Immigration Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS's Acquisition Policy Could Help Improve Transformation Program Outcomes

In November 2011 , we reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had not consistently followed the acquisition management approach that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) outlined in its management directives in developing and managing the Transformation Program. In particular, USCIS's individual schedules for the Transformation Program did not meet best practices for schedule estimating, raising questions about the credibility of the program's life-cycle cost estimates. Thus, we recommended that USCIS ensure program schedules are consistent with the nine estimating best practices. On May 4, 2015, DHS approved a new Transformation Program Acquisition Program Baseline and supporting documentation. In October 2015, we interviewed USCIS officials related to the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the Transformation Program and, in December 2015, USCIS provided us with an updated version of the IMS and supporting documentation. On the basis of our review of USCIS documentation, we determined that the Transformation Program schedule did not meet one best practice, minimally met one best practice, partially met two best practices, and substantially met five best practices. While the IMS submitted for assessment in November 2015 does not meet all best practices, we note that USCIS has made substantial improvements in the quality of the schedule since our report. In particular, key best practices such as sequencing logic, horizontal and vertical integration, establishing critical paths through projects, and updating the status of the schedule have improved since the report was issued. Thus, we are closing this recommendation, as implemented. Having reliable and integrated schedules for the Transformation Program should help provide a road map for systematic project execution and a means to gauge progress, identify and resolve potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels of the program.

In November 2011, we reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) did not have an integrated master schedule (IMS) for the entire Transformation program. We reported that, according to program officials, when the Transformation Program's planning efforts began, USCIS was unable to develop an integrated master schedule for the Transformation Program due to the complexity of integrating the numerous individual schedules and the lack of skilled staff necessary to develop and manage such an integrated master schedule. In addition, we reported that program officials explained that scheduling software to develop and maintain individual schedules was not used by every organization performing transformation work. Thus, we recommended that USCIS develop and maintain an IMS for the Transformation Program consistent with GAO's best practices for schedule estimating. On the basis of our review of USCIS documentation, we found that USCIS had taken action to consolidate all of its planned efforts into an IMS. Specifically, the planned effort spans software releases out to 2018 and program management activities through 2020. Having an IMS for the Transformation Program that is consistent with GAO's best practices should help integrate all the scheduled work, including the effort necessary from all government, contractor, and other key parties.

In November 2011, GAO reported that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) lacked reliable schedules for its Transformation Program. Therefore, GAO found that USCIS's ability to develop reliable life-cycle cost estimates for the Transformation Program was hampered. As outlined by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acquisition management guidance, a life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) is a required and critical element in the acquisition process. GAO reported that USCIS had developed and updated the LCCE for the Transformation Program, but USCIS's individual schedules for the Transformation Program did not meet best practices for schedule estimating, thus raising questions about the credibility of the program's LCCEs. As a result, GAO recommended that USCIS ensure that the LCCE for the Transformation Program is informed by milestones and associated tasks from reliable schedules that are developed in accordance with the nine best practices that GAO identified. USCIS approved a new Transformation Program Acquisition Program Baseline, on May 4, 2015, and provided it to GAO. In addition, in October 2015, we interviewed USCIS officials related to the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the Transformation Program and, in December 2015, USCIS provided us with an updated version of the IMS and supporting documentation. On the basis of our review of USCIS documentation, we determined that the Transformation Program schedule did not meet one best practice, minimally met one best practice, partially met two best practices, and substantially met five best practices. While the IMS submitted for assessment in November 2015 did not meet all best practices, we note that USCIS has made substantial improvements in the quality of the schedule since our report. In particular, key best practices such as sequencing logic, horizontal and vertical integration, establishing critical paths through projects, and updating the status of the schedule have improved since the report was issued. According to USCIS officials, the Department of Homeland Security's Chief Financial Officer approved a revised LCCE in April 2013, which USCIS updated further December 2014 before a final version was approved in April 2015. On the basis of our analysis of the LCCE and related schedule for the Transformation Program, we found that the cost estimate defines the program and reflects the current schedule, which we have determined is generally consistent with GAO best practices. Having a LCCE that is informed by reliable schedules should help USCIS determine the basis for informed investment decision making, realistic budget formulation and program resourcing, meaningful progress measurement, proactive course correction when warranted, and accountability for results.