United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Progress and 

Challenges in 

Implementing the 

Department’s 

Acquisition Oversight 

Plan 

June 2007 

 

GAO-07-900 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Progress and Challenges in Implementing 

the Department’s Acquisition Oversight 

Plan 

Highlights of GAO-07-900, a report to 

congressional committees 

The Department of Homeland

Security (DHS), the third largest 

department in federal procurement

spending in fiscal year 2006, has 

faced ongoing cost, schedule, and 

performance problems with major 

acquisitions and procurement of 

services. In December 2005, DHS 

established an acquisition oversight 

program to provide insight into and 

improve components’ acquisition 

programs. 

In 2006, GAO reported that DHS 

faced challenges in implementing

its program. Congress mandated 

that DHS develop an oversight plan 

and tasked GAO with analyzing the

plan. GAO (1) evaluated actions 

DHS and its components have

taken to implement the acquisition 

oversight plan and (2) identified

implementation challenges. GAO 

also identified opportunities for 

strengthening oversight conducted

through the plan. 

GAO reviewed relevant DHS 

documents and GAO and DHS 

Inspector General reports and

interviewed officials in the office of

the Chief Procurement Officer 

(CPO) and nine DHS components.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the 

CPO reevaluate the approach to the 

acquisition planning reviews and 

that DHS enhance internal controls

to strengthen the oversight plan 

through periodic external reviews 

and knowledge sharing. DHS 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

The CPO has taken several actions to implement DHS’s acquisition oversight 

plan—which generally incorporates basic principles of an effective and 

accountable acquisition function. The plan monitors acquisition 

performance through four recurring reviews: self-assessment, operational

status, on-site, and acquisition planning. Each component has completed the 

first self-assessment, which has helped components identify and prioritize 

acquisition weaknesses. In addition, each component has submitted an 

initial operational status report to the CPO and on-site reviews are being 

conducted. Despite this progress, the acquisition planning reviews are not 

sufficient to determine if components adequately plan their acquisitions—in 

part because a required review has not been implemented and the CPO lacks

visibility into components’ planning activities. 

DHS faces two key challenges in implementing its acquisition oversight plan. 

First, the CPO has had limited oversight resources to implement plan 

reviews. However, recent increases in staff have begun to address this 

challenge. Second, the CPO lacks sufficient authority to ensure components 

comply with the plan—despite being held accountable for departmentwide 

management and oversight of the acquisition function. GAO has previously

recommended that DHS provide the CPO with sufficient enforcement 

authority to enable effective acquisition oversight. 

In addition to these challenges, GAO identified two opportunities to 

strengthen internal controls for overseeing the plan’s implementation and for 

increasing knowledge sharing. Specifically, independent evaluations of 

DHS’s oversight program could help ensure that the plan maintains its 

effectiveness over time. Sharing knowledge and lessons learned could 

provide DHS’s acquisition workforce with the information needed to 

improve their acquisition processes and better achieve DHS’s mission. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-900.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John Hutton at 

(202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Plan Implementation Is Under Way, but Acquisition Planning 

Oversight May Not Be Sufficient 6 

The CPO Faces Challenges in Implementing Reviews and 

Corrective Actions 9 

External Reviews and Knowledge Sharing Could Improve 

Acquisition Oversight 9 

Conclusion 11

Recommendations for Executive Action 11 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 11 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 14 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 15 

Tables 

Table 1: Four Oversight Plan Reviews 6 

Table 2: Potential Problems with Acquisition Planning Reviews 8 

Figure 

Figure 1: DHS Components with HCAs and Lines of Reporting 5 

Page i GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Abbreviations 

AAP Advanced Acquisition Planning 

CPO Chief Procurement Officer 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

GCR Gulf Coast Recovery 

HCA Head of Contracting Activity 

OPO Office of Procurement Operations 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It 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. 

Page ii GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 13, 2007 

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 E. Price 

Chairman 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Since it was established, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 

been responsible for integrating 22 federal agencies with disparate 

missions into one department. In fiscal year 2006, DHS obligated 

$15.6 billion for goods and services, making it the third largest department 

in federal procurement spending. DHS components have experienced 

ongoing cost, schedule, and performance problems with major 

acquisitions as well as procurement of services. Since January 2003, GAO 

has designated the implementation and transformation of DHS a high-risk 

area, stating the need for management capacity and oversight 

mechanisms.1

In December 2005, DHS established an acquisition oversight program in 

addition to existing oversight mechanisms, such as the investment review 

process. The program is designed to provide the Chief Procurement 

Officer (CPO) comprehensive insight into each component’s acquisition

programs and disseminate successful acquisition management approaches

throughout DHS.2

 In 2006, we reported that DHS faced challenges in 

implementing this program, due to unclear accountability for acquisition 

 1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington D.C.: January 2003). 

2

DHS Management Directive 0784, Acquisition Oversight Program.

Page 1 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
outcomes and inadequate staffing to conduct departmentwide oversight.

3

Subsequent to our report, Congress, in a conference report accompanying

the DHS fiscal year 2007 Appropriations bill, directed DHS to submit a 

plan to the Appropriations Committees by January 2007 identifying 

necessary oversight resources and how improvements in the performance 

of its procurement functions will be achieved.4

 GAO was required to assess 

the plan. 

In April 2007, we briefed your Committees on our analysis and findings. 

This report expands on that briefing. Specifically, we (1) evaluated the 

actions DHS and its components have taken to implement the acquisition 

oversight plan through May 2007 and (2) identified the challenges DHS 

faces in implementing the plan. We also identified opportunities for 

strengthening oversight conducted through the plan. 

To conduct our work, we reviewed relevant GAO and DHS Office of the 

Inspector General reports and DHS documents, such as the oversight plan, 

completed reviews, and guidance to components. We interviewed officials 

in the office of the CPO and nine DHS components. Appendix I presents 

our scope and methodology in more detail. We conducted our work from

February 2007 to June 2007 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

The CPO, responsible for providing oversight reviews to verify the 

integrity of component acquisition processes, has taken several actions to

implement DHS’s acquisition oversight plan. The plan generally 

incorporates basic principles of an effective and accountable acquisition 

function and includes mechanisms to monitor acquisition performance 

through four recurring reviews: self-assessment, operational status, onsite, and acquisition planning. Each of the 9 components with 

procurement offices has completed the first self-assessment, which have 

helped components identify and prioritize acquisition weaknesses. In 

addition, each component has submitted initial operational status reports 

to the CPO, which are currently under review. CPO-led teams are also 

conducting on-site reviews of components. However, the CPO has not 

Results in Brief 

 3

GAO, Interagency Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and Oversight Would 

Enable the Department of Homeland Security to Address Risks, GAO-06-996 (Washington,

D.C.: Sept. 27, 2006). 

4

H.R. Rep. No. 109-699, at 118 (2006). 

Page 2 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
developed sufficient mechanisms to verify that components complete key 

elements of acquisition planning reviews. For example, most components 

have not conducted an annual review of their acquisition planning 

processes—though required to do so since December 2005—and the CPO 

has yet to check whether components have fulfilled this requirement. 

DHS faces challenges in implementing its acquisition oversight plan. First, 

the CPO has limited oversight resources to implement the plan, but has 

made progress in increasing staff to authorized levels. Specifically, when 

implementation of the plan began in 2006, only two personnel were 

assigned acquisition oversight as their primary duty. The CPO received

funding for eight additional oversight positions and as of June 2007, seven 

of the additional positions had been filled. Second, the CPO, who is held 

accountable for departmentwide management and oversight of the 

acquisition function, lacks sufficient authority to ensure components take

corrective actions based on oversight review recommendations. We have

previously recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security provide 

the CPO with sufficient enforcement authority to enable effective 

acquisition oversight. 

In addition to these challenges, we identified two opportunities based on 

federal standards to strengthen internal controls for overseeing the plan’s

implementation and for increasing knowledge sharing. Specifically, 

periodic assessments of the oversight program by the DHS Inspector 

General or an external auditor could help ensure that the plan maintains 

its effectiveness over time. Sharing knowledge and lessons learned from 

the oversight plan reviews through memorandums and regular meetings 

could provide DHS’s acquisition workforce with information needed to

improve their acquisition processes and better achieve DHS’s mission. 

To improve oversight provided in the plan, we are recommending that the

CPO reevaluate its approach to the acquisition planning reviews and 

determine whether the oversight mechanisms are sufficient to improve 

component acquisition planning. In addition, we are recommending that

DHS enhance internal controls to strengthen the effectiveness of the 

oversight plan through periodic external reviews and knowledge sharing. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DHS concurred with our 

recommendations. In addition, DHS commented on planned actions 

regarding acquisition authority including revising a management directive 

and designating the Chief Acquisition Officer for the department. DHS’s 

comments are included in their entirety in appendix II. 

Page 3 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was created and tasked 

with integrating numerous agencies and offices with varying missions 

from the General Services Administration; the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation; and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health 

and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury; as well as the 

Coast Guard and the Secret Service. 

Background 

Eight DHS components have internal procurement offices with a Head of 

Contracting Activity (HCA) who reports directly to the component head

and is accountable to the CPO.5

 The Office of Procurement Operations 

(OPO) also has an HCA who provides contracting support to all other 

components and reports directly to the CPO. The HCA for each 

component has overall responsibility for the day-to-day management of 

the component’s acquisition function. Figure 1 shows the organizational 

relationship between the HCAs and the CPO. 

 5

These components joined DHS with their own internal procurement offices. 

Page 4 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Figure 1: DHS Components with HCAs and Lines of Reporting 

DHS SECRETARY

DHS DEPUTY SECRETARY

Secret

Service

Coast

Guard

Transportation

Security

Administration

Customs and

Border

Protection

Federal Law

Enforcement

Training Center

Immigration

and Customs

Enforcement

Gulf Coast

Recovery

Federal

Emergency

Management

Agency

Under

Secretary

for

Management

Office of

Procurement

Operations

Chief

Procurement

Officer

Source: DHS (data); GAO (analysis and presentation).

Head of contracting activity for a DHS component

Direct line of reporting

Indirect line of reporting

Note: The Office of Procurement Operations provides contracting support to multiple DHS 

components, not shown in this figure, which do not have their own acquisition staff. During our 

review, Gulf Coast Recovery (GCR) had its own HCA. CPO officials told us that as of May 2007 

FEMA’s HCA subsumed responsibility for GCR contracting efforts.

Page 5 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
We reported in September 2006 that DHS planned to fully implement its 

acquisition oversight program during fiscal year 2007.

6

 The plan is 

composed of four recurring reviews: self-assessment, operational status, 

on-site, and acquisition planning. The CPO has issued an acquisition 

oversight program guidebook, provided training on self-assessment and 

operational status reviews, and began implementation of the four reviews 

in the plan (see table 1).

Plan Implementation 

Is Under Way, but 

Acquisition Planning 

Oversight May Not Be

Sufficient 

Table 1: Four Oversight Plan Reviews 

Description Frequency Status

Self-assessment

HCA for each component assesses the component’s staff, processes, 

and programs. 

Annually Components completed first 

assessment as of March 2007

Operational status reviews 

The component assesses the status of the acquisition function and 

submits a quarterly narrative and data on performance metrics to the 

CPO, and the CPO holds a quarterly meeting with each individual 

HCA to discuss the results. 

The HCA has 30 days to provide the CPO with an action plan in

response to the review and is responsible to ensure that action items 

are completed.

Quarterly Components have submitted their 

reports as of May 2007 and the 

CPO review is under way 

On-site reviews 

A matrixed DHS team led by the CPO reviews each component’s 

compliance with acquisition regulations, contract administration, use 

of good business judgment, and verification of procurement data. 

The head of the component is responsible for ensuring that the 

findings of the reviews are acted upon and closed out in a timely 

manner. 

Minimum of once every 3 

years (rotating) unless 

compelling reasons 

necessitate more frequent 

reviews 

Office of Procurement Operations 

review began in March 2007; 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC) review to start in 

June 2007 

Acquisition planning reviews 

This review has three elements: 

(1) Individual Acquisition Plans-The CPO reviews component’s 

acquisition plans that exceed a contract value of $50 million for most 

components.a

Ongoing CPO review of acquisition plans 

under way 

(2) Acquisition Planning Review-Component HCAs review programs 

and assess acquisition planning process. 

Annually Not implemented as planned

(3) Advanced Acquisition Planning (AAP) database-Components are 

required to enter information on all acquisitions over $100,000 into 

the database. 

Quarterly Components enter information into 

the database 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

a

The CPO reviews acquisitions that exceed $5 million for Secret Service and FLETC.

 6

GAO-06-996. 

Page 6 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
The acquisition oversight plan generally incorporates basic principles of 

an effective and accountable acquisition function and includes 

mechanisms to monitor acquisition performance. Specifically, the plan 

incorporates DHS policy, internal controls, and elements of an effective 

acquisition function: organizational alignment and leadership, policies and 

processes, human capital, knowledge and information management, and 

financial accountability.7

 While it is too early to assess the plan’s overall 

effectiveness in improving acquisition performance, initial implementation 

of the first self-assessment has helped most components prioritize actions

to address identified weaknesses. In addition, the CPO has helped several

components implement organizational and process changes that may 

improve acquisition performance over time. For example, one component, 

with the assistance of the CPO, elevated its acquisition office to a level 

equivalent to its financial office. 

However, the acquisition planning reviews are not sufficient to determine 

if components’ adequately plan their acquisitions. Federal acquisition 

regulations and DHS directives require agencies to perform acquisition 

planning in part to ensure good value, including cost and quality. 

Component HCAs are responsible to ensure that acquisition plans are 

completed in a timely manner, include an efficient and effective 

acquisition strategy and the resulting contract action or actions support 

the component’s mission. Inadequate procurement planning can lead to 

higher costs, schedule delays, and systems that do not meet mission 

objectives. Several recent reviews have identified problems in DHS’s 

acquisition planning. In 2006, we reported that DHS often opted for speed

and convenience in lieu of planning and analysis when selecting a 

contracting method and may not have obtained a good value for millions 

of dollars in spending.8

 As part of a 2006 special review of Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) contracts, DHS’s CPO found 

significant problems with the requirements process and acquisition 

strategy and recommended in part that FEMA better plan acquisitions.9

 7

GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies, 

GAO-05-218G (Washington D.C.: September 2005). 

8

GAO-06-996. 

9

As part of the oversight plan, the CPO conducts special on-site reviews in response to

issues that need immediate attention. At the request of the Office of Management and 

Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the CPO reviewed several FEMA programs

in 2006, focusing on the Hurricane Katrina response. The CPO is currently conducting a

follow-up review of FEMA to determine whether corrective actions have been taken. 

Page 7 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
For example, the CPO reported that FEMA’s total cost for its temporary 

housing program could have been significantly reduced if FEMA had 

appropriately planned to acquire temporary homes before the fiscal year 

2005 hurricane season. A 2006 internal review of the Office of

Procurement Operation’s contracts similarly found little evidence that 

acquisition planning occurred in compliance with regulations. While a key 

goal of the oversight program is to improve acquisition planning, we found 

potential problems with each of the three elements of the acquisition 

planning reviews, as shown in table 2. 

Table 2: Potential Problems with Acquisition Planning Reviews

Purpose Potential Problems

CPO reviews certain individual acquisition plans 

The CPO reviews certain acquisition plans to ensure 

that each complies with regulations and policies and 

also provides recommendations and guidance. 

The CPO’s review is advisory because the component HCA is responsible 

to ensure that the plan complies with regulations and that the resulting 

acquisition meets the component’s mission requirements in an efficient and 

effective manner. 

The HCA is not required to incorporate the CPO’s comments into the plan. 

Instead, the HCA must document in the contract file how the comments 

were addressed. 

As a result, the CPO has little assurance that review comments are 

included in the final versions of the acquisition plans. 

HCAs review their component’s acquisition planning process each year 

Annual reviews are intended to ensure the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the components’ acquisition planning 

process. 

The CPO does not monitor whether HCAs complete the annual acquisition 

planning reviews. 

Most component HCAs were not aware of the requirement to complete an 

annual acquisition planning review and had not done so. 

As a result, HCAs and the CPO may not identify and address poor 

acquisition planning processes or opportunities to strengthen processes. 

HCAs update the AAP database 

HCAs are to provide data into the database to publicize 

contracting opportunities and to assist components in 

managing schedules for planned acquisitions. 

The CPO has not established an effective mechanism to monitor the 

database: 

In reviewing individual acquisition plans, the CPO has not been able to 

establish a process that allows them to check that required information is 

entered into the database. 

During the first on-site review at the Office of Procurement Operations, 

CPO officials indicated they could not verify the accuracy and 

completeness of Office of Procurement Operations’ information in the 

database—as it had intended—because the database does not retain 

historical data for comparing the database to documents. 

As a result, the CPO’s visibility into the components’ planning activities is 

limited. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data and interviews with DHS officials. 

Page 8 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
DHS faces two challenges in achieving the goals of its acquisition 

oversight plan. First, the CPO has had limited resources to implement the 

plan reviews. When implementation of the plan began in 2006, only two 

personnel were assigned acquisition oversight as their primary duty. The 

CPO received funding for eight additional oversight positions. However, 

officials told us that they have struggled to find qualified individuals. As of 

June 2007, seven positions had been filled. As part of the Department’s 

fiscal year 2008 appropriation request, the CPO is seeking two additional 

staff, for a total of 12 oversight positions. The CPO will also continue to 

rely on resources from components to implement the plan, such as 

providing staff for on-site reviews. 

Second, while the CPO can make recommendations based on oversight 

reviews, the component head ultimately determines what, if any, action 

will be taken. DHS’s organization relies on cooperation and collaboration 

between the CPO and components to accomplish departmentwide 

acquisition goals. However, to the extent that the CPO and components 

disagree on needed actions, the CPO lacks the authority to require 

compliance with recommendations. We have previously reported that the 

DHS system of dual accountability results in unclear working relationships 

between the CPO and component heads. DHS policy also leaves unclear 

what enforcement authority the CPO has to ensure that acquisition 

initiatives are carried out. In turn, we recommended that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security provide the CPO with sufficient enforcement authority 

to effectively oversee the Department’s acquisitions—a recommendation 

that has yet to be implemented.10 CPO officials believe that there are other 

mechanisms to influence component actions, such as providing input into

HCA hiring decisions and performance appraisals. 

Making the most of opportunities to strengthen its acquisition oversight 

program—along with overcoming implementation challenges—could 

position the agency to achieve better acquisition outcomes. We identified

two such opportunities: periodic external assessments of the oversight 

program and sharing knowledge gained from the oversight plan reviews 

across the department. 

The CPO Faces

Challenges in 

Implementing 

Reviews and 

Corrective Actions 

External Reviews and 

Knowledge Sharing 

Could Improve 

Acquisition Oversight 

 10GAO, Homeland Security: Successes and Challenges in DHS’s Efforts to Create an

Effective Acquisition Organization, GAO-05-179 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2005).

Page 9 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Federal internal control standards call for periodic external assessments 

of programs to help ensure their effectiveness.11 An independent 

evaluation of DHS’s acquisition oversight program by the Inspector 

General or an external auditor could help strengthen the oversight 

conducted through the plan and better ensure that the program is fully 

implemented and maintaining its effectiveness over time. In particular, an

external assessment with results communicated to appropriate officials 

can help maintain the strength of the oversight program by alerting DHS to 

acquisition concerns that require oversight, as well as monitoring the 

plan’s implementation. For example, the plan initially called for 

components to complete the self-assessment by surveying their acquisition 

staff; however, the level of staff input for the first self-assessments was left 

to the discretion of the HCAs. Specifically, CPO officials advised HCAs to 

complete the questions themselves, delegate the completion to one or 

more staff members, or select a few key people from outside their 

organization to participate. While evolution of the plan and its 

implementation is to be expected and can result in improvements, periodic 

external assessments of the plan could provide a mechanism for 

monitoring changes to ensure they do not diminish oversight. 

Federal internal control standards also call for effective communication to 

enable managers to carry out their responsibilities and better achieve 

components’ missions.12 The CPO has been assigned responsibility for 

ensuring the integrity of the oversight process—in part by providing 

lessons learned for acquisition program management and execution. While 

the CPO intends to share knowledge with components by posting lessons 

learned from operational status reviews to DHS’s intranet, according to 

CPO officials, the Web site is currently limited to providing guidance and 

training materials and does not include a formal mechanism to share 

lessons learned among components. In addition to the Web site, other 

opportunities may exist for sharing knowledge. For example, CPO officials 

indicated that the CPO meets monthly with component HCAs to discuss 

acquisition issues. The monthly meetings could provide an opportunity to 

share and discuss lessons learned from oversight reviews. Finally, 

knowledge could be regularly shared with component acquisition staff 

through internal memorandums or reports on the results of oversight 

reviews. 

 11See GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington D.C.: November 1999). 

12GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Page 10 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Integrating 22 federal agencies while implementing acquisition processes 

needed to support DHS’s national security mission is a herculean effort. 

The CPO’s oversight plan generally incorporates basic principles of an 

effective acquisition function, but absent clear authority, the CPO’s 

recommendations for improved acquisition performance are, in effect, 

advisory. Additional actions are needed to achieve the plan’s objectives 

and opportunities exist to strengthen oversight through enhanced internal

controls. Until DHS improves its approach for overseeing acquisition 

planning, the department will continue to be at risk of failing to identify 

and address recurring problems that have led to poor acquisition 

outcomes. 

To improve oversight of component acquisition planning processes and 

the overall effectiveness of the acquisition oversight plan, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Chief Procurement 

Officer to take the following three actions: 

• Reevaluate the approach to oversight of acquisition planning reviews 

and determine whether the mechanisms under the plan are sufficient to 

monitor component actions and improve component acquisition 

planning efforts. 

• Request a periodic external assessment of the oversight plan 

implementation and ensure findings are communicated to and

addressed by appropriate officials. 

• Develop additional opportunities to share lessons learned from

oversight reviews with DHS components. 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In 

written comments, DHS generally agreed with our facts and conclusions 

and concurred with all of our recommendations and provided information 

on what actions would be taken to address them. 

Conclusion 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Regarding the recommendation on acquisition planning, DHS stated that 

during on-site reviews they will verify that CPO comments on acquisition 

plans have been sufficiently addressed. DHS is also developing training for 

component HCAs and other personnel to emphasize that CPO comments 

related to compliance with applicable laws and regulations must be 

incorporated into acquisition plans. The CPO will also annually require an 

acquisition planning review as part of the oversight plan’s operational 

status reviews. Additionally, DHS intends to change the advanced 

acquisition planning database so that historical data are available for 

Page 11 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
review. With regard to the recommendation for periodic external 

assessment of the oversight plan, DHS stated they plan to explore 

opportunities to establish a periodic external review of the oversight 

program. However, the first priority of the acquisition oversight office is to

complete initial component on-site reviews. For the recommendation to 

develop additional opportunities to share lessons learned from oversight 

reviews, DHS stated it intends to share consolidated information from 

operational status and on-site reviews in regular meetings with component 

HCA staff. In addition, the CPO plans to explore further opportunities for 

sharing oversight results with the entire DHS acquisition community. 

DHS also responded to a 2005 GAO recommendation on the issue of the 

CPO lacking authority over the component HCAs. DHS commented that it

is in the process of modifying its acquisition lines of business management 

directive to ensure that no DHS contracting organization is exempt. In 

addition, DHS stated that the Under Secretary for Management has 

authority as the Chief Acquisition Officer to monitor acquisition 

performance, establish clear lines of authority for making acquisition 

decisions, and manage the direction of acquisition policy for the 

department, and that these authorities also devolve to the CPO. Modifying 

the management directive to ensure no DHS contracting organization is 

exempt is a positive step. However, until DHS formally designates the 

Chief Acquisition Officer, and modifies applicable management directives 

to support this designation, DHS’s existing policy of dual accountability 

between the component heads and the CPO leaves unclear the CPO’s 

authority to enforce corrective actions to achieve the department’s 

acquisition goals, which was the basis of our earlier recommendation. 

DHS’s letter is reprinted in appendix II. DHS also provided technical 

comments which were incorporated as appropriate. 

Page 12 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

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

If you or your staff have questions regarding this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-4841 or huttonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Principal contributors to this report were Amelia Shachoy, 

Assistant Director; William Russell; Tatiana Winger; Heddi Nieuwsma; 

Lily Chin; Karen Sloan; and Sylvia Schatz. 

John Hutton, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

Page 13 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine actions taken by DHS to implement the acquisition oversight

plan and challenges DHS faces, we reviewed prior GAO and DHS Office of 

the Inspector General reports pertaining to acquisition oversight as well as 

relevant DHS documents, such as the oversight plan, documents of 

completed reviews and guidance to components, including training 

materials. We interviewed officials in the CPO’s office and the nine DHS 

components with acquisition offices. We compared efforts undertaken to 

implement the plan by DHS officials against established program policies, 

the fiscal year 2007 implementation schedule, and other guidance 

materials. We reviewed four component self-assessments that were 

provided to us and also reviewed areas in which the CPO provided 

assistance to components based on self-assessment results. We also 

reviewed Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 

We conducted our work from February 2007 to June 2007 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 14 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

of Homeland Security 

Page 15 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 16 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

(120651) Page 17 GAO-07-900 DHS Acquisition Oversight Plan
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 “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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, D.C. 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 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER