During 2017, 10 of the 24 Programs with Approved Schedule and Cost Goals Were on Track

Of the 24 programs we assessed with approved schedule and cost goals,  10 were on track to meet those goals during 2017. These requirements are intended to provide more timely  information that may improve DHS’s efforts to address acquisition  program affordability issues, as well as internal and external oversight of  programs’ progress against its cost goals. We elaborate on programs’ affordability over the next 5 years in the  individual program assessments in appendix I.

	DHS’s Policies Generally Reflect Key Portfolio Management Practices, but Opportunities Exist to Leverage Programs’ Post-Implementation Results

We assessed DHS’s policies outlining the department’s processes for  acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements and  found that, when considered collectively, they generally reflect key  portfolio management practices. We found that the  policies in place at the time of our reviews did not fully reflect all of the  key portfolio management practices and recommended that DHS revise  its policies to do so. We consider this overall key practice area to be partially met because  DHS’s policies do not reflect the key practice (3) to reassess  programs that breach established thresholds within the context of the  portfolio to determine if the program remains relevant and affordable. PARM officials told us that—in practice—DHS reassesses programs  in the context of their component’s overall acquisition portfolio based  on a certification of funds memorandum submitted to DHS’s Chief  Financial Officer when programs re-baseline as a result of a cost,  schedule, or performance breach. For example, DHS’s acquisition management  policy requires programs to conduct post-implementation reviews 6 to  18 months after initial operational capability to identify and document  any deployment or implementation and coordination issues, how they  were resolved, and how they could be prevented in the future. However, PARM officials said that they do not consider the results of  the post-implementation reviews when managing the department’s  current acquisition portfolio because these reviews are typically  conducted after program oversight shifts from PARM to the  component. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following two recommendations to DHS:
The Under Secretary for Management should update DHS’s  acquisition management policy to require components to submit a  certification of funds memorandum when a major acquisition program  re-baselines in response to a breach. However, DHS’s Director, Office of Test and Evaluation has not assessed these results. The program breached the cost and schedule goals in its acquisition program baseline (APB) and, as of December 2017, CBP officials stated they were in the process of developing the breach notification required under the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) acquisition policy. The acquisition costs did not increase despite   phase 1 challenges, in part, because coverage for the U.S. The USCG is in the process of completing the design of the OPC before starting construction, which is in-line with GAO shipbuilding best practices. As a result, the status of  the program against its cost and schedule goals is unclear. We assessed the extent to which (1) DHS’s  major acquisition programs are on track to meet their schedule and cost  goals and (2) DHS has taken actions to enhance its policies and  processes to better reflect key portfolio management practices. For each of the 24  programs with a department-approved APB, we compared (a) the most  recent cost data we collected (i.e., a department-approved LCCE, the  detailed LCCE information submitted during the resource allocation  process, a fiscal year 2017 annual LCCE update, or an update provided  by the program office) to (b) DHS’s funding plan presented in the Future  Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) report to Congress for fiscal  years 2018–2022, which presents 5-year funding plans for DHS’s major  acquisition programs, to assess the extent to which a program was  projected to have an acquisition funding gap in fiscal year 2018.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, the DHS invests billions of dollars in a diverse portfolio of major acquisition programs to help execute its many critical missions. DHS's acquisition activities are on GAO's High Risk List, in part, because of management and funding issues.
The Explanatory Statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2015 included a provision for GAO to review DHS's major acquisitions. This report, GAO's fourth annual review, assesses the extent to which: (1) DHS's major acquisition programs are on track to meet their schedule and cost goals, and (2) DHS has taken actions to enhance its policies and processes to better reflect key practices for effectively managing a portfolio of investments.
GAO reviewed 28 acquisition programs, including DHS's largest programs that were in the process of obtaining new capabilities as of April 2017, and programs GAO or DHS identified as at risk of poor outcomes. GAO assessed cost and schedule progress against baselines, assessed DHS's policies and processes against GAO's key portfolio management practices, and met with relevant DHS officials.

What GAO Found

During 2017, 10 of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs GAO assessed that had approved schedule and cost goals were on track to meet those goals. GAO reviewed 28 programs in total, 4 of which were new programs that GAO did not assess because they did not establish cost and schedule goals before the end of calendar year 2017 as planned. The table shows the status of the 24 programs GAO assessed. Reasons for schedule delays or cost increases included technical challenges, changes in requirements, and external factors.
Recent enhancements to DHS's acquisition management, resource allocation, and requirements policies largely reflect key portfolio management practices (see table). However, DHS is in the early stages of implementing these policies.
GAO identified two areas where DHS could strengthen its portfolio management policies and implementation efforts:
DHS's policies do not reflect the key practice to reassess a program that breaches—or exceeds—its cost, schedule, or performance goals in the context of the portfolio to ensure it is still relevant or affordable. Acquisition management officials said that, in practice, they do so based on a certification of funds memorandum—a tool GAO has found to be effective for DHS leadership to assess program affordability—submitted by the component when one of its programs re-baselines in response to a breach. Documenting this practice in policy would help ensure DHS makes strategic investment decisions within its limited budget.
DHS is not leveraging information gathered from reviews once programs complete implementation to manage its portfolio of active acquisition programs. DHS's acquisition policy requires programs to conduct post-implementation reviews after initial capabilities are deployed, which is in line with GAO's key practices. Acquisition management officials said they do not consider the results of these reviews in managing DHS's portfolio because the reviews are typically conducted after oversight for a program shifts to the components. Leveraging these results across DHS could enable DHS to address potential issues that may contribute to poor outcomes, such as schedule slips and cost growth, for other programs in its acquisition portfolio.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends DHS update its acquisition policy to require certification of fund memorandums when programs re-baseline as a result of a breach and assess programs' post-implementation reviews to improve performance across the acquisition portfolio. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations.