“For 9 years, the Government Accountability Office has been telling the DHS in its high-risk list that its acquisition programs are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
In addition, the DHS inspector general has identified acquisition management as a major management challenge for DHS, and it audits have found serious mismanagement in TSA body scanners and canine teams, failures to improve radio systems, and waste in CBP and Coast Guard helicopters”, said Rep. Duncan.
On June 9, 2014 Rep. Duncan of South Carolina made a motion in regard to H.R. 4228 a bill to require the Department of Homeland Security to improve discipline, accountability, and transparency in acquisition program management, as amended.
He also made the followings statement :
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to improve the Department of Homeland Security’s, DHS, acquisition management. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, DHS was created to ensure such an attack would never occur again; yet for much of its existence, proper management has taken a back seat.
DHS is now the third largest Federal department with a budget authority of almost $60 billion. A significant amount of the budget is used to buy systems and programs used to secure our borders, protect our shores, and scan people and cargo coming into the United States, among other missions. Unfortunately, many of these major acquisition programs cost more, are late, and do less than is expected.
For 9 years, the Government Accountability Office has been telling the DHS in its high-risk list that its acquisition programs are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
In addition, the DHS inspector general has identified acquisition management as a major management challenge for DHS, and it audits have found serious mismanagement in TSA body scanners and canine teams, failures to improve radio systems, and waste in CBP and Coast Guard helicopters.
Although DHS has taken steps to implement an acquisition policy with elements of commercial best practices and put mechanisms in place to review programs, it has routinely failed to hold programs accountable. This must change. DHS cannot afford its major acquisition programs. In a time of reduced budgets, DHS must make every dollar count.
Today’s legislation, H.R. 4228, the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act, follows consistent subcommittee oversight of DHS acquisition issues. In the 112th Congress, the subcommittee published an August 2012 report providing recommendations for DHS to correct weaknesses in its acquisition and contracting practices. This report went unheeded, and the weaknesses remain to this day.
In the 113th Congress, we have sent numerous letters to DHS and the GAO requiring greater scrutiny on various acquisition programs, and in September 2013, we held a hearing on ways that the DHS could use best practices from the Defense Department and private sector to save taxpayer dollars in acquisition management.
In view of these efforts, I am pleased that the bipartisan cooperation that the ranking member and I have had in drafting H.R. 4228, and I am grateful for the strong support this bill has received.
I would also like to note letters of support from the Project Management Institute, Security Industry Association, Professional Services Council, TechAmerica, IT Alliance for Public Sector, and the American Conservative Union. Business Executives for National Security has also stated its support publicly.
This bill addresses DHS’ acquisition problems in several ways. First, it requires leadership accountability from the chief acquisition officer and components in following Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and DHS acquisition management directives.
Second, it requires discipline. Every major acquisition program must have an approved acquisition program baseline, an APB, which is a vital document that DHS programs need to measure performance, manage cost growth, and schedule slips; and the acquisition review board must validate acquisition documents of programs.
Third, it provides clarity for American businesses by authorizing the chief procurement officer to serve as the main liaison to industry and oversee a certification and training program for DHS’ acquisition workforce; by requiring a multiyear acquisition strategy to guide the direction of DHS acquisitions and help industry better understand, plan, and align resources to meet future acquisition needs of DHS; and by compelling DHS to address issues regarding bid protests.
Fourth, this bill increases transparency by requiring DHS to report to Congress on programs that failed to meet cost, schedule, or performance parameters specified in the APB and by instructing DHS to eliminate unnecessary duplication and inefficiency.
I believe we have a precedent for such efforts under President Ronald Reagan’s leadership. In the 1980s, he worked with Congress to address these types of issues in troubled defense programs, and I believe that DHS needs similar leadership from today’s President and Congress.
H.R. 4228 will not solve every acquisition problem that DHS has, but it is a first step in forcing DHS to hold its acquisition programs accountable. This bill will help find cost savings through better management policies and strategies.
This is essential if our government is ever going to climb out of the $17.5 trillion worth of debt. It starts one good decision at a time, and DHS can make a difference by improving its acquisition management and by thinking more strategically about its acquisition choices. The American people deserve nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.”
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Department of Homeland Security does not consistently implement its policies and Government and private sector best practices for acquisitions and procurement.
(2) It is difficult to determine the cost of the Department’s major acquisition programs because the Department has not provided consistent, comparable updates on an annual basis. As of January 2014, the Department identified over 80 major acquisition programs costing over $300,000,000, and, based on 2011, estimates it plans to spend about $170,000,000,000 in the future on major acquisition programs.
(3) Since 2005, the Government Accountability Office has placed Department acquisition management activities on its “High-Risk List”, which identifies Government operations that have greater susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or greater need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.
(4) While the Department has taken actions to address some high-risk acquisition program management issues, many programs continue to experience challenges with funding instability, workforce shortfalls, reliable cost estimates, realistic schedules, agreed-upon baseline objectives, and consistent and reliable data needed to accurately measure program performance.
(5) Of the 77 Department major acquisition programs in 2011, the Government Accountability Office identified 42 programs that experienced cost growth, schedule slips, or both. The Department reported that the magnitude of the cost growth for 16 of the 42 programs, which increased from almost $20,000,000,000 to over $50,000,000,000 in 2011, had an aggregate increase of 166 percent.
(6) In 2012, the Government Accountability Office found that only 20 of 63 programs had Department-approved acquisition program baselines. The Government Accountability Office also reported that the Department planned to spend more than $105 billion on programs lacking acquisition program baselines.
Congressional hearing eliminating fraud, waste,abuse at DHS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW1siQ-gc5g
See video audio cast Contract Fraud DHS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhvKrschDs