This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-904 
entitled 'Information Technology: DHS Needs to Enhance Management of 
Cost and Schedule for Major Investments' which was released on 
September 26, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2012: 

Information Technology: 

DHS Needs to Enhance Management of Cost and Schedule for Major 
Investments: 

GAO-12-904: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-904, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

DHS has responsibility for the development and management of the IT 
systems for the 22 federal agencies and offices under its 
jurisdiction. Of its 363 IT investments, 68 are in development and are 
classified by DHS as a “major” investment that requires special 
management attention because of its mission importance. Given the size 
and significance of these investments, GAO was asked to determine the 
(1) extent to which DHS IT investments are meeting their cost and 
schedule commitments, (2) primary causes of any commitment shortfalls, 
and (3) adequacy of DHS’s efforts to address these shortfalls and 
their associated causes. 

To address these objectives, GAO analyzed recent cost and schedule 
performance for DHS’s major IT investments, as reported to OMB. To 
identify the primary cause(s) of any shortfalls and whether any 
corrective efforts were being taken to address them, GAO analyzed 
project plans and related documentation and interviewed responsible 
DHS officials and compared the corrective efforts to applicable 
criteria to assess their adequacy. 

What GAO Found: 

Approximately two-thirds of the Department of Homeland Security’s 
(DHS) major information technology (IT) investments are meeting their 
cost and schedule commitments (i.e., goals). Specifically, out of 68 
major IT investments in development, 47 were meeting cost and schedule 
commitments. The remaining 21—which total about $1 billion in spending—
had one or more subsidiary projects that were not meeting cost and/or 
schedule commitments (i.e., they exceeded their goals by at least 10 
percent, which is the level at which the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) considers projects to be at increased risk of not being 
able to deliver planned capabilities on time and within budget.)
The primary causes for the cost and schedule shortfalls were (in 
descending order of frequency): 

* inaccurate preliminary cost and schedule estimates, 
* technology issues in the development phase,
* changes in agency priorities, 
* lack of understanding of user requirements, and, 
* dependencies on other investments that had schedule shortfalls. 

Eight investments had inaccurate cost and schedule estimates. For 
example, DHS’s Critical Infrastructure Technology investment had a 
project where actual costs were about 16 percent over the estimated 
cost, due in part to project staff not fully validating cost estimates 
before proceeding with the project. In addition, six investments had 
technical issues in the development phase that caused cost or schedule 
slippages. For example, DHS’s Land Border Integration investment had 
problems with wireless interference at certain sites during deployment 
of handheld devices used for scanning license plates, which caused a 
project to be about 2.5 months late. In past work on DHS investments, 
GAO has identified some of the causes of DHS’s shortfalls and made 
recommendations to strengthen management in these areas (e.g., cost 
estimating, requirements), and DHS has initiated efforts to implement 
the recommendations. 

DHS often did not adequately address shortfalls and their causes. 
GAO’s investment management framework calls for agencies to develop 
and document corrective efforts to address underperforming 
investments. DHS policy requires documented corrective efforts when 
investments experience cost or schedule variances. Although 12 of the 
21 investments with shortfalls had defined and documented corrective 
efforts, the remaining 9 did not. Officials responsible for 3 of the 9 
investments said they took corrective efforts but were unable to 
provide plans or any other related documentation showing such action 
had been taken. Officials for the other 6 investments cited criteria 
in DHS’s policy that excluded their investments from the requirement 
to document corrective efforts. This practice is inconsistent with the 
direction of OMB guidance and related best practices that stress 
developing and documenting corrective efforts to address problems in 
such circumstances. Until DHS addresses its guidance shortcomings and 
ensures each of these underperforming investments has defined and 
documented corrective efforts, these investments are at risk of 
continued cost and schedule shortfalls. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 
appropriate officials to address the guidance shortcomings and develop 
corrective actions for all major IT investment projects having cost 
and schedule shortfalls. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS 
concurred with GAO’s recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-904]. For more 
information, contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 
pownerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DHS Meeting Cost and Schedule Commitments for Most Major IT 
Investments: 

Causes of Investment Cost and Schedule Shortfalls Vary: 

About Half of DHS's Investments with Shortfalls Do Not Have Well-
Developed Corrective Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments that Are Meeting Cost 
and Schedule Commitments: 

Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects 
with Shortfalls: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: DHS's Principal Component Organizations and their Missions: 

Table 2: DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and Schedule Shortfalls 
(dollars in millions): 

Table 3: Primary Causes of Shortfalls Experienced by Major DHS IT 
Investments (in descending order of frequency): 

Table 4: Extent to Which DHS Had Developed and Documented Corrective 
Efforts for Investment Shortfalls: 

Table 5: DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects and Planned 
Project Costs (in millions): 

Table 6: List of DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and/or Schedule 
Shortfalls and Subsidiary Projects (cost in millions): 

Figure: 

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure: 

Abbreviations: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IT: information technology: 

NPPD: National Protection and Programs Directorate: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

SBInet: Secure Border Network: 

TSA: Transportation Security Administration: 

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

USCG: U.S. Coast Guard: 

USSS: U.S. Secret Service: 

US-VISIT: United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator 
Technology: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 26, 2012: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
Federal Services and International Security: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable William R. Keating: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

As part of its mission to protect the homeland, the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for 22 agencies and offices 
with related missions and for the development and management of the 
information technology (IT) investments and systems used by those 
organizations. For its approximately 363 ongoing IT investments for 
fiscal year 2012, DHS plans to spend about $5.6 billion. Of these 363 
investments, 68 are under development and are classified by DHS as a 
"major" investment[Footnote 1] that requires special management 
attention because of its importance to DHS's mission. 

Given the size and significance of these investments, you asked us to 
determine the (1) extent to which DHS IT investments are meeting their 
cost and schedule commitments, (2) primary causes of any commitment 
shortfalls, and (3) adequacy of DHS's efforts to address these 
shortfalls and their associated causes. In addition to this report, we 
have also recently issued a report focused on the management and 
performance of DHS's major acquisitions.[Footnote 2] 

To address these objectives, we analyzed how each of these 68 major 
investments was performing against its cost and schedules 
commitments[Footnote 3] as reported by the department to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) as of March 2012. In doing this, we 
identified investments that had one or more projects exceeding 10 
percent of their cost and schedule commitments. We focused on these 
investments and on their subsidiary projects[Footnote 4] because they 
are under development and because OMB considers them to be at an 
increased level of risk of not being able to deliver promised 
capabilities on time and within budget, and thus they require special 
attention from management. For each of these investments and 
associated projects experiencing such shortfalls, we reviewed project 
plans and related documentation and interviewed responsible DHS 
officials to identify the primary cause(s) for the shortfalls and 
whether any corrective efforts had been developed and documented to 
address the shortfalls. We also compared the corrective efforts to 
applicable criteria to assess their adequacy. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September 
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
Further details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are included 
in appendix I. 

Background: 

DHS's mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure America 
by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks and protecting against 
and responding to threats and hazards to the nation. DHS is also 
responsible for ensuring that the nation's borders are safe and 
secure, that they welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and that 
they promote the free flow of commerce. 

Created in 2002, DHS assumed control of about 209,000 civilian and 
military positions from 22 agencies and offices that specialize in one 
or more aspects of homeland security. The purpose behind the merger 
was to improve coordination, communication, and information sharing 
among these multiple federal agencies. Figure 1 shows DHS's 
organizational structure and table 1 identifies DHS's principal 
organizations and describes their missions. 

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure: 

[Refer PDF for image: organizational structure] 

Top level: 
Secretary: 
* Deputy Secretary 
Chief of Staff: 
* Executive Secretariat
* Military Advisor. 

Second level: 
Management Under Secretary; Deputy Under Secretary: 
* Chief Financial Officer; 
* Chief Security Officer; 
* Chief Human Capital Officer; 
* Chief Administrative Services Officer; 
* Chief Procurement Officer; 
* Chief Information Officer; 
Science and Technology Under Secretary; 
National Protection and Programs Under Secretary; 
Policy Assistant Secretary; 
General Counsel; 
Legislative Affairs Assistant Secretary; 
Public Affairs Assistant Secretary; 
Inspector General. 

Third level:                                            
Health Affairs Assistant Secretary/Chief Medical Officer; 
Intelligence and Analysis Under Secretary; 
Operations Coordination Director; 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman; 
Chief Privacy Officer; 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer; 
Counternarcotics Enforcement Director. 
Fourth level: 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Director; 
National Cyber Security Center Director. 

Fifth level: 
Transportation Security Administration Assistant 
Secretary/Administrator; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner; 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director; 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary; 
U.S. Secret Service Director; 
Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator; 
U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. 

Source: GAO depiction of DHS Information.  

[End of figure] 

Table 1: DHS's Principal Component Organizations and their Missions: 

Principal organizations[A]: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); 
Mission: Protects the nation's borders to prevent terrorists and 
terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while facilitating 
the flow of legitimate trade and travel. 

Principal organizations[A]: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; 
Mission: Protects the nation by detecting and reporting unauthorized 
attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport nuclear or 
radiological material for use against the nation. 

Principal organizations[A]: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 
Mission: Prepares the nation for hazards, manages federal response and 
recovery efforts following any national incident, and administers the 
National Flood Insurance Program. 

Principal organizations[A]: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE); 
Mission: Protects the nation's borders by identifying and limiting 
vulnerabilities in the nation's border, economic, transportation, and 
infrastructure security. 

Principal organizations[A]: Intelligence and Analysis; 
Mission: Works closely with DHS components, as well as state, local, 
and tribal entities, to fuse nontraditional and traditional 
intelligence information streams into national threat assessments, and 
disseminates the resulting information to DHS and external homeland 
security customers. 

Principal organizations[A]: Management Directorate; 
Mission: Oversees department budgets and appropriations, expenditure 
of funds, accounting and finance, procurement, human resources, IT, 
facilities and equipment, and identifies and tracks performance 
measurements. Includes the Offices of the Chief Information Officer, 
Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Procurement Officer. 

Principal organizations[A]: National Protection and Programs 
Directorate (NPPD); 
Mission: Works with state, local, and private sector partners to 
identify threats, determine vulnerabilities, and target resources 
where risk is greatest to safeguard the nation's critical physical and 
cyber infrastructures. 

Principal organizations[A]: Office of Health Affairs; 
Mission: Protects the nation against biohazards through coordinated 
efforts with all levels of government and the private sector to 
develop and support a scientifically rigorous, intelligence-based 
biodefense and health preparedness architecture. 

Principal organizations[A]: Office of Operations and Coordination 
Planning; 
Mission: Monitors the security of the United States and coordinates 
activities within the department and with governors, homeland security 
advisors, law enforcement partners, and critical infrastructure 
operators in all 50 states and more than 50 major urban areas 
nationwide. 

Principal organizations[A]: Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA); 
Mission: Protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure 
freedom of movement for people and commerce. 

Principal organizations[A]: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS); 
Mission: Administers immigration and naturalization adjudication 
functions and establishes immigration services policies and priorities. 

Principal organizations[A]: U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); 
Mission: Protects the public, the environment, and U.S. economic 
interests in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, in 
international waters, and in any maritime region as required to 
support national security. 

Principal organizations[A]: U.S. Secret Service (USSS); 
Mission: Protects the President and other high-level officials and 
investigates counterfeiting and other financial crimes, including 
financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; 
and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and 
telecommunications infrastructure. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[A] This table does not show the organizations that fall under each of 
the directorates. It also does not show all organizations that report 
directly to the DHS Secretary and Deputy Secretary, such as executive 
secretary, legislative and intergovernmental affairs, public affairs, 
chief of staff, inspector general, and general counsel. 

[End of table] 

Within the department's Management Directorate, headed by the Under 
Secretary for Management, is the Office of the Chief Information 
Officer (CIO). The CIO's responsibilities include setting departmental 
IT policies, processes, and standards, and ensuring that IT 
acquisitions comply with DHS IT management processes, technical 
requirements, and approved enterprise architecture, among other 
things. Additionally, the CIO chairs DHS's Chief Information Officer 
Council (CIO Council), which is responsible for ensuring the 
development of IT resource management policies, processes, best 
practices, performance measures, and decision criteria for managing 
the delivery of IT services and investments, while controlling costs 
and mitigating risks. 

DHS IT Investments Support Its Mission: 

DHS spends billions of dollars each year on IT investments to perform 
both mission-critical and support functions that frequently must be 
coordinated among components, as well as among external entities. Of 
the $5.6 billion that DHS plans to spend on 363 IT-related investments 
in fiscal year 2012, $4.4 billion is planned for the 83 the agency 
considers to be a major investment; namely, costly, complex, and/or 
mission critical. 

Of these 83 major IT investments, 68 are under development and have 
planned fiscal year 2012 costs of approximately $4 billion. Examples 
of major investments under development that are being undertaken by 
DHS and its components include: 

* U. S. Customs and Border Protection--Automated Commercial 
Environment/International Trade Data System will incrementally replace 
existing cargo processing technology systems with a single system for 
land, air, rail, and sea cargo and serve as the central data 
collection system for federal agencies needing access to international 
trade data in a secure, paper-free, web-enabled environment. 

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement --TECS Modernization is to 
replace the legacy mainframe system developed by the U.S. Customs 
Service in the 1980s to support its inspections and investigations. 
Following the creation of DHS, those activities were assigned to CBP 
and ICE, respectively. CBP and ICE are now working to modernize their 
respective portions of the system in a coordinated effort with 
separate funding and schedules. ICE's portion of the investment will 
include modernizing the investigative case management and related 
support modules of the legacy system. 

* National Protection and Programs Directorate--National Cybersecurity 
Protection System, also referred to as EINSTEIN, is an integrated 
system that includes intrusion detection, analytics, intrusion 
prevention, and information sharing capabilities that are used to 
defend the federal executive branch civilian agencies' IT 
infrastructure from cyber threats. It consists of the hardware, 
software, supporting processes, training, and services that are being 
developed and acquired to support DHS's mission requirements. 

Best Practices and OMB Guidance Stress Importance of Keeping IT 
Investments within Cost and on Schedule: 

The success of major IT investments are judged by, among other things, 
the extent to which they deliver promised system capabilities and 
mission benefits on time and within cost. Consequently, our best 
practices research and extensive experience at federal agencies, as 
well as OMB guidance, stress the importance of federal IT investments 
meeting cost and schedule milestones. 

GAO's Information Technology Investment Management guidance[Footnote 
5] highlights the need to regularly determine each IT project's 
progress toward cost and schedule milestones using established 
criteria and calls for corrective efforts when milestones are not 
being met. The guidance also calls for such corrective efforts to be 
defined and documented. 

OMB plays a key role in helping federal agencies manage their 
investments by working with them to better plan, justify, and 
determine how much they need to spend on projects and how to manage 
their approved projects. In December 2010, OMB issued its 25 Point 
Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 
Management,[Footnote 6] a plan to change IT management throughout the 
federal government by strengthening the role of investment review 
boards to enable them to more adequately manage agency IT portfolios, 
redefining the role of agency CIOs and the Federal CIO Council 
[Footnote 7] to focus on portfolio management, and implementing face-
to-face reviews to identify IT investments that are experiencing 
performance problems and to select them for a TechStat session--a 
review of selected IT investments between OMB and agency leadership 
that is led by the Federal CIO. 

In addition, OMB provides agencies with tools to measure how 
effectively investments are meeting established cost and schedule 
parameters. Specifically, OMB requires federal agencies to provide 
information on their IT investments as a part of their yearly budget 
submissions, and to do so using an exhibit 53, in which they list all 
of their IT investments and their associated costs, and an exhibit 
300, also called the Capital Asset Plan and Business Case, which 
includes an investment's cost and schedule commitments. 

Further, in June 2009, OMB deployed the IT Dashboard, a website that 
displays near real-time information on, among other things, the cost 
and schedule performance of all of an agency's major IT investments. 
The IT Dashboard provides, among other things, a cost and schedule 
performance rating for each major IT investment's subsidiary project. 
These ratings are based on the extent to which the project is meeting 
its cost and schedule commitments. For example, projects experiencing 
a 10 percent or greater cost and/or schedule variance are considered 
to be at an elevated risk of not delivering promised capabilities on 
time and within budget, and, as such, require management attention. 

Prior GAO Reports Highlighted Cost and Schedule Shortfalls of Major 
DHS Investments: 

We have previously reported on the cost and schedule challenges 
associated with major DHS IT investments, such as those with CBP's 
Secure Border Network (SBInet) and NPPD's United States Visitor and 
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). For example, in 2007 
we reported that the Secure Border Network had experienced significant 
cost and schedule shortfalls due, in part, to the project not having 
fully defined activities. In addition, in May 2010, we reported that 
continued delays to the investment were likely because, among other 
things, it had not developed a reliable integrated master schedule and 
the schedule did not adequately capture all necessary activities. 
[Footnote 8] In these reports, we made recommendations to strengthen 
the program weaknesses to keep the investment on schedule and within 
cost. 

With regard to the US-VISIT investment, we noted in a November 2009 
report that officials had not adopted an integrated approach to 
scheduling, executing, and tracking the work that needed to be 
accomplished to deliver the Comprehensive Exit project to more than 
300 ports of entry on schedule and within cost.[Footnote 9] 
Accordingly, we recommended that DHS strengthen management of the 
project by ensuring that it develop and maintain integrated scheduling 
plans in accordance with applicable key practices; DHS concurred with 
the recommendations. 

Further, in 2011, as a part of our High Risk series,[Footnote 10] we 
reported that, because of acquisition weaknesses, major investments, 
such as the recently canceled SBInet, continued to be challenged in 
meeting capability, benefit, cost, and schedule expectations. Based on 
our prior work, we identified and provided to DHS key actions and 
outcomes critical to addressing this and other challenges. 

Most recently, we reported[Footnote 11] in July 2012 that DHS was 
making progress in developing and implementing a new IT governance 
process. We found that DHS had developed a new governance framework 
and that the associated policies and procedures were generally 
consistent with recent OMB guidance and with best practices for 
managing projects and portfolios identified in GAO's Information 
Technology Investment Management framework; however, the agency had 
not yet finalized most policies and procedures and was not fully using 
best practices for the implementation. Accordingly, we made 
recommendations to DHS to, among other things, strengthen its new 
governance process and related IT management capabilities; the agency 
agreed to implement the recommendations. 

DHS Meeting Cost and Schedule Commitments for Most Major IT 
Investments: 

As discussed previously, our best practices research and experience at 
federal agencies as well as OMB guidance stress the importance of 
investments meeting their cost and schedule commitments. OMB requires 
agencies to report to the IT Dashboard information on the cost and 
schedule performance of all their major IT investments. 

Our analysis of the cost and schedule performance for DHS's 68 major 
IT investments shows that approximately two-thirds of these 
investments and their subsidiary projects were meeting cost and 
schedule commitments; the remaining one-third had at least one 
subsidiary project that was not meeting its commitments. Specifically, 
out of the 68 major investments under development, 47 were meeting 
their cost and schedule commitments. (See app. II for a listing of the 
47 investments and subsidiary projects that are meeting their 
commitments.) The remaining 21 investments had one or more subsidiary 
projects that were not meeting cost and/or schedule commitments; the 
total planned cost for all projects in development for the 21 
investments is approximately $1 billion. Table 2 lists the investments 
experiencing cost and/or schedule shortfalls, and the total planned 
project cost for each investment. A list of the investments and their 
subsidiary projects experiencing cost and/or schedule shortfalls is 
included in appendix III. 

Table 2: DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and Schedule Shortfalls: 

Component: CBP: 

Investment: Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data 
System; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $124.26 million. 

Investment: Land Border Integration; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $20.9 million. 

Investment: Non-intrusive Inspection Systems Program; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $332.3 million. 

Investment: Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $8.2 million. 

Investment: TECS Modernization; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $43.03 million. 

Component: DHS; Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

Investment: Human Resources IT; 
One or more projects with a cost shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $8.52 million. 

Component: FEMA: 

Investment: Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan; 
One or more projects with a cost shortfall; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
One or more projects with a cost and schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $50.5 million. 

Component: ICE: 

Investment: Detention and Removal Operations Modernization; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $8.62 million. 

Component: NPPD: 

Investment: Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture; 
One or more projects with a cost shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $20.55 million. 

Investment: Infrastructure Security Compliance-Chemical Security 
Assessment Tool; 
One or more projects with a cost shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $72.76 million. 

Investment: National Cybersecurity Protection System; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $262.6 million. 

Investment: Next Generation Networks Priority Services; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $63.06 million. 

Investment: US-VISIT: Arrival and Departure Information System;
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $7.18 million. 

Investment: US-VISIT: Automated Biometric Identification System; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $33.24 million. 

Component: TSA: 

Investment: Air Cargo Security; 
One or more projects with a cost shortfall; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
One or more projects with a cost and schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $4.09 million. 

Investment: Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and 
Notification System; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $5.43 million. 

Investment: Hazmat Threat Assessment Program; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $4.09 million. 

Investment: Security Technology Integrated Program; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $27.99 million. 

Component: USCG: 

Investment: CG Business Intelligence; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $0.86 million. 

Investment: Naturalization: CLAIMS 4; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $2.36 million. 

Component: USSS: 

Investment: Information Integration and Technology Transformation; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $43.61 million. 

Component: Total; 
Investment: 21; 
One or more projects with a cost shortfall: 5; 
One or more projects with a schedule shortfall: 18; 
One or more projects with a cost and schedule shortfall: 2; 
Total planned project cost[A]: $1.144 billion[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB's federal IT Dashboard data. 

[A] These are the total planned costs of all investment projects in 
development as of March 8, 2012. 

[B] Differences in total are rounded off. 

[End of table] 

Of the 21 investments with a shortfall, 5 had one or more subsidiary 
project with a cost shortfall, 18 had one or more project with a 
schedule shortfall, and 2 had a project with both a cost and schedule 
shortfall. These shortfalls potentially impact the total cost of 
investments and can delay the implementation of key systems. For 
example: 

* TSA's Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and 
Notification System: project to modernize the core scheduling software 
component of the system, which, among other things, determines the 
allocation of federal air marshals to flights and coordinates and 
communicates mission assignments, was delayed. 

* NPPD's Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture 
investment: project to develop an information-sharing application to 
be used by federal, state, and local stakeholders to increase their 
capability to combat terrorist use of improvised explosive devices had 
cost overruns of approximately 16 percent ($296,000). 

* CBP's Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System investment: 
project to incorporate IT Security improvements to the remote video 
surveillance systems in Buffalo, New York, and Detroit, Michigan, was 
delayed by approximately 2 months. 

* FEMA's Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan: a subsidiary project--
site usability enhancements--that included enhancements to the 
DisasterAssistance.gov website to improve usability by making it 
easier and more intuitive for users to apply for and find information 
about disaster assistance from federal, state, local, tribal, and 
private nonprofit organizations was delayed. 

Causes of Investment Cost and Schedule Shortfalls Vary: 

The primary causes of the shortfalls in cost and schedule associated 
with DHS's 21 major IT investments were (in descending order of 
frequency): inaccurate preliminary cost and schedule estimates, 
technical issues in the development phase, changes in agency 
priorities, lack of understanding of user requirements, and 
dependencies on other investments that had schedule shortfalls. A 
summary of these causes by investment and the associated component are 
shown in table 3 and are followed by (1) our analysis of these causes 
by category and (2) discussion of our past work on the department's 
major investments and related IT management processes where we 
identified some of these same causes and made recommendations to 
strengthen management in these areas. 

Table 3: Primary Causes of Shortfalls Experienced by Major DHS IT 
Investments (in descending order of frequency): 

Component: CBP; 
Investment: Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data 
System; 
Technical issues in development phase. 

Investment: Land Border Integration; 
Technical issues in development phase. 

Investment: Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates. 

Investment: Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates. 

Investment: TECS Modernization; 
Lack of understanding of user requirements. 

Component: DHS Office of the Chief Information Officer; 
Investment: Human Resources IT; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates. 

Component: FEMA; 
Investment: Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates; 
Technical issues in development phase; 
Dependencies on other investments. 

Component: ICE; 
Investment: Detention and Removal Operations Modernization; 
Technical issues in development phase; 
Lack of understanding of user requirements; 

Component: NPPD; 

Investment: Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates. 

Investment: Infrastructure Security Compliance: Chemical Security 
Assessment Tool; 
Other causes. 

Investment: National Cybersecurity Protection System; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates. 

Investment: Next Generation Networks Priority Services; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates; 
Changes in agency priorities. 

Investment: US-VISIT: Arrival and Departure Information System;
Changes in agency priorities. 

Investment: US-VISIT: Automated Biometric Identification System; 
Changes in agency priorities. 

Component: TSA; 

Investment: Air Cargo Security; 
Technical issues in development phase; 
Dependencies on other investments. 

Investment: Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and 
Notification System; 
Other causes. 

Investment: Hazmat Threat Assessment Program; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates. 

Investment: Security Technology Integrated Program; 
Technical issues in development phase. 

Component: USCG; 
Investment: CG Business Intelligence; 
Changes in agency priorities. 

Component: USCIS; 
Investment: Naturalization-CLAIMS 4; 
Lack of understanding of user requirements. 

Component: USSS; 
Investment: Information Integration and Technology Transformation; 
Dependencies on other investments. 

Component: Totals; 
Inaccurate preliminary cost/schedule estimates: 8; 
Technical issues in development phase: 6; 
Changes in agency priorities: 4; 
Lack of understanding of user requirements: 3; 
Dependencies on other investments: 3; 
Other causes: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

Specifically, our analysis of these causes by category showed: 

Inaccurate preliminary cost and schedule estimates: Inaccurate cost 
and schedule estimates in eight investments resulted in significant 
cost and schedule increases. For example: 

* Preliminary schedule estimates for a project under CBP's Non-
Intrusive Inspection Systems Program investment--which supports the 
detection and prevention of contraband from entering the country--were 
inaccurate due to underestimating the time needed to complete a key 
task. Specifically, project officials did not accurately estimate how 
long it would take to complete an environmental assessment because 
they did not consider all requirements in their initial planning, thus 
resulting in a schedule delay of approximately 2 months. 

* The NPPD investment called Critical Infrastructure Technology and 
Architecture had a project--integral to developing an information 
sharing application to be used by federal, state, and local 
stakeholders to increase their capability to combat terrorist use of 
improvised explosive devices--where actual costs for completing 
critical tasks were about 16 percent over the cost estimated at 
project initiation. According to investment officials, this was due in 
part to project staff developing the cost estimates very quickly and 
not fully validating them before proceeding with the project. 

* TSA's Hazmat Threat Assessment Program (which performs a threat 
assessment on commercial truck drivers who transport hazardous 
materials to determine the threat status to transportation security) 
had a schedule shortfall with a project, because, in part, the time 
needed to modify a contract was not accurately estimated, which led to 
a schedule delay of nearly 3 months. 

Technology issues in the development phase: Technical issues in the 
development phase caused cost or schedule slippages in six 
investments. Examples include: 

* Changes made to one part of ICE's Detention and Removal Operations 
Modernization investment, which is designed to upgrade IT capabilities 
to support efficient detention and removal of non-U.S. citizens, 
created a cascading effect, leading to changes to other parts of the 
system and contributed to delays of more than a month. 

* Issues in establishing a testing and development environment that 
matched the production environment delayed project testing in several 
projects under FEMA's Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan investment 
(which is to ease the burden on disaster survivors by providing them 
with a mechanism to access and apply for disaster assistance). 

* Technical complications during deployment caused the schedule to 
slip by 79 days on a project under CBP's Land Border Integration 
investment, which assists with the processing of inbound and outbound 
travel at border patrol checkpoints nationwide. Specifically, the 
handheld devices used for scanning license plates used a wireless 
spectrum that had interference problems at certain sites, and 
resolving this issue took more time than had been planned for. 

Changes in agency priorities: Four investments experienced cost and 
schedule slippages due to changing priorities at the agency level. In 
particular, 

* The schedules were delayed for two NPPD US-VISIT investments: the 
Arrival and Departure Information System, which collects arrival and 
departure information on non-U.S. citizens traveling to the United 
States as well as current immigration status updates for each 
traveler, and the Automated Biometric Identification System, a 
fingerprint repository and biometric-matching system. Delays were due 
to a management decision to focus on accelerating the development of 
other investments or projects, which took resources (i.e., personnel) 
away from the investment. Consequently, the Arrival and Departure 
Information System's fiscal year 2011 maintenance release project was 
delayed approximately 3 months, and the Automated Biometric 
Identification System's fiscal year 2011 product support project was 
delayed by approximately 7 months. 

* A critical subsidiary project to deliver predictive analytical 
capabilities under USCG's Business Intelligence investment, which is 
designed to reduce organizational uncertainty and risk in decision 
making, had a schedule delay of approximately 3 months due to changing 
priorities. Project officials said that Coast Guard management 
directed resources to other projects with a higher priority, thus 
limiting the ability to work on the predictive analytics capability 
project. 

Lack of understanding user requirements: Three investments had 
slippages resulting from misunderstanding or inadequately developed 
user requirements and expectations. 

* A project under USCIS's Claims 4 investment, which is a processing 
system for the adjudication of naturalization applications, was 
delayed by 2 weeks because inadequate user requirements led to a 
design flaw that required additional time to address. 

* Customer priorities and expectations for ICE's Detention and Removal 
Operations Modernization investment changed over time, which 
contributed to schedule delays of more than a month. 

* The schedule for a CBP TECS Modernization investment project, which 
supports the screening of travelers entering the United States, was 
delayed due to users requesting that the application in development 
interface with a separate system. The project was delayed by 3 months 
while program officials developed new requirements. 

Dependencies on other component's investments that had schedule 
shortfalls: Investments also encountered schedule slippages when 
interdependent investments encountered delays. For example: 

* USSS's Information Integration and Technology Transformation 
investment to provide advanced security measures to electronically 
send, receive, and track access to USSS's unclassified and classified 
information was delayed approximately 6 months due to a component's 
project being delayed. 

* Costs for a project under FEMA's Disaster Assistance Improvement 
Plan investment rose approximately 27 percent ($210,000) due, in part, 
to the delayed deployment of another investment. 

Other causes of cost and schedule slippages that were cited by 
department officials included delays in receiving funding and gaps in 
leadership due to key management turnover. Specifically, 

* The schedule for three projects under TSA's Federal Air Marshal 
Service Mission Scheduling and Notification investment was delayed due 
to delays in receiving full funding. DHS had provided the investment 
with partial funding, and thus investment officials produced an 
investment plan based on that funding level; when full funding was 
subsequently restored, the plan had to be updated, which resulted in 
delays. 

* The costs for a key subsidiary project of NPPD's Infrastructure 
Security Compliance, Chemical Security Assessment Tool, which is to 
provide for the electronic submission of chemical facility data and 
controlled use of such data, rose approximately 20 percent ($719,000) 
due, in part, to multiple director-level program changes, which led to 
corresponding changes in the investment's vision and direction. 

In our past work on DHS's investments and related IT management 
processes, we have identified some of these same causes and made 
recommendations to strengthen management in these areas. For example, 
with regard to cost estimating, we reported that forming a reliable 
estimate of costs provides a sound basis for measuring against actual 
cost performance and that the lack of such a basis contributes to 
variances.[Footnote 12] To help agencies establish such a capability, 
we issued a guide in March 2009 that was based on the practices of 
leading organizations.[Footnote 13] In a July 2012 report examining 
how well DHS is implementing these practices, we reported that the 
department had weaknesses in cost estimating.[Footnote 14] 
Accordingly, we made recommendations to DHS to strengthen its cost 
estimating capabilities, and the department has plans and efforts 
under way to implement our recommendations. 

We have also reported[Footnote 15] that developing sufficient 
requirements is key to effectively delivering systems on time and 
within budget and that DHS has experienced project delays and cost 
overruns resulting from initial requirements not being defined 
properly. To address this challenge, DHS has begun, as part of 
defining and implementing a new IT governance process, to establish 
centers of excellence to provide investment officials with expert 
assistance in requirements development and other essential IT 
management disciplines.[Footnote 16] However, we also reported that 
DHS had yet to fully define and implement these initiatives; 
accordingly, we made recommendations to do so, and the agency agreed 
to implement the recommendations and has efforts planned and under way 
to complete implementation by September 2013. 

About Half of DHS's Investments with Shortfalls Do Not Have Well-
Developed Corrective Efforts: 

A variety of best practices exist to guide the successful acquisition 
of IT investments, including how to develop and document corrective 
actions for projects experiencing cost and schedule shortfalls. In 
particular, GAO's Information Technology Investment Management 
framework calls for agencies to develop and document corrective 
efforts for underperforming projects. It also states that agencies are 
to ensure that, as projects develop and costs rise, the project 
continues to meet mission needs at the expected levels of cost and 
risk; if projects are not meeting expectations or if problems have 
arisen, agencies are to quickly take steps to address the 
deficiencies. In addition, DHS policy[Footnote 17] requires corrective 
actions when cost or schedule variances exceed 8 percent. 

DHS developed and documented corrective efforts for 12 of the 21 major 
investments with a shortfall, but the remaining 9 did not have 
documented corrective efforts. Table 4 depicts the investments with 
shortfalls and whether corrective efforts had been developed and 
documented. 

Table 4: Extent to Which DHS Had Developed and Documented Corrective 
Efforts for Investment Shortfalls: 

Component: CBP; 
Investment: Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data 
System; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: Land Border Integration; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: TECS Modernization; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Component: DHS; Office of the Chief Information Officer; 
Investment: Human Resources IT; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Component: FEMA; 
Investment: Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Component: ICE; 
Investment: Detention and Removal Operations Modernization; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Component: NPPD; 
Investment: Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: Infrastructure Security Compliance: Chemical Security 
Assessment Tool; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: National Cybersecurity Protection System; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Investment: Next Generation Networks Priority Services; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Investment: US-VISIT: Arrival and Departure Information System; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Investment: US-VISIT: Automated Biometric Identification System; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Component: TSA; 
Investment: Air Cargo Security; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Investment: Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling and 
Notification System; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Investment: Hazmat Threat Assessment Program; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Investment: Security Technology Integrated Program; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Component: USCG; 
Investment: Coast Guard Business Intelligence; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Component: USCIS; 
Investment: Naturalization-CLAIMS 4; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? No. 

Component: USSS; 
Investment: Information Integration and Technology Transformation; 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? Yes. 

Total: 
Adequately developed and documented corrective efforts? 
Yes: 12; 
No: 9. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[End of table] 

DHS took corrective actions to address investment shortfalls in 12 
investments. Actions for the 12 included: 

* CBP: Automated Commercial Environment /International Trade Data 
System had schedule shortfalls due to an inadequate testing and 
development environment; they were resolved by leveraging CBP's 
disaster recovery site to perform the testing. 

* CBP: Land Border Integration investment schedule delays due to 
technical complications were resolved through the use of risk 
management processes (e.g., identification, assessment, tracking, and 
mitigation of risks) identified in the investment's July 2011 risk 
management plan, which addressed the cause of the investment 
shortfalls. 

* CBP: Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems Program, which had schedule 
shortfalls due to inaccurate estimates, tracked the project status and 
risks via project health status reports and other mitigation 
strategies. 

* CBP: The Remote Video Surveillance System investment officials 
developed and documented an investment rebaseline to address the 
investment's schedule shortfall, which was due to an inaccurate 
initial project schedule estimate. 

* CBP: The TECS Modernization investment--which had schedule 
shortfalls due to system development being delayed due to questions 
about whether planned enhancements duplicated functions performed by 
another agency system--program officials briefed key management on the 
differences between the system functions and development was allowed 
to continue. 

* FEMA: Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan cost and schedule 
shortfalls were due to, among other things, dependencies on other 
investments. DHS developed a remediation plan for each shortfall to 
limit the negative impact. 

* ICE: Detention and Removal Operations Modernization investment 
schedule shortfalls were due in part to a lack of understanding of 
user requirements; to address these issues, investment officials 
worked with key stakeholders to engage users to more thoroughly 
identify user requirements. 

* NPPD: Critical Infrastructure Technology and Architecture 
investment's cost shortfalls, which were due to inaccurate initial 
cost estimates, were resolved by investment officials through several 
corrective efforts, including completing the project's life cycle cost 
estimate. 

* NPPD: Infrastructure Security Compliance, Chemical Security 
Assessment Tool investment schedule was delayed due to multiple 
changes in leadership and in the investment's direction. Project 
officials developed and documented an investment rebaseline, which was 
approved in February 2012. It was intended to, among other things, 
develop a more accurate schedule. 

* TSA: The Hazmat Threat Assessment Program investment schedule was 
delayed because the time needed to adjust a contract had not been 
accurately estimated. In response, investment officials documented an 
investment rebaseline, which was approved in March 2012. 

* TSA: The Security Technology Integrated Program investment had 
schedule shortfalls from inaccurate estimates of the time needed to 
revise a contract. To resolve these issues, officials developed and 
documented an initiative to improve methods used to identify and track 
risks and resolve the schedule shortfalls. This effort is intended to 
help the investment avoid additional schedule changes. 

* USSS: The Information Integration and Technology Transformation 
investment had one project with schedule shortfalls due to 
dependencies on another component's investment that had schedule 
slippages; issues were addressed by following the mitigation actions 
detailed in the investment's risk management plan. 

With regard to the remaining nine investments, three were unable to 
provide us with documentation, even though project officials stated 
that they had developed some corrective efforts, and six did not 
engage in corrective efforts to address shortfalls. Of the three 
investments, officials from TSA's Federal Air Marshal Service Mission 
Scheduling and Notification System investment, for example, reported 
that they had addressed the project's schedule shortfall--which was 
due, in part, to a support contractor not having adequate staffing--by 
performing the work within the agency instead of relying on the 
contractor. Further, according to TSA officials, the cost and schedule 
shortfalls on the Air Cargo Security investment, which were due to 
technical complications and dependencies on other investments, were 
addressed by establishing a new cost and schedule baseline. 
Nonetheless, this lack of documentation is inconsistent with the 
direction of DHS's guidance and related best practices, and it shows a 
lack of process discipline and attention to key details, which raises 
concern about the thoroughness of corrective efforts. 

Of the six investments without any corrective efforts, officials from 
these investments (namely, the Office of the Chief Information 
Officer's Human Resources IT investment, NPPD's US-VISIT Automated 
Biometric Identification System and Arrival and Departure Information 
System investments, USCG's Business Intelligence investment, NPPD's 
National Cybersecurity Protection System, and USCIS's Claims 4 
investment), stated that they did not develop and document corrective 
efforts because they believed DHS's guidance does not call for it in 
their circumstances. Specifically, the officials said that although 
DHS's guidance[Footnote 18] calls for corrective actions to be 
developed and documented when an investment or its projects 
experiences a life cycle cost or schedule variance of 8 percent or 
greater, the variances on their project activities thus far were not 
large enough to constitute such a life cycle variance. 

The impact of this is that multiple projects can continue to 
experience shortfalls--which increases the risk that investments will 
experience serious lifecycle cost and schedule variances--without 
having to develop and document corrective actions and thus alert top 
management about potential problems and associated risks. This is 
inconsistent with the direction of OMB, which requires agencies to 
report (via the IT Dashboard) on the cost and schedule performance of 
their projects and considers those projects with a 10 percent or 
greater variance to be at an increased level of risk of not being able 
to deliver promised capabilities on time and within budget, and thus 
they require special attention from management. It is also 
inconsistent with our best practices research and experience at 
federal agencies, which stresses that agencies report to management 
when projects are not meeting expectations or when problems arise and 
quickly develop and document corrective efforts to address the 
problems. Further, our research and work at agencies has shown that 
waiting to act until significant life cycle variances occur can 
sometimes be risky and costly, as life cycle schedules are typically 
for multiyear periods, allowing the potential for underperforming 
projects to continue to vary from their cost and schedule goals for an 
extended amount of time without any requirement for corrective 
efforts. Consequently, until these guidance shortcomings are addressed 
and each underperforming project has defined and documented corrective 
actions, the department's major investments these projects support 
will be at an increased risk of cost and schedule shortfalls. 

Conclusions: 

Most of the projects comprising DHS's 68 major IT investments are 
meeting their cost and schedule commitments, but 21 major investments-
-integral to DHS's mission and costing approximately $1 billion--have 
projects that are experiencing significant cost and schedule 
shortfalls. These shortfalls place these investments at increased risk 
of not delivering promised capabilities on time and within budget, 
which, in turn, pose a risk to DHS's ability to fully meet its mission 
of securing the homeland. DHS guidance does not require projects 
experiencing significant cost and schedule shortfalls to develop and 
document corrective efforts until they cause a life cycle cost and 
schedule variance. This increases risk and is contrary to effective IT 
investment practices. Given that DHS is currently establishing and 
implementing new IT governance processes, the department is positioned 
to address the guidance shortfalls. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 
appropriate officials to: 

* Establish guidance that provides for developing corrective efforts 
for major IT investment projects that are experiencing cost and 
schedule shortfalls of 10 percent or greater, similar to those 
identified in this report. 

* Ensure that major IT investment projects with shortfalls of 10 
percent or greater have defined and documented corrective efforts. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In its written comments signed by the Director for the Departmental 
GAO-OIG Liaison Office and reprinted in appendix IV, DHS concurred 
with our recommendations and estimated that it would implement the 
first recommendation by September 30, 2013, and the second one 
immediately. It also commented that the department was pleased that 
the report positively acknowledged that DHS (1) is meeting cost and 
schedule commitments for most of its major IT investments and (2) has 
plans and efforts under way to improve cost estimating capabilities 
and implement a center of excellence for requirements engineering. The 
department also provided technical comments, which we have 
incorporated where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the 
report is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in 
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who 
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to determine the (1) extent to which 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) IT investments are meeting their 
cost and schedule commitments, (2) primary causes of any commitment 
shortfalls, and (3) adequacy of DHS's efforts to address these 
shortfalls and causes. 

To address our first objective, we analyzed how each of DHS's 68 major 
investments under development was performing against its cost and 
schedules commitments, as reported by the agency to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for inclusion on OMB's federal IT 
Dashboard. More specifically, we analyzed the extent to which each of 
these investments had met or exceeded, as of March 2012, cost and 
schedule commitments established when the investment was initiated. In 
doing this, we identified investments that had a project exceeding 10 
percent of its cost and schedule commitments. We focused on these 
investments and their subsidiary projects because OMB considers them 
to be at an increased level of risk of not being able to deliver 
promised capabilities on time and within budget, and thus requiring 
special attention from management. 

To assess the reliability of the IT Dashboard data we analyzed, we 
corroborated the data by interviewing investment and other DHS 
officials to determine whether the information on the dashboard was 
consistent with that reported by DHS. In addition, we followed up on 
the status of implementation of previous GAO recommendations to 
improve the quality of information on OMB's federal IT 
Dashboard.[Footnote 19] Specifically, we analyzed plans and related 
documentation describing efforts by DHS to increase the scrutiny and 
quality of data submitted to the IT Dashboard. As part of this, we 
also interviewed department officials including those from the Office 
of the Chief Information Officer who are responsible for reviewing and 
submitting DHS's investment cost and schedule data to the federal IT 
Dashboard. The documentation and interviews provided us a level of 
assurance that the data we used for this engagement were, in fact, 
reliable. 

For our second objective, we used a structured interview instrument to 
survey the DHS and component officials responsible for the investments 
experiencing cost and schedule shortfalls in order to identify the 
causes of the shortfalls. As part of surveying these officials, we 
analyzed project and related documentation to corroborate the causes 
reported to us via the survey. We then analyzed these causes for 
commonalities, grouped them accordingly, and tallied the frequency of 
each cause by investment. In addition, we compared the causes to our 
prior reports on major DHS investments and related IT management 
processes to identify the extent to which we had made recommendations 
to address the causes associated with the department's investment cost 
and schedule shortfalls. 

To address our third objective, we initially identified and reviewed 
relevant criteria on developing and documenting corrective actions to 
address investment shortfalls. Specifically, these criteria included: 

* DHS's Acquisition Directive 102 (AD-102),[Footnote 20] 

* DHS's Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide,[Footnote 21] 
and: 

* GAO's Information Technology Investment Management guide.[Footnote 
22] 

We then used a structured interview instrument to survey DHS and 
component officials responsible for those investments experiencing 
shortfalls; we used the survey to identify whether any corrective 
actions had been developed and documented to address investment 
shortfalls. We also reviewed investment planning and execution 
documentation (e.g., project plans, project status reports, program 
meeting minutes, and acquisition program baselines) to corroborate 
information provided by the officials during the survey process. We 
then compared these corrective efforts to the criteria to identify any 
gaps and in those cases where there were, we reviewed documentation 
and interviewed agency officials to assess the reason for the gaps and 
any negative impacts. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September 
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: List of DHS Major IT Investments that Are Meeting Cost 
and Schedule Commitments: 

Table 5 lists the DHS major IT investments that were meeting their 
cost and schedule commitments. 

Table 5: DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects and Planned 
Project Costs: 

Component: Analysis and Operations: 

Investment Title: Common Operational Picture; 
Project Name: DHS Common Operational Picture Infrastructure deployment 
at DHS Data Center 2; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.50 million. 

Investment Title: Common Operational Picture; 
Project Name: DHS Common Operational Picture enhanced functionality 
capabilities; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.10 million. 

Investment Title: Homeland Security Information Network; 
Project Name: Homeland Security Information Network 3.0 DME; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $22.34 million. 

Investment Title: Homeland Security Information Network; 
Project Name: HS SLIC Consolidation; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.60 million. 

Investment Title: Homeland Security Information Network; 
Project Name: Two Factor Authentication in Legacy; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.31 million. 

Component: CBP: 

Investment Title: Advance Passenger Information System; 
Project Name: Advance Passenger Information System; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.70 million. 

Investment Title: Analytical Framework for Intelligence; 
Project Name: Analytical Framework for Intelligence System; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $29.35 million. 

Investment Title: Analytical Framework for Intelligence; 
Project Name: Homeland Secure Data Network; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $4.29 million. 

Investment Title: Automated Targeting System Maintenance; 
Project Name: Passenger Iteration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $15.79 million. 

Investment Title: Automated Targeting System Maintenance; 
Project Name: Cargo Iteration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $17.76 million. 

Investment Title: Block 1; 
Project Name: Operations Task Order; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $5.00 million. 

Investment Title: Block 1; 
Project Name: Maintenance Task Order; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $4.40 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure; 
Project Name: Windows 7; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $6.25 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Fixed Towers; 
Project Name: Acquisition Planning; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.28 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Fixed Towers; 
Project Name: Construct and Deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers 
System to Nogales Areas of Responsibility; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Integrated Fixed Towers; 
Project Name: Construct and Deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers 
System to Sonoita Areas of Responsibility; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Integrated Fixed Towers; 
Project Name: Construct and Deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers 
System to Casa Grande Areas of Responsibility; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Mobile Surveillance Capabilities; 
Project Name: First Article Test of vehicles; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.45 million. 

Investment Title: Mobile Surveillance Capabilities; 
Project Name: Deployment to Arizona; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Mobile Surveillance Capabilities; 
Project Name: Vehicle Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Remote Video Surveillance Systems; 
Project Name: Remote Video Surveillance Systems; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $26.76 million. 

Investment Title: SAP; 
Project Name: SAP Budget Solution Upgrade; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $13.38 million. 

Investment Title: SAP;
Project Name: SAP Support Patches; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.35 million. 

Investment Title: Tactical Communications Modernization; 
Project Name: Houlton; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $60.78 million. 

Investment Title: Tactical Communications Modernization; 
Project Name: El Paso; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.74 million. 

Investment Title: Tactical Communications Modernization; 
Project Name: Rio Grande Valley; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $33.85 million. 

Investment Title: Tactical Communications Modernization; 
Project Name: Digital in Place; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $19.50 million. 

Component: DHS - Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

Investment Title: Homeland Secure Data Network; 
Project Name: State and Local Fusion Center Build Out or Relocation; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.22 million. 

Investment Title: Homeland Secure Data Network; 
Project Name: Homeland Secure Data Network Enhancements; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.80 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure Transformation Program; 
Project Name: Data Center; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $161.90 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure Transformation Program; 
Project Name: Network; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $21.61 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure Transformation Program; 
Project Name: Email; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.14 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure Transformation Program; 
Project Name: Wireless; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.20 million. 

Component: FEMA: 

Investment Title: Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; 
Project Name: Disaster Management PMO; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.80 million. 

Investment Title: Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; 
Project Name: FEMA.gov migration to Drupal Content Management System; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $4.70 million. 

Investment Title: Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; 
Project Name: Text Messaging and Mobile Platform; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.50 million. 

Investment Title: Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; 
Project Name: RightNow CRM Integration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.50 million. 

Investment Title: Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; 
Project Name: Web Usability and Disaster Survivor Studies; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.00 million. 

Investment Title: Disaster Management E-Government Initiative; 
Project Name: DHS Enterprise Hosting and Environment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.69 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Public Alert & Warning System; 
Project Name: Emergency Alert System Primary Entry Point Expansion; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $30.17 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Public Alert & Warning System; 
Project Name: Emergency Alert System Primary Entry Point Site 
Modernization; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.84 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Public Alert & Warning System; 
Project Name: Integrated Public Alert & Warning System -OPEN 
Sustainment and Enhancement; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.40 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Public Alert & Warning System; 
Project Name: Emergency Alert System Primary Entry Point Operation and 
Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.70 million. 

Investment Title: Logistics Supply Chain Management; 
Project Name: Acquire Initial Operational Capability; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.16 million. 

Investment Title: Logistics Supply Chain Management; 
Project Name: Commercial Off The Shelf Upgrade; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $29.20 million. 

Investment Title: Logistics Supply Chain Management; 
Project Name: SOA GSS Integration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.63 million. 

Investment Title: Logistics Supply Chain Management; 
Project Name: Data Center Migration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.36 million. 

Investment Title: National Flood Insurance Program Information 
Technology Systems & Services; 
Project Name: SAR Remediation; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.09 million. 

Component: ICE: 

Investment Title: Criminal Alien Identification Initiatives; 
Project Name: Alien Criminal Response Information Management System 
Modernization; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.31 million. 

Investment Title: Criminal Alien Identification Initiatives; 
Project Name: Status Determination Support; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $5.58 million. 

Investment Title: Criminal Alien Identification Initiatives; 
Project Name: Automated Threat Prioritization; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $11.79 million. 

Investment Title: DRO Electronic Health Record System; 
Project Name: eHR Acquisition & Validation Study; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.42 million. 

Investment Title: DRO Electronic Health Record System; 
Project Name: eHR Acquisition & Deployment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Enforcement Information Sharing; 
Project Name: Data Pattern Information Collection System-2; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.88 million. 

Investment Title: Enforcement Information Sharing; 
Project Name: Law Enforcement Information Sharing Service; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.34 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure (Atlas); 
Project Name: Data Center Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $10.50 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure (Atlas); 
Project Name: Desktop Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $5.40 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure (Atlas); 
Project Name: Email Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.56 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure (Atlas); 
Project Name: Network Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.29 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure (Atlas); 
Project Name: Single Sign-On Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.76 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure (Atlas); 
Project Name: Video Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $4.50 million. 

Investment Title: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System; 
Project Name: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.96 million. 

Investment Title: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System; 
Project Name: Student and Exchange Visitor Information System II; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $4.70 million. 

Investment Title: TECS Modernization; 
Project Name: Core Case Management Release 1.0; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $21.55 million. 

Component: NPPD: 

Investment Title: FPS Risk Assessment and Management Program; 
Project Name: Risk Assessment and Management Program Maintenance 
Support; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.43 million. 

Investment Title: FPS Risk Assessment and Management Program; 
Project Name: FPS Modified Infrastructure Survey Tool Development; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.50 million. 

Investment Title: FPS Risk Assessment and Management Program; 
Project Name: FPS Gateway Development and Deployment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.35 million. 

Investment Title: FPS Risk Assessment and Management Program; 
Project Name: Follow-on Assessment Tool Development and Deployment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Component: TSA: 

Investment Title: Crew Vetting; 
Project Name: IBM Oasis WO#46; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.90 million. 

Investment Title: FAMSNet (Common Operating Environment); 
Project Name: Security Updates; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.09 million. 

Investment Title: FAMSNet (Common Operating Environment); 
Project Name: Software Patches; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.09 million. 

Investment Title: Information Technology Infrastructure Program; 
Project Name: TSA Enterprise Integrated Test Environment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $6.09 million. 

Investment Title: Information Technology Infrastructure Program; 
Project Name: TSA Enterprise Desktop Refresh; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $50.04 million. 

Investment Title: Information Technology Infrastructure Program; 
Project Name: TSA Enterprise Secure Mobile Computing; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.97 million. 

Investment Title: Information Technology Infrastructure Program; 
Project Name: TSA Enterprise IT Network Switches; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $12.00 million. 

Investment Title: Performance Management Information System; 
Project Name: Create Development Environment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.87 million. 

Investment Title: Performance Management Information System; 
Project Name: Commercial Off The Shelf Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.65 million. 

Investment Title: Performance Management Information System; 
Project Name: Performance Management Information System and PIMS 
Server/Application Migration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.33 million. 

Investment Title: Performance Management Information System; 
Project Name: Performance Management Information System, AIM, and PIMS 
Software Releases; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Performance Management Information System; 
Project Name: Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Secure Flight; 
Project Name: Functional Releases; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $6.77 million. 

Investment Title: Secure Flight; 
Project Name: Secure Flight User Interface Releases; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.59 million. 

Investment Title: Secure Flight; 
Project Name: Report Management System Releases; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.77 million. 

Investment Title: Secure Flight; 
Project Name: Maintenance Releases BY 11 Q4; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.20 million. 

Investment Title: Secure Flight; 
Project Name: Maintenance Releases BY 12; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.45 million. 

Investment Title: Technology Infrastructure Modernization Program; 
Project Name: Service Oriented Architecture Foundation; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $16.00 million. 

Investment Title: Technology Infrastructure Modernization Program; 
Project Name: Service Oriented Architecture Platform; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Transportation Worker Identification Credential; 
Project Name: 4th Quarter Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.80 million. 

Investment Title: Transportation Worker Identification Credential; 
Project Name: Pre-Transition and Formal Transition work; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.00 million. 

Investment Title: Transportation Worker Identification Credential; 
Project Name: 2012 Transportation Worker Identification Credential 
Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $16.60 million. 

Investment Title: Transportation Worker Identification Credential; 
Project Name: Transportation Worker Identification Credential Reader 
Certification; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.10 million. 

Investment Title: TSA Operating Platform; 
Project Name: Enterprise Applications; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.23 million. 

Investment Title: TSA Operating Platform; 
Project Name: Applications Development; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.21 million. 

Investment Title: TSA Operating Platform; 
Project Name: Cloud Computing; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.06 million. 

Component: USCG: 

Investment Title: Asset Logistics Management Information System; 
Project Name: Asset Logistics Management Information System Project; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $8.15 million. 

Investment Title: C4ISR; 
Project Name: Segment 2; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $56.48 million. 

Investment Title: C4ISR; 
Project Name: Prototype Segment 2; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $22.70 million. 

Investment Title: C4ISR; 
Project Name: Video and Mission Processor Redesign; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: C4ISR; 
Project Name: FRC Information Assurance/Authority To Operate; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.50 million. 

Investment Title: C4ISR; 
Project Name: National Security Cutters C4ISR Certification and 
Accreditation; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $5.00 million. 

Investment Title: C4ISR; 
Project Name: National Security Cutters 3-4 Operational Testing 
Support; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.50 million. 

Investment Title: Coast Guard-LIMS; 
Project Name: Segment 1; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $6.88 million. 

Investment Title: Direct Access; 
Project Name: Direct Access Technical Refresh; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.51 million. 

Investment Title: Direct Access; 
Project Name: Direct Access Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.09 million. 

Investment Title: Direct Access; 
Project Name: CG-1 PMO Support; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.77 million. 

Investment Title: Interagency Operations Centers; 
Project Name: Segment 1; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.04 million. 

Investment Title: Interagency Operations Centers; 
Project Name: Segment 2; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.53 million. 

Investment Title: Nationwide Automatic Identification System; 
Project Name: Increment 2; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $11.77 million. 

Investment Title: Nationwide Automatic Identification System; 
Project Name: Maintenance Support; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $6.49 million. 

Investment Title: Ports and Waterways Safety System - IT; 
Project Name: AIS Recapitalization; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.34 million. 

Investment Title: Ports and Waterways Safety System - IT; 
Project Name: INVS Recapitalization; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.32 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: Project Management; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $25.49 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: Engineering; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $30.40 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: System Support and Maintenance; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $37.36 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: Rescue 21 Deployment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $257.12 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: VSAT AC&I; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.63 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: R21 Western Rivers; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $5.64 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: R21 Alaska; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $9.50 million. 

Investment Title: Rescue 21; 
Project Name: Vessels; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Component: USCIS: 

Investment Title: Benefits Provision - Verification Information 
System/Employment Eligibility Verification; 
Project Name: Verification Information System; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.58 million. 

Investment Title: Benefits Provision - Verification Information 
System/Employment Eligibility Verification; 
Project Name: Verification Information System; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 - C&A; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.67 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS MF DC Migration Deploy; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.10 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 MF R.3.14; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.35 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 MFAS R1.6; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.30 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 FD258; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.30 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 ICMS R1.18; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.27 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 CRISI R 4.9; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.45 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 FBASI R1.7; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.45 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 BRU; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 ICMS R1.19; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 MF R3.15; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 MFAS R1.7; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 Quarterly Table Updates; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.34 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: CLAIMS 3 DBA Support; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $1.44 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: LAN R6.21 Testing & Deploy; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.03 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: LAN R6.22-Development; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.16 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: LAN R6.23; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.35 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: LAN R6.24; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.35 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: LAN R6.25; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: [Empty]. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: ICMS R1.17 - Testing; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.03 million. 

Investment Title: Immigration - CLAIMS 3.0; 
Project Name: FBASEI R1.6-Development; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.16 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: IT Physical Plant/HVAC/Electrical; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $4.58 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: IT Data and Voice Systems (hardware Upgrades); 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.02 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Video Upgrade Project; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.57 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Windows 7 and Office 2010; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.01 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Video End-of-Life; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.03 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Voice End-of-Life; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.03 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Application & Network Monitoring; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.01 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Telework Expansion (Citrix Enterprise Telework Project); 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.24 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Data Server Suites; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.50 million. 

Investment Title: Infrastructure (Enterprise); 
Project Name: Data & Voice circuits; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.05 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Document Production; 
Project Name: Redesigned EAD card; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.0 million6. 

Investment Title: Integrated Document Production; 
Project Name: Card Personalization System Technology Refreshment 
Release 1.1; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.42 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Document Production; 
Project Name: Optical Card Consumables Contract; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $7.20 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Document Production; 
Project Name: Non-Optical Card Consumables Contract; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.30 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Document Production; 
Project Name: Card Personalization System Technology Refreshment; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.40 million. 

Investment Title: Integrated Document Production; 
Project Name: Card Operations Services; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.50 million. 

Investment Title: Transformation; 
Project Name: Core Account and Case Management; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $756.28 million. 

Component: USSS: 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure; 
Project Name: End User Systems & Support Maintenance Activities; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $3.15 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure; 
Project Name: Mainframe and Servers Services & Support Maintenance 
Activities; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $0.12 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure; 
Project Name: Telecommunications Systems & Support Maintenance 
Activities; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $6.57 million. 

Investment Title: IT Infrastructure; 
Project Name: Datacenter Migration; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $18.00 million. 

Component: Totals; 
Investment Title: 47; 
Planned project costs[A,B]: $2.135 billion[C]. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB's federal IT dashboard data. 

[A] This is the sum of the investment's project costs as of March 8, 
2012. 

[B] Some projects do not have project costs, because DHS has not yet 
provided the costs to OMB, and the projects are not yet in development. 

[C] Differences in the total are due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: List of DHS Major IT Investments and Subsidiary Projects 
with Shortfalls: 

Table 6 lists the DHS major IT investments with cost and/or schedule 
shortfalls, their costs and subsidiary projects, whether or not they 
had a cost and/or schedule shortfall, and their planned costs. 

Table 6: List of DHS Major IT Investments with Cost and/or Schedule 
Shortfalls and Subsidiary Projects (cost in millions): 

Component: CBP: 

Investment title: 1. Automated Commercial Environment/International 
Trade Data System; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $124.26 million; 

Subsidiary projects: M1: e-Manifest Rail and Sea; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $10.22 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Cargo Control and Release Planning/ADE 2a/2b 
Approval Phase; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Task Order PROD; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $22.85 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Task Order ECOM; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $28.14 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Automated Commercial Environment Infrastructure 
Support; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $60.05 million. 

Investment title: 2. Land Border Integration; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $20.89 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Land Border Integration Phase 1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $20.9 million. 

Investment title: 3. Non-intrusive Inspection Systems Program; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $332.3 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Large Scale FY08; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $17.44 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Large Scale ARRA; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $61.93 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Small Scale ARRA; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.78 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Large-scale FY 2010; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $31.41 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Non-Intrusive Inspection Maintenance FY11; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $58.18 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Non-Intrusive Inspection Acquisition FY11; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $46.45 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Non-Intrusive Inspection Maintenance FY12; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $116.11 million. 

Investment title: 4. Northern Border, Remote Video Surveillance System; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $8.2 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Northern Border Project Remote Video Surveillance 
System; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.1 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Northern Border Project Remote Video Surveillance 
System; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $5.1 million. 

Investment title: 5. TECS Modernization; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $43.05 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Secondary Inspection; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $8.33 million. 

Subsidiary projects: High Performance Primary Query and Manifest 
Processing; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $8.65 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Travel Documents and Encounter Data; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $11.16 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Lookout Record Data Services; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $9.98 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Secondary Inspection Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $4.93 million. 

Component: DHS - Office of the Chief Information Officer: 

Investment title: 6. Human Resources IT; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $8.52 million. 

Subsidiary projects: EmpowHR Deployment; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.4 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Reporting Tool Development; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.79 million. 

Subsidiary projects: PAS; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.9 million. 

Subsidiary projects: HQ Survey Tool; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.03 million. 

Subsidiary projects: NFC VPN; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.18 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Balanced Workforce Survey Tool; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.19 million. 

Subsidiary projects: USAJOBS 3.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2.57 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Human Capital Segment Architecture; 
Cost shortfall: [Check]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.46 million. 

Component: FEMA: 

Investment title: 7. Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $50.5 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Surge IOC; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.85 million. 

Subsidiary projects: ForSee Satisfaction Survey Integration; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.04 million. 

Subsidiary projects: SMS Pilot; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.15 million. 

Subsidiary projects: HUD SOA Interface; 
Cost shortfall: [Check]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.78 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Sustainment; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.05 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Site Usability Improvements; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $5.78 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Development Support; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $6.68 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Louisiana DSNAP; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.09 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Address Locator Service; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.41 million. 

Subsidiary projects: DAIP Mobile Applicant Inquiry; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.25 million. 

Subsidiary projects: WFA: Income and Insurance Verification; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.59 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Other Needs Assistance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.36 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Usability and Portal Consolidation; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2.71 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Centralized Application; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.59 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Common State Application; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.59 million. 

Subsidiary projects: SMS Phase II; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.19 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Interface Enhancements FY 2012; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.36 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Coordinated Assistance Network; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: Interface Enhancements FY 2013; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: Stakeholder Outreach; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.34 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Program Support; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $20.69 million. 

Component: ICE: 

Investment title: 8. Detention and Removal Operations Modernization; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $8.62 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Risk Classification Assessment; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2.62 million. 

Subsidiary projects: EARM 4.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $4 million. 

Subsidiary projects: EARM 3.0 Release 2; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2 million. 

Component: NPPD: 

Investment title: 9. Critical Infrastructure Technology and 
Architecture; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $20.55 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Protected Critical Infrastructure Information 
Management System: Development, Modification, and Enhancement; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.58 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Protected Critical Infrastructure Information 
Management System: Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.5 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Infrastructure Protection Gateway: Development, 
Modification, & Enhancement; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.5 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Infrastructure Protection Gateway: Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.26 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Infrastructure Information Collection System: 
Development, Modification, & Enhancement; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2.46 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Infrastructure Information Collection System: 
Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $4.56 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Infrastructure Protection Share: Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.84 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Automated Critical Asset Management System: 
Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.75 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Technical Resource for Incident Prevention Wire: 
Main; 
Cost shortfall: [Check]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.86 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Web Emergency Operations Center: Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.38 million. 

Investment title: 10. Infrastructure Security Compliance-Chemical 
Security Assessment Tool; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $72.76 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Ammonium Nitrate Analysis of IT Requirements FY11 
Q4 Close Out; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.29 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Case Management FY11 Q4 close out; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.62 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Chemical Security Assessment Tool Enhancements FY 
2011; Q4 Close Out; 
Cost shortfall: [Check]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.65 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Production System Update FY11 Q4 close out EA; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.19 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Ammonium Nitrate DME; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $5.34 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Case Management DME; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $6.07 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Chemical Security Assessment Tool DME; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $10.14 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Develop staging environment for Development & 
Testing; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $33.81. million. 

Subsidiary projects: Production Environment Migration to DHS DC; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: Maintenance Support FY11 Q4 Close Out; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $7.31 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Maintenance Support; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $33.35 million. 

Investment title: 11. National Cybersecurity Protection System; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $262.6 million. 

Subsidiary projects: National Cybersecurity Protection System Block 
2.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.77 million. 

Subsidiary projects: National Cybersecurity Protection System Block 
2.1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2.58 million. 

Subsidiary projects: National Cybersecurity Protection System Block 
2.2; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: National Cybersecurity Protection System Block 
3.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $96.45 million. 

Subsidiary projects: National Cybersecurity Protection System 
Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $162.8 million. 

Investment title: 12. Next Generation Networks Priority Services; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $63.06 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Core SP1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $6.36 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Core SP2; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $20.19 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Core SP3; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $25.89 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Common; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $10.62 million. 

Investment title: 13. US-VISIT: Arrival and Departure Information 
System; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $7.18 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Arrival and Departure Information System FY 2011 
Maintenance Release Project; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.98 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Arrival and Departure Information System FY 2012 
Maintenance Release Project; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $5.2 million. 

Subsidiary projects: ADIS FY13 Maintenance Release Project; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Investment title: 14. US-VISIT: Automated Biometric Identification 
System; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $33.24 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Automated Biometric Identification System FY 2011; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $14.56 million. 

Subsidiary projects: IDENT FY 2012; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $18.68 million. 

Subsidiary projects: IDENT FY 2013; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Component: TSA: 

Investment title: 15. Air Cargo Security; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $4.09 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Known Shipper Management System 1.3; 
Cost shortfall: [Check]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.55 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Known Shipper Management System 1.4; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.74 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Known Shipper Management System 1.5; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: Indirect Air Carrier Management System 2.5; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.44 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Indirect Air Carrier Management System 2.6; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.55 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Freight Assessment System 3.1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.33 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Freight Assessment System 4.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.6 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Freight Assessment System 4.1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: Freight Assessment System 3.9; 
Cost shortfall: [Check]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.19 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Indirect Air Carrier Management System 2.7; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.68 million. 

Investment title: 16. Federal Air Marshal Service Mission Scheduling 
and Notification System; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $5.43 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Scheduling Software Modernization; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.02 million. 

Subsidiary projects: DC2 Migration; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.76 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Hardware Modernization; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.45 million. 

Subsidiary projects: IRIS Production Integration; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: ARES Production Integration; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: Portal Modernization; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.2 million. 

Subsidiary projects: FAMIS Modernization; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $2 million. 

Investment title: 17. Hazmat Threat Assessment Program; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $4.09 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Hazardous Materials Endorsement SG Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.74 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Hazardous Materials Endorsement Comparability; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.4 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Hazardous Materials Endorsement SG Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.95 million. 

Investment title: 19. Security Technology Integrated Program; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $27.99 million. 

Subsidiary projects: TSE Data Management FY2011; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.69 million. 

Subsidiary projects: TSE Data Management FY 2012; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $5.54 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Remote Monitoring and Maintenance/Maintenance 
Ticket Application FY 2011; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.35 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Remote Monitoring and Maintenance /Maintenance 
Ticket Application FY2012; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $4.51 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Security Equipment Modernization FY 2011; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.27 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Security Equipment Modernization FY 2012; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $10.64 million. 

Component: USCG: 

Investment title: 19. Coast Guard Business Intelligence; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $0.86 million. 

Subsidiary projects: CGBI 3.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.16 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Cognos 10 Upgrade; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.25 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Predictive Analytics Capability; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.25 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Data Quality Capability; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.2 million. 

Component: USCIS: 

Investment title: 20. Naturalization: CLAIMS 4; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $2.36 million. 

Subsidiary projects: CLAIMS 4 Release 8.5; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.9 million. 

Subsidiary projects: CLAIMS 4 Release 8.6; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.9 million. 

Subsidiary projects: CLAIMS 4 Release 8.7; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: [Empty]. 

Subsidiary projects: CLAIMS 4 Security; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.1 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Release 8.5.0.1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.08 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Lean Agile Release 8.5.1.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.08 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Lean Agile Release 8.5.2.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.08 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Lean Agile Release 8.5.3.0; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.08 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Release 8.5.2.1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.02 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Release 8.5.3.1; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $0.02. million. 

Component: USSS: 

Investment title: 21. Information Integration and Technology 
Transformation; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $43.61 million. 

Subsidiary projects: IT Modernization; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $12.68 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Cyber Security; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $5 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Database Architecture & Maintenance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $6.303 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Information Assurance; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $3.327 million. 

Subsidiary projects: COLD2; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $10 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Cross Domain/Multi-Level Security; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Check]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $4.5 million. 

Subsidiary projects: Communications Capabilities; 
Cost shortfall: [Empty]; 
Schedule shortfall: [Empty]; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.8 million. 

Component: Total: 
Investment title: 21; 
Total planned project costs[A]: $1.144 billion; 
Cost shortfall: 6; 
Schedule shortfall: 34; 
Planned project costs[B]: $1.143 billion[C]. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB's federal IT Dashboard data. 

[A] This is the sum of the investment's project costs as of March 8, 
2012. 

[B] Some projects do not have project costs, because DHS has not yet 
provided the costs to OMB, and the projects are not yet in development. 

[C] Differences in the total are due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

September 19, 2012: 

David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-12-904, "Information Technology: DHS Needs to
Enhance Management of Cost and Schedule for Major Investments" 

Dear Mr. Powner: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive acknowledgment that 
DHS is meeting cost and schedule commitments for most of our major 
Information Technology (IT) investments. We are also pleased to note 
GAO's recognition of our plans and efforts underway to improve our 
cost-estimating capabilities, as well as our efforts underway to 
implement a Requirements Engineering Center of Excellence.
The draft report contained two recommendations with which the 
Department concurs. 

Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
direct the appropriate officials to: 

Recommendation 1: Establish guidance that provides for developing 
corrective efforts for major IT investment projects that are 
experiencing cost and schedule shortfalls of 10 percent or greater, 
similar to those identified in the report. 

Response: Concur. DHS is currently reviewing and revising its 
Acquisition Management Directive (Directive 102-01), which guides 
acquisition oversight, regarding corrective actions for projects 
supporting major IT investments that experience cost and schedule 
shortfalls of 10 percent or greater. DHS expects approval and 
publication of the revised directive and development of supporting 
guidance by September 30, 2013. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure that major IT investment projects with 
shortfalls of 10 percent or greater have defined and documented 
corrective efforts. 

Response: Concur. DHS Office of Chief Information Officer personnel 
will immediately advise program officials with on-going projects 
having shortfalls of 10 percent or greater that they must define and 
document corrective actions. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, the following staff also made 
key contributions to this report: Gary Mountjoy (assistant director), 
Scott Borre, Camille Chaires, and Nancy Glover. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] DHS defines a major IT Investment as one whose cost is $50 million 
or more. 

[2] In that report--entitled GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Requires More 
Disciplined Investment Management to Help Meet Mission Needs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-833] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 18, 2012)--we assessed the extent to which (1) DHS's major 
acquisition programs face challenges that increase the risk of poor 
outcomes; (2) DHS has policies and processes in place to effectively 
manage individual acquisition programs; (3) DHS has policies and 
processes in place to effectively manage its portfolio of acquisition 
programs as a whole; and (4) DHS has taken actions to address the high-
risk acquisition management issues we have identified in previous 
reports. The report focused on, among other things, the extent to 
which major acquisitions were achieving their cost, schedule, and 
capability objectives and whether the department had policies in place 
to effectively manage these acquisition programs. 

[3] Commitments are cost and schedule goals or targets that the 
department defined for the investment in its investment planning and 
approval documents, such as cost and schedule baselines. 

[4] Major IT investments--which are typically multiyear efforts--are 
made up of one or more subsidiary projects. A project is a temporary 
effort (e.g., 9 months) to accomplish a unique product or service such 
as adding enhancements to a system. 

[5] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for 
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2004). 

[6] Office of Management and Budget, 25 Point Implementation Plan to 
Reform Federal Information Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: 
Dec. 9, 2010). 

[7] The CIO Council is comprised of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs of 28 
agencies and is chaired by OMB's Deputy Director for Management. It is 
the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices related 
to the design, acquisition, development, modernization, use, sharing, 
and performance of federal information resources and is responsible 
for developing recommendations for overall federal IT management 
policy, sharing best practices, including the development of 
performance measures, and identifying opportunities and sponsoring 
cooperation in using information resources. 

[8] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to 
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 
2007) and Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its 
Proposed Investment in Key Technology Program, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-340] (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 
2010). 

[9] GAO, Homeland Security: Key US-VISIT Components at Varying Stages 
of Completion, but Integrated and Reliable Schedule Needed, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-13] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 19, 2009). 

[10] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2011). 

[11] GAO, Information Technology: DHS Needs to Further Define and 
Implement Its New Governance Process, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-818] (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

[12] GAO, Information Technology Cost Estimation: Agencies Need to 
Address Significant Weaknesses in Policies and Practices, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-629] (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

[13] GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for 
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-629]. 

[15] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Assessments of Selected 
Complex Acquisitions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-588SP] (Washington, D.C.: June 
2010). 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-818]. 

[17] Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Management 
Directive, Directive Number 102-01 (Jan. 20, 2010) and Department of 
Homeland Security, Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide, 
version 7.2 (October 2011). 

[18] Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Management 
Directive, Directive Number 102-01 (Jan. 20, 2010) and Department of 
Homeland Security, Capital Planning and Investment Control Guide, 
version 7.2 (October 2011). 

[19] GAO, Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its 
Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure 
Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] 
(Washington, D.C.; Mar. 15, 2011). 

[20] Department of Homeland Security, Acquisition Management 
Directive, Directive Number 102-01 (Jan. 20, 2010). 

[21] Department of Homeland Security, Capital Planning and Investment 
Control Guide, version 7.2 (October 2011). 

[22] GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework 
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-394G] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2004). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

[End of document] 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.