FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY

DHS and GSA Have Not 

Implemented 

Recommendations to 

Strengthen the 

Management of DHS 

Headquarters 

Consolidation

Statement of Chris P. Currie, Director, Homeland Security 

and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Management Efficiency, Committee 

on Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET

Thursday, April 12, 2018

GAO-18-484T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-484T, a testimony

before the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Management Efficiency, Committee on 

Homeland Security, House of Representatives

April 12, 2018

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

DHS and GSA Have Not Implemented 

Recommendations to Strengthen the Management of 

DHS Headquarters Consolidation

What GAO Found

In its September 2014 report, GAO found that Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and General Services Administration (GSA) planning for the DHS 

headquarters consolidation at the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, D.C. did 

not fully conform with leading capital decision-making practices intended to help 

agencies effectively plan and procure assets. Specifically, GAO found that DHS 

and GSA had not conducted a comprehensive assessment of current needs, 

identified capability gaps, or evaluated and prioritized alternatives that would 

help officials adapt consolidation plans to changing conditions and address 

funding issues as reflected in leading practices. GAO recommended that DHS 

and GSA conduct various assessments and analyses and use the results to 

inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans. The agencies concurred 

with this recommendation.

In its September 2014 report, GAO also found that DHS and GSA cost and 

schedule estimates for the headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths 

did not conform or, only minimally or partially conformed, with leading estimating 

practices, and were therefore unreliable. Thus, GAO recommended that DHS 

and GSA develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions 

of the consolidation project in accordance with leading practices, and the 

agencies concurred with this recommendation.

The DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015, enacted in 

April 2016 would, according to the accompanying Senate committee report, 

ensure that DHS and GSA fully address the recommendations from GAO’s

September 2014 report and provide Congress the information needed to make 

sound decisions regarding the project. Among other things, the Act required 

DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress, including 

various assessments and updated cost and schedule estimates related to the 

DHS headquarters consolidation. As of April 2018, however, DHS and GSA had 

not submitted the information to Congress that would either meet the 

requirements of the Act or address GAO’s recommendations. DHS and GSA 

officials cited funding instability as one challenge to updating consolidation plans 

and cost and schedule estimates. 

Progress of Center Building construction at St. Elizabeths campus from 2016 (left) to 2018 

(right)

View GAO-18-484T. For more information, 

contact Chris Currie at (404) 679-1875 or 

curriec@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS and GSA have been managing 

efforts to consolidate DHS executive 

leadership, operational management, 

and other personnel at one secure 

headquarters location rather than at 

multiple locations throughout the 

Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. 

The consolidation is to include the 

development of multi-billion dollar 

headquarters facilities at the St. 

Elizabeths campus in Washington, 

D.C.

In September 2014, GAO issued a 

report entitled: Federal Real Property: 

DHS and GSA Need to Strengthen the 

Management of DHS Headquarters 

Consolidation (GAO-14-648). This 

statement summarizes the key findings 

and recommendations from this report, 

and provides a status update as of 

April 2018 on DHS and GSA 

implementation of GAO’s 

recommendations. 

To complete the September 2014 

report, GAO compared DHS and GSA 

capital planning efforts against 

applicable leading practices, 

interviewed officials, and reviewed cost 

and schedule estimates for the St. 

Elizabeths project. To assess 

subsequent DHS and GSA actions to 

implement GAO’s September 2014 

recommendations, GAO conducted 

periodic follow-up with agency officials.

What GAO Recommends

Among other things, GAO 

recommended in its September 2014 

report that DHS and GSA develop 

revised DHS headquarters plans that 

reflect leading practices for capital 

decision making and also reliable cost 

and schedule estimates. DHS and 

GSA concurred with our 

recommendations.
Letter

Page 1 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths 

campus in Washington, D.C., including a status update on the 

recommendations that we made in a 2014 report on this issue.1 The 

multi-billion dollar construction project, managed by DHS and the General 

Services Administration (GSA),2 is the centerpiece of DHS’s larger effort 

to manage and consolidate its workforce of over 20,000 in the National 

Capital Region.3 As conceived in 2006, the federally owned St. Elizabeths 

site was designed to consolidate DHS’s executive leadership, operational 

management, and other personnel at one secure location rather than at 

multiple locations throughout the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.4

The St. Elizabeths project is intended to allow for more efficient DHS 

operations and provide long-term cost savings by reducing reliance on 

leased space. From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2014, the St. 

Elizabeths consolidation project had received approximately $495 million 

through DHS appropriations and approximately $1.1 billion through GSA 

appropriations, for a total of over $1.5 billion.5 However, since 

construction began in fiscal year 2009, the project has generally received 

less funding than requested, which DHS and GSA officials have stated 

has led to cost escalations and schedule delays. The President’s fiscal 

year 2019 budget requests a total of about $400 million for continued 

consolidation and new development funds for the project.

 1

GAO, Federal Real Property: DHS and GSA Need to Strengthen the Management of 

DHS Headquarters Consolidation, GAO-14-648 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2014). 

2

GSA, the landlord for the civilian federal government, acquires space on behalf of the 

federal government through new construction and leasing, and acts as a caretaker for 

federal properties across the country. As such, GSA had the responsibility to select the 

specific site for a new, consolidated DHS headquarters facility, based on DHS needs and 

requirements.

3

The National Capital Region is composed of the District of Columbia and nearby 

jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia.

4

The St. Elizabeths campus is a National Historic Landmark and a former federally-run 

hospital for the mentally ill.

5

Since we reported in September 2014 through fiscal year 2018, approximately $277 and 

$485 million more had been appropriated to DHS and GSA, respectively, for the St. 

Elizabeths consolidations project. Since fiscal year 2006, amounts appropriated to DHS 

and GSA for the St. Elizabeths consolidation project have exceeded $2.3 billion in the 

aggregate. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

In September 2014, we made three recommendations to improve the 

management of DHS headquarters consolidation, and DHS and GSA 

concurred with the recommendations.

In 2014, we recommended that:

1. DHS and GSA conduct the following assessments and use the results 

to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans:

• a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current 

and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing 

conditions; and

• an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of 

leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the 

project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

2. DHS and GSA develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the 

remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA 

guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, 

including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

3. DHS designate the headquarters consolidation program a major 

acquisition, consistent with DHS acquisition policy, and apply DHS 

acquisition policy requirements.

In our September 2014 report, we further stated that Congress should 

consider making future funding for the St. Elizabeths project contingent 

upon DHS and GSA developing a revised headquarters consolidation 

plan that conforms with leading practices and that (1) recognizes changes 

in workplace standards, (2) identifies which components are to be 

colocated at St. Elizabeths and in leased and owned space throughout 

the National Capital Region, and (3) develops and provides reliable cost 

and schedule estimates.

Subsequently, in 2015, we designated our three recommendations to 

DHS and GSA as “Priority Recommendations” due in part to the important 

fiscal and operational implications of DHS headquarters consolidation. In 

addition, we have designated the broader areas of Managing Federal 

Real Property and Strengthening DHS Management Functions as High 
Page 3 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

Risk areas due to mismanagement vulnerabilities or a need for 

transformation.6

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters 

Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015, enacted in April 2016 would, 

according to the accompanying Senate committee report, ensure that 

DHS and GSA fully address the recommendations from our September 

2014 report and provide Congress the additional information needed to 

make sound decisions regarding the headquarters consolidation project.7

Among other things, the Act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to

submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation 

efforts not later than 120 days after enactment (enacted April 29, 2016).8

Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of the 

difference between the current real property and facilities needed by DHS 

in the National Capital Region, an analysis that identifies the costs and 

benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the 

consolidation project, and updated cost and schedule estimates. 

Furthermore, under the Act, the Comptroller General is to report on its 

review and evaluation of the quality and reliability of the cost and 

schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to 

Congress.9 As of April 2018, DHS and GSA had not submitted the 

required headquarters consolidation information to Congress or 

implemented our related recommendations.

Although DHS and GSA have yet to provide the information to Congress, 

construction is proceeding at the St. Elizabeths campus. Figures 1 and 2 

show progress made to the Center Building from September 2016 to 

March 2018. This structure will house the Secretary of Homeland Security 

and other key leadership.

 6

GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts 

Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).

7

See Pub. L. No. 114-150, 130 Stat. 366 (2016); see also S. Rpt. No. 114-227 (Mar. 14, 

2016).

8

Specifically, the DHS Secretary, in coordination with the GSA Administrator, is to submit 

to the Committees on Homeland Security and Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs of the Senate, information on the implementation of the enhanced plan for the DHS 

headquarters consolidation project within the National Capital Region. See Pub. L. No. 

114-150, § 2, 130 Stat. at 366-68.

9

See Pub. L. No. 114-150, § 2(b), 130 Stat. at 367.
Page 4 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

Figure 1: The Center Building at St. Elizabeths in 2016 (left) and 2018 (right)

Figure 2: The Center Building at St. Elizabeths in 2016 (left) and 2018 (right)
Page 5 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

My testimony summarizes the key findings of our September 2014 report 

on DHS and GSA efforts to manage the DHS headquarters consolidation 

project, and provides a status update on DHS and GSA implementation of 

our recommendations. To complete our September 2014 report, we 

compared DHS and GSA capital planning efforts against applicable 

leading practices in capital decision making and interviewed DHS and 

GSA officials responsible for the planning and management of the DHS 

headquarters consolidation.10 We also compared DHS and GSA 

documents on the estimated cost and schedule for the St. Elizabeths 

project with cost- and schedule-estimating leading practices we have 

identified in our prior work, and relevant GSA guidance.11 To assess 

subsequent DHS and GSA actions to implement our September 2014 

recommendations, we conducted periodic follow-up with DHS and GSA 

officials and obtained relevant documentation. The work upon which this 

statement is based was conducted 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.

 10GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making; GAO/AIMD-99-32 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 1998) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Capital 

Programming Guide, Supplement to OMB Circular A-11 (Washington, D.C.: July 2014). 

11GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009) and 

GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, GAO-12-120G 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2012). 
Page 6 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

In our September 2014 report, we found that DHS and GSA planning for 

the DHS headquarters consolidation did not fully conform with leading 

capital decision-making practices intended to help agencies effectively 

plan and procure assets.12 Specifically, we found that DHS and GSA had 

not conducted a comprehensive assessment of current needs, identified 

capability gaps, or evaluated and prioritized alternatives that would help 

officials adapt consolidation plans to changing conditions and address 

funding issues as reflected in leading practices.13 At that time, DHS and 

GSA officials reported that they had taken some initial actions that may 

facilitate consolidation planning in a manner consistent with leading 

practices. For example, DHS had an overall goal of reducing the square 

footage allotted per employee across the department in accordance with 

workplace standards, such as standards for telework and hoteling.14 As 

we reported in 2014, DHS and GSA officials acknowledged that new 

workplace standards could create a number of new development options 

to consider, as the new standards would allow for more staff to occupy 

the space at St. Elizabeths than previously anticipated. DHS and GSA 

officials also reported at that time that analyzing different leasing options 

could affect consolidation efforts. However, we found that the 

consolidation plans, which were finalized between 2006 and 2009, had 

not been updated to reflect these actions.

In addition, we found in September 2014 that funding for the St. 

Elizabeths project had not aligned with what DHS and GSA initially 

planned. We reported that according to DHS and GSA officials, the 

funding gap between what DHS and GSA requested and what was 

received from fiscal years 2009 through 2014, was over $1.6 billion. 

According to these officials, this gap created cost escalations of over $1 

 12Congress, OMB, and GAO have all identified the need for effective capital decision 

making among federal agencies. OMB’s Capital Programming Guide, a Supplement to

OMB Circular A-11, along with GAO’s Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital 

Decision-Making provides detailed guidance to federal agencies on leading practices for 

the four phases of capital programming—planning, budgeting, acquiring, and managing 

capital assets. These practices are, in part, intended to provide a disciplined approach or 

process to help federal agencies effectively plan and procure assets to achieve the 

maximum return on investment.

13GAO/AIMD-99-32 and OMB Capital Programming Guide, Supplement to OMB Circular 

A-11. 

14Telework is a work arrangement in which employees perform all or a portion of their 

work at an alternative work site, such as from home or a telework center. Hoteling allows 

allow employees to work at multiple sites and use nondedicated, nonpermanent 

workspaces assigned for use by reservation on an as-needed basis.

Consolidation Plans 

Did Not Fully 

Conform with Leading 

Capital DecisionMaking Practices and 

GAO

Recommendation 

Has Not Been 

Implemented
Page 7 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

billion and schedule delays of over 10 years relative to original estimates. 

We found in 2014 that these delays posed challenges for DHS in terms of 

its leasing portfolio. Specifically, DHS’s long-term leasing portfolio was 

developed based on the original expected completion date for St. 

Elizabeths development in 2016. In 2014, DHS and GSA reported that 

they had begun to work together to consider changes to the DHS 

headquarters consolidation plans, but they had not announced when new 

plans would be issued. Furthermore, because final documentation of 

agency deliberations or analyses had not yet been developed, it was 

unclear if any new plans would be informed by an updated 

comprehensive needs assessment and capability gap analysis as called 

for by leading capital decision-making practices. Therefore, in our 

September 2014 report we recommended that DHS and GSA conduct 

various assessments and analyses and use the results to inform updated 

DHS headquarters consolidation plans. DHS and GSA concurred with this 

recommendation and stated that their forthcoming draft St. Elizabeths 

Enhanced Consolidation Plan would contain these analyses.

As of April 2018, however, the agencies had not submitted updated plan 

information to Congress that would either meet the requirements of the 

DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act or address our 

recommendation. According to DHS officials, the agencies prepared a 

comprehensive response to the Act, including updated analyses, but the 

information is no longer current and now needs to be revised and 

revalidated before it is submitted to Congress. Officials told us that the 

updated consolidation plans and analyses assumed that the project would 

receive more funding in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 than was 

appropriated. Further, officials told us that the current Administration is 

expected to provide input on the planned DHS component occupancies at 

the St. Elizabeths campus. We continue to believe that DHS and GSA 

attention to following leading capital decision-making practices—including 

having a consolidation plan that justifies future actions—is critical given 

the project’s multi-billion dollar cost and impact on departmental 

operations.
Page 8 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

In our September 2014 report, we found that DHS and GSA cost and 

schedule estimates for the headquarters consolidation project at St. 

Elizabeths did not conform or only minimally or partially conformed with 

leading estimating practices, and were therefore unreliable.15

Furthermore, we found that in some areas, the cost and schedule 

estimates did not fully conform with GSA guidance relevant to developing 

estimates. 

Cost Estimates

In 2014, we found that DHS and GSA cost estimates for the headquarters 

consolidation project at St. Elizabeths did not reflect leading practices, 

which rendered the estimates unreliable. For example, we found that the 

2013 cost estimate—the most recent available at the time of our 2014 

report—did not include (1) a life-cycle cost analysis of the project, 

including the cost of repair, operations, and maintenance; (2) was not 

regularly updated to reflect significant changes to the program including 

actual costs; and (3) did not include an independent estimate to 

determine whether other estimating methods produce similar results. In 

addition, a sensitivity and a risk and uncertainty analysis had not been 

performed to assess the reasonableness of the cost estimate. We have 

previously reported that a reliable cost estimate is critical to the success 

of any program.16 Specifically, we have found that such an estimate 

provides the basis for informed investment decision making, realistic 

budget formulation and program resourcing, meaningful progress 

measurement, proactive course correction when warranted, and 

accountability for results. Accordingly, in 2014, we concluded that DHS 

and GSA would benefit from maintaining current and well-documented 

estimates of project costs at St. Elizabeths—even if project funding is not 

fully secured.

 15GAO-09-3SP and GAO-12-120G. For both the cost and schedule estimates, our 

analysis focused on how well DHS and GSA met each of the four characteristics based on 

our assessment of conformance to the leading practices associated with that 

characteristic. We then arrayed the extent to which DHS and GSA cost and schedule 

estimates conformed with the four characteristics of each using five rating categories—

fully meets, substantially meets, partially meets, minimally meets, or does not meet.

16GAO-09-3SP.

Cost and Schedule 

Estimates for the St. 

Elizabeths Project Did 

Not Reflect Leading 

Practices and GAO 

Recommendation 

Has Not Been 

Implemented
Page 9 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

Schedule Estimates

In 2014, we also found that the 2008 and 2013 schedule estimates (the 

estimates available at the time of our review) did not include all activities 

for both the government and its contractors necessary to accomplish the 

project’s objectives and did not include schedule baseline documents to 

help measure performance as reflected in leading practices and GSA 

guidance. For the 2008 schedule estimate, we found that resources (such 

as labor, materials, and equipment) were not accounted for and a risk 

assessment had not been conducted to predict a level of confidence in 

the project’s completion date. In addition, we found the 2013 schedule 

estimate was unreliable because, among other things, it was incomplete 

in that it did not provide details needed to understand the sequence of 

events, including work to be performed in fiscal years 2014 and 2015.

In 2014, we concluded that developing cost and schedule estimates 

consistent with leading practices could promote greater transparency and 

provide decision makers needed information about the St. Elizabeths 

project and the larger DHS headquarters consolidation effort. However, in 

commenting on our analysis of St. Elizabeths cost and schedule 

estimates, DHS and GSA officials said that it would be difficult or 

impossible to create reliable estimates that encompass the scope of the 

entire St. Elizabeths project. In response to our findings, officials said that 

given the complex, multiphase nature of the overall development effort, 

specific estimates are created for smaller individual projects, but not for 

the campus project as a whole. Therefore, in their view, leading 

estimating practices and GSA guidance cannot reasonably be applied to 

the high-level projections developed for the total cost and completion date 

of the entire St. Elizabeths project. GSA stated that the higher-level, 

milestone schedule currently being used to manage the program was

more flexible than the detailed schedule we proposed, and had proven 

effective even with the highly variable funding provided for the project.

However, our September 2014 review found this high-level schedule was 

not sufficiently defined to effectively manage the program. For example, 

our review showed that the schedule did not contain detailed schedule 

activities that included all government, contractor, and applicable 

subcontractor efforts. In our 2014 report, we recognized the challenges of 

developing reliable cost and schedule estimates for a large-scale, 

multiphase project like St. Elizabeths, particularly given its unstable 

funding history and agreed that incorporating cost- and scheduleestimating leading practices could involve additional costs. However, we 

also concluded that unless DHS and GSA invest in these practices, 
Page 10 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

Congress risked making funding decisions and DHS and GSA 

management risked making resource allocation decisions without the 

benefit that a robust analysis of levels of risk, uncertainty, and confidence 

provides. Therefore, in our September 2014 report we recommended that 

DHS and GSA develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the 

remaining portions of the consolidation project in accordance with leading 

practices. DHS and GSA concurred with the recommendation.

As of April 2018, however, the agencies had not submitted revised cost 

and schedule information to Congress that would either meet the 

requirements of the DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act 

or address our recommendation. GSA is leading efforts to revise the 

project’s cost and schedule estimates, and according to GSA officials, the 

revised figures will take into account leading cost- and scheduleestimation practices, including a risk assessment. We continue to believe 

that creating up-to-date, reliable cost and schedule estimates for DHS 

headquarters consolidation should be an integral part of DHS and GSA 

efforts to reassess the project. Without this information, it will be more 

difficult for agency officials and Members of Congress to make informed 

decisions regarding resource allocations and compare competing funding 

priorities.
Page 11 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

In our September 2014 report, we also found that DHS had not 

consistently applied its major acquisition guidance for reviewing and 

approving the headquarters consolidation project. Specifically, we found 

that DHS had guidelines in place to provide senior management the 

opportunity to review and approve its major projects, but DHS had not 

consistently applied these guidelines to its efforts to work with GSA to 

plan and implement headquarters consolidation. Part of the inconsistency 

was the result of DHS designating the headquarters consolidation project 

as a major acquisition in some years but not in others. For example, we 

found that in 2010 and 2011, DHS identified the headquarters 

consolidation project as a major acquisition and included the project on 

DHS’s Major Acquisitions Oversight List.17 Thus, the project was subject 

to the oversight and management policies and procedures established in 

DHS major acquisition guidance; however, the project did not comply with 

major acquisition requirements as outlined by DHS guidelines. For 

example, we found that the project had not produced any of the required 

key acquisition documents requiring department-level approval, such as 

life-cycle cost estimates and an acquisition program baseline, among 

others.

As we reported in 2014, in 2012, the project as a whole was dropped from 

the list. Subsequently, in 2013 and 2014, DHS included the information 

technology (IT) acquisition portion of the project on the list, but not the 

entire project. DHS officials explained that they considered the St. 

Elizabeths project to be more of a GSA acquisition rather than a DHS 

acquisition because GSA owns the site and the majority of the building 

construction is funded through GSA appropriations. In our 2014 report, 

we recognized that GSA had responsibility for managing contracts 

associated with the headquarters consolidation project. However, we also 

noted that a variety of factors, including the overall cost, scope, and 

visibility of the project, as well as the overall importance of the project in 

the context of DHS’s mission, made the consolidation project a viable 

candidate for consideration as a major DHS acquisition. By not 

consistently applying this review process to headquarters consolidation, 

we concluded that DHS management risked losing insight into the

 17At the time of our 2014 report, DHS reviewed its acquisition portfolio annually and 

designated programs as major acquisitions based on DHS investment thresholds. 

Generally, programs that incurred costs greater than $300 million over the life cycle of the 

program were considered major acquisitions. In 2014, DHS changed the name of the 

Major Acquisition Oversight List to the Master Acquisition Oversight List to more 

accurately distinguish between the department’s major (Level 1 and 2) and nonmajor 

(Level 3) acquisitions and nonacquisition activities included in the list.

DHS Did Not 

Consistently Apply Its 

Acquisitions

Guidance When 

Overseeing the St. 

Elizabeths Project, 

but Has Taken Steps 

to Implement GAO’s 

Recommendation
Page 12 GAO-18-484T DHS Headquarters Consolidation

progress of the St. Elizabeths project, as well as how the project fits in 

with its overall acquisitions portfolio. Thus, in our September 2014 report

we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security designate the 

headquarters consolidation program a major acquisition and apply DHS 

acquisition policy requirements. DHS concurred with the 

recommendation.

As of April 2018, DHS has made some progress implementing this 

recommendation. For example, on September 16, 2014, DHS issued an 

Acquisition Decision Memorandum designating the DHS-funded portions 

of the headquarters consolidation program as a Major Acquisition 

Program to be overseen by the departmental Acquisition Review Board 

(ARB). DHS also made progress implementing this recommendation by 

conducting and documenting an ARB of the program in November 2016. 

The ARB process provided DHS greater oversight of headquarters 

consolidation, and provided a forum for officials to consider a wide range 

of issues affecting consolidation efforts, such as funding and project 

scope. In addition, in January 2018, DHS officials reported that they were 

working to align headquarters consolidation program documentation to 

meet the spirit of DHS acquisition policy guidance. We will reassess the 

status of this recommendation after the consolidation plan and cost and 

schedule estimates are updated and submitted to Congress per the DHS 

Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act. At that time, we believe 

there will be more certainty about the future direction of the project 

overall, and DHS’s funded portion in particular, and we will be better able 

to assess the level of DHS acquisitions oversight for the project.

Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I look forward to 

responding to any questions that you may have.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, 

please contact Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and Justice 

Issues, at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this statement are John Mortin (Assistant Director), Karen Richey 

(Assistant Director), Juaná Collymore, Jennifer Leotta, Thomas Lombardi, 

David Lutter, and Erin O’Brien.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102704)
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.
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 (https://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 https://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, https://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 https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

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

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@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

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

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

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.