Emergency Communications: Improved Procurement of Land Mobile Radios Could Enhance Interoperability and Cut Costs
Published: 2016-10-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Public safety personnel across the nation rely on LMR to share information and coordinate their emergency response efforts. LMR systems are intended to provide secure, reliable, mission-critical voice communications in a variety of environments, scenarios, and emergencies; however, LMR interoperability—the ability to communicate across agencies—has been a long-standing challenge at all levels of government.
GAO was asked to examine federal agencies’ LMR interoperability and procurement practices. GAO examined (1) LMR equipment used by federal agencies and the state of LMR interoperability among these agencies; (2) factors that help and hinder LMR interoperability among agencies; and (3) agencies’ LMR procurement practices. GAO surveyed civilian federal agencies, identified through their membership in the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (57 agencies fully responded to the survey and one agency provided a partial response); reviewed Department of Homeland Security planning documents related to interoperability; and interviewed federal agency officials with responsibilities related to emergency communications and procurement of LMR equipment. GAO also reviewed OMB initiatives to improve federal procurement.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal agencies GAO surveyed generally use land mobile radio (LMR) equipment to meet their core missions, such as public safety, emergency management, or firefighting. More than two-thirds of the 57 agencies GAO surveyed reported using equipment from the same manufacturer because, for example, they believe doing so will help ensure compatibility of new LMR equipment with existing system requirements. Most agencies GAO surveyed were consistent in identifying each other as agencies with which they have or have not needed LMR interoperability over the past 5 years. Of the agencies that identified the need to communicate with each other, about two-thirds reported generally having a good or excellent level of LMR interoperability.
The use of standards-based and multi-band LMR equipment has helped to enhance interoperability among agencies, but the use of proprietary features and other factors continue to hinder interoperability. Almost all of the agencies that GAO surveyed reported using LMR equipment that meets voluntary technical standards, which have improved interoperability. Further, almost half of these agencies reported using multiband radios, which operate on multiple public-safety radio bands, to enhance interoperability. However, agencies reported several factors continue to limit their progress in achieving interoperability with other federal agencies. These factors include the use of proprietary features and encryption in devices and limited investments in LMR systems and devices. For example, about half of the agencies surveyed reported that the use of proprietary features within LMR devices has hindered interoperability.
Nearly half of the agencies GAO surveyed reported using pre-approved vendors with established prices to acquire LMR equipment, mainly through contracts sponsored by the Departments of Homeland Security and the Interior. While this approach can facilitate cost savings and interoperability, many of these agencies reported purchasing equipment through multiple agreements, a practice that can reduce these benefits. About 40 percent of agencies GAO surveyed reported using sole-source procurement or independent approaches. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in general, agencies often purchase and manage items in a fragmented and inefficient manner. This approach can result in duplication of effort, which imposes significant costs on federal agencies. OMB has directed agencies to implement “category management” as an improved way to manage spending across government for commonly purchased goods and services. This approach enables the government to leverage its purchasing power and realize cost savings. However, OMB’s category management initiative does not include LMR equipment even though federal agencies spend millions of dollars annually purchasing such equipment. By including LMR equipment in OMB’s category management initiative, the government could more fully leverage its aggregate buying power to obtain the most advantageous terms and conditions for LMR procurements. OMB officials agreed that a category management approach to LMR procurement might save the government money while supporting the goal of enhanced interoperability among agencies that require it, but OMB has not examined the feasibility of applying this approach to the procurement of LMR equipment.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that OMB examine the feasibility of including LMR in its category management initiative. OMB generally agreed with GAO’s recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Whether conducting daily operations, overseeing planned events, or  responding to emergencies, many federal agencies use land mobile radio  (LMR) systems to gather and communicate information across multiple  disciplines and jurisdictions and to coordinate response efforts with other  federal agencies. Although LMR systems have similar components— including handheld portable radios and mobile radios mounted in  vehicles, as well as base stations to transmit signals or audio— interoperable LMR communications remains a challenge for various  technical and non-technical reasons. Legislation enacted over the past  10 years, such as the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act  of 2006 and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Interoperable  Communications Act of 2015, highlighted the critical importance of  effective, interoperable communication systems for federal agencies with  law-enforcement and emergency-response missions. For example, the  Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act established the  Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) to improve  coordination and information sharing among federal emergency  communications programs in support of interoperability and continued  communications during disasters and incidents. According to DHS,  advancements in LMR technology—including further development of  standards-based equipment and multi-band radios capable of operating  on several different channels across multiple radio bands—may help  address some interoperability challenges. However, there is no single  operational authority for emergency response among federal departments  and questions remain regarding the ability of federal agencies to achieve  interoperable LMR communications.
Amid continuing questions about LMR interoperability among federal  agencies and in light of advancements in LMR technology, we were  asked to examine aspects of this interoperability as well as LMR  procurement practices. In this report, we examine: (1) LMR systems and  devices used by selected federal agencies and the state of LMR  interoperability among these agencies; (2) factors that help and hinder  interoperability among agencies that use LMR; and (3) selected agencies’  practices for procuring LMR systems.
To address these objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of  civilian federal agencies, identified through their membership in the  ECPC. We screened an initial set of 74 agencies to determine which  agencies use LMR technologies to communicate with at least one other  federal agency for daily operations, planned events, such as Presidential  inaugurations, or emergency incidents. All 74 agencies responded to our  screening question. Agencies that met this criterion—58 federal LMR  users in all—were further surveyed about the types of equipment they  use, interoperability needs, and procurement practices, among other  topics. Fifty-seven of the 58 agencies that we identified as federal LMR  users responded to the full survey. The Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI) did not respond to the full survey but provided responses to a  limited set of survey questions related to our first objective, identifying  agencies with which they require LMR interoperability. Therefore, for the  first objective we include information from the 57 agency responses and  the FBI; for the other two objectives we only include information from the  57 agencies. Throughout this report, we provide survey results based on  the number of respondents to each question because not all respondents  answered every question. Therefore the number of respondents may be  fewer than 57 for some results. The survey and a more comprehensive  tabulation of the results can be viewed at GAO-17-13SP.
We also reviewed relevant statutes and DHS planning documents related  to interoperability among federal agencies, including the National  Emergency Communications Plan, the National Response Framework,  and the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum documentation related to  key elements of interoperability. We interviewed officials from federal  agencies with responsibilities related to emergency communications and  procurement of LMR equipment, including DHS; the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the  National Institute of Standards and Technology within the Department of  Commerce; the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); the  General Services Administration (GSA); the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB); and administrators of the ECPC. Last, we reviewed OMB  initiatives for improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness in federal  procurement and compared them to procurement practices reported by  the agencies that responded to our survey. Additional information about  our scope and methodology is provided in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to October 2016 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
paragraphs: Public safety personnel across the nation—including first responders, law  enforcement officers, and natural resource managers, among others— rely on LMR systems to gather and share information while conducting  daily operations and to coordinate their emergency response efforts.  These systems are intended to provide secure, reliable, mission-critical  voice communications in a variety of environments, scenarios, and  emergencies. We reported in 2012 that these public safety  communications systems are fragmented across thousands of federal,  state, and local jurisdictions and often lack “interoperability,” or the ability  to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions. Figure 1 displays the  typical components of an LMR system, including handheld portable  radios, mobile radios typically mounted in vehicles, base stations, and  repeaters, which retransmit radio signals to extend the coverage area.
Handheld portable radios are typically carried by the LMR user and  tend to have a limited transmission range.
Mobile radios are often located in vehicles and use the vehicle’s  power supply and a larger antenna, providing a greater transmission  range than handheld portable radios.
Base station radios are located in fixed positions, such as dispatch  centers, and tend to have the most powerful transmitters. A network is  required to connect base stations to the same communication system.
Repeaters increase the effective communication range of handheld  portable radios, mobile radios, and base station radios by  retransmitting received radio signals.
LMR networks connect different base stations to the same  communications system and operate by transmitting voice and data  through radio waves at specific frequencies and channels within the radio  frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. According to DHS,  the shortage of available channels within a single radio band resulted in  the expansion of public safety systems into multiple radio frequency  bands within the radio frequency spectrum. In the United States, NTIA  administers spectrum for federal government use and FCC administers  spectrum for non-federal use (e.g., state and local government, and  commercial use). Federal agencies generally operate on different radio  frequency bands than those used by state and local agencies, as shown  in figure 2.
LMR systems that operate on different radio frequency bands are not  always interoperable, making it potentially difficult for different  jurisdictions to communicate with one another. To address this issue,  NTIA has designated specific radio frequencies, known as federal  interoperability channels, for use among federal agencies and between  federal agencies and non-federal entities with which federal agencies  require interoperability. Similarly, FCC designated national interoperability  channels for use by the public safety community at the state and local  levels. FCC licensees of other Public Safety and Industrial/Business  Pool frequencies may also share their facilities with federal users.  According to FCC, interoperability channels licensed by FCC are  reserved specifically for different agencies or jurisdictions to coordinate  and resolve initial interoperability issues when responding to an incident.  Federal users may use the national interoperability channels only for  interoperability with (and at the invitation of) a non-federal entity.
Technology solutions have been developed to enhance interoperability  across different radio frequency bands and equipment. According to FCC,  advancements in LMR technology—including software-defined radios,  multi-band radios, and interoperable gateways—have enhanced  interoperability among different LMR devices. Software-defined radios  use reconfigurable software that can be changed to alter the radio’s  operating parameters without making any changes to the hardware  components. Multi-band radios can operate on more than one radio  frequency band, with the goal of allowing emergency responders to  communicate with partner agencies regardless of the radio frequency  band on which they operate. Interoperable gateways use “bridging” or  network approaches to enhance interoperability, by using radio network  bridges or “gateways” that provide a direct interface between separate  radio networks.
In addition to these and other technology solutions, a suite of voluntary  national standards, known as Project 25 (P25) standards, is intended to  facilitate interoperability among different manufacturers’ LMR  communications products. The goal of P25 is to specify formal  standards for interfaces among the various components of an LMR  system commonly used by emergency responders. The P25 standards  are intended to benefit the public safety community by promoting  marketplace competition for interoperable products and enabling  interoperable communications within and among public safety agencies,  among other intended benefits.
To further support interoperable communications and to address  emergency communications breakdowns that undermined response  efforts during terrorist attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005,  various pieces of legislation have been enacted over the past 15 years.  The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland  Security, and within the department, a Directorate of Emergency  Preparedness and Response responsible for, among other things,  “developing comprehensive programs for developing interoperative  communications technology, and helping to ensure that emergency  response providers acquire such technology.” The Post-Katrina  Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 was enacted to address  various shortcomings identified in the preparation for and response to  Hurricane Katrina and included legislative reforms related to emergency  management. For example, the act required DHS, among other things,  to develop the National Emergency Communications Plan and created  the Office of Emergency Communications within DHS to improve first  responder communications. More recently, the DHS Interoperable  Communications Act was enacted in 2015 with the goal to achieve and  maintain interoperable communications capabilities among DHS  agencies.
The Office of Emergency Communications administers the ECPC, which  serves as a focal point to improve coordination and share information  among 14 federal agencies in support of enhanced interoperability and  the ability to provide emergency responders and officials with continued  communications during disasters and incidents. According to a 2013  report prepared by the ECPC Research and Development focus group,  federal agencies plan to continue to rely on existing LMR systems to  support mission-critical emergency communications needs. The Office of  Emergency Communications also worked with federal, state, local, and  tribal jurisdictions to create its 2014 National Emergency Communications  Plan, which it views as the nation’s strategic plan for emergency  communications. The long-term vision of the plan—to enable the nation’s  emergency response community to communicate and share information  across levels of government, jurisdictions, disciplines, and organizations  for all threats and hazards, as needed and when authorized—aligns with  a broad goal of achieving interoperability. One of the top priorities of the  2014 plan is to identify and prioritize areas for improvement in emergency  responders’ LMR systems.
DHS developed the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum in  partnership with the federal, state, and local LMR users to help agencies  and jurisdictions to plan and implement interoperability solutions for data  and voice communications. The Interoperability Continuum can be used  as a tool by LMR users to track progress in strengthening interoperable  communications by addressing five interrelated elements viewed as  necessary to achieve interoperability. These five elements are:
Governance refers to establishing a shared vision, across  jurisdictions and disciplines, and an effective organizational structure  to support any project or initiative that seeks to enhance  interoperability by providing guidance and support through common  policies, processes, and procedures.
Standard operating procedures (SOP) refer to documents  containing formal written guidelines or instructions that outline the  expected actions for various scenarios, including normal day-to-day  operations and emergency situations. SOPs typically have both  operational and technical components and enable LMR users to act in  a coordinated fashion in the event of an emergency.
Technology refers to the equipment/infrastructure, network, and  applications that agencies use to exchange critical information when  responding to incidents.
Training & Exercises refers to the instructional support designed to  develop knowledge, skills, and performance of public safety  personnel.
Usage refers to how often interoperable communications capabilities  are used—for example, for daily operations, overseeing planned  events, or only for emergency or unplanned events.
According to DHS’s Office of Emergency Communications, LMR systems  can be complex and costly to implement, requiring a lifecycle approach to  manage them. For example, DHS alone has reported that it owns a  collective inventory of LMR equipment valued at more than $1 billion.
DHS operates and maintains six LMR national networks and almost 520  systems providing mission essential support to approximately 125,000  frontline agents and officers who help to prevent terrorism and secure our  national borders, among other responsibilities. Also, according to DHS,  since the useful life of an LMR system is 10–15 years, continued  investment is needed to operate and maintain these systems and ensure  they continue to support users’ needs. In addition to the investments  made by federal departments in LMR systems, the federal government  has provided billions of dollars in 2015 and 2016 in grant funding for  state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to install, expand, and  enhance their LMR systems, according to SAFECOM and the National  Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators.
section_title: Agencies Use LMR Systems to Meet Their Needs, but Interoperability with Partner Agencies Varies
subsections: section_title: Mission Needs Drive Choice of LMR Systems and Devices
paragraphs: Based on responses to our survey, federal agencies generally use LMR  devices to meet their unique mission or operational requirements. For  example, the equipment needed to operate underground in a mining  facility is different from what is needed to fight fires (in a high-heat  environment, with the user wearing gloves) or for law enforcement (which  may require encryption). DHS’s National Response Framework—a  guide to how the nation plans to respond to disasters and emergencies— describes 15 emergency support functions, or federal coordinating  structures, that group resources and capabilities of federal departments  and agencies into functional areas that are most frequently needed in a  national response. Based on responses to our survey, the six most  frequently cited emergency support functions relating directly to the  agencies’ core missions are shown in table 1.
Although there are many manufacturers of LMR systems and devices,  most agencies that we surveyed reported using equipment provided by  the same manufacturer. Specifically, of the 57 agencies that responded to  our related survey questions, more than two-thirds reported using LMR  systems (40 of 57) and LMR devices (44 of 57) manufactured by  Motorola. In written responses to our survey, agencies reported that  they prefer to continue to use equipment from the same manufacturers for  various reasons, including ensuring compatibility of new LMR equipment  with existing system requirements and reducing the need for training on  new equipment and systems.
section_title: Most Agencies Surveyed Mutually Identified Whether They Required LMR Interoperability, but Ratings of Interoperability Varied
paragraphs: For our analysis of agencies’ LMR interoperability requirements and  ratings, we asked each agency participating in our survey to identify (from  a list of all agencies we surveyed) all other agencies with which the  respondent agency requires LMR interoperability. We also asked the  respondent agency to rate the level of interoperability with each agency  that they had identified, among other questions. We refer to this as  “independently” identifying the need for LMR interoperability. We later  compared all agency responses to determine whether pairs of agencies  identified each other, meaning that both agencies in the pair reported that  they require LMR interoperability with each other. We refer to this as  “mutually” identifying the need for LMR interoperability.
Not all federal agencies that responded to our survey reported a need for  LMR interoperability with one another, but most agencies mutually and  independently agreed whether or not they require it. That is, more than 80  percent of the possible pairs of agencies we surveyed mutually and  independently reported that they do not generally require LMR  interoperability; and another 5 percent mutually and independently  reported that they do generally require it. The remaining approximately 14  percent of possible agency pairs reported a potential need for this two  way communication, but this potential need was not mutually and  independently reported by both agencies within the pair. For example, the  Office of the Secretary of the Interior reported requiring interoperability  with 22 other agencies, but only 2 agencies reported requiring  interoperability with it. Alternatively, FEMA reported requiring LMR  interoperability with only 8 agencies but 21 other agencies reported  requiring interoperability with it.
Figure 3 represents the level of mutual agreement between agencies  regarding their need for LMR interoperability. That is, the dots in the  figure represent the 57 agencies we surveyed plus the FBI, the gray lines  connect pairs of agencies whereby only one agency within the pair  identified the need to be interoperable with the other agency (i.e., lack of  agreement), and the black lines connect pairs of agencies whereby both  agencies within the pair mutually and independently identified the need to  be interoperable with one another.
Table 2 quantifies the information covered in figure 3 for the 1,653  possible agency pairs—given the group size of 57 agencies we surveyed  plus FBI—including the specific number of agency pairs that mutually  identified a need for LMR interoperability or not, and the number of pairs  that did not mutually identify a need for LMR interoperability (i.e., within a  possible agency pair, one agency identified a need for interoperability but  the other agency did not).
Based on our survey results, figure 4 shows agencies within federal  departments with an identified need for LMR interoperability. Agencies  closer to the center of the figure reported requiring interoperability with  the greatest number of other agencies whereas those agencies located  toward the edge of the figure require interoperability with fewer agencies.  Similar to figure 3, each of the 226 gray lines connects an agency pair  whereby only one agency within the pair identified the need to be  interoperable with the other agency and each of the 86 black lines  connects an agency pair whereby both agencies within the pair mutually  and independently identified the need to be interoperable with one  another.
Among the pairs of agencies that agreed on their need for two-way  communication, the quality of interoperability—as rated by the agencies  requiring it—was generally good. To develop an understanding of the  extent to which a mutually identified need for LMR interoperability is  actually being achieved, we asked agencies to evaluate the general level  of LMR interoperability actually achieved with each of their identified  partner agencies. Based on the 86 pairs of agencies that mutually  reported that LMR interoperability with each other was required, we  expected 172 ratings—that is, a rating from each agency in each pair.  However, because FBI did not provide us with its rating of the quality of  interoperability with its partner agencies, we received 157 ratings in total.
About 68 percent of the ratings from agencies that mutually agreed on the  need to communicate with each other using LMR reported having good or  excellent LMR interoperability.
Figure 5 lists federal agencies (including FBI) that reported the need for  LMR interoperability with other federal agencies for daily operations,  planned events, or unplanned or emergency events within the past 5  years. The color-coded blocks correspond with each listed agencies’  assessment of the quality of its LMR interoperability with its identified  partner agencies. For more detailed information about the specific  agencies requiring LMR interoperability, the partner agencies they  identified, and their assessment of their levels of interoperability with each  identified partner agency, see an interactive graphic which can be viewed  at http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-12.
section_title: While Standardized Equipment and Training Help, Proprietary Features and Other Factors Continue to Hinder Interoperability
subsections: section_title: Standardized Technology and Training Help Enhance Interoperability
paragraphs: The use of standards-based and multi-band LMR equipment and training  and exercises have helped to enhance interoperability, according to  agencies we surveyed. With respect to standards-based equipment,  almost all of the agencies that use LMR equipment to communicate with  other agencies have partially or fully implemented the use of P25- compliant LMR devices, according to our survey. P25 standards are  intended to facilitate interoperability among communications products of  different manufacturers by supporting a variety of LMR system  configurations, call types, and features (including encryption). Most  agencies that we surveyed (49) reported that their agency or department  requires the use of P25 standards-compliant LMR devices; however, not  all agencies reported fully using P25 equipment, nor do they all view the  standards as helpful. That is, of the 36 agencies that reported having fully  implemented P25-compliant equipment, 32 reported that using P25- compliant equipment somewhat or greatly enhances interoperability. Six  agencies reported that they do not use P25-compliant LMR devices for  the following reasons: (1) it would be difficult for the agency to integrate  the technology with its current LMR system, (2) no perceived need for the  technology, (3) benefits of the technology are unclear, and (4) the agency  requires LMR devices with proprietary or unique features that do not  comply with P25 standards.
Another LMR technology—the multiband radio (including dual, tri- and  quad-band devices)—operates on multiple public-safety radio bands and  can help to enhance interoperability across users on different parts of the  radio spectrum. However, fewer than half of the agencies responding to  this question in our survey—21 out of 56—reported fully implementing the  use of multiband radios. More than 85 percent of agencies (18 of 21)  that routinely use multiband radios reported that they somewhat or greatly  helped interoperability with identified partners. Multiband radios can help  enhance interoperability because they enable a single portable radio to  operate on multiple radio bands, thereby enhancing LMR interoperability  with partners at the state and local level, or with other agencies operating  at a different radio frequency band.
Regarding training and exercises, more than half of the agencies we  surveyed (32 of 57) reported that they participate in training on LMR  equipment used for daily operations, and almost all of the agencies  participating in such training reported that it helped interoperability with  partner agencies. In addition to training, exercises can help to reinforce  what is learned in training. Nearly one-third of the agencies told us they  fully implemented exercises to test specific technologies and procedures,  and almost all of those agencies reported they found these exercises to  somewhat or greatly help their agency’s interoperability with key partners.  Nearly one-quarter of the agencies reported that they fully implemented  joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment  for daily operations, planned events, or unplanned or emergency  incidents.
In written responses to our survey, agencies noted additional training and  exercises that could enhance interoperability, including: making LMR  training available online, sharing lessons learned from incidents, and  continuing to implement large-scale exercises to gain familiarity with  equipment before an emergency occurs. For example, one agency  reported that wide-scale wildland fire-fighting exercises involving multiple- county, state, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service  personnel have been helpful toward achieving interoperability when  needed.
section_title: Use of Certain LMR Features and the Lack of Standard Operating Procedures Continue to Hinder Interoperability
paragraphs: Several factors continue to hinder interoperability, according to agencies  we surveyed. In particular, the following factors continue to limit agencies’  progress in achieving interoperability with partner agencies: (1) the use of  proprietary features and encryption in devices, (2) the limited use of  interoperability channels, (3) the lack of standard operating procedures,  and (4) the limited investments in LMR systems and devices.
subsections: section_title: Use of Proprietary Features and Encryption in Devices
paragraphs: Some of the agencies we surveyed reported that proprietary features  used within the LMR systems and devices of their partner agencies have  hindered interoperability with their partner agencies. As we reported in  2012, while the P25 standards are intended to facilitate interoperability  among LMR systems and devices of different manufacturers, the  standards remain voluntary. As a result, LMR systems and devices  marketed as P25-compliant can also include proprietary features that  render the equipment incompatible with equipment from other  manufacturers. To help ensure that LMR equipment is truly compliant with  the P25 standards, DHS’s Office for Interoperability and Compatibility has  partnered with the Department of Commerce Public Safety  Communications Research program to develop the P25 Compliance  Assessment Program. This voluntary program aims to independently test  LMR equipment to ensure that equipment marketed as P25-compliant  actually complies with P25 standards for performance and  interoperability.
Proprietary Features Increase Switching  Costs  In GAO-12-343, we reported that the use of  proprietary features makes it costly for  agencies to switch their LMR devices from  one manufacturer to another, since doing so  would require replacing or modifying older  devices to be compatible with new ones.  Thus, these switching costs may compel  agencies to continue to buy devices from  the incumbent device manufacturer. The  cost of switching is particularly high when a  manufacturer has installed proprietary  features that are not interoperable with  competitors’ devices. Additionally, even in  cases where devices from different  manufacturers are supposed to be  compatible—that is, interoperable and  compliant with P25 standards—a fear of  incompatibility may deter an agency from  switching to a new manufacturer when it  needs to add additional LMR devices to its  existing LMR system.
More than a quarter of the agencies responding to these questions in our  survey use LMR systems (16 of 56) or devices (20 of 57) with proprietary  features and over half (34 of 57) also reported using LMR devices with  encryption features. In written responses to our survey, agencies  provided reasons for using proprietary features, several of which relate to  unique mission-related situations or the need to access other LMR  networks, such as state and local networks. For example, agencies noted  mission-related situations such as underground operations, high-density  and congested environments, and “man-down” signaling to call for help  when a LMR user is incapacitated as reasons for including proprietary  features. With respect to encryption, one agency noted that its LMR  devices use an encryption feature to maintain interoperability with state  and local public safety partner agencies using the same type of  encryption.
DHS’s Office of Emergency Communications notes that encryption  features in LMR devices can help protect critical information transmitted  from one LMR device to another from being compromised or disclosed  and can provide assurance that sensitive information is reasonably  protected from unauthorized access. Although more than 30 percent of  the agencies responding to our survey (18 of 57) reported that  incompatible encryption capability with systems used by partner agencies  somewhat or greatly hindered their ability to maintain interoperability, we  did not observe this result in the specific examples of identified agency  pairs and their assessment of their LMR interoperability. That is, agencies  that require LMR interoperability rated interoperability with their identified  partner agencies similarly regardless of whether or not their identified  partner agency uses encryption in its LMR devices. According to DHS  officials, partner agencies can enhance interoperability when they agree  to share common encryption keys. According to our survey, 14 agencies  have implemented SOPs for sharing of encryption keys or agreeing to an  encryption standard and 13 of these 14 agencies reported that doing so  was greatly or somewhat helpful toward achieving interoperability with  their partner agencies.
section_title: Limited Use of Interoperability Channels
paragraphs: Federal and national interoperability channels provide agencies with a set  of radio frequencies to use on location, to coordinate and resolve initial  challenges to achieving interoperability when responding to an  emergency or unplanned event. DHS encourages LMR users to maximize  their flexibility and be prepared for emergency events by preprogramming  as many interoperability channels into their radios as possible (as  permitted by applicable regulations), including the federal and national  interoperability channels. DHS’s National Interoperability Field Operations  Guide—available on the ECPC library webpage within the www.max.gov  website—includes rules and regulations for the use of nationwide and  other interoperability channels, and other reference material. LMR users  who have not pre-programmed their devices or are unfamiliar using the  channels may be slow to respond or experience interoperability difficulties  during an emergency event. For example, during the 2013 Boston  Marathon bombings, when traditional communications systems— including radio networks and protocols, and some of the radio channels  designated for the Marathon under the communications plan—were  overloaded, Boston’s police, fire, and public and private emergency  medical service personnel used a dedicated radio channel to  communicate and quickly summon aid to the scene. By comparison,  some regional specialized weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams from  state and local police departments and law enforcement councils  experienced difficulty communicating because their radios were not  programmed to the interoperable channels. Similarly, the after-action  report for the 2012 Navy Yard shooting noted that officers from federal  and local law enforcement agencies were communicating on separate  channels while searching for the gunman, resulting in gaps in  communications and increased risk to fellow officers.
Although more than two-thirds of the federal agencies responding to our  survey reported that their radios are pre-programmed to the federal and  national interoperability channels, 11 of the 57 agencies reported that  their radios are not pre-programmed to use these NTIA-regulated federal  emergency channels, and 17 of the 57 federal agencies reported that  their devices are not pre-programmed to use FCC-regulated national  interoperability channels. In written responses related to this survey  question, some of these agencies explained that they did not see the  need to do so or were unaware that the channels existed. However, as  mentioned previously, DHS views these channels as providing greater  flexibility to agencies in the event of an emergency. About one-fourth of  the agencies responding to our survey reported that training related to  accessing federal and national interoperability channels was a medium or  high priority for their agency.
section_title: Lack of Standard Operating Procedures
paragraphs: DHS SAFECOM guidance states that interoperability requires not only the  technical ability to communicate through the use of compatible LMR  equipment but also formalized agreement among federal agencies, state  and local entities, and other emergency service organizations to  communicate and cooperatively respond to emergencies and disaster  events. Agencies can establish such agreements by developing SOPs  to define roles, responsibilities, and appropriate usage of dedicated  interoperability resources (e.g., interoperability channels) during response  operations. DHS’s SAFECOM recommends that partner agencies that  need to use LMR to communicate develop SOPs and engage in training  for daily operations, planned events, and unplanned or emergency  events.
We analyzed survey results for agencies that identified the need for LMR  interoperability with other agencies, particularly regarding whether the  agencies have SOPs related to interoperability. Based on survey  responses, when an agency identified the need for LMR interoperability  with another agency, the agency also reported having SOPs with the  identified agency in about 48 percent of the cases. Furthermore, the  quality of interoperability tended to be higher when SOPs were in place  than when they were not. In cases where an agency reported requiring  LMR interoperability with another agency and having SOPs with that  agency, the quality of interoperability was rated as excellent for 40  percent of the cases; good for 45 percent of the cases; and fair, poor, or  nonexistent for 15 percent of the cases. In cases where an agency  reported requiring a link and not having SOPs with the other agency,  interoperability was rated as excellent for 16 percent of cases; good for  51 percent of cases; and fair, poor, or nonexistent in 33 percent of these  cases.
In addition to having SOPs in place with partner agencies, DHS  recommends that agencies engage in training and exercises to gain  familiarity with the SOPs to improve response to unplanned or emergency  events with partner agencies. However, two-thirds of the agencies  responding to this survey question (37 of 56) have not fully implemented  training on standard operating procedures, continuity processes, and  related topics even though many of these agencies (20 of 37) said that  doing so is a medium or high priority for their agency. To encourage  agencies requiring LMR interoperability to develop SOPs, DHS has  published and distributed guidance on its website and via the ECPC  clearinghouse for information on www.max.gov.  DHS also recognizes  the importance of training to ensure that emergency responders  understand SOPs and have the skills needed to carry them out, but  according to DHS, it does not have the regulatory authority to require  other agencies to develop SOPs or to provide relevant training to federal  agencies.
section_title: Limited Investment in LMR Systems and Devices
paragraphs: According to DHS, maintaining an LMR system requires a large  investment, due to its high cost and relatively-short life cycle of about 10  to 15 years and deferring maintenance and upgrades to aging LMR  systems and devices can limit interoperability. To help ensure effective  LMR operations, SAFECOM guidance encourages emergency  responders to regularly maintain communications systems and  equipment, and to upgrade their systems when appropriate. For  example, upgrades may include investing in standards-based equipment,  adopting new technologies, and updating the hardware and software of  existing LMR systems. However, in response to our survey, more than  two-thirds of the agencies that responded to this question (39 of 57)  reported that the limited availability of funding to replace or upgrade  incompatible or aging LMR equipment greatly or somewhat hindered their  ability to maintain interoperability with partner agencies. DHS has  produced guidance to help agencies to establish and maintain LMR  systems, including planning and budgeting for the long-term maintenance  of these communication systems.
section_title: Some Agencies Use Preapproved Contracts for LMR Procurement, but a More Coordinated Approach Could Lower Costs and Enhance Interoperability
subsections: section_title: LMR Procurement Practices
paragraphs: Nearly half (27 of 57) of agencies we surveyed reported using contract  vehicles to acquire LMR systems and devices. Contract vehicles contain  groups of preapproved contracts that enable agencies to purchase LMR  equipment from a list of vendors with established prices. We have  previously reported that coordinating purchases of like products and  services—such as by using preapproved contracts—enables agencies to  leverage spending to the maximum extent possible. Agencies using  preapproved contracts to purchase LMR equipment reported similar  benefits, including cost savings, reduced administrative burden,  enhanced interoperability, and standardized equipment. Among the 27  federal agencies that reported using preapproved contracts to procure  LMR systems and devices, most reported using contracts sponsored by  the DHS or the Department of the Interior, although several other contract  vehicles were used by a smaller number of agencies (see fig. 6).
Among the agencies that used preapproved contracts, many reported that  they have used multiple contract vehicles to purchase LMR equipment in  the past 5 years. For example, 13 agencies reported using two or more  different vehicles, and three agencies reported using four different  vehicles. We have reported that agencies’ use of potentially duplicative  contracts to purchase similar goods and services can potentially reduce  their benefits by imposing significant costs to the agencies. That is,  agencies may miss an opportunity to leverage their buying power, if  purchasing under many different agreements.
Twenty-three agencies we surveyed also have used a sole source or  other procurement mechanisms to acquire LMR systems and devices  within the past 5 years, whereby agencies contract with one specific  manufacturer, without competition, to acquire systems and devices when  it is believed to be in the best interest of the agency. In written comments  on the survey, some agencies reported using sole source procurements  to ensure that all the LMR devices they purchased would work with their  existing systems. For example, one agency reported that using a sole  source procurement allows it to obtain additional equipment from the  same manufacturer as its current LMR system. Another noted that a sole  source procurement allows the agency to replace existing equipment with  similar equipment, which reduces the cost of training for LMR users and  technicians who maintain and repair the equipment. Several other  agencies reported using a sole source procurement to ensure that they  can obtain LMR devices with needed features to meet operational  requirements.
section_title: A Category Management Approach to Procurement Could Lower LMR Costs and Improve Interoperability
paragraphs: While some agencies that responded to our survey reported using  contract vehicles, many reported that they do not coordinate with other  agencies before purchasing new LMR equipment. According to the Office  of Management and Budget (OMB), better coordination among agencies  interested in commonly-purchased items—such as information  technology (IT)—can help the agencies to leverage the government’s  purchasing power. We have previously identified using a coordinated  procurement approach as a key practice that can reduce procurement  costs to agencies. According to GSA, a structured and collaborative  approach to procurement can help agencies save money and improve  overall performance by better leveraging their purchasing power.
However, in response to our survey, nearly 40 percent of agencies (22 of  57) reported that they have not coordinated procurement activities of LMR  devices and related equipment with other federal agencies within the past  5 years, such as by identifying common technical requirements before  purchasing new LMR equipment. In written comments on the survey,  some of these agencies provided the following reasons for not  coordinating LMR procurements:
Difference in mission: for example, one agency reported that its  mission does not overlap with that of other federal agencies, a  circumstance that made it difficult to coordinate procurements with  them.
Lack of common technical requirements: for example, one agency  reported that its radio system needs to have maritime capabilities that  most other federal agencies do not need.
Low quantity of LMR devices: for example, one agency reported that it  needs only about 100 LMR devices and trying to coordinate the  purchase of such a small quantity would be more burdensome than  helpful.
Timing of procurement: for example, one agency reported that it tried  to execute a contract for LMR purchases with another agency in the  past, but the timing of the cycles by which the two agencies’  purchased new LMR equipment was difficult to coordinate due to their  having two different contract-performance periods.
According to OMB officials, agencies had noted similar reasons for not  coordinating other commonly purchased goods, such as IT hardware and  software. In particular, OMB officials told us that although agencies may  initially struggle to identify common technical requirements, agencies can  typically identify and agree to a limited number of standard technical  configurations to meet the needs of about 80 percent of common IT  requirements, such as those for laptops and desktops. These items make  up more than half of the federal government’s overall expenditures and  agencies often purchase and manage these items in a fragmented and  inefficient manner, according to OMB. In response, in 2014, OMB’s  Office of Federal Procurement Policy announced its category  management initiative, an approach based on leading practices to  manage entire categories of spending across government for commonly  purchased goods and services, such as IT hardware and software. The  initiative is designed to allow the federal government to buy goods and  services more like a single enterprise, leveraging its purchasing power as  the world’s largest consumer. OMB identified three critical steps  departments and agencies could take to improve procurement practices  and achieve cost savings: (1) reduce administrative costs by  consolidating acquisitions through fewer high-performing contract  vehicles; (2) standardize configurations for common requirements to drive  savings; and (3) implement smarter business practices, such as jointly  purchasing replacement IT equipment on a regular cycle, to achieve  strategic and predictable budget requirements and optimize price and  performance.
At the time of our review, OMB had not yet considered LMR equipment  within its category management initiative, in part because the initial  strategic plan for IT focused on implementing OMB policy related to  laptops and desktops, software, and mobile devices and services.  However, OMB officials acknowledged that a category management  approach to LMR procurement may save the government money while  also supporting the goal of enhanced LMR interoperability among  agencies, largely because it would require agencies to identify their  common technical requirements and purchase equipment in larger  quantities through fewer transactions. OMB officials said that LMR  equipment could be a focus of future efforts once data analysis is  conducted to understand how many agencies use LMR equipment, which  contract vehicles are used to purchase LMR equipment, and overall LMR  expenditures. In our discussion with OMB officials, they noted the  widespread use of LMR equipment and the large number of contract  vehicles currently being used to purchase LMR equipment as reasons for  pursuing a consolidated procurement of LMR equipment through a  category management approach. Including LMR equipment in OMB’s  category management initiative may enable the federal government to  more fully leverage its aggregate buying power to obtain the most  advantageous terms and conditions for LMR procurements and realize  cost savings. Although the exact amount of federal funds spent each  year on LMR equipment government-wide is unknown, we estimate it is  likely hundreds of millions of dollars, given the known costs to DHS, a  single department. Specifically, DHS has reported that its agencies spent  almost $526 million on LMR infrastructure, equipment, and personnel in  fiscal year 2016, with plans to continue spending approximately $450  million for each of the next 5 years, on average.
According to OMB officials, the coordination required for a category  management approach includes discussions to standardize  configurations for common requirements and establish a shared vision  through common policies, processes, and procedures. Agencies’ subject  matter experts must first identify the common technical standards and  features required for a category management approach, according to  OMB officials. For example, to develop such standards for the IT goods  and services category management initiative, OMB convened IT and  procurement professionals from the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration, the General Services Administration, and the National  Institutes of Health to work with industry partners and representatives  from 20 federal agencies to develop a government-wide solution for  purchasing IT products and services. As a result of this initiative, three  existing contract vehicles were identified as high-performance, and OMB  began requiring civilian agencies to use those vehicles to purchase from  among six standard configurations of laptops and desktops.
Our survey results suggest that such coordination, if applied to LMR  procurement, could enhance interoperability among partner agencies.  For example, many of the agencies that engage in coordinated  procurement also reported a better general level of LMR interoperability.  Based on survey responses, when an agency identified the need for LMR  interoperability with another agency and coordinated with that agency on  technical requirements before purchasing new equipment, the quality of  interoperability was reported as: excellent in 50 percent of the cases;  good in 39 percent of the cases; and worse (fair, poor, nonexistent) in 11  percent of the cases. In cases when an agency identified the need for  LMR interoperability with another agency but did not coordinate on  technical requirements before purchasing new equipment, a much lower  quality of interoperability was reported—that is, LMR interoperability was  rated excellent for 13 percent of the cases; good for 55 percent of the  cases; and worse (fair, poor, nonexistent) for the remaining 32 percent of  the cases. In addition, the cost-saving potential of category management  could aid agencies that, as previously noted, reported funding constraints  in their ability to replace or upgrade aging LMR equipment to maintain  interoperability.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Several federal agencies have required LMR interoperability with one  another in recent years for daily operations, planned events, and during  emergencies. Although these agencies spend millions of dollars each  year on LMR equipment, many of them do not coordinate with one  another before purchasing new equipment—for example, by agreeing to  purchase through a limited number of high-performing contract vehicles.  As a result, the agencies may be limited in their ability to exert buying  power with manufacturers to obtain quantity discounts. This duplication of  procurement efforts for similar goods and services imposes significant  costs to agencies. OMB recognizes that agencies often purchase and  manage items in a fragmented and inefficient manner, through tens of  thousands of contracts and delivery orders. To address this issue, OMB’s  Office of Federal Procurement Policy directs agencies to implement  category management as a way to manage spending across government  for commonly purchased goods and services. This approach enables the  federal government to leverage its purchasing power and realize cost  savings and may also help to enhance interoperability, particularly if taken  in combination with inter-agency agreements, and training and exercises.  Although OMB’s category management approach includes many IT  goods and services, it does not include LMR equipment. By including  LMR equipment in the category management initiative, the federal  government may be able to more fully leverage its aggregate buying  power to save money and obtain the most advantageous terms and  conditions for LMR procurements while also helping agencies to more  effectively communicate in their day-to-day operations and when  responding to emergencies.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve federal agency LMR procurement practices, the Director of  OMB should direct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to: examine the feasibility of including LMR technology in the category  if warranted, include LMR technology within the appropriate spend  category.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OMB, DHS, Commerce, FCC and  GSA for their review and comment. OMB, DHS, and Commerce provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In  commenting on a draft of the report, OMB generally agreed with our  recommendations and noted that it is working to identify which IT  strategies will produce the best return on investment and that it continues  to evaluate its category-specific strategic plans. In DHS’s technical  comments, officials stressed that interoperability is achieved by strong  leadership and governance structures; planning and coordination;  common policies and procedures that promote interoperability across  agencies and jurisdictions (e.g., mutual aid agreements, joint  procurement policies that ensure equipment is interoperable); regular  training and exercises that allow responders to practice interoperability  skills; and the purchase of standards-based equipment.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of  Commerce, the Chairman of FCC, the Administrator of GSA, and the  Director of OMB. In addition, the report is available at no charge on  GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report,  please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or shear@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are  listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report focuses on the current LMR technology, procurement  practices, policies, and guidance to identify ways that select agencies can  further facilitate interoperability among first responders. Specifically, we  reviewed (1) LMR systems and devices used by selected federal  agencies and the state of LMR interoperability among these agencies; (2)  factors that help and hinder interoperability among agencies that use  LMR; and (3) selected agencies’ practices for procuring LMR systems.  We plan to review federal agencies’ LMR interoperability with tribal, state,  and local entities in future work.
To obtain information for all of our objectives, we conducted a web-based  survey of 74 civilian federal agencies. We were interested in agencies  that have used LMR to communicate with at least one other federal  agency for daily operations, planned events like presidential  inaugurations or unplanned/emergency incidents within the past 5 years.  The initial list of federal agencies was identified by the civilian  participating members of the Emergency Communications Preparedness  Center (ECPC) and confirmed by e-mail; we did not survey agencies  from the Department of Defense. These agencies were sent a web-based  survey that included questions related to LMR technology used,  procurement practices, and technical and non-technical factors that  helped or hindered agencies’ ability to achieve interoperability. The first  question of the survey was a screening question to confirm that the  agency used LMR to communicate with at least one other federal agency.  All 74 agencies responded to the screening question. Agencies that met  this criterion—58 federal LMR users in all—were further surveyed about  the type of equipment they use, interoperability needs, and procurement  practices, among other topics. Fifty-seven of the 58 agencies that we  identified as federal LMR users responded to the full survey. The Federal  Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not respond to the full survey but  provided responses to a limited set of survey questions related to our first  objective, identifying agencies with which they require LMR  interoperability. Specifically, the FBI provided a list of civilian federal  agencies that it required LMR to communicate with within the past 5  years, which we included in the partner agency network analysis. Sixteen  agencies that confirmed that they did not use LMR for communication in  the first question did not continue with the survey. To ensure that our  survey questions and skip pattern were clear and logical and that  respondents could answer the questions without undue burden, we pre- tested our survey with five agencies: the Office of the Chief Information  Officer at the Department of Interior, the Office of the Chief Information  Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; the Forest Service at the  Department of Agriculture; the Office of the Inspector General for Tax  Administration at the Department of the Treasury; and the Bureau of  Diplomatic Security at the Department of State. We administered the  survey from April 2016 through June 2016; therefore, responses reflect  information and views as of that time.
We provide survey results based on the number of respondents to each  question because not all respondents answered every question of the  survey. Therefore the total number of respondents may be fewer than 57  for some results. We did not ask agencies to provide additional  explanation on how they arrived at their responses. The survey and a  more comprehensive tabulation of the results can be viewed at  GAO-17-13SP. Table 3 provides the list of federal agencies we  surveyed.
To determine the LMR systems and devices used by the agencies and  the state of interoperability among select federal agencies, we asked  survey respondents to provide information about the characteristics of  LMR systems and devices they currently use. We also asked each  agency to identify—from the list of 74 agencies—those agencies with  which they have required LMR interoperability within the past 5 years  (i.e., “partner agencies”). We asked them to indicate whether LMR  interoperability with each partner agency was needed for daily operations,  planned events, or unplanned events (including emergencies), and we  asked them to rate their current level of interoperability with each partner  agency.
To identify factors that have helped or hindered agencies’ interoperability  with their identified partner agencies, we surveyed agencies’ current  practices against recommended practices identified in the five elements  of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, which includes governance,  standard operating procedures, technology, training and exercises, and  usage. For example, we asked agencies to indicate whether they have  standard operating procedures related to their LMR interoperability with  their partner agencies. For each factor that the agencies have  implemented, we asked how much the factor helped, if at all, and for  factors that they have not implemented fully, we asked if the factor is a  priority for the agency to implement. We also asked agencies to rate the  extent to which factors have hindered their ability to maintain  interoperability with partner agencies.
Lastly, to understand how LMR procurement practices of select agencies  affected interoperability, we surveyed agencies’ procurement practices,  including whether they use common contract vehicles and their identified  outcomes for each vehicles. In addition, we asked if the agencies have  used sole source contracts to procure LMR equipment and an  explanation for why they do so. We reviewed literature to identify category  management as a potential procurement practice that can leverage the  buying power of the federal government to increase cost saving and  reduce redundancy. To understand the feasibility of using category  management to procure LMR equipment, we asked officials from the  Office of Management and Budget what factors they consider when  deciding whether a particular technology makes a good candidate for its  category management initiative. We also asked the officials if LMR  procurement would benefit from inclusion in the category management  initiative.
We also reviewed relevant legislation and Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) planning documents related to interoperability among  federal agencies, including the National Emergency Communications  Plan, the National Response Framework, and SAFECOM  documentation related to five key elements of interoperability. We  reviewed our prior reports and others from federal agencies for examples  of how factors helped or hindered their interoperability. We interviewed  officials from federal agencies with responsibilities related to emergency  communications and procurement of LMR equipment, including DHS; the  National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the  National Institute of Standards and Technology, within the Department of  Commerce; the Federal Communications Commission; the General  Services Administration; the Office of Management and Budget; and  administrators of the ECPC.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sally Moino (Assistant  Director), John Healey, (Analyst in Charge), Teresa Anderson, Jenn  Beddor, Melissa Bodeau, Russ Burnett, Thanh Lu, Josh Ormond, Cheryl  Peterson, Ernest Powell, Elizabeth Wood, and John Yee made key  contributions to this report.