DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND 

SECURITY

Opportunities Exist to 

Better Evaluate and 

Coordinate Border 

and Maritime 

Research and 

Development

Report to the Congressional Requesters

September 2013

GAO-13-732

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-732 a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2013

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Opportunities Exist to Better Evaluate and 

Coordinate Border and Maritime Research and 

Development 

Why GAO Did This Study

Conducting border and maritime R&D 

to develop technologies for detecting, 

preventing, and mitigating terrorist 

threats is vital to enhancing the 

security of the nation. S&T, the Coast 

Guard, and DNDO conduct these R&D 

activities and S&T has responsibility for 

coordinating and integrating R&D 

activities across DHS. The Centers of 

Excellence are a network of university 

R&D centers that provide DHS with 

tools, expertise, and access to 

research facilities and laboratories, 

among other things. GAO was asked 

to review DHS’s border and maritime 

R&D efforts. 

This report addresses (1) the results of 

DHS border and maritime security 

R&D efforts and the extent to which 

DHS has obtained and evaluated 

feedback on these efforts, and (2) the 

extent that DHS coordinates its border 

and maritime R&D efforts internally 

and externally with other federal 

agencies and the private sector. GAO 

reviewed completed and ongoing R&D 

project information and documentation 

from fiscal years 2010 through 2013 

and interviewed DHS component 

officials, among other actions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS S&T

establish timeframes and milestones 

for collecting and evaluating feedback 

from its customers to determine the 

usefulness and impact of its R&D 

efforts, and ensure that potential 

challenges with regard to data 

reliability, accessibility, and availability 

are reviewed and understood before 

approving Centers of Excellence R&D 

projects. DHS concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012, the Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) border and maritime research and development (R&D) components

reported producing 97 R&D deliverables at an estimated cost of $177 million. 

The type of border and maritime R&D deliverables produced by DHS’s Science 

and Technology (S&T) Directorate, the Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear 

Detection Office (DNDO) varied, and R&D customers we met with reported 

mixed views on the impact of the R&D deliverables they received. These 

deliverables were wide-ranging in their cost and scale, and included knowledge 

products and reports, technology prototypes, and software (as shown in the 

figure below). The Coast Guard and DNDO reported having processes in place 

to collect and evaluate feedback from its customers regarding the results of R&D 

deliverables. However, S&T has not established timeframes and milestones for 

collecting and evaluating feedback from its customers on the extent to which the 

deliverables it provides to DHS components—such as US Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP)—are meeting its customer’s needs. Doing so could help S&T 

better determine the usefulness and impact of its R&D projects and deliverables 

and make better-informed decisions regarding future work

DHS has taken actions and is working to develop departmental policies to better 

define and coordinate R&D, but additional actions could strengthen internal and 

external coordination of border and maritime R&D. S&T’s Borders and Maritime 

Security Division, the Coast Guard, and DNDO reported taking a range of actions 

to coordinate with their internal DHS customers to ensure, among other things, 

that R&D is addressing high priority needs. However, work remains to be done at 

the agency level to ensure border and maritime R&D efforts are mutually 

reinforcing and are being directed towards the highest priority needs. For 

example, officials from university centers of excellence reported difficulties in 

determining DHS headquarters contacts, and officials from the primary landborder security R&D center reported delayed and cancelled projects due to the 

inability to obtain data. DHS could help ensure that the approximately $3 million 

to $4 million a year dedicated to the university Centers of Excellence is used 

more effectively by more carefully considering potential challenges with regard to 

data needs, access issues and data limitations before approving projects.

Examples of DHS S&T and Coast Guard Border and Maritime R&D Projects

View GAO-13-732. For more information, 

contact David Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Letter 1

Background 6

R&D Results Include Knowledge Products, Technology Prototypes, 

and Software, but S&T Should Do More to Obtain Feedback and 

Evaluate the Impact of Its Efforts 11

DHS Has Taken Steps to Coordinate Border and Maritime R&D,

but Opportunities Exist to Further Strengthen Internal and 

External Coordination 25

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Border and Maritime List of 

Completed and Discontinued Research and Development (R&D) Project 

Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 37

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 50

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables

Table 1: R&D Budgets for DHS for Science and Technology 

Directorate, the Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear 

Detection Office, Fiscal Years 2010-2013 10

Table 2: Current DHS Border and Maritime Projects by Component 10

Table 3: Number of R&D Deliverables Reported for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012 13

Table 4: Type of Project Deliverable Provided to Customers, as 

Reported by R&D Performer 14

Table 5: Science and Technology Directorate Borders and Maritime 

Security Division (S&T BMD) Fiscal Years 2010 through 

2012 Deliverables and Customer Responses on Deliverable 

Usefulness 16

Table 6: Coast Guard Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 Deliverables 

and Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness 19

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 7: Select Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 

Deliverables and Project Outcomes 20

Table 8: List of United States Coast Guard – Homeland Security 

R&D Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 

2012 37

Table 9: Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and 

Maritime Security Division (BMD) Project Deliverables for 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 39

Table 10: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) R&D Project 

Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 41

Table 11:S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) R&D Project 

Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 46

Table 12: List of DHS Discontinued Border and Maritime R&D 

Projects for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 48

Figures

Figure 1: Mobile Surveillance System Imager/Radar Upgrade –A 

Retrofit Kit Developed by S&T BMD for CBP Tested at the 

Arizona-Mexico Border 15

Figure 2: Vessel Entanglement System Developed by DOD and the 

Coast Guard 30
Page iii GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Abbreviations

ASP Advanced Spectroscopic Portal

BMD Borders and Maritime Security Division

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CIMES Center for Island, Maritime, and Extreme Environment 

Security

COE Centers of Excellence

COTS commercial off-the-shelf

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DNDO Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

IV&V Independent Verification and Validation

MARLIN Multi-modal Automated Resolution, Location, and 

Identification of Nuclear Material

MIREES Center for Maritime, Island and Remote and Extreme 

Environment Security

MSS Mobile Surveillance System

NCBSI National Center for Border Security and Immigration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OTIA Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition

PI principal investigator

R&D research and development

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation

RPM radiation portal monitor

S&T Science and Technology

SIMON Smart Integration Manager Ontologically Networked

SMS Sensor Management System

SNM special nuclear material

SQUID Safe Quick Undercarriage Immobilization Device

TARD Transformational and Applied Research Directorate

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

WMD weapons of mass destruction

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-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 25, 2013

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

The Honorable Ralph M. Hall

House of Representatives

Conducting border and maritime research and development (R&D) to 

deliver technologies for detecting, preventing, and mitigating terrorist 

threats is vital to enhancing the security of the nation. The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) conducts research, development, testing, and 

evaluation of new technologies that are intended to achieve a range of 

homeland security goals, including detecting and preventing the 

unauthorized entry of persons or contraband into the United States; 

preventing and responding to nuclear, biological, explosive, and other 

types of attacks; and securing U.S. ports and inland waterways. DHS’s 

Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, the U.S. Coast Guard, and 

the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) conduct these R&D 

activities, although S&T has overall responsibility for coordinating and 

integrating R&D activities across DHS. 1 S&T funding for R&D grew 

steadily until 2010 and has served a wide variety of research areas. S&T 

also carries out R&D through its Office of University Programs, which 

manages and coordinates 12 University Centers of Excellence. The 

Centers of Excellence are a network of university R&D centers that 

provide DHS with tools, technologies, subject matter expertise, and 

access to laboratories and research facilities, among other things. 

Recently, Congress and others have raised questions about S&T’s ability 

to demonstrate the impact of its investments—in terms of value, tangible 

products, and advances to the homeland security mission—as well as 

questions about the extent to which S&T is leveraging R&D already under 

way in the private sector and at other governmental agencies, including 

the Department of Defense. Accordingly, Congress has directed S&T to 

 1

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 302,116 Stat. 2135, 2163-64 

(codified as amended at 6 U.S.C. § 182).
Page 2 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

demonstrate how its R&D efforts are timely, with results well defined, and 

based on clear and sensible priorities.2

In September 2012, we reported that DHS did not have a departmentwide policy defining R&D or guidance directing its components how to 

report R&D activities.3 As a result, DHS did not know its total annual 

investment in R&D, which limited the department’s ability to oversee 

components’ R&D efforts and align them with agency-wide R&D goals 

and priorities. We also reported that DHS’s R&D efforts were fragmented 

and overlapping, which increased the risk of unnecessary duplication. 

Specifically, DHS had not developed a policy defining who was 

responsible for coordinating R&D and what processes should be used to 

coordinate it, and did not have mechanisms to track all R&D activities at 

DHS that could help prevent overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary 

duplication. We recommended that DHS develop policies and guidance 

for defining, reporting and coordinating R&D activities across the 

department, and that DHS establish a mechanism to track R&D projects. 

DHS agreed with these recommendations and planned to make decisions 

about how to address these actions by May 2013. As of August 2013, 

DHS had not made a decision about how it specifically plans to address 

these recommendations.

In addition to our work on R&D across DHS, we have also reported 

extensively on the challenges that DHS has faced in deploying 

technologies and infrastructure to secure U.S. land borders and the 

maritime sector.4 These continued challenges highlight the importance of 

effectively conducting, testing, and evaluating R&D technologies before 

they are transitioned to the customers who will operationally deploy them. 

For example, in November 2011, we reported on the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s (CBP) technology deployment plan for the Arizona 

border—the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan—which was 

expected to cost approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years.5 Specifically, 

 2

H.R. Rep. No. 112-91, at 126-27 (2011).

3

GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination of Research and 

Development Should Be Strengthened, GAO-12-837 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012).

4

GAO, Border Security: DHS’s Progress and Challenges in Securing U.S. Borders, 

GAO-13-414T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2013).

5

GAO, Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and Costs Is 

Needed before Proceeding, GAO-12-222 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 2011).
Page 3 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

we reported that CBP did not have the information needed to fully support 

and implement the technology deployment plan in accordance with DHS 

and Office of Management and Budget guidance. Further, in September 

2010, we reported on the challenges DHS faced in its efforts to test, 

evaluate, and operationalize maritime container security technologies.6

We have also reported on DHS’s efforts and challenges in developing 

technologies—such as sensors and transponders—capable of detecting 

and tracking small vessels in ports, technologies for detecting and 

reporting intrusions into and the tracking of cargo containers as they pass 

through the global supply chain, and the scanning of cargo through 

advanced automated radiography systems.7

As the result of past technology challenges and questions about the 

extent to which border and maritime R&D investments are being 

overseen and coordinated effectively across DHS, you requested that we 

review DHS’s border and maritime R&D efforts. Accordingly, this report 

addresses the following two questions:

1. What have been the results of DHS’s border and maritime security 

R&D and to what extent has DHS obtained and evaluated feedback 

on these efforts?

2. To what extent does DHS coordinate its border and maritime R&D 

efforts internally (with other DHS components and end users) and

externally with other federal agencies and the private sector?

To answer the first objective, we focused our review on the components 

and offices receiving direct R&D appropriations related to border and 

maritime security—specifically, DHS S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO. 

To determine the results of DHS’s recent R&D efforts, we asked officials 

from each R&D office to identify the deliverables their offices produced 

from fiscal years 2010 through 2012, including the cost of each 

deliverable. We corroborated the DHS-identified lists of deliverables and 

their costs with varied documentary evidence, including congressional 

budget justifications, DHS materials prepared for independently produced 

R&D reviews, and other published material. We determined that the 

 6

GAO, Supply Chain Security: DHS Should Test and Evaluate Container Security 

Technologies Consistent with All Identified Operational Scenarios to Ensure the 

Technologies Will Function as Intended, GAO-10-887 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2010).

7

GAO, Maritime Security: Responses to Questions for the Record, GAO-11-140R

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 2010).
Page 4 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

information on deliverables and costs was sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of providing an overview of Border and Maritime R&D; 

limitations to the data are noted in the report. For each component, we 

selected deliverables to reflect a range of product types and recipients 

and then asked DHS to identify the customers that received those 

deliverables. For the purposes of this report, we relied on DHS to identify 

who its customers were—in other words, those agencies that worked 

closest to S&T over the course of a project. We also refer to the reports, 

prototypes, software, or other project outputs as R&D deliverables. We 

selected these definitions because they are in keeping with those used by 

S&T. Given that S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO have different roles 

with respect to conducting and managing R&D, we selected different 

numbers of deliverables to review within each component. Specifically, 

given S&T’s role as the lead R&D agency for DHS and its wider variety of 

customers, we interviewed every customer of S&T Border and Maritime 

Security Division’s identified deliverables (20 of 20 deliverables). We met 

with 35 percent of the customers of the Coast Guard’s completed 

deliverables (8 of 23 deliverables) and 12 percent of the customers of 

DNDO’s deliverables (5 of 42 deliverables, which included one 

discontinued project). We met with fewer DNDO customers because the 

majority of DNDO’s R&D projects are merged into new or continuing 

DNDO R&D efforts. Further, these efforts do not transition to customers 

outside of DNDO. In other words, DNDO’s R&D customers were other 

DNDO R&D offices, and accordingly, we selected a smaller number of 

these DNDO project managers for follow-up. To corroborate customer 

views on the effectiveness, timeliness, and other aspects of the 

deliverables, we interviewed multiple customers per deliverable where 

possible and also validated customer views with the relevant DHS project 

managers where possible. Further, we evaluated DHS’s efforts to assess 

the impact of its R&D against selected best practices from the National 

Academy of Sciences for evaluating the relevance and impact of R&D 

and best practices for project management.8

To evaluate DHS’s ongoing R&D efforts, we met with S&T Borders and 

Maritime Security officials and Coast Guard, DNDO, and S&T Office of 

University Programs officials. We corroborated information received on 

 8

National Academy of Sciences, “Best Practices in Assessment of Research and 

Development Organizations.” The National Academies Press, (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge 

(PMBOK® Guide), Fifth Edition, (Newton Square, PA: 2013).
Page 5 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

DHS R&D efforts through interviews with CBP (including the Office of 

Technology Innovation and Acquisition, Office of Border Patrol, Office of 

Air and Marine, Office of Information and Technology, and Office of Field 

Operations) and interviews with officials from three DHS University 

Centers of Excellence. Further, we conducted site visits to the Coast 

Guard’s Research and Development Center in New London, Connecticut; 

CBP’s Office of Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, Arizona; and one of 

DNDO’s research contractors in North Billerica, Massachusetts, to 

observe and discuss DHS R&D projects and R&D results. The results of 

the site visits are not generalizable to all R&D projects, but provided 

important observations and insights into border and maritime R&D efforts 

across three different components. To address the second objective, we 

used the information we gathered above and insights from our interviews 

with DHS components, R&D project managers, and R&D customers to 

identify how DHS coordinates its R&D efforts internally, externally, on a 

per-project basis, and with the private sector. We compared these efforts 

with DHS’s strategic plans, project management plans, and other 

published guidance related to coordination, as well as with best practices 

for coordination among federal agencies and best practices for effective 

evaluation design.9 To evaluate DHS’s efforts to conduct and coordinate 

R&D with its university research partners, we interviewed five universities 

representing three DHS Centers of Excellence that conduct border and 

maritime R&D—including a site visit to the University of Arizona, Tucson.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through 

September 2013 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. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 9

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005), 

and GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: 

2012). 
Page 6 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Within DHS, three components have responsibilities for conducting 

border and maritime R&D—S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO. S&T has 

five technical divisions responsible for managing the directorate’s R&D 

portfolio and coordinating with other DHS components to identify R&D 

priorities and needs.10 The Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD) 

is responsible for most of S&T’s border and maritime related R&D, and its 

primary DHS customer is CBP. Most of S&T’s R&D portfolio consists of 

applied and developmental R&D, which is R&D that can be transitioned to 

use within 3 years, as opposed to longer-term basic research.11 In 

addition to conducting projects for its DHS customers, S&T conducts 

projects for other federal agencies and first responders.

The S&T Office of University Programs also manages the DHS Centers of 

Excellence, which constitute a network of universities that conduct 

research for DHS component agencies on topics ranging from animal 

disease defense to catastrophic event preparedness.12 Of the nine funded 

centers, two are dedicated to border and maritime R&D—The National 

Center for Border Security and Immigration (NCBSI), led by the University 

of Arizona in Tucson and the University of Texas at El Paso, and the 

Center for Maritime, Island and Remote and Extreme Environment 

 10These divisions are the Borders and Maritime Division, the Chemical/Biological Defense 

Division, the Cyber Security Division, the Explosives Division, and the Resilient Systems 

Division (which was formerly two separate divisions–Human Factors and Infrastructure 

Protection and Disaster Management).

11As defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (OMB Circular No. A-11 

Section 84), basic research is a systematic study directed toward a fuller knowledge or

understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without 

specific applications toward processes or products in mind. Applied research is a 

systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a 

recognized and specific need may be met. Developmental research is a systematic 

application of knowledge or understanding, directed toward the production of useful 

materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and 

improvement of prototypes. 

12The centers were established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended (6 

U.S.C. § 188(b)(2)(A)), which states, “The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary 

for Science and Technology, shall designate a university-based center or several 

university based centers for homeland security. The purpose of the center or these 

centers shall be to establish a coordinated, university-based system to enhance the 

Nation’s homeland security.”

Background

DHS Border and Maritime 

R&D Roles, 

Responsibilities, and 

Processes
Page 7 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Security (MIREES), led by the University of Hawaii and Stevens Institute 

of Technology.13 Centers are typically funded through cooperative 

agreements for 5-to-6 year periods, with a review period each year.14

The Coast Guard is a multimission, maritime military service within 

DHS.15 The Coast Guard’s R&D efforts are conducted and managed by 

its Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E) Program, which 

consists of the Office of RDT&E and the Research and Development 

Center. The center performs research, development, testing, and 

evaluation in support of all Coast Guard missions, as required.16 The 

majority of the Coast Guard’s R&D products are knowledge products, 

such as acquisition analysis studies or technical reports, as opposed to 

Ideas for projects to be undertaken by the centers are solicited at 

technical workshops with component-level subject matter experts, where 

the centers and DHS officials discuss technical or informational 

challenges. The Office of University Programs drafts these topics into 

research questions which the Office publishes in a funding opportunity 

announcement. The Office of University Programs then examines 

proposals it receives based on how the research could potentially further 

DHS’s mission. Centers also hold annual meetings where officials are 

expected to brief DHS leadership on their work and their plans. 

Additionally, DHS stakeholders will give presentations on their technology 

needs and challenges. The centers are then expected to incorporate 

these needs and challenges into their programs.

 13Two other centers, Coastal Hazards and Visual and Data Analytics, have also 

conducted research in support of the Coast Guard. Given the scope of our audit, we did 

not interview officials with these centers. 

14Annual progress reviews may result in several outcomes, from no changes to a center to 

corrective actions or reduction in funding. The Office of University Programs also conducts 

a formal midterm review with subject matter experts to decide, among other things, which 

research areas will be continued. A cooperative agreement is a legally binding agreement 

that establishes terms and conditions (such as what work will be completed and when), as 

well as roles and responsibilities. 

15When the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the Coast Guard to the newly 

established DHS, it provided that the Coast Guard is to be maintained as a distinct entity 

within the department and that the authorities, functions, and capabilities of the Coast 

Guard to perform its missions are to be maintained intact. Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 888, 116 

Stat. 2135, 2249 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 468).

16The Coast Guard’s 11 major missions are (1) ports, waterways, and coastal security; (2) 

drug interdiction; (3) aids to navigation; (4) search and rescue; (5) living marine resources; 

(6) marine safety; (7) defense readiness; (8) migrant interdiction; (9) marine environmental 

protection; (10) ice operations; and (11) other law enforcement. 
Page 8 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

specific pieces of technology or prototypes. Its end users are typically 

other units within the Coast Guard, such as its Office of Boat Forces or 

Deployable Specialized Forces.

DNDO also conducts R&D applicable to border and maritime security, as 

it relates to its mission of detecting the use of an unauthorized nuclear 

explosive device, fissile material, or radiological material in the United 

States.17 After its establishment, in 2005, DNDO assumed responsibility 

from S&T for certain nuclear and radiological R&D activities, and its R&D 

efforts are primarily conducted and managed by its Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate (TARD).18 DNDO’s R&D efforts result in 

technology prototypes, development of software, and computer modeling 

for the detection of radioactive and nuclear materials. These efforts are 

crosscutting, meaning they can be used in more than just a border and 

maritime environment.

Each of DHS’s border and maritime R&D organizations uses a different 

process to determine which R&D projects to pursue. S&T BMD reaches 

out to DHS-level officials as well as with operational-level end users, such 

as Border Patrol agents, to discuss needs, resources, and priorities and 

to determine which projects to initiate and also which projects should be 

continued or discontinued. BMD officials said that depending upon whom 

they speak with—that is, headquarters-level officials versus field-level 

operators—they often receive different answers regarding needs and 

priorities. Further, it is the role of the S&T project manager to facilitate 

agreement and consensus among the different offices within the 

component. The Coast Guard seeks input from its internal offices and its 

long-term strategies to identify capability gaps or ideas for new 

technological solutions, which are then evaluated based on available 

funding and other priorities into a prioritized ranking of projects that can 

be typically executed within 2 fiscal years. Some projects require more 

than 2 years. DNDO officials stated that their process for selecting and 

prioritizing projects is based on a review of capability gaps and 

 17DNDO was established by National Security Presidential Directive 43, Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive 14, and the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act 

of 2006 (SAFE Port Act). Pub. L. No. 109-347, § 501(a), 120 Stat. 1884, 1932 (codified at 

6 U.S.C. §§ 591-596). 

18See 6 U.S.C. § 592 (codifying the DNDO mission as including a number of R&D 

activities, including conducting an “aggressive, expedited, evolutionary, and 

transformational program of research and development”).
Page 9 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

government priorities in accordance with the Global Nuclear Detection 

Architecture as well as the Nuclear Defense R&D Road Map fiscal years 

2013 to 2017. DNDO officials also stated that they consider what 

technologies exist before considering advanced technology development 

and their goal is to complete an R&D project with a proof-of-concept study 

or a prototype.

The S&T Directorate, DNDO, and the Coast Guard are each appropriated 

funding for R&D. Table 1 provides DHS’s R&D budgets from fiscal years 

2010 through 2013 for the various entities that conduct border and 

maritime R&D. A portion of each component’s budget is dedicated to 

border and maritime R&D. However, as we reported in September 2012, 

DHS did not know how much its components invest in R&D, making it 

difficult to oversee R&D efforts across the department. For example, we 

reported that data DHS submitted to OMB showed that DHS’s R&D 

budget authority and outlays were underreported because DNDO did not 

properly report its R&D budget authority and outlays to OMB for fiscal 

years 2010 through 2013. Specifically, for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, 

DHS underreported its total R&D budget authority by at least $293 million 

and outlays for R&D by at least $282 million because DNDO did not 

accurately report the data.19 We also identified an additional $255 million 

in R&D obligations for fiscal year 2011 by other DHS components. 

Further, we found that DNDO did not report certain R&D budget data to 

OMB, and R&D budget accounts include a mix of R&D and non-R&D 

spending, further complicating DHS’s ability to identify its total investment 

in R&D.

 19GAO-12-837

DHS’s Border and 

Maritime R&D Budget and 

Projects
Page 10 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 1: R&D Budgets for DHS for Science and Technology Directorate, the Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office, Fiscal Years 2010-2013

Dollars in millions

Component/office

2010

(enacted)

2011

(enacted)

2012

(enacted)

2013

(enacted)

S&T Research and Development, Acquisitions and Operations $856 a $626 $533 $674

Coast Guard Research and Development $24.7 $24.7 $27.8 $19.6

DNDO Transformational Research and Development $109 $96 $40 $74.7

Source: DHS.

a This includes S&T’s five divisions, University Programs, and Laboratory Facilities

As of June 2013, DHS had 95 ongoing R&D projects related to border 

and maritime security. See table 2 below for the number and total 

anticipated cost of ongoing border and maritime R&D projects by 

performing office.

Table 2: Current DHS Border and Maritime Projects by Component

Performing office

Number of current 

projects

Total anticipated project costs from start to end 

(Dollars in millions)

S&T Borders and Maritime Security Division

a

11 $178.4

S&T University Programs 34 b $23.2

Coast Guard 22 c $53

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 28 $70.5

Total 95 $325.1

Source: DHS.

a

These amounts represent DHS’s estimates of total project costs, including funding expended as well 

projected costs for fiscal years 2014- 2018. According to GAO’s prior work, these amounts may be 

understated as they may not capture additionally contracted work. These projects are ongoing as of 

fiscal year 2013.

b

This represents all border and maritime R&D across seven Centers of Excellence.

c

Coast Guard homeland security projects—each project in the Coast Guard’s Research Development 

Test and Evaluation Program portfolio is funded with a Research Development Test and Evaluation, 

Acquisitions, Construction & Improvement, or Operating Expenses appropriation.

It is important to note the total amount of resources and spending 

dedicated to R&D projects, and the final result and impact of these 

projects can vary dramatically based on the scope and purpose of the 

project. Some R&D projects aim to produce a specific prototype or piece 

of technology for an end user, such as sensors that CBP can use to 

better detect tunnels, nonlethal weapons Coast Guard can use to disable 

a boat’s outboard engines, or a range of contraband marker systems. 
Page 11 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Other projects may produce software to integrate information technology 

systems, such as software to integrate and display information gathered 

by multiple sensor systems. Finally, other projects may produce a report 

or knowledge product, which aims to inform an acquisition decision, such 

as providing the preliminary research required for developing a statement 

of work—a key step in the acquisition process. Individual R&D projects 

can range in cost from several thousand dollars to millions per fiscal year.

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012, DHS border and maritime R&D 

agencies reported producing 97 deliverables at an estimated cost of 

about $177 million and 29 discontinued projects at a cost of about $48 

million.20 An R&D deliverable can yield a variety of results. For example, 

an R&D deliverable, such as a report or a prototype, can be provided to a 

customer and then transitioned into an acquisition program or further 

developed by that customer; delivered, but not used for various reasons, 

or discontinued prior to delivery.21

 20These amounts are a portion of the costs and are likely understated, as BMD was 

unable to provide GAO with cost information of specific transitions because of shared 

costs, and specific projects costs were not available for all Centers of Excellence by 

project.

21S&T defines a transition as a project output that is provided to a customer (such as 

CBP) that it puts into operational use and for which it assumes all of the operation and 

maintenance costs. All other project outputs provided to customers are called 

deliverables.

R&D Results Include 

Knowledge Products, 

Technology 

Prototypes, and 

Software, but S&T 

Should Do More to 

Obtain Feedback and 

Evaluate the Impact 

of Its Efforts

Costs and Types of 

Completed Border and 

Maritime R&D Projects 

Varied
Page 12 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Twenty-nine projects were discontinued prior to their delivery to a 

customer. There were a variety of reasons that projects were 

discontinued, and it is important to note that the discontinuation of a 

project or deliverable did not necessarily mean that it was a failed R&D 

project. In some cases, the R&D results demonstrated that there was no 

technologically feasible option to address a problem or that a certain type 

of technology would not provide the desired solution. For example, DHS’s 

Office of University program officials stated that they expect to routinely 

discontinue projects that are not demonstrably innovative, progressing, or 

have no identifiable end user, and reallocate resources to new innovative 

projects or to projects with specified customer interest. Further, according 

to the officials, project discontinuation is a good outcome in many 

circumstances where research success cannot be foretold. These officials 

added that it is a necessary part of a portfolio-based research strategy. 

Office of University program R&D and discontinued research projects are 

discussed in more detail later in this report.

Projects are also discontinued or merged into other projects because of a 

lack of available data, budget cuts, or DHS management determining that 

a project was no longer a priority to its potential customers. For example, 

S&T BMD officials stated insufficient funding resulted in the 

discontinuation of 2 projects, and for 2 other projects, the customer’s 

priorities shifted and the R&D was terminated. In addition, DNDO stated 

that it determined that some methods for detection of shielded nuclear 

material were feasible but too costly and that certain detection devices 

would be too large for practical use in the field, so the R&D was 

discontinued. Table 3 provides the costs of R&D projects with 

deliverables, including discontinued projects, for fiscal years 2010 through 

2012. See appendix I for a list of all the R&D projects and their 

deliverables for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 by component or office, 

project type, and their associated costs.
Page 13 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 3: Number of R&D Deliverables Reported for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 

R&D 

performer

Number of 

deliverables 

provided to a 

customer

Total 

amount 

expended 

(Dollars in 

millions)

Number of 

projects or 

deliverables

that were 

discontinued

Total amount 

expended for 

discontinued 

R&D (Dollars 

in millions)

S&T Borders 

and Maritime 

Security 

Division

a

20 28.7 4 33.0 b

S&T Office of 

University 

Programs–

Centers of 

Excellence 18 6.1 19 Unknown

US Coast 

Guard 23 26.4 0 Not applicable

Domestic 

Nuclear 

Detection 

Office 36 $115.9 6 $15.4 

Total delivered 

deliverables

97 $177.1

Total 

discontinued 

projects 29 $48.4

Total deliverables or 

projects (delivered 

and discontinued) 126

Total expended 

(delivered and 

discontinued)(in 

millions) $225.5

Source: DHS data.

a

These amounts are a portion of the costs and are likely understated, as BMD was unable to provide 

GAO with the costs of development of specific deliverables because of shared costs, and specific 

projects costs were not available for all Centers of Excellence projects by individual project due to the 

nature of grant funding reporting.

b Each DHS S&T BMD project can have multiple deliverables. The S&T BMD number represents 

projects, not deliverables.

DHS R&D deliverables were wide-ranging in their cost, scope, and scale. 

For example, agencies reported producing deliverables ranging from the 

development of imaging and radar prototypes to container screening 

devices and written market analyses of commercially available 

technologies. These 97 deliverables fell into three general categories: (1) 

knowledge products or reports; (2) technology prototypes; and (3) 

software, as listed in table 4.
Page 14 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 4: Type of Project Deliverable Provided to Customers, as Reported by R&D Performer

R&D performer

Knowledge product 

or report Technology prototype Software Total

S&T Borders and Maritime Security Division 5 11 4 20

S&T Centers of Excellence 9 1 8 18

US Coast Guard 21 1 1 23

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 3 15 18 36

Total 38 28 31 97

Source: DHS.

Knowledge products or reports: Thirty-eight of the 97 deliverables (39 

percent) resulted in knowledge products that contained analysis and 

comparison testing of technologies, summarized field testing of 

technologies, or developed reference materials for use by DHS 

components. For example, one of the DHS Centers of Excellence 

developed formulas and models to assist in randomizing Coast Guard 

patrol routes and connecting networks together to assist in the detection 

of small vessels. Additionally, the Coast Guard conducted a technology 

evaluation to help its acquisition office determine the best tactical radios 

for use by law enforcement boarding teams.

Technology prototypes: Twenty-eight of the 97 deliverables (29 percent) 

resulted in technology prototypes, such as the development of new 

sensors, imaging equipment, or devices for detecting nuclear material.

For example, S&T BMD developed prototype radar and upgraded video 

systems for use by Border Patrol agents and a prototype scanner to 

screen interior areas of small aircraft without removing panels or the 

aircraft skin. See figure 1 for an example of a prototype product 

developed by BMD for CBP.
Page 15 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Figure 1: Mobile Surveillance System Imager/Radar Upgrade –A Retrofit Kit 

Developed by S&T BMD for CBP Tested at the Arizona-Mexico Border

Software: Thirty-one of the 97 deliverables (32 percent) resulted in the 

development of software, such as algorithms used in detection systems. 

For example, BMD developed software that enables intelligence 

personnel to quickly survey large areas of ocean and find vessels of 

interest. Additionally, DNDO developed software that extracts data from 

radiation portal monitors and uses the data to improve algorithms used in 

detecting radioactive material.

S&T BMD, the Coast Guard, and DNDO’s R&D customers had mixed 

views regarding the impact of the R&D products or deliverables they 

received. Of the 126 R&D deliverables or projects DHS completed or 

discontinued from fiscal years 2010 through 2012, we interviewed DHSidentified customers or other relevant officials for 33 of these (19 

customers and 6 program managers of 20 S&T BMD deliverables, 8 

Coast Guard customers or other relevant officials of 8 deliverables or 

Customers Reported 

Mixed Views on the Impact 

of DHS’s Border and 

Maritime R&D Project 

Deliverables
Page 16 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

completed projects, and 2 DNDO project managers of 5 projects. Given 

our scope, we discussed ongoing and completed projects managed by 

S&T’s Office of University Programs with Coast Guard and CBP, but did 

not systematically follow up with the recipients of each deliverable 

produced by the border and maritime related Centers of Excellence.

Of the 20 S&T BMD deliverables, the customers of 7 deliverables stated 

that the deliverables met their office’s needs, customers of 7 did not, and 

customers of 4 did not know, and customers for 2 could not be identified, 

as detailed below in table 5. For example, customers within CBP’s Office 

of Technology Innovation and Acquisition reported that BMD’s analysis 

and test results on aircraft-based use of wide area surveillance 

technology helped CBP to make a decision on whether it should pursue 

acquiring such technology. Another customer (DHS personnel assigned 

to the Joint Interagency Task Force South United States Southern 

Command) reported that software developed by BMD to enable analysts 

to quickly find and characterize small maritime vessels in an image 

showing large areas of ocean was highly valuable and met their office’s 

needs.

Table 5: Science and Technology Directorate Borders and Maritime Security Division (S&T BMD) Fiscal Years 2010 through 

2012 Deliverables and Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness 

S&T BMD project 

deliverable Customer identified by S&T BMD

Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met 

needs

Safe Quick Undercarriage 

Immobilization Device 

CBP/Border Patrol Unknown. S&T involvement ended prior to Customer 

involvement. 

P25 Blue Force Tracking CBP/Border Patrol, Office of Information 

Technology

Yes

Smart Integration Manager 

Ontologically Networked 

CBP/Air and Marine Operations Center

Coast Guard

No. Project is delayed. May meet needs in the future. 

Sensor Management 

System 

CBP/Office of Air and Marine No. Project is delayed. May meet needs in the future.

Riverine Airboat CBP/Office of Air and Marine No. Prototype did not meet CBP needs. 

Shipboard Automatic 

Identification System and 

Radar Contact Reporting 

System 

CBP/Office of Air and Marine, Air and 

Marine Operations Center

Unknown. Customers identified by S&T were not familiar with 

project. 

Maritime Asset Tag 

Tracking System 

CBP/Office of Field Operations No. Not used, pending results from another project. 

Container Security Device CBP/Office of Field Operations No. Not used, pending results from another project.

Ground RADAR 

Comparison Testing

CBP/Office of Technology Innovation 

and Acquisition

Yes. Met customer needs and informed additional testing. 

S&T BMD
Page 17 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

S&T BMD project 

deliverable Customer identified by S&T BMD

Customer reporting on whether project deliverable met 

needs

Wide Area Airborne Sensor 

System

CBP/Office of Technology Innovation 

and Acquisition

Yes. Met customer needs and informed additional testing.

Wide Area Airborne Sensor 

Fixed Wing Testing

CBP/Office of Technology Innovation 

and Acquisition

Yes. Met customer needs and informed additional testing.

Wide Area Motion Imagery Unknown Unknown. S&T and CBP were unable to identify a customer. 

Aviation Scanner CBP/Office of Field Operations No. CBP determined technology was not needed, but 

additional testing is planned to identify other potential uses. 

Tipsheet Review And 

Correlation EnhanceR 

Joint Interagency Task Force South Yes. Technology met customer needs. 

Low Light Camera Joint Interagency Task Force South Yes. Technology met customer needs.

Container Security Test Bed CBP No. Unclear if it has been used by CBP or if it has met CBP 

needs. Has been used by vendors for testing. 

VizTools Coast Guard Yes. Prototype used to inform enterprise wide system. 

Tethered Aerostat Radar 

Adjunct Radar Processor 

System 

Unknown Unknown. Customer could not be identified by S&T and the 

Coast Guard. After prototype was destroyed in a storm, R&D 

was not continued. 

Mobile Surveillance System

Imager Upgrade

CBP/Office of Technology Innovation 

and Acquisition

Unknown. Testing is ongoing. 

Carrizo Cane CBP/Office of Border Patrol Unknown. Project was transferred to US Department of 

Agriculture. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and S&T BMD data.

Conversely, of 20 deliverables, customers of 7 deliverables reported that 

the deliverable did not meet their office’s needs. In cases where 

customers said that the deliverables were not meeting their needs, the 

customers explained that budget changes, other ongoing testing efforts, 

or changes in mission priorities were the reasons deliverables had not 

met their needs, and customers pointed out that their relationship with 

S&T had been positive and highly collaborative. In other cases, 

customers pointed out that while the deliverable had not been used as 

intended, it informed their office’s decision making and helped to rule out 

certain technologies as possibilities. In this regard, the customers felt the 

R&D was successful, despite the fact that the deliverable had not or was 

not being used. Further, customers of 4 deliverables did not know or 

could not determine if the deliverable met their office’s needs, and 

customers for 2 deliverables could not be identified by S&T, CBP, or the 

Coast Guard. BMD officials described, for example, why some of these 

older projects did not have identifiable customers and also described 

actions it had taken to help ensure that new projects have clear, 

committed customers. Under S&T’s former process for initiating 

projects—which was carried out under S&T’s former Undersecretary and 

dissolved by its current Undersecretary—BMD officials said that the 
Page 18 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

potential existed to engage in R&D without a clear commitment from a 

customer. In February 2012, S&T issued a new project management 

guide that requires project managers to specify the customer by office 

and name, and to describe customer support for the project, including 

how the customer has demonstrated commitment for and support of the 

project. BMD officials said they believed this new process would prevent 

future R&D funding from going towards projects without a clear customer.

The Coast Guard reported producing 23 deliverables from fiscal year 

2010 through fiscal year 2012, and we met with officials involved with 8 of 

those projects, as listed in table 6. For 4 of 8 deliverables, Coast Guard 

officials reported that the deliverables had met internal Coast Guard 

needs. For example, one customer reported using a Coast Guard report 

on secure tactical radio communications systems to jump-start market 

research and to help develop a statement of work in developing the 

acquisition documents for the new radios. The customer said that the 

Coast Guard report did a good job of defining requirements and 

summarizing the needs of the operational end users—in this case, Coast 

Guard boarding teams. Ultimately, the customer said 762 radios were 

acquired and end users reported the radios were a vast improvement 

over what they had possessed in the past. For 3 of 8 deliverables, the 

impact was unknown because the research was ongoing. Finally, for 1 of 

8 deliverables, the customer was unknown or could not be determined. 

For example, for the Low-Cost Swimmer Detection System, DHS S&T 

was identified as the customer, but an S&T official we spoke with said 

that S&T was the project manager and the Coast Guard was actually the 

customer. Ultimately, the project did not continue due to changes in Coast 

Guard budget priorities.

Regarding the 15 Coast Guard deliverables we did not discuss with 

customers, many of these were identified by the Coast Guard as 

deliverables but were different in nature from the deliverables discussed 

with S&T’s customers. Further, the nature of the customers was different, 

too, since in some cases the customer was the Coast Guard’s own R&D 

Center in order to support maintaining the R&D Center’s capabilities for 

conducting technological and analytical support. For instance, while many 

of S&T’s deliverables were prototypes or demonstrations for customers 

outside of S&T, the Coast Guard’s deliverables were used within the 

Coast Guard and included such things as the independent validation and 

verification of the Coast Guard’s maritime security risk analysis model, 

analysis support, and the Deepwater Horizon spill response.

Coast Guard
Page 19 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 6: Coast Guard Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012 Deliverables and Customer Responses on Deliverable Usefulness 

Project name

Customer identified by 

Coast Guard Customer reporting on whether project met needs

Automated Scene Understanding and 

Situational Awareness (Visualization Tools)

S&T a Unknown, project is ongoing. Unknown if it has or will 

meet customer’s needs. The Coast Guard identified 

this as a deliverable, but S&T said the Coast Guard 

was the recipient. Deliverable was used to inform 

other work, but is limited by budget priorities.

Systematic Analysis of Deepwater Horizon 

Spill Response Technology

Coast Guard Research and 

Development Center and 

Director of Acquisition 

Services

Yes, project met customer needs and additional 

research is ongoing.

Office of Naval Research Ship Stopping by 

Propeller Entanglement

b

Coast Guard Office of 

Specialized Capabilities

Unknown, project is ongoing

Unknown if it has or will meet customer needs 

Integration of Law Enforcement Databases 

into Coast Guard Biometric System

Coast Guard Research and 

Development Center

Unknown, project is ongoing:

Unknown if it has or will meet customer’s needs.

Secure Tactical Connectivity a Coast Guard Deployable 

Operations Group

Yes, project deliverable met customer’s needs.

Low Cost Swimmer Detection System a Unknown Unknown. DHS customer could not be identified. 

Project ended with funding priority changes. 

Support for Coast Guard High Latitude 

Region Mission Analyses

Coast Guard Research and 

Development Center and

Office of Performance 

Management & Assessment

Yes, customer is within the Coast Guard, and 

documents are meeting Coast Guard’s needs.

Polar Icebreaker Business Case Analysis

b

Coast Guard Research and 

Development Center and 

Acquisition Program Manager, 

Surface

Yes, customers are internal to the Coast Guard and 

congressional requesters, and documents are 

meeting the Coast Guard’s needs.

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.

b

a

DHS S&T was the project sponsor and Coast Guard R&D Center was the project executor.

b

Customer feedback was provided by the Coast Guard R&D Center.

DNDO reported producing 42 deliverables—which encompassed 6 

discontinued projects and 36 projects that were either transitioned to the 

next phase of DNDO R&D or were completed and ended from fiscal years 

2010 through 2012. We met with officials involved with 5 of those 

projects, as listed in table 7. According to DNDO Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate (TARD) officials, they consider a project 

completed when it results in either a prototype or a knowledge product for 

integration into an acquisition program. Specifically, 17 of 36 projects 

were part of another ongoing DNDO project or Small Business Innovative 

DNDO
Page 20 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Research project and 19 of 31 projects were commercialized or 

concluded. DNDO R&D is different from the R&D of S&T or the Coast 

Guard for many reasons. For one, a DNDO project may start at a very low 

technology readiness level, in other words at the basic research level, but 

may end up being merged into other similar efforts in order to achieve a 

higher project goal. In these cases, the R&D customers are DNDO project 

managers, rather than an external DHS customer, such as CBP. We 

discussed 5 DNDO R&D deliverables at various R&D phases with DNDO 

officials—4 of which were deliverables from ongoing or completed 

projects and 1 of which was a discontinued project, as shown below in 

table 7.

Table 7: Select Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Deliverables and Project Outcomes

Project name Customer identified by DNDO Customer reporting on project met needs 

Contextually-Aware Expert-System for 

Automated Threat Assessment

DNDO Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate

Unknown, project is ongoing. Technology transitioned to 

another project. The project was one of DNDO’s first 

broad agency agreements geared toward the national 

laboratories. The project’s goal was to design a large 

data repository and use it to develop software that could 

be accessed by CBP officials when reviewing a single 

piece of cargo to determine its possible contents in a 

rapid manner.

High Yield Pulsed Neutron Generator DNDO Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate 

and outside entities

Yes, project was completed and commercialized. 

Adelphi Technologies developed a product out of this 

project and won a 2012 R&D award. The product that 

was developed was sold to universities and national 

labs. DNDO officials consider this a great success.

Study of Fast Neutron Signatures and 

Measurement Techniques for SNM 

Detection

DNDO Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate 

Yes, project was completed. The study findings suggest 

that conventional thermal neutron detection approaches 

with moderation are the preferred method for detecting 

neutron emitting sources in cargo. Study informed 

DNDO’s decision making process as it pursues 

alternatives to Helium-3 for neutron detector systems.

Advanced Technology Demonstration for 

Shielded Nuclear Alarm Resolution

Program - Multimodal Automated 

Resolution, Location, and Identification of 

Nuclear Material

DNDO Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate

Yes, project is ongoing. Technology transitioned to 

another ongoing project.

Mapping isotopic distributions in cargo 

(FINDER) to detect Shielded Special 

Nuclear Material (SNM) and its 

configuration.

DNDO Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate

Yes, project was discontinued. Technology found not 

feasible. Lessons learned informed other R&D. 

Source: GAO analysis of DNDO data.
Page 21 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Given the different nature of DNDO’s R&D efforts, we discussed the 

outcomes of DNDO’s completed deliverables with their project managers 

and senior DNDO officials. DNDO TARD officials stated that their primary 

customers are themselves and DNDO’s Acquisitions Directorate. We also 

met with officials from the DNDO directorates responsible for taking earlystage R&D work and moving it toward later-stage development and 

acquisitions. These officials said that the early stage R&D at DNDO feeds 

into the prioritized ranking of gaps in the global nuclear detection 

architecture22, as well as into the analysis-of-alternatives phase of 

DNDO’s solutions development process. Two of the 5 projects we 

discussed had moved from early-stage R&D into other projects further 

along in DNDO’s project management process. Two of the 5 projects 

were completed, with 1 project providing information that informed DNDO 

decision-making processes, and the other project resulting in a 

commercialized product. Last, with regard to the 1 discontinued project, 

DNDO officials said there were many lessons learned, but that the 

particular project’s technology was determined to be too expensive to 

continue pursuing.

Both the Coast Guard and DNDO reported having processes in place for 

gathering the views of customers regarding the results of R&D 

deliverables. For example, the Coast Guard RDT&E Program has a 

process in place for surveying its customers following the completion of a 

project and reported using this information for future R&D planning. The 

Coast Guard’s survey instrument seeks feedback on the following items: 

customer satisfaction, timeliness, utility, and communications, among 

other things. The feedback step is part of the Coast Guard’s Continuous 

Project Process. We reviewed 5 completed surveys from Coast Guard 

customers. The feedback included specific suggestions for improvements 

in the R&D process and positive comments regarding meeting customer 

needs and communication.

DNDO officials identified several ways in which they seek feedback from 

customers on the usefulness of their deliverables. For instance, in its 

solutions development process guide, DNDO provides direction to project 

managers on engaging in initial, small-quantity production of a system so 

 22 The global nuclear detection architecture is an integrated system of radiation detection 

equipment and interdiction activities to combat nuclear smuggling in foreign countries, at 

the U.S. border, and inside the United States.

Feedback Processes and 

Evaluation
Page 22 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

that the customer can thoroughly test the system in order to gain a 

reasonable degree of confidence as to whether the system actually 

performs to the agreed upon requirements before contracts for mass 

production are signed. For example, during the development of the 

Multimodal Automated Resolution, Location, and Identification of Nuclear 

Material project, DNDO managers reported gaining feedback from CBP 

officials through their participation in the R&D, since it is CBP who will be 

the eventual end user of the technology.23 DNDO also details in its 

solutions development process guide how it works with customers to test 

fielded technology solutions, including documenting lessons learned and 

obtaining feedback as part of its R&D continuous development process. 

DNDO’s internal R&D customers (other directorates) stated that they 

provided feedback on DNDO’s R&D efforts through other mechanisms 

such as letters prioritizing technology needs and gaps. Coast Guard and 

DNDO officials also stated that it is not difficult to obtain feedback from 

their R&D customers, since their customers are generally within their own

organizations.

Though S&T Borders and Maritime Security project managers seek 

feedback during their project execution, BMD does not gather and 

evaluate feedback from its customers to determine the impact of its 

completed R&D efforts and deliverables, making it difficult to determine if 

the R&D is meeting customer needs. Further, in some cases, the 

customer of S&T’s R&D was not clear. For example, on BMD’s Wide Area 

Motion Imagery project, BMD officials said that CBP was the customer of 

this deliverable, but CBP officials we spoke with did not know who was 

using the results of the R&D. However, on a project level, BMD officials 

stated that their office prepared reports related to this project and was told 

that the reports were helpful in CBP’s broader consideration of options for 

new airborne sensor systems. In another S&T project, a Coast Guard 

customer identified by BMD was involved in testing the technology (the 

Tethered Aerostat Radio Processor) for BMD, but was not involved in the 

request for the R&D or in a position to make a determination on the extent 

to which the project met the Coast Guard’s needs. Similarly, a CBP 

customer identified by BMD was aware of two R&D deliverables that BMD 

 23Multimodal Automated Resolution, Location and Identification of Nuclear Material 

(MARLIN)—the project seeks to optimize and characterize the ability of emerging 

technology to clear benign vehicles and containerized cargo of nuclear and radiological 

threats regardless of the shielding level in primary mode—the project costs approximately 

$17.5 million.
Page 23 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

said were transitioned to his office, but the official was unable to provide 

additional information on the project’s impact.24 As we mentioned above, 

S&T recently made policy changes that require project managers to 

specify a project’s customer by office and name and to describe customer 

support for the project at a project’s outset. This change should help 

assist S&T in seeking feedback from its customers upon completion of a 

project.

For five projects, S&T BMD project managers and customers we met with 

could not provide definitive information on whether the deliverables had 

achieved their intended goals. For example, S&T and CBP officials 

agreed that R&D efforts on the Aviation Scanner project—a prototype 

scanner to screen interior areas of small aircraft without removing panels 

of the aircraft skin; however, the impact on CBP’s mission needs or its 

future acquisitions is unknown pending future demonstration and testing 

in 2013. The National Academy of Sciences have stated that evaluating 

the relevance and impact of R&D is a key stage of the R&D process and 

that measuring the impact of R&D activities requires looking to the end 

users and stakeholders for an evaluation of the impact of a research 

program, such as through polling or systematic outreach.25

According to S&T BMD officials, since they deal with multiple DHS 

components and are not within the same agencies as its customers, it is 

sometimes difficult to identify who the customer of the R&D is and also 

difficult to determine what the impact of the R&D was. S&T officials also 

stated that in S&T’s 2012 update to its project management guide, in its 

project closeout process, S&T has included a step to collect feedback 

from all relevant customers and a template for collecting this feedback. 

However, the S&T officials stated that this has not yet been carried out 

and that much work remains to be done to ensure this outreach and 

feedback is collected. BMD officials agreed that a more rigorous feedback 

process would provide S&T leadership a better understanding of how 

S&T is serving its customers and public.

 24The two projects were the Shipboard Automatic Identification System and Radar 

Contact Reporting System. 

25National Academy of Sciences, Best Practices in Assessment of Research and 

Development Organizations.2012.
Page 24 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

While S&T has developed a process and template to collect feedback at 

the end of each project and incorporated this into its project management 

plan, it does not plan to survey customers each time it provides a 

deliverable to the customer. As previously noted, S&T projects are often 

conducted over several years before they are concluded or in some 

cases merged into other projects. These projects also often produce 

multiple deliverables for a customer that meet a specific operational need. 

For example, the Ground Based Technologies project began in fiscal year 

2006 and is slated to continue through fiscal year 2018. During this 

period, S&T has provided multiple R&D deliverables to CBP—including 

test results comparing different ground based radar systems, as 

previously mentioned. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that 

feedback from both R&D failures and successes may be communicated 

to stakeholders and used to modify future investments. Moreover, S&T 

has not established timeframes and milestones for when it will begin 

collecting and evaluating feedback on these projects nor stated if and 

when it plans to begin gathering feedback on deliverables, and 

incorporate it into its broader processes for setting R&D priorities and 

portfolios. According to A Guide to the Project Management Body of 

Knowledge, which provides standards for project managers, specific 

goals and objectives should be conceptualized, defined, and documented 

in the planning process, along with the appropriate steps, time frames, 

and milestones needed to achieve those results.26 Establishing time 

frames and milestones for collecting and evaluating feedback from its 

customers could help S&T better determine the usefulness and impact of 

its R&D projects and deliverables and make better-informed decisions 

regarding future work.

 26Project Management Institute Inc., A Guide to the Project Management Body of 

Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Fifth Edition, (Newton Square, PA: 2013). All rights 

reserved.
Page 25 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

S&T’s BMD, the Coast Guard, and DNDO reported taking a range of 

actions to coordinate with one another and their customers to ensure that 

R&D is addressing high priority needs. Officials from BMD identified 

several ways in which it coordinates R&D activities with its customers, 

which are primarily offices within CBP.

• Agency details and Integrated Product Teams: BMD officials 

reported having a person detailed to CBP’s Office of Technology 

Innovation and Acquisition and identified its integrated product teams, 

such as its cross border tunnel threat team, and jointly funded projects 

as ways in which the division works to ensure its R&D efforts are 

coordinated with CBP.27

• Joint strategies: To improve coordination with its customers, in 2012, 

S&T began developing joint R&D strategic plans with various CBP 

offices that are designed to help ensure projects are addressing the 

highest-priority needs. S&T officials developed a draft strategy with 

the Office of Border Patrol in June 2013 and are planning throughout 

the rest of 2013 to develop strategies with other CBP offices, as well 

as a strategy with the Coast Guard in early 2014. BMD officials said 

that CBP’s Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition—which 

aims to ensure CBP’s technology efforts are integrated across CBP 

and assists in managing new technology acquisitions—will be a 

signatory participant on all of the strategies. BMD also plans to 

 27In the integrated product teams, S&T officials interface directly with technology end 

users regarding their capability gaps and efforts already taken to address them. The 

integrated product teams were a formal institution under S&T’s previous Under Secretary, 

but were since disbanded and are now maintained informally only in select topic areas.

DHS Has Taken Steps 

to Coordinate Border 

and Maritime R&D, 

but Opportunities 

Exist to Further 

Strengthen Internal 

and External 

Coordination

DHS Uses Various 

Approaches to Internally 

Coordinate R&D; Broader 

Efforts to Develop 

Departmental Policies for 

Overseeing and 

Coordinating R&D Are 

Ongoing
Page 26 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

develop broader component-level plans in the future. Presently, BMD 

uses letters of intent and technology transition agreements to 

coordinate with customers on a project-by-project level. These 

agreements identify specific project objectives and are detailed to an 

individual project. 28

Officials from the Coast Guard’s R&D Center identified several ways in 

which it coordinates with its customers (which are typically other offices 

within the Coast Guard).

• Annual project cycle: Officials identified the Coast Guard’s annual 

project cycle as one of its primary mechanisms for coordinating with 

its internal customers to ensure that R&D efforts are addressing the 

most pressing operational needs. The annual project cycle involves 

the selection and ranking of its R&D portfolio extending out 2 fiscal 

years. To develop this portfolio, the Coast Guard has both an annual 

idea submission process and annual workshops, where officials 

develop the R&D Center project portfolio.29 Ideas for new projects can 

come from any rank or office, and R&D Center officials said that they 

will consider all the ideas they receive.

• Technology transition agreements: The Coast Guard RDT&E 

Program also uses internal technology transition agreements to 

ensure that internal Coast Guard customers and stakeholders are 

prepared to move forward with an R&D prototype product when 

delivered. These technology transition agreements are non-binding 

agreements, internal to the Coast Guard, for ensuring the coordination 

and transition of R&D products.

• Technology summits: In an effort to enhance awareness of R&D 

efforts across DHS, in February 2012, the Coast Guard hosted a joint 

science and technology summit wherein the Coast Guard, BMD, and 

S&T Office of University Programs officials gave overview briefs of 

their respective work. The summit discussion included such topics as 

the value of routine meetings between the Coast Guard’s R&D 

 28A technology transfer agreement is a non-binding agreement between participants to 

pursue common objectives and execute programs toward mutually beneficial objectives. A 

technology transfer agreement describes the following: customer operational need, 

desired deliverable(s) to meet this need, high level technical requirements, project 

schedule and funding, transition approach, and integration strategy. 

29The Coast Guard’s annual workshops focus on defined gap areas, such as underwater 

security needs or cyber security. The workshops are attended by high ranking Coast 

Guard officials, DHS and Department of Defense officials, experts in the particular topic, 

and anyone else with a vested interest (such as recreational boating groups).
Page 27 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

program and various S&T divisions, as well as the successes that 

S&T has had working with CBP and the potential for the Coast Guard 

to determine if it can identify and replicate successful ways to 

increase its interactions with S&T.

DNDO also has several mechanisms for coordinating its R&D efforts that 

vary depending upon the maturity of the technology. For technologies that 

are close to deployable, DNDO’s Architecture and Plans Directorate, 

which does not conduct R&D, engages directly with CBP and other 

potential customers to identify what technology enhancements the 

components need and then formulates plans and recommendations for 

solutions. For example, DNDO officials testified in 2010 that DNDO had 

outfitted the Coast Guard with over 5,000 personal radiation detectors, 

and officials from the Architecture and Plans Directorate reported working 

closely with the Coast Guard to add a radiological nuclear module to the 

Coast Guard’s terrorism risk model. DNDO’s Transformational and 

Applied Research Directorate, which does conduct R&D, works with less 

mature technologies and therefore does not always interact directly with 

the operational components.

While BMD, the Coast Guard, and DNDO were each taking actions to 

coordinate with their R&D customers, work remains to be done at the 

departmental level to ensure border and maritime R&D efforts are 

mutually reinforcing and are being directed toward the highest priority 

needs.30 We recently highlighted coordination of R&D efforts as a 

challenge for DHS and we made recommendations for improving 

coordination. We reported that S&T, which is statutorily required to 

coordinate R&D efforts across the department, has taken some steps to 

coordinate R&D efforts across DHS, but that the department’s R&D 

efforts are fragmented and overlapping, which increases the risk of 

unnecessary duplication.31 We recommended in September 2012 that 

DHS develop a description of the department’s processes and roles and 

responsibilities for overseeing and coordinating R&D investments and 

efforts. As of June 2013, DHS had not made a decision about how it 

 30Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is intended to produce 

more public value than could be produced when the organizations act alone. Further, we 

have reported that agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by 

defining and articulating common outcomes, identifying and addressing needs by 

leveraging resources, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. 

31 GAO-12-837.
Page 28 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

specifically planned to address these recommendations. BMD officials 

reported in June 2013 that the directorate’s efforts would likely begin at 

the project and office levels (specifically through the office level strategic 

plans S&T’s Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency is 

developing with CBP and the Coast Guard), and from there, move to a 

departmental level. Until DHS has made broader determination about 

what policies and procedures will govern the roles and responsibilities for 

coordinating R&D, it will be unclear what the effectiveness of the various 

coordination approaches are.

DHS S&T Office of University Programs officials discussed the variety of 

ways in which centers and DHS components collaborate and share 

information, and 4 of 5 center officials we met with were generally 

satisfied with the level of communication and collaboration between their 

centers and DHS. Projects at the centers have 5-year work plans that go 

through a mid-point review process with component-agency input where 

they can be reevaluated and modified. To solicit ideas for new projects, 

the Office of University Programs holds technical workshops with 

component-level subject matter experts. The component subject matter 

experts will discuss a technical or informational challenge they have, and 

as a group, the workshop participants will discuss what key research 

questions need to be addressed imminently. The Office of University 

Programs will draft these issues into more formalized research questions 

and put them out to the universities and centers. The office then 

examines proposals it receives based on how the research can further 

DHS’s missions. Office of University Programs officials stated that the 

office’s process for soliciting research topics and evaluating proposals is 

good and that it keeps the centers flexible. Center officials also reported 

collaborating on a variety of projects with non-DHS customers, such as 

DOD (specifically the Army Research Laboratory and the Air Force Office 

of Scientific Research), NOAA, the National Institute of Health, the 

National Science Foundation, and the Department of Justice.

However, officials from DHS’s primary land border security Center of 

Excellence reported challenges with respect to a lack of clarity regarding 

protocols for access to DHS information when conducting R&D. 

Specifically, officials from this center reported that they have been 

regularly unable to obtain data from CBP to complete research it was 

conducting on CBP’s behalf, which resulted in delays and terminated 

R&D projects. These officials reported that of 4 discontinued projects and 

9 completed projects, 4 projects experienced delays, incomplete data, or 

incorrect data. Office of University Programs staff stated that 

Opportunities Exist for 

DHS to Enhance 

Coordination with 

Universities Conducting 

Research on Its Behalf
Page 29 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

misunderstandings surrounding procedures regarding nongovernmental 

personnel access to data can be a challenge.32

DHS Office of University Programs officials said in June 2013 that they 

have not fully developed all of the procedures regarding sharing 

government data. However, the officials said that under the terms of the 

cooperative agreements between the Office of University Programs and 

the centers, CBP has no obligation to provide government-generated data 

of any kind. The officials said that this is because universities generally 

operate under the principle of publishing at will, which could limit the 

ability of DHS to restrict the publication of potentially sensitive 

information. The Office of University Programs provides several avenues 

for DHS components to be involved with the centers and potential 

projects, including writing funding opportunity announcements for centers, 

selecting projects to fund, reviewing and negotiating work plans, and 

recommending corrections. But given the challenges raised by the 

primary border security center, the Office of University Programs could 

help ensure that the approximately $3 million to $4 million a year 

dedicated to each university center is used more effectively by more 

carefully considering data needs, potential access issues, and potential 

data limitations with its federal partners before approving projects. We 

have previously stated that identifying data sources and collection 

procedures is one of the five key steps to an effective evaluation design.33

Further, we have stated that in selecting a product’s design, agencies

should determine a design’s limitations as a result of the information 

required or the scope and methodology—such as questionable data 

quality or reliability, inability to access certain types of data, or security 

classifications or confidentiality restrictions—and to address how these 

limitations will affect the product. Given the challenges raised by officials 

from both universities leading the R&D for land border security, a more 

rigorous review of potential data-related challenges and limitations at the 

start of a project could help R&D customers (such as CBP) identify data 

requirements and potential limitations up front so that money is not 

allocated to projects that potentially cannot be completed. DHS Office of 

 32Under the terms and conditions of a cooperative agreement, university center 

researchers are prohibited from using or generating sensitive or classified information. 

However, centers operating under contracts managed directly by the component 

agencies, such as a Basic Ordering Agreement, could issue task orders to the centers of 

excellence that could include conditions allowing the sharing of sensitive information. 

33 GAO-12-208G.
Page 30 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

University Programs officials agreed that making sure their clients take 

additional steps to identify data requirements up front could help address 

these challenges.

DHS’s R&D agencies reported regularly coordinating with the Department 

of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) in the 

development of new border and maritime security technologies on both 

an individual project level and at a departmental level. For example, 

officials from S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO each reported having 

productive relationships with several DOD offices—including the Office of 

Naval Research; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency; the Army Night 

Vision Center; and the Army Research, Development, and Engineering 

Command. Specifically, DNDO officials said DNDO has an interagency 

agreement with DOD to develop long range nuclear detection devices.

DNDO also has a memorandum of understanding with DOD’s Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency, DOE’s National Nuclear Security 

Administration, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to 

coordinate national nuclear detection R&D programs. Further, Coast 

Guard officials reported partnering with the Navy to develop unmanned 

aerial surveillance technologies capable of launching from the deck of a 

cutter and to develop systems to disable a boat’s outboard engines, as 

shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Vessel Entanglement System Developed by DOD and the Coast Guard

Additionally, Coast Guard, DNDO, and S&T have used the facilities at 

several of DOE’s national laboratories, including the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, the Savannah River National Laboratory, and the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Within S&T, the Office of 

DHS Has Taken Steps to 

Coordinate with and 

Leverage R&D Efforts of 

Other Federal Agencies
Page 31 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

National Laboratories is responsible for helping facilitate cooperative 

agreements between the national labs and DHS components and is to 

review all statements of work issued from DHS to the national 

laboratories. However, we reported in September 2012 that 11 DHS 

components had reimbursed the national laboratories for R&D between 

fiscal years 2010 and 2013, but the Office of National Laboratories could 

not provide us with any information on those activities and told us it did 

not track them.34 Instead, the Office of National Laboratories told us it 

used other means to monitor DHS work at the laboratories such as 

relationships with components and S&T, reviewing task orders sent to the 

laboratories from DHS, visiting laboratories, and laboratories selfreporting their work.

Though it does not report conducting R&D, offices within CBP also 

reported coordinating directly with DOD offices—such the Joint NonLethal Weapons Program, Army Research, Development, and 

Engineering Command, and the Army’s Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics Office—in the development and testing of particular 

technologies. For example, CBP’s Office of Air and Marine reported 

visiting the Navy’s laboratory facilities to learn more about the Navy’s 

efforts to develop a device capable of disabling a boat’s outboard engine 

through a directed energy source. The Navy was conducting this research 

in collaboration with the Coast Guard and the officials from the Office of 

Air and Marine asked to be kept apprised of the project’s progress and to 

be allowed to participate in any testing and demonstrations of prototypes. 

DHS officials also reported participating with DOD on a variety of working 

groups, including the Air Domain Working Group and the Executive 

Aviation Commonality Working Group.

These collaborative relationships have had benefits for DOD as well. For 

instance, officials from the Office of Air and Marine reported working with 

the Navy when it was developing new ocean surveying software for 

tracking vessel movements. The Navy needed a specific number of 

testing hours on an air platform as well as sensor operators familiar with 

sea search radar systems before the software could move ahead in its 

development. The Office of Air and Marine and the Navy agreed, via a 

memorandum of agreement, to adapt the Navy’s software to three 

 34We received obligations data for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, funding data for fiscal year 

2012, and projected funding data for fiscal year 2013. GAO-12-837.
Page 32 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

different types of Office of Air and Marine aircraft. The Navy funded the 

nonrecurring engineering and the Office of Air and Marine paid to install 

and integrate the software on its aircraft. Additionally, officials from CBP 

reported working with DOD to conduct joint testing on a vehicle 

immobilization device. The officials said that DOD had the funding to do 

the testing, but needed vehicles, which CBP had. CBP conducted the 

field testing of the devices and shared the data with DOD. In a 2011 

testimony, a senior DOD official said that DOD and DHS were 

cosponsoring a tunnel detection capability demonstration and that 

technologies resulting from these efforts were expected to be fielded 

domestically and abroad.

Despite successes in the development of new security technologies, DHS 

and DOD have had fewer successes in the repurposing of alreadyexisting DOD technologies for border and maritime security. CBP has an 

agreement with S&T to work with DOD on repurposing its technologies, 

such as laser scopes, radios, and surveillance equipment and DHS and 

DOD have tested some of these technologies in south Texas, but have 

identified several challenges with using the equipment. For example, the 

laser scopes used by DOD do not meet the eye safety requirements in 

place for federal law enforcement officers operating within U.S. borders. 

Second, radios that are developed by DOD for use in foreign countries do 

not always meet Federal Communications Commission requirements for 

use in the United States and cannot be easily reprogrammed. 

Additionally, use of certain surveillance aircraft used by DOD overseas is 

restricted in U.S. airspace and such aircraft therefore cannot be used by 

CBP. Officials from CBP’s Office of Field Operations said that they were 

offered equipment from DOD, but were unable to acquire it because it did 

not meet specific CBP security requirements and was not compatible with 

CBP’s existing operations and maintenance contracts. Specifically, Office 

of Field Operations officials said their office cannot service DOD’s 

equipment with its existing vendor service contracts, and that operations 

and maintenance is a major factor in whether CBP can add something 

new to its fleet. For instance, officials from the Office of Field Operations 

said their office was offered DOD small X-ray vans. The office sent 

officials to inspect the vans and they concluded it would have required a 

substantial investment on CBP’s part to get the vans into working 

condition and to upgrade them so that they could be integrated into CBP’s 

existing fleet. DHS and DOD officials indicated that they would continue 

to work closely together to evaluate opportunities for integrating DOD 

equipment into DHS’s homeland security efforts.
Page 33 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO coordinate with the private sector on a 

project level, as well as through conferences, industry days, and 

workshops. S&T refers to its external coordination efforts as technology 

foraging and it identified several ways in which it coordinates its border 

and maritime R&D efforts with the private sector. The six BMD program 

managers we spoke with—who were responsible for managing projects 

resulting in 18 R&D deliverables and 3 of BMD’s current portfolios—said 

that at the start of every new project, they canvass industry experts to 

gather information on the current state of the art technologies, to gain 

expertise, and to identify where DHS’s R&D efforts would be most 

beneficial. For example, as part of its project to research technologies to 

detect cross-border underground tunnels, BMD reached out to officials in 

the mining and oil industries to discuss their respective areas of expertise 

in using underground sensor systems. From this, BMD determined that 

the currently available technologies were not ideal for the type of 

detection capabilities DHS needed and used this information in 

developing a more effective sensor system for DHS.

The Coast Guard also identified several avenues through which it 

coordinates with the private sector. For instance, the Coast Guard’s 

RDT&E Program uses broad agency announcements to survey industry 

to learn what technologies are already available. The Coast Guard also 

uses cooperative research and development agreements under the 

Technology Transfer Act to partner with industry on R&D projects and in 

July 2013 reported having six such agreements underway. Further, since 

2000, the Coast Guard RDT&E Program has participated in the Coast 

Guard Innovation Exposition, which has assisted in informing Coast 

Guard decision makers about research that is completed, underway, or 

planned. The Innovation Exposition was designed to provide a forum to 

exchange ideas and collaborate within the Coast Guard and with its 

government, industry, and academic partners. Because of budget 

constraints, the Coast Guard suspended the exposition beyond 2011 and 

has stated that it is reevaluating the goals and outcomes of the 

expositions in terms of their cost and benefits.

DNDO reported engaging in similar forms of private industry outreach. 

For instance, DNDO hosts an annual industry day that is attended by 

officials from industry, academia, national laboratories, and others. As 

part of the industry day, DNDO reported collaborating with the private 

sector to discuss ways to enhance existing radiation detection devices 

and develop new technologies that will meet the needs of federal, state, 

and local law enforcement officials through programs such as the 

Commercial First initiative and the Graduated Radiation and Nuclear 

DHS Uses Workshops and 

Other Means to Coordinate 

Efforts with the Private

Sector, but Most 

Coordination Takes Place 

on a Project Level
Page 34 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Detector Evaluation and Reporting program. DNDO officials reported 

signing an industry engagement policy in April 2013 which stated how 

DNDO plans to meet directly with vendors to learn about new 

technologies. The policy provides guidance and a standard operating 

procedure for DNDO employees on holding structured meetings with 

vendors and exchanging information when researching commercially 

available technologies. It also identifies fundamental procurement 

principles, and provides guidance for meeting with vendors and industry 

representatives.

Beyond its project-level outreach, DHS S&T officials identified what they 

refer to as technology foraging as the directorate’s approach for 

identifying and adapting already-available technologies in the private 

sector. In a draft June 2013 document, S&T stated that technology 

foraging is a formal and structured method for identifying technologies 

and research and that project managers should use this knowledge to, in 

part, conduct more informed project planning. To help integrate 

technology foraging into its regular project management, S&T established 

a Technology Foraging Office within its Research and Development 

Partnerships Group. S&T officials reported that staff from this office is 

available to provide technology foraging services to S&T project 

managers upon request. For example, in July 2013, S&T reported 

leveraging a coastal-weather radar system at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to supplement software S&T 

developed that lets the Coast Guard sweep a bay with radar as a way to 

track small anonymous boats or other vessels that transport drugs or 

other illegal contraband. Further, S&T invested $11 million in a private, 

not-for-profit strategic investment firm designed to coordinate advances in 

commercial technologies with the needs of the U.S. intelligence and 

security communities. S&T officials reported that this investment was 

designed to support technology foraging efforts. 35

Securing the nation’s land borders and waterways is a complicated 

undertaking requiring many elements, including effective and coordinated 

 35In addition to its technology foraging and investments, officials from BMD presented at 

numerous international conferences in 2012, including an April 2012 US-Canada border 

security summit; a May 2012 North Atlantic Treaty Organization symposium on port and 

regional maritime security in Lerici, Italy; and a June 2012 workshop on innovation in 

border control in Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Conclusions
Page 35 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

R&D programs. Border and maritime R&D efforts at DHS in recent years 

have resulted in dozens of deliverables to various DHS components. But 

these products have had varying levels of impact on DHS’s ability to 

acquire new security technologies or to advance its homeland security 

missions. Establishing timeframes and milestones for collecting and 

evaluating feedback from its customers on the usefulness and impact of 

the R&D projects and deliverables they receive could help S&T ensure 

that the technologies being developed and delivered to the Coast Guard, 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, and other DHS components are meeting customer needs 

and achieving their intended goals. Further, DHS has made progress 

leveraging the expertise and resources of academia through its Centers 

of Excellence, but has faced cancelled and delayed projects in some 

areas because of a lack of data from DHS. By ensuring that potential 

challenges and limitations with regard to data quality, accessibility, and 

availability are reviewed and understood prior to approving projects, DHS 

can help ensure that it focuses its resources on those projects that are 

better positioned for success.

To help ensure that DHS effectively manages and coordinates its border 

and maritime R&D efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security instruct the Under Secretary for Science and 

Technology to:

• establish timeframes and milestones for collecting and evaluating 

feedback from its customers to determine the usefulness and impact 

of its R&D projects and deliverables, and use it to make betterinformed decisions regarding future work, and

• ensure that design limitations with regard to data reliability, 

accessibility, and availability are reviewed and understood before 

approving Center of Excellence R&D projects.

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

DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix 

II, and concurred with our recommendations. DHS also described actions 

it plans to take to address the recommendations. Specifically, according 

to DHS, all DHS S&T project plans will be modified to require formalized 

feedback from its R&D customers at key project milestones, such as 

testing or transition of a deliverable. Further, to improve its consideration

of potential data needs, access issues, and data limitations, DHS S&T 

plans to develop standard guidelines and protocols for all centers of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 36 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

excellence, which would describe, for example, how data sets must be 

modified to enable use in open-source, unrestricted research formats. 

DHS S&T also plans to encourage centers to voluntarily convene 

workshops to engage both researchers and DHS components to better 

understand constraints and to develop protocols for acquiring and using 

government data. DHS plans to complete these efforts by September 30, 

2014. Such actions should address the overall intent of our 

recommendations.

DHS also provided written technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested 

parties. This report is also available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office 

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

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

III.

David C. Maurer

Director,

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 37 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 8: List of United States Coast Guard – Homeland Security R&D Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012

United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) - Homeland Security Related Projects

Project name Project description Product type

Total Project 

Cost a 

1

b

Maritime Mass Rescue 

Interventions

Study of available interventions (methods and 

tools) for use by rescuers or good Samaritans in 

maritime mass rescue incidents.

Report 

$135,500

2 Automatic Identification 

System in Maritime Aids to 

Navigation Analysis

The Coast Guard seeks a more economical and 

efficient solution for active aids to navigation than 

the current radar beacons.

Report 

$167,173

3 Automated Scene 

Understanding and 

Situational Awarenessc

The command center watchstander is burdened 

with increasing quantities of maritime domain 

sensors and situational information.

Letter, Brief, Report 

$5,712,916

4 Deepwater Horizon 

Response 

The federal on scene commander requires 

investigation of various concepts/technologies to 

support spill response efforts with respect to the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Report 

$33,784

5 Systematic Analysis of 

Deepwater Horizon Spill 

Response Technology

The Coast Guard seeks to improve understanding 

of how technologies worked in Deepwater 

Horizon and what opportunities for improvement 

should be pursued.

Report 

$263,309

6 Office of Naval Research 

Ship Stopping by Propeller 

Entanglement

The Coast Guard, DHS and Department of 

Defense (DOD) seek to improve capability to nonlethally stop a non compliant large vessel.

Report 

$75,779

7 Test and Evaluation for 

Weapons of Mass 

Destruction (WMD)

Response Pilot Program

The Coast Guard seeks to evaluate function of 

first responders in pre-selected new WMD 

personal protective equipment.

Prototype Equipment 

and report 

$5,502,743

8 Integration of Law 

Enforcement Databases 

into Coast Guard 

Biometric System

The Coast Guard law enforcement and 

intelligence communities lack single point of entry 

access to federal databases to support search 

and enroll during at sea biometrics.

Brief 

$810,195

9 Biometric Sector San Juan 

Helpdesk Support

Fast-paced proof of concept requires operational 

support to ensure the proper operation of 

prototype systems, adequate training, train the 

trainer, and collection of operational metrics.

Transition plan: pilot 

plan including 

concept of 

operations, 

instruction plan and 

quick reference 

guide $1,567,716

10 Secure Tactical 

Connectivity

Coast Guard boarding teams seek to improve 

reliability of voice and data communications 

between boarded vessels and support 

commands.

c Technology 

capabilities and 

alternative analysis, 

test and evaluation 

results $991,095

11 Non-Pyrotechnic 

Flashbang Grenade 

Coast Guard tactical teams lack a diversionary 

device with the effects of conventional flashbangs 

without incurring secondary threats from 

excessive smoke or possible fire.

Market survey 

report, requirements 

definition report, and 

feasibility report $355,958

Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Border and Maritime List of Completed and 

Discontinued Research and Development (R&D) 

Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 38 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

12 Hidden Compartment 

Contraband Detection

The Coast Guard seeks to improve current 

capabilities to detect contraband in hidden 

compartments.

Report 

$217,916

13 Low Cost Swimmer 

Detection System

The Coast Guard seeks low-cost underwater 

threat detection systems for protection of critical 

infrastructure.

c Noned

$33,900

14 Barrier System Study 

Update

The information on current barrier technology 

countermeasures is not sufficient for decision 

making on their value in protecting High Value 

maritime assets from waterborne threats.

Report 

$60,168

15 Support for Coast Guard 

High Latitude Region 

Mission Analyses

Coast Guard mission analysis reports guide future 

acquisition and mission development needs in the 

Arctic and Antarctic high latitude regions.

Analysis report

$2,300,502

16 Polar Icebreaker Business 

Case Analysis

No current summary of information is available to 

support decision makers with regards to the 

requirements, options, and cost of sustainment of 

the Coast Guard Polar icebreaking capability.

Independent report 

on a business case 

analysis, 

independent 

analysis, business 

case study, brief $1,658,048

17 Ultra-High Frequency 

Operational 

Communications

The Coast Guard seeks to improve the ultra-high 

frequency radio communications capability 

introduced by the Rescue 21 system, affecting 

intra-Coast Guard communications as well as 

Coast Guard communications with other 

government agencies and port partners.

Brief and feasibility 

study

$375,564

18 Blue Force Tracking The Coast Guard seeks to improve the ability to 

track/identify its own assets and people 

automatically during various mission conditions. 

Report 

$452,814

19 Fleet Mix Analysis–Phase 

2

The Coast Guard seeks to develop fiscally 

constrained fleet mixes to support leadership 

decision making.

Case analysis

$840,461

20 USCG Sensor Operational 

Performance Data

The Coast Guard lacks sensor performance data 

needed as input to simulation models used to 

support acquisitions and future force mix 

decisions.

Prototype Software 

and report 

$2,926.743

21 Maritime Security Risk 

Analysis Methodology 

Independent Verification 

and Validation (IV&V)

Understanding of how new explosive detection 

technologies and field operations can be 

effectively employed in the maritime environment

IV&V and 

accreditation plan,

IV&V report

$366,761

22 Analysis Support for Coast 

Guard Unmanned Aerial 

System Implementation

Coast Guard seeks to improve its understanding 

of how land-based unmanned aerial system can 

be operated to support its missions.

Execution plan, 

procurement plan, & 

lessons learned 

Report $981,916

23 Independent Analysis and 

Assessment of Fused Intel

The Coast Guard needs improved capability to 

effectively collect and correlate data and/or 

reduce data corruption from multiple inputs.

Independent 

assessment, field 

test and report $571,905

Source: DHS.

a

The Coast Guard provided the product type.

b Costs represent Total Project value, i.e., direct and government staff labor & overhead costs, and 

may contain multiple years of funding and funding prior to fiscal year 2010. Each project in the Coast 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 39 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Guard’s Research Development Test and Evaluation Program portfolio is funded with a Research 

Development Test and Evaluation, Acquisitions, Construction & Improvement, or Operating Expenses 

appropriation.

c

DHS S&T was the project sponsor and Coast Guard R&D Center was the project executor.

d

S&T informed us they were the project manager and this resulted in a comparison report

Table 9: Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD) Project Deliverables for 

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD) Project 

Deliverables

Project name Project descriptions Product type Total project 

costs

1

a

Safe Quick Undercarriage 

Immobilization Device (SQUID)

Prototype of a remotely operated mechanical vehicle 

stopping device.

Prototype

$850,000

2 P25 Based Blue Force 

Tracking

Asset tracking capability that employs existing P25 radio 

infrastructure.

Software

$250,000

3 Smart Integration Manager 

Ontologically Networked 

(SIMON)

SIMON is an integration platform for data-producing 

systems, and an integration process for streamlining the 

modernization and modularization of new and existing 

systems.

Software

$3,990,000

4 Sensor Management System 

(SMS)

A real-time sensor integration and distribution system. 

SMS is used to incorporate local and regional sensor data 

to help enhance track picture at command centers.

Prototype

Not Available

5 US Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Riverine 

Airboat Ballistic Protection 

Prototype riverine airboat system that provides ballistic 

protection to operators.

Prototype

$376,000

6 Shipboard Automatic 

Identification System and 

Radar Contact Reporting

System

Use participating maritime vessels as “additional eyes” to 

help detect and track other boats by exfiltrating vessel’s 

on-board radar data and relaying received automatic 

identification system messages via satellite link to a 

ground node.

Prototype

$1,175,000

7 Maritime Asset Tag Tracking 

System 

Provides communications of an unauthorized container 

door opening or tampering detection, along with tracking 

information, to a central data collection system.

Prototype

$5,800,000

8 Container Security Device Provides warning of unauthorized container door opening 

or tampering.

Prototype

9 Ground RADAR Comparison 

Testing

Provide CBP’s Office of Technology Innovation and 

Acquisition (OTIA) with performance data and suitability 

information for commercial off-the the shelf (COTS) radars 

that could be used on towers or Mobile Surveillance 

Systems for border surveillance. To be utilized for 

requirements development and procurement 

specifications.

Report on 

field tests

$1,925,000

10 Wide Area Airborne Sensor 

System Testing

Report delivered to CBP and the Coast Guard on test and 

evaluation of the system in the Tucson Sector, to assist 

future acquisition assessment.

Report on 

field tests

$373,171
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 40 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD) Project 

Deliverables

11 Wide Area Airborne Sensor 

System Testing

Report delivered to CBP and the Coast Guard on test and 

evaluation of the system in the Tucson Sector, to assist 

future acquisition assessment.

Report on 

field tests

$358,871

12 Wide Area Motion Imagery Report delivered to CBP and the Coast Guard on test and 

evaluation of the system in the Tucson Sector, to assist 

future acquisition assessment.

Report 

$183,393

13 Aviation Scanner Prototype system to examine the interior areas of light 

aircraft without removing panels or aircraft skin/covers.

Prototype

$1,000,000

14 Tipsheet Review And 

Correlation EnhanceR 

Software application that enables operators to quickly 

survey large areas of ocean and find vessels of interest.

Software

Not Available

15 Low-light Camera Track low observable targets. Prototype Not Available

16 Container Security Test Bed Technology to “sniff” maritime containers for materials of 

interest. The test bed is a spin-off being used by 

community for realistic testing of new cargo security 

technology.

Prototype

$3,400,000

17 Viz Tools Defined business process and user interface requirements 

for future operational requirements document

Software

$2,676,000

18 Tethered Aerostat Radar 

Adjunct Radar Processor 

System

Provides for the detection, tracking and reporting on 

vessel activity in the Mona Passage (strait between 

Puerto Rico and Hispaniola).

Prototype

$800,000

19 Mobile Surveillance System 

(MSS) Imager/Radar Upgrade

Retrofit kit to enhance radar, imager, and graphical user 

interface/mapping for CBP’s current MSS units.

Prototype

$2,500,000

20 Carrizo Cane Research into the use of biological control agent to 

eliminate non-native weeds that create a security hazard 

along the southwest border. Included quarantine, rearing, 

and field deployment studies. The US Department of 

Agriculture is funding scale-up and deployment.

Report 

$3,000,000

Source: DHS.

a

Funding for projects may contain S&T and component funds.
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 41 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 10: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) R&D Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Projects

Project name Project description Product type

Total project 

costs

1 Passive Detection of 

Shielded Special Nuclear 

Material (SNM)

Development of a system of algorithms, intermediatescale neutron and gamma-ray counters, and performance 

metrics to passively identify the presence of SNM by 

neutron-induced nuclear fission reactions that create 

bursts of many neutrons and gamma rays. 

Softwarealgorithms

$6,436,314

2 Integrating Portal Monitors 

with Individual Source 

Identification, Tracking

Development of a portal-less monitor, the Roadside 

Tracker integrating both video and gamma ray imagining 

technology. 

Prototype

$6,732,483

3 Contextually-Aware ExpertSystem for Automated 

Threat Assessment

Combine gamma and neutron measurements with nonradiation and contextual information to vastly improve 

threat/non-threat discrimination and radiation alarm 

resolution through the use of training tables and machine 

learning.

Softwarealgorithms

$6,087,722

4 Physics and Algorithm 

Enhancements for a 

Validated MCNP/X Monte 

Carlo Simulation Tool

Develop and implement several key physics and algorithm 

enhancements in areas where the code was lacking, 

improvements in evaluated data and benchmark 

measurements for the MCNP/MCNPX Monte Carlo codes 

for active and passive detection systems.

Softwarealgorithms

$5,152,060

5 SoftWare for Optimization of 

Radiation Detectors 

Development of an object-oriented and verticallyintegrated radiation transport simulation and analysis 

system and provides an end-to-end environment for 

simulating gamma-ray background, nuisance sources, 

and targets of interest.

Softwarealgorithms

$4,493,957

6 Detection of Heavily 

Shielded Nuclear 

Contraband through Muon 

Radiography with Advanced 

Micro-pattern Detectors

Development of a muon radiography proof of concept 

prototype that utilizes a gas electron multiplier detector, 

promising shorter interrogation time and better spatial 

resolution compared with more traditional passive portal 

systems that detect dense objects such as special nuclear 

material. 

Prototype

$748,671

7 Large Area X-ray Detector 

for Cargo Inspection 

Development of a stacked array of cesium iodide panel 

detectors for significant improvement in detection 

capability for both contraband and special nuclear material 

at the required scan throughput. 

Prototype

$2,694,293

8 Data Fusion for Nuclear 

Threat Detection

Production of receiver/operator characteristic curves and 

analytical determination of the amount of, and the reasons 

for, improvements of decisions based on fused data rather 

than simple Boolean combinations of decisions. 

Study 

$843,744
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 42 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Projects

Project name Project description Product type

Total project 

costs

9 A Framework for Developing 

Novel Detection Systems 

Focused on Interdicting 

Shielded Helium Enriched 

Uranium (HEU)

Demonstrate the ability to develop and deploy new 

detector concepts with fully integrated signal and 

information analysis to attain breakthrough improvements 

in the nation’s ability to detect domestic nuclear threats 

through the smuggled HEU interdiction through enhanced 

analysis and detection framework, which comprises four 

research teams (areas) covering: detectors, systems 

analysis, radiation transport and inversion, and a social 

science and policy.

Softwaremodeling

$4,959,000

10 Interdicting Smuggled 

Nuclear Material

Development of interdiction models, solution algorithms, 

insights and specific recommendations for optimally 

prioritizing sites for locating radiation detectors to thwart 

an intelligent and informed smuggler of nuclear material 

over a global transportation network, and to develop tools 

for rapid computation of physics-based detection 

probabilities that parametrically address a range of 

detectors, types of special nuclear material, and local 

conditions that in concert determine detection 

probabilities. .

Softwarealgorithms

$1,571,906

11 Multi-layered system level 

screening for port security

Explore how a systems approach can be used to design 

and analyze systems for detecting nuclear material at our 

nation’s ports. The team developed a risk-based 

framework for screening cargo containers for nuclear 

material and developed an expert judgment tool to rank 

nuclear threat risk levels for incoming vessels.

Softwarealgorithms

$119,922

12 Stand-Off Radiation 

Detection System

Mobile passive detection systems with a goal of detection 

at a distance, 1mC at 100meters. The unit has a 

backplane made of cesium iodide logs and a passive 

mask/antimask on either side enabling dual sided coded 

aperture imaging. 

Prototype

$5,466,047

13 Mobile Imaging and 

Spectroscopic Threat 

Identification 

Mobile passive detection systems with a goal of detection 

at a distance, 1mC at 100m. The unit uses an array of 

high purity germanium (HPGe) detectors for highresolution spectral triggering of the sodium iodide based 

coded aperture imager. 

Prototype

$9,733,776

14 Tri-Modal Imager Mobile passive detection systems with a goal of detection 

at a distance, 1mC at 100m. The imager has a 2-

dimensional active mask and backplane constructed from 

sodium iodide to provide coded aperture and Compton 

imaging capability. 

Prototype

$7,125,290

15 Integrated Muon 

Tomography, Gamma and 

Neutron Detector

Development of a proof of concept system that integrated 

both gamma detection and muon tomography for the 

detection of radiological/nuclear material. 

Proof of concept

$140,143

16 Target-Linked Radiation 

Imaging

for Standoff Detection

Demonstrate the benefit of fusing target tracking data 

directly into radiation imaging algorithms by building a 

target-linked radiation Imaging system that integrates a 

state-of-the-art video tracking system with advanced 

cadmium zinc telluride detector technology. $3,116,158
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 43 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Projects

Project name Project description Product type

Total project 

costs

17 Advanced Technology 

Demonstration for Shielded 

Nuclear Alarm Resolution

Program

Development of an active interrogation system for 

scanning cargo containers with a 9 MeV CW 

bremsstrahlung photon source capable of detecting high-Z 

utilizing prompt neutrons from photofission to detect the 

presence of fissionable material, and nuclear resonance 

fluorescence to identify isotopic content. 

Prototype

$17,541,191

18 Standalone Multiple 

Anomaly Recognition 

Technique Advanced Non 

Intrusive Inspection 

Algorithm

Development of an image processing algorithm to 

determine the most likely locations of contraband in 

radiographic images taken by nonintrusive inspection 

systems of cargo containers. 

Softwarealgorithms

$1,079,335

19 High Yield Pulsed Neutron 

Generator

Development of pulsed neutron generator using the 

deuterium-deuterium reaction with a high average yield 

and pulse lengths varying from 100 microseconds to 2 

microsecond with a fall time of less than 1 microsecond. 

Prototype

$1,114,300

20 Intelligent Radiation Sensor 

System—General Electric 

Demonstrate the advanced technologies required to 

improve the ability to detect, localize, and identify 

radiological sources by integrating data from multiple 

portable radiation detectors. In the system, small 

networked detectors transmit radiation data and their 

location to a base station, which fuses data from all 

detectors and determines if detection has occurred. If a 

source has been detected, the system then uses the 

available information to locate and identify the source. 

This information is transmitted back to the user(s) in the 

array. The system takes into account directional detectors.

Softwarealgorithms

$8,058,598

21 Intelligent Radiation Sensor 

System—Passport Systems

Demonstrate the advanced technologies required to 

improve the ability to detect, localize, and identify 

radiological sources by integrating data from multiple 

portable radiation detectors. In this system, small 

networked detectors coupled with a smart phone 

processor system. The smart phone is used to gather data 

from nearby neighbors and perform a local particle filter 

calculation. These results are passed to the user and the 

neighboring detectors. If a base station is employed, the 

results are sent to a base station.

Softwarealgorithms

$7,832,542

22 Intelligent Radiation Sensor 

System—Smith Systems

Demonstrate the advanced technologies required to 

improve the ability to detect, localize, and identify 

radiological sources by integrating data from multiple 

portable radiation detectors. In this system, small 

networked detectors transmit radiation data and their 

location to a base station, which uses a number of 

algorithms to determine if detection has occurred. Their 

primary algorithm is a particle filter. If detection has 

occurred, the system attempts to location and identify the 

source using a series of algorithms. This system employs 

an ultra wide band networking method that allows 3-

dimensional positioning in a Global Positioning Systemdenied environment.

Softwarealgorithms

$4,900,906
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 44 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Projects

Project name Project description Product type

Total project 

costs

23 Web-Based Computer 

Simulation of Radiological 

Detection Scenario Training 

Container Security Initiative will take an existing simulation 

development tool, assess the feasibility of creating two 

virtual working detectors, create a new web-based 

interface where the detectors can be virtually controlled, 

and establish the web-delivery and administration 

software specifications for this new approach to training 

on these instruments.

Softwarealgorithms

$1,113,500

24 Realistic and Adaptive 

Interactive Learning System 

Propose an innovative approach that brings all of these 

elements together to develop simulation software that 

provides physically realistic and effective preventative 

radiation/nuclear detection training to first responders by 

first adding radiation transport algorithms to an existing 

video game engine which will be used to generate training 

scenarios based on real locations, and then testing the 

accuracy of those simulations by comparing the virtual 

environment with data collected from real world 

measurements.

Softwarealgorithms

$1,153,254

25 Near Term Replacement for 

Large Helium-3Tubes

Development and characterization of portal-sized neutron 

detector modules consisting of layers of 6LiF/ZnS 

scintillating materials and wavelength shifting fibers. 

Prototype

$562,115

26 Development of a 3/6/9 MeV 

X-ray Generator

Development of a next generation X-ray generator that 

can deliver photon energies of 3, 6, and 9 MeV in discrete 

and interleaved modes at a repetition rate of 800-1000 

Hertz in the x-band microwave frequency. 

Prototype

$1,113,500

27 Neutron Straw-Based 

Replacement for Advanced 

Spectroscopic Portal (ASP)

and Radiation Portal 

Monitors(RPM) Helium-3 

detectors

Development of portal monitor replacements using boroncoated straw proportional counters embedded in a 

moderator. 

Prototype

$501,075

28 High Sensitivity Detection 

and Identification of 

Radiological Threats in Low 

Scatter-to Clutter Ratio 

Environments

Develop and demonstrate novel radiological background 

characterization approaches that will improve the 

detection capability of both fixed, passive ASP systems, 

as well as handheld and moviel isotope identifiers.

Capability will be directly demonstrated by integrating 

these algorithms with RadSeeker detector technology. 

These algorithms will result in the ability to perform clutter 

suppression yielding de-noised gamma-ray signatures of 

significantly higher accuracy needed for detection and 

identification of low activity threats.

Softwarealgorithms

$466,035

29 Cost Effective Neutron 

Straw-Based Replacement 

for ASP and RPM Helium-3 

detectors

Development of large diameter boron-coated straws 

embedded in a moderator as a cost-effective replacement 

for helium-3 in radiation portal monitors.

Prototype

$442,976
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 45 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) Projects

Project name Project description Product type

Total project 

costs

30 RadMATE - a Mobile 

RAD/NUC Reachback App

Development of a smart phone application that DNDO 

calls RadMATE. The vision for RadMATE is to be 

available to operators in the field primarily to simplify and 

expedite Reachback, but additionally to provide needed 

information (e.g. tables to classify sources as innocent or 

of major concern) and operating procedures when a 

radiological source is encountered in the field. This will 

considerably minimize the burden on operators and 

eliminate the need for a specialized laptop computer with 

custom Reachback software. It will also ensure that 

Reachback communications are consistent, complete and 

more accurate.

Softwarealgorithms

$168,513

31 Spectroscopic Portal, Active 

Interrogation, Radiography 

Threat Alarming 

Development of a Smartphone application for radiological 

threat adjudication to support law enforcement and first 

responder adjudication of anomalous gamma ray spectra 

collected on handheld or personal radioisotope 

identification and spectroscopic personal radiation 

detector devices.

Softwarealgorithms

$169,335

32 Non-Radioactive Alternative 

to Replace Radioactive 

Sources in Commercial 

Applications

Design, build, test, and evaluate an engineering prototype 

neutron generator for Am-Be replacement that is to scale 

and function to simulate ruggedness and suitability for 

borehole applications.

Prototype

$817,178

33 Proof of Concept 

Demonstration of a Compact 

Accelerator 

Research and development to design, build, and 

demonstrate use of a portable, cost efficient electron 

accelerator for non-intrusive inspection and verification 

applications.

Prototype

$1,392,875

34 Bayesian Optimization 

Algorithm for Automated 

Spectral Identification of 

Nuclear Material 

Idea is to apply large-scale optimization algorithms 

(branch and bound) to mixture analysis, use a Bayesian 

network to incorporate expert knowledge into optimization 

algorithms, and demonstrate measurable performance 

gains in RN ID for various detector materials. 

SoftwareAlgorithms

$820,593

35 Advanced Technology 

Research Algorithms for 

Shielded Nuclear Material 

Detection 

Developing a set of algorithms to locate high-Z material in 

radiography images

SoftwareAlgorithms

$985,022

36 Study of Fast Neutron 

Signatures and 

Measurement Techniques 

for Shield Nuclear Material 

(SNM) Detection 

Study investigating the benefits of fast vs. thermal neutron 

signatures for detection of SNM in passive applications; 

will explore different types of detectors (high pressure He4, single crystal organic scintillators, and plastics), 

sources (Cf-252, gamma), backgrounds, and cargos 

(represented by moderators). 

Study

$291,114

Source: DHS.
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 46 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 11:S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) R&D Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012

S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) Projects

Project name Project description Product type Total project 

costs

1 The Impact on the U.S. Economy 

of Changes in Wait Times at Ports 

of Entry

The Impact on the U.S. economy of changes in wait 

times at ports of entry.

Report

$200,000

2 Analytical Method to Identify the 

Number of Containers to Inspect 

at U.S. Ports to Deter Terrorist 

Attacks

Analytical method to identify the number of 

containers to inspect at U.S. ports to deter terrorist 

attacks.

Published report

$80,000

3 Deterring the Smuggling of 

Nuclear Weapons in Container 

Freight Through Detection and 

Retaliation

Deterring the smuggling of nuclear weapons in 

container freight through detection and retaliation.

Published report

$80,000

4 Application of the Advanced 

Circulation Coastal Circulation 

Model for Predicting Near Shore 

and Inner Shore Transport of Oil 

from the Horizon Oil Spill

This rapid response project adapted the center’s 

storm surge models to forecast oil landfall during the 

Gulf Coast Horizon Oil Spill. The work was 

coordinated with Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers.

Report, software, 

training

$300,000

5 Coast Guard Search and Rescue 

Visual Analytics 

Coast Guard Search and Rescue Visual Analytics–

interactive resource allocation tool for search and 

rescue missions and stations.

Software

$500,000

6 Boat Allocation Module Boat Allocation Module—operations research 

resource allocation capability for Coast Guard boat 

stations.

Software

$150,000

7 Maritime Risk Risk analysis for maritime traffic in Delaware River. Report $600,000 

8 Fisheries Law Enforcement Targeted risk-based decision support tool for Coast 

Guard operations.

Software

$350,000 

9 Migrant Population Characteristics 

and Flows

This study has sought to develop new statistics that 

will significantly improve understanding of both the 

level of legal and illegal immigration through the 

United States. and the specific demographic 

attributes of these individuals, and thus enable 

better informed decision making regarding public 

services usage, criminal activity, and immigrant 

assimilation.

Report

$206,000 

10 Checkpoint Study Provides Office of Border Patrol recommendations 

for improved data collection, performance metrics, 

community impact assessment and resource 

allocation tools.

Report

$1,000,000 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 47 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

S&T Office of University Programs (OUP) Projects

11 How Will We Know?: Measures of 

Border Control

The project’s goal is to recommend a ―standard for 

border enforcement effectiveness based on a review 

of existing research, interviews with Border Patrol 

and other DHS personnel, and an assessment of the 

available data.

Analysis/report

$87,875 

12 Organization and Networks of 

Transnational Gangs

The two primary objectives of this study include:(1) 

further understanding the organizational structure 

and sophistication of transnational criminal gangs 

and their capacity to facilitate mobility and migration 

through Mexico into the United States.; and (2) 

further understanding the dynamic social networks 

of transnational criminal gangs and their capacity to 

facilitate mobility and migration through Mexico into 

the United States.

Study/report

$228,378 

13 Risk-based Allocation of Border 

Security Assets

The methods and tools offer approaches to 

allocating border security assets based on criteria of 

risk. In this project, we asked: what risk-based 

resource allocation approaches are most effective 

and how does effectiveness depend on the 

operational environment.

Study/ report

$224,181 

14 Decision Support Systems Software for data display and fusion was enhanced. Software $457,512 

15 Satellite Detection and Tracking of 

Ships and Ice

We have produced near-real-time sea ice imagery 

and sea ice concentration products. These products 

are critical aids to operating ships safely in regions 

where sea ice (and potentially marine mammals) 

represent hazards.

Prototype

$851,000 

16 Ship Detection using 

Multi/Hyperspectral Images

Analysis of imagery and development of software for 

sensor information and anomaly detections.

Software/report

17 Satellite Detection and Tracking of 

Ships

Software for constellation optimization was 

developed and evaluated.

Software

18 PROTECT: Port Resilience 

Operational Tactical Enforcement 

to Combat Terrorism

Randomized inspection scheduling tool for Coast 

Guard surveillance operations.

Software

$813,845

Source: DHS.

a

a

This project was co-funded between OUP grant monies and RDC RDT&E funding. RDC is the 

USCG Project Manager and obtained support from OUP COEs using Basic Ordering Agreement task 

orders to develop and test software prototype. OUP contribution to software development is 

complete. However, USCG PROTECT software development and testing is ongoing.
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 48 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Table 12: List of DHS Discontinued Border and Maritime R&D Projects for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD)

Project name Reason for discontinuation Project costs

1

a

Border and Maritime Systems Basic 

Research 

Reduced funding and strategic move to reduce basic 

research

Not Available

2 Complex Systems Analysis and Basic 

Research 

Reduced funding and strategic move to reduce basic 

research

Not Available

3 Can Scan Stopped at preliminary review due to lack of CBP 

acquisition funding

$13 million

4 Safe Container Reduced funding in fiscal year 2012 $20 million

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)

1 Mapping isotopic distributions in cargo 

(FINDER) to detect Special Nuclear Material 

and its configuration

Technology found not feasible $4,780,427

2 Directed-Radiation for Active-Interrogation 

near Coastal Cities

Technology found not feasible $2,190,600

3 Shielded Nuclear Alarm Resolution System Technology found not feasible $7,462,370

4 Intensity-Modulated Advanced X-Ray Source Technology found not feasible Not Available

5 A Fast Pulse, Portable Neutron Source for 

Special Nuclear Materials Detection

Technology found not feasible $557,143

6 Demonstration of Close Proximity Gravity 

Detection for Shielded Fissile Materials in 

Vessels

Technology found not feasible $440,229

S&T Office of University Programs (OUP)

1 Reduction of False Alarm Rates Data not provided by DHS at sector/headquarters 

level – Principle Investigator (PI) did not make 

progress in finding alternate testing data.

Not Available

2 Fusion of Spatial-Temporal Sensor Data PI did not make progress—lack of adequate funding Not Available

3 Dynamic Resource Allocation Using Marketbased MethodsPI did not make progress—lack of adequate funding Not Available

4 Border Security Risk Assessment and 

Maturity Model

PI did not make progress Not Available

5 K-12 Summer Seminar Camps Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as focus 

shifted to higher education

Not Available

6 Maritime Domain Awareness Curricular 

Sequence

Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as focus 

shifted to higher education

Not Available

7 Preparing Rural and Alaska Native Students 

for DHS Careers

Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as focus 

shifted to higher education

Not Available

8 Advanced High Frequency Radar Design: An 

integrative Approach of Novel Antennas, 

Propagation Modeling, and Digital Signal 

Processing Performance Optimization 

Algorithms

Discontinued by Center for Island, Maritime, and 

Extreme Environment Security (CIMES) Director 

when antennas seemed unlikely candidates for 

transition to stakeholders.

Not Available

9 Project 2.1: Resiliency Modeling Insufficient funding Not Available
Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Border and Maritime List of Completed 

and Discontinued Research and Development 

(R&D) Project Deliverables for Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2012

Page 49 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD)

Project name Reason for discontinuation Project costs

10

a

Project 2.2: Resilient and Cognitive Port 

Infrastructure Systems and Enterprises

Insufficient funding Not Available

11 Estimates of the Unauthorized Population and 

Visa Overstays

PI opted out Not Available

12 Effective Bi-national Border Security 

Governance

No progress made towards tangible outcomes Not Available

13 CIMES Summer Undergraduate Research 

Program and Visiting Faculty

Discontinued by OUP Program Manager as focus 

shifted to higher education

Not Available

14 Pattern Analyses from Remote Sensing Data Reason for discontinuation not provided Not Available

15 Detection and Tracking of Hidden Objects Reason for discontinuation not provided Not Available

16 Wireless Sensor Network Development Reason for discontinuation not provided Not Available

17 Sensor Fusion for Intent and Hotspot 

Detection

Reason for discontinuation not provided Not Available

18 Vehicle Detection, Identification and 

Screening

Reason for discontinuation not provided Not Available

19 Extended Battery Life for Sensor Networks Reason for discontinuation not provided Not Available

Source: DHS.

a

Due to the nature of funding of R&D and grant funding, individual project costs were not readily 

available.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 50 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 51 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 52 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-13-732 DHS Border and Maritime R&D

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Chris Currie (Assistant Director), 

Aditi Archer, Charlotte Gamble, and Gary Malavenda made key 

contributions to this report, and Michele Fejfar, Robert Fletcher, and 

Richard Hung assisted with design and methodology. Frances Cook 

provided legal support. Jessica Orr and Eric Hauswirth provided 

assistance in report preparation.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441103)
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.