INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

DHS Needs to 

Enhance Management 

of Cost and Schedule 

for Major Investments

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2012

GAO-12-904

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-904, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2012

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

DHS Needs to Enhance Management of Cost and 

Schedule for Major Investments 

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS has responsibility for the 

development and management of the 

IT systems for the 22 federal agencies

and offices under its jurisdiction. Of its

363 IT investments, 68 are in 

development and are classified by 

DHS as a “major” investment that 

requires special management attention 

because of its mission importance.

Given the size and significance of 

these investments, GAO was asked to 

determine the (1) extent to which DHS 

IT investments are meeting their cost 

and schedule commitments, (2) 

primary causes of any commitment 

shortfalls, and (3) adequacy of DHS’s 

efforts to address these shortfalls and 

their associated causes.

To address these objectives, GAO 

analyzed recent cost and schedule 

performance for DHS’s major IT 

investments, as reported to OMB. To 

identify the primary cause(s) of any 

shortfalls and whether any corrective 

efforts were being taken to address 

them, GAO analyzed project plans and 

related documentation and interviewed 

responsible DHS officials and

compared the corrective efforts to 

applicable criteria to assess their 

adequacy. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security direct 

the appropriate officials to address the

guidance shortcomings and develop 

corrective actions for all major IT 

investment projects having cost and 

schedule shortfalls. In commenting on 

a draft of this report, DHS concurred 

with GAO’s recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Approximately two-thirds of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) major 

information technology (IT) investments are meeting their cost and schedule 

commitments (i.e., goals). Specifically, out of 68 major IT investments in

development, 47 were meeting cost and schedule commitments. The remaining 

21—which total about $1 billion in spending—had one or more subsidiary 

projects that were not meeting cost and/or schedule commitments (i.e., they 

exceeded their goals by at least 10 percent, which is the level at which the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) considers projects to be at increased risk of 

not being able to deliver planned capabilities on time and within budget.) 

The primary causes for the cost and schedule shortfalls were (in descending 

order of frequency): 

• inaccurate preliminary cost and schedule estimates, 

• technology issues in the development phase,

• changes in agency priorities, 

• lack of understanding of user requirements, and

• dependencies on other investments that had schedule shortfalls. 

Eight investments had inaccurate cost and schedule estimates. For example, 

DHS’s Critical Infrastructure Technology investment had a project where actual 

costs were about 16 percent over the estimated cost, due in part to project staff 

not fully validating cost estimates before proceeding with the project. In addition, 

six investments had technical issues in the development phase that caused cost 

or schedule slippages. For example, DHS’s Land Border Integration investment 

had problems with wireless interference at certain sites during deployment of 

handheld devices used for scanning license plates, which caused a project to be 

about 2.5 months late. In past work on DHS investments, GAO has identified 

some of the causes of DHS’s shortfalls and made recommendations to 

strengthen management in these areas (e.g., cost estimating, requirements), and 

DHS has initiated efforts to implement the recommendations. 

DHS often did not adequately address shortfalls and their causes. GAO’s 

investment management framework calls for agencies to develop and document 

corrective efforts to address underperforming investments. DHS policy requires

documented corrective efforts when investments experience cost or schedule 

variances. Although 12 of the 21 investments with shortfalls had defined and 

documented corrective efforts, the remaining 9 did not. Officials responsible for 3 

of the 9 investments said they took corrective efforts but were unable to provide 

plans or any other related documentation showing such action had been taken. 

Officials for the other 6 investments cited criteria in DHS’s policy that excluded 

their investments from the requirement to document corrective efforts. This 

practice is inconsistent with the direction of OMB guidance and related best 

practices that stress developing and documenting corrective efforts to address 

problems in such circumstances. Until DHS addresses its guidance shortcomings 

and ensures each of these underperforming investments has defined and 

documented corrective efforts, these investments are at risk of continued cost 

and schedule shortfalls. View GAO-12-904. For more information, 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Letter 1 

Background 3

DHS Meeting Cost and Schedule Commitments for Most Major IT 

Investments 10

Causes of Investment Cost and Schedule Shortfalls Vary 13

About Half of DHS’s Investments with Shortfalls Do Not Have WellDeveloped Corrective Efforts 19

Conclusions 23

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 25

Appendix II List of DHS Major IT Investments that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments 28

Appendix III List of DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

35

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 42

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables

Table 1: DHS’s Principal Component Organizations and their 

Missions 5

Table 2: DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and Schedule 

Shortfalls (dollars in millions) 10

Table 3: Primary Causes of Shortfalls Experienced by Major DHS 

IT Investments (in descending order of frequency) 13

Table 4: Extent to Which DHS Had Developed and Documented 

Corrective Efforts for Investment Shortfalls 19

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Table 5: DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects and 

Planned Project Costs (in millions) 28

Table 6: List of DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and/or 

Schedule Shortfalls and Subsidiary Projects (cost in 

millions) 35

Figure

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure 4

Abbreviations

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CIO chief information officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IT information technology 

NPPD National Protection and Programs Directorate 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

SBInet Secure Border Network

TSA Transportation Security Administration

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USSS U.S. Secret Service

US-VISIT United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 

 Technology

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 26, 2012

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul

Chairman

The Honorable William R. Keating

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

As part of its mission to protect the homeland, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for 22 agencies and offices with 

related missions and for the development and management of the 

information technology (IT) investments and systems used by those 

organizations. For its approximately 363 ongoing IT investments for fiscal 

year 2012, DHS plans to spend about $5.6 billion. Of these 363 

investments, 68 are under development and are classified by DHS as a 

“major” investment1

Given the size and significance of these investments, you asked us to 

determine the (1) extent to which DHS IT investments are meeting their 

cost and schedule commitments, (2) primary causes of any commitment 

shortfalls, and (3) adequacy of DHS’s efforts to address these shortfalls 

and their associated causes. In addition to this report, we have also 

that requires special management attention because 

of its importance to DHS’s mission. 

 

1 DHS defines a major IT Investment as one whose cost is $50 million or more.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

recently issued a report focused on the management and performance of 

DHS’s major acquisitions.2

To address these objectives, we analyzed how each of these 68 major 

investments was performing against its cost and schedules commitments3

as reported by the department to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) as of March 2012. In doing this, we identified investments that had 

one or more projects exceeding 10 percent of their cost and schedule 

commitments. We focused on these investments and on their subsidiary 

projects4

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September

2012 in accordance with 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 on our audit objectives. Further 

because they are under development and because OMB 

considers them to be at an increased level of risk of not being able to 

deliver promised capabilities on time and within budget, and thus they 

require special attention from management. For each of these 

investments and associated projects experiencing such shortfalls, we 

reviewed project plans and related documentation and interviewed 

responsible DHS officials to identify the primary cause(s) for the shortfalls 

and whether any corrective efforts had been developed and documented 

to address the shortfalls. We also compared the corrective efforts to 

applicable criteria to assess their adequacy. 

 

2 In that report—entitled GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Requires More Disciplined 

Investment Management to Help Meet Mission Needs, GAO-12-833 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 18, 2012)—we assessed the extent to which (1) DHS’s major acquisition programs 

face challenges that increase the risk of poor outcomes; (2) DHS has policies and 

processes in place to effectively manage individual acquisition programs; (3) DHS has 

policies and processes in place to effectively manage its portfolio of acquisition programs 

as a whole; and (4) DHS has taken actions to address the high-risk acquisition 

management issues we have identified in previous reports. The report focused on, among 

other things, the extent to which major acquisitions were achieving their cost, schedule, 

and capability objectives and whether the department had policies in place to effectively 

manage these acquisition programs.

3 Commitments are cost and schedule goals or targets that the department defined for the 

investment in its investment planning and approval documents, such as cost and schedule 

baselines.

4 Major IT investments—which are typically multiyear efforts— are made up of one or 

more subsidiary projects. A project is a temporary effort (e.g., 9 months) to accomplish a 

unique product or service such as adding enhancements to a system. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are included in 

appendix I. 

DHS’s mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure America by 

preventing and deterring terrorist attacks and protecting against and 

responding to threats and hazards to the nation. DHS is also responsible 

for ensuring that the nation’s borders are safe and secure, that they 

welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and that they promote the free 

flow of commerce.

Created in 2002, DHS assumed control of about 209,000 civilian and 

military positions from 22 agencies and offices that specialize in one or 

more aspects of homeland security. The purpose behind the merger was 

to improve coordination, communication, and information sharing among 

these multiple federal agencies. Figure 1 shows DHS’s organizational 

structure and table 1 identifies DHS’s principal organizations and 

describes their missions.

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure
 

Page 5 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Table 1: DHS’s Principal Component Organizations and their Missions

Principal organizations Mission a

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) 

Protects the nation’s borders to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the 

United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Protects the nation by detecting and reporting unauthorized attempts to import, possess, 

store, develop, or transport nuclear or radiological material for use against the nation. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) 

Prepares the nation for hazards, manages federal response and recovery efforts 

following any national incident, and administers the National Flood Insurance Program. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) 

Protects the nation’s borders by identifying and limiting vulnerabilities in the nation’s 

border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security. 

Intelligence and Analysis Works closely with DHS components, as well as state, local, and tribal entities, to fuse 

nontraditional and traditional intelligence information streams into national threat 

assessments, and disseminates the resulting information to DHS and external homeland 

security customers. 

Management Directorate Oversees department budgets and appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and 

finance, procurement, human resources, IT, facilities and equipment, and identifies and 

tracks performance measurements. Includes the Offices of the Chief Information Officer, 

Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer. 

National Protection and Programs 

Directorate (NPPD)

Works with state, local, and private sector partners to identify threats, determine 

vulnerabilities, and target resources where risk is greatest to safeguard the nation’s 

critical physical and cyber infrastructures. 

Office of Health Affairs Protects the nation against biohazards through coordinated efforts with all levels of 

government and the private sector to develop and support a scientifically rigorous, 

intelligence-based biodefense and health preparedness architecture. 

Office of Operations and Coordination 

Planning

Monitors the security of the United States and coordinates activities within the department 

and with governors, homeland security advisors, law enforcement partners, and critical 

infrastructure operators in all 50 states and more than 50 major urban areas nationwide.

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) 

Protects the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people 

and commerce.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) 

Administers immigration and naturalization adjudication functions and establishes 

immigration services policies and priorities.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests in the nation’s ports 

and waterways, along the coast, in international waters, and in any maritime region as 

required to support national security. 

U.S. Secret Service (USSS) Protects the President and other high-level officials and investigates counterfeiting and 

other financial crimes, including financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; 

and computer-based attacks on our nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications 

infrastructure. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

a 

Within the department’s Management Directorate, headed by the Under 

Secretary for Management, is the Office of the Chief Information Officer 

This table does not show the organizations that fall under each of the directorates. It also does not 

show all organizations that report directly to the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary, such as 

executive secretary, legislative and intergovernmental affairs, public affairs, chief of staff, inspector 

general, and general counsel.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

(CIO). The CIO’s responsibilities include setting departmental IT policies, 

processes, and standards, and ensuring that IT acquisitions comply with 

DHS IT management processes, technical requirements, and approved 

enterprise architecture, among other things. Additionally, the CIO chairs 

DHS’s Chief Information Officer Council (CIO Council), which is 

responsible for ensuring the development of IT resource management 

policies, processes, best practices, performance measures, and decision 

criteria for managing the delivery of IT services and investments, while 

controlling costs and mitigating risks. 

DHS spends billions of dollars each year on IT investments to perform 

both mission-critical and support functions that frequently must be 

coordinated among components, as well as among external entities. Of 

the $5.6 billion that DHS plans to spend on 363 IT-related investments in 

fiscal year 2012, $4.4 billion is planned for the 83 the agency considers to 

be a major investment; namely, costly, complex, and/or mission critical.

Of these 83 major IT investments, 68 are under development and have 

planned fiscal year 2012 costs of approximately $4 billion. Examples of 

major investments under development that are being undertaken by DHS 

and its components include:

• U. S. Customs and Border Protection—Automated Commercial 

Environment/International Trade Data System will incrementally 

replace existing cargo processing technology systems with a single 

system for land, air, rail, and sea cargo and serve as the central data 

collection system for federal agencies needing access to international 

trade data in a secure, paper-free, web-enabled environment.

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement —TECS Modernization is 

to replace the legacy mainframe system developed by the U.S. 

Customs Service in the 1980s to support its inspections and 

investigations. Following the creation of DHS, those activities were 

assigned to CBP and ICE, respectively. CBP and ICE are now 

working to modernize their respective portions of the system in a 

coordinated effort with separate funding and schedules. ICE’s portion 

of the investment will include modernizing the investigative case 

management and related support modules of the legacy system.

• National Protection and Programs Directorate—National 

Cybersecurity Protection System, also referred to as EINSTEIN, is 

an integrated system that includes intrusion detection, analytics, 

intrusion prevention, and information sharing capabilities that are used 

DHS IT Investments 

Support Its Mission
 

Page 7 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

to defend the federal executive branch civilian agencies’ IT 

infrastructure from cyber threats. It consists of the hardware, software, 

supporting processes, training, and services that are being developed 

and acquired to support DHS’s mission requirements. 

The success of major IT investments are judged by, among other things, 

the extent to which they deliver promised system capabilities and mission 

benefits on time and within cost. Consequently, our best practices 

research and extensive experience at federal agencies, as well as OMB 

guidance, stress the importance of federal IT investments meeting cost 

and schedule milestones. 

GAO’s Information Technology Investment Management guidance5

OMB plays a key role in helping federal agencies manage their 

investments by working with them to better plan, justify, and determine 

how much they need to spend on projects and how to manage their 

approved projects. In December 2010, OMB issued its 25 Point 

Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management,

highlights the need to regularly determine each IT project’s progress 

toward cost and schedule milestones using established criteria and calls 

for corrective efforts when milestones are not being met. The guidance 

also calls for such corrective efforts to be defined and documented. 

6 a plan to change IT management throughout the federal 

government by strengthening the role of investment review boards to 

enable them to more adequately manage agency IT portfolios, redefining 

the role of agency CIOs and the Federal CIO Council7

 

5 GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity, 

to focus on 

portfolio management, and implementing face-to-face reviews to identify 

IT investments that are experiencing performance problems and to select 

GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).

6 Office of Management and Budget, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal 

Information Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010).

7 The CIO Council is comprised of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs of 28 agencies and is 

chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management. It is the principal interagency forum 

for improving agency practices related to the design, acquisition, development, 

modernization, use, sharing, and performance of federal information resources and is 

responsible for developing recommendations for overall federal IT management policy, 

sharing best practices, including the development of performance measures, and 

identifying opportunities and sponsoring cooperation in using information resources.

Best Practices and OMB 

Guidance Stress 

Importance of Keeping IT 

Investments within Cost 

and on Schedule
 

Page 8 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

them for a TechStat session—a review of selected IT investments 

between OMB and agency leadership that is led by the Federal CIO. 

In addition, OMB provides agencies with tools to measure how effectively 

investments are meeting established cost and schedule parameters. 

Specifically, OMB requires federal agencies to provide information on 

their IT investments as a part of their yearly budget submissions, and to 

do so using an exhibit 53, in which they list all of their IT investments and 

their associated costs, and an exhibit 300, also called the Capital Asset 

Plan and Business Case, which includes an investment’s cost and 

schedule commitments. 

Further, in June 2009, OMB deployed the IT Dashboard, a website that 

displays near real-time information on, among other things, the cost and 

schedule performance of all of an agency’s major IT investments. The IT 

Dashboard provides, among other things, a cost and schedule 

performance rating for each major IT investment’s subsidiary project. 

These ratings are based on the extent to which the project is meeting its 

cost and schedule commitments. For example, projects experiencing a 10 

percent or greater cost and/or schedule variance are considered to be at 

an elevated risk of not delivering promised capabilities on time and within 

budget, and, as such, require management attention.

We have previously reported on the cost and schedule challenges 

associated with major DHS IT investments, such as those with CBP’s 

Secure Border Network (SBInet) and NPPD’s United States Visitor and 

Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). For example, in 2007 

we reported that the Secure Border Network had experienced significant 

cost and schedule shortfalls due, in part, to the project not having fully 

defined activities. In addition, in May 2010, we reported that continued 

delays to the investment were likely because, among other things, it had 

not developed a reliable integrated master schedule and the schedule did 

not adequately capture all necessary activities.8

 

8 GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better Support 

Oversight and Accountability, 

In these reports, we 

made recommendations to strengthen the program weaknesses to keep 

the investment on schedule and within cost. 

GAO-07-309 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2007) and Secure 

Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed Investment in Key Technology 

Program, GAO-10-340 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010).

Prior GAO Reports 

Highlighted Cost and 

Schedule Shortfalls of 

Major DHS Investments 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

With regard to the US-VISIT investment, we noted in a November 2009 

report that officials had not adopted an integrated approach to scheduling, 

executing, and tracking the work that needed to be accomplished to 

deliver the Comprehensive Exit project to more than 300 ports of entry on 

schedule and within cost.9

Further, in 2011, as a part of our High Risk series,

Accordingly, we recommended that DHS 

strengthen management of the project by ensuring that it develop and 

maintain integrated scheduling plans in accordance with applicable key 

practices; DHS concurred with the recommendations. 

10

Most recently, we reported

we reported that, 

because of acquisition weaknesses, major investments, such as the 

recently canceled SBInet, continued to be challenged in meeting 

capability, benefit, cost, and schedule expectations. Based on our prior 

work, we identified and provided to DHS key actions and outcomes 

critical to addressing this and other challenges. 

11 in July 2012 that DHS was making progress 

in developing and implementing a new IT governance process. We found 

that DHS had developed a new governance framework and that the 

associated policies and procedures were generally consistent with recent 

OMB guidance and with best practices for managing projects and 

portfolios identified in GAO’s Information Technology Investment 

Management framework; however, the agency had not yet finalized most 

policies and procedures and was not fully using best practices for the 

implementation. Accordingly, we made recommendations to DHS to, 

among other things, strengthen its new governance process and related 

IT management capabilities; the agency agreed to implement the 

recommendations. 

 

9 GAO, Homeland Security: Key US-VISIT Components at Varying Stages of Completion, 

but Integrated and Reliable Schedule Needed, GAO-10-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 

2009).

10 GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

11 GAO, Information Technology: DHS Needs to Further Define and Implement Its New 

Governance Process, GAO-12-818 (Washington, D.C.: July 2012).
 

Page 10 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

As discussed previously, our best practices research and experience at 

federal agencies as well as OMB guidance stress the importance of 

investments meeting their cost and schedule commitments. OMB requires 

agencies to report to the IT Dashboard information on the cost and 

schedule performance of all their major IT investments. 

Our analysis of the cost and schedule performance for DHS’s 68 major IT 

investments shows that approximately two-thirds of these investments 

and their subsidiary projects were meeting cost and schedule 

commitments; the remaining one-third had at least one subsidiary project 

that was not meeting its commitments. Specifically, out of the 68 major 

investments under development, 47 were meeting their cost and schedule 

commitments. (See app. II for a listing of the 47 investments and 

subsidiary projects that are meeting their commitments.) The remaining 

21 investments had one or more subsidiary projects that were not 

meeting cost and/or schedule commitments; the total planned cost for all 

projects in development for the 21 investments is approximately $1 billion. 

Table 2 lists the investments experiencing cost and/or schedule shortfalls, 

and the total planned project cost for each investment. A list of the 

investments and their subsidiary projects experiencing cost and/or 

schedule shortfalls is included in appendix III. 

Table 2: DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and Schedule Shortfalls (dollars in millions)

Component Investment

One or more 

projects with a 

cost shortfall

One or more

projects with a 

schedule shortfall

One or more projects 

with a cost and 

schedule shortfall

Total planned 

project cost

DHS Meeting Cost 

and Schedule 

Commitments for 

Most Major IT 

Investments 

a
 

Page 11 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment

One or more 

projects with a 

cost shortfall

One or more

projects with a 

schedule shortfall

One or more projects 

with a cost and 

schedule shortfall

Total planned 

project cost

CBP

a

Automated Commercial 

Environment/International 

Trade Data System

 $124.26

Land Border Integration  20.9

Non-intrusive Inspection 

Systems Program

 332.3

Northern Border, Remote 

Video Surveillance System

 8.2

TECS Modernization  43.03

DHS

Office of the 

Chief Information

Officer

Human Resources IT  8.52

FEMA

Disaster Assistance 

Improvement Plan

   50.5

ICE

Detention and Removal 

Operations Modernization

 8.62

NPPD 

Critical Infrastructure 

Technology and Architecture

 20.55

Infrastructure Security 

Compliance-Chemical 

Security Assessment Tool

 72.76

National Cybersecurity 

Protection System

 262.6

Next Generation Networks 

Priority Services

 63.06

US-VISIT: Arrival and 

Departure Information 

System

 7.18

US-VISIT: Automated 

Biometric Identification 

System

 33.24

TSA

Air Cargo Security    4.09

Federal Air Marshal Service 

Mission Scheduling and 

Notification System

 5.43
 

Page 12 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment

One or more 

projects with a 

cost shortfall

One or more

projects with a 

schedule shortfall

One or more projects 

with a cost and 

schedule shortfall

Total planned 

project cost

Hazmat Threat Assessment 

Program 

a

 4.09

Security Technology 

Integrated Program

 27.99

USCG

CG Business Intelligence  .86

Naturalization: CLAIMS 4  2.36

USSS 

Information Integration and 

Technology Transformation



43.61

TOTAL 21 5 18 2 $1,144.14

Source: GAO analysis of OMB’s federal IT Dashboard data.

b

a These are the total planned costs of all investment projects in development as of March 8, 2012.

b 

Of the 21 investments with a shortfall, 5 had one or more subsidiary 

project with a cost shortfall, 18 had one or more project with a schedule 

shortfall, and 2 had a project with both a cost and schedule shortfall. 

These shortfalls potentially impact the total cost of investments and can 

delay the implementation of key systems. For example:

Differences in total are rounded off.

• TSA’s Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and 

Notification System: project to modernize the core scheduling 

software component of the system, which, among other things, 

determines the allocation of federal air marshals to flights and 

coordinates and communicates mission assignments, was delayed.

 

• NPPD’s Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture 

investment: project to develop an information-sharing application to be 

used by federal, state, and local stakeholders to increase their 

capability to combat terrorist use of improvised explosive devices had 

cost overruns of approximately 16 percent ($296,000). 

• CBP’s Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System 

investment: project to incorporate IT Security improvements to the 

remote video surveillance systems in Buffalo, New York, and Detroit, 

Michigan, was delayed by approximately 2 months. 

• FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan: a subsidiary 

project—site usability enhancements—that included enhancements to 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

the DisasterAssistance.gov website to improve usability by making it 

easier and more intuitive for users to apply for and find information 

about disaster assistance from federal, state, local, tribal, and private 

nonprofit organizations was delayed.

The primary causes of the shortfalls in cost and schedule associated with 

DHS’s 21 major IT investments were (in descending order of frequency): 

inaccurate preliminary cost and schedule estimates, technical issues in 

the development phase, changes in agency priorities, lack of 

understanding of user requirements, and dependencies on other 

investments that had schedule shortfalls. A summary of these causes by 

investment and the associated component are shown in table 3 and are 

followed by (1) our analysis of these causes by category and (2) 

discussion of our past work on the department’s major investments and 

related IT management processes where we identified some of these 

same causes and made recommendations to strengthen management in 

these areas. 

Table 3: Primary Causes of Shortfalls Experienced by Major DHS IT Investments (in descending order of frequency) 

Causes

Inaccurate 

preliminary 

cost/schedule 

estimates

Technical 

issues in 

development 

phase

Changes 

in agency 

priorities

Lack of 

understanding 

of user 

requirements

Dependencies 

on other 

investments

Other

causes

Component Investment 

CBP Automated Commercial 

Environment / 

International Trade Data 

System 



Land Border Integration 

Non-Intrusive Inspection 

Systems Program



Northern Border, Remote 

Video Surveillance 

System



TECS Modernization 

DHS Office 

of the Chief 

Information

Officer

Human Resources IT 

FEMA Disaster Assistance 

Improvement Plan

  

ICE Detention and Removal 

Operations Modernization

 

Causes of Investment 

Cost and Schedule 

Shortfalls Vary
 

Page 14 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Causes

Inaccurate 

preliminary 

cost/schedule 

estimates

Technical 

issues in 

development 

phase

Changes 

in agency 

priorities

Lack of 

understanding 

of user 

requirements

Dependencies 

on other 

investments

Other

causes

NPPD Critical Infrastructure 

Technology and 

Architecture 



Infrastructure Security 

Compliance: Chemical 

Security Assessment Tool



National Cybersecurity 

Protection System 



Next Generation 

Networks Priority Services

 

US-VISIT: Arrival and 

Departure Information 

System 



US-VISIT: Automated 

Biometric Identification 

System



TSA Air Cargo Security  

Federal Air Marshal 

Service Mission 

Scheduling and 

Notification System



Hazmat Threat 

Assessment Program



Security Technology 

Integrated Program



USCG CG Business Intelligence 

USCIS Naturalization-CLAIMS 4 

USSS Information Integration 

and Technology 

Transformation



Totals 8 6 4 3 3 2 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Specifically, our analysis of these causes by category showed:

Inaccurate preliminary cost and schedule estimates: Inaccurate cost 

and schedule estimates in eight investments resulted in significant cost 

and schedule increases. For example:

• Preliminary schedule estimates for a project under CBP’s NonIntrusive Inspection Systems Program investment—which supports 

the detection and prevention of contraband from entering the 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

country—were inaccurate due to underestimating the time needed to 

complete a key task. Specifically, project officials did not accurately 

estimate how long it would take to complete an environmental 

assessment because they did not consider all requirements in their 

initial planning, thus resulting in a schedule delay of approximately 2 

months. 

• The NPPD investment called Critical Infrastructure Technology and 

Architecture had a project—integral to developing an information 

sharing application to be used by federal, state, and local 

stakeholders to increase their capability to combat terrorist use of 

improvised explosive devices—where actual costs for completing 

critical tasks were about 16 percent over the cost estimated at project 

initiation. According to investment officials, this was due in part to 

project staff developing the cost estimates very quickly and not fully 

validating them before proceeding with the project. 

• TSA’s Hazmat Threat Assessment Program (which performs a threat 

assessment on commercial truck drivers who transport hazardous 

materials to determine the threat status to transportation security) had 

a schedule shortfall with a project, because, in part, the time needed 

to modify a contract was not accurately estimated, which led to a 

schedule delay of nearly 3 months. 

Technology issues in the development phase: Technical issues in the 

development phase caused cost or schedule slippages in six 

investments. Examples include:

• Changes made to one part of ICE’s Detention and Removal 

Operations Modernization investment, which is designed to upgrade 

IT capabilities to support efficient detention and removal of non-U.S. 

citizens, created a cascading effect, leading to changes to other parts 

of the system and contributed to delays of more than a month. 

• Issues in establishing a testing and development environment that 

matched the production environment delayed project testing in several 

projects under FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan 

investment (which is to ease the burden on disaster survivors by 

providing them with a mechanism to access and apply for disaster 

assistance).

• Technical complications during deployment caused the schedule to 

slip by 79 days on a project under CBP’s Land Border Integration 

investment, which assists with the processing of inbound and 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

outbound travel at border patrol checkpoints nationwide. Specifically, 

the handheld devices used for scanning license plates used a 

wireless spectrum that had interference problems at certain sites, and 

resolving this issue took more time than had been planned for. 

Changes in agency priorities: Four investments experienced cost and 

schedule slippages due to changing priorities at the agency level. In 

particular, 

• The schedules were delayed for two NPPD US-VISIT investments: 

the Arrival and Departure Information System, which collects arrival 

and departure information on non-U.S. citizens traveling to the United 

States as well as current immigration status updates for each traveler, 

and the Automated Biometric Identification System, a fingerprint 

repository and biometric-matching system. Delays were due to a 

management decision to focus on accelerating the development of 

other investments or projects, which took resources (i.e., personnel) 

away from the investment. Consequently, the Arrival and Departure 

Information System’s fiscal year 2011 maintenance release project 

was delayed approximately 3 months, and the Automated Biometric 

Identification System’s fiscal year 2011 product support project was 

delayed by approximately 7 months. 

• A critical subsidiary project to deliver predictive analytical capabilities 

under USCG’s Business Intelligence investment, which is designed to 

reduce organizational uncertainty and risk in decision making, had a 

schedule delay of approximately 3 months due to changing priorities. 

Project officials said that Coast Guard management directed 

resources to other projects with a higher priority, thus limiting the 

ability to work on the predictive analytics capability project.

Lack of understanding user requirements: Three investments had 

slippages resulting from misunderstanding or inadequately developed

user requirements and expectations. 

• A project under USCIS’s Claims 4 investment, which is a processing 

system for the adjudication of naturalization applications, was delayed 

by 2 weeks because inadequate user requirements led to a design 

flaw that required additional time to address. 

• Customer priorities and expectations for ICE’s Detention and Removal 

Operations Modernization investment changed over time, which 

contributed to schedule delays of more than a month. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

• The schedule for a CBP TECS Modernization investment project, 

which supports the screening of travelers entering the United States, 

was delayed due to users requesting that the application in 

development interface with a separate system. The project was 

delayed by 3 months while program officials developed new 

requirements.

Dependencies on other component’s investments that had schedule 

shortfalls: Investments also encountered schedule slippages when

interdependent investments encountered delays. For example: 

• USSS’s Information Integration and Technology Transformation 

investment to provide advanced security measures to electronically 

send, receive, and track access to USSS’s unclassified and classified 

information was delayed approximately 6 months due to a 

component’s project being delayed. 

• Costs for a project under FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Improvement 

Plan investment rose approximately 27 percent ($210,000) due, in 

part, to the delayed deployment of another investment.

Other causes of cost and schedule slippages that were cited by 

department officials included delays in receiving funding and gaps in 

leadership due to key management turnover. Specifically, 

• The schedule for three projects under TSA’s Federal Air Marshal 

Service Mission Scheduling and Notification investment was delayed 

due to delays in receiving full funding. DHS had provided the 

investment with partial funding, and thus investment officials produced 

an investment plan based on that funding level; when full funding was 

subsequently restored, the plan had to be updated, which resulted in 

delays. 

• The costs for a key subsidiary project of NPPD’s Infrastructure 

Security Compliance, Chemical Security Assessment Tool, which is to 

provide for the electronic submission of chemical facility data and

controlled use of such data, rose approximately 20 percent ($719,000) 

due, in part, to multiple director-level program changes, which led to 

corresponding changes in the investment’s vision and direction.

In our past work on DHS’s investments and related IT management 

processes, we have identified some of these same causes and made 

recommendations to strengthen management in these areas. For 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

example, with regard to cost estimating, we reported that forming a 

reliable estimate of costs provides a sound basis for measuring against 

actual cost performance and that the lack of such a basis contributes to 

variances.12 To help agencies establish such a capability, we issued a 

guide in March 2009 that was based on the practices of leading 

organizations.13 In a July 2012 report examining how well DHS is 

implementing these practices, we reported that the department had 

weaknesses in cost estimating.14

We have also reported

Accordingly, we made 

recommendations to DHS to strengthen its cost estimating capabilities, 

and the department has plans and efforts under way to implement our 

recommendations.

15 that developing sufficient requirements is key to 

effectively delivering systems on time and within budget and that DHS 

has experienced project delays and cost overruns resulting from initial 

requirements not being defined properly. To address this challenge, DHS 

has begun, as part of defining and implementing a new IT governance 

process, to establish centers of excellence to provide investment officials 

with expert assistance in requirements development and other essential 

IT management disciplines.16 However, we also reported that DHS had 

yet to fully define and implement these initiatives; accordingly, we made 

recommendations to do so, and the agency agreed to implement the 

recommendations and has efforts planned and under way to complete 

implementation by September 2013. 

 

12 GAO, Information Technology Cost Estimation: Agencies Need to Address Significant 

Weaknesses in Policies and Practices, GAO-12-629 (Washington, D.C.: July 2012).

13 GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).

14 GAO-12-629. 

15 GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex 

Acquisitions, GAO-10-588SP (Washington, D.C.: June 2010).

16 GAO-12-818. 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

A variety of best practices exist to guide the successful acquisition of IT 

investments, including how to develop and document corrective actions 

for projects experiencing cost and schedule shortfalls. In particular, 

GAO’s Information Technology Investment Management framework calls 

for agencies to develop and document corrective efforts for 

underperforming projects. It also states that agencies are to ensure that, 

as projects develop and costs rise, the project continues to meet mission 

needs at the expected levels of cost and risk; if projects are not meeting 

expectations or if problems have arisen, agencies are to quickly take 

steps to address the deficiencies. In addition, DHS policy17

DHS developed and documented corrective efforts for 12 of the 21 major 

investments with a shortfall, but the remaining 9 did not have documented 

corrective efforts. Table 4 depicts the investments with shortfalls and 

whether corrective efforts had been developed and documented.

requires 

corrective actions when cost or schedule variances exceed 8 percent. 

Table 4: Extent to Which DHS Had Developed and Documented Corrective Efforts for Investment Shortfalls

Adequately developed and 

documented corrective efforts?

Yes No

Component Investment 

CBP Automated Commercial Environment / International Trade Data System 

Land Border Integration 

Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program 

Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System 

TECS Modernization 

DHS 

Office of the Chief Information

Officer

Human Resources IT 

FEMA Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan 

ICE Detention and Removal Operations Modernization 

NPPD Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture 

Infrastructure Security Compliance: Chemical Security Assessment Tool 

National Cybersecurity Protection System 

 

17 Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Management Directive, Directive 

Number 102-01 (Jan. 20, 2010) and Department of Homeland Security, Capital Planning 

and Investment Control Guide, version 7.2 (October 2011).

About Half of DHS’s 

Investments with 

Shortfalls Do Not 

Have Well-Developed 

Corrective Efforts 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Next Generation Networks Priority Services 

US-VISIT: Arrival and Departure Information System 

US-VISIT: Automated Biometric Identification System 

TSA Air Cargo Security 

Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and Notification System 

Hazmat Threat Assessment Program 

Security Technology Integrated Program 

USCG Coast Guard Business Intelligence 

USCIS Naturalization-CLAIMS 4 

USSS Information Integration and Technology Transformation 

Total 12 9 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

DHS took corrective actions to address investment shortfalls in 12 

investments. Actions for the 12 included:

• CBP: Automated Commercial Environment /International Trade Data 

System had schedule shortfalls due to an inadequate testing and 

development environment; they were resolved by leveraging CBP’s

disaster recovery site to perform the testing.

• CBP: Land Border Integration investment schedule delays due to 

technical complications were resolved through the use of risk 

management processes (e.g., identification, assessment, tracking, 

and mitigation of risks) identified in the investment’s July 2011 risk 

management plan, which addressed the cause of the investment 

shortfalls. 

• CBP: Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program, which had schedule 

shortfalls due to inaccurate estimates, tracked the project status and 

risks via project health status reports and other mitigation strategies.

• CBP: The Remote Video Surveillance System investment officials 

developed and documented an investment rebaseline to address the 

investment’s schedule shortfall, which was due to an inaccurate initial 

project schedule estimate.

• CBP: The TECS Modernization investment—which had schedule 

shortfalls due to system development being delayed due to questions 

about whether planned enhancements duplicated functions performed 

by another agency system—program officials briefed key 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

management on the differences between the system functions and 

development was allowed to continue. 

• FEMA: Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan cost and schedule 

shortfalls were due to, among other things, dependencies on other 

investments. DHS developed a remediation plan for each shortfall to 

limit the negative impact.

• ICE: Detention and Removal Operations Modernization investment 

schedule shortfalls were due in part to a lack of understanding of user 

requirements; to address these issues, investment officials worked 

with key stakeholders to engage users to more thoroughly identify 

user requirements.

• NPPD: Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture 

investment’s cost shortfalls, which were due to inaccurate initial cost 

estimates, were resolved by investment officials through several 

corrective efforts, including completing the project’s life cycle cost 

estimate.

• NPPD: Infrastructure Security Compliance, Chemical Security 

Assessment Tool investment schedule was delayed due to multiple 

changes in leadership and in the investment’s direction. Project 

officials developed and documented an investment rebaseline, which 

was approved in February 2012. It was intended to, among other 

things, develop a more accurate schedule.

• TSA: The Hazmat Threat Assessment Program investment schedule 

was delayed because the time needed to adjust a contract had not 

been accurately estimated. In response, investment officials 

documented an investment rebaseline, which was approved in March 

2012. 

• TSA: The Security Technology Integrated Program investment had 

schedule shortfalls from inaccurate estimates of the time needed to 

revise a contract. To resolve these issues, officials developed and 

documented an initiative to improve methods used to identify and 

track risks and resolve the schedule shortfalls. This effort is intended 

to help the investment avoid additional schedule changes. 

• USSS: The Information Integration and Technology Transformation 

investment had one project with schedule shortfalls due to 

dependencies on another component’s investment that had schedule 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

slippages; issues were addressed by following the mitigation actions 

detailed in the investment’s risk management plan. 

With regard to the remaining nine investments, three were unable to 

provide us with documentation, even though project officials stated that 

they had developed some corrective efforts, and six did not engage in 

corrective efforts to address shortfalls. Of the three investments, officials 

from TSA’s Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and 

Notification System investment, for example, reported that they had 

addressed the project’s schedule shortfall—which was due, in part, to a 

support contractor not having adequate staffing—by performing the work 

within the agency instead of relying on the contractor. Further, according 

to TSA officials, the cost and schedule shortfalls on the Air Cargo Security 

investment, which were due to technical complications and dependencies 

on other investments, were addressed by establishing a new cost and 

schedule baseline. Nonetheless, this lack of documentation is 

inconsistent with the direction of DHS’s guidance and related best 

practices, and it shows a lack of process discipline and attention to key 

details, which raises concern about the thoroughness of corrective efforts. 

Of the six investments without any corrective efforts, officials from these 

investments (namely, the Office of the Chief Information Officer’s Human 

Resources IT investment, NPPD’s US-VISIT Automated Biometric 

Identification System and Arrival and Departure Information System 

investments, USCG’s Business Intelligence investment, NPPD’s National 

Cybersecurity Protection System, and USCIS’s Claims 4 investment), 

stated that they did not develop and document corrective efforts because 

they believed DHS’s guidance does not call for it in their circumstances. 

Specifically, the officials said that although DHS’s guidance18

The impact of this is that multiple projects can continue to experience 

shortfalls—which increases the risk that investments will experience 

serious lifecycle cost and schedule variances—without having to develop 

calls for 

corrective actions to be developed and documented when an investment 

or its projects experiences a life cycle cost or schedule variance of 8 

percent or greater, the variances on their project activities thus far were 

not large enough to constitute such a life cycle variance. 

 

18 Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Management Directive, Directive 

Number 102-01 (Jan. 20, 2010) and Department of Homeland Security, Capital Planning 

and Investment Control Guide, version 7.2 (October 2011).
 

Page 23 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

and document corrective actions and thus alert top management about 

potential problems and associated risks. This is inconsistent with the 

direction of OMB, which requires agencies to report (via the IT 

Dashboard) on the cost and schedule performance of their projects and 

considers those projects with a 10 percent or greater variance to be at an 

increased level of risk of not being able to deliver promised capabilities on 

time and within budget, and thus they require special attention from 

management. It is also inconsistent with our best practices research and 

experience at federal agencies, which stresses that agencies report to 

management when projects are not meeting expectations or when 

problems arise and quickly develop and document corrective efforts to 

address the problems. Further, our research and work at agencies has 

shown that waiting to act until significant life cycle variances occur can 

sometimes be risky and costly, as life cycle schedules are typically for 

multiyear periods, allowing the potential for underperforming projects to 

continue to vary from their cost and schedule goals for an extended 

amount of time without any requirement for corrective efforts. 

Consequently, until these guidance shortcomings are addressed and 

each underperforming project has defined and documented corrective 

actions, the department’s major investments these projects support will 

be at an increased risk of cost and schedule shortfalls.

Most of the projects comprising DHS’s 68 major IT investments are 

meeting their cost and schedule commitments, but 21 major 

investments—integral to DHS’s mission and costing approximately $1 

billion—have projects that are experiencing significant cost and schedule 

shortfalls. These shortfalls place these investments at increased risk of 

not delivering promised capabilities on time and within budget, which, in 

turn, pose a risk to DHS’s ability to fully meet its mission of securing the 

homeland. DHS guidance does not require projects experiencing 

significant cost and schedule shortfalls to develop and document 

corrective efforts until they cause a life cycle cost and schedule variance. 

This increases risk and is contrary to effective IT investment practices. 

Given that DHS is currently establishing and implementing new IT 

governance processes, the department is positioned to address the 

guidance shortfalls. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 

appropriate officials to:

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 24 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

• Establish guidance that provides for developing corrective efforts for 

major IT investment projects that are experiencing cost and schedule 

shortfalls of 10 percent or greater, similar to those identified in this 

report.

• Ensure that major IT investment projects with shortfalls of 10 percent 

or greater have defined and documented corrective efforts. 

In its written comments signed by the Director for the Departmental GAOOIG Liaison Office and reprinted in appendix IV, DHS concurred with our 

recommendations and estimated that it would implement the first 

recommendation by September 30, 2013, and the second one 

immediately. It also commented that the department was pleased that the 

report positively acknowledged that DHS (1) is meeting cost and schedule 

commitments for most of its major IT investments and (2) has plans and 

efforts under way to improve cost estimating capabilities and implement a 

center of excellence for requirements engineering. The department also 

provided technical comments, which we have incorporated where 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

David A. Powner 

Director, Information Technology 

Management Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 25 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

The objectives of our review were to determine the (1) extent to which 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) IT investments are meeting their 

cost and schedule commitments, (2) primary causes of any commitment 

shortfalls, and (3) adequacy of DHS’s efforts to address these shortfalls 

and causes.

To address our first objective, we analyzed how each of DHS’s 68 major 

investments under development was performing against its cost and 

schedules commitments, as reported by the agency to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for inclusion on OMB’s federal IT 

Dashboard. More specifically, we analyzed the extent to which each of 

these investments had met or exceeded, as of March 2012, cost and 

schedule commitments established when the investment was initiated. In 

doing this, we identified investments that had a project exceeding 10 

percent of its cost and schedule commitments. We focused on these 

investments and their subsidiary projects because OMB considers them 

to be at an increased level of risk of not being able to deliver promised 

capabilities on time and within budget, and thus requiring special attention 

from management. 

To assess the reliability of the IT Dashboard data we analyzed, we 

corroborated the data by interviewing investment and other DHS officials 

to determine whether the information on the dashboard was consistent 

with that reported by DHS. In addition, we followed up on the status of 

implementation of previous GAO recommendations to improve the quality 

of information on OMB’s federal IT Dashboard.1

For our second objective, we used a structured interview instrument to 

survey the DHS and component officials responsible for the investments 

Specifically, we analyzed 

plans and related documentation describing efforts by DHS to increase 

the scrutiny and quality of data submitted to the IT Dashboard. As part of 

this, we also interviewed department officials including those from the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer who are responsible for reviewing 

and submitting DHS’s investment cost and schedule data to the federal IT 

Dashboard. The documentation and interviews provided us a level of 

assurance that the data we used for this engagement were, in fact, 

reliable. 

 

1 GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its Dashboard, but 

Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, GAO-11-262 

(Washington, D.C.; Mar. 15, 2011). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

experiencing cost and schedule shortfalls in order to identify the causes 

of the shortfalls. As part of surveying these officials, we analyzed project 

and related documentation to corroborate the causes reported to us via 

the survey. We then analyzed these causes for commonalities, grouped 

them accordingly, and tallied the frequency of each cause by investment. 

In addition, we compared the causes to our prior reports on major DHS 

investments and related IT management processes to identify the extent 

to which we had made recommendations to address the causes 

associated with the department’s investment cost and schedule shortfalls. 

To address our third objective, we initially identified and reviewed relevant 

criteria on developing and documenting corrective actions to address 

investment shortfalls. Specifically, these criteria included 

• DHS’s Acquisition Directive 102 (AD-102),2

• DHS’s Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide,3

• GAO’s Information Technology Investment Management guide.

and 

4

We then used a structured interview instrument to survey DHS and 

component officials responsible for those investments experiencing 

shortfalls; we used the survey to identify whether any corrective actions 

had been developed and documented to address investment shortfalls. 

We also reviewed investment planning and execution documentation 

(e.g., project plans, project status reports, program meeting minutes, and 

acquisition program baselines) to corroborate information provided by the 

officials during the survey process. We then compared these corrective 

efforts to the criteria to identify any gaps and in those cases where there 

were, we reviewed documentation and interviewed agency officials to 

assess the reason for the gaps and any negative impacts. 

 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

 

2 Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Management Directive, Directive Number 

102-01 (Jan. 20, 2010).

3 Department of Homeland Security, Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide, 

version 7.2 (October 2011).

4 GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 28 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Table 5 lists the DHS major IT investments that were meeting their cost 

and schedule commitments.

Table 5: DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects and Planned Project Costs (in millions)

Component Investment Title Project Name

Planned 

project 

costsa,b

Analysis and 

Operations

 

 

 

 

 

Common Operational Picture DHS Common Operational Picture 

Infrastructure deployment at DHS Data 

Center 2

$0.50

DHS Common Operational Picture 

enhanced functionality capabilities 0.10

Homeland Security Information Network Homeland Security Information Network 3.0 

DME 22.34

HS SLIC Consolidation 1.60

Two Factor Authentication in Legacy 0.31

CBP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advance Passenger Information System Advance Passenger Information System 3.70

Analytical Framework for Intelligence Analytical Framework for Intelligence 

System 29.35

Homeland Secure Data Network 4.29

Automated Targeting System 

Maintenance

Passenger Iteration 15.79

Cargo Iteration 17.76

Block 1 Operations Task Order 5.00

Maintenance Task Order 4.40

Infrastructure Windows 7 6.25

Integrated Fixed Towers Acquisition Planning 2.28

Construct and Deployment of Integrated 

Fixed Towers System to Nogales Areas of 

Responsibility 

Construct and Deployment of Integrated 

Fixed Towers System to Sonoita Areas of 

Responsibility 

Construct and Deployment of Integrated 

Fixed Towers System to Casa Grande Areas 

of Responsibility 

Mobile Surveillance Capabilities First Article Test of vehicles 1.45

Deployment to Arizona 

Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT 

Investments that Are Meeting Cost and 

Schedule Commitments
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 29 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment Title Project Name

Planned 

project 

costsa,b

Vehicle Maintenance 

Remote Video Surveillance Systems Remote Video Surveillance Systems 26.76

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAP SAP Budget Solution Upgrade 13.38

SAP Support Patches 1.35

Tactical Communications Modernization Houlton 60.78

El Paso 7.74

Rio Grande Valley 33.85

Digital in Place 19.50

DHS - Office of the Chief 

Information Officer

 

 

 

 

Homeland Secure Data Network State and Local Fusion Center Build Out or 

Relocation 3.22

Homeland Secure Data Network 

Enhancements 1.80

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Transformation Program Data Center 161.90

Network 21.61

Email 2.14

Wireless 3.20

FEMA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disaster Management E-Government 

Initiative

Disaster Management PMO 3.80

FEMA.gov migration to Drupal Content 

Management System 4.70

Text Messaging and Mobile Platform 1.50

RightNow CRM Integration 1.50

Web Usability and Disaster Survivor Studies 1.00

DHS Enterprise Hosting and Environment 2.69

 

 

 

 

Integrated Public Alert & Warning System Emergency Alert System Primary Entry Point 

Expansion

30.17

Emergency Alert System Primary Entry Point 

Site Modernization

7.84

Integrated Public Alert & Warning System -

OPEN Sustainment and Enhancement

1.40

Emergency Alert System Primary Entry Point 

Operation and Maintenance

3.70

 

 

 

 

Logistics Supply Chain Management Acquire Initial Operational Capability 2.16

Commercial Off The Shelf Upgrade 29.20

SOA GSS Integration 0.63

Data Center Migration 3.36
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 30 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment Title Project Name

Planned 

project 

costsa,b

 National Flood Insurance Program 

Information Technology Systems & 

Services 

SAR Remediation

2.09

ICE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Alien Identification Initiatives Alien Criminal Response Information 

Management System Modernization 7.31

Status Determination Support 5.58

Automated Threat Prioritization 11.79

DRO Electronic Health Record System eHR Acquisition & Validation Study 1.42

eHR Acquisition & Deployment 

Enforcement Information Sharing Data Pattern Information Collection System2 0.88

Law Enforcement Information Sharing 

Service 0.34

IT Infrastructure (Atlas) Data Center Services 10.50

Desktop Services 5.40

Email Services 1.56

Network Services 2.29

Single Sign-On Services 1.76

Video Services 4.50

Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System 

Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System 7.96

Student and Exchange Visitor Information 

System II 4.70

TECS Modernization Core Case Management Release 1.0 21.55

NPPD 

 

 

 

 

FPS Risk Assessment and Management 

Program 

Risk Assessment and Management Program 

Maintenance Support 3.43

FPS Modified Infrastructure Survey Tool 

Development 2.50

FPS Gateway Development and Deployment 3.35

Follow-on Assessment Tool Development 

and Deployment 

TSA 

 

 

 

 

 

Crew Vetting IBM Oasis WO#46 3.90

FAMSNet (Common Operating 

Environment)

Security Updates 0.09

Software Patches 0.09

Information Technology Infrastructure 

Program 

TSA Enterprise Integrated Test Environment 6.09

TSA Enterprise Desktop Refresh 50.04
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 31 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment Title Project Name

Planned 

project 

costsa,b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TSA Enterprise Secure Mobile Computing 3.97

TSA Enterprise IT Network Switches 12.00

Performance Management Information 

System 

Create Development Environment 0.87

Commercial Off The Shelf Maintenance 0.65

Performance Management Information 

System and PIMS Server/Application 

Migration

1.33

Performance Management Information 

System, AIM, and PIMS Software Releases

 

Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey 

Secure Flight Functional Releases 6.77

Secure Flight User Interface Releases 3.59

Report Management System Releases 3.77

Maintenance Releases BY 11 Q4 0.20

Maintenance Releases BY 12 2.45

Technology Infrastructure Modernization 

Program 

Service Oriented Architecture Foundation 16.00

Service Oriented Architecture Platform 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential 

4th Quarter Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential Maintenance

1.80

Pre-Transition and Formal Transition work 2.00

2012 Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential Maintenance

16.60

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential Reader Certification

1.10

TSA Operating Platform Enterprise Applications 0.23

Applications Development 2.21

Cloud Computing 0.06

USCG 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Logistics Management Information 

System

Asset Logistics Management Information 

System Project

8.15

C4ISR Segment 2 56.48

Prototype Segment 2 22.70

Video and Mission Processor Redesign 

FRC Information Assurance/Authority To 

Operate 1.50

National Security Cutters C4ISR Certification 

and Accreditation 5.00

National Security Cutters 3-4 Operational 

Testing Support 2.50
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 32 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment Title Project Name

Planned 

project 

costsa,b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coast Guard-LIMS Segment 1 6.88

Direct Access Direct Access Technical Refresh 7.51

Direct Access Maintenance 3.09

CG-1 PMO Support 0.77

Interagency Operations Centers Segment 1 2.04

Segment 2 3.53

Nationwide Automatic Identification 

System 

Increment 2 11.77

Maintenance Support 6.49

Ports and Waterways Safety System - IT AIS Recapitalization 1.34

INVS Recapitalization 0.32

Rescue 21 Project Management 25.49

Engineering 30.40

System Support and Maintenance 37.36

Rescue 21 Deployment 257.12

VSAT AC&I 0.63

R21 Western Rivers 5.64

R21 Alaska 9.50

Vessels 

USCIS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefits Provision - Verification 

Information System/Employment Eligibility 

Verification 

Verification Information System 2.58

Verification Information System 

Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0 CLAIMS 3 - C&A 0.67

CLAIMS MF DC Migration Deploy 0.10

CLAIMS 3 MF R.3.14 0.35

CLAIMS 3 MFAS R1.6 0.30

CLAIMS 3 FD258 0.30

CLAIMS 3 ICMS R1.18 0.27

CLAIMS 3 CRISI R 4.9 0.45

CLAIMS 3 FBASI R1.7 0.45

CLAIMS 3 BRU 

CLAIMS 3 ICMS R1.19 

CLAIMS 3 MF R3.15 

CLAIMS 3 MFAS R1.7 

CLAIMS 3 Quarterly Table Updates 1.34

CLAIMS 3 DBA Support 1.44
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 33 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment Title Project Name

Planned 

project 

costsa,b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAN R6.21 Testing & Deploy 0.03

LAN R6.22-Development 0.16

LAN R6.23 0.35

LAN R6.24 0.35

LAN R6.25 

ICMS R1.17 - Testing 0.03

FBASEI R1.6-Development 0.16

Infrastructure (Enterprise) IT Physical Plant/HVAC/Electrical 4.58

IT Data and Voice Systems (hardware 

Upgrades) 7.02

Video Upgrade Project 0.57

Windows 7 and Office 2010 0.01

Video End-of-Life 0.03

Voice End-of-Life 0.03

Application & Network Monitoring 0.01

Telework Expansion (Citrix Enterprise 

Telework Project) 0.24

Data Server Suites 0.50

Data & Voice circuits 7.05

Integrated Document Production Redesigned EAD card 0.06

Card Personalization System Technology 

Refreshment Release 1.1 0.42

Optical Card Consumables Contract 7.20

Non-Optical Card Consumables Contract 2.30

Card Personalization System Technology 

Refreshment 2.40

Card Operations Services 2.50

Transformation Core Account and Case Management 756.28

USSS 

 

 

 

 

IT Infrastructure End User Systems & Support Maintenance 

Activities 3.15

Mainframe and Servers Services & Support 

Maintenance Activities 0.12

Telecommunications Systems & Support 

Maintenance Activities 6.57

Datacenter Migration 18.00

Totals 47 $2,135.29

Source: GAO analysis of OMB’s federal IT dashboard data.

c
Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

that Are Meeting Cost and Schedule 

Commitments

Page 34 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

a This is the sum of the investment’s project costs as of March 8, 2012.

b Some projects do not have project costs, because DHS has not yet provided the costs to OMB, and 

the projects are not yet in development.

c Differences in the total are due to rounding. 
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 35 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Table 6 lists the DHS major IT investments with cost and/or schedule 

shortfalls, their costs and subsidiary projects, whether or not they had a 

cost and/or schedule shortfall, and their planned costs. 

Table 6: List of DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and/or Schedule Shortfalls and Subsidiary Projects (cost in millions)

Component Investment title

Total 

planned 

project 

costs Subsidiary projects a Cost 

shortfall 

Schedule 

shortfall 

Planned 

project costs

CBP

b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Automated Commercial 

Environment/International 

Trade Data System

$124.26 M1: e-Manifest Rail and Sea 

 $10.22 

 

 

 

 

Cargo Control and Release 

Planning/ADE 2a/2b Approval 

Phase

 

 3 

Task Order PROD 22.85

Task Order ECOM 28.14

Automated Commercial 

Environment Infrastructure 

Support

 

 60.05

2. Land Border Integration 20.89 Land Border Integration Phase 1  20.9

3. Non-intrusive Inspection 

Systems Program

332.3 Large Scale FY08 

 17.44

 

 

 

 

 

 

Large Scale ARRA 61.93

Small Scale ARRA 0.78

Large-scale FY 2010  31.41

Non-Intrusive Inspection 

Maintenance FY11

 

 58.18

Non-Intrusive Inspection 

Acquisition FY11

 

 46.45

Non-Intrusive Inspection 

Maintenance FY12

 

 116.11

4. Northern Border, Remote 

Video Surveillance 

System

8.2 Northern Border Project Remote 

Video Surveillance System

 

 3.1

 Northern Border Project Remote 

Video Surveillance System

 

 5.1

5. TECS Modernization 43.05 Secondary Inspection 8.33

 

 

High Performance Primary Query 

and Manifest Processing

 

 8.65

Travel Documents and Encounter 

Data

 

 11.16

Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT 

Investments and Subsidiary Projects with 

Shortfalls 
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 36 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment title

Total 

planned 

project 

costs Subsidiary projects a Cost 

shortfall 

Schedule 

shortfall 

Planned 

project costs

 

b

 

 

 

Lookout Record Data Services 9.98

Secondary Inspection 

Maintenance

 

 4.93

DHS - Office of the Chief Information Officer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Human Resources IT 8.52 EmpowHR Deployment 0.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reporting Tool Development 1.79

PAS 0.9

HQ Survey Tool 0.03

NFC VPN 0.18

Balanced Workforce Survey Tool 1.19

USAJOBS 3.0 2.57

Human Capital Segment 

Architecture  1.46

FEMA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Disaster Assistance 

Improvement Plan

50.5 Surge IOC

 1.86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ForSee Satisfaction Survey 

Integration 0.04

SMS Pilot 0.15

HUD SOA Interface   0.78

Sustainment 3.05

Site Usability Improvements  5.78

Development Support 6.68

Louisiana DSNAP 1.09

Address Locator Service 0.41

DAIP Mobile Applicant Inquiry  0.25

WFA: Income and Insurance 

Verification  0.59

Other Needs Assistance  0.36

Usability and Portal Consolidation 2.71

Centralized Application  0.59

Common State Application  0.59

SMS Phase II  0.19

Interface Enhancements FY 2012  1.36

Coordinated Assistance Network 

Interface Enhancements FY 2013 
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 37 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment title

Total 

planned 

project 

costs Subsidiary projects a Cost 

shortfall 

Schedule 

shortfall 

Planned 

project costs

Stakeholder Outreach

b

 3.34

Program Support 20.69

ICE 

 

 

 

8. Detention and Removal 

Operations Modernization

8.62 Risk Classification Assessment

  2.62

 

 

EARM 4.0 4 

EARM 3.0 Release 2 2 

NPPD 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Critical Infrastructure 

Technology and 

Architecture 

20.55 Protected Critical Infrastructure 

Information Management System: 

Development, Modification, and 

Enhancement 0.58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protected Critical Infrastructure 

Information Management System: 

Maintenance 1.5

Infrastructure Protection 

Gateway: Development, 

Modification, & Enhancement 1.5

Infrastructure Protection 

Gateway: Maintenance 3.26

Infrastructure Information 

Collection System: Development, 

Modification, & Enhancement 2.46

Infrastructure Information 

Collection System: Maintenance 4.56

Infrastructure Protection Share: 

Maintenance 0.84

Automated Critical Asset 

Management System: 

Maintenance 1.75

Technical Resource for Incident 

Prevention Wire: Main  1.86

Web Emergency Operations 

Center: Maintenance 1.38

10. Infrastructure Security 

Compliance-Chemical 

Security Assessment Tool

72.76 Ammonium Nitrate Analysis of IT 

Requirements FY11 Q4 Close 

Out 0.29

 

 

 

 

Case Management FY11 Q4 

close out 1.62

Chemical Security Assessment 

Tool Enhancements FY 2011; Q4 

Close Out  3.65
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 38 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment title

Total 

planned 

project 

costs Subsidiary projects a Cost 

shortfall 

Schedule 

shortfall 

Planned 

project costsb

 

Production System Update FY11 

Q4 close out EA 1.19

Ammonium Nitrate DME 5.34

Case Management DME 6.07

Chemical Security Assessment 

Tool DME 10.14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Develop staging environment for 

Development & Testing 3.81

Production Environment 

Migration to DHS DC 

Maintenance Support FY11 Q4 

Close Out 7.31

Maintenance Support 33.35

11. National Cybersecurity 

Protection System

262.6 National Cybersecurity Protection 

System Block 2.0  0.77

 

 

 

 

National Cybersecurity Protection 

System Block 2.1  2.58

National Cybersecurity Protection 

System Block 2.2 

National Cybersecurity Protection 

System Block 3.0 96.45

National Cybersecurity Protection 

System Maintenance 162.8

12. Next Generation Networks 

Priority Services

63.06 Core SP1

  6.36

 

 

 

Core SP2 20.19

Core SP3 25.89

Common 10.62

13. US-VISIT: Arrival and 

Departure Information 

System

7.18 Arrival and Departure Information 

System FY 2011 Maintenance 

Release Project  1.98

 

 

Arrival and Departure Information 

System FY 2012 Maintenance 

Release Project  5.2

ADIS FY13 Maintenance Release 

Project 

14. US-VISIT: Automated 

Biometric Identification 

System

33.24 Automated Biometric 

Identification System FY 2011

  14.56

 

 

IDENT FY 2012 18.68

IDENT FY 2013 
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 39 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment title

Total 

planned 

project 

costs Subsidiary projects a Cost 

shortfall 

Schedule 

shortfall 

Planned 

project costs

TSA

b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Air Cargo Security 4.09 Known Shipper Management 

System 1.3  0.55

 

 

Known Shipper Management 

System 1.4 0.74

Known Shipper Management 

System 1.5 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indirect Air Carrier Management 

System 2.5 0.44

Indirect Air Carrier Management 

System 2.6 0.55

Freight Assessment System 3.1  0.33

Freight Assessment System 4.0 0.6

Freight Assessment System 4.1 

Freight Assessment System 3.9   0.19

Indirect Air Carrier Management 

System 2.7 0.68

16. Federal Air Marshal 

Service Mission 

Scheduling and 

Notification System

5.43 Scheduling Software 

Modernization

  0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC2 Migration  0.76

Hardware Modernization 1.45

IRIS Production Integration 

ARES Production Integration 

Portal Modernization  1.2

FAMIS Modernization 2 

17. Hazmat Threat 

Assessment Program

4.09 Hazardous Materials 

Endorsement SG Maintenance 0.74

Hazardous Materials 

Endorsement Comparability  1.4

Hazardous Materials 

Endorsement SG Maintenance 1.95

18. Security Technology 

Integrated Program

27.99 TSE Data Management FY2011

 3.69

 

 

 

TSE Data Management FY 2012 5.54

Remote Monitoring and 

Maintenance/Maintenance Ticket 

Application FY 2011  0.35
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 40 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Component Investment title

Total 

planned 

project 

costs Subsidiary projects a Cost 

shortfall 

Schedule 

shortfall 

Planned 

project costsb

 

Remote Monitoring and 

Maintenance /Maintenance Ticket 

Application FY2012 4.51

Security Equipment 

Modernization FY 2011  3.27

Security Equipment 

Modernization FY 2012  10.64

USCG 

 19. Coast Guard Business 

Intelligence

0.86 CGBI 3.0

 0.16

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cognos 10 Upgrade 0.25

Predictive Analytics Capability  0.25

Data Quality Capability 0.2

USCIS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. Naturalization: CLAIMS 4 2.36 CLAIMS 4 Release 8.5 0.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLAIMS 4 Release 8.6 0.9

CLAIMS 4 Release 8.7 

CLAIMS 4 Security 0.1

Release 8.5.0.1 0.2

Lean Agile Release 8.5.1.0 0.08

Lean Agile Release 8.5.2.0  0.08

Lean Agile Release 8.5.3.0 0.08

Release 8.5.2.1 0.02

Release 8.5.3.1 0.02

USSS 

 21. Information Integration 

and Technology 

Transformation

43.61 IT Modernization

 12.68

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyber Security 5 

Database Architecture & 

Maintenance 6.303

Information Assurance 3.327

COLD2 10

Cross Domain/Multi-Level 

Security  4.5

Communications Capabilities 1.8

Total 21 $1,144.14 6 34 $1,143.35c
Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments 

and Subsidiary Projects with Shortfalls

Page 41 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Source: GAO analysis of OMB’s federal IT Dashboard data.

a This is the sum of the investment’s project costs as of March 8, 2012.

b Some projects do not have project costs, because DHS has not yet provided the costs to OMB, and 

the projects are not yet in development.

c Differences in the total are due to rounding. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 42 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 43 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 44 GAO-12-904 DHS Major IT Investments

David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff also made key 

contributions to this report: Gary Mountjoy (assistant director), Scott 

Borre, Camille Chaires, and Nancy Glover.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311259)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.