In the three years since its creation, DHS realized some successes among its various acquisition organizations in opening communication through its strategic sourcing and small business programs. Both efforts have involved every principal organization in DHS, along with strong involvement from the CPO, and both have yielded positive results. DHS’ disparate acquisition organizations quickly collaborated on leveraging spending for various goods and services, without losing focus on small businesses. This use of strategic sourcing—formulating purchasing strategies to meet departmentwide requirements for specific commodities, such as office supplies, boats, energy, and weapons—helped DHS leverage its buying power, with savings expected to grow. At the time of our March 2005 review, DHS had reported approximately $14 million in savings across the department. We also found that the small business program, whose reach is felt across DHS, was off to a good start. In fiscal year 2004, DHS reported that 35 percent of its prime contract dollars went to small businesses, exceeding its goal of 23 percent. Representatives have been designated in each DHS procurement office to help ensure that small businesses have opportunities to compete for DHS’ contract dollars. However, some officials responsible for carrying out strategic sourcing initiatives have found it challenging to balance those duties with the demands and responsibilities of their full-time positions within DHS. Officials told us that strategic sourcing meetings and activities sometimes stall because participants must shift attention to their full-time positions. Our prior work on strategic sourcing shows that leading commercial companies often establish full-time commodity managers to more effectively manage commodities. Commodity managers help define requirements with internal clients, negotiate with potential vendors, and resolve performance or other issues arising after a contract is awarded and can help maintain consistency, stability, and a long-term strategic focus. DHS continues to faces challenges in creating a unified, accountable acquisition organization due to policies that create ambiguity as to accountability for acquisition decisions, inadequate staffing to conduct department-wide oversight, and heavy reliance on interagency contracting in the Office of Procurement Operations, which is responsible for a large portion of DHS’ contracting activity. Achieving a unified and integrated acquisition system is hampered because an October 2004 policy directive relies on a system of dual accountability between the CPO and the heads of the department’s principal organizations. Although the CPO has been delegated the responsibility to manage, administer, and oversee all acquisition activity across DHS, in practice, performance of these activities is spread throughout the department, reducing accountability for acquisition decisions. This system of dual accountability results in unclear working relationships between the CPO and heads of DHS’ principal organizations. For example, the policy leaves unclear how the CPO and the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are to share responsibility for recruiting and selecting key acquisition officials, preparing performance ratings for the top manager of the contracting office, and providing appropriate resources to support CPO initiatives. The policy also leaves unclear what enforcement authority the CPO has to ensure that initiatives are carried out because heads of principal organizations are only required to “consider” the allocation of resources to meet procurement staffing levels in accordance with the CPO’s analysis. Agreements had not been developed on how the resources to train, develop, and certify acquisition professionals in the principal organizations would be identified or funded. While the October 2004 policy directive emphasizes the need for a unified, integrated acquisition organization, achievement of this goal is further hampered because the directive does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Secret Service. The Coast Guard is one of the largest organizations within DHS, with obligations accounting for about $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2005, nearly 18 percent of the department’s total. The directive maintains that these two organizations are exempted from the directive by statute. We disagreed with this conclusion, as we are not aware of any explicit statutory exemption that would prevent the application of the DHS acquisition directive to either organization. We raised the question of statutory exemption with the DHS General Counsel, who shared our assessment concerning the explicit statutory exemptions. He viewed the applicability of the management directive as a policy matter. DHS’ goal of achieving a unified, integrated acquisition organization is in part dependent on its ability to provide effective oversight of component activities. We reported in March 2005 that the CPO lacked sufficient staff to ensure compliance with DHS’ acquisition oversight regulations and policies. To a great extent, the various acquisition organizations within the department were still operating in a disparate manner, with oversight of acquisition activities left primarily up to each individual organization. In December 2005, DHS implemented a department wide management directive that establishes policies and procedures for acquisition oversight. The CPO has issued guidance providing a framework for the oversight program and, according to DHS officials, as of May 2006, five staff were assigned to oversight responsibilities. We have ongoing work in this area and will be reporting on the department’s progress in the near future. The challenge DHS faces overseeing its various components’ contracting activities is significant. For example, in May 2004 we reported that TSA had not developed an acquisition infrastructure, including organization, policies, people, and information that would facilitate successful management and execution of its acquisition activities. The development of those areas could help ensure that TSA acquires quality goods and services at reasonable prices, and makes informed decisions about acquisition strategy. To support the DHS organizations that lacked their own procurement support, the department created the Office of Procurement Operations. In 2005, we found that, because this office lacked sufficient contracting staff, it had turned extensively to interagency contracting to fulfill its responsibilities. At the time of our review, we found that this office had transferred almost 90 percent of its obligations to other federal agencies through interagency agreements in fiscal year 2004. For example, DHS had transferred $12 million to the Department of the Interior’s National Business Center to obtain contractor operations and maintenance services at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Interior charged DHS $62,000 for this assistance. We found that the Office of Procurement Operations lacked adequate internal controls to provide oversight of its interagency contracting activity. For example, it did not track the fees it was paying to other agencies for contracting assistance. Since our report was issued, the office has added staff and somewhat reduced its reliance on interagency contracting. Recently, DHS officials told us that the office has increased its staffing level from 42 to 120 employees, with plans to hire additional staff. As reported by DHS, the Office of Procurement Operations’ obligations transferred to other agencies had decreased to 72 percent in fiscal year 2005. To protect its major, complex investments, DHS has put in place a review process that adopts many acquisition best practices—proven methods, processes, techniques, and activities—to help the department reduce risk and increase the chances for successful investment outcomes in terms of cost, schedule, and performance. One best practice is a knowledge-based approach to developing new products and technologies pioneered by successful commercial companies, which emphasizes that program managers need to provide sufficient knowledge about important aspects of their programs at key points in the acquisition process, so senior leaders are able to make well-informed investment decisions before an acquisition moves forward. While DHS’ framework includes key tenets of this approach, in March 2005 we reported that it did not require two critical management reviews. The first would help ensure that resources match customer needs before any funds are invested. The second would help ensure that the design for the product performs as expected prior to moving into production. We also found that some critical information is not addressed in DHS’ investment review policy or the guidance provided to program managers. In other cases, it is made optional. For example, before a program is approved to start, DHS policy requires program managers to identify an acquisition’s key performance requirements and to have technical solutions in place. This information is then used to form cost and schedule estimates for the product’s development to ensure that a match exists between requirements and resources. However, DHS policy does not establish cost and schedule estimates for the acquisition based on knowledge from preliminary designs. Further, while DHS policy requires program managers to identify and resolve critical operational issues before proceeding to production, initial reviews—such as the system and subsystem review—are not mandatory. In addition, while the review process adopts other important acquisition management practices, such as requiring program managers to submit acquisition plans and project management plans, a key practice— contractor tracking and oversight—is not fully incorporated. We have cited the need for increased contractor tracking and oversight for several large DHS programs. While many of DHS’ major investments use commercial, off-the-shelf products that do not require the same level of review as a complex, developmental investment would, DHS is investing in a number of major, complex systems, such as TSA’s Secure Flight program and the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program, that incorporate new technology. Our work on these two systems highlights the need for improved oversight of contractors and greater adherence to a best practices approach to management review. Two examples follow. We reported in February 2006 that TSA, in developing and managing its Secure Flight program, had not conducted critical activities in accordance with best practices for large scale information technology programs. Program officials stated that they used a rapid development method that was intended to enable them to develop the program more quickly. However, as a result of this approach, the development process has been ad hoc, with project activities conducted out of sequence. TSA officials have acknowledged that they have not followed a disciplined life cycle approach in developing Secure Flight, and stated that they are currently rebaselining the program to follow their standard systems development life cycle process, including defining system requirements. TSA officials also told us they are taking steps to strengthen contractor oversight for the Secure Flight program. For example, the program is using one of TSA’s support contractors to help track contractors’ progress in the areas of cost, schedule, and performance and the number of TSA staff with oversight responsibilities for Secure Flight contracts has been increased. TSA reports it has identified contract management as a key risk factor associated with the development and implementation of Secure Flight.