However, more can be done to better  address several aspects of these conditions. CBP has prepared an initial version of an accountability  framework that it intends to improve as it proceeds. The framework should ensure that future expenditure plans report  progress against commitments contained in prior expenditure plans. The current expenditure plan does not adequately  describe progress against commitments made in previous plans. Such concurrence between ACE  release activities has led to cost overruns and schedule delays in the past. Thus, the revised ACE plans and actions are potentially reintroducing the  same problems that produced past shortfalls. In addition, ACE goals, expected mission benefits, and performance  measures are not fully defined and adequately aligned with each other. For  example, not every goal has defined benefits, every benefit is defined only  in terms of efficiency gains, not every benefit has an associated business  result, and not every benefit and business result has associated  performance measures. For example, the performance target in  fiscal year 2005 for ACE usage was that 11 percent of all CBP employees  would use ACE. However, that many CBP employees will never need to  use the system. This performance target does not reflect that. Because performance measures are not always realistic or aligned with  program goals and benefits, it is unclear whether ACE has realized—or  will realize—the mission value that it was intended to bring to CBP’s and  other agencies’ trade- and border security-related operations. In this regard, some recommendations have been  addressed, while progress has been slow on others, such as    accurately reporting to the Appropriations Committees on CBP’s progress  in implementing our prior recommendations;   developing and implementing a strategic approach to meeting the  program’s human capital needs;    using criteria for exiting key milestones that adequately consider  indicators of system maturity, such as severity of open defects and the  associated risks; and   developing and implementing a performance and accountability  framework for ensuring that promised capabilities and benefits are  delivered on time and within budget. However, it will  be important for CBP to effectively address long-standing ACE  management challenges along with emerging problems. We also recommend that the Secretary, through CBP’s Acting  Commissioner, direct the Assistant Commissioner for Information and  Technology to  fully address those legislative conditions associated with measuring ACE  performance and results and employing effective IV&V practices;   accurately report to the appropriations committees on CBP’s progress in  implementing our prior recommendations; include in the June 30, 2006, quarterly update report to the appropriations  committees a strategy for managing ACE human capital needs and the  ACE framework for managing performance and ensuring accountability;   document key milestone decisions in a way that reflects the risks  associated with proceeding with unresolved severe defects and provides  for mitigating these risks;    minimize the degree of overlap and concurrence across ongoing and  future ACE releases, and capture and mitigate the associated risks of any  residual concurrence;    use EVM in the development of all existing and future releases;    develop the range of realistic ACE performance measures and targets  needed to support an outcome-based, results-oriented accountability  framework, including user satisfaction with ACE; and   explicitly align ACE program goals, benefits, desired business outcomes,  and performance measures. DHS also described actions that it has  under way and planned to address the recommendations. DHS currently plans to acquire and deploy ACE in 11 increments, referred to as  releases. Objectives

As agreed, our objectives were to

determine whether the ACE fiscal year 2006 expenditure plan satisfies the   determine the status of our open recommendations on ACE, and  provide any other observations about the expenditure plan and DHS’s management of the ACE program. The legislative conditions that the Congress placed on the use of fiscal year 2006 ACE appropriated funds have been either partially or fully satisfied by the latest expenditure plan and related program documentation and activities. Is reviewed by GAO. 6.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is conducting a multiyear, multibillion-dollar acquisition of a new trade processing system, planned to support the movement of legitimate imports and exports and strengthen border security. By congressional mandate, plans for expenditure of appropriated funds on this system, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), must meet certain conditions, including GAO review. This study addresses whether the fiscal year 2006 plan satisfies these conditions; it also describes the status of DHS's efforts to implement prior GAO recommendations for improving ACE management, and provides observations about the plan and DHS's management of the program.

What GAO Found

The fiscal year 2006 ACE expenditure plan, including related program documentation and program officials' statements, either satisfied or partially satisfied the legislative conditions imposed by the Congress; however, more can be done to better address several aspects of these conditions. In addition, DHS has addressed some recommendations that GAO has previously made, but progress has been slow in addressing several recommendations aimed at strengthening ACE management. For example, DHS has more to do to implement the recommendation that it establish an ACE accountability framework that, among other things, ensures that expenditure plans report progress against commitments made in prior plans. Implementing a performance and accountability framework is important for ensuring that promised capabilities and benefits are delivered on time and within budget. In addition, describing progress against past commitments is essential to permit meaningful congressional oversight. Among GAO's observations about the ACE program and its management are several related to the need to effectively set and use performance goals and measures. Although the program set performance goals, these targets were not always realistic. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the program set a target that 11 percent of all Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees would use ACE. However, this target does not reflect the fact that many CBP employees will never need to use the system. Additionally, the program has established 6 program goals, 11 business results, 23 benefits, and 17 performance measures, but the relationships among these are not fully defined or adequately aligned with each other. For example, not every goal has defined benefits, and not every benefit has an associated performance measure. Without realistic ACE performance measures and targets that are aligned with the overall program goals and desired results, DHS will be challenged in its efforts to establish an accountability framework for ACE that will help to ensure that the program delivers its expected benefits. In addition, DHS plans to develop several increments, referred to as "releases," concurrently; in the past, such concurrency has led to cost overruns and schedule delays because releases contended for the same resources, and resources that were to be used on later releases were diverted to earlier ones. However, because of DHS's belief that such concurrent development will allow it to deliver ACE functionality sooner, it is reintroducing the same problems that resulted in past shortfalls.