A new government report credited the Department of Homeland Security
with trying to coordinate smart equipment and service procurements,
but stated the endeavor needs better resources and organization
to ensure money and effort are not wasted.
DHS has been trying to tie together its diverse agencies by forming
department-wide requirements for specific goods, such as weapons,
office supplies and boats. The Government Accountability Office
was asked to highlight successfully coordinated programs and spotlight
areas where the effort is falling short.
“In the two years since its merger, DHS has taken strides
toward putting in place an acquisition organization that contains
many promising elements,” the report stated. “But the
steps taken so far are not enough to ensure that the department
is effectively managing the acquisition of the multitude of goods
and services it needs to meet its mission.”
As positive efforts, the GAO cited good collaboration in some purchasing
programs, such as a small business outreach program. Designated
representatives in all DHS offices serve as liaisons with small
businesses to make sure they are kept abreast of new opportunities.
“DHS has an opportunity, while it is still involved in transformational
efforts, to avoid the complications that plague acquisition efforts
in other long established federal departments,” the report
said.
But more needs to be done to fully integrate the department’s
acquisitions, and lessen the redundancies between the department’s
Chief Procurement Officer and the multitude of organizations within
DHS. The report painted the office as underfunded and understaffed.
The report also recommended a formal pre-production design review
of new products to ensure products have been proven through prototype
testing. The report also suggested a process by which program managers
supply additional information, such as cost and schedule estimates
and critical design data.
While DHS officials answered favorably to the recommendations in
their response to the GAO report, the authors took issue with some
of the details they included.
“Regarding three of our recommendations on the investment
review process, DHS stated that the actions exist in current directives
and are already being done. We disagree,” the report noted.
“For example, DHS’ mandatory review...does not occur
until after low-rate initial production is well under way...Our
past work has shown that investments that were not reviewed at the
appropriate points faced problems that resulted in cost increases
and schedule delays.”