The Homeland Security Act of 2002 combined 22 federal agencies specializing in various missions under DHS. Numerous departmental offices and seven key operating components are headquartered in the NCR.components were not physically consolidated, but instead were dispersed across the NCR in accordance with their history. As of July 2014, DHS employees were located in 94 buildings and 50 locations, accounting for approximately 9 million gross square feet of government-owned and - leased office space. When DHS was formed, the headquarters functions of its various DHS began planning the consolidation of its headquarters in 2005. According to DHS, increased colocation and consolidation were critical to (1) improve mission effectiveness, (2) create a unified DHS organization, (3) increase organizational efficiency, (4) size the real estate portfolio accurately to fit the mission of DHS, and (5) reduce real estate occupancy costs. Between 2006 and 2009, DHS and GSA developed a number of capital planning documents to guide the DHS headquarters consolidation process. For example, DHS’s National Capital Region Housing Master Plan identified a requirement for approximately 4.5 million square feet of office space on a secure campus. In addition, DHS’s 2007 Consolidated Headquarters Collocation Plan summarized component functional requirements and the projected number of seats needed on- and off- campus for NCR headquarters personnel. From fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2014, the St. Elizabeths consolidation project had received $494.8 million through DHS appropriations and $1.1 billion through GSA appropriations, for a total of over $1.5 billion. However, from fiscal year 2009—when construction began—through the time of the fiscal year 2014 appropriation, the gap between requested and received funding was over $1.6 billion. According to DHS and GSA officials, this gap created cost escalations of over $1 billion and schedule delays of over 10 years. In our September 2014 report, we found that DHS and GSA planning for the DHS headquarters consolidation did not fully conform with leading capital decision-making practices intended to help agencies effectively plan and procure assets. Specifically, we found that DHS and GSA had not conducted a comprehensive assessment of current needs, identified capability gaps, or evaluated and prioritized alternatives that would help officials adapt consolidation plans to changing conditions and address funding issues as reflected in leading practices. DHS and GSA officials reported that they had taken some initial actions that may facilitate consolidation planning in a manner consistent with leading practices. For example, DHS has an overall goal of reducing the square footage allotted per employee across the department in accordance with current workplace standards, such as standards for telework and hoteling.and GSA officials acknowledged that new workplace standards could create a number of new development options to consider, as the new standards would allow for more staff to occupy the current space at St. Elizabeths than previously anticipated. DHS and GSA officials also reported analyzing different leasing options that could affect consolidation efforts. However, we found that the consolidation plans, which were finalized between 2006 and 2009, had not been updated to reflect these actions. GAO/AIMD-99-32 and OMB Capital Programming Guide. our September 2014 report, we recommended that DHS and GSA conduct (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that takes into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability. DHS and GSA concurred with these recommendations and stated that their forthcoming draft St. Elizabeths Enhanced Consolidation Plan would contain these analyses. Finally, we found that DHS had not consistently applied its major acquisition guidance for reviewing and approving the headquarters consolidation project. Specifically, we found that DHS had guidelines in place to provide senior management the opportunity to review and approve its major projects, but DHS had not consistently applied these guidelines to its efforts to work with GSA to plan and implement headquarters consolidation. DHS had designated the headquarters consolidation project as a major acquisition in some years but not in others. In 2010 and 2011, DHS identified the headquarters consolidation project as a major acquisition and included the project on DHS’s Major Acquisitions Oversight List. Thus, the project was subject to the oversight and management policies and procedures established in DHS major acquisition guidance; however, the project did not comply with major acquisition requirements as outlined by DHS guidelines. For example, we found that the project had not produced any of the required key acquisition documents requiring department-level approval, such as life-cycle cost estimates and an acquisition program baseline, among others. In 2012, the project as a whole was dropped from the list. In 2013 and 2014, DHS included the information technology (IT) acquisition portion of the project on the list, but not the entire project. DHS officials explained that they considered the St. Elizabeths project to be more of a GSA acquisition than a DHS acquisition because GSA owns the site and the majority of building construction is funded through GSA appropriations. We recognize that GSA has responsibility for managing contracts associated with the headquarters consolidation project. However, a variety of factors, including the overall cost, scope, and visibility of the project, as well as the overall importance of the project in the context of DHS’s mission, make the consolidation project a viable candidate for consideration as a major acquisition. By not consistently applying this review process to headquarters consolidation, we concluded that DHS management risked losing insight into the progress of the St. Elizabeths project, as well as how the project fits in with its overall acquisitions portfolio. Thus, in our September 2014 report, we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security designate the headquarters consolidation program a major acquisition, consistent with DHS acquisition policy, and apply DHS acquisition policy requirements. DHS concurred with the recommendation. In our September 2014 report, we found that DHS and GSA cost and schedule estimates for the headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths did not conform or only minimally or partially conformed with leading estimating practices, and were therefore unreliable. Furthermore, we found that in some areas, the cost and schedule estimates did not fully conform with GSA guidance relevant to developing estimates. We found that DHS and GSA cost estimates for the headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths did not reflect leading practices, which rendered the estimates unreliable. For example, we found that the 2013 cost estimate—the most recent available—did not include (1) a life- cycle cost analysis of the project, including the cost of repair, operations, and maintenance; (2) was not regularly updated to reflect significant changes to the program including actual costs; and (3) did not include an independent estimate to assist in tracking the budget. In addition, a sensitivity analysis had not been performed to assess the reasonableness of the cost estimate. We have previously reported that a reliable cost estimate is critical to the success of any program. Specifically, we have found that such an estimate provides the basis for informed investment decision making, realistic budget formulation and program resourcing, meaningful progress measurement, proactive course correction when warranted, and accountability for results. Accordingly, we concluded that DHS and GSA would benefit from maintaining current and well- documented estimates of project costs at St. Elizabeths—even if project funding is not fully secured—and these estimates should encompass the full life cycle of the program and be independently assessed. In addition, we found that the 2008 and 2013 schedule estimates did not include all activities for both the government and its contractors necessary to accomplish the project’s objectives and did not include schedule baseline documents to help measure performance as reflected in leading practices and GSA guidance. For the 2008 schedule estimate, we also found that resources (such as labor, materials, and equipment) were not accounted for and a risk assessment had not been conducted to predict a level of confidence in the project’s completion date. In addition, we found the 2013 schedule estimate was unreliable because, among other things, it was incomplete in that it did not provide details needed to understand the sequence of events, including work to be performed in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. We concluded that developing cost and schedule estimates consistent with leading practices could promote greater transparency and provide decision makers needed information about the St. Elizabeths project and the larger DHS headquarters consolidation effort. However, in commenting on our analysis of St. Elizabeths cost and schedule estimates, DHS and GSA officials said that it would be difficult or impossible to create reliable estimates that encompass the scope of the entire St. Elizabeths project. Officials said that given the complex, multiphase nature of the overall development effort, specific estimates are created for smaller individual projects, but not for the campus project as a whole. Therefore, in their view, leading estimating practices and GSA guidance cannot reasonably be applied to the high-level projections developed for the total cost and completion date of the entire St. Elizabeths project. GSA stated that the higher-level, milestone schedule currently being used to manage the program is more flexible than the detailed schedule GAO proposes, and has proven effective even with the highly variable funding provided for the project. We found in our September 2014 report, however, that this high-level schedule was not sufficiently defined to effectively manage the program. For example, our review showed that the schedule did not contain detailed schedule activities that include current government, contractor, and applicable subcontractor effort. Specifically, the activities shown in the schedule only address high-level agency square footage segments, security, utilities, landscape, and road improvements. While we understand the need to keep future effort contained in high-level planning packages, in accordance with leading practices, near-term work occurring in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 should have more detailed information. We recognize the challenges of developing reliable cost and schedule estimates for a large-scale, multiphase project like St. Elizabeths, particularly given its unstable funding history and that incorporating GAO’s cost- and schedule-estimating leading practices may involve additional costs.