The FBI Laboratory, located in Quantico, Virginia, provides a full range of forensic services including forensic examinations, technical support, and expert witness testimony. As of fiscal year 2015, the FBI Laboratory had an operational budget of approximately $102.4 million and a staffing budget of approximately $97.9 million. The FBI Laboratory employed 651 full-time staff at the end of fiscal year 2015 across five sections: Biometrics Analysis, Forensic Response, Forensic Science Support, Scientific Analysis, and the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center. The units discussed in this report, the Chemistry and Trace Evidence Units, are both located within the Scientific Analysis Section. The Chemistry Unit conducts scientific analyses in four disciplines: general chemistry, toxicology, paints and polymers, and metallurgy. The Chemistry Unit had an operational budget of approximately $807,500 and a personnel budget of approximately $3.2 million in fiscal year 2015, and employed 15 caseworking staff. The Trace Evidence Unit conducts scientific analyses in three disciplines: hair and fiber, geology and mineralogy, and forensic anthropology. The Trace Evidence Unit had an operational budget of approximately $122,700 and personnel budget of approximately $2.6 million in fiscal year 2015, and employed 16 caseworking staff. The combined operational budgets of the Chemistry and Trace Evidence Units accounted for about 20 percent of the Scientific Analysis Section’s fiscal year 2015 operational budget and 1 percent of the FBI Laboratory’s overall operational budget. In fiscal year 2015, the Chemistry Unit received 324 requests for examinations, and the Trace Evidence Unit received 637 requests for examinations. From fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the total number of requests for examinations submitted to the Chemistry and Trace Evidence Units declined from 1,159 requests to 961 requests. A testing and calibration laboratory may opt to follow international standards to ensure that it is technically competent, has a management structure, and is able to generate technically valid results. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) develop and publish standards for various industries worldwide, including laboratories. Laboratories can use the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories standard to govern operations. Accreditation bodies can use the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard as the basis to accredit participating laboratories. The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard specifies the general requirements for laboratories to competently carry out tests, including sampling. The standard specifies, among other things, that a laboratory shall have a quality manual and a quality policy statement, define the roles and responsibilities of management, and have policies and procedures that institute many parts of a quality assurance framework. For example, the standard requires laboratories to have policies and procedures to handle nonconformities in their work, including a corrective action process; conduct periodic internal audits and management reviews; and ensure that staff performing testing are qualified on the basis of appropriate education, training, experience, and/or demonstrated skills. For the period of our review’s focus from 2008 to 2015, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) accredited the FBI Laboratory to demonstrate that it met the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 requirements, as well as additional ASCLD/LAB requirements specific to forensic science laboratories, or the ASCLD/LAB-International Supplemental Requirements for the Accreditation of Forensic Science Testing Laboratories. ASCLD/LAB accredits forensic science laboratories in specific disciplines. ASCLD/LAB accredits laboratories on a 5-year cycle. The accreditation process begins with ASCLD/LAB ensuring that the policies and procedures of a laboratory meet the ISO/IEC and ASCLD/LAB standards. The laboratory undergoes a full accreditation assessment consisting of a document review of policies and procedures, meetings with the laboratory director and other appointed individuals, an on-site assessment, and corrective actions to address identified nonconformities. ASCLD/LAB then provides an assessment report and certifies that the laboratory is accredited, if applicable. Following the full on-site assessment, the laboratory must provide a performance declaration to ASCLD/LAB periodically, participate in and abide by the rules of the ASCLD/LAB proficiency testing program, disclose all significant events and nonconformities, and undergo scheduled surveillance visits. ASCLD/LAB determines the frequency of performance declaration submissions based on the performance of the laboratory during the previous accreditation cycle. One scenario is the submission of a performance declaration only when a laboratory does not undergo an on- site visit. Federal jurisdictions and states use different standards for determining the reliability of expert testimony in court. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, an expert witness is considered qualified to testify if, among other things, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. The 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579), significantly changed the assessment of reliability of scientific evidence for federal trial courts, making trial judges responsible for acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable scientific expert testimony. The Daubert case listed factors for judges to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony, including (1) whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested, (2) whether the technique or theory has been subjected to peer review, (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied, (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls, and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The Daubert factors are not meant to be exclusive and other courts have found additional factors relevant in determining the reliability of expert testimony. Most states generally follow the Daubert standard, while some use the Frye test, developed by the Court of Appeals of the District of Colombia in 1923 (Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013). The Frye test requires that the scientific principle be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. A minority of states have not adopted either the Daubert factors or Frye test and have their own rules for admitting scientific evidence into court. A method is the course of action or technique followed in conducting a specific analysis or comparison leading to an analytical result, such as microscopic hair comparison. Since the publication of the 2009 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report titled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, the standards, methods, and practices of the forensic science community have been the subject of considerable discussion. The NAS report highlighted that there is wide variability across forensic science disciplines with regard to techniques, methodologies, reliability, types and numbers of potential errors, research, general acceptability, and published material. Further, while some of the disciplines and methods used by the forensic science community—such as DNA analysis, serology, toxicology, and chemical analysis—are built on solid bases of theory and research, many of the pattern-based disciplines—such as microscopic hair comparison, latent fingerprints, and tool marks—were developed based on observation, experience, and reasoning. As such, the scientific rigor, accuracy, and reliability of certain methods and the specificity with which examiners may report opinions and conclusions in laboratory reports and court testimony vary substantially by forensic discipline and method. The forensic science community has initiated a number of efforts to strengthen the forensic sciences. For example, in February 2013, DOJ, in partnership with the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), established the National Commission on Forensic Science to enhance the practice and improve the reliability of forensic science. The Commission included federal, state and local forensic science service providers; research scientists and academics; law enforcement officials; prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges; and other stakeholders from across the country. Further, in February 2014, NIST, with support from DOJ, established the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science with the stated goal of creating an infrastructure that produces consensus-based documentary standards and guidelines for forensic science. OSAC is designed to provide leadership in the following areas: (1) facilitating the development and promulgation of consensus-based documentary standards and guidelines for forensic science, (2) promoting standards and guidelines that are fit-for-purpose and based on sound scientific principles, (3) promoting the use of OSAC standards and guidelines by accreditation and certification bodies, and (4) establishing and maintaining working relationships with similar organizations. The organization is a collaborative body of more than 500 forensic science practitioners and other experts who represent local, state, and federal agencies; academia; and industry. The FBI Laboratory has established a quality assurance framework through its policies and procedures to help ensure quality in its forensic examinations of chemical and trace evidence. According to the FBI, the policies and procedures that establish the quality assurance framework are designed to adhere to ISO/IEC and ASCLD/LAB standards. ASCLD/LAB accreditation results and our review of the framework found it to meet international and accreditation standards. Ensuring that forensic examiners produce scientifically sound, valid, and reliable examination results is a stated goal of the FBI Laboratory quality system. The FBI Laboratory’s quality assurance framework consists of several components: policies and procedures, quality assurance mechanisms, corrective actions to address nonconformities, and training requirements designed to ensure quality in its forensic examinations. The quality assurance mechanisms are programs designed to ensure that the policies and procedures are followed correctly in the Laboratory. The corrective actions are designed to address nonconformities and correct issues within the Laboratory. Based on the results of corrective actions, the FBI Laboratory updates policies and procedures as needed. Overall, the framework is also reliant on a structure of training, continuing education, and proficiency testing to ensure forensic examiners and technicians are qualified to conduct casework.