DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Oversight and Coordination 

of Research and 

Development Efforts Could 

Be Strengthened

Statement of Dave C. Maurer, Director

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

GAO-13-766T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-766T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.

July 17, 2013

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Oversight and Coordination of Research and 

Development Efforts Could Be Strengthened

Why GAO Did This Study

Conducting R&D on technologies for 

detecting, preventing, and mitigating 

terrorist threats is vital to enhancing 

the security of the nation. Since its 

creation, DHS has spent billions of 

dollars researching and developing 

technologies used to support its 

missions including securing the border, 

detecting nuclear devices, and 

screening airline passengers and 

baggage for explosives, among others. 

Within DHS, S&T conducts and is 

responsible for coordinating R&D 

across the department, but other 

components, such as the Coast Guard 

and DNDO, also conduct R&D to 

support their respective missions. 

This statement discusses (1) how 

much DHS invests in R&D and the 

extent to which DHS has policies and 

guidance for defining R&D and 

overseeing R&D resources and efforts 

across the department, and (2) the 

extent to which R&D is coordinated 

within DHS to prevent overlap, 

fragmentation, or unnecessary 

duplication. This statement is based on 

GAO’s September 2012 report on DHS 

R&D efforts, along with selected 

updates conducted in June 2013 and 

July 2013. To conduct the selected 

updates, GAO interviewed agency 

officials on the status of implementing 

GAO’s recommendations. 

What GAO Recommends

In its September 2012 report, GAO 

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 concurred 

with GAO’s recommendations and has 

actions underway to address them. 

What GAO Found

In September 2012, GAO reported that the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) does not know the total amount its components invest in research and 

development (R&D) and does not have policies and guidance for defining R&D 

and overseeing R&D resources across the department. According to DHS, its 

Science & Technology Directorate (S&T), Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

(DNDO), and U. S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) are the only components that 

conduct R&D, and GAO found that these are the only components that report 

budget authority, obligations, or outlays for R&D activities to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the budget process. However, GAO 

identified an additional $255 million in R&D obligations made by other DHS 

components. According to DHS, it is difficult to identify all R&D investments 

across the department because DHS does not have a department wide policy 

defining R&D or guidance directing components how to report all R&D spending 

and activities. As a result, it is difficult for DHS to oversee components’ R&D 

efforts and align them with agency wide R&D goals and priorities. GAO 

recommended that DHS develop specific policies and guidance to assist DHS 

components in better understanding how to report R&D activities, and better 

position DHS to determine how much the agency invests in R&D to effectively 

oversee these investments. DHS concurred with the recommendation and

reported that it planned to evaluate the most effective path to guide R&D across 

the department. GAO will continue to monitor DHS’s efforts to develop its 

approach for defining and overseeing R&D at the department.

In September 2012, GAO also reported that S&T has taken some steps to 

coordinate R&D efforts across DHS, but the department's R&D efforts are 

fragmented and overlapping, which increases the risk of unnecessary

duplication. R&D at DHS is inherently fragmented because S&T, the Coast 

Guard, and DNDO were each given R&D responsibilities in law, and other DHS 

components may pursue and conduct their own R&D efforts as long as those 

activities are coordinated through S&T. S&T uses various mechanisms to 

coordinate its R&D efforts including component liaisons, component R&D 

agreements, joint R&D strategies, and integrated R&D product teams composed 

of S&T and component officials. However, GAO identified 35 instances of overlap 

among contracts that DHS components awarded for R&D projects. While GAO 

did not identify instances of unnecessary duplication among these contracts, 

DHS has not developed a policy defining who is responsible for coordinating 

R&D and what processes should be used to coordinate it, and does not have 

mechanisms to track all R&D activities at DHS that could help prevent overlap, 

fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication. GAO recommended that DHS 

develop a policy defining the roles and responsibilities for coordinating R&D, and 

establish a mechanism to track all R&D projects to help DHS mitigate existing 

fragmentation and overlap, and reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication. DHS 

concurred with the recommendation and reported that S&T is conducting portfolio 

reviews across the agency, as required by a fiscal year 2013 appropriation 

requirement, aimed at coordinating R&D activities. We will continue to monitor 

DHS’s efforts to develop a policy to better coordinate and track R&D activities at 

the department. 

View GAO-13-766T. For more information, 

contact Dave Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-13-766T 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our prior work examining the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) research and development 

(R&D) efforts. Conducting R&D on technologies for detecting, preventing, 

and mitigating terrorist threats is vital to enhancing the security of the 

nation. DHS, through its Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), 

conducts research, development, testing, and evaluation of new 

technologies that are intended to strengthen the United States’ ability to 

prevent and respond to nuclear, biological, explosive, and other types of 

attacks within the United States. S&T also has responsibility for 

coordinating and integrating all such activities of the department, as 

provided by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.1

Since it began operations in 2003, DHS, through both S&T and other 

components, has spent billions of dollars researching and developing 

technologies used to support a wide range of missions, including securing 

the border, detecting nuclear devices, and screening airline passengers 

and baggage for explosives, among others. In June 2009, the National 

Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) reported on S&T’s structure, 

processes, and the execution of its cross-government leadership role.

Although S&T conducts 

R&D and has responsibility for coordinating R&D, other DHS 

components, including the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 

and the U. S. Coast Guard, conduct R&D in support of their respective 

missions. 

2

 

1

Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 302,116 Stat. 2135, 2163-64 (codified as amended at 6 U.S.C. § 

182). 

NAPA reported that although S&T was charged by statute to provide a 

leading role in guiding homeland-security related research, S&T has no 

authority over other federal agencies that conduct homeland-security 

related research, and that the weaknesses in S&T’s strategic planning 

increased the risk for duplication of efforts. NAPA recommended, among 

other things, that S&T follow the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and GAO guidance in formulating a strategic plan to guide its 

work. In July 2012, S&T provided a draft strategy that identifies the roles 

2

National Academy of Public Administration, Department of Homeland Security Science 

and Technology Directorate: Developing Technology to Protect America (Washington 

D.C.: June 2009). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-766T 

and responsibilities for coordinating homeland security science and 

technology related functions across the U.S. government to the White 

House’s Office of Science & Technology Policy for review. As of July 

2013, the White House had not yet approved that draft.

DHS uses several mechanisms to report R&D spending, including budget 

authority (the legal authorization to obligate funds), obligations (binding 

agreements to make a payment for services), and outlays (payments to 

liquidate obligations representing amount expended). Further, OMB 

requires agencies to submit data on R&D programs as part of their annual 

budget submissions on investments for basic research, applied research, 

development, R&D facilities construction, and major equipment for R&D 

using OMB’s definition of R&D. According to OMB, R&D activities 

comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to 

increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture, 

and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new 

applications.3 R&D is further broken down into the categories of basic 

research, applied research, and development.4 DHS is one of nine federal 

agencies that reported a total of $5 billion in budget authority in fiscal year 

2011 for homeland security R&D.5

 

3 OMB Circular No. A-11 Section 84.4. This definition includes administrative expenses for 

R&D, but excludes physical assets for R&D (such as R&D equipment and facilities), 

routine testing, quality control mapping, collection of general-purpose statistics, 

experimental production, routine monitoring and evaluation of an operational program and 

the training of scientific and technical personnel. 

Moreover, GAO is statutorily required 

to identify and report annually to Congress on federal programs, 

agencies, offices, and initiatives that have duplicative goals and 

4

According to OMB, 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 towards 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. Development 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 and new processes to meet specific requirements. OMB 

Circular No. A-11 Section 84.

5

The other agencies conducting homeland security R&D included the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services; the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the 

National Science Foundation. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-766T 

activities.6 The annual reports describe areas in which we found evidence 

of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal programs.7

My statement today is based on our September 2012 report, including 

selected updates conducted in June 2013 and July 2013 related to DHS’s 

R&D efforts and its oversight of R&D efforts across the department.8

 

6

Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. 

Like 

the report, this statement addresses (1) how much DHS invests in R&D 

and the extent to which it has policies and guidance for defining R&D and 

overseeing R&D resources and efforts across the department, and (2) the 

extent to which R&D is coordinated within DHS to prevent overlap, 

fragmentation, and unnecessary duplication across the department. For 

our September 2012 report, among other things, we analyzed data 

related to DHS’s R&D budget authority for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 

and R&D contracts issued by components to private industry and 

universities for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Further, we analyzed data 

from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2012 to identify how much DHS components 

obligated for R&D-related work at the national laboratories. For the 

selected updates, we interviewed agency officials on DHS’s progress in 

implementing our recommendations. More detailed information on the 

scope and methodology appears in our September 2012 report. We 

7

Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more than one 

organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national interest. 

Overlap occurs when multiple programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or 

strategies to achieve those goals, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap may result from 

statutory or other limitations beyond the agency’s control. Duplication occurs when two or 

more agencies or programs are engaging in the same activities or providing the same 

services to the same beneficiaries. GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 

Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP 

(Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011). GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 

GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions 

Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial 

Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013). 

8

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

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

GAO-13-279SP. GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Opportunities Exist to 

Strengthen Efficiency and Effectiveness, Achieve Cost Savings, and Improve 

Management Functions, GAO-13-547T (Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2013). GAO, 

Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and Duplication through Enhanced Performance Management and Oversight, 

GAO-13-590T (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2013).
 

Page 4 GAO-13-766T 

conducted this work 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 the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In September 2012, we reported that DHS does not know how much its 

components invest in R&D, making it difficult to oversee R&D efforts 

across the department. According to DHS budget officials, S&T, DNDO, 

and the U.S. Coast Guard are the only components that conduct R&D 

and we found that they are the only components that report budget 

authority, obligations, or outlays for R&D activities to OMB as part of the 

budget process. However, we reported that the data DHS submitted to 

OMB underreported DHS’s R&D obligations because DHS components 

obligated money for R&D contracts that were not reported to OMB as 

R&D. Specifically, for fiscal year 2011, we identified an additional $255 

million in R&D obligations by other DHS components. These obligations 

included DHS components providing S&T with funding to conduct R&D on 

their behalf and components obligating funds through contracts directly to 

industry, universities, or with DOE’s national laboratories for R&D.

Further, we reported that the data for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 DHS 

submitted to OMB also underreported DHS’s R&D budget authority and 

outlays because DNDO did not properly report at least $293 million in 

R&D budget authority and at least $282 million in R&D outlays.9

In addition, we reported that DHS’s R&D budget accounts include a mix 

of R&D and non-R&D spending. For fiscal year 2011, we estimated that 

78 percent of S&T’s Research, Development, Acquisition, & Operations 

account, 51 percent of DNDO’s Research, Development, & Operations 

account, and 43 percent of the Coast Guard’s R&D budget account fund 

R&D activities. As a result, this further complicates DHS’s ability to 

identify its total investment in R&D.

We 

reported that DHS budget officials agreed that DHS underreported its 

R&D spending and when asked, could not provide a reason why the 

omission was not flagged by DHS review.

 

9

At the time of our report, budget figures for fiscal year 2013 were agency estimates.

DHS Does Not Know 

Its Total Investment in 

R&D, and Policies and 

Guidance Could Help 

Strengthen Oversight

of R&D Efforts
 

Page 5 GAO-13-766T 

We also reported in September 2012 that DHS does not have a 

departmentwide policy defining R&D or guidance directing components 

how to report R&D activities. As a result, it is difficult to identify the 

department’s total investment in R&D, which limits DHS’s ability to 

oversee components’ R&D efforts and align them with agencywide R&D 

goals and priorities, in accordance with Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government.10

Officials at DHS’s Program Accountability and Risk Management office, 

responsible for DHS’s overall acquisition governance process, agreed the 

department had not developed policies or guidance on how components 

should define and oversee R&D investments and efforts. At the time of 

our report, they stated that they were in the process of updating 

Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 to include additional sections 

pertaining to nonacquisition investments and that such R&D policy and 

guidance could be incorporated into such updates in the future.

DHS officials told us that DHS uses OMB’s 

definition of R&D, but the definition is broad and its application may not 

be uniform across components, and thus, R&D investments may not 

always be identified as R&D. We found that the variation in R&D 

definitions may contribute to the unreliability of the reporting mechanisms 

for R&D investments in budget development and execution, as discussed 

above.

11

 

10Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that policies and 

mechanisms are needed to enforce management’s directives, such as the process of

adhering to requirements for budget development and execution and to ensure the 

reliability of those and other reports for internal and external use. GAO, Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

We 

recommended that DHS develop and implement policies and guidance for 

defining and overseeing R&D at the department that includes a wellunderstood definition of R&D that provides reasonable assurance that 

reliable accounting and reporting of R&D resources and activities for 

internal and external use are achieved. DHS agreed with our 

recommendation stating that it planned to evaluate the most effective 

path forward to guide uniform treatment of R&D across the department in 

compliance with OMB rules and was considering a management 

directive, multi-component steering committee, or new policy guidance to 

help better oversee and coordinate R&D. DHS planned to complete these 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 1999). 

11Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 defines policy and provides guidance for 

managing and tracking DHS’s acquisition programs,
 

Page 6 GAO-13-766T 

efforts by May 1, 2013, but as of June 2013, the department had not yet 

determined which approach it would implement to address our findings 

and recommendations. We will continue to monitor DHS’s efforts to 

develop its approach for defining and overseeing R&D at the department.

We reported in September 2012 that S&T has developed coordination 

practices that fall into four general categories: (1) S&T component 

liaisons, (2) R&D agreements between component heads and S&T, (3) 

joint R&D strategies between S&T and components, and (4) various R&D 

coordination teams made up of S&T and component project managers, 

as discussed below.

S&T component liaisons. In September 2012, we reported that S&T 

officials stated that one of the primary ways that S&T mitigates the risk of 

overlap and duplication is through component liaisons staffed at S&T and 

S&T officials staffed at component agencies. According to S&T officials, 

these component liaisons have been integral to S&T’s coordination 

efforts. We reported that S&T had eight liaisons from the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Protection and 

Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Secret Service, and the U.S. Coast 

Guard. In addition, S&T had seven employees detailed to other 

components, including CBP, the Secret Service, DHS’s Office of Policy, 

DHS’s Tactical Communications Program Office, DNDO, and TSA, as 

well as two liaisons at Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

and DHS’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

R&D agreements between component heads and S&T. We reported that 

S&T signed high-level agreements with CBP and the Secret Service to 

help coordinate activities and address components’ strategic operational 

S&T Coordinates 

Some R&D at DHS, 

but DHS R&D Is 

Fragmented and 

Overlapping, 

Increasing the Risk of 

Unnecessary 

Duplication 

S&T Has Taken Some 

Actions to Coordinate 

R&D across DHS
 

Page 7 GAO-13-766T 

problems within 2 years of initiation. S&T also had three memorandums 

of agreement and 42 technology transition agreements with DHS 

components as a means to coordinate R&D efforts.

Joint R&D strategies between S&T and components. We reported that

S&T and TSA issued a joint R&D strategy for aviation security that 

identified TSA’s R&D priorities based on gaps in TSA’s current 

capabilities. We reported that S&T intended to work with the Secret 

Service, CBP, ICE, and FEMA to build component-specific R&D 

strategies linked to component acquisition programs, but we did not 

receive information on when S&T planned to complete those strategies at 

the time of our report. 

R&D coordination teams. In September 2012, we reported that S&T’s 

previous Under Secretary instituted the Capstone Integrated Product 

Teams (IPT) process as the primary mechanism for coordinating R&D 

efforts between S&T and components. Additionally, the IPT process 

included teams to coordinate R&D at the project level by soliciting input 

from components to identify and address technology gaps and needs, 

among other things. We reported that the IPT process was no longer in 

place to coordinate R&D activities at the component level, but IPTs were 

being used by the division directors to coordinate R&D activities at the 

project level. Additionally, we reported that, in the fall of 2011, S&T began 

implementing two new coordination teams—a cross-functional team 

composed of S&T personnel focusing on strategic priorities and an 

integral partner team—led by S&T’s newly created Acquisition Support 

and Operations Analysis division, to focus on components’ operational 

needs. According to S&T division directors, these new teams were not 

fully implemented at the time of our September 2012 report, and they 

used established relationships with components through the IPT process 

to identify components needs and coordinate R&D. In July 2013, we 

requested information from DHS on when these coordination teams 

would be fully implemented but did not receive that information.

Despite S&T’s efforts to coordinate R&D activities, in September 2012, 

we reported that R&D at DHS is inherently fragmented because several 

components within DHS—S&T, the Coast Guard, and DNDO—were each 

given R&D responsibilities in law, and other DHS components may 

pursue and conduct their own R&D efforts as long as those activities are 

coordinated through S&T. Fragmentation among R&D efforts at DHS may 

be advantageous if the department determines that it could gain better or 

faster results by having multiple components engage in R&D activities 

R&D Activities are 

Fragmented and 

Overlapping 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-766T 

toward a similar goal; however, it can be disadvantageous if those 

activities are uncoordinated or unintentionally overlapping or duplicative. 

Specifically, we found at least six department components involved in 

R&D activities in our review of data on about 15,000 federal procurement 

contract actions coded as R&D taken by DHS components from fiscal 

years 2007 through 2012. We examined 47 R&D contracts awarded by 

these components and found 35 instances among 29 contracts in which 

the contracts overlapped with activities conducted elsewhere in the 

department. Taken together, these 29 contracts were worth about $66 

million. In one example of the overlap, we found that two DHS 

components awarded five separate contracts that each addressed 

detection of the same chemical.

While we did not identify instances of unnecessary duplication among 

these contracts, DHS has not developed a policy defining who is 

responsible for coordinating R&D activities at DHS that could help prevent 

overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication. We reported in 

September 2012 that DHS did not have tracking mechanisms or policies 

to help ensure that overlap is avoided and efforts are better coordinated 

consistent with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.12

 

12GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that policies and 

procedures ensure that the necessary activities occur at all levels and functions of the 

organization—not just from top-level leadership. This ensures that all levels of the 

organization are coordinating effectively and as part of a larger strategy. Additionally, 

internal control standards provide that agencies should communicate necessary 

information effectively by ensuring that they are communicating with, and obtaining 

information from, external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency 

achieving its goals.

According to S&T officials, a process does not exist at 

DHS or within S&T to prevent overlap or unnecessary duplication but that 

relationships with components mitigate that risk. They also stated that 

S&T has improved interactions with components over time. We reported 

that the existence of overlapping R&D activities coupled with the lack of 

policies and guidance defining R&D and coordination processes is an 

indication that not all R&D activities at DHS are coordinated to ensure 

that R&D is not unnecessarily duplicative. Furthermore, we reported in 

September 2012 that neither DHS nor S&T tracked all ongoing R&D 

projects across the department, including R&D activities contracted 

through the national laboratories. As part of our review, we identified 11 

components that reimbursed the national laboratories for R&D from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2012, but S&T’s Office of National Laboratories could 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-766T 

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

not track them. According to S&T, the Office of National Laboratories’ 

ability to provide information on activities across the department is limited 

by components inconsistently operating within the defined process for 

working with the national laboratories.13 As a result, we recommended 

that DHS develop and implement policies and guidance for overseeing 

R&D that includes a description of the department’s process and roles 

and responsibilities for overseeing and coordinating R&D investments 

and efforts, and a mechanism to track existing R&D projects and their 

associated costs across the department. DHS agreed with our 

recommendation stating that S&T is implementing a collaborative, enduser focused strategy to coordinate and interact with components to 

better ensure S&T’s efforts align with components’ needs and that it is 

considering developing new policy guidance for R&D activities across the 

department. As of June 2013, DHS has not developed new policy 

guidance but is conducting portfolio reviews across the department, as 

directed in committee reports accompanying the fiscal year 2013 DHS 

appropriation act, aimed at coordinating R&D activities.14 A policy that 

defines roles and responsibilities for coordinating R&D and coordination 

processes, as well as a mechanism that tracks all DHS R&D projects, 

could better position DHS to mitigate the risk of overlapping and 

unnecessarily duplicative R&D projects. We will continue to monitor 

DHS’s efforts to develop a policy to better coordinate and track R&D 

activities at the department.

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have at this time.

 

13The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave DHS the authority to use DOE laboratories to 

conduct R&D and established S&T’s Office of National Laboratories to be responsible for 

coordinating and using the national laboratories. Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 309, 116 Stat. 

2135, 2172 (2002) (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 189).Additionally, DHS Directive 143 further 

directs ONL to serve as the primary point of contact to recommend contracting activity 

approval for work by the national laboratories, and review all statements of work issued 

from DHS and directed to the national laboratories.

14See S. Rep. No. 112-169, at 15-16 (2012).
 

Page 10 GAO-13-766T 

If you or your staff have any questions about this statement please 

contact Dave Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or Maurerd@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Other individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include: Emily Gunn, Tracey King, Gary 

Malavenda, and Linda Miller.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441171)
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 (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.
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 (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 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: 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.