Observations on the Expenditure Plan

Our observations recognize accomplishments to date and address the need  for rigorous and disciplined program management practices relating to  describing progress against commitments, managing the exit alternatives  pilot, managing system capacity, and estimating cost, as well as  collaborating with DHS’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)  program. As of early November  2004, exit alternatives were deployed and operating in only 5 of the 15  ports of entry that were scheduled to be operational by November 1,  2004. According to program implementation officials, this was because  of delays in DHS granting security clearances to the civilian employees  who would operate the equipment at the ports of entry. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005,1 states that DHS may not obligate $254 of the $340 million appropriated for the US-VISIT program until the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations receive and approve a plan for expenditure that

meets the capital planning and investment control review requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including OMB  Circular A-11, part 7;2  complies with DHS’s enterprise architecture;  complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems  acquisition management practices of the federal government; is reviewed and approved by the DHS Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and OMB; and is reviewed by GAO. The fiscal year 2005 Expenditure Plan does not describe progress against commitments (e.g., capabilities, schedule, cost, and benefits) made in previous plans. The exit capability alternatives evaluation is faced with a compressed time line,  missed milestones, and potentially reduced scope. US-VISIT has developed a risk management plan and process for developing, implementing, and institutionalizing a risk management program. The plan satisfies the requirement that it be reviewed by GAO. According to the  Deputy Program Manager, US-VISIT provided this information in a briefing to the  Subcommittee staff. Observation 1: The program office has acquired the services of a prime  integration contractor to augment its ability to complete US-VISIT. For example, in its fiscal year 2004 expenditure plan, US-VISIT committed to, among other things,  analyzing, field testing, and initiating deployment of alternative approaches for  capturing biometrics during the exit process at air and sea POEs and implementing entry and exit capabilities at the 50 busiest land POEs by  December 31, 2004, including delivering the capability to read radio frequency enabled documents at the 50 busiest land POEs for both entry and exit processes. These changing facts and circumstances surrounding the exit pilot introduce additional risk concerning US-VISIT’s delivery of promised capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has established a program--the U.S. 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 2005 expenditure plan and related documentation at least partially satisfied all conditions established by the Congress, including meeting the capital planning and investment control requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For example, DHS has developed a plan and a process for developing, implementing, and institutionalizing a program to manage risk. In its observations about the expenditure plan and DHS's management of the program, GAO recognizes accomplishments to date and addresses the need for rigorous and disciplined program practices. For example, US-VISIT has acquired the services of a prime integration contractor to augment its ability to complete US-VISIT. However, DHS has not employed rigorous, disciplined processes typically associated with successful programs, such as tracking progress against commitments. More specifically, the fiscal year 2005 plan does not describe progress against commitments made in previous plans (e.g., capabilities, schedule, cost, and benefits). According to GAO's analysis, delays have occurred in delivering capability to track the entry and exit of persons entering the United States at air, land, and sea ports of entry. Such information is essential for oversight. Additionally, the effort to pilot alternatives for delivering the capability to track the departure of persons exiting the United States is faced with a compressed time line, missed milestones, and potentially reduced scope. In particular, the pilot evaluation period has been reduced from 3 to 2 months, and as of early November 2004, the alternatives were deployed and operating in only 5 of the 15 ports of entry scheduled to be operational by November 1, 2004. According to US-VISIT officials, this is largely due to delays in DHS granting security clearances to the civilian employees who would operate the equipment at the ports of entry. These changing facts and circumstances surrounding the pilot introduce additional risk concerning US-VISIT's delivery of promised capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.