However, DHS does not have current life cycle  costs or a current cost/benefit analysis for US-VISIT. Observations on the Expenditure Plan

Our observations recognize accomplishments to date and address the need  for rigorous and disciplined program management practices relating to  system testing, independent verification and validation, and system change  control. An overview of specific observations follows:  Increment 1 commitments were largely met. An initial operating  capability for entry (including biographic and biometric data collection)  was deployed to 115 air and 14 sea ports of entry on January 5, 2004,  with additional capabilities deployed on February 11, 2004. Increment 1 testing was not managed effectively and was completed  after the system became operational. The department developed multiple plans, and only the final  plan, which was done after testing was completed, included all required  content, such as tests to be performed and test procedures. Plans for future US-VISIT increments do not call for additional staff  or facilities at land ports of entry. Conclusions

The fiscal year 2004 US-VISIT expenditure plan (with related program  office documentation and representations) at least partially satisfies the  legislative conditions imposed by the Congress. In particular,  the program office did not employ the kind of rigorous and disciplined  management controls that are typically associated with successful  programs, such as effective test management and configuration  management practices. These controls,  while significant for the initial phases of US-VISIT, are even more critical  for the later phases, because the size and complexity of the program will  only increase, and the later that problems are found, the harder and more  costly they are to fix. Briefing to the Staffs of the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House Committees on Appropriations

	Introduction

	The United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a governmentwide program to collect, maintain, and share information on foreign nationals. Meets the capital planning and investment control review requirements

established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including OMB  Circular A-11, part 3.2  Complies with DHS’s enterprise architecture. US-VISIT has developed a draft risk management plan and a  process to implement and manage risks. The plan satisfies the requirement that it be reviewed by GAO. DHS has established a three-entity governance structure. According to its charter, the Advisory Board provides recommendations for  overseeing US-VISIT management and performance activities, including  providing advice on the overarching US-VISIT vision;  recommending the overall US-VISIT strategy and its responsiveness to all operational missions, both within DHS and with its participating government agencies;  recommending changes to the US-VISIT vision and strategic direction;  providing a communication link for aligning strategic direction, priorities, and resources with stakeholder operations;  reviewing and assessing US-VISIT programwide institutional processes to  ensure that business, fiscal, and technical priorities are integrated and carried out in accordance with established priorities; and  reviewing and recommending new US-VISIT program initiatives, including the scope, funding, and programmatic resources required. Among other things, this  includes developing effective test plans to guide the testing activities.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has established a program--the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)--to collect, maintain, and share information, including biometric identifiers, on selected foreign nationals who travel to the United States. By congressional mandate, DHS is to develop and submit for approval an expenditure plan for US-VISIT that satisfies certain conditions, including being reviewed by GAO. Among other things, GAO was asked to determine whether the plan satisfied these conditions, and to provide observations on the plan and DHS's program management.

What GAO Found

DHS's fiscal year 2004 US-VISIT expenditure plan and related documentation at least partially satisfies all conditions imposed by the Congress, including meeting the capital planning and investment control review requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DHS developed a draft risk management plan and a process to implement and manage risks. However, DHS does not have a current life cycle cost estimate or a cost/benefit analysis for US-VISIT. The US-VISIT program merges four components into one integrated whole to carry out its mission. GAO also developed a number of observations about the expenditure plan and DHS's management of the program. These generally recognize accomplishments to date and address the need for rigorous and disciplined program practices. US-VISIT largely met its commitments for implementing an initial operating capability, known as Increment 1, in early January 2004, including the deployment of entry capability to 115 air and 14 sea ports of entry. However, DHS has not employed rigorous, disciplined management controls typically associated with successful programs, such as test management, and its plans for implementing other controls, such as independent verification and validation, may not prove effective. More specifically, testing of the initial phase of the implemented system was not well managed and was completed after the system became operational. In addition, multiple test plans were developed during testing, and only the final test plan, completed after testing, included all required content, such as describing tests to be performed. Such controls, while significant for the initial phases of US-VISIT, are even more critical for the later phases, as the size and complexity of the program will only increase. Finally, DHS's plans for future US-VISIT resource needs at the land ports of entry, such as staff and facilities, are based on questionable assumptions, making future resource needs uncertain.