Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps 
 

To Strengthen Information Technology 
 

Management, but Challenges Remain 
 

OIG-11-108 September 2011 
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

September 7, 2011 

Preface 

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

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

General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as 

part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within 

the department. 

This report addresses the effectiveness of United States Coast Guard’s planning, acquisition, 

implementation, and use of technology to support its mission. It is based on interviews with 

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of 

applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, 

and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We trust this report 

will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our appreciation 

Frank Deffer 

to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Assistant Inspector General 

Information Technology Audits 
 

 

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


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


Results of Audit ...............................................................................................................................5
 


Coast Guard IT Planning and Acquisition Processes ..................................................................5
 


IT Implementation .....................................................................................................................11
 


IT Use To Support the Coast Guard’s Missions ........................................................................19
 


Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................27
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ..................................................................................28
 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology .........................................................................30
 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..........................................................32 
 

Appendix C: Major Contributors to this Report ...........................................................................35 
 

Appendix D: Report Distribution....................................................................................................5 
 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Abbreviations 

AIS Automatic Identification System 

C2PC Command and Control Personal Computer 

C3CEN Command, Control, and Communications Engineering Center 

C4IT Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Information Technology 

CAS Core Accounting System 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FPD Financial Procurement Desktop 

FY fiscal year 

IT information technology 

ITAR Information Technology Acquisition Review 

ITIL Information Technology Infrastructure Library 

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement 

MD Management Directive 

MSAM Major Systems Acquisition Manual 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSC Operations Systems Center 

SDLC Systems Development Life Cycle 
 

SELC Systems Engineering Life Cycle 

TASC Transformation and Systems Consolidation 

TISCOM Telecommunications & Information Systems Command 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Coast Guard Organizational Structure ........................................................................... 3 
 


Figure 2: Coast Guard OCIO Organizational Structure ................................................................. 3 
 

Figure 3: C4IT Service Center Organizational Structure .............................................................. 4 
 


Figure 4: C4IT Strategic Plan Goals .............................................................................................. 6 
 


Figure 5: C4IT Strategic Plan Alignment .................................................................................... 77 
 


Figure 6: IT Acquisition Process and Life Cycle Alignment ........................................................ 9 
 


Figure 7: IT Acquisition Reviews � $2.5 Million Submitted to the DHS CIO 
 

(FY 2007 to FY 2010) .................................................................................................. 10

Figure 8: IT Acquisition Reviews < $2.5 Million Conducted by the Coast Guard CIO 

(FY 2008 to FY 2010) .................................................................................................. 11 
 


Figure 9: IT Personnel Outside of the OCIO ............................................................................... 17 
 


Figure 10: Current Fleet Network Connectivity Installation Status ............................................ 19 
 


Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
OIG 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

We audited the United States Coast Guard’s management of 

information technology. The objective of our audit was to 

determine the effectiveness of the Coast Guard’s planning, 

acquisition, implementation, and use of technology to support its 

mission. The scope and methodology of this audit are discussed 

further in appendix A. 

The Coast Guard has made progress establishing effective 

information technology management practices. Specifically, the 

Coast Guard has an up-to-date strategic plan for information 

technology that is in line with federal requirements and 

departmental guidance. In addition, the Coast Guard has 

implemented the department’s system life cycle management and 

acquisition review processes. As a result, the Chief Information 

Officer is positioned to support the Coast Guard’s mission, and has 

controls in place to allow for effective acquisition decisions. 

The Chief Information Officer has also taken steps to centralize 

and standardize implementation of information technology across 

the Coast Guard. Achieving a standard information technology 

environment, however, has been hampered by the Chief 

Information Officer’s limited authority over some information 

technology assets and spending. Consequently, the Chief 

Information Officer cannot fully ensure that the information 

technology environment is functioning effectively and efficiently. 

Still, the Coast Guard could improve information technology 

management in a number of areas. Specifically, Coast Guard 

systems and infrastructure do not fully meet mission needs. For 

example, Coast Guard field personnel do not have sufficient 

network availability, and the aging financial system is unreliable. 

In addition, command center and partner agency systems are not 

sufficiently integrated. These limitations have various causes, 

including technical and cost barriers, aging infrastructure that is 

difficult to support, and stovepiped system development. As a 

result, field personnel rely on inefficient work-arounds to 

accomplish their mission. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 1 
 

 

Background 

The United States Coast Guard, one of the Nation’s five armed 

services, is a maritime military service within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard has 11 missions: 

Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security; Drug Interdiction; Aids to 

Navigation; Search and Rescue; Living Marine Resources; Marine 

Safety; Defense Readiness; Migrant Interdiction; Marine 

Environmental Protection; Ice Operations; and Other Law 

Enforcement.1 In fiscal year (FY) 2010, the Coast Guard’s budget 

was $10.1 billion, approximately 18% of DHS’ overall requested 

budget of $55.1 billion. 

The Coast Guard has 50,256 full-time personnel (42,389 military 

and 7,867 civilian) and 36,946 reservists and auxiliary personnel 

stationed across the country at Coast Guard headquarters units and 

operations units. The operations units are organized under the 

Atlantic and Pacific Area commands, which are composed of nine 

districts that are further broken down into 35 sectors with 

supporting stations. Coast Guard assets consist of 250 cutters, 

1,784 boats, and 198 aircraft.2 

The Coast Guard headquarters units are organized under the 

central command of the Commandant and eight Assistant 

Commandants: Human Resources; Intelligence & Criminal 

Investigations; Engineering and Logistics; Marine Safety, Security, 

and Stewardship; Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers, and Information Technology (C4IT); Capability; 

Resources; and Acquisition. Figure 1 shows the Coast Guard’s 

organizational structure. 

1 6 U.S.C. 468(a).


2

 A cutter is any Coast Guard vessel at least 65 feet in length, and a boat is any vessel under 65 feet in length. 
 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 2 
Figure 1: Coast Guard Organizational Structure 

Under the Coast Guard Chief of Staff, the Assistant Commandant 

for C4IT, who serves as the Chief Information Officer (CIO), 

designs, develops, deploys, and maintains information technology 

(IT) solutions for the entire Coast Guard. The Office of the CIO 

(OCIO) comprises approximately 110 staff at headquarters, 

including military and civilian personnel, who work in one of six 

IT offices: Information Management; Enterprise Application 

Management; Enterprise Infrastructure Management; Information 

Assurance & Spectrum Policy; Enterprise Architecture & 

Governance; and Enterprise System Development Policy. Figure 2 

shows the Coast Guard OCIO organizational structure. 

Figure 2: Coast Guard OCIO Organizational Structure 

In 2009, the CIO established the C4IT Service Center. The C4IT 

Service Center is responsible for operations and maintenance of IT 

systems and assets across the Coast Guard. The mission of the 

Service Center is to provide full life cycle support for Coast Guard 

IT applications, systems, and infrastructure, enabling Coast Guard 

personnel to have the information they need to perform their jobs. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 3 
The Service Center has an annual budget in excess of $400 million, 

with 3,100 employees (including military, government, and 

contractor), located in more than 70 locations within the United 

States. Figure 3 shows the organizational structure of the Service 

Center, which is composed of four shared-services offices, a field 

services division, and three centers of excellence. 

Figure 3: C4IT Service Center Organizational Structure 

The four shared-services offices enable delivery of mission 

capability and service to customers located throughout the Coast 

Guard. The Field Services Division oversees 11 IT support units 

and their subordinate detachments located at the Coast Guard’s 

operations units. The centers of excellence include the Operations 

Systems Center (OSC), which is responsible for enterprise IT 

systems; the Command, Control, and Communications Engineering 

Center (C3CEN), which is responsible for command, control, and 

navigation systems; and the Telecommunications & Information 

Systems Command (TISCOM), which is responsible for enterprise 

IT infrastructure. 

The Coast Guard relies heavily on technology to meet its safety, 

security, and stewardship missions. The CIO has program 

management responsibility for 140 enterprise applications, 

including law enforcement databases such as Marine Information 

for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) and search and rescue 

tools such as the Search and Rescue Optimal Planning System. 

The Coast Guard also relies on numerous command and control 

systems, as well as navigation systems, to support tactical units, 

including systems such as Rescue 21, a direction-finding 

communication network for search and rescue. In addition, the 

Coast Guard relies on enterprise infrastructure capabilities, such as 

messaging systems and network connectivity to deployed cutters. 

The Coast Guard had an FY 2010 IT budget of approximately 

$590 million to support its IT environment. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 4 
 

Over the past several years, a number of audit reports have 

identified key IT challenges within the Coast Guard. In August 

2006, we reported that the Coast Guard’s efforts to develop its 

Deepwater Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance systems could be 

improved with regard to requirements management, system 

security, and testing.3 In addition, in July 2009, we reported that 

the Coast Guard had made progress in developing its enterprise 

architecture; however, the enterprise architecture had not been 

fully integrated across the organization.4 

Results of Audit 

Coast Guard IT Planning and Acquisition Processes 

The Coast Guard has implemented IT planning and acquisition processes. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard CIO has an up-to-date strategic plan that is 

in line with federal requirements and departmental guidance. In addition, 

the Coast Guard has implemented the DHS life cycle process for major IT 

acquisitions, as well as an IT acquisition review process. As a result, the 

CIO will be strongly positioned to provide effective IT support to meet 

mission requirements, has controls in place to allow for effective 

acquisition decisions, and has improved visibility of IT acquisitions 

throughout the Coast Guard. 

IT Planning 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as 

amended, holds federal agencies responsible for strategic planning 

to ensure efficient and effective operations and use of resources to 

achieve mission results.5

 Additionally, Office of Management & 

Budget Circular A-130, as revised, instructs agency CIOs to create 

a strategic plan that demonstrates how information resources will 

be used to improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness 

of government programs.6 Finally, DHS Management Directive 

(MD) 0007.1 requires component CIOs to develop and implement 

an IT strategic plan that clearly defines how IT supports a 

3 Improvements Needed in the U. S. Coast Guard’s Acquisition and Implementation of Deepwater 
 

Information Technology Systems (OIG-06-55), August 2006. 
 4 Review of U.S. Coast Guard Enterprise Architecture Implementation Process (OIG-09-93), July 2009. 
 5

 Public Law 103-62 (1993).
 


6

 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, 
 

November 28, 2000.
 


Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 5 
 

component’s mission and drives investment decisions, guiding the 

component toward its goals and priorities.7 

The Coast Guard CIO has an up-to-date strategic plan that is in line 

with federal requirements and departmental guidance. Specifically, 

the CIO implemented the C4IT Strategic Plan FY11–FY15 in 

January 2010. The C4IT strategic plan identifies five broad goals 

for achieving the OCIO’s mission over the next 4 years. Figure 4 

shows these five goals. 

Figure 4: C4IT Strategic Plan Goals 

To accomplish these broad goals, the CIO has established specific 

initiatives in an annual performance plan. For example, in order to 

meet the governance goal, the CIO is implementing a systems 

development life cycle (SDLC) process to ensure the selection, 

validation, and fulfillment of IT requirements. The performance 

plan identifies key quarterly milestones for each specific initiative. 

In addition to milestones, the CIO has identified the critical 

success factors that must be completed and operational levels that 

must be maintained for the OCIO to achieve its goals. 

The C4IT Strategic Plan aligns with federal, DHS, and Coast 

Guard strategic plans and guiding strategies, such as the federal 

homeland security and maritime security strategies and the DHS 

and Coast Guard strategic plans. The plan is also aligned with the 

DHS Information Technology Strategic Plan 2011–2015 to ensure 

that the Coast Guard supports the DHS CIO’s department-wide IT 

goals. Finally, the plan aligns with The Commandant’s Guiding 

Principles, which are intended to challenge Coast Guard personnel 

7

 Department of Homeland Security, Management Directive 0007.1, Information Technology Integration 

and Management, March 15, 2007. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 6 
 

to refocus on their missions. Figure 5 shows the alignment of the 
 

C4IT Strategic Plan with federal, DHS, and the Coast Guard plans. 
 

Figure 5: C4IT Strategic Plan Alignment 

The CIO’s implementation of a well-aligned, up-to-date strategic 

plan positions the CIO to provide effective IT support to meet 

mission requirements. An effective IT strategic plan helps focus 

limited resources and guide the direction of the OCIO. Further, 

organizational alignment with the plan cascades down throughout 

the OCIO. For example, division and office plans contain goals to 

help accomplish the C4IT strategic goals, and individual 

performance plans for Coast Guard personnel are tied to the 

division and office plans. This structure affords alignment at all 

levels of Coast Guard IT personnel activity. As long as the 

milestones are met and initiatives are put into practice, the IT 

strategic plan will help Coast Guard personnel fulfill their mission 

responsibilities. 

IT Acquisition 

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires that IT acquisition be a 

simplified, clear, and understandable process to the maximum 

extent practicable.8

 To support this requirement, DHS Acquisition 

Directive 102-01, appendix B, requires agencies to follow a 

systems engineering life cycle (SELC) process.9 The purpose of 

the DHS SELC is to establish a standard system life cycle 

framework across DHS components and to ensure that DHS IT 

capabilities are efficiently and effectively delivered. 

8

 Public Law 104-106 (1996). 
 

9 DHS AD 102-01, Interim Version 1.9, Acquisition Directive, Instruction Appendix B, November 7, 2008.
 


Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 7 
The Coast Guard has implemented the DHS SELC process for 

major IT acquisitions, which are acquisitions with a life cycle cost 

of $300 million and above. Specifically, the Coast Guard 

developed the Major Systems Acquisition Manual (MSAM) to 

establish policies and procedures and provide guidance for the 

implementation of an acquisition management and review process 

as defined by Acquisition Directive 102-01. The MSAM process 

has five major phases. These phases require that the Coast Guard 

identify a capability gap before formally beginning the acquisition 

of a major system, define the functional capabilities needed to 

address that gap, analyze alternate solutions, demonstrate the 

feasibility of the preferred alternative, and deploy the operational 

capability. 

The Coast Guard has also defined an SDLC for non-major IT 

acquisitions with a life cycle cost below $300 million. The SDLC 

has seven major phases. The process begins with conceptual 

planning to identify high-level business needs, propose and 

validate a concept to fulfill those needs, and commit resources. 

The next phase, planning and requirements, involves collecting, 

defining, and validating business requirements and developing 

initial life cycle management plans. The design phase translates 

business requirements into system requirements to develop the 

detailed system design. During the development and testing phase, 

systems are developed or acquired and validated through a variety 

of tests. The objective of the implementation phase is to produce 

and deploy the operational capability. The operations and 

maintenance phase involves ensuring that the system continues to 

perform according to specifications. Finally, the disposition phase 

involves the termination of the system at the end of the life cycle. 

As shown in figure 6, the major phases of the MSAM are aligned 

with the major phases of the DHS SELC. Likewise, the major 

phases of the SDLC are aligned with the MSAM and the DHS 

SELC. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 8 
Figure 6: IT Acquisition Process and Life Cycle Alignment 

In addition to aligning with the DHS SELC, the Coast Guard’s IT 

acquisition governance processes are streamlined and clearly laid 

out in order to ensure adherence and compliance. These IT 

acquisition governance processes enable the Coast Guard to make 

IT acquisition decisions that will support both Coast Guard and 

DHS strategic goals. 

IT Acquisition Review Process 

DHS MD 0007.1, issued in March 2007, requires IT acquisitions 

valued at $2.5 million or greater to be submitted to the DHS CIO 

for review. The directive also requires agency CIOs to implement 

an IT Acquisition Review (ITAR) process for IT acquisitions 

below $2.5 million. ITAR is required before the award of an IT 

procurement. The purpose of the ITAR process is to ensure 

alignment of acquisitions with IT policy, standards, objectives, and 

goals across DHS. 

The Coast Guard CIO began submitting IT acquisitions valued at 

$2.5 million and above to the DHS CIO in FY 2007. That year, 

the Coast Guard CIO submitted 15 IT acquisitions for review. The 

number of acquisitions submitted had increased to 63 in FY 2010. 

Figure 7 shows the increase in the number of IT acquisitions 

submitted to the DHS CIO from FY 2007 to FY 2010. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 9 
Figure 7: IT Acquisition Review $2.5 Million Submitted to the DHS CIO s � 

(FY 2007 to FY 2010) 

The Coast Guard has also taken steps to ensure compliance with 

the ITAR requirement by implementing an ITAR process in 

FY 2008 to review IT acquisitions with costs below $2.5 million 

and above $100,000. The Coast Guard Commandant issued a 

Commandant Instruction in December 2009 mandating compliance 

with the ITAR process throughout the Coast Guard. In addition, 

the CIO published an ITAR Practices Guide in 2010 to help guide 

personnel through the process. 

The number of IT acquisitions below $2.5 million going through 

the ITAR process has increased steadily since the Coast Guard 

implemented the review process. In FY 2008, the Coast Guard 

CIO reviewed 40 IT acquisitions. By FY 2010, the CIO reviewed 

233 IT acquisitions, an increase of nearly 500%. Figure 8 shows 

the number of ITAR reviews below $2.5 million from FY 2008 

through FY 2010. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 10 
Figure 8: IT Acquisition Reviews < $2.5 Million Conducted by the Coast Guard CIO 

(FY 2008 to FY 2010) 

These reviews have enabled the CIO to align IT acquisitions with 

Coast Guard IT policies, standards, objectives, and goals. ITAR 

also helps the CIO validate the Coast Guard’s alignment with DHS 

Enterprise Architecture and ensure compliance with security and 

accessibility requirements. 

IT Implementation 

The CIO has taken steps to centralize and standardize IT implementation 

across the Coast Guard, but more progress is needed. The Coast Guard 

historically has had a decentralized IT environment, with personnel at each 

Coast Guard district implementing IT to meet their unique requirements. In 

response to the evolving need for increased interoperability throughout the 

Coast Guard, the CIO established the C4IT Service Center in February 2009 

as a central authority to promote enterprise-wide IT standardization. The 

C4IT Service Center has unified the Coast Guard’s three IT centers of 

excellence, defined standard processes for field IT units, and defined 

standard IT portfolios with product lines and core technologies. In addition, 

C4IT Service Center leadership has several initiatives under way to further 

improve IT operations and maintenance. 

Although the Coast Guard has made progress, achieving a standard IT 

environment has been hampered by the CIO’s limited authority over some 

IT assets and spending. Specifically, not all IT personnel have been 

moved under the CIO, and the CIO does not have sufficient oversight of 

IT spending by field units. The 2006 Coast Guard modernization plans 

called for the CIO to have authority over IT personnel and spending. 

However, there is no overall plan of action and target dates to complete 

the transition of authority. Without such authority, the CIO cannot fully 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 11 
�	 

�	 

ensure that the Coast Guard IT environment is functioning effectively and 

efficiently. 

Progress Centralizing IT Implementation 

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 gives the CIO responsibility for 

developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a 

sound and integrated IT architecture and promoting the effective 

and efficient design and operation of all major information 

resources management processes. Furthermore, a centralized 

approach to IT implementation is a government and industry best 

practice to improve performance and lower cost. 

The Coast Guard has taken steps to centralize and standardize IT 

implementation enterprise-wide. The Coast Guard began a 

modernization effort in 2006 with the goal of creating a more 

unified service, in part to address the challenges faced in 

responding to Hurricane Katrina. To realize the vision of a 

modernized Coast Guard, Commandant Intent Action Order #10 

directed the CIO, as the single Coast Guard director of C4IT, to 

standardize the IT environment across the Coast Guard. 

As part of the modernization effort, the CIO established the C4IT 

Service Center in February 2009, bringing together the operating 

units, logistics centers, and other support units that performed the 

engineering, management, and service resources and functions 

previously distributed across OCIO offices. The Service Center 

provides full life cycle support for Coast Guard IT applications, 

systems, and infrastructure, providing Coast Guard personnel with 

the information they need to perform their jobs. 

Unified Three Centers of Excellence 

The C4IT Service Center brings together under one reporting 

structure the following three organizations (known as centers of 

excellence) that are responsible for headquarters-level operations 

and maintenance of enterprise-wide IT infrastructure and systems: 

OSC – Develops, fields, maintains, and provides user 

support for Coast Guard enterprise information systems to 

improve Coast Guard mission performance through the 

innovative application of technology. 

TISCOM – Develops, deploys, secures, and supports the 

Coast Guard’s IT infrastructure for both the sensitive but 

unclassified and secret enterprises. Solutions are divided 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 12 
 

into three areas: (1) enterprise networks, (2) information 

systems, and (3) organizational messaging. 

�	 C3CEN – Develops, builds, fields, trains, and supports 

advanced electronic command, control, and navigation 

systems. 

Communication and coordination among OSC, TISCOM, and 

C3CEN was a challenge before the C4IT Service Center was 

established. For example, TISCOM is in charge of implementing 

security patches for the enterprise IT infrastructure.10 When a 

security patch is implemented, it can affect OSC’s enterprise 

systems. In one case, TISCOM implemented a patch that caused a 

malfunction in the MISLE system. The OSC told users to remove 

the security patch to restore MISLE functionality. However, the 

patch was a required security update, and when TISCOM 

personnel scanned the network to identify where the patch was still 

needed, they reinstalled it and once again affected MISLE 

functionality. 

Although the three centers of excellence remain independent 

commands under the Coast Guard’s military organizational 

structure, they report to the director of the Service Center. Coast 

Guard IT officials said that the centers of excellence are working 

more closely together. The centers’ consolidation under the C4IT 

Service Center enables improved communication and coordination, 

which are critical to effective IT support. 

Standard IT Field Services 

Prior to the Coast Guard modernization effort, responsibility for IT 

operations and maintenance was decentralized. Each Coast Guard 

district had its own IT support unit that reported directly to its local 

operational command and provided IT solutions tailored to the 

priorities and mission set of that location. The decentralized 

approach tailored infrastructure design, deployment, service levels, 

and support delivery to more individualized needs. Although a 

decentralized approach was able to meet the Coast Guard’s needs 

at first, it became less effective as the need developed for increased 

interoperability and enterprise-wide information sharing. 

The director of the C4IT Service Center established the Field 

Services Division to oversee the 11 district IT support units and 

10 A patch is a small piece of code designed to be inserted into a program in order to fix errors in or update 

the program or its supporting data. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 13 
lead the standardization of IT support processes and activities. 

Field Services Division personnel have defined standard processes 

for various IT support activities. For example, division personnel 

defined a standard IT service desk process guide to replace the 

unique processes being used by each IT support organization. 

Field Service Division personnel have defined nine such process 

guides to improve standardization of IT support service across the 

Coast Guard districts. These process guides cover a range of 

topics, including response to system failures, IT system backup 

procedures, and standard configuration of IT systems on cutters. 

Field Services Division personnel have also identified eight more 

processes to standardize, including management of network access 

and radio tower maintenance. Field IT personnel said that process 

standardization has been beneficial. For example, when Coast 

Guard personnel transfer to another location, they continue to 

receive the same level and type of IT help desk service. 

Product Lines and Core Technologies 

The C4IT Service Center established a portfolio management 

approach to improve standardization by defining a set of product 

lines and core technologies that are supported throughout the Coast 

Guard. The product line concept is intended to provide better 

focus on customers by putting the personnel responsible for 

product engineering, maintenance planning, procurement, and 

supply into a single organization with a singular focus on service. 

Core technologies are IT assets that are used to support several 

product lines. For example, the radio communications core 

technology provides radio communications systems to product 

lines supporting command centers, communications stations, small 

boat stations, boats, and cutters. This model allows for 

accountability and control of the use, maintenance, and upgrades 

of IT infrastructure. Coast Guard field personnel said that IT 

standardization through core technologies and accountability 

through product lines is beneficial. With fewer different 

technologies to support, the C4IT Service Center will be able to 

provide better support, and personnel will require less training 

when they transfer between districts. 

Ongoing C4IT Service Center Standardization Initiatives 

The C4IT Service Center leadership has begun other initiatives to 

improve Coast Guard IT operations and maintenance. The C4IT 

Service Center plans to complete implementation of the service 

delivery best practice (the Information Technology Infrastructure 

Library (ITIL)), strengthen configuration management, and 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 14 
 

implement a centralized service desk. The director of the C4IT 

Service Center said that the organization remains a work in 

progress as it has been in place for only about 2 years. The C4IT 

Service Center is scheduled to complete standardization and 

centralization initiatives by 2014. 

Service Delivery 

In March 2010, the C4IT Service Center leadership adopted ITIL 

to manage IT service delivery. ITIL is a set of concepts and 

practices for managing IT services, development, and operations. 

The goal of ITIL is to provide the standard terminology, processes, 

and continual improvement framework necessary to plan and 

manage IT services more effectively and efficiently. Further, ITIL 

will provide a tool to manage the increasingly critical and 

extensive suite of IT services that the C4IT Service Center 

provides. The C4IT Service Center continues to work on the 

standardization of support processes as part of ITIL implementation. 

Configuration Standardization 

C4IT Service Center leadership is standardizing how field units 

configure their IT environment.11 Service Center personnel test IT 

changes using a standard configuration before deployment to the 

field. Field units, however, may not have the same IT 

configuration as headquarters, which causes IT challenges in the 

field that were not present at headquarters. Field personnel said 

that when headquarters deploys an IT change, it does not always 

function in the field as expected. For example, when an upgrade to 

the standard operating system image was pushed out, some 

enterprise applications did not perform properly. Field personnel 

said that headquarters personnel test systems in an ideal 

environment that does not adequately replicate the challenges in 

the field environment. The C4IT Service Center’s goal is to 

standardize the IT configuration across field units to avoid such 

problems going forward. 

Centralized Service Desk 

C4IT Service Center leadership plans to centralize the Coast 

Guard’s 11 service desks into one centralized service desk located 

11 Configuration management is a process for establishing and maintaining consistency of a system’s 

performance, functional, and physical attributes with its requirements, design, and operational information 

throughout its life. The configuration management process provides a means to document and control the 

adaptation and evolution of simple and complex systems. It is the management of changes that are made to 

the hardware, software, firmware, and documentation throughout a system’s life cycle. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 15 
in St. Louis, MO. The centralized service desk is a best practice of 

the IT industry. Once implemented, OCIO officials said that it will 

support IT modernization and drive cost savings. The initial 

operating capability for the centralized service desk is scheduled 

for June 2011. 

Once implemented, the centralized service desk is intended to 

achieve three main objectives. First, it is intended to provide 

consistent service. All Atlantic and Pacific area procedures for 

providing IT support would be placed into a single construct to 

serve the entire enterprise. All users would then have the same 

interface for IT support, regardless of location. Second, this model 

is intended to provide a single internal touch point in the C4IT 

program, giving C4IT product lines at TISCOM, OSC, and 

C3CEN a unified pathway for incident management and request 

fulfillment. Third, it is intended to provide increased service at 

reduced cost. By leveraging the collective strengths of districtlevel service desks at one location, service can be expanded from a 

local 8-to-4, Monday-through-Friday operation into a global 

operation running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 

Although the C4IT Service Center is still a work in progress, its 

benefit was evident during the Coast Guard’s response to the 

earthquake in Haiti and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The head 

of the Field Services Division was able to pull both people and 

equipment from Coast Guard units across the country to respond to 

these disasters. For Deepwater Horizon, Coast Guard leadership 

set up a separate command with its own flag officer so that the 

regular flag officer in the district could continue to work on other 

missions. In addition, OCIO leadership set up a separate IT 

support unit within the temporary command with its own aroundthe-clock IT service. 

Additional Progress Needed To Complete IT Centralization 

Additional progress is needed to ensure that the CIO has the 

authority to implement a standardized Coast Guard IT 

environment. Specifically, the CIO does not have adequate 

authority over some headquarters IT personnel and discretionary 

IT spending in the field. Although the 2006 Coast Guard 

modernization plans called for giving the CIO authority over IT 

personnel and spending, there is no overall plan of action and 

target dates. Without authority over all IT resources, the CIO 

cannot fully ensure that the Coast Guard IT environment is 

functioning effectively and efficiently. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 16 
CIO Authority Over Headquarters IT Personnel and Operations 

Although a significant amount of IT resources have been 

transferred to the CIO, the CIO does not have sufficient authority 

over some IT personnel and operations at headquarters. Prior to 

Coast Guard modernization, each Assistant Commandant had an 

IT office and staff. Coast Guard modernization plans called for 

program IT operations to be transitioned to the CIO. Some of the 

programs transferred their IT offices and staff, including about 40 

staff from the Deputy Commandant for Operations, Assistant 

Commandant for Human Resources, and the Assistant 

Commandant for Resources. In June 2008, the Chief Financial 

Officer transferred authority over $89,995,000 in headquarters 

funding for IT investments from program offices to the CIO. 

However, approximately 165 personnel working in IT functions 

within several Coast Guard divisions are not part of the CIO 

organization. Figure 9 shows the Coast Guard divisions that 

maintain IT personnel independent from the CIO. 

Figure 9: IT Personnel Outside of the OCIO 

In addition, the Finance Center, Pay and Personnel Center, and 

Aviation Logistics Centers have independent IT operations. For 

example, the Finance Center maintains its own data center, which 

is distinct from the Coast Guard data center at the OSC. 

Although the Coast Guard divisions with IT personnel coordinate 

with the CIO, creating a standardized IT environment without 

direct control remains a challenge. These small IT operations must 

be moved to establish a clear line of authority to the CIO IT 

support activities. For example, when the CIO published a Coast 

Guard-wide notification explaining how the new C4IT Service 

Center would support IT operations through product lines and core 

technologies, it was necessary to include exceptions for the IT 

offices that remain outside the CIO. The notification announced 

that until Coast Guard modernization is complete, some units 

retain their own IT support and would remain an exception to the 

process described. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 17 
The CIO does not have authority over these IT personnel and 

assets because transition plans to align these personnel under the 

CIO’s authority have not been completed. The CIO is discussing 

the transition of IT personnel with leadership from these divisions. 

However, there is no documented transition plan that sets forth the 

actions to be taken and the related milestones. The CIO’s current 

plan is to establish product lines for these functions and then shift 

operational control of the IT staff to the CIO or C4IT Service 

Center. Although the initiative to consolidate IT under the CIO 

began in 2006, one senior Coast Guard official said that responses 

to major incidents such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the 

earthquake in Haiti have delayed progress. Without a documented 

plan of action and milestones, there is risk that consolidation 

activities will continue to be delayed. 

CIO Authority Over Field Unit IT Resources 

The CIO also does not have sufficient oversight of IT spending by 

Coast Guard field units. Field units can purchase IT with 

discretionary funds without CIO review and approval. OCIO 

officials said that field units obtain IT and then request that it be 

connected to the Coast Guard network; however, at that point it is 

too late for the CIO to prevent investments in IT that does not 

comply with enterprise standards, such as those relating to security 

and alignment to the enterprise architecture. For example, 

personnel from one Coast Guard sector asked to connect a system 

that they had obtained to the network. However, thousands of 

security vulnerabilities in the system had to be resolved before the 

system could be connected. The CIO’s standardization effort is 

also hindered when field units buy items outside of the defined 

core technologies and product lines. 

The CIO does not have sufficient oversight of IT spending by 

Coast Guard field units because plans to implement this oversight 

have not been completed. The Chief Financial Officer identified 

the need to consolidate field IT funding under the CIO through a 

process similar to that conducted for headquarters. However, this 

phase of consolidating funds has not been completed even though 

it was initially scheduled to be accomplished in FY 2009. 

Ultimately, the CIO’s lack of control over field units’ IT 

acquisitions can result in wasted time and money due to 

uncoordinated, duplicative investments. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 18 
 

 

IT Use To Support the Coast Guard’s Missions 

Coast Guard IT systems and infrastructure do not fully meet mission 

needs. Specifically, Coast Guard field personnel do not have sufficient 

network availability, and the aging financial system is unreliable. In 

addition, command center and partner agency systems are not sufficiently 

integrated. These limitations have various causes, including technical and 

cost barriers, aging infrastructure that is difficult to support, and stovepiped system development. As a result, field personnel rely on inefficient 

workarounds to accomplish their mission. 

Network Availability 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, and the 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, agencies are required to acquire, 

manage, and use IT to improve mission performance.12 Coast 

Guard field personnel, however, face network and data availability 

challenges in several areas. Specifically, Coast Guard cutters do 

not have sufficient network connectivity while at sea; command 

centers do not have systems that can adequately track Coast Guard 

and partner agency vessels; and the new Rescue 21 system, a 

direction-finding communication network for search and rescue, 

suffers from network outages. 

Cutter Connectivity 

Coast Guard cutters do not have sufficient network connectivity. 

Specifically, many cutters have not yet been connected to the 

Coast Guard’s network. Network connectivity has been installed in 

64 of the 99 cutters that were initially chosen to receive the 

capability. An additional 141 cutters of various types are included 

in a planned expansion of broadband communication to the fleet. 

Currently, however, only 27% of the cutter fleet has connectivity 

capability installed. Figure 10 shows the cutter fleet network 

connectivity installation status. 

Figure 10: Current Fleet Network Connectivity Installation Status 

12 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, Public Law 104-13 (1995). 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 19 
For cutters that have connectivity installed, technical barriers can 

cause insufficient underway connectivity. Specifically, land-based 

wireless network connectivity is not feasible for cutters that deploy 

to distances beyond the range of towers, and as a result the Coast 

Guard must rely on satellite connectivity, which is more expensive 

and has limited bandwidth. Other technical barriers include 

limited space for antenna placement on smaller cutters and the risk 

of antenna blockage due to the constant movement of the water. 

In addition, the high cost of obtaining bandwidth at sea limits 

connectivity. The Coast Guard relies on private companies for 

access to bandwidth. The cost of providing connectivity has 

increased because of the limited number of providers competing to 

offer bandwidth service at sea and the large amount of bandwidth 

being purchased by private companies, such as cruise companies. 

Bandwidth becomes exceedingly expensive when Coast Guard 

ships travel beyond 200 miles from shore. Although the Coast 

Guard spends the vast majority of its time within 200 miles of the 

coast, mission needs may require going beyond this distance. For 

example, the need for large cutters to travel greater distances has 

increased recently as shipping passageways have opened in the 

arctic. Large cutters traveling greater distances require an increase 

in bandwidth requirements, which increases the cost of obtaining 

connectivity. The cost of connectivity outside of the 200-mile 

barrier has been higher than expected. According to a senior Coast 

Guard official, the funding for increased bandwidth will run out in 

June 2011, forcing the Coast Guard to shift funds from other areas. 

As a result of underway connectivity limitations, Coast Guard 

personnel face challenges meeting their mission and administrative 

responsibilities. Personnel work around connectivity limitations in 

ways that are inefficient. For example, personnel at one Coast 

Guard sector said that small cutters must run background checks 

before boarding boats. Without connectivity, these cutters have 

relied on information being sent over the radio. Sensitive or 

classified information, however, that may be useful or necessary, 

cannot be transmitted over unsecured radios. Alternatively, cutters 

must dock at a nearby port to access needed information, delaying 

the sharing of information and diverting ships from their posts. 

For non-secure communication, personnel often use their 

commercial email provider via a personal wireless device when 

service is available. 

Additionally, Coast Guard personnel without access to underway 

connectivity are unable to complete required training and 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 20 
administrative responsibilities while at sea. Technology has been 

evolving away from stand-alone systems to network-based 

systems. Consequently, as more administrative IT tools are added 

to the Coast Guard network, personnel deployed to cutters need 

greater network availability. 

To improve cutter connectivity, the Coast Guard has implemented 

satellite service using one service provider for global connectivity 

and a second provider for service within 200 miles of the coast at a 

lower cost. According to Coast Guard officials, moving to two 

providers has lowered cost and allowed the Coast Guard to 

increase both the available bandwidth and download speed, 

although connectivity is still slow for users accustomed to desktop 

communication speeds. Personnel in one sector said that the 

addition of connectivity to their cutter allowed them to view emails 

and access websites to facilitate mission activities. Although the 

Coast Guard is working to improve underway connectivity, 

officials acknowledge that additional bandwidth will be needed to 

meet the requirements of Coast Guard personnel. 

Blue Force Tracking 

Coast Guard districts and sectors do not always have adequate 

information on the location of their own and their partners’ assets. 

The ability to determine the location of assets is referred to as blue 

force tracking. Coast Guard operational units need to know where 

Coast Guard assets, including small boats, cutters, and aircraft, are 

at all times. For tracking purposes, the Coast Guard’s waterborne 

assets are equipped with an Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

transponder, which is similar to an airplane’s black box that 

provides location information. The Coast Guard encrypts the AIS 

signal so that only receivers able to decode the signal can see the 

asset’s position. The Coast Guard relies on blue force tracking to 

create a common operating picture by determining the location of 

its waterborne assets and to differentiate Coast Guard vessels from 

commercial or unfriendly ships. Using this information, the Coast 

Guard can establish which of its assets are in the best position to 

respond to situations, including search and rescue and law 

enforcement missions. 

One technical barrier to adequate blue force tracking is that the 

encrypted AIS signal cannot be received beyond a limited range. 

The range is determined by the height of the ship’s antenna and the 

receiving tower. Consequently, districts or sectors with a large 

area of responsibility may have cutters that travel more than 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 21 
15 nautical miles from shore and cannot be tracked without 

additional transmission options. 

In addition to the limited range of the encrypted AIS signal, Coast 

Guard districts and sectors rely on several different display 

systems, including the primary system, Command and Control 

Personal Computer (C2PC), instead of one consolidated display 

system to view blue force tracking information. Field personnel 

said that C2PC does not receive a constant signal, and an asset’s 

position can be days old. Some sectors have upgraded from C2PC 

to the new Coast Guard standard Geographic Information System 

tool, ArcGIS. Although ArcGIS is a more modern system than 

C2PC, Coast Guard personnel said that it is slow to load 

information and that it freezes. Sectors and stations in one district 

accustomed to using Google Earth found the new ArcGIS system 

performance so poor that they stopped tracking blue forces using 

this system. 

The blue force tracking system limitations have required command 

center personnel to resort to non-automated, inefficient 

workarounds. Specifically, personnel rely on voice communication 

to obtain the geographic coordinates of deployed assets and plot 

their locations manually. This process is inefficient and can affect 

the safety of Coast Guard personnel. For example, without 

automated tracking, Coast Guard personnel may need to radio in 

their position during high-speed chases, which can be distracting 

and dangerous. Additionally, when partner agency vessels are not 

properly accounted for, the vessels may track and pursue one 

another, wasting time and resources. Personnel at one Coast Guard 

sector said that the lack of effective blue force tracking has led to the 

Coast Guard’s pursuit of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

boats. 

The Coast Guard has undertaken several initiatives to improve blue 

force tracking. Specifically, the CIO upgraded the infrastructure 

for the common operating picture database, which is responsible 

for displaying the positions for Coast Guard and DHS assets, along 

with the locations of targets of interest, to improve near real-time 

tracking ability. In addition, the CIO is fielding a replacement for 

the C2PC system and is consolidating the various display systems 

that are used across the Coast Guard. 

Rescue 21 

Rescue 21, the Coast Guard’s direction-finding communication 

network for search and rescue, has availability limitations. Rescue 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 22 
 

21 is a command, control, and communications system developed 

to improve the Coast Guard’s search and rescue capabilities. 

Rescue 21’s predecessor, the National Distress System, was 

targeted for replacement after a high-profile tragedy in 1997, in 

which the Coast Guard did not respond to a mayday call from the 

ship Morning Dew. As of June 1, 2011 the Rescue 21 system has 

been successfully employed in over 26,500 search and rescue 

cases. 

Although Coast Guard personnel said that Rescue 21 is a 

significant improvement over the National Distress System, they 

also identified challenges associated with the new system. 

Specifically, Coast Guard sectors have experienced frequent 

commercial network outages, which reduced system performance 

and availability. For example, one Coast Guard sector has 

experienced a total of 80 network outages since FY 2009, with 

24 outages in FY 2011. Another Coast Guard sector had an outage 

that lasted for approximately 2 days. These outages occur because 

Rescue 21 was created without redundancy when the primary 

network becomes unavailable. 

In addition, Coast Guard field personnel have experienced 

coverage gaps and tower misalignment issues. For example, one 

sector employee said that one of the sector’s towers was so 

misaligned that the location provided for a search and rescue 

would be significantly off. Another sector identified a significant 

gap in its area of responsibility following system deployment. In 

this case, the Coast Guard added a temporary additional tower to 

improve coverage until a permanent site could be constructed. 

Recue 21 coverage gaps occur because of limitations on the 

number of towers, site placement, and obstructions such as large 

buildings. 

As a result of Rescue 21 availability and coverage challenges, field 

personnel must devote resources to fill in performance gaps. For 

example, at each Coast Guard sector, security patches and system 

upgrades are deployed to Rescue 21 once a month to mitigate 

vulnerabilities and maintain certification and accreditation. While 

the upgrades are being installed, the Rescue 21 system design does 

not provide redundancy and becomes temporarily unavailable. 

During this time sector Commanders may use personnel to 

manually operate towers. In addition, sector Commanders may 

coordinate aircraft patrols to maintain search and rescue 

capabilities at great cost to the Coast Guard. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 23 
Reliability 

The Financial Procurement Desktop (FPD) is the enterprise-wide 

accounting and procurement system used by the Coast Guard. 

FPD is used to create and manage simplified procurement 

documents and to maintain accurate accounting records. The 

system offers templates to create and record requisitions, financial 

obligations, and expenditures. Data from FPD is fed into the Core 

Accounting System (CAS), and information from the two systems 

must be reconciled. 

According to Coast Guard personnel, FPD is slow, cumbersome, 

and does not always save information. It is also not integrated 

with CAS, and regularly displays inaccurate information and 

creates transaction errors that require the Coast Guard’s Finance 

Center to intervene to correct the problem. These issues are 

exacerbated during times of increased demand. For example, 

during the last quarter of FY 2010, FPD became unresponsive 

during normal working hours. At the same time that the system 

slowed down, financial personnel at Coast Guard districts said that 

they encountered transactions that doubled or tripled, commitments 

and obligations that did not liquidate, blank records, and an 

inability to reconcile their accounts. Similar to FPD, CAS is slow 

and cannot handle the high number of users employing the system 

during times of peak demand. 

FPD was developed more than 20 years ago, and its software is no 

longer supported. The Coast Guard is aware that FPD needs to be 

updated. Coast Guard personnel, however, are working with DHS 

officials on the Transformation and Systems Consolidation 

(TASC) initiative to achieve a department-wide integrated 

financial solution. The Coast Guard CIO had requested that the 

Coast Guard be the first DHS component to receive TASC, but it 

was announced that implementation at the Coast Guard would 

follow implementation at another agency. There is no timeframe 

for when this will occur. No major upgrades will be made on FPD 

while the Coast Guard awaits the implementation of TASC. 

In the absence of major upgrades, Coast Guard personnel must 

continue to rely on FPD, leading to continued inefficiency in 

reconciling financial information. Specifically, the financial 

statements audit for FY 2010 found that the Coast Guard had 

material weaknesses in internal controls due, in part, to system 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 24 
 

 

 

challenges.13 Further, during the fourth quarter of FY 2010, Coast 

Guard budget personnel were not comfortable certifying FPD 

results because they could not guarantee that accounts were 

accurate and consistent with recorded transactions. During the 

same period, FPD slowed down and eventually became 

unresponsive, forcing some personnel to come to work at 2 a.m. 

and on weekends. Additional delays were caused by CAS and 

FPD not being integrated, which required Coast Guard personnel 

to enter the same information twice. Delays caused by FPD and 

CAS led one district to use almost 100 hours of overtime in order 

to close financial accounts at the end of FY 2010. 

Integration 

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires that agencies plan in an 

integrated manner for managing their IT architecture. Furthermore, 

the Suitability and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 

requires the establishment of Interagency Operational Centers.14 

For a location to officially achieve designation as an Interagency 

Operational Center, it must maintain a memorandum of 

understanding establishing interagency cooperation, including joint 

awareness and coordination with CBP, along with access to a 

geographic interface tool providing a common operating picture to 

achieve situational awareness. However, Coast Guard command 

center, DHS component, and partner agency systems are not 

sufficiently integrated. 

Coast Guard command centers commonly use between five and ten 

different systems, many of which are not integrated. For example, 

the Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking system used to 

help locate distress signals does not communicate with MISLE, 

which tracks vessel information. As a result, users must search 

each system independently. Similarly, the maritime search 

planning tool, Search and Rescue Optimal Planning System, is not 

integrated with MISLE. Users said that information from this 

search and rescue system had to be manually added into MISLE. 

Limited integration within Coast Guard command centers has been 

caused by independently developed stovepipe systems created 

before the modernization effort. Only recently has the OCIO put 

in place processes to deter components from developing their own 

IT systems. 

13 Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY 2010 Financial Statements and Internal Control Over 
 

Financial Reporting (OIG-11-09), November 2010. 
 14 Public Law 109-347 (2006). 
 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 25 
Without system integration, Coast Guard personnel are forced to 

write down information and then transfer it manually to a separate 

system, which can affect accuracy and reduce efficiency. 

Additionally, Coast Guard personnel must manage a large number 

of passwords for the command center systems, leading to 

passwords being written down and possible security issues. To 

improve integration, Coast Guard personnel are working to 

standardize command centers and increase OCIO control over 

operational systems. 

Similarly, Coast Guard’s IT infrastructure is not integrated with 

DHS components. For example, Coast Guard systems are not 

effectively integrated with CBP systems. The Coast Guard is 

unable to connect IT equipment used by CBP to the Coast Guard 

network during joint ventures. At one designated Interagency 

Operational Center location, CBP could not send staff to the center 

because the facility only had access to the Coast Guard network, 

and consequently the staff could not connect to their own network. 

In addition, Coast Guard intelligence personnel are unable to 

access all available DHS databases. Likewise, DHS components 

are unable to search all the Coast Guard’s databases. 

Integration between the Coast Guard and fellow DHS components 

is hampered due to the Coast Guard’s status as a military 

organization and the corresponding “.mil” website domain, which 

is not conducive to working with other DHS entities that operate 

on a “.gov” domain. Additionally, DHS components have 

stovepipe systems that are not accessible to other components. 

Coast Guard personnel unable to access certain DHS databases 

rely on phone calls to DHS components to obtain background 

information on vessels. If Coast Guard personnel are unable to 

reach their point of contact within separate DHS components, 

information may not be available prior to an operation. 

In addition, Coast Guard and DHS systems are not integrated with 

federal partner agencies. The Coast Guard is unable to use the 

DHS network to share sensitive but unclassified information with 

the Department of Defense, inhibiting the flow of information and 

communication between the two agencies. Furthermore, personnel 

at one Coast Guard district that works with up to eight external 

agencies said that the Coast Guard is not completely compatible 

with external agencies’ communications, systems, or networks. 

The inability of the Coast Guard to utilize the DHS network to 

share sensitive but unclassified information with the Department of 

Defense is a result of unique security requirements for each 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 26 
agency. New systems and system patches approved by the 

Department of Defense must still be certified by DHS, delaying 

integration between the two departments. Additionally, although 

DHS is required to establish Interagency Operational Centers with 

access to a geographic interface tool providing situational 

awareness, no integrated common operating picture currently 

exists for use by different federal agencies. Without an integrated 

common operating picture, federal partners are forced to pass 

information from one system to another, leading to accuracy issues 

and a fear that the information being displayed is no longer current. 

During the response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, each 

agency used a different common operating picture, making it 

difficult to monitor all incoming information. 

The Coast Guard has begun deploying WatchKeeper, an integrated 

common operating picture, to facilitate the implementation of 

Interagency Operational Centers. Once fully functional, 

WatchKeeper is intended to pull information from multiple sources, 

creating a situational awareness of assets and targets, and can 

coordinate activities, share the schedule of different assets, and 

help plan joint inspections. Although WatchKeeper has been 

deployed to seven areas, Coast Guard personnel are skeptical that 

adequate funding will be provided to maintain the system. Limited 

funding has slowed the deployment of WatchKeeper and delayed 

its installation date for at least one Coast Guard Sector. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief of Staff: 

Recommendation #1: Complete the transition of IT personnel 

and oversight of field IT spending under the CIO. 

We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief Information Officer: 

Recommendation #2: Develop a plan of action and milestones to 

complete the expansion of broadband communication to the fleet 

to improve underway connectivity. 

Recommendation #3: Develop a plan to address the need for near 

real-time tracking requirements. 

Recommendation #4: Implement a plan to ensure system 

redundancy to meet availability requirements for Rescue 21. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 27 
Recommendation #5: Implement a strategy to improve ease of 

use and availability of the financial systems. 

Recommendation #6: Ensure that new tools, such as 

WatchKeeper, address command center requirements for improved 

integration. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the 

Rear Admiral of Planning, Resources, and Procurement. We have 

included a copy of the comments in their entirety in appendix B. 

In the comments, the Rear Admiral concurred with our 

recommendations and provided details on steps being taken to 

address specific findings and recommendations in the report. We 

have reviewed management’s comments and provided an 

evaluation of the issues outlined in the comments below. 

In response to recommendation 1, the Rear Admiral concurred and 

stated that the Coast Guard anticipates that this task will take time 

to implement owing to the necessity of involving senior Coast 

Guard leadership in the transition plans. Upon resolution of these 

issues, the Coast Guard anticipates that it will be better positioned 

to prepare a Plan of Action and Milestones to complete the 

transition. We look forward to learning about progress made 

toward addressing this recommendation. 

Responding to recommendation 2, the Rear Admiral concurred and 

stated that the Coast Guard is in the process of deploying methods 

that will facilitate the faster exchange of data by 15 times the 

current speed starting in June 2013 for cutters that are underway. 

We recognize this action as a positive step toward addressing 

recommendation 2. 

In response to recommendation 3, the Rear Admiral concurred and 

said that the Coast Guard will continue the testing and 

implementation of the National Automatic Identification System, 

which will extend coverage and provide near real-time access to 

data. The Rear Admiral said the data will be displayed in a variety 

of Coast Guard and DHS applications. We look forward to 

learning more about continued progress and improvements in the 

future. 

In response to recommendation 4, the Rear Admiral concurred 

with the recommendation and stated that the Coast Guard has been 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 28 
working with the DHS OneNet organization to reduce network 

outage impacts to the system’s performance. Additionally, the 

Rear Admiral said that the Coast Guard has procured and deployed 

the Very Small Aperture Terminal satellite system at sites with 

problematic network connections and plans to expand this or a 

similar network backup capability to 100% of the Rescue 21 

remote sites. We believe that such efforts are good steps toward 

addressing our recommendation and look forward to learning more 

about continued progress in ensuring system redundancy for 

Rescue 21. 

Responding to recommendation 5, the Rear Admiral concurred and 

said that the Coast Guard is continuing to develop plans to 

optimize the financial, procurement, and asset management 

environments for improving financial transparency. We look 

forward to learning more about continued progress and 

improvements in the future. 

In response to recommendation 6, the Rear Admiral concurred and 

stated that the Coast Guard is using WatchKeeper and another new 

tool, Mission Asset Scheduling Interface, to integrate command 

centers. Additionally, the Rear Admiral said that evaluations to 

determine the appropriate single sensor management system and 

the geographic information system for enterprise use are ongoing. 

We recognize this action as a positive step and look forward to 

learning more about continued progress in the future. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 29 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

As part of our ongoing responsibilities to assess the efficiency, 

effectiveness, and economy of departmental programs and 

operations, we conducted an audit to determine the effectiveness of 

United States Coast Guard’s planning, acquisition, implementation, 

and use of technology to support its mission. 

We researched and reviewed federal laws and executive guidance 

related to the Coast Guard’s support of IT systems, IT 

management, and IT governance. We obtained published reports, 

documents, and news articles regarding the DHS CIO operations 

and IT management throughout the department. Additionally, we 

reviewed recent Government Accountability Office and DHS OIG 

reports to identify prior findings and recommendations. We used 

this information to establish a data collection approach that 

consisted of focused interviews, documentation analysis, site visits, 

and system demonstrations to accomplish our audit objectives. 

We held interviews at and conducted teleconferences with Coast 

Guard headquarters, district, and sector units. Collectively, we 

interviewed more than 100 Coast Guard headquarters officials, 

field unit officials, and system users to learn about the Coast 

Guard’s IT functions, processes, and capabilities. At headquarters, 

we met with Coast Guard OCIO officials including the CIO, 

Deputy CIO, branch chiefs, and program managers to discuss their 

roles and responsibilities related to Coast Guard IT management. 

We also met with key personnel from the C4IT Service Center, 

which is responsible for operations and maintenance of the Coast 

Guard IT infrastructure. Finally, we met with representatives from 

Acquisitions and Capabilities to understand communication and 

coordination activities pertaining to IT requirements and 

acquisition processes. 

At district and sector units, we met with commanding officers, IT 

branch chiefs, IT specialists, program area specialists, and system 

users to understand IT development practices, user requirements, 

and system use in the field. We discussed the current IT 

infrastructure and modernization efforts, local IT development 

practices, and user involvement and communication with 

headquarters. We collected supporting documents about the Coast 

Guard’s IT structure, IT management functions, current initiatives, 

and improvement initiatives. 

We conducted audit fieldwork from November 2010 to February 

2011 at Coast Guard headquarters units in Washington, DC; 

Kearneysville, WV; and Norfolk, VA. We conducted additional 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 30 
 
 

 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

audit fieldwork at Coast Guard district and sector units in Miami 

and Key West, FL; New Orleans, LA; Alameda, CA; Seattle, WA; 

Boston, MA; and Cleveland, OH. We also observed capabilities 

on board the Coast Guard cutters Key Biscayne and Waesche, as 

well as in Maritime Information Fusion Centers for both the 

Atlantic and Pacific areas. 

We conducted this performance audit between November 2010 and 

June 2011 pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. 

The principal OIG points of contact for this audit are Frank Deffer, 

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits, 

and Richard Harsche, Director of Information Management. Major 

OIG contributors to the audit are identified in appendix C. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 31 
 
 

,jill

MEMOILANe~

Fn.-n: RDML S. ~. ).\<;\"'0'

COMDT (eG-8)

To: I""". !kIT.,.

A"'<la11t In'peel'" ['"""".1

lntonnatioo T<cllnok>gy Audit>

AUG ""T1 2011

Reply to AU<litM~.

Aim of: Mark Kulwicki

(202) 372-3J33

~uhj' DH~ 01G RFI'()RT 0" COAST GUARD liAS TAKEN STEPS TO STRE'lGTIlill\

TNFQR),tUKlN TFCINOJ.DGY MAl\AGEMENI, BlII CHAIllNGES REMAIN

R<f. (a) DHS OIG Drofl Rqat dotod May 20, 2011

I. TIl" m<mo"",dum ((""""it, tho C".,t Guord', _0to til< fLnd~ ond

""'OJJJJllcoJltt~'J1' i<lmti~,,-l in rcfcrolcc (a),

1. If_h>vo '''y qu."i<H\~ my poi'" "f00,,1:'''[ d).\, M_, Kuh.io'i wI., ""'."" """"'<d.1

(202) 3n_l5JJ

[Ilclowte: (1) U;CG m:pooo..

COjJ)' Ricilord Ho=he, Divi,ion DireclOr

Steve<! St"'''. Audit M>JlO(l""

CrnilJ Ad<Iman, Audit'"

Annn Homlin, AudilOt

The>. eM..., Auditor

Donny McGr:ttlt, Alld;w

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 32 
 
 

 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD RESPONSE TO 
 

DHS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL’S 
 

DRAFT REPORT OF MAY 20, 2011 
 

TITLE: “COAST GUARD HAS TAKEN STEPS TO STRENGTHEN 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, BUT CHALLENGES REMAIN” 

COAST GUARD’S GENERAL COMMENTS ON DHS OIG FINDINGS: 

The Coast Guard generally concurs with the OIG’s recommendations and appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the draft report. The following corrective actions are being taken 

to address the recommendations. 

COAST GUARD RESPONSES TO DHS OIG RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Recommendation #1: We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief of Staff complete the 

transition of IT personnel and oversight of field IT spending under the CIO. 

Concur. The Coast Guard anticipates this task will take time to implement due to the 

necessity to involve senior Coast Guard leadership in the transition plans for IT personnel 

and oversight of field IT spending. Upon satisfactory resolution of these issues, the Coast 

Guard will be better positioned to prepare a Plan of Action and Milestones to complete the 

transition. 

Recommendation #2: We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief Information Officer 

develop a plan of action and milestones to complete the expansion of broadband 

communication to the fleet to improve underway connectivity. 

Concur. The Coast Guard is in the process of recapitalizing all of the INMARSAT Standard 

B (STD-B) systems used by the large cutter fleet for underway connectivity to the Coast 

Guard’s data network (CGONE), SIPRNET, and the Internet. Currently, on the WMSL, 

WHEC, 270’ WMEC, POLAR STAR, HEALY, and EAGLE cutters a combination of KuBand (which offers higher bandwidth connectivity in many parts of the world) and Fleet 

Broadband (provides worldwide coverage) systems exist. Our current project plan projection 

has the C4IT Service Center completing all of the STD-B systems replaced by the 

combination of Ku and Fleet Broadband by June 2013. This recapitalization will provide at 

least a 400% improvement in throughput for underway cutters, but can provide up to 15 times 

more bandwidth if the mission requires it, allowing them improved access to mission-critical 

applications while underway. 

Recommendation #3: We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief Information Officer 

develop a plan to address the need for near real-time tracking requirements. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 33 
 
 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Concur: The Coast Guard will continue the testing and implementation of the NAIS 

permanent system, which will extend receive coverage to 50 nautical miles and add channel 

management and transmit capabilities to 24 nautical miles. This system provides near realtime data, which will be displayed in a variety of Coast Guard and DHS applications. 

Recommendation #4: We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief Information Officer 

implement a plan to ensure system redundancy to meet availability requirements for 

Rescue 21 (R21). 

Concur: The Coast Guard has been working with the DHS OneNet organization to reduce 

network outage impacts to the system’s performance. The Coast Guard has procured and 

deployed Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite system at sites with problematic 

network connections and plans to expand this or a similar network backup capability to 100% 

of the R21 remote sites. The Coast Guard will continue the procurement and deployment of 

the VSAT satellite system, as needed, at sites with problematic network connections to 

ensure 100% back-up capabilities for these remote R21 sites. 

Recommendation #5: We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief Information Officer 

implement a strategy to improve ease of use and availability of the financial systems. 

Concur: The Coast Guard is continuing to develop plans to optimize the financial, 

procurement, and asset management environments for improving financial transparency. 

Recommendation #6: We recommend that the Coast Guard Chief Information Officer 

ensure that new tools, such as WatchKeeper, address command center requirements for 

improved integration. 

Concur: The Coast Guard is using WatchKeeper and another new tool, Mission Asset 

Scheduling Interface, to integrate data input, retrieval, and display in the command center. 

There are also ongoing evaluations to determine the appropriate single sensor management 

system and geographic information system (GIS) for enterprise use. 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 34 
 
Appendix C 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Information Management Division 

Richard Harsche, Division Director 

Steven Staats, Audit Manager 

Craig Adelman, Auditor 

Anna Hamlin, Auditor 

Thea Calder, Auditor 

Danny McGrath, Auditor 

Bridget Glazier, Referencer 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 35 
 
Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

USCG, Commandant 

USCG, Vice Commandant 

USCG, Chief of Staff 

USCG, Chief Information Officer 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Director of Local Affairs, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

USCG Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 

Page 36 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

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