GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 9, 2008 

Congressional Committees 

Subject: Assessment of the Explanation That Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Provided for Its Subsequent Transfer from the Spectrum Relocation 

Fund

Congress has taken a number of steps to facilitate the deployment of innovative, new 

commercial wireless services to consumers, including authorizing the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) to assign licenses through auctions and 

requiring more spectrum to be transferred from federal government use to 

commercial use. In addition, in 2004, Congress passed the Commercial Spectrum 

Enhancement Act (CSEA),1

 which established a Spectrum Relocation Fund (the 

Fund) to cover the costs incurred by federal entities within certain spectrum bands as 

they relocate to new frequency assignments or transition to alternative technologies.2

 

The Fund is administered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) of the Department of Commerce.3

 In September 2006, FCC concluded an 

auction of licenses for Advanced Wireless Services on radio spectrum in the 1710 

megahertz (MHz) to 1755 MHz band that is currently used by federal agencies. The 

auction raised almost $6.9 billion in net winning bids from the sale of these 

frequencies, which was deposited into the Fund to be available to the federal entities 

for their eligible relocation expenses.4

 Any auction proceeds remaining in the Fund 

after payment of relocation costs are to revert to the General Fund of the U.S. 

Treasury not later than 8 years after the date of their deposit.5 

 

1

Title II of Pub. L. No. 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991-3997 (Dec. 23, 2004). 

2

“Eligible relocation expenses” are those costs incurred by a federal entity to achieve comparable 

capability of systems, regardless of whether that capability is achieved by relocating to a new 

frequency assignment or utilizing an alternative technology. 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3). 

3

NTIA’s Office of Spectrum Management is responsible for managing the federal government’s use of 

radio frequency spectrum. 

4

The 1710-1755 MHz band of spectrum was paired with the 2110-2155 MHz band for the auction. 

Although the auction raised $13.7 billion, the portion of the auction proceeds associated with the 

transferred government spectrum amounted to almost $6.9 billion and was deposited into the Fund. 

 

5

47 U.S.C. § 928(d)(3). 
In February 2007, OMB, in consultation with NTIA, submitted a Report to Congress 

outlining the agencies’ original transfer amounts from the Fund. These amounts 

represented OMB’s determination of the appropriate costs and timelines for 

relocating the federal communications systems in the 1710-1755 MHz band. OMB 

noted that these original transfer amounts represented the best estimate of each 

agency at that time and that the possibility of subsequent transfers existed.6

 

However, OMB staff with whom we spoke also pointed out that the Fund was not 

intended to be an ongoing source of revenue for the affected agencies. OMB staff 

said that initial estimates from the agencies in 2005 had formed the reserve price for 

the auction, and that agencies are expected to try to hold to their initial estimates. 

In OMB’s February 2007 report, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested approximately $3.6 million from 

the Fund to relocate electronic surveillance operations consisting of four systems on 

four frequency assignments. Later that year, in November 2007, OMB notified 

Congress that it had approved a request from ICE for a subsequent transfer of monies 

from the Fund. ICE received a subsequent transfer of more than $35 million—

approximately 10 times the amount that it had originally received.7

 This subsequent 

transfer to ICE was the first subsequent transfer that OMB approved. OMB has since 

approved subsequent transfers to three other affected federal entities. Other requests 

for subsequent transfers are currently in the review process. 

In accordance with the provisions of the CSEA, whenever a subsequent transfer 

exceeds 10 percent of the original transfer, GAO is required to submit to Congress, 

within 30 days after receiving the plan, an assessment of the explanation for the 

subsequent transfer.8

 Our assessment of the explanation for ICE’s subsequent 

transfer was to be provided to Congress by December 26, 2007, but due to the scope 

of the work involved, we were unable to provide our assessment within that statutory 

time frame. The cognizant committees were amenable to our providing this report at 

a later date. Our assessment is based on work that we conducted between December 

2007 and September 2008, including our review of documentation provided by ICE, 

OMB, and NTIA and discussions with staffs from these entities. We conducted this 

audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

 6

Under the CSEA, an eligible federal entity may receive more than one transfer from the Fund, but if

the sum of the subsequent transfer or transfers exceeds 10 percent of the original transfer, certain 

procedures apply. These procedures include prior approval by OMB and notice to the cognizant 

congressional committees (i.e., the Committees on Appropriations and Energy and Commerce of the 

House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations and Commerce, Science, and

Transportation of the Senate) and the Comptroller General of the United States. 47 U.S.C. §

928(e)(1)(B). 

7

ICE has proposed using a two-phase relocation plan amounting to $108 million. The first phase would 

cover analog-to-analog equipment conversion, and the second phase would cover analog-to-digital 

equipment conversion. ICE originally intended to ask for money for both phases in its 2007

subsequent transfer request. However, according to ICE staff, the agency received guidance from 

OMB to submit at a later date its request for monies to cover digital equipment. Thus, it is likely that,

in the future, ICE will submit another request for a subsequent transfer from the Fund for conversion 

to digital equipment. This report deals only with ICE’s original February 2007 transfer of almost $3.6 

million and its November 2007 subsequent transfer of more than $35 million for analog equipment. 8

47 U.S.C. § 928(e)(1)(B). 

Page 2 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief 

Our assessment of the explanation that ICE provided is that the need for a substantial 

subsequent transfer was caused by DHS and ICE failing to identify a significant 

number of relocation expenses in the original transfer request, including costs 

associated with additional equipment, offices, and systems, and with a fifth frequency 

assignment. DHS submitted and OMB, in consultation with NTIA, reviewed and 

approved this original transfer request. The CSEA provided some guidance to 

agencies concerning the categories of expenses that are eligible for relocation monies 

from the Fund. In addition, NTIA provided guidance to agencies about how to submit 

information for their initial estimates of their relocation costs, including how to break 

out expenses and how to format their submissions. OMB also provided some 

guidance to the federal entities to use in developing their original requests for 

transfers from the Fund. However, in submitting both its initial estimate to NTIA and 

its original transfer request to OMB, ICE did not detail its estimated costs by 

equipment, location, system, or frequency—as suggested by NTIA’s guidance—and 

did not include costs for one of its frequency assignments. Instead, ICE provided a 

lump sum estimate of $3,559,281 for its spectrum relocation costs. ICE staff told us 

that the initial estimate had not been well coordinated among ICE offices and was 

simply a poorly crafted estimate. According to OMB staff, ICE’s initial estimate and 

original transfer request were based on an inadequate inventory of deployed systems. 

OMB and NTIA accepted ICE’s estimate and did not require ICE to provide the details 

suggested in the CSEA or requested in NTIA’s guidance in either its original or 

subsequent transfer request. As a result, OMB and NTIA had limited assurance that 

DHS or ICE had conducted a thorough assessment of ICE’s spectrum relocation 

needs. With respect to subsequent requests for transfer, OMB staff stated that they 

work with agencies on what information is needed to support a request. However, 

OMB has not established any written guidance or criteria for agencies in submitting 

subsequent requests for transfer, which could result in limited assurance going 

forward that the subsequent requests reflect thorough and properly vetted estimates. 

To address the issues we have identified, we are recommending that OMB, in 

consultation with NTIA, establish written criteria for federal entities to follow when 

submitting subsequent requests for spectrum relocation funding, communicate these 

criteria to each of the affected federal entities, and require the federal entities 

submitting subsequent requests to meet these criteria. These criteria should be 

designed to better assure OMB (and NTIA in its consultative role) that the requesting 

federal entity has conducted a thorough assessment of its spectrum relocation needs, 

and that the estimate has been vetted throughout the agency or department involved. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, DHS, and the Department of Commerce 

for comment. OMB staff provided oral comments and said that they are considering 

our recommendation. OMB’s comments were technical, and we incorporated them 

into the report as appropriate. DHS provided written comments which appear in 

enclosure I. DHS states in its letter that it believes our recommendation would be 

beneficial if adopted. DHS states that our report does not sufficiently reflect action 

Page 3 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
taken by DHS and ICE with regard to ICE’s subsequent transfer request. DHS states 

that ICE’s subsequent transfer request submission included a tactical plan, complete 

inventory of current equipment, office locations, and pricing information on the 

analog replacement equipment. We acknowledge in our report that they submitted 

more thorough information in support of that request, although we maintain that even 

more information would have been helpful to ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA in validating 

that request. NTIA, in oral and e-mail comments, disagreed with our emphasis on ICE 

not having provided information for any of its estimates broken out by location, 

system, or frequency. NTIA says this type of detail was not necessary for the type of 

surveillance system that ICE was operating. We maintain that ICE’s costs could have 

and should have been broken out in multiple ways to assure and validate that all 

necessary relocation expenses were being identified. The fact that ICE came back 

and asked for 10 times more funding than its original request is evidence that ICE did 

not construct and present to NTIA and OMB an initial estimate that was close to 

accurate. 

ICE’s Initial Estimate and Original Transfer Request Did Not Sufficiently 

Detail Its Costs and Did Not Include Relocation Expenses for All of Its 

Systems and Frequency Assignments 

The CSEA required that NTIA notify FCC (the agency conducting the auctions) on 

behalf of the affected federal entities regarding their estimated relocation costs and 

timelines at least 6 months prior to the commencement of an auction.9

 In February 

2005, shortly after the CSEA became law, NTIA sent each of the affected federal 

entities a letter that provided an overview of the CSEA. NTIA also provided an 

enclosure containing the language of the CSEA and recommended to the federal 

entities that they review carefully the listing of eligible frequencies and definition of 

“relocation costs” in section 202 of the act as they prepared their relocation cost 

estimates. Section 202 of the act provides guidance on eligible expenses by listing 

several categories and examples of relocation costs, such as equipment replacement 

costs, site acquisition and construction costs, and the costs of engineering studies or 

economic analyses. 

To compile the necessary information as required by the CSEA, NTIA requested in its 

letter that agencies provide their information to NTIA by September 2005 in a certain 

format. Specifically, the NTIA guidance in enclosure 2 of its letter provided a list of

information required for each agency’s frequency assignments, including the serial 

number, frequency, system name, geographic location information, and initial cost 

estimate (see figure 1). 

 9

NTIA was to provide FCC with these estimates on behalf of the federal entities and after review by

OMB. 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(4)(A). NTIA also was to provide a copy of the estimates to the cognizant 

congressional committees for approval and to GAO. 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5). The CSEA also provided

that the conclusion of the auction by FCC was contingent on minimum proceeds. Specifically, auction 

proceeds must be equal to at least 110 percent of the total estimated relocation costs for FCC to be

able to conclude the auction. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(16)(B). 

Page 4 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
Figure 1: Enclosure 2 of NTIA’s February 2005 Letter to the Affected 

Federal Entities Regarding Relocation Cost Estimates for the 1710-1755 MHz 

Frequency Band 

Source: NTIA.

NTIA guidance also included a separate template for an executive summary of

relocation costs and timelines for the affected 1710-1755 MHz frequencies for each 

department or agency (see figure 2). This executive summary was to include a 

number and description of systems and the number of frequency assignments 

supporting each system, as well as per-unit costs for each system. In addition, NTIA 

staff with whom we spoke noted that, for surveillance systems such as ICE was 

operating, the most important information for the agency to provide would be 

detailed equipment information and costs. NTIA advised agencies to retain all 

documents supporting their cost estimates. 

Page 5 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
Figure 2: Enclosure 3 of NTIA’s February 2005 Letter to the Affected 

Federal Entities Regarding Relocation Cost Estimates for the 1710-1755 MHz 

Frequency Band 

Source: NTIA.

In response to NTIA’s requests, DHS obtained the estimated relocation costs from its 

affected entities10—including ICE—and reviewed, approved, and submitted these 

estimated costs to NTIA in September 2005. The initial cost estimate that DHS 

provided for ICE in September 2005 did not include a breakout of costs by equipment, 

location, system, or frequency. For example, DHS provided an initial breakdown of 

costs by location and frequency for its Customs and Border Protection component, 

but did not do so for ICE. Instead, it provided a lump sum estimate of $3,559,281, 

representing the combined costs for four systems using four frequency assignments. 

 10DHS submitted relocation estimates for the following four entities: Customs and Border Protection, 

ICE, the Secret Service, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

Page 6 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
In September 2006, OMB provided some guidance to the affected federal entities for 

submission of the entities’ original transfer requests. OMB delivered to the agencies, 

via NTIA, a document that outlined the process involved in relocating the agencies to 

new spectrum under the CSEA. OMB noted that agencies should ensure that the 

information they provided reflected the most up to date relocation plans. OMB also 

provided the agencies with a template for submitting information. However, this 

template was the high-level presentation of information that has been included in 

OMB’s reports to Congress, which identify the agency, bureau, account, amount, 

timeline, number of frequency assignments, and number of systems. Descriptive 

information was also requested about the agency’s relocation activities. OMB’s 

guidance did not request any further detail from the agencies in support of the 

amount of their original transfer requests. 

Roughly 11⁄2 years passed between the affected federal entities providing their initial 

cost estimates to NTIA and their providing estimates to OMB for the actual transfer of 

funds. During that time, about half of the agencies provided OMB and NTIA with 

updated cost estimates. However, ICE again submitted the roughly $3.6 million cost 

estimate for four frequencies and four systems. ICE’s 2007 original transfer request 

still did not detail expenses by equipment, system, location, or frequency. OMB staff 

told us that they questioned ICE’s $3.6 million estimate as seeming too low, but ICE 

assured them that the amount was an accurate estimate. In February 2007, OMB 

made its determination of the costs and timelines for relocation for all of the affected 

federal entities and sent a Report to Congress11 outlining the amounts that would be 

transferred from the Fund to 28 accounts within 12 federal departments and agencies 

(see figure 3). ICE was approved for $3,559,281 for four systems using four frequency 

assignments. 

 11Under the CSEA, the plan—describing specifically how the sums transferred from the Fund will be

used to pay relocation costs and the timelines for relocation—was to be submitted to the cognizant 

committees for approval, and to the Comptroller General. 47 U.S.C. § 928(d)(2). 

Page 7 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
Figure 3: Spectrum Relocation Fund Original Transfer Amounts and Project 

Timelines, February 2007 

Agriculture Forest Service $21,578,486 36

DOD Air Force $106,753,481 48

DOD Army $15,933,043 36

DOD Navy $134,465,000 36

DOD RDT&E / O&M (Defense-wide support) $98,200,000 72

 Subtotal $355,351,524

DOE Bonneville Power Administration $48,627,399 72

DOE Southwestern Power Administration $8,091,360 24

DOE Western Area Power Administration $108,202,200 36

DOE National Nuclear Security Administration $10,900,000 24

DOE Departmental Administration (DOE-wide support) $1,000,000 72

 Subtotal $176,820,959

DHS Customs and Border Protection $74,349,990 12

DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement $3,559,281 12

DHS Secret Service $105,800 12

DHS Chief Information Officer (DHS-wide support) $11,979,761 12

 Subtotal $89,994,832

HUD Inspector General $21,115 24

DOI Bureau of Reclamation $4,550,000 36

DOI Geological Survey $6,158,949 36

DOI National Park Service $14,703,000 36

 Subtotal $25,411,949

DOJ Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms $48,024,000 36

DOJ Drug Enforcement Agency $74,772,000 36

DOJ Federal Bureau of Investigation $139,225,000 36

DOJ Chief Information Officer (DOJ-wide support) $800,000 36

 Subtotal $262,821,000

DOT Federal Aviation Administration $58,062,020 48

Treasury Internal Revenue Service $4,409,000 28

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration $892,000 28

 Subtotal $5,301,000

NASA NASA $740,000 24

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority $10,687,857 48

USPS Inspection Service $1,761,760 12

TOTAL $1,008,552,502

TIMELINE 2

1/ Amount specified will be transferred to the agency following the notification period. If actual project costs differ from the

transferred amount, such discrepancies will be disposed of in accordance with the CSEA. Due to rounding, amounts may differ 

from figures included in the President's Budget.

2/ Timeline indicated represents the estimated time to completion of spectrum relocation activities, in months, beginning from the

date of the transfer of funds to the agency.

Table 1 - Spectrum Relocation Tran sfer Amounts and Project Timelines

AGENCY BUREAU AMOUNT 1

Source: OMB.

ICE’s subsequent transfer request of November 2007 was for an additional $35.6 

million to cover relocation expenses for an additional 547 systems and 1 frequency 

assignment12 that had not been accounted for in ICE’s initial estimate of September 

 12Staff from NTIA told us that they discovered in September 2005 that ICE had five frequency 

assignments, not four as ICE had originally reported. According to NTIA e-mail documentation, NTIA 

communicated this information to ICE in September 2005. According to NTIA staff, they asked ICE 

staff on several occasions following September 2005 if systems and equipment on this fifth frequency 

would also require relocation monies from the Fund. NTIA staff said that some agencies had

frequency assignments that they were not using, so it was possible that ICE was not using the fifth 

frequency and, therefore, would require no relocation funding for it. NTIA staff said that they would 

not change the number of ICE’s frequency assignments with relation to reporting ICE’s needs from the

Fund until they were informed by DHS or ICE that the agency was using that assignment and would 

need money from the Fund for relocation costs. NTIA staff said that they did not receive information 

Page 8 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
2005 or its original transfer request of February 2007. ICE also noted that many of its 

offices had not been included in its original transfer request. ICE staff told us that the 

initial estimate was completed when DHS was being set up and confusion existed 

from the combining of agencies and offices.13 ICE staff said that the original estimate 

had not been well coordinated among ICE offices and was simply a poorly crafted 

estimate. Nonetheless, ICE and DHS officials approved the initial estimate and 

original transfer request and submitted them to NTIA and OMB. According to an 

OMB staffer, ICE’s initial estimate was based on an inadequate inventory of ICE’s 

deployed systems, leading to the need for additional funding to cover relocation of 

these systems. 

OMB and NTIA Did Not Require Sufficient Detail from ICE, Resulting in 

Limited Assurance That the Estimate Reflected a Thorough Assessment of 

ICE’s Spectrum Relocation Needs 

NTIA staff told us that while they provided guidance and a format for ICE to submit 

spectrum relocation information for its initial estimate, they did not require ICE to 

provide the detail requested, including costs by equipment, location, system, or 

frequency. With regard to the original transfer requests, OMB provided the affected 

federal entities with some guidance and a template for submitting information. But 

this template asked for information at a high level, and the guidance did not seek 

specifics to support the amounts requested. With regard to subsequent transfer 

requests, OMB staff told us that they provided no written guidance or criteria for the 

federal entities to use in developing their requests. OMB staff noted that they do

expect to receive certain information from the agencies, including reasons for the 

subsequent request, information on costs, information on options the agency 

considered, and information to show that the agency will only use the funding to 

achieve comparable capability and not enhanced capability. 

In conducting their reviews of ICE’s initial estimate, original transfer request, and 

subsequent transfer request, OMB and NTIA accepted ICE’s estimate and did not 

require ICE to provide the details suggested in the CSEA or requested in NTIA’s 

correspondence, resulting in limited assurance that DHS or ICE had conducted a 

thorough assessment of ICE’s spectrum relocation needs. According to ICE staff, the 

agency’s subsequent request for almost $35.6 million from the Fund covers all of its 

frequencies and is a thorough assessment of ICE’s spectrum relocation needs for its 

analog systems. While ICE’s subsequent request does provide much more thorough 

detail in relation to the new equipment it will need to purchase, ICE still has not 

provided a complete breakout of costs by location, systems, or frequency. Such 

 from DHS or ICE about needing relocation monies for the fifth frequency assignment until DHS made

its subsequent request for spectrum relocation funding to OMB in 2007. OMB staff said that they did

not receive information from DHS or NTIA about ICE’s fifth frequency assignment prior to submitting

their February 2007 Report to Congress, even though both ICE and NTIA had known since September 

2005 about the existence of the fifth frequency assignment. 

13Pursuant to Section 1502 of the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-296,

116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002)), multiple federal agencies were consolidated into the new Department

of Homeland Security in 2003, including the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, and the Federal Protective Service. Elements of these organizations became ICE. For a

complete listing of DHS agencies and offices, see 

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/editorial_0133.shtm. 

Page 9 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
information would have allowed ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA to cross check 

information and better validate the equipment inventory provided. 

Although OMB is currently reviewing additional subsequent transfer requests, and 

could receive more, the agency has not established any written guidance for 

preparing subsequent transfer requests. Yet preparation of thorough and properly 

vetted requests is essential because NTIA staff told us they do not have the staff 

resources to validate the information on a large number of systems and OMB staff 

stated that they do not have the technical capability to always do an in-depth 

technical analysis of an agency’s submissions regarding relocation costs. For 

example, in its subsequent transfer request for almost $35.6 million, ICE submitted a 

list of equipment that it would need to purchase in moving to its new frequency 

assignments, such as video recording and receiver kits, transmitters, and antennas. 

ICE included the estimated costs and quantities for each piece of equipment. OMB 

and NTIA told us that the validation of those costs must come in large part from the 

agency or department itself. They said that they rely on the agencies and 

departments to have the most thorough understanding of their inventories and 

equipment needs. However, they said they would question a specific piece of 

equipment or a quantity if something looked unusual. OMB staff told us they review 

agency submissions for reasonableness, consistency with the CSEA, and costeffectiveness, and that they compare the equipment requested with the agencies’ 

needs and missions. 

Conclusions 

A large proportion of the responsibility for accurately assessing spectrum relocation 

funding needs falls to the individual agencies that must relocate. Although guidance 

for estimating spectrum relocation funding needs was provided in the CSEA and by 

NTIA and OMB, ICE did not ensure that it was covering all of its equipment inventory, 

the needs of all its offices, and including all of its frequency assignments in its initial 

estimate or its original transfer request. By not undertaking a comprehensive 

assessment of its needs, ICE underestimated those needs by 10-fold. Although we 

were told that additional subsequent transfer requests are expected, OMB has not 

established written criteria regarding information to be provided in support of the 

requests. Going forward, OMB, in consultation with NTIA, should require from the 

agencies enough detail and information to be confident that the agencies have 

conducted a thorough and properly vetted assessment of spectrum relocation needs 

when submitting subsequent requests for funding. It is important to make sure that 

subsequent transfer requests truly represent the best cost estimates of the agencies. 

Recommendation for Executive Action 

Because it is important that federal agencies present accurate estimates when 

determining their spectrum relocation needs so that additional subsequent transfer 

requests—and, thus, further depletion of the Spectrum Relocation Fund—can be 

avoided, we are recommending that the Director of OMB take the following action: 

• In consultation with NTIA, establish written criteria for agencies to follow when 

submitting supplemental requests for spectrum relocation funding, communicate 

these criteria to each of the affected federal entities, and require that these 

Page 10 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
criteria be followed before OMB approves subsequent requests. These criteria 

should be designed to better assure OMB (and NTIA in its consultative role) that 

the requesting agency has conducted a thorough assessment of its spectrum 

relocation needs, and that the estimate has been properly vetted throughout the 

agency or department involved. For example, these criteria could include, but not 

be limited to, requiring agencies to provide replacement costs by equipment, 

location, system, or frequency and requiring agencies to break out expenses into 

standard categories. Until such criteria can be developed, OMB might consider 

using, as an interim requirement, the guidance set forth in NTIA’s February 2005 

letter to the agencies, including NTIA’s template and executive summary. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, DHS, and the Department of Commerce 

for their review and comment. OMB provided oral comments. OMB staff said that 

they were considering our recommendation. They also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. They further 

provided additional documentation and we made changes to our report based on this 

documentation. 

DHS provided oral comments, comments via e-mail, and written comments. DHS’s 

written comments, reprinted in enclosure I of our report, note that DHS believes our 

recommendation would be beneficial if adopted. However, DHS’s letter states that 

the agency does not believe that our report sufficiently reflects action taken by DHS 

and ICE, noting submissions from ICE to OMB in relation to ICE’s subsequent 

transfer request. DHS states that its subsequent transfer request submission included 

a tactical plan, complete inventory of current equipment, office locations, and pricing 

information on the analog replacement equipment. Most of our report deals with the 

insufficiency of ICE’s original request for $3.6 million. With regard to ICE’s 

subsequent request, we acknowledge in our report that ICE submitted more thorough 

information in support of that request, although we maintain that a complete 

breakout of costs by location, system, or frequency would have been helpful to ICE, 

DHS, OMB, and NTIA in validating that request. 

With regard to DHS’s oral and e-mail comments, we incorporated the department’s 

technical comments into the report, as appropriate. Most of DHS’s comments related 

to ICE’s need to transition from analog to digital surveillance systems in the future. 

We referred to this issue in footnote 7 of our report. As we stated there, our report 

deals only with ICE’s original and approved subsequent transfer request, which 

involved conversion from analog to analog equipment. However, DHS notes that any 

criteria established for future subsequent transfer requests (per our 

recommendation) should also be oriented toward the unique characteristics of

surveillance systems and the missions of federal law enforcement agencies. We 

agree. If OMB should decide to implement our recommendation, we urge DHS and 

the other affected federal entities to work with OMB and NTIA to ensure that the 

criteria developed meet the spectrum relocation needs of the various federal entities. 

DHS also noted that some of its subsequent request was related to acquiring new 

analog equipment because many of the devices currently deployed in the field cannot 

be modified or repaired. We believe these types of costs should have been identified 

by ICE as part of its original transfer request and are thus included in the missed 

Page 11 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
relocation costs identified in our report. Finally, ICE noted that it provided an 

itemized listing of equipment needs for its subsequent transfer request that was 

broken down by offices. While ICE provided a thorough listing of equipment, we 

maintain that providing information broken out by locations, systems, and 

frequencies—to the greatest extent possible—would have allowed ICE, DHS, OMB, 

and NTIA to cross-check information and better assure that all funding needs have 

been identified. 

NTIA provided oral and e-mail comments. Overall, NTIA disagrees with the emphasis 

that we placed on ICE not having provided information for any of its estimates 

broken out by system, location, or frequency. NTIA said that, due to the nature of 

ICE’s surveillance system, NTIA considers it to be one system, operating in one 

location (the United States and its possessions), and that all of the equipment on this 

one system was multi-frequency equipment that could have used any of ICE’s 

frequencies, making whether ICE had four or five frequencies irrelevant to ICE’s 

relocation costs. NTIA said that ICE gave the agency exactly the type of information 

that NTIA expected to receive about ICE’s type of system. However, we maintain 

that had more information been provided, it would have produced a better estimate, 

and ICE, DHS, OMB, and NTIA would have been better able to validate the estimate. 

While we do not take a position on what constitutes a “system,” we believe that any 

definition should provide the ability to track specific costs for replacement. Lumping 

all of ICE’s equipment into one system, as NTIA suggests, does not provide sufficient 

detail for tracking costs. With regard to breaking out relocation expenses by 

location, ICE documentation lists offices as part of the costs missed. We do not agree 

with NTIA that ICE’s operating “location” should be “the United States and its 

possessions,” as that again lumps costs together and does not allow sufficient detail 

for tracking costs. With regard to breaking out relocation expenses by frequency, 

ICE noted on several occasions that the missed frequency affected its costs, and 

OMB’s November 2007 Report to Congress that accompanied ICE’s subsequent 

transfer request states this as well. 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

We will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the 

Director of OMB, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security. We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 12 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2843 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key 

contributors to this report were Faye Morrison (Assistant Director), Eli Albagli 

(Senior Analyst), Colin Fallon, David Hooper, Madhav Panwar, and Mindi 

Weisenbloom. 

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 13 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
List of Committees 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski 

Chairman 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard Durbin 

Chairman 

The Honorable Sam Brownback 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Chairman 

The Honorable Jerry Lewis 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 14 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
The Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Alan Mollohan 

Chairman 

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable José E. Serrano 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ralph Regula 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable David E. Price 

Chairman 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

Chairman 

The Honorable Cliff Stearns 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Page 15 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
Enclosure I 

Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 

Page 16 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 

 
(543199) 

Page 17 GAO-08-846R Spectrum Relocation Fund Subsequent Transfer to ICE 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER