 

schedule delays, and performance issues. As a result, section 105 

also requires Components to follow Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and DHS acquisition management directives. For major acquisition programs, heads of Components must 

establish a complete life cycle cost estimate with supporting documentation including an APB; verify each life cycle cost estimates 

against independent cost estimates (reconciling any differences); 

complete a cost-benefit analysis with supporting documentation; 

develop and maintain a schedule that is consistent with scheduling 

best practices identified by the Comptroller General of the U.S. including an integrated master schedule when appropriate; and enVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

sure that the underlying acquisition program information is complete, accurate, timely, and valid. 

TITLE II-ACQUISITON PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE

Sec. 201. Acquisition Review Board. 

Section 201 authorizes the Secretary to establish an Acquisition 

Review Board (ARB) to strengthen the accountability and uniformity within DHS’s acquisition review process, review major acquisition programs, and evaluate the use of best practices. Section 

201 does not create a new office within DHS because many of these 

responsibilities are being executed through an ARB already; however, section 201 codifies and sharpens the ARB’s responsibilities 

in several ways. 

The Committees intends for the Deputy Secretary or USM to 

serve as the chair of the ARB. In addition, the composition of the 

ARB should include the CFO, CIO, CPO, Under Secretary for 

Science and Technology, Assistant Secretary for Policy, General 

Counsel, Chief Human Capital Officer, Chief Readiness Support 

Officer, Chief Security Officer, Component Acquisition Executive, 

and user representatives from the Component sponsoring a particular acquisition for review. At least two Component heads or 

their designees shall serve as permanent members of the ARB. 

The Committee intends for the ARB to meet every time a major 

acquisition program needs authorization to move from acquisition 

decision events through the acquisition life cycle. The Committee 

also expects the ARB to consider any major acquisition program in 

actual breach and monitor those programs with increased scrutiny 

in order to take appropriate corrective action for the program. In 

addition, the Committee intends for the ARB to convene for nonmajor acquisitions that are deemed ‘‘high-risk’’ by the Executive Director and to meet regularly in order to ensure that all acquisition 

processes proceed in a timely fashion to achieve mission readiness. 

Furthermore, section 201 authorizes the ARB to determine 

whether a proposed acquisition has met the requirements of key 

phases of the acquisition life cycle framework in order to proceed 

to the next phase, eventual full-rate production, and deployment 

and to verify the acquisition documents of each major acquisition 

program. The Committee will conduct strenuous oversight of the 

ARB to determine whether it is carrying out its responsibilities to 

validate the APB and ensure the reliability of all underlying data 

for both major and non-major acquisition programs as required by 

this Act. In particular, section 201 also authorizes the ARB to 

adopt and implement practices that consider the trade-offs among 

cost, schedule, and performance objectives as part of the process for 

developing requirements for major acquisition programs prior to 

the initiation of the capability development. 

The Committee is concerned that according to a 2014 GAO report, the ARB within DHS has rarely directed programs to make 

affordability tradeoffs, such as by modifying requirements, even in 

light of the Department’s 30 percent funding gap for its major acquisitions. GAO found that the ARB met 13 times in 2013, but it 

only directed programs to make affordability tradeoffs twice. The 

Committee intends for the ARB to prioritize the consideration of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives and 

emphasize improving these programs’ affordability. 

Section 201 also requires that in the event that the person holding the Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA) approves a major acquisition program without a Department-approved APB to proceed 

beyond the acquisition decision event requiring a capability development plan (the second acquisition decision event), the USM shall 

create and approve an acquisition program baseline report, and the 

Secretary shall submit to the Congressional homeland security 

committees a written notification of such decision within seven 

days of such a decision and a report providing the rationale for the 

decision and plan to create an acquisition program baseline for the 

program within 60 days after the acquisition decision memorandum is signed. 

Sec. 202. Requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs. 

Section 202 authorizes the Deputy Secretary, in consultation 

with the USM, to establish Department-wide policies to integrate 

all phases of the investment life cycle and help DHS identify, validate, and prioritize standards for common Component requirements for major acquisition programs. Section 202 does not create 

a new office within DHS because many of these responsibilities are 

being executed through the Capabilities and Requirements Council 

(CRC). However, the Committee is concerned about the fragmented 

approach the CRC has had so far in failing to consider a range of 

tradeoffs across multiple functional portfolios. Thus, section 202 

provides specific guidance on DHS responsibilities to reduce duplication and inefficiency across multiple functional portfolios although it leaves the particular mechanism of implementation of 

these objectives up to the Deputy Secretary. 

In 2003, DHS established a Joint Requirements Council (JRC) to 

identify crosscutting opportunities and common requirements 

among DHS Components. JRC stopped meeting in 2006. GAO recommended in 2008 that DHS reinstate it. In June 2013, DHS initiated a CRC pilot to consider tradeoffs across acquisition programs 

within DHS’s cybersecurity portfolio. 

Section 202 emphasizes that the Deputy Secretary’s policies must 

include strategic alternatives for developing and facilitating a Department Component-driven requirements process that include 

oversight of a developmental test and evaluation capability; identification of priority gaps and overlaps in Departmental capability 

needs; and provision of feasible technical alternatives, including 

commercially-available alternatives, to meet capability needs. In 

particular, while the Committee believes that the Secretary, acting 

through the USM, holds the responsibility for the success or failure 

of DHS acquisition programs, it is the responsibility of DHS Headquarters to achieve Component buy-in and to facilitate a Component-driven requirements process that meets U.S. homeland security mission needs while reducing duplication and efficiency among 

Component’s acquisition programs. 

Section 202 requires that the Deputy Secretary, in consultation 

with the USM, meet at least quarterly and communicate with Components often to ensure Components do not create overlapping requirements or duplicative spending on major investments and acquisition programs within their areas of responsibilities. The ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

mittee believes that the Components must be working together to 

think strategically about how their acquisition decisions impact 

other Components and connect to the Department’s strategic homeland security missions in the most cost effective manner possible. 

The Deputy Secretary is responsible for creating a mechanism 

such as the Capability and Requirements Council to review and 

validate the requirements documents of major investments and acquisition programs before these programs move through the acquisition decision events; and to ensure the requirements and scope of 

major investments or acquisition programs are stable, measurable, 

achievable, at an acceptable risk level, and match the resources 

planned to be available. 

Section 202 also requires that before any entity of the Department issues a solicitation for a new contract, that the Deputy Secretary is responsible for coordinating with all the other entities 

within DHS with acquisition responsibilities as appropriate to prevent duplication and inefficiency; implement portfolio reviews to 

identify common mission requirements and crosscutting opportunities among Components; standardize equipment purchases, streamline the acquisition process, improve efficiencies; and conduct best 

practices for strategic sourcing. The Deputy Secretary shall also ensure that program managers of major investments and acquisition 

programs focus on cost, schedule, risk, performance, and operational efficiency to determine that acquisition programs work as 

intended within cost and budget expectations. 

Sec. 203. Government Accountability Office review of Board and of 

requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs. 

Section 203 requires GAO to conduct a review within one year 

of the effectiveness of the Acquisition Review Board established 

under section 201 and the Management Directorate to Reduce Duplication in Acquisition Programs established under section 202 in 

improving DHS’ acquisition management process. 

Sec. 204. Excluded Party List System waivers. 

Section 204 requires that the Secretary provide notification to 

the congressional homeland security committees within five days 

after issuance of a waiver for the requirement that an agency not 

engage in business with a contractor listed in the Excluded Party 

List System, and an explanation for that waiver. The Committee 

believes that this additional layer of congressional scrutiny of the 

decision to waive the exclusion should bring greater accountability 

to DHS’s contracting process. 

Sec. 205. Inspector General oversight of suspension and debarment. 

Section 205 provides that the DHS Inspector General may audit 

grant and procurement award decisions to ensure entities that are 

suspended or debarred from receiving Federal funds are not improperly receiving those awards. The section also requires that the 

Inspector General review the Department’s suspension and debarment program to assess whether criteria are being consistently applied throughout the Department. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

TITLE III-ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

AND TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 301. Congressional notification and other requirements for 

major acquisition program breach. 

Section 301 requires two forms of reporting for major acquisition 

programs that experience a breach, defined as a failure to meet any 

cost, schedule, or performance parameter specified in the acquisition program baseline (APB). The Committee does not intend for 

breach notifications to become a paperwork exercise or for program 

managers to contort their program to prevent their supervisors 

from reporting a breach to the Congress. The breach notification’s 

rationale is to increase the transparency of programs that are not 

meeting their APBs and require more fiscal discipline in managing 

a program’s cost, schedule, and performance objectives. 

First, section 301 requires internal notification within DHS if a 

breach occurs. If a major acquisition program has a potential for 

a future breach, as determined by the program manager for that 

program, the program manager has the responsibility to notify the 

person exercising acquisition decision authority for the program. In 

the case of an actual breach in a major acquisition program, the 

program manager for that program must notify the head of the 

Component concerned, the Component Acquisition Executive for 

the program, and Executive Director, the USM, and the Deputy 

Secretary. In the case of a major acquisition that experiences an 

actual breach with a cost overrun greater than 20 percent or a 

schedule delay greater than 12 months from the costs or schedule 

set forth in the APB, the Secretary and the Inspector General must 

be notified no later than five business days after the actual breach 

is identified. 

Furthermore, in the case of an actual breach with a cost overrun 

greater than 15 percent or a schedule delay greater than 180 days 

from the costs or schedule set forth in the APB, section 301 requires DHS to develop a remediation plan and root cause analysis. 

The Committee encourages DHS to conduct such analysis for all 

major acquisition programs in actual breach if appropriate and if 

resources are available. 

The USM has the responsibility to establish a date for submission within DHS of the breach remediation plan and root cause 

analysis. The USM also has the responsibility to establish a date 

for submission within DHS of a program of corrective action that 

ensures that one of the following has occurred: (1) The breach has 

been corrected and the program is again in compliance with the 

original APB; (2) a revised APB has been approved; or (3) the program has been halted or canceled. The Committee believes that 

DHS should keep the original program baseline parameters on file 

in order to help assess the development of each program and ensure knowledge transfer in the case of personnel attrition or 

changes. 

Second, section 301 requires notification to the congressional 

homeland security committees for major acquisition programs that 

experience an actual breach with a cost overrun greater than 15 

percent or a schedule delay greater than 180 days from the costs 

or schedule set forth in the APB or with an anticipated failure for 

any key performance threshold or parameter specified in the APB. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

The USM will submit this notification in the next quarterly Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report. 

In the event that a major acquisition program is likely to experience a cost overrun greater than 20 percent or a likely delay greater than 12 months from the costs and schedule set forth in the 

APB, the USM shall include in the notification to such committees 

a written certification that the acquisition is essential to the accomplishment of the Department’s mission; there are no alternatives to 

such capability or asset that will provide equal or greater capability in both a more cost-effective and timely manner; the new acquisition schedule and estimates for total acquisition costs are reasonable; and the management structure for the acquisition program 

is adequate to manage and control performance, cost and schedule. 

Additionally, no later than 30 calendar days after the USM submits the breach notification within the Comprehensive Acquisition 

Status Report, the USM shall submit to such committees a copy of 

the remediation plan and root cause analysis prepared for the 

major acquisition program and a statement describing the corrective action with a justification for the action. 

Finally, during the 90-day period following submission to the 

congressional homeland security committees of the remediation 

plan, root cause analysis, and statement describing the corrective 

action for the major acquisition program, the USM shall submit a 

certification that DHS has adjusted or restructured the program in 

a manner that addresses the root cause or causes of the cost 

growth and/or schedule delay in the program and DHS has conducted a thorough review of the breached program’s current acquisition decision event approvals and adjusted the current acquisition 

decision event approval for the breached program as necessary to 

account for the restructured program. If the USM fails to submit 

this required certification within the 90-day period, then funds appropriated to the major acquisition program shall not be obligated 

until the USM submits such certification. 

The Committee is concerned about the lack of accountability with 

DHS acquisition programs. While the Committee wants to provide 

for some variances in cost and schedule and prevent disruption and 

potential increase of total acquisition costs, the Committee firmly 

believes that DHS must take steps to restrain the cost increases, 

schedule delays, and operational effectiveness failures within its 

major acquisition programs. 

Sec. 302. Multiyear acquisition strategy. 

Section 302 requires the Secretary to create a multiyear acquisition strategy to guide the overall direction of DHS’s acquisitions 

while allowing flexibility to deal with ever-changing threats and 

risks and to help industry better understand, plan, and align resources to meet the future acquisition needs of DHS. The strategy 

should be updated and included in each Future Years Homeland 

Security Program (FYHSP). The Committee foresees the list, inventory, funding gaps, and identification of capabilities to be an annual update as part of the FYHSP that will help both Congress and 

industry understand key homeland security priorities. Other parts 

should be updated each year as necessary, but they should be considered reaffirmed unless otherwise stated. 

Section 302 requires that DHS submit this Multiyear Acquisition 

Strategy no later than one year after the date of the enactment of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

this section. The Committee believes that the Secretary should consult to the maximum extent practicable with DHS Headquarters, 

Components, employees in the field, and individuals from industry 

and the academic community as appropriate. The Committee intends for DHS to emphasize the perspectives and experiences of its 

employees in the field in crafting its acquisition strategy in order 

to ensure that DHS bases its priorities on the practical needs of 

those who will be responsible for the operational implementation of 

these acquisitions to meet U.S. homeland security mission objectives. The Committee intends for the report to be submitted in an 

unclassified form online in the public domain. However, for any 

sensitive or classified information, DHS may include a classified 

annex. 

List of Major Acquisition Programs and Inventory of Investments 

Section 302 also requires that the USM develop a systematic and 

integrated prioritized list of DHS’s major acquisition programs that 

includes the expected security and economic benefit of the program 

or system and an analysis of how the security and economic benefit 

derived from the program or system will be measured. The Committee also expects that the strategy as part of the FYHSP report 

explain how DHS’s homeland security strategy correlates to DHS’s 

resource allocations and priorities for major acquisition investments. The Committee believes that DHS should submit enough information to provide Congress with the ability to identify and assess how much DHS plans to invest across its major acquisition 

portfolio, how those funding priorities are ranked based on risk and 

threat to the homeland, and how DHS expects to afford these priorities. 

Section 302 also requires that DHS develop a reliable Department-wide inventory of investments and real property assets to 

help DHS plan, budget, schedule, and acquire upgrades of its systems and equipment. In August 2013, the DHS Inspector General 

found that DHS lacks reliable Department-wide inventory data and 

had mismanaged a $3 billion Department-wide strategic sourcing 

contract to modernize its legacy radio systems. The Committee expects DHS to address this issue. 

Funding Gaps 

Section 302 also requires that DHS develop a plan to address 

funding gaps between requirements for major acquisition programs 

and planned resources. The 2013 Senate Report No. 112-169 required that the fiscal year 2014 FYHSP report include the funding 

plans for all major acquisitions. According to a 2014 GAO report, 

the 2014 FYHSP report accounted for a greater proportion of major 

acquisition programs than prior years’ reports, but it did not account for all of the programs on DHS’s major acquisition oversight 

list. The Committee expects that the FYHSP present funding plans 

for all major acquisitions that include the planning, maintenance, 

and personnel funding. The Committee also expects that the strategy as part of the FYHSP report identify how major acquisition 

programs’ annual cost estimates compare to their funding plans 

and identify the associated funding gaps in order to better understand how anticipated resource constraints could affect DHS’s largest investments. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Identification of Capabilities 

Section 302 also requires DHS to identify the capabilities needed 

to support the acquisition or technologies to meet the needs of the 

Multiyear Acquisition Strategy and ways to leverage emerging 

technology trends and research and development trends within the 

public and private sectors. In particular, the Committee intends for 

DHS to prioritize innovative commercially-available alternatives to 

meet capability needs whenever possible. Section 302 also requires 

a focus on flexible solutions and ways to incentivize program managers and Department acquisition officials to save taxpayer dollars 

by preventing cost overruns, avoiding schedule delays, and achieving cost savings in major acquisition programs. 

Acquisition Process and Communication with Industry 

Further, section 302 requires DHS to assess how to improve the 

acquisition process to minimize cost overruns in requirements development, procurement announcements, requests for proposals, 

and protests of decisions and awards. It also requires DHS to identify ways to increase opportunities for communication with industry, small and disadvantaged businesses, intra-government entities, 

university centers of excellence, accredited certification and standards development organizations, and National Laboratories to ensure that DHS understands the market for technologies, products, 

and innovation that is available to meet its mission needs in order 

to better inform the requirements-setting process and before DHS 

engages in an acquisition. 

In particular, the communications strategy should express how 

Federal guidance such as the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s ‘‘Myth Busters’’ will actually be ingrained into business process changes and trainings employees receive, so that the guidance 

will become a greater part of the culture of the acquisition workforce. The strategy should also make it clear to Congress and industry how goods and services are procured and provide greater 

clarity to all. DHS should also consider sending out press releases 

with contract notifications. DHS should look at mechanisms when 

making a contract award to do a same day release and notification. 

Lowest-Price, Technically Acceptable 

The Committee is concerned that a well-intentioned effort by 

DHS to lower costs frequently results in awarding contracts based 

on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) standard without 

considering a best-value tradeoff approach. The Committee believes 

that awarding contracts based on an LPTA basis should not become the default position of DHS. Instead, careful consideration 

must be given to each contract to ensure that there is an appropriate weighing of cost versus other considerations. 

Development of the Acquisition Workforce 

Section 302 also requires a plan to ensure competition or the option of competition in major acquisition programs; a plan to address DHS acquisition workforce accountability and talent management; and the feasibility of conducting a pilot program to establish 

a Homeland Security Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. 

The Committee intends for DHS to develop innovative solutions to 

meet its needs through outlining DHS’s specific acquisition workVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

force needs and through assessing the options involved with a fund 

to incentivize DHS acquisition personnel to control cost growth, 

limit schedule delays, and ensure operational effectiveness. 

DHS Contracting Officer’s Representatives conduct oversight of 

DHS contracts and are responsible for monitoring contractor performance. The Committee therefore believes that steps should be 

taken to ensure that this particular cadre of the DHS workforce is 

strengthened. Section 302 instructs DHS to include in its plan, 

ways to strengthen the performance of its cadre of contracting officer’s representatives by assessing the extent to which they are certified and trained; determining the most effective form of training 

and improving the training offered based on the final assessment. 

Sec. 303. Acquisition reports. 

Section 303 authorizes the USM to submit annually the Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report (CASR) along with quarterly 

updates no later than 45 days after the completion of each quarter. 

Section 303 also authorizes the USM to prepare a Quarterly Program Accountability Report (QPAR), which DHS is currently doing 

of its own initiative to perform program health assessments and to 

improve program execution and governance. 

Furthermore, the Committee intends for the USM to also include 

in the QPAR additional information for major acquisition programs 

that DHS considers in the ‘‘sustainment phase’’ as defined by the 

DHS May 2013 ‘‘Acquisition Decision Memorandum.’’ This 2013 

Memorandum directed Component Acquisition Executives to ‘‘waive 

the acquisition documentation requirements for the 42 Level 1 and 

2 acquisition programs’’ that were in the sustainment phase prior 

to 2008 when D 102-01 was issued. 

The Committee is concerned about this decision, as it contradicts 

GAO findings for good program management. According to a 2013 

GAO report, a knowledge deficit early in a program can cascade 

through design and production leaving decision makers with less 

knowledge to support decisions about when and how best to move 

into subsequent acquisition phases that commit more budgetary resources. 

The Committee believes that DHS’s approach in removing these 

42 programs from these requirements sends the wrong message to 

program managers about accountability for failure. Furthermore, 

there are several programs widely known to have serious problems 

with operational effectiveness, cost overruns, or schedule delays 

that were included as in the ‘‘sustainment phase’’ in the 2013 

Memorandum. These programs were allowed to proceed without 

the assurance that they had the appropriate levels of knowledge to 

be successful. As a result, DHS allowed taxpayer dollars to be put 

at high risk. 

Thus, the Committee expects that the USM incorporate within 

each QPAR the following information on every major acquisition 

program for which five years or more have elapsed since final approval for system procurement and deployment was given, including (1) the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) for the major acquisition program; (2) the current five-year life cycle cost for operation 

of the major acquisition program; (3) the life cycle cost projected at 

the time of procurement and deployment; (4) the projected five-year 

life cycle cost of commercially available alternatives capable of replicating the functionality or functionalities of the major acquisition 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

program, including major subsystems or capability Components 

that can be separated or integrated into the major acquisition program; and (5) DHS’s assessment of ways it can reduce life cycle 

costs associated with these major acquisition programs, including 

through using already-existing innovative commercially-available 

solutions. 

Sec. 304. Government Accountability Office review of multiyear acquisition strategy. 

Section 304 requires that GAO conduct a review of the Multiyear 

Acquisition Strategy within 180 days after submission to Congress 

of the first Multiyear Acquisition Strategy to analyze the plan’s effectiveness. 

Sec. 305. Office of Inspector General report. 

Section 305 requires that the DHS Inspector General conduct a 

review no later than 2 years following the submission of the 

Multiyear Acquisition Strategy report to Congress to determine 

whether DHS has complied with the strategy; adhered to the strategies set forth in the plan; and complied with the requirements to 

provide the Acquisition Review Board with a capability development plan for each major acquisition. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as 

follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII—MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 708. Chief Procurement Officer. 

Sec. 709. Requirements to ensure greater accountability for acquisition programs. 

TITLE VIII—COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR 

GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Acquisitions 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 836. Acquisition Review Board. 

Sec. 837. Requirements to reduce duplication in acquisition programs. 

Sec. 838. Congressional notification and other requirements for major acquisition 

program breach. 

Sec. 839. Multiyear acquisition strategy. 

Sec. 840. Acquisition reports. 

* * * * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— In this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) * * * 

(2)(A) The term ‘‘appropriate congressional committee’’ 

means any committee of the House of Representatives or the 

Senate having legislative or oversight jurisdiction under the 

Rules of the House of Representatives or the Senate, respectively, over the matter concerned. 

(B) The term ‘‘congressional homeland security committees’’ 

means— 

(i) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and 

(ii) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, where appropriate. 

(b) ACQUISITION-RELATED DEFINITIONS.—In this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) ACQUISITION.—The term ‘‘acquisition’’ has the meaning 

provided in section 131 of title 41, United States Code. 

(2) ACQUISITION DECISION AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘acquisition 

decision authority’’ means the authority, held by the Secretary 

acting through the Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary for 

Management— 

(A) to ensure compliance with Federal law, the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives; 

(B) to review (including approving, halting, modifying, or 

cancelling) an acquisition program through the life cycle of 

the program; 

(C) to ensure that program managers have the resources 

necessary to successfully execute an approved acquisition 

program; and 

(D) to ensure good program management of cost, schedule, risk, and system performance of the acquisition, including assessing acquisition program baseline breaches 

and directing any corrective action for such breaches. 

(3) ACQUISITION DECISION EVENT.—The term ‘‘acquisition decision event’’, with respect to an investment or acquisition program, means a predetermined point within the acquisition 

phases of the investment or acquisition program at which the 

investment or acquisition program will undergo a review prior 

to commencement of the next phase. 

(4) ACQUISITION DECISION MEMORANDUM.—The term ‘‘acquisition decision memorandum’’, with respect to an acquisition, 

means the official acquisition decision event record that includes a documented record of decisions, exit criteria, and assigned actions for the acquisition as determined by the person 

exercising acquisition decision authority for the acquisition. 

(5) ACQUISITION PROGRAM BASELINE.—The term ‘‘acquisition 

program baseline’’, with respect to an acquisition program, 

means a summary of the cost, schedule, and performance parameters, expressed in standard, measurable, quantitative 

terms, which must be met in order to accomplish the goals of 

the program. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

(6) CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘capability 

development plan’’, with respect to a proposed acquisition, 

means the document that the Acquisition Review Board approves for the first acquisition decision event related to validating the need of a proposed acquisition. 

(7) COMPONENT ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE.—The term ‘‘Component Acquisition Executive’’ means the senior acquisition official 

within a Component who is designated in writing by the Under 

Secretary for Management, in consultation with the Component 

head, with authority and responsibility for leading a process 

and staff to provide acquisition and program management oversight, policy, and guidance to ensure that statutory, regulatory, 

and higher level policy requirements are fulfilled, including 

compliance with Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives established by the Under Secretary for Management. 

(8) LIFE CYCLE COST.—The term ‘‘life cycle cost’’, with respect 

to an acquisition program, means all costs associated with research, development, procurement, operation, integrated logistics support, and disposal under the program, including supporting infrastructure that plans, manages, and executes the 

program over its full life, and costs of common support items 

incurred as a result of the program. 

(9) MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘major acquisition program’’ means a Department acquisition program that is 

estimated by the Secretary to require an eventual total expenditure of at least $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2014 constant 

dollars) over its life cycle cost. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII—MANAGEMENT 

SEC. 701. UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Management shall 

serve as the Chief Management Officer and principal advisor to the 

Secretary on matters related to the management of the Department, including management integration and transformation in 

support of homeland security operations and programs. The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Management, shall 

be responsible for the management and administration of the Department, including the following: 

(1) * * * 

(2) øProcurement¿ Acquisition and procurement. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) ACQUISITION AND RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1702(b) of title 41, 

United States Code, the Under Secretary for Management is the 

Chief Acquisition Officer of the Department. As Chief Acquisition Officer, the Under Secretary shall have the authority and 

perform the functions as specified in section 1702(b) of such 

title, and perform all other functions and responsibilities delegated by the Secretary or described in this subsection. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

(2) DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.—In addition to the authority and functions specified in section 1702(b) of title 41, 

United States Code, the duties and responsibilities of the Under 

Secretary for Management related to acquisition include the following: 

(A) Advising the Secretary regarding acquisition management activities, taking into account risks of failure to 

achieve cost, schedule, or performance parameters, to ensure that the Department achieves its mission through the 

adoption of widely accepted program management best 

practices and standards. 

(B) Exercising the acquisition decision authority to approve, halt, modify (including the rescission of approvals of 

program milestones), or cancel major acquisition programs, 

unless the Under Secretary delegates the authority to a 

Component Acquisition Executive pursuant to paragraph 

(3). 

(C) Establishing policies for acquisition that implement 

an approach that takes into account risks of failure to 

achieve cost, schedule, or performance parameters that all 

Components of the Department shall comply with, including outlining relevant authorities for program managers to 

effectively manage acquisition programs. 

(D) Ensuring that each major acquisition program has a 

Department-approved acquisition program baseline. 

(E) Ensuring that the heads of Components and Component Acquisition Executives comply with Federal law, the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives. 

(F) Ensuring that grants and financial assistance are 

provided only to individuals and organizations that are not 

suspended or debarred. 

(G) Distributing guidance throughout the Department to 

ensure that contractors involved in acquisitions, particularly companies that access the Department’s information 

systems and technologies, adhere to internal cybersecurity 

policies established by the Department of Homeland Security. 

(3) DELEGATION OF ACQUISITION DECISION AUTHORITY.— (A) LEVEL 3 ACQUISITIONS.—The Under Secretary for 

Management may delegate acquisition decision authority in 

writing to the relevant Component Acquisition Executive for 

an acquisition program that has a life cycle cost estimate 

of less than $300,000,000. 

(B) LEVEL 2 ACQUISITIONS.—The Under Secretary for 

Management may delegate acquisition decision authority in 

writing to the relevant Component Acquisition Executive for 

a major acquisition program that has a life cycle cost estimate of at least $300,000,000 but not more than 

$1,000,000,000 if all of the following requirements are met: 

(i) The Component concerned possesses working policies, processes, and procedures that are consistent with 

Department-level acquisition policy. 

(ii) The Component Acquisition Executive has adequate, experienced, dedicated program management 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

professional staff commensurate with the size of the 

delegated portfolio. 

(iii) Each major acquisition program concerned has 

written documentation showing that it has a Department-approved acquisition program baseline and it is 

meeting agreed-upon cost, schedule, and performance 

thresholds. 

(4) EXCLUDED PARTIES LIST SYSTEM CONSULTATION.—The 

Under Secretary for Management shall require that all Department contracting and procurement officials consult the Excluded Parties List System (or successor system) as maintained 

by the General Services Administration prior to awarding a 

contract or grant or entering into other transactions to ascertain 

whether the selected contractor is excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of Federal 

financial and non-financial assistance and benefits. 

(5) RELATIONSHIP TO UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY.—Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the 

authority granted to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology under this Act. The Under Secretary for Management 

and the Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall cooperate in matters related to the coordination of acquisitions 

across the Department so that investments of the Directorate of 

Science and Technology can support current and future requirements of the Components. 

SEC. 702. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. 

(a) * * * 

(b) PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION FUNCTION.— (1) * * * 

(2) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Office shall perform the following 

functions: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(J) Notwithstanding section 902 of title 31, United States 

Code, provide leadership over financial management policy 

and programs for the Department as they relate to the Department’s acquisitions programs, in consultation with the 

Under Secretary for Management. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 703. CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ACQUISITION RESPONSIBILITIES.—Notwithstanding section 

11315 of title 40, United States Code, the acquisition responsibilities 

of the Chief Information Officer, in consultation with the Under 

Secretary for Management, shall include the following: 

(1) Serve as the lead technical authority for information technology programs and establish departmental information technology priorities, policies, processes, standards, guidelines, and 

procedures. 

(2) Oversee the management of the Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture and ensure that, before each acquisition decision event, approved information technology acquisitions comVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

ply with departmental information technology management 

processes, technical requirements, and the Homeland Security 

Enterprise Architecture, and in any case in which information 

technology acquisitions do not comply with Departmental management directives, make recommendations to the Acquisition 

Review Board regarding such noncompliance. 

(3) Be responsible for providing recommendations to the Acquisition Review Board established in section 836 of this Act on 

information technology programs, and be responsible for developing information technology acquisition strategic guidance. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 708. CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is a Chief Procurement Officer of the Department, who shall report directly to the Under Secretary for Management. The Chief Procurement Officer is the senior procurement 

executive for purposes of section 1702(c) of title 41, United States 

Code, and shall perform procurement functions as specified in such 

section. The Chief Procurement Officer also shall perform other 

functions and responsibilities set forth in this section and as may 

be assigned by the Under Secretary for Management. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Chief Procurement Officer shall— 

(1) exercise leadership and authority to the extent delegated 

by the Under Secretary for Management over the Department 

procurement function; 

(2) issue acquisition regulations and policies; 

(3) account for the integrity, performance, and oversight of 

Department procurement and contracting functions and be responsible for ensuring that a procurement’s contracting strategy 

and plans are consistent with the intent and direction of the Acquisition Review Board established in section 836 of this Act; 

(4) serve as the Department’s business advisor and main liaison to industry on procurement-related issues by providing advice on industry engagement, acquisition policy, oversight of the 

procurement function, and development of the acquisition workforce; 

(5) oversee a centralized certification and training program, 

in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management, for 

the entire Department acquisition workforce while using, to the 

greatest extent practicable, best practices and acquisitions training opportunities already in existence within the Federal Government, the private sector, or universities and colleges, as appropriate, and including training on how best to identify actions that warrant referrals for suspension or debarment; 

(6) delegate or retain contracting authority, as appropriate, 

except as provided in section 701(d)(3) of this Act; 

(7) participate in the selection, and periodic performance review, of the head of each contracting activity within the Department; 

(8) collect baseline data and establish performance measures 

on the impact of strategic sourcing initiatives on the private sector, including, in particular, small businesses; and 

(9) ensure that a fair proportion (as defined pursuant to the 

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)) of Federal contract 

and subcontract dollars are awarded to small businesses, maxiVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

mize opportunities for small business participation, and ensure, 

to the extent practicable, small businesses that achieve qualified 

vendor status for security-related technologies are provided an 

opportunity to compete for contracts for such technology. 

SEC. 709. REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY 

FOR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH MECHANISM.—Within the Management Directorate, the Under Secretary for Management shall establish a mechanism to prioritize improving the accountability, 

standardization, and transparency of major acquisition programs of 

the Department in order to increase opportunities for effectiveness 

and efficiencies and to serve as the central oversight function of all 

Department acquisition programs. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.—The Under Secretary for Management shall designate an Executive Director to 

oversee the requirement under subsection (a). The Executive Director 

shall report directly to the Under Secretary and shall carry out the 

following responsibilities: 

(1) Monitor the performance of Department acquisition programs regularly between acquisition decision events to identify 

problems with cost, performance, or schedule that Components 

may need to address to prevent cost overruns, performance 

issues, or schedule delays. 

(2) Assist the Chief Acquisition Officer in managing the Department’s acquisition portfolio. 

(3) Conduct oversight of individual acquisition programs to 

implement Department acquisition program policy, procedures, 

and guidance with a priority on ensuring the data it collects 

and maintains from its Components is accurate and reliable. 

(4) Serve as the focal point within the Department for policy, 

process, and procedure regarding life cycle cost estimating and 

analysis. 

(5) Serve as the focal point and coordinator for the acquisition life cycle review process and as the executive secretariat for 

the Acquisition Review Board established under section 836 of 

this Act. 

(6) Advise the persons having acquisition decision authority 

in making acquisition decisions consistent with all applicable 

laws and in establishing clear lines of authority, accountability, 

and responsibility for acquisition decisionmaking within the 

Department. 

(7) Engage in the strategic planning and performance evaluation process required under section 306 of title 5, United States 

Code, and sections 1105(a)(28), 1115, 1116, and 9703 of title 

31, United States Code, by supporting the Chief Procurement 

Officer in developing strategies and specific plans for hiring, 

training, and professional development in order to rectify any 

deficiency within the Department’s acquisition workforce. 

(8) Oversee the Component Acquisition Executive structure to 

ensure it has sufficient capabilities and complies with Department policies. 

(9) Develop standardized certification standards in consultation with the Component Acquisition Executives for all acquisition program managers. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

(10) In the event that a program manager’s certification or 

actions need review for purposes of promotion or removal, provide input, in consultation with the relevant Component Acquisition Executive, into the relevant program manager’s performance evaluation, and report positive or negative experiences to 

the relevant certifying authority. 

(11) Provide technical support and assistance to Department 

acquisitions and acquisition personnel in conjunction with the 

Chief Procurement Officer. 

(12) Prepare the Department’s Comprehensive Acquisition 

Status Report, as required by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (division D of Public Law 113– 

6; 127 Stat. 343) and section 840 of this Act, and make such 

report available to congressional homeland security committees. 

(13) Prepare the Department’s Quarterly Program Accountability Report as required by section 840 of this Act, and make 

such report available to the congressional homeland security 

committees. 

(c) RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMPONENTS.—Each head of a Component shall comply with Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Department acquisition management directives established by the Under Secretary for Management. For each major acquisition program, each head of a Component shall— 

(1) establish a complete life cycle cost estimate with supporting documentation, including an acquisition program baseline; 

(2) verify each life cycle cost estimate against independent 

cost estimates, and reconcile any differences; 

(3) complete a cost-benefit analysis with supporting documentation; 

(4) develop and maintain a schedule that is consistent with 

scheduling best practices as identified by the Comptroller General of the United States, including, in appropriate cases, an integrated master schedule; and 

(5) ensure that all acquisition program information provided 

by the Component is complete, accurate, timely, and valid. 

TITLE VIII—COORDINATION WITH NONFEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Acquisitions 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 836. ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish an Acquisition 

Review Board (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Board’’) to strengthen accountability and uniformity within the Department acquisition 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

review process, review major acquisition programs, and review the 

use of best practices. 

(b) COMPOSITION.—The Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary for 

Management shall serve as chair of the Board. The Secretary shall 

also ensure participation by other relevant Department officials, including at least two Component heads or their designees, as permanent members of the Board. 

(c) MEETINGS.—The Board shall meet every time a major acquisition program needs authorization to proceed from acquisition decision events through the acquisition life cycle and to consider any 

major acquisition program in breach as necessary. The Board may 

also be convened for non-major acquisitions that are deemed highrisk by the Executive Director referred to in section 709(b) of this 

Act. The Board shall also meet regularly for purposes of ensuring 

all acquisitions processes proceed in a timely fashion to achieve mission readiness. 

(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibilities of the Board are as 

follows: 

(1) Determine whether a proposed acquisition has met the requirements of key phases of the acquisition life cycle framework 

and is able to proceed to the next phase and eventual full production and deployment. 

(2) Oversee executable business strategy, resources, management, accountability, and alignment to strategic initiatives. 

(3) Support the person with acquisition decision authority for 

an acquisition in determining the appropriate direction for the 

acquisition at key acquisition decision events. 

(4) Conduct systematic reviews of acquisitions to ensure that 

they are progressing in compliance with the approved documents for their current acquisition phase. 

(5) Validate the acquisition documents of each major acquisition program, including the acquisition program baseline, to 

ensure the reliability of underlying data. 

(6) Ensure that practices are adopted and implemented to require consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives as part of the process for developing requirements for major acquisition programs prior to the initiation of the capability development plan, second acquisition decision event, including, at a minimum, the following practices: 

(A) Department officials responsible for acquisition, 

budget, and cost estimating functions are provided with the 

appropriate opportunity to develop estimates and raise cost 

and schedule matters before performance objectives are established for capabilities when feasible. 

(B) Full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, 

schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative is 

considered. 

(e) ACQUISITION PROGRAM BASELINE REPORT REQUIREMENT.—If 

the person exercising acquisition decision authority over a major acquisition program approves the program to proceed beyond the acquisition decision event requiring a capability development plan before it has a Department-approved acquisition program baseline, 

then the Under Secretary for Management shall create and approve 

an acquisition program baseline report on the decision, and the Secretary shall— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

(1) within seven days after an acquisition decision memorandum is signed, notify in writing the congressional homeland 

security committees of such decision; and 

(2) within 60 days after the acquisition decision memorandum is signed, submit a report to such committees stating 

the rationale for the decision and a plan of action to require an 

acquisition program baseline for the program. 

(f) BEST PRACTICES DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘best 

practices’’ has the meaning provided in section 4(b) of the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act. 

SEC. 837. REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE DUPLICATION IN ACQUISITION 

PROGRAMS. 

(a) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH POLICIES.—In an effort to reduce 

duplication and inefficiency for all Department investments, including major acquisition programs, the Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management, shall establish Department-wide policies to integrate all phases of the investment life 

cycle and help the Department identify, validate, and prioritize 

standards for common Component requirements for major acquisition program requirements in order to increase opportunities for effectiveness and efficiencies. The policies shall also include strategic 

alternatives for developing and facilitating a Department Component-driven requirements process that includes oversight of a development test and evaluation capability; identification of priority gaps 

and overlaps in Department capability needs; and provision of feasible technical alternatives, including innovative commercially 

available alternatives, to meet capability needs. 

(b) MECHANISMS TO CARRY OUT REQUIREMENT.—The Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Management, 

shall coordinate the actions necessary to carry out subsection (a), 

using such mechanisms as considered necessary by the Secretary to 

help the Department reduce duplication and inefficiency for all Department investments, including major acquisition programs. 

(c) COORDINATION.—In coordinating the actions necessary to carry 

out subsection (a), the Deputy Secretary shall consult with the 

Under Secretary for Management, Component Acquisition Executives, and any other Department officials, including the Under Secretary for Science and Technology or his designee, with specific 

knowledge of Department or Component acquisition capabilities to 

prevent unnecessary duplication of requirements. 

(d) ADVISORS.—The Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the 

Under Secretary for Management, shall seek and consider input 

within legal and ethical boundaries from members of Federal, State, 

local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector, as appropriate, on matters within their authority and 

expertise in carrying out the Department’s mission. 

(e) MEETINGS.—The Deputy Secretary, in consultation with the 

Under Secretary for Management, shall meet at least quarterly and 

communicate with Components often to ensure that Components do 

not overlap or duplicate spending or priorities on major investments 

and acquisition programs within their areas of responsibility. 

(f) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out this section, the responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary are as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

(1) To review and validate the requirements documents of 

major investments and acquisition programs prior to acquisition decision events of the investments or programs. 

(2) To ensure the requirements and scope of a major investment or acquisition program are stable, measurable, achievable, 

at an acceptable risk level, and match the resources planned to 

be available. 

(3) Before any entity of the Department issues a solicitation 

for a new contract, coordinate with other Department entities as 

appropriate to prevent duplication and inefficiency and— 

(A) to implement portfolio reviews to identify common 

mission requirements and crosscutting opportunities among 

Components to harmonize investments and requirements 

and prevent overlap and duplication among Components; 

and 

(B) to the extent practicable, to standardize equipment 

purchases, streamline the acquisition process, improve efficiencies, and conduct best practices for strategic sourcing. 

(4) To ensure program managers of major investments and 

acquisition programs conduct analyses, giving particular attention to factors such as cost, schedule, risk, performance, and 

operational efficiency in order to determine that programs work 

as intended within cost and budget expectations. 

(5) To propose schedules for delivery of the operational capability needed to meet each Department investment and major 

acquisition program. 

(g) BEST PRACTICES DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘best 

practices’’ has the meaning provided in section 4(b) of the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act. 

SEC. 838. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAM BREACH. 

(a) BREACH DEFINED.—The term ‘‘breach’’, with respect to a major 

acquisition program, means a failure to meet any cost, schedule, or 

performance parameter specified in the acquisition program baseline. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS WITHIN DEPARTMENT IF BREACH OCCURS.— 

(1) NOTIFICATIONS.— 

(A) NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL BREACH.—If a major acquisition program has a potential for a future breach, as 

determined by the program manager for that program, the 

program manager shall notify the person exercising acquisition decision authority for the program. 

(B) NOTIFICATION OF ACTUAL BREACH.—If an actual 

breach occurs in a major acquisition program, the program 

manager for that program shall notify the head of the Component concerned, the Component Acquisition Executive for 

the program, the Executive Director referred to in section 

709(b) of this Act, the Under Secretary for Management, 

and the Deputy Secretary. 

(C) NOTIFICATION TO SECRETARY.—If a major acquisition 

program has an actual breach with a cost overrun greater 

than 20 percent or a schedule delay greater than 12 months 

from the costs or schedule set forth in the acquisition program baseline for the program, the Secretary and the Inspector General of the Department shall be notified not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

later than five business days after the actual breach is 

identified. 

(2) REMEDIATION PLAN AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an actual breach with a 

cost overrun greater than 15 percent or a schedule delay 

greater than 180 days from the costs or schedule set forth 

in the acquisition program baseline, a remediation plan 

and root cause analysis is required, and the Under Secretary for Management or his designee shall establish a 

date for submission within the Department of a breach remediation plan and root cause analysis in accordance with 

this subsection. 

(B) REMEDIATION PLAN.—The remediation plan required 

under this subsection shall be submitted in writing to the 

head of the Component concerned, the Executive Director 

referred to in section 709(b) of this Act, and the Under Secretary for Management. The plan shall— 

(i) explain the circumstances of the breach; 

(ii) provide prior cost estimating information; 

(iii) propose corrective action to control cost growth, 

schedule delays, or performance issues; 

(iv) in coordination with Component Acquisition Executive, discuss all options considered, including the 

estimated impact on cost, schedule, or performance of 

the program if no changes are made to current requirements, the estimated cost of the program if requirements are modified, and the extent to which funding 

from other programs will need to be reduced to cover 

the cost growth of the program; and 

(v) explain the rationale for why the proposed corrective action is recommended. 

(C) ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS.—The root cause analysis required under this subsection shall determine the underlying cause or causes of shortcomings in cost, schedule, or 

performance of the program, including the role, if any, of 

the following: 

(i) Unrealistic performance expectations. 

(ii) Unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or schedule 

or changes in program requirements. 

(iii) Immature technologies or excessive manufacturing or integration risk. 

(iv) Unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology integration issues arising during 

program performance. 

(v) Changes in procurement quantities. 

(vi) Inadequate program funding or changes in 

planned out-year funding from one five-year funding 

plan to the next five-year funding plan as outlined in 

the Future Years Homeland Security Program required 

under section 874 of this Act. 

(vii) Legislative, legal, or regulatory changes. 

(viii) Inadequate program management personnel, 

including lack of training, credentials, certifications, or 

use of best practices. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

(3) CORRECTION OF BREACH.—The Under Secretary for Management or his designee shall establish a date for submission 

within the Department of a program of corrective action that 

ensures that one of the following actions has occurred: 

(A) The breach has been corrected and the program is 

again in compliance with the original acquisition program 

baseline parameters. 

(B) A revised acquisition program baseline has been approved. 

(C) The program has been halted or cancelled. 

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION

IF BREACH OCCURS.— 

(1) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.—If a notification is made 

under subsection (b)(1)(B) for a breach in a major acquisition 

program with a cost overrun greater than 15 percent or a schedule delay greater than 180 days from the costs or schedule set 

forth in the acquisition program baseline, or with an anticipated failure for any key performance threshold or parameter 

specified in the acquisition program baseline, the Under Secretary for Management shall notify the congressional homeland 

security committees of the breach in the next quarterly Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report after the Under Secretary 

for Management receives the notification from the program 

manager under subsection (b)(1)(B). 

(2) SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCES IN COSTS OR SCHEDULE.—If a 

likely cost overrun is greater than 20 percent or a likely delay 

is greater than 12 months from the costs and schedule set forth 

in the acquisition program baseline for a major acquisition program, the Under Secretary for Management shall include in the 

notification required in (c)(1) a written certification, with supporting explanation, that— 

(A) the acquisition is essential to the accomplishment of 

the Department’s mission; 

(B) there are no alternatives to such capability or asset 

that will provide equal or greater capability in both a more 

cost-effective and timely manner; 

(C) the new acquisition schedule and estimates for total 

acquisition cost are reasonable; and 

(D) the management structure for the acquisition program is adequate to manage and control performance, cost, 

and schedule. 

(3) SUBMISSIONS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 calendar 

days after submission to such committees of a breach notification under paragraph (1) of this section for a major acquisition 

program, the Under Secretary for Management shall submit to 

such committees the following: 

(A) A copy of the remediation plan and the root cause 

analysis prepared under subsection (b)(2) for the program. 

(B) A statement describing the corrective action or actions 

that have occurred pursuant to subsection (b)(3) for the program, with a justification for the action or actions. 

(d) ADDITIONAL ACTIONS IF BREACH OCCURS.— (1) PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—During the 90- 

day period following submission under subsection (c)(3) of a remediation plan, root cause analysis, and statement of corrective 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

actions with respect to a major acquisition program, the Under 

Secretary for Management shall submit a certification described 

in paragraph (2) of this subsection to the congressional homeland security committees. If the Under Secretary for Management does not submit such certification by the end of such 90- 

day period, then funds appropriated to the major acquisition 

program shall not be obligated until the Under Secretary for 

Management submits such certification. 

(2) CERTIFICATION.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the certification described in this paragraph is a certification that— 

(A) the Department has adjusted or restructured the program in a manner that addresses the root cause or causes 

of the cost growth in the program; and 

(B) the Department has conducted a thorough review of 

the breached program’s acquisition decision event approvals and the current acquisition decision event approval for 

the breached program has been adjusted as necessary to account for the restructured program. 

SEC. 839. MULTIYEAR ACQUISITION STRATEGY. 

(a) MULTIYEAR ACQUISITION STRATEGY REQUIRED.—Not later 

than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate homeland security committees 

a multiyear acquisition strategy to guide the overall direction of the 

acquisitions of the Department while allowing flexibility to deal 

with ever-changing threats and risks and to help industry better understand, plan, and align resources to meet the future acquisition 

needs of the Department. The strategy shall be updated and included in each Future Years Homeland Security Program required 

under section 874 of this Act. 

(b) CONSULTATION.—In developing the strategy, the Secretary 

shall consult with others as the Secretary deems appropriate, including headquarters, Components, employees in the field, and 

when appropriate, individuals from industry and the academic 

community. 

(c) FORM OF STRATEGY.—The report shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex for any sensitive or 

classified information if necessary. The Department also shall publish the plan in an unclassified format that is publicly available. 

(d) CONTENTS OF STRATEGY.—The strategy shall include the following: 

(1) PRIORITIZED LIST.—A systematic and integrated 

prioritized list developed by the Under Secretary for Management or his designee in coordination with all of the Component 

Acquisition Executives of Department major acquisition programs that Department and Component acquisition investments 

seek to address, that includes the expected security and economic benefit of the program or system and an analysis of how 

the security and economic benefit derived from the program or 

system will be measured. 

(2) INVENTORY.—A plan to develop a reliable Departmentwide inventory of investments and real property assets to help 

the Department plan, budget, schedule, and acquire upgrades of 

its systems and equipment and plan for the acquisition and 

management of future systems and equipment. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

(3) FUNDING GAPS.—A plan to address funding gaps between 

funding requirements for major acquisition programs and 

known available resources including, to the maximum extent 

practicable, ways of leveraging best practices to identify and 

eliminate overpayment for items to prevent wasteful purchasing, 

achieve the greatest level of efficiency and cost savings by 

rationalizing purchases, aligning pricing for similar items, and 

utilizing purchase timing and economies of scale. 

(4) IDENTIFICATION OF CAPABILITIES.—An identification of 

test, evaluation, modeling, and simulation capabilities that will 

be required to support the acquisition of the technologies to 

meet the needs of the plan and ways to leverage to the greatest 

extent possible the emerging technology trends and research and 

development trends within the public and private sectors and 

an identification of ways to ensure that the appropriate technology is acquired and integrated into the Department’s operating doctrine and procured in ways that improve mission performance. 

(5) FOCUS ON FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS.—An assessment of ways 

the Department can improve its ability to test and acquire innovative solutions to allow needed incentives and protections for 

appropriate risk-taking in order to meet its acquisition needs 

with resiliency, agility, and responsiveness to assure the Nation’s homeland security and facilitate trade. 

(6) FOCUS ON INCENTIVES TO SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.—An 

assessment of ways the Department can develop incentives for 

program managers and senior Department acquisition officials 

to prevent cost overruns, avoid schedule delays, and achieve 

cost savings in major acquisition programs. 

(7) FOCUS ON ADDRESSING DELAYS AND BID PROTESTS.—An 

assessment of ways the Department can improve the acquisition 

process to minimize cost overruns in requirements development, 

procurement announcements, requests for proposals, evaluation 

of proposals, protests of decisions and awards and through the 

use of best practices as defined in section 4(b) of the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act and lessons learned 

by the Department and other Federal agencies. 

(8) FOCUS ON IMPROVING OUTREACH.—An identification and 

assessment of ways to increase opportunities for communication 

and collaboration with industry, small and disadvantaged 

businesses, intra-government entities, university centers of excellence, accredited certification and standards development organizations, and national laboratories to ensure that the Department understands the market for technologies, products, and innovation that is available to meet its mission needs to inform 

the requirements-setting process and before engaging in an acquisition, including— 

(A) methods designed especially to engage small and disadvantaged businesses and a cost-benefit analysis of the 

tradeoffs that small and disadvantaged businesses provide, 

barriers to entry for small and disadvantaged businesses, 

and unique requirements for small and disadvantaged 

businesses; and 

(B) within the Department Vendor Communication Plan 

and Market Research Guide, instructions for interaction by 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

program managers with such entities to prevent misinterpretation of acquisition regulations and to permit freedom 

within legal and ethical boundaries for program managers 

to interact with such businesses with transparency. 

(9) COMPETITION.—A plan regarding competition as described 

in subsection (e). 

(10) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.—A plan regarding the Department acquisition workforce as described in subsection (f). 

(11) FEASIBILITY OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND PILOT

PROGRAM.—An assessment of the feasibility of conducting a 

pilot program to establish an acquisition workforce development 

fund as described in subsection (g). 

(e) COMPETITION PLAN.—The strategy shall also include a plan 

(referred to in subsection (d)(9)) that shall address actions to ensure 

competition, or the option of competition, for major acquisition programs. The plan may include assessments of the following measures 

in appropriate cases if such measures are cost effective: 

(1) Competitive prototyping. 

(2) Dual-sourcing. 

(3) Unbundling of contracts. 

(4) Funding of next-generation prototype systems or subsystems. 

(5) Use of modular, open architectures to enable competition 

for upgrades. 

(6) Acquisition of complete technical data packages. 

(7) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades. 

(8) Licensing of additional suppliers, including small businesses. 

(9) Periodic system or program reviews to address long-term 

competitive effects of program decisions. 

(f) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE PLAN.— 

(1) ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.—The strategy shall also include 

a plan (referred to in subsection (d)(10)) to address Department 

acquisition workforce accountability and talent management 

that identifies the acquisition workforce needs of each Component performing acquisition functions and develops options for 

filling those needs with qualified individuals, including a costbenefit analysis of contracting for acquisition assistance. 

(2) ADDITIONAL MATTERS COVERED.—The acquisition workforce plan shall address ways to— 

(A) improve the recruitment, hiring, training, and retention of Department acquisition workforce personnel, including contracting officer’s representatives, in order to retain 

highly qualified individuals that have experience in the acquisition life cycle, complex procurements, and management of large programs; 

(B) empower program managers to have the authority to 

manage their programs in an accountable and transparent 

manner as they work with the acquisition workforce; 

(C) prevent duplication within Department acquisition 

workforce training and certification requirements through 

leveraging already-existing training within the Federal 

Government, academic community, or private industry; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

(D) achieve integration and consistency with Government-wide training and accreditation standards, acquisition training tools, and training facilities; 

(E) designate the acquisition positions that will be necessary to support the Department acquisition requirements, 

including in the fields of— 

(i) program management; 

(ii) systems engineering; 

(iii) procurement, including contracting; 

(iv) test and evaluation; 

(v) life cycle logistics; 

(vi) cost estimating and program financial management; and 

(vii) additional disciplines appropriate to Department mission needs; 

(F) strengthen the performance of contracting officer’s 

representatives (as defined in Subpart 1.602-2 and Subpart 

2.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation), including 

by— 

(i) assessing the extent to which contracting officer’s 

representatives are certified and receive training that is 

appropriate; 

(ii) determining what training is most effective with 

respect to the type and complexity of assignment; and 

(iii) implementing actions to improve training based 

on such assessment; and 

(G) identify ways to increase training for relevant investigators and auditors to examine fraud in major acquisition programs, including identifying opportunities to leverage existing Government and private sector resources in coordination with the Inspector General of the Department. 

(g) FEASIBILITY OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND PILOT PROGRAM.—The strategy shall also include an assessment (referred to in 

subsection (d)(11)) of the feasibility of conducting a pilot program 

to establish a Homeland Security Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’) to ensure 

the Department acquisition workforce has the capacity, in both personnel and skills, needed to properly perform its mission and ensure 

that the Department receives the best value for the expenditure of 

public resources. The assessment shall address the following: 

(1) Ways to fund the Fund, including the use of direct appropriations, or the credit, transfer, or deposit of unobligated or 

unused funds from Department Components into the Fund to 

remain available for obligation in the fiscal year for which 

credited, transferred, or deposited and to remain available for 

successive fiscal years. 

(2) Ways to reward the Department acquisition workforce and 

program managers for good program management in controlling cost growth, limiting schedule delays, and ensuring operational effectiveness through providing a percentage of the savings or general acquisition bonuses. 

(3) Guidance for the administration of the Fund that includes 

provisions to do the following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

(A) Describe the costs and benefits associated with the 

use of direct appropriations or credit, transfer, or deposit of 

unobligated or unused funds to finance the Fund. 

(B) Describe the manner and timing for applications for 

amounts in the Fund to be submitted. 

(C) Explain the evaluation criteria to be used for approving or prioritizing applications for amounts in the Fund in 

any fiscal year. 

(D) Explain the mechanism to report to Congress on the 

implementation of the Fund on an ongoing basis. 

(E) Detail measurable performance metrics to determine 

if the Fund is meeting the objective to improve the acquisition workforce and to achieve cost savings in acquisition 

management. 

SEC. 840. ACQUISITION REPORTS. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE ACQUISITION STATUS REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Management each 

year shall submit to the congressional homeland security committees, at the same time as the President’s budget is submitted 

for a fiscal year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 

Code, a comprehensive acquisition status report. The report 

shall include the following: 

(A) The information required under the heading ‘‘Office 

of the Under Secretary for Management’’ under Title I of 

division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Public Law 112-74) (as required under the Department of 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 

113–6). 

(B) A listing of programs that have been cancelled, modified, paused, or referred to the Under Secretary for Management or Deputy Secretary for additional oversight or action by the Board, Department Office of Inspector General, 

or the Comptroller General. 

(C) A listing of established Executive Steering Committees, which provide governance of a program or related set 

of programs and lower-tiered oversight, and support between acquisition decision events and Component reviews, 

including the mission and membership for each. 

(2) INFORMATION FOR MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—For 

each major acquisition program, the report shall include the 

following: 

(A) A narrative description, including current gaps and 

shortfalls, the capabilities to be fielded, and the number of 

planned increments or units. 

(B) Acquisition Review Board (or other board designated 

to review the acquisition) status of each acquisition, including the current acquisition phase, the date of the last review, and a listing of the required documents that have 

been reviewed with the dates reviewed or approved. 

(C) The most current, approved acquisition program 

baseline (including project schedules and events). 

(D) A comparison of the original acquisition program 

baseline, the current acquisition program baseline, and the 

current estimate. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

(E) Whether or not an independent verification and validation has been implemented, with an explanation for the 

decision and a summary of any findings. 

(F) A rating of cost risk, schedule risk, and technical risk 

associated with the program (including narrative descriptions and mitigation actions). 

(G) Contract status (including earned value management 

data as applicable). 

(H) A lifecycle cost of the acquisition, and time basis for 

the estimate. 

(3) UPDATES.—The Under Secretary shall submit quarterly 

updates to such report not later than 45 days after the completion of each quarter. 

(b) QUARTERLY PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT.—The Under 

Secretary for Management shall prepare a quarterly program accountability report to meet the Department’s mandate to perform 

program health assessments and improve program execution and 

governance. The report shall be submitted to the congressional 

homeland security committees. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle H—Miscellaneous Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 874. FUTURE YEAR HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

(b) CONTENTS.—The Future Years Homeland Security Program 

under subsection (a) shall— 

(1) * * * 

(2) set forth the homeland security strategy of the Department, which shall be developed and updated as appropriate annually by the Secretary, that was used to develop program 

planning guidance for the Future Years Homeland Security 

Program; øand¿ 

(3) include an explanation of how the resource allocations included in the Future Years Homeland Security Program correlate to the homeland security strategy set forth under paragraph (2)ø.¿; and 

(4) include the multiyear acquisition strategy required under 

section 839 of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(55) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF BENNIE G. THOMPSON, RANKING 

MEMBER, ON BEHALF OF COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS 

Committee Democrats were pleased to support H.R. 4228, the 

‘‘DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act’’ (Act). While 

we agree with the vast majority of the language contained within 

the Report accompanying H.R. 4228 (Report), we would like to 

highlight a number of areas within the legislation that that were 

strengthened by Democrat input and Amendments that warrant 

further detail. Additionally, we would like to disassociate ourselves 

with some of the language contained in the Report. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

According to the Report, DHS ‘‘will spend at least $300 million 

on each program and take years to develop and procure them.’’ 

Committee Democrats wish to point out that the $300 million figure is an estimate. Committee Democrats anticipate that the provisions in the underlying legislation putting controls and limitations 

in place, including the strengthening of the Acquisition Review 

Board, may reduce this estimated amount. 

According to the Report, ‘‘[t]o date, DHS has lacked a strategy 

to guide the billions of dollars it spends on these major acquisition 

programs.’’ Committee Democrats agree that a more strategic approach is needed to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent in the most 

efficient and effective manner. However, Committee Democrats disagree with the notion that ‘‘DHS has lacked a strategy.’’ DHS has 

numerous acquisition and procurement strategies in place, including Management Directive 102, which forms the framework for the 

underlying legislation, a DHS Acquisitions Planning Guide released by the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the Chief 

Procurement Office Strategic Plan, the Integrated Investment Life 

Cycle, which has aided the Department in narrowing the scope of 

its inclusion on the Government Accountability Office ‘‘High Risk 

List.’’ Committee Democrats note that while DHS has not always 

been successful at implementing the numerous strategies that are 

in place, strategies do exist. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES

Section 101—Acquisition authorities for Under Secretary for Management 

During the Full Committee Markup, the Committee adopted an 

amendment offered by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) related to cyber 

hygiene. Rep. Clarke’s amendment requires the Under Secretary 

for Management (USM) to distribute guidance throughout DHS to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

ensure that contractors involved in acquisitions adhere to internal 

cybersecurity policies established by DHS. Every day, numerous 

DHS contractors interface with DHS’ networks and access its information systems and technologies. According to DHS, 96% of cyber 

breaches are avoidable through simple or intermediate controls and 

almost 97% of cyber events could have been prevented or damages 

mitigated, if enterprises would simply use good cyber hygiene. 

At the Full Committee Markup, amendments were also adopted 

that were offered by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) that related 

to DHS’ management of its suspension and debarment program. 

Pursuant to his amendments, Section 101 now requires that DHS 

contracting and procurement officials consult the U.S. General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) Excluded Parties List System, or 

any successor system, prior to awarding a contract or other Federal 

funds to ensure that the recipient is eligible to receive a Federal 

contract or Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits. Committee Democrats believe that requiring DHS to make certain that it does not award contracts to individuals or entities that 

have been suspended or debarred can help prevent potential risks 

associated with such awards and to ensure that its operations are 

in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

Section 103—Acquisition authorities for Chief Information Officer 

The Committee Report states that it is the Committee’s view 

that the Chief Information Officer (CIO) should consider the advantages of already-existing innovative commercial solutions that may 

have the ability to meet U.S. homeland security mission needs 

while providing solutions for lower costs. While Democrat Members 

believe that there are many instances where commercially-available solutions may prove to be the appropriate course, it is the 

view of Committee Democrats that the CIO should weigh all appropriate options and determine which approach is most responsive to 

the Department’s operational needs. 

Section 104—Chief Procurement Officer 

During the Full Committee markup, an amendment offered by 

Ranking Member Thompson (D-MS) was adopted and included in 

Section 104. As a result of this amendment, the certification and 

training program overseen by the DHS Chief Procurement Officer 

(CPO) must also include training on how best to identify actions 

that warrant referrals for suspension or debarment. This amendment is consistent with Government Accountably Office and the Office of Management and Budget guidance that Federal agencies improve training in this area to better equip contracting officials with 

the knowledge they need to protect the Federal Government’s interest. 

This section also incorporates Democrat language, championed 

by the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Management Efficiency Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ), that strengthens 

the role of small businesses in DHS contracting. I am disappointed 

with the incomplete characterization of the Department’s record 

when it comes to contracting with small businesses. According to 

the Report, DHS ‘‘exceeds the U.S. Government-wide goal of 31.75 

percent for contracts awarded to Small Business and Small and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

Disadvantaged Business.’’ However, this information is deceptive 

and obscures the true reality of whether DHS components are 

meeting Federal small business goals. For example, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has established 23.0 percent 

as its goal for prime small business contracting; however, it is current contracting at 16.2 percent. Similarly, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency utilizes the DHS-wide goal of 32.0 percent as 

its own standard; yet, its current percentage is 24.8 percent, far 

below both its own and the DHS-wide goal. Committee Democrats 

commends DHS and those Components that meet or exceed its established goals and congratulates DHS on its agency-wide Scorecard grade. At the same time, Committee Democrats want to emphasize that established goals should be met or exceeded across all 

components. 

As a result of language offered by Committee Democrats that 

was incorporated into the Act, Section 104 requires the CPO to follow small business requirements established in the Small Business 

Act; take efforts to ensure that small businesses are not negatively 

impacted by strategic sourcing; and instructs DHS to maximize opportunities for small businesses, as required by law. 

Finally, as a result of an amendment offered by Ranking Member 

Thompson and adopted at the Full Committee Markup, this section 

seeks to provide opportunities to small businesses that succeed in 

completing the Department’s process for becoming a qualified vendor for a security-related technology, thus increasing competition in 

the market. Representatives from TSA have testified that its small 

business challenges are attributable to the high cost associated 

with being able to endure the testing and evaluation that occurs on 

security-related technologies the agency intends to procure. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE

Section 201—Acquisition Review Board 

On April 17, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

released a report regarding homeland security acquisitions. While 

Committee Democrats were pleased with GAO’s oversight and releasing reports on DHS acquisitions matters, this report did not; 

however, inform the basis of this legislation because it was released 

after the Full Committee Markup. As a result, Democrats do not 

support the inclusion of references to the ‘‘2014 GAO report’’ as a 

basis for the underlying legislation. While Committee Democrats 

will pursue the findings contained within the report and whether 

DHS has adequately addressed the recommendations, we cannot 

assert that we intend for the Acquisition Review Board (ARB) to 

make affordability ‘‘trade-offs’’ without first determining through 

oversight, which has not yet occurred, whether this is the best 

course of action. 

Section 204—Excluded party list system waivers 

As part of the suspension and debarment process, the U.S. General Services Administration maintains a system for identifying 

suspended and debarred individuals and businesses. The purpose 

of this list—which must be consulted before the awarding of a contract or other funds—is to protect the Government from doing busiVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 May 08, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR436.XXX HR436

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

ness with bad actors. Prior to issuing an award, contracting officers 

are required to consult the system to verify that a vendor is eligible 

to do business with the Government. However, contracting officers 

also have the ability to issue a waiver that allows the individual 

or business to receive a contract despite being suspended or 

debarred. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in an effort to protect the Government, such a waiver should only be issued 

if a ‘‘compelling reason’’ exists. To ensure that the exercise of this 

waiver authority is responsible and appropriate, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) offered an amendment that was adopted by the Full 

Committee to Section 204 that requires that the Secretary provide 

notification to the congressional homeland security committees 

within five days after issuance of a waiver for the requirement that 

an agency not engage in business with a contractor listed in the 

Excluded Party List System, and an explanation for that waiver. 

Committee Democrats believe that this additional layer of Congressional scrutiny of the decision to waive the exclusion should bring 

greater accountability to DHS’ contracting process and guard 

against overruns and other contract breaches. 

Section 205—Inspector General oversight of suspension and debarment 

Committee Democrats believe that failing to suspend or debar 

poorly performing contractors in addition to awarding contracts to 

those that have defrauded the government, violated laws, or committed other misconduct undermines public confidence and puts 

scarce homeland security dollars at risk and as a result Congressional oversight of this process is necessary. Moreover, the vast majority of DHS contracts are awarded in an effort to carry out the 

homeland security mission; therefore if this process lacks integrity, 

it has the potential to impact our Nation’s security. Committee 

Democrats also believes that while there is a need for DHS to implement a robust suspension and debarment program, this process 

should be consistently applied, among all business concerns, including large, small, minority, veteran-owned, disadvantaged and 

woman-owned businesses. As a result, Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ) introduced an amendment that was adopted at Full Committee that 

resulted in Section 204 providing that the DHS Inspector General 

may audit grant and procurement award decisions to ensure entities that are suspended or debarred from receiving Federal funds 

are not improperly receiving those awards. Rep. Barber’s adopted 

amendment also required that the Inspector General review the 

Department’s suspension and debarment program to assess whether suspension and debarment criteria is disproportionately impacts 

small, minority, veteran-owned, women-owned or disadvantaged 

businesses that contract with DHS. 

TITLE III—ACQUISITION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

AND TRANSPARENCY

Development of the Acquisition Workforce 

DHS Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) conduct oversight of DHS contracts and are primarily responsible for monitoring contractor performance. It is the responsibility of this aspect 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

of the workforce to detect and address when breaches occur and 

poor performance. Committee Democrats believe that steps should 

be taken to ensure that this particular cadre of the DHS workforce 

is strengthened. To that end, Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) offered an 

amendment that was adopted during the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency Markup of H.R. 4228 that was 

incorporated into the Amendment in the Nature of the Substitute 

that was offered by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) at Full Committee. 

Pursuant to Rep. Payne’s amendment, Section 302 contains provisions that strengthen the DHS CORs workforce. According to the 

DHS Inspector General, many major acquisitions fail due to inadequate contractor oversight. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget has found that CORs are increasingly being 

asked to manage high-value, complex contracts that involve varying degrees of risk; however, many are not trained and developed 

appropriately. As a result of Rep. Payne’s amendment, Section 302 

seeks to address this challenge by requiring DHS to provide particular emphasis on CORs in its efforts to recruit, hire, train and 

retain an effective acquisition and procurement workforce. This section also instructs DHS to include in its plan, ways to strengthen 

the performance of its cadre of contracting officer’s representatives 

by assessing the extent to which they are certified and trained; determining the most effective form of training and improving the 

training offered based on the final assessment. 

Section 303—Acquisition reports 

Committee Democrats are looking forward to receiving the Quarterly Program Accountability Report that the USM is authorized to 

submit to pursuant to Section 303. Moreover, Committee Democrats agree with the consternation expressed in the Report with the 

DHS May 2013 Acquisition Decision Memorandum that allows 

Component Acquisition Executive to waive acquisition documentation for 42 Level I and Level II acquisition programs that were in 

the sustainment phase prior to 2008. While Committee Democrats 

disagree with that decision, we do not agree that the waiver requirement bears any relation to the creation of a knowledge deficit, 

as indicate by the Report. Upon information received from DHS, 

the decision to grant this waiver authority was an attempt to reduce the large number of programs reviewed by the Acquisitions 

Review Board to avoid more comprehensive and focused review on 

more recent and prospective acquisitions. DHS thus used 2008 as 

the cutoff date for ARB requirements. Unfortunately, this decision 

removed from review some major question programs that were worthy of closer scrutiny. Therefore, Committee Democrats associate 

themselves, in part, with the criticism associated with this decision 

but do not agree that this decision was in contradiction with the 

referenced 2013 GAO report. 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING