US-VISIT Relationships with Other DHS and Non- DHS Agencies

Since its inception, US-VISIT has relied extensively on contractors to  deliver system and other program capabilities; these contractors include  both contractors managed directly by the program office and those  managed by other DHS and non-DHS agencies. US-VISIT Established and Implemented Key Controls for Contracts That It Managed Directly, but It Did Not Have Controls for Overseeing Contracts Managed by Others or for Effective Financial Management

Given the US-VISIT program’s dependence on contracting, it is extremely  important for the program office to effectively manage and oversee its  contracts via the establishment and implementation of key contractor  management and oversight controls. Without effective oversight, the program  office cannot adequately ensure that program deliverables and associated  mission results will be produced on time and within budget. Further, the program office and other agencies did not implement effective  financial controls. The program office and other agencies managing US- VISIT–related work were unable to reliably report the scope of contracting  expenditures. In addition, some agencies improperly paid and accounted  for related invoices, including making a duplicate payment and making  payments for non-US-VISIT services from funds designated for US-VISIT. According to the US-VISIT program official responsible for contract  matters, the program office has initially focused on contracts that it  manages directly. For US-VISIT contracts managed by other agencies, the  program office has decided to rely on those agencies to manage the  contracts and associated financial matters. Specifically, the program office did not know  the full range of US-VISIT–related contract actions that had been  completed and were under way, and it had not performed key practices  associated with gaining visibility into and understanding of contractor  performance in meeting the terms of these contracts. For example, these agencies did  not always implement effective controls for ensuring that contractor  deliverables satisfy established requirements. Program Office and Other DHS Agencies Did Not Adequately Track Billings and Expenditures

Of the DHS agencies we reviewed, the program office and two others  managing US-VISIT–related contracts on the program’s behalf did not  track contract billings and expenditures in a way that was accurate,  reliable, and useful for contract oversight and decision making. The department characterized as misleading our statements that US-VISIT  (1) depended on other agencies to manage financial matters for their  respective contracts and (2) relied on another agency for US-VISIT’s own  financial management support. Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Our objective was to determine whether the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) has established and implemented effective controls for  managing and overseeing contracts related to the U.S. Visitor and  Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has established a multibillion-dollar program--U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)--to control and monitor the pre-entry, entry, visa status, and exit of foreign visitors. To deliver system and other program capabilities, the program relies extensively on contractors, some of whom are managed directly by US-VISIT and some by other agencies (including both DHS agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection, and non-DHS agencies, such as the General Services Administration). Because of US-VISIT's heavy reliance on contractors to deliver program capabilities, GAO was asked to determine whether DHS has established and implemented effective controls for managing and overseeing US-VISIT-related contracts.

What GAO Found

US-VISIT-related contracts have not been effectively managed and overseen. The US-VISIT program office established and implemented certain nonfinancial controls for those contracts that it managed directly, such as verifying that contractor deliverables satisfied established requirements. However, it did not implement effective controls for overseeing its contracts managed by other DHS agencies and by non-DHS agencies. Moreover, effective financial controls were not in place on any contracts that GAO reviewed. The program office did not know the full extent of US-VISIT-related contract actions, and it had not performed key nonfinancial practices associated with understanding contractor performance in meeting the terms of these contracts. This oversight gap was exacerbated by the fact that the other agencies had not always established and implemented effective controls for managing their respective contracts. These other agencies directly managed more than half (56 percent) of the total US-VISIT-related contract obligations reported to GAO. The program office and other agencies did not implement effective financial controls. Without these controls, some agencies were unable to reliably report US-VISIT contracting expenditures. Further, the program office and these other agencies improperly paid and accounted for related invoices, including making duplicate payments and payments for non-US-VISIT services with funds designated for US-VISIT. According to the US-VISIT program official responsible for contract matters, the program office has focused on contracts that it manages directly and decided to rely on the responsible agencies to manage the other contracts. Further, it has decided to use other agencies to properly manage financial matters for their respective contracts, and it also decided to rely on another agency for its own financial management services. Without effective contract management and oversight controls, the program office does not know that required program deliverables and mission results will be produced on time and within budget, and that proper payments are made.