Currently, Customs is well over 2 years behind its original NCAP schedule. Customs Has Been Developing ACE Without a Complete Enterprise Systems Architecture

At the time of our review, Customs was not building ACE within the  context of an enterprise systems architecture, or “blueprint” of its  agencywide future systems environment. In response, Customs developed  and published an architecture in July and August 1997. We reviewed this  architecture and reported in May 1998 that it was not effective because it  was neither complete nor enforced. In response, Customs agreed to develop  a complete architecture and establish a process to ensure compliance. Customs reports that its architecture will be completed in May 1999. First, Customs  did not identify and evaluate a full range of alternatives to its defined ACE  solution before commencing development activities. Second, Customs did not develop a reliable life cycle cost estimate for the  approach it selected. Third, Customs is not making its investment decisions incrementally as  required by the Clinger-Cohen Act and OMB. Although Customs has  decided to implement ACE as a series of 21 increments, it is not justifying  investing in each increment on the basis of defined costs and benefits and a  positive return on investment for each increment. Customs lacks the capability to effectively develop or acquire ACE  software. Further, we reported that Customs lacked  a software process improvement program to effectively address these and  other software process weaknesses. Customs Has Initiated Actions to Implement Our Recommendations for Strengthening ACE Management

To address ACE management weaknesses, we recommended that Customs analyze alternative approaches to satisfying its import automation  needs, including addressing the ITDS/ACE relationship; invest in its defined ACE solution incrementally, meaning for each  system increment (1) rigorously estimate and analyze costs and  benefits, (2) require a favorable return-on-investment and compliance  with Customs’ enterprise systems architecture, and (3) validate actual  costs and benefits once an increment is piloted, compare actuals to  estimates, use the results in deciding on future increments, and report  the results to congressional authorizers and appropriators; establish an effective software process improvement program and  correct the software process weaknesses identified in our report,  thereby bringing ACE software process maturity to a least an SEI level 2;  and require at least SEI level 2 processes of all ACE software contractors.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the weaknesses of the Customs Service's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) project.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) Customs is well over 2 years behind its original National Customs Automation Program prototype schedule; (2) Customs was not building ACE within the context of an enterprise systems architecture, or blueprint of its agencywide future systems environment; (3) Customs developed and published an architecture in July and August 1997; (4) GAO reviewed this architecture and reported in May 1998 that it was not effective because it was neither complete nor enforced; (5) in response, Customs agreed to develop a complete architecture and establish a process to ensure compliance; (6) Customs reports that its architecture will be completed in May 1999; (7) Customs did not identify and evaluate a full range of alternatives to its defined ACE solution before commencing development activities; (8) Customs did not develop a reliable life cycle cost estimate for the approach it selected; (9) Customs is not making investment decisions incrementally as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act and the Office of Management and Budget; (10) although Customs has decided to implement ACE as a series of 21 increments, it is not justifying investing in each increment on the basis of defined costs and benefits and a positive return on investment for each increment; (11) Customs lacks the capability to effectively develop or acquire ACE software; and (12) Customs lacked a software process improvement program to effectively address these and other software process weaknesses.