Coast Guard Did Not Meet the Required Deadline for Establishing IOCs, but Has Made Progress

The Coast Guard did not meet the October 2009 deadline enacted in the  SAFE Port Act to establish IOCs; however, the Coast Guard is  establishing IOCs at all 35 of its sectors, although none of them have  achieved full operating capability. Coast Guard Did Not Meet the SAFE Port Act IOC Deadline, and Its Definition of an IOC Has Evolved

The Coast Guard did not meet the SAFE Port Act’s deadline to establish  IOCs at high-risk ports within 3 years of enactment, in part because it was  not appropriated funds to establish the IOCs until fiscal year 2008—14  months after enactment of the law, and because the definition of a fully  operational IOC was evolving during this period. DHS Has Recently Begun to Support Port-Partner Participation and Further IOC Implementation

According to the Coast Guard’s Chief of IOC Implementation and its  Information Sharing Executive Agent, continued support is needed from  DHS to increase port-partner participation and the success of the IOC  initiative. According to Coast Guard officials, once DHS delegated  responsibility for the development of IOCs to the Coast Guard, the  department did not provide any support or guidance on how to implement  IOCs. However, it is too early to  determine how successful these efforts will be in facilitating the IOC’s role  in sharing critical information among port partners. WatchKeeper Is Not Being Used by Majority of Port Partners; Monitoring Participation and Soliciting Input Could Help Improve System

The Coast Guard has granted WatchKeeper access to port partners at 11  of the 12 sectors where it has been installed, but the majority of those  port partners with access were not using the system frequently, with more  than 80 percent of port partners not logging on to the system from July  through September 2011. Without a means to determine to what extent  (1) sectors are providing port partners WatchKeeper access and (2) port  partners are using WatchKeeper, it will be difficult for the Coast Guard to  determine whether WatchKeeper is facilitating the IOC initiative in  meeting its goals of improving information sharing and coordination of  joint operations. Additionally, in May 2011, the Coast Guard and CBP—a port- According to the Coast Guard, it consulted with CBP and U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when developing the initial  requirements for WatchKeeper. Without a  process to obtain and incorporate port-partner input into the development  of future WatchKeeper requirements, the Coast Guard does not have  reasonable assurance that WatchKeeper will satisfy port partners’ needs,  and facilitate mission-based information sharing to achieve the goals of  the IOC project. Coast Guard Has Not Adhered to Established Guidance in Defining WatchKeeper Requirements, Cost, and Schedule

The Coast Guard has not adhered to established guidance in defining  WatchKeeper requirements, cost, and schedule, which are fundamental  to delivering a system on time and within budget. In particular, the Coast  Guard has not (1) effectively developed and managed WatchKeeper  requirements, (2) developed a reliable cost estimate to guide and inform  the WatchKeeper investment, and (3) developed a reliable project  schedule to develop and deploy WatchKeeper. Moreover, the Coast  Guard does not have any documentation that outlines the activities  that need to be completed by its development organization. Additionally, the cost estimate identifies costs associated  with the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of the IOC project  as well as contractor-related costs, but it does not include all  government costs, such as those related to systems engineering and  program management. Project officials attributed the limitations  in the cost estimate to a lack of project resources and competing  priorities. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure effective implementation of WatchKeeper and maximize  its use among port partners, we recommend that the Commandant of the  Coast Guard direct the IOC Project Manager to take the following two  actions:   collect data to determine the extent to which (1) sectors are providing  port partners WatchKeeper access and (2) port partners are using  WatchKeeper; and develop, document, and implement a process to obtain and  incorporate port-partner input into the development of future  WatchKeeper requirements. To address the risks facing the Coast Guard in its acquisition and  deployment of WatchKeeper, we recommend that the Commandant of the  Coast Guard direct the IOC Project Manager to take the following three  actions:  implement key requirements-development and management practices  to include   (1) defining and documenting requirements, including eliciting user  needs from all relevant port partners, before initiating key design  activities, (2) prioritizing remaining requirements to ensure critical  port-partner needs are addressed, and (3) tracing bi-directionally  between higher-level operational requirements and lower-level system  requirements;  revise the IOC project life-cycle cost estimate for delivering  WatchKeeper capabilities to reflect the four characteristics of a  reliable estimate discussed in this report; and develop an integrated master schedule for delivering WatchKeeper  that addresses, at a minimum, the key schedule-estimating practices  discussed in this report. DHS stated that it will  continue to evaluate acquisition priorities in the context of, among other  things, Coast Guard mission needs. Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected Complex  Acquisitions.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Coast Guarda component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)is responsible for establishing Interagency Operations Centers (IOC) in response to provisions of the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006. IOCs are designed to, among other things, share maritime information with the Coast Guards port partners (other agencies and organizations it coordinates with). To facilitate IOCs, the Coast Guard is implementing an information-management and sharing system called WatchKeeper. GAO was asked to assess IOC and WatchKeeper implementation. This report addresses the extent to which (1) DHS and the Coast Guard have implemented IOCs, (2) port partners use WatchKeeper and the Coast Guard has facilitated its use to enhance IOC capabilities, and (3) the Coast Guard has adhered to established guidance in defining WatchKeeper requirements and its associated cost and schedule. GAO analyzed laws and documents, such as implementation plans, and interviewed Coast Guard and port-partner officials at the first four sectors (field locations) where WatchKeeper was implemented. The results of the four sector visits are not generalizable, but provide insights.

What GAO Found

DHS's and the Coast Guard did not meet the SAFE Port Act's requirement that IOCs be established at high-priority ports by October 2009, in part because the Coast Guard was not appropriated funds to establish the IOCs until 14 months after enactment of the law, and the definition of an IOC was evolving during this period. However, the Coast Guard plans to establish IOCs at all 35 of its sectors. According to the Coast Guard's analysis of sector status reports, none of its sectors have achieved IOCs with full operating capability. According to the Coast Guards Chief of IOC Implementation, as well as its Information Sharing Executive Agent, continued support is needed from DHS to increase port-partner participation and the success of the IOC initiative. DHS has recently begun to support efforts to increase port-partner participation and further IOC implementation, such as facilitating the review of an IOC management directive. It is too early to determine, though, if and when IOCs will achieve their intended goal of sharing information and coordinating operations with port partners.
The Coast Guard has granted WatchKeeper access to port partners at 11 of the 12 sectors where it has been installed, but more than 80 percent of those port partners did not log on from July through September 2011. As of October 2011, the Coast Guard no longer collects data on port partners access and use of WatchKeeper. Without such data, it will be difficult for the Coast Guard to determine whether WatchKeeper is facilitating the IOC program in meeting its goals of improving information sharing and coordination of joint operations. GAO interviewed 22 port partners who were not using WatchKeeper. Of those 22, the most frequently cited reason (by 7 port partners) is that it does not help them perform their missions. The Coast Guard primarily consulted with Customs and Border Protection when developing WatchKeeper, but did not solicit input from all port partners. Without developing, documenting, and implementing a process on how it will incorporate port partners feedback into future WatchKeeper requirements, the Coast Guard does not have reasonable assurance that WatchKeeper will satisfy the needs of port partners and facilitate IOC goals.
The Coast Guard has not defined WatchKeeper requirements, cost, and schedule in accordance with established guidance. For example, the Coast Guard designed and developed the initial WatchKeeper segment without first defining the specific functions that the system is to perform. Further, the Coast Guard has not developed a reliable cost estimate to guide and inform the WatchKeeper investment. For example, the estimate does not include all government costs, such as related program-management costs. Also, WatchKeeper development and deployment has not been guided by a reliable schedule of the work needed to be performed and the key activities that need to occur. In particular, the schedule does not link all activities so that the project office can determine how a slip in a particular task may affect other related tasks, or the overall schedule. Project officials attributed these limitations to an aggressive IOC development schedule, limited resources, and competing priorities. As a result, these limitations increase the risk that WatchKeeper capabilities will not meet mission needs and will not be delivered on time and within budget.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Coast Guard collect data on port partners access and use of WatchKeeper; develop, document, and implement a process on how to incorporate port-partner input; implement requirements-development practices; and revise the cost estimate and the integrated master schedule. DHS concurred subject to the availability of funds.