Department of Homeland Security: Ammunition Purchases Have Declined since 2009
Published: 2014-01-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DHS and its components have homeland security and law enforcement missions that require agents and officers to carry and be proficient in the use of firearms. DHS has more than 70,000 firearm-carrying personnel—the most of any department. DOJ has the next largest with approximately 69,000 firearm-carrying personnel. GAO was asked to examine DHS's ammunition purchases and management of ammunition and firearms. This report addresses trends in DHS's ammunition purchases since fiscal year 2008, how DHS's purchases compare with DOJ's, and what factors affect DHS's purchase decisions. GAO analyzed data from six DHS and three DOJ components that have law enforcement missions, require agents and officers to carry firearms, and purchase ammunition themselves or through their respective departments. Specifically, GAO analyzed data on ammunition purchases, usage, costs, and inventories, among other things, for fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for DHS, and for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 for DOJ. GAO assessed the reliability of these data and found them sufficiently reliable. Data on DOJ ammunition purchases prior to fiscal year 2011 were not readily available; therefore, GAO excluded them, as discussed in the report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) annual ammunition purchases have declined since fiscal year 2009 and are comparable in number to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) ammunition purchases. In fiscal year 2013, DHS purchased 84 million rounds of ammunition, which is less than DHS's ammunition purchases over the past 5 fiscal years, as shown in the figure below. DHS component officials said the decline in ammunition purchases in fiscal year 2013 was primarily a result of budget constraints, which meant reducing the number of training classes, and drawing on their ammunition inventories. From fiscal years 2008 through 2013, DHS purchased an average of 109 million rounds of ammunition for training, qualification, and operational needs, according to DHS data. DHS's ammunition purchases over the 6-year period equates to an average of 1,200 rounds purchased per firearm-carrying agent or officer per year. Over the past 3 fiscal years (2011-2013), DHS purchased an average of 1,000 rounds per firearm-carrying agent or officer and selected DOJ components purchased 1,300 rounds per firearm-carrying agent or officer.
DHS ammunition purchases are driven primarily by firearm training and qualification requirements. Most DHS firearm-carrying personnel are required to qualify four times per year, though requirements vary by component, as do the number of rounds of ammunition typically used for training and qualification. DHS components also reported considering other factors when making ammunition purchase decisions, such as changes in firearms, usage rates, and ammunition inventories. DHS components maintain inventories of ammunition to help ensure they have sufficient ammunition for the training and operational needs of their officers, as there can be months-long delays between placing an order for ammunition and receiving it. As of October 2013, DHS estimates it had approximately 159 million rounds in inventory, enough to last about 22 months to meet the training and operational needs of its firearm-carrying personnel. Ammunition inventory data provided by DOJ components indicated that inventory ranged from about 13 months' worth to about 20 months' worth.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making any recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and five of its  components—U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), National  Protection and Programs Directorate/Federal Protective Service (FPS),  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation  Security Administration (TSA), and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS)— have homeland security and law enforcement responsibilities and  missions that require law enforcement agents and officers to carry and be  proficient in the use of firearms and ammunition. DHS employs more  firearm-carrying law enforcement personnel than any other department— more than 70,000, according to DHS data, and DHS components  purchase ammunition for these personnel. Firearm-carrying personnel at  DHS include Border Patrol agents, federal air marshals, and Secret  Service agents, among others. In addition, another DHS component—the  four interagency training sites that constitute the Federal Law  Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC)—also purchases ammunition.  FLETC trains an average of over 66,000 federal, state, local, tribal, and  international law enforcement personnel every year, according to DHS  officials. Ammunition purchased by FLETC is utilized by all students who  train on firearms at its facilities. For comparison, the Department of  Justice (DOJ) and its components—including the Bureau of Alcohol,  Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI); U.S. Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA);  and the Federal Bureau of Prisons—have the second largest number of  federal personnel authorized to carry firearms, with approximately 69,000  agents and officers authorized to carry firearms as of October 2013,  according to DOJ data.
At both DHS and DOJ, federal law enforcement agents and officers are  authorized to carry firearms, and are required to train in their use and  pass certain firearms qualification standards. Firearms proficiency is a  key component of an officer’s ability to successfully fulfill the component’s  mission and protect life and public safety. To help ensure the firearms  proficiency of their firearm-carrying workforce, these agencies purchase a  variety of types of ammunition for training, qualifications, and operational  purposes.
Because DHS’s law enforcement missions require the department,  through its components, to purchase ammunition and manage various  types of firearms, effective management and oversight of ammunition and  firearms is an important aspect of DHS’s overall mission. It is incumbent  upon agencies to ensure the effective and efficient management of  ammunition and firearms as stewards of taxpayer resources. You asked  us to examine DHS’s ammunition purchases and its management of both  ammunition and firearms. This report addresses the following questions:  1.  What are the trends in DHS’s ammunition purchases since fiscal year  2008, what factors affect its purchase decisions, and how do DHS’s  purchases compare with DOJ’s?  2.  What policies and guidance does DHS have for managing firearms  and ammunition inventories?
To address our first question, we obtained available data from DHS and  DOJ law enforcement components with firearm-carrying personnel  regarding their ammunition purchases, costs, usage, inventory, and the  size of the authorized firearm-carrying workforce. We also obtained data  on DHS planned ammunition purchases for fiscal year 2014. Specifically,  we selected all DHS law enforcement components with firearm-carrying  personnel—CBP, ICE, TSA, USSS, FPS, as well as FLETC. We  excluded the U.S. Coast Guard—a DHS component with firearm-carrying  personnel—because the U.S. Coast Guard does not procure ammunition  through DHS; rather, the U.S. Coast Guard procures its ammunition  through Department of Defense contracts. Similarly, we selected all DOJ  law enforcement components with firearm-carrying personnel. However,  the Federal Bureau of Prisons could not provide ammunition purchase  data comparable to that of the other components based on its method of  record keeping and data retention policy. We determined that data from  the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were not sufficiently reliable  for our purposes, because DEA could only provide estimates of  purchases. Therefore, the DOJ components included in our review are  ATF, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service. We included these DOJ law  enforcement agencies in our review to provide context to help understand  DHS’s ammunition purchases relative to those of other federal law  enforcement agencies.
We selected fiscal year 2008 as the starting point for our analysis  because data on DHS ammunition purchases, cost, and usage were not  readily available or reliable prior to 2008, according to DHS officials.  Nevertheless, obtaining data going back 5 fiscal years provides historical  perspective on DHS’s ammunition purchases and use over time, and  allows for comparisons with purchases in fiscal year 2013 and planned  purchases for fiscal year 2014. We analyzed the data to identify any  changes in the amount of ammunition purchased or used year to year  and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials to understand the  reasons why changes occurred. For each fiscal year, we calculated the  amount of ammunition purchased per agent and officer authorized to  carry firearms at each DHS and DOJ component in our review, using  component-provided data on the amount of ammunition purchased and  the number of firearm-carrying personnel. We calculated the average  number of rounds purchased per agent or officer per year for fiscal years  2008 through 2013 at DHS, excluding FLETC, by determining the  average amount of ammunition purchased across DHS law enforcement  components in each fiscal year and dividing that by the average number  of agents or officers at DHS for each fiscal year. We determined that  ammunition purchase data for DOJ components were not sufficiently  reliable prior to 2011 for all components, so we used data from fiscal  years 2011 through 2013 to do the same calculation. We analyzed the  amount of ammunition purchased per agent or officer authorized to carry  firearms to account for the varying sizes of the different departments and  components. We selected ammunition purchases by DOJ to provide a  comparison with DHS’s ammunition purchases as DOJ has the second  largest number of personnel authorized to carry firearms. However, our  DOJ analysis is not to suggest that the department represents a model or  standard against which DHS is assessed. Differences in the amount of  ammunition purchased per firearm-carrying agent or officer reflect a  number of factors, including unique mission requirements and training  needs.
To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed DHS ammunition  procurement contract files and interviewed knowledgeable officials at  DHS and DOJ responsible for collecting and reporting these data. In  addition, for the data we obtained from DHS components on ammunition  purchases and costs, we compared the data with corroborating evidence,  such as information from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS),  to determine data consistency and reasonableness. We found the data on  ammunition purchase, usage, cost, and inventory, as well as workforce  data, to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes, with caveats and  exceptions noted throughout the report. We also interviewed DHS  component officials from each of the components in our review  responsible for overseeing the ammunition procurement process and  determining ammunition requirements at the component level. We also  discussed the purpose of quality testing the ammunition, and to  understand the context of why proficiency among firearm-carrying  personnel is important. Finally, for additional context, we visited the ICE  National Firearms Testing Lab, which performs quality control testing on  ammunition and firearms, and maintains an inventory of ammunition and  firearms for distribution to DHS field locations.
To address our second question, we reviewed DHS-wide and DHS  component-level policy documents, such as acquisition and personal  property management directives, and firearms and ammunition guidance  and operating procedures. We interviewed knowledgeable officials from  the DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, CBP, FLETC, FPS, ICE,  TSA, and USSS regarding their management and oversight of  ammunition and firearms and the related policies and procedures for DHS  and its components. We also reviewed available DHS Inspector General  audit and component inspection reports related to the oversight over  ammunition and firearms. We did not assess if the components’ policies,  procedures, and process for managing their firearms and ammunition  inventories were working as intended, as that was outside the scope of  our review. For more information on our scope and methodology, see  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to January 2014 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: DHS and DOJ Components in Our Review with Firearm- Carrying Personnel
paragraphs: DHS and DOJ have several components with law enforcement functions  whose personnel are authorized to carry firearms in support of  accomplishing their respective missions. Table 1 describes the various  law enforcement and homeland security missions of the DHS and DOJ  components within our review, as well as the number of personnel  authorized to carry firearms in fiscal year 2013.
In support of their law enforcement missions, both DHS and DOJ law  enforcement officers and agents use a number of different types of  firearms, which require a variety of ammunition. Examples of firearms  include side arms, such as pistols, and long guns, such as rifles.  Commonly used ammunition includes .40 caliber, .223 caliber, and 9  millimeter, according to our analysis of data provided by DHS. More  examples of commonly used firearms and ammunition can be found in  appendix II.
section_title: DHS Procurement of Ammunition
paragraphs: In 2003, DHS began its strategic sourcing program to leverage its buying  power and secure competitive prices for a variety of goods and services,  resulting in cost savings through collective procurement actions (e.g.,  buying in bulk quantities at lower prices). DHS developed its first  strategically sourced ammunition procurement in 2005. DHS’s strategic  sourcing contract vehicles include contracts or agreements that have  been established for use by two or more components, and these types of  contracts have been used by DHS components to procure ammunition.  The Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement  Policy has cited DHS’s efforts among best practices for implementing  federal strategic sourcing initiatives, and we have also reported on DHS’s  strategic sourcing initiatives.
DHS procures ammunition using two types of contracts—strategic  sourcing and individual contracts. The decision of whether to use a  strategic sourcing contract is driven by collective component needs,  according to DHS officials. That is, if more than one component needs a  specific type of ammunition, then that ammunition procurement is a  candidate for strategic sourcing. Most of DHS’s ammunition contracts,  whether strategically sourced or individual contracts, are indefinite  delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which are typically  negotiated for a base year with additional options for purchasing  ammunition up to a certain maximum number of rounds, or contract  ceiling. These IDIQ contracts allow components to lock in the price,  specifications, delivery costs, and other requirements and then place  purchase orders throughout the negotiated time frame of the contract  (e.g., indefinite delivery) for varying quantities as needed (e.g., indefinite  quantity), rather than placing a single order for large amounts of  ammunition. DHS orders based on the contracts as needed and pays for  the ammunition on delivery. DHS is required to buy only a minimum that  represents about 1 month of the projected DHS requirement, according to  DHS officials.
In August 2012, DHS began requiring components to use strategic  sourcing contract vehicles for procurements, including ammunition,  unless procurements met certain exceptions, such as specialized types of  ammunition not commonly used across components or ammunition  requiring certain technical specifications. Ammunition that is either not  commonly used or has specifications needed by a single component can  be acquired through individual component contracts according to DHS  officials. Within the DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, the  Strategic Sourcing Program Office helps components develop,  implement, and maintain sourcing strategies to enhance acquisition  efficiency. According to DHS officials, the strategic sourcing process for  procuring ammunition for multiple components has saved an estimated  $2 million since fiscal year 2008. See appendix III for a complete list of  all active DHS ammunition contracts, as of October 2013.
Given the number of law enforcement and security personnel across the  department, DHS established the Weapons and Ammunition Commodity  Council (WACC) in October 2003 to consolidate weapons, ammunition,  and other enforcement equipment requirements. While DHS components  are responsible for determining their own ammunition requirements and  needs, WACC is to serve as the coordinating mechanism for DHS  components’ ammunition and weapons procurements. Rather than have  each component procure ammunition and weapons individually or draw  exclusively on its own history for best practices, the members of WACC,  as shown in figure 1, are to meet monthly to explore ways to maximize  procurement savings, according to DHS officials. According to DHS  officials, to further coordinate ammunition and weapons procurements,  DHS is exploring the feasibility of broadening the scope of WACC to also  track and approve ammunition purchases across the department. As of  October 2013, DHS said these plans are in the development stage.
section_title: DHS Organizational Responsibilities for Firearm and Ammunition Inventory Management
paragraphs: DHS’s Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer, within the  Management Directorate, is responsible for department-wide asset  management. Within each component, property management officers or  firearm program managers are responsible for the component’s firearm  program, including ammunition. In general, component firearm instructors  or firearms and weapons custodians are responsible for maintaining  oversight for the shipment, receipt, issuance and periodic inventory of  firearms and ammunition. At the headquarters level, the DHS Assistant  Deputy for Mobile Assets and Personal Property has overall responsibility  for the oversight and management of DHS firearm assets. This includes  ensuring that components have an approved firearm asset management  system of record and documented firearm accountability policies and  procedures. The Chief Readiness Support Officer disseminates DHS’s  asset management program requirements, provides oversight of the  program, and sets department policy. The DHS Office of the Chief  Readiness Support Officer’s Sensitive Asset Manager’s responsibilities  include evaluating, auditing, and assessing component-level firearm asset  management systems of record and accountability programs to ensure  compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and directives, and working  with components to develop standard and uniform DHS-wide firearms  accountability policies and guidelines.
section_title: DHS’s Ammunition Purchases Have Declined in Recent Years and Vary Based on Numerous Factors; Annual Ammunition Purchases are Comparable to DOJ’s
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2013, DHS purchased 84 million rounds of ammunition for  its authorized firearm-carrying workforce, which is less than DHS’s  ammunition purchases each year over the past 5 fiscal years. DHS  ammunition purchases are driven primarily by the firearms training and  qualification requirements for the firearm-carrying workforce, though other  factors are also considered by DHS when making ammunition purchase  decisions. For selected DOJ components, for fiscal years 2011 through  2013, the average number of rounds of ammunition purchased per  authorized firearm-carrying personnel per year was comparable to that for  DHS law enforcement components.identified similar considerations in determining their annual ammunition  requirements.
subsections: section_title: DHS’s Ammunition Purchases Have Decreased since Fiscal Year 2009 and Vary by Component
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013, DHS purchased an  average of 109 million rounds of ammunition per year. Yearly purchases  ranged from a high of 133 million rounds in fiscal year 2009 to a low of 84  million rounds in fiscal year 2013. In comparison, the total consumer  ammunition market for 2012 was approximately 9.5 billion rounds,  according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. DHS’s  ammunition purchases over the 6-year period equate to an average of 1,200 rounds of ammunition purchased per agent or officer per year.The annual total cost for these ammunition purchases ranged from $19  million to $34 million per year, with an average of $29 million for the 6- year time period.
In fiscal year 2013, DHS purchased 84 million rounds of ammunition for  its authorized firearm-carrying workforce, equaling an average of 900  rounds per agent or officer that year, and a total annual cost of $19  million. According to senior DHS officials, the decline in ammunition  purchases in fiscal year 2013 is the result of budget constraints, reduced  training, and in one case the expiration of an ammunition contract. These  officials said that although ammunition purchases declined in fiscal year  2013, DHS components relied on their ammunition inventories to maintain  basic qualification and operational needs. In fiscal year 2014, DHS plans  to purchase about 75 million rounds of ammunition (see fig. 2). According  to DHS contract data as of October 1, 2013, the 29 existing DHS  ammunition contracts extend over the next 4 fiscal years and have a  remaining contract limit of approximately 704 million rounds (for various  ammunition types), if every option for purchasing ammunition were  exercised into fiscal year 2018. The total contract dollar ceiling on these  29 active contracts is about $285 million. The approximately 704 million  rounds of ammunition represent the limit on the combined active  contracts, against which orders from the manufacturers may be placed  over the next several fiscal years. See appendix III for a complete list of  all active DHS ammunition contracts, as of October 1, 2013.
Although the amounts of DHS’s overall ammunition purchases have fallen  since fiscal year 2009, the yearly changes in the amount of ammunition  purchased by its component agencies have varied, as shown in figure 3.  CBP—which has the most firearm-carrying personnel of the DHS  components—purchased the largest amount of ammunition, on average,  from fiscal year 2008 through 2013, accounting for approximately 46  percent of DHS’s average purchases of ammunition for this time period.  The average amount of ammunition purchased by components from fiscal  years 2008 through 2013 ranged from approximately 50 million rounds of  ammunition for CBP to a low of approximately 1.9 million rounds of  ammunition for FPS.
A number of factors contribute to variation in ammunition purchases from  year to year by component, such as changes in the size of the firearm- carrying workforce. For example, CBP and ICE increased their firearm- carrying workforces in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, which also increased  ammunition needs for those components, as new hires needed to be  trained to gain firearms proficiency prior to entering the field for duty.  According to CBP data, new Border Patrol agents each use  approximately 3,300 rounds during training and qualification, compared  with experienced officers who might use about 600 rounds. DHS  components provided data on the amount of ammunition typically used by  a new law enforcement hire, which ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 rounds.  From fiscal years 2008 through 2013, the DHS components in our review  trained thousands of new law enforcement agents and officers, according  to DHS data. Other factors that account for changes in ammunition  purchases year to year include qualification and training requirements  and amount of ammunition in inventory, as discussed later in this report.  In addition, it is important to note that components purchase ammunition  throughout the year, and orders placed in 1 fiscal year might not arrive or  be used until future years, which can also contribute to variation in  purchases from year to year.
The amount of ammunition each component purchases for its firearm- carrying personnel also varies. We analyzed DHS data on ammunition  purchases and the size of the firearm-carrying workforce for fiscal years  2008 through 2013 and found the average number of rounds of  ammunition purchased per year per firearm-carrying agent or officer by  component for this time period ranged between approximately 1,000 and  2,000 rounds, as shown in table 2. This variation exists because each  component independently decides, based on its operational needs, how  much ammunition to allocate to its firearm-carrying personnel for training  and qualification each year. For example, FPS provides each officer 250  rounds per quarter per handgun for firearm qualification, while ICE  provides 100 rounds per quarter per handgun for firearm qualification.
section_title: Training and Qualification Are the Biggest Drivers of DHS’s Ammunition Purchase Decisions; Few Rounds Are Actually Fired in the Line of Duty
paragraphs: When determining annual ammunition requirements, the primary  consideration for DHS components is the amount of ammunition needed  to support the training and qualification of the firearm-carrying workforce,  according to DHS officials. Training and qualification requirements vary  for the components in our review, as do the number of rounds of  ammunition typically used for training and qualification purposes.  However, for all the components in our review, most firearm-carrying  personnel are required to qualify four times per year on their issued  firearms. We analyzed available data on DHS’s ammunition requirements  for the 6-year period from fiscal years 2008 through 2013. We found that  the ammunition purchased by the components was reasonable given their  annual expected training and operational needs.
subsections: section_title: DHS Qualification and Training Requirements
paragraphs: DHS’s more than 70,000 firearm-carrying personnel have qualification  requirements they must fulfill to ensure firearms proficiency. Failure to  qualify on firearms may result in the denial, suspension or revocation of  credentials to carry firearms. Depending on how rigorous a component’s  qualification requirements are and how many firearms an officer is  authorized to carry, each DHS component may require a larger or smaller  supply of ammunition to conduct its qualifications. Officers generally carry  one or more firearms and must qualify on each firearm they carry. For  example, a component may allow an officer to carry a personally owned  firearm in addition to his or her duty-issued firearm, and the officer must  qualify on both weapons, using ammunition provided by the relevant DHS  component. DHS law enforcement officers across the department are  typically required to perform quarterly firearms qualifications on their  issued weapons (e.g., handgun), and in some cases demonstrate  familiarity and proficiency on long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, even  if they are not required to carry a long gun as part of their duties. For  some officers, depending on the DHS component and the requirements of  their unit, more frequent qualifications or advanced firearms training is  required. For example, advanced firearms training may include “down and  disabled” firearms training or reduced light firearms training, among  others. DHS components also may have specialized units, such as  tactical teams, that may require hundreds or thousands of rounds of  ammunition during training activities. For example, CBP’s Border Patrol  Tactical Unit and Special Response Team—which enhance field  operations with specialized tactics and techniques—use specialized  firearms that are not otherwise issued to other CBP firearm-carrying staff.  Officers in these teams are required to qualify on these additional  specialized weapons, and can use more ammunition during training  activities, according to CBP officials.
Along with the other five DHS components, FLETC’s purchases of  ammunition are to support the training of law enforcement officials to help  them fulfill their responsibilities safely and proficiently. From fiscal year  2008 through 2013, FLETC has trained over 398,000 federal, state, local,  tribal, and international law enforcement personnel, according to FLETC  data—approximately 66,000 on average per year. FLETC provides the  ammunition for the training courses provided to these law enforcement  officers. FLETC officials said they determine their annual ammunition  requirements based on the projected number of classes, students, and  ammunition needs per class.in FLETC’s ammunition needs occur throughout the year, as a result of  canceled classes, added classes, and varying numbers of students.
section_title: DHS Data Show Few Rounds of Ammunition Fired by Officers in the Line of Duty
paragraphs: DHS components generally use the same type of ammunition for training and  qualification as they use for duty (operational use). According to DHS, this is because  delivering and storing different types of ammunition for training and operational use  creates complex logistical challenges, and could create an officer safety issue if the wrong  ammunition is used in the field. FLETC primarily uses Reduced Hazard Training  Ammunition, which is free of lead and other toxic substances, in its firearms training  curriculum.
DHS components reported a combined total of 331 rounds of ammunition  fired in the course of their duties compared with their total combined  ammunition purchases of over 84 million rounds for that year.
section_title: Additional Factors That Affect Ammunition Purchase Decisions
paragraphs: In addition to citing training and qualification requirements, senior DHS  officials cited delivery and quality issues with ammunition, changes in  firearms, historical usage rates, and the amount of ammunition currently  in inventory as other factors they consider when making ammunition  purchase decisions.
Delivery and ammunition quality issues: Senior DHS component  officials told us that another factor they consider when determining  ammunition requirements is the time lag due to the ammunition delivery  and quality testing process. Officials from all DHS components within our  review reported time lags between placing orders for ammunition and  receiving them. For example, the time lag can range from 3 to 18 months.  Senior DHS component officials said that the Department of Defense gets  first priority for ammunition orders from manufacturers, and supplying the  military can delay orders for DHS and other federal law enforcement  agencies, not only because of military priority, but also because  production of other types of ammunition may be halted while  manufacturers work to produce the ammunition needed by the  Department of Defense. These officials also stated that while the  ammunition they purchase comes from the same manufacturers that  provide ammunition for commercial supply, the ammunition DHS  purchases is manufactured according to DHS contract specifications, and  is higher quality than commercial off-the-shelf ammunition. Senior  component officials said they take this into account when determining  how much and when to order ammunition, including when ammunition  inventories need to be replenished. While awaiting delivery of ordered  ammunition, DHS components reported using their existing ammunition  inventories to meet mission requirements, such as for training and  qualification.
Ammunition quality and testing are also factors in developing annual  ammunition requirements for DHS. Components, such as USSS, ICE,  and FLETC, have testing facilities to help ensure the ammunition ordered  meets the specifications outlined in contracts with manufacturers. For  example, ICE’s National Firearms Tactical and Training Unit (NFTTU)— which purchases ammunition on behalf of ICE, CBP, and FPS, and  provides technical assistance to TSA—operates a ballistics laboratory for  the testing of ammunition, among other purposes. This unit conducts  quality tests on a sample of each ammunition order before approving the   According to  acceptance and distribution of the total ammunition order.the Assistant Director of ICE’s NFTTU, if the ammunition tested does not  meet NFTTU’s quality standards, the batch is returned to the  manufacturer and the total order is not accepted and approved until the  ammunition meets standards. According to NFTTU data, this has  occurred 17 times from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013,  representing 3 percent of total tested batches.
Changes in firearms and ammunition types: Another factor  components consider when developing their annual ammunition  requirements is changes in the types of firearms and ammunition used by  components, according to senior DHS officials. When these changes  occur, additional ammunition is required to ensure officers’ proficiency on  the new firearm or ammunition. For example, in August 2011, ICE  management made changes to the types of authorized weapons officers  could carry as their primary weapon—expanding the list of authorized 9  millimeter (mm) firearms. Prior to this change, the standard duty firearm  was a .40 caliber firearm. After authorizing more 9 mm firearms, ICE  experienced a 60 percent increase in the amount of 9 mm ammunition  consumed, according to ICE, which resulted in ICE’s inventory of 9 mm  ammunition to be depleted. According to ICE officials, ICE needed to  amend the existing contract for 9 mm ammunition to allow for additional  purchases of ammunition to ensure officers who chose to use those 9 mm  firearms had sufficient ammunition for firearms qualification and  operations. As this change came at the end of fiscal year 2011,  purchases increased in fiscal year 2012, as previously shown in figure 3.
Historical usage rates: Historical usage rates—that is, the amount of  ammunition used in previous years—is also a factor components consider  to determine how much ammunition to purchase, according to senior  DHS component officials. DHS component officials told us they estimate  how much ammunition they have used by reviewing how much  ammunition they purchased in previous years, the number of authorized  firearm-carrying personnel, and related training and qualification  requirements. According to our analysis of estimated ammunition usage  data provided by DHS components, for fiscal years 2008 through 2013,  DHS components in our review estimated using, on average,  approximately 110 million rounds of ammunition per fiscal year, with a  high of about 141 million rounds in fiscal year 2009 to a low of about 89  million rounds in fiscal year 2013 (see figure 4).
Ammunition inventory: The amount of ammunition components have in  inventory is also a factor to determine how much and when to order more  ammunition, according to DHS component officials. DHS components  determine how much ammunition to keep in inventory, and when to  replenish ammunition inventories. The six DHS components in our review  stated they strive to maintain about 12 to 24 months’ of ammunition  inventory to meet the training, qualification, and operational ammunition  needs of firearm-carrying personnel. As stated earlier, there can be  months-long delays between placing an order for ammunition and  receiving it. To help ensure components have sufficient ammunition on  hand to support the training and operational needs of their officers, DHS  components maintain inventories of ammunition. For example, TSA  officials said they try to keep a large ammunition inventory on hand,  because the FFDOs (trained and armed pilots) are allowed to provide as  little as 24 hours notice to perform their qualification, based on their  fluctuating schedules.
Ammunition is stored in limited supply in the field offices of the various  components, as DHS component officials have said there is limited  storage for ammunition in the field. Officials added that while ammunition  is typically shipped directly from the manufacturers to the field offices that  placed the orders, there are occasions when production delays require  components to ship ammunition from their reserves stored in armories to  resupply the field. It is important to note that inventory levels reflect a  point in time and that inventory fluctuates throughout the year as  ammunition orders arrive from manufacturers and ammunition is used for  firearms qualification and other purposes in the field. Therefore, it is not  possible to provide an average ammunition inventory for a year or past  years, because the inventory is constantly fluctuating. Table 3 shows how  much ammunition DHS components had in inventory (in both estimated  rounds and approximate number of months’ supply) at three different  points in time between November 2012 and October 2013, as reported to  us by DHS components. We provide these estimates at three points in  time to show, by component, how ammunition inventory fluctuates over  the course of 1 year.
Each component is responsible for maintaining and recording its own  ammunition inventory, and, according to senior DHS component officials,  ammunition balances may not always be up to date and generally are  estimates. For example, a field location may show more ammunition in  inventory than other field offices, but that could reflect that the officers  have not yet completed a quarterly firearms qualification or the inventory  tracking system has not yet been updated to reflect changes. In addition,  components may also consider ammunition that has been ordered, but  not yet arrived, to be part of their “current” inventory. For example, TSA  reported an inventory level of almost 30 million rounds in November 2012,  but TSA officials said that number included ammunition orders that had  been placed with the manufacturer, but were not yet in physical inventory.  According to TSA, the quantity of ammunition in TSA’s physical  possession at the time of the inquiry was approximately 19 million rounds.
section_title: DOJ Components Cited Similar Factors in Determining Ammunition Requirements for Personnel Authorized to Carry Firearms and Annual Ammunition Purchases are Comparable to Those of DHS
paragraphs: Similar to DHS, the DOJ components in our review also purchase  ammunition to ensure their personnel authorized to carry firearms are  equipped to carry out their various law enforcement missions. For the  three DOJ components in our review, ammunition purchases are driven  primarily by the firearms training and qualification requirements for their  firearm-carrying workforce. According to DOJ data, DOJ component  firearm qualification requirements range from semi-annual to quarterly,  depending on the component; however, most require quarterly firearms  qualification on an officer’s primary weapon. As shown in table 4, the  approximate number of rounds of ammunition purchased per firearm- carrying agent or officer for the three DOJ law enforcement agencies in  our review for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 were similar to the amounts  for DHS components in our review.
For DOJ components, the average number of rounds of ammunition  purchased per authorized firearm-carrying agent or officer per year  across fiscal years 2011 through 2013 was approximately 1,300 rounds.
For DHS, the average number of rounds of ammunition purchased per  authorized firearm-carrying agent or officer per year for fiscal years 2011  through 2013 was approximately 1,000 rounds.
Senior DOJ officials also reported similar considerations when making  ammunition purchases, such as ammunition delivery lead time, quality  issues, and the amount of ammunition in inventory. As with DHS officials,  DOJ officials reported that the type of ammunition they use is  manufactured to a higher standard than ammunition purchased by the  civilian market and is not considered off-the-shelf. According to DOJ  component officials, the ammunition purchased by DOJ is produced after  an order is placed with a manufacturer, and the time between placing an  order and receiving it can be several months. Quality testing of  ammunition is also part of DOJ components’ procurement process, to  help ensure ammunition performs as expected in the field. Additionally,  DOJ components also consider the amount of inventory on hand when  determining ammunition requirements. According to officials from the  DOJ components in our review, the amount of inventory components try  to maintain ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 24  months. Ammunition inventory data provided by two of the three DOJ  components indicated that inventory ranged from about 13 months’ worth  to about 20 months’ worth.DHS components.
section_title: DHS Has Policies and Guidance for Firearms and Ammunition Inventory Management
subsections: section_title: DHS Components Have Inventory Management Policies and Procedures and Are in the Process of Implementing Revised DHS Firearms Asset Policy
paragraphs: Each of the DHS components in our review has policies, procedures, and  processes that describe the requirements and guidance necessary to  ensure inventory management, control and accountability for firearms and  ammunition. These policies include describing who is responsible and  accountable for firearms and ammunition, tracking and accounting for  firearms and ammunition throughout their life cycles, and periodically  conducting physical inventories to verify the existence and location of the  firearms and ammunition recorded in the accountability records. For  example, FLETC requires the firearms and weapons custodian to perform  a daily audit of all ammunition issues and receipts occurring at specified  issue points. TSA requires supervisors to conduct unannounced  employee firearm inspections and recommends that TSA offices conduct  random, selective, periodic, or unannounced internal audits to ensure  proper inventory controls and accountability. In addition, ICE, CBP, and  FPS use an automated system called Firearms, Armor, and Credentials  Tracking System (FACTS) to provide visibility of and oversight over their  firearms inventories. We did not assess if the components’ policies,  procedures, and process for managing their firearms and ammunition  inventories were working as intended.
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, DHS Controls over Firearms, OIG- 10-41, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2010). report recommended, among other things, that DHS develop department-wide policies and procedures for safeguarding and controlling firearms.
In response to the findings and recommendations of the report, in 2012  DHS issued the DHS Firearm Asset Policy (firearm policy) to govern the  components’ management of firearms, including inventory management  requirements. According to the firearm policy, components are  responsible for developing their own controls and for overall management  of their respective firearms programs, which includes adhering to DHS  requirements for firearms management. The components are to integrate  the firearm policy into their operations during fiscal year 2013, with a  planned full implementation by the end of fiscal year 2014. Among other  things, DHS’s firearms policy requires five specific inventory control  measures, noted below:
Establish policies and guidance: Components are responsible for  establishing policies and guidelines to ensure that the firearm asset  management system of record is updated throughout the asset life  cycle to document all transactions and events.
Conduct annual physical inventory: The component’s property  management officer or firearm program manager is to ensure that the  component’s inventory plan incorporates an annual physical inventory  for all firearms. For internal control purposes, there are to be at least  two individuals conducting a firearm physical inventory. Data on every  firearm shall be recorded and maintained in the firearm asset  management system of record.
Conduct independent third party audits: Components or DHS’s  Chief Readiness Support Officer’s Office are to engage independent  third parties to conduct an annual audit of at least 15 percent of their  firearm inventory.
Ensure inventory accuracy: Supervisors are to conduct  unannounced inventory verifications to ensure accuracy of firearms  inventory.
Verify issued firearms: In addition to an annual physical inventory,  each component’s property management officers or firearm program  managers are to ensure quarterly firearm inventory verifications are  conducted for all firearms issued.
For the six DHS components in our review, we found that each of the  components established policies and guidelines to manage firearms  assets, and some of the components were already implementing aspects  of the new firearm policy. For example, all six components’ policies  require that they conduct a complete annual physical inventory of all  firearms. Two of the components’ policies require them to engage an  independent third party to conduct an annual audit of at least 15 percent  of their firearm inventories. In addition, three of the six components have  procedures in place to ensure quarterly firearm inventory verifications are  conducted for all firearms issued. DHS officials said that components are  not expected to address all of the requirements in the DHS firearm policy  until the end of fiscal year 2014. Therefore, it is too early to know if  components will meet all of the requirements within this time frame.  Component officials we spoke with said that the implementation time  frame may require additional time to work through the feasibility of certain  requirements. For example, ICE officials noted that components with  collective bargaining units, such as CBP and ICE, for example, would  need agreement by the collective bargaining unit representing a  component’s law enforcement personnel before certain aspects of the  new firearm policy can be implemented.
section_title: DHS Components Have Policies and Procedures for Managing Ammunition Inventory
paragraphs: DHS issued a manual in 2013 on personal property asset management  that provides a general description of controls for managing property,  including ammunition, which is considered a sensitive asset requiring  certain controls. Specifically, with respect to inventory management of  ammunition, the DHS manual requires that ammunition be physically  inventoried at least annually. In accordance with the DHS property  management manual, DHS relies on the components to establish specific  policies and procedures for managing, safeguarding, and controlling their  ammunition inventories. We found that all six DHS components in our  review have policies and procedures for managing their ammunition  inventories, including requiring that a physical inventory be conducted at  least annually, which is in accordance with the DHS property  management manual. For example, USSS guidance requires that field  office personnel conduct annual inventories to ensure the completeness  and accuracy of the ammunition inventory information within their  inventory system.
Officials from five of the six components reported that they do conduct  physical inventories of their ammunition at least annually. For example,  FLETC officials reported that personnel conduct an annual inventory in  which they are to reconcile ammunition with control records through a  dual verification process to ensure accuracy by performing a physical and  visual verification. One component—ICE—reported that it does not  conduct a distinct physical inventory of ammunition (that is, at one point in  time reconcile ammunition on hand with ammunition expected to be in  inventory). However, ICE officials stated that ammunition inventories are  conducted by ICE field-level officials at various times during the year for  determination of needs.
According to ICE officials, ICE has treated ammunition as a consumable  asset and has not subjected it to the same inventory process as  firearms. Sensitive assets such as firearms are subject to the special  requirements outlined in the DHS property management directive. ICE  officials stated that although they have not conducted annual physical  inventories, ammunition balances and inventory levels are continuously  tracked in FACTS, and senior firearms instructors in local field offices  manage and maintain their ammunition inventory in FACTS as well as on  ammunition inventory control sheets that are maintained locally. ICE  officials said beginning in fiscal year 2014, they plan to institute a  separate and distinct physical inventory of ammunition in conjunction with  the annual ICE-wide sensitive asset inventory.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for official review and  comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in full  in appendix IV. DHS agreed that annual ammunition purchases have  declined during the past 3 years and are comparable to those of DOJ law  enforcement agencies. DOJ did not provide written comments on this  report. DHS and DOJ provided technical comments, which we  incorporated where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of  Homeland Security, the Attorney General, selected congressional  committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me 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 report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 1.  What are the trends in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)  ammunition purchases since fiscal year 2008, what factors affect its  purchase decisions, and how do DHS’s purchases compare with  those of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ)?  2.  What policies and guidance does DHS have for managing firearms  and ammunition inventories?
To obtain information on DHS’s acquisition practices for ammunition, we  examined the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); DHS’s acquisition  and procurement policies and guidance, including the Homeland Security  Acquisition Regulation (HSAR); and the Homeland Security Acquisition  Manual (HSAM). We reviewed prior GAO reports and a Congressional  Research Service memorandum on DHS acquisition and procurement.  We also reviewed contracts for ammunition purchases and related pre- award documentation, including acquisition plans, market research, and  cost estimates, but we did not review whether components’ ammunition  procurements complied with the FAR, HSAR, or HSAM. We interviewed  the Director for Procurement Policy and Oversight, the Director for  Oversight and Strategic Sourcing, and the acquisition and program  officials from six DHS components including U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),  Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U. S. Secret Service  (USSS), National Protection and Programs Directorate/Federal Protective  Service (FPS), and Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC)  to discuss contracting procedures and practices for procuring  ammunition, including the use of the Weapons Ammunition Commodity  Council and strategic sourcing to coordinate and leverage their buying  power. We reviewed relevant policies and guidance, examined  department and component documentation, and interviewed officials from  the DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer and components on  practices they employ and contracts they have leveraged. Specifically, we  interviewed officials from DHS’s strategic sourcing program office, as well  as all six components, to gain an understanding of DHS’s strategic  sourcing processes, the availability of strategic sourcing contracting  vehicles for ammunition, and the potential of establishing component- specific strategic sourcing goals for procuring ammunition. We also  interviewed Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Oversight and Pricing  Branch officials regarding their tri-annual reviews of procurement  operations.
To determine any trends in DHS’s ammunition purchases since fiscal  year 2008, we obtained available data from DHS law enforcement  components with firearm-carrying personnel regarding their ammunition  purchases, costs, usage, and the size of the authorized firearm-carrying  workforce for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. Specifically, we selected all  DHS law enforcement components with firearm-carrying personnel— CBP, ICE, TSA, USSS, FPS—as well as FLETC. The number of TSA  federal air marshals and the number of federal flight deck officers  authorized by TSA to carry firearms is considered sensitive security  information. Accordingly, we excluded that information from this report.  We also obtained data from DHS components on their estimated  ammunition inventory balances for three points in time—November 2012,  April 2013, and October 2013. Because we determined that it is not  possible to provide an average ammunition inventory for a year or past  years, as ammunition inventory is constantly fluctuating, we selected  these points in time based on data that was previously reported by DHS  to Congress prior to our review as well as data available at the start and  end of our review. In addition, DHS components’ records may not always  reflect the exact quantities of the ammunition inventory. For example,  depending on how often components update their inventory data, the time  lag may result in differences between quantities of ammunition actually  available and those reflected on the inventory records. We also obtained  data on planned ammunition purchases for fiscal year 2014.
In deciding which DHS components to examine in our review, we  excluded components that were not law enforcement components and  had small numbers of personnel authorized to carry firearms and made  small purchases of ammunition, such as the Office of the Inspector  General and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We  also excluded the U.S. Coast Guard—a DHS component with firearm- carrying personnel—because the Coast Guard does not procure  ammunition through DHS; rather, the U.S. Coast Guard procures its  ammunition through Department of Defense contracts.
Similarly, we selected all DOJ law enforcement components with firearm- carrying personnel regarding their ammunition purchases, costs, usage,  and size of the workforce authorized to carry firearms for fiscal years  2011 through 2013. The specific DOJ law enforcement components  included in our review are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and  Explosives (ATF), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S.  Marshals Service. The Federal Bureau of Prisons could not provide  ammunition purchase data comparable to that of the other components  based on its method of record keeping and data retention policy. We  determined that data from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)  were not sufficiently reliable for our purposes, because DEA could only  provide estimates of purchases. We, therefore, excluded both agencies  from our scope. We included the selected DOJ law enforcement agencies  in our review to provide perspective and context to help understand  DHS’s ammunition purchases and usage relative to those of other federal  law enforcement agencies.
We excluded FLETC from this analysis because FLETC has few firearm-carrying officers  for which it purchases ammunition. Ammunition purchased by FLETC is utilized by all  students who train on firearms at its facilities, including DHS and other federal law  enforcement personnel, as well as state, local, tribal, and international law enforcement  personnel. authorized to carry a firearm to account for the varying sizes of the  different departments and components. We selected DOJ to provide a  comparison with DHS’s ammunition purchases as it has the second  largest number of personnel authorized to carry firearms. However, our  DOJ analysis is not to suggest that the department represents a model or  standard against which DHS is assessed. Differences in the amount of  ammunition per firearm-carrying personnel reflect a number of factors,  including unique mission requirements and training needs.
To assess the reliability of the data we obtained from DHS components  on ammunition purchases and costs, we reviewed the extent to which the  components have procedures and controls for ensuring that the data are  consistent and accurate, and interviewed knowledgeable officials  responsible for collecting and reporting the data. In addition, for the data  we obtained from DHS components on ammunition purchases and costs,  we compared it with corroborating evidence to determine data  consistency and reasonableness. Specifically, we obtained information on  ammunition procurements using obligations data from fiscal years 2008  through 2012, and part of fiscal year 2013 from the Federal Procurement  Data System (FPDS), which tracks all contracts using appropriated funds  government-wide. We used the obligations data from the FPDS and  compared ammunitions obligations for DHS with the sum of ammunition  costs as provided to us by each of the components. We also compared  estimated ammunition used with ammunition purchased under the  assumption that in a given year, components would purchase ammunition  to replace what was used. We calculated how much ammunition DHS  components might be expected to use in a given year using data,  provided by DHS, on the size of the firearm-carrying workforce, the  number of staff qualified on various types of firearms, and the number of  rounds of ammunition typically allotted for training and qualifications. We  also reviewed selected DHS ammunition procurement contracts, which  were readily available, for information on ammunition purchases, costs,  and stated requirements. We found the data on ammunition purchases  and costs for the DHS components to be sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
To assess the reliability of the data we obtained from DHS components  on ammunition inventory, we reviewed the extent to which the agencies  have procedures and controls for ensuring that the data are consistent  and accurate, and interviewed knowledgeable officials responsible for  collecting and reporting the data. To determine the approximate number  of months’ supply of ammunition in inventory for each component, we  used fiscal year 2013 estimated ammunition usage data provided by DHS  components and divided that number by 12 to get an estimate of monthly  ammunition usage. We then divided the components’ inventory figures by  the monthly ammunition usage estimate to get estimated months’ worth in  inventory for those three points in time. Each component has policies in  place to maintain and record its own ammunition inventory, but according  to officials, ammunition balances may not always be up to date and  generally are estimates. For example, depending on how often  components update their inventory data, the time lag may result in  differences between quantities of ammunition actually available and those  reflected on the inventory records. On the basis of this information, we  determined the data to be sufficiently reliable to be reported rounded to  the millions.
To assess the reliability of the data we obtained from DHS components  on ammunition usage, we interviewed knowledgeable officials responsible  for collecting and reporting the data. DHS components do not centrally  track historical ammunition usage, in large part because their data  management systems are not designed to track ammunition usage.  However, components did provide us estimates of ammunition usage for  fiscal years 2008 through 2013 based on how much ammunition they  purchased in previous years, the number of firearm-carrying personnel,  and related training and qualification requirements. We determined these  data were sufficiently reliable to report general trends in usage when  rounded to the hundred thousands.
DHS components provided us with data on the number of personnel  authorized to carry firearms for fiscal year 2008 through 2013 and  information about how they compiled these data. Data sources varied by  component and included personnel systems, the Firearms, Armor, and  Credentials Tracking System (FACTS), and data from the National  Finance Center. Workforce data provided by CBP is not precise because  it included a rounded number of personnel for one of CBP’s sub- components. Therefore, we report CBP’s data rounded to the thousands.  On the basis of this information, we determined these data were  sufficiently reliable to be used for background purposes and in our  calculations of the average number of rounds purchased per agent or  officer.
To assess the reliability of the inventory, workforce, and ammunition  purchase data we obtained from DOJ, we interviewed knowledgeable  officials responsible for collecting and reporting the data about the extent  to which DOJ components have procedures and controls in place for  ensuring that the data are consistent and accurate. We calculated the  DOJ inventory months’ worth estimates in the same way we did for DHS  components. On the basis of this information, we determined these data  to be sufficiently reliable to report rounded estimates based on these  data.
We interviewed officials from the six DHS components in our review to  discuss the ammunition procurement process and how ammunition  requirements are determined at the component level and the purpose of  quality testing the ammunition, and to understand the context of why  proficiency among firearm-carrying personnel is important. In addition,  DHS components provided examples of purchase and delivery orders in  which the components experienced a variation in lag time between  placing a purchase order and receiving a shipment of ammunition, which  can result from the manufacturing lead time associated with ammunition  purchases. Finally, for additional context, we conducted a site visit to the  ICE National Firearms Testing Lab, which performs quality control testing  on ammunition and firearms, and maintains an inventory of ammunition  and firearms for distribution to DHS field locations.
To address our second question, we examined the general requirements  and policies DHS and its components had to manage and oversee  firearms and ammunition, but we did not assess whether the directives,  policies, and guidance were working as intended or if component  personnel were adhering to them, as that was outside the scope of our  review. We examined agency-wide directives and guidance, and  component management policies and procedures for managing  ammunition and firearms. This included reviewing the firearm policy  manuals or related documentation from CBP, FLETC, FPS, ICE, TSA,  and USSS to determine whether the manuals specifically addressed  agency-wide firearm and ammunition inventory management  requirements. We also interviewed officials from the Office of the Chief  Readiness Support Officer and from DHS components, and reviewed  components’ written responses regarding their policies and guidance for  managing firearms and ammunition. In addition, we interviewed  component officials responsible for conducting management and  compliance reviews of component operations, including on-site review  and self-inspection program findings and recommendations, which  include, but are not limited to, ammunition and firearms management and  controls. We also reviewed a 2010 DHS Inspector General report on DHS  firearms controls.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to January 2014 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Commonly Used Ammunition and Issued Firearms at DHS
paragraphs: Figure 5 shows some of the most commonly purchased types of  ammunition for ICE, and figure 6 shows firearms commonly issued by  DHS components.
section_title: Appendix III: Department of Homeland Security Ammunition Contracts, as of October 1, 2013
paragraphs: Most of DHS’s ammunition contracts, whether strategically sourced or  individual contracts, are indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ)  contracts, which are typically negotiated for a base year with additional  options for purchasing ammunition up to a certain maximum number of  rounds, or contract ceiling. As shown in the table below, the 29 existing  DHS ammunition contracts extend over the next 4 fiscal years and have a  remaining contract limit of approximately 704 million rounds (for various  ammunition types) if every option for purchasing ammunition were  exercised into fiscal year 2018.
subsections: section_title: Component name
section_title: Component name
paragraphs: DHS’s strategic sourcing contract vehicles include contracts or agreements that have been  established for use by two or more components to leverage their buying power and secure  competitive prices resulting in cost savings through collective procurement actions (e.g., buying in  bulk quantities at lower prices). Strategically sourced contracts are shaded.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Adam Hoffman (Assistant  Director) and Daniel Blinderman, Billy Commons, Lorraine Ettaro, Emily  Gunn, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Susanna Kuebler, Gary Malavenda,  Linda Miller, and Anthony Pordes made significant contributions to this  report.