Department of Homeland Security
Status and Accountability Challenges Associated with the Use of Special DHS Acquisition Authority Gao ID: GAO-08-471T February 7, 2008Other transaction authority was created to enhance the federal government's ability to acquire cutting-edge science and technology by attracting nontraditional contractors that have not typically pursued government contracts. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 granted the department the temporary authority to enter into other transactions for research and prototype projects for a period of 5 years. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 extended this authority until September 30, 2008. This testimony discusses (1) the extent to which DHS has used its other transaction authority, (2) the status of DHS's implementation of GAO's previous recommendations, and (3) the accountability challenges associated with the use of these agreements.
DHS entered into 37 other transaction agreements between fiscal years 2004 and 2007, most of which were entered into in the first 2 years. Though it has since used this authority less frequently, it continues to obligate funds for its earliest agreements. Furthermore, about 77 percent of the dollars spent on these agreements have been for 7 of DHS's 37 agreements. Contracting representatives also told us that all of the agreements to date were for prototype projects and that each agreement included at least one nontraditional contractor. GAO plans further review of DHS's use of other transaction agreements as required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. DHS has made efforts to improve its use of other transaction agreements and to prevent conflicts of interest. The department has taken the following steps to address prior GAO recommendations including: (1) creating guidance on when to include audit provisions in other transaction agreements; (2)creating a training program on using these agreements; (3) and improving controls over conflicts of interest. GAO also recommended that DHS capture knowledge gained from the agreements it has entered into. The department has compiled lessons learned from the Department of Defense, but the document is not related to DHS's experience. Furthermore, while DHS created guidance on when to include audit provisions in agreements, its guidance only applies to certain prototype projects and only in certain circumstances. Risks inherent with the use of other transaction agreements create several accountability challenges. These challenges include attracting and ensuring the use of nontraditional contractors, acquiring intellectual property rights, ensuring financial control, and maintaining a skilled acquisition workforce with the expertise to create and maintain these agreements.
GAO-08-471T, Department of Homeland Security: Status and Accountability Challenges Associated with the Use of Special DHS Acquisition Authority
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-471T
entitled 'Department of Homeland Security: Status and Accountability
Challenges Associated with the Use of Special DHS Acquisition
Authority' which was released on February 7, 2008.
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:
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,
and Science and Technology, Committee on Homeland Security Committee,
House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Thursday, February 7, 2008:
Department Of Homeland Security:
Status and Accountability Challenges Associated with the Use of Special
DHS Acquisition Authority:
Statement of:
John K. Needham:
Acting Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
GAO-08-471T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-471T, a report to the Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, Committee on
Homeland Security Committee, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Other transaction authority was created to enhance the federal
government‘s ability to acquire cutting-edge science and technology by
attracting nontraditional contractors that have not typically pursued
government contracts. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 granted the
department the temporary authority to enter into other transactions for
research and prototype projects for a period of 5 years. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 extended this authority until
September 30, 2008.
This testimony discusses (1) the extent to which DHS has used its other
transaction authority, (2) the status of DHS‘s implementation of GAO‘s
previous recommendations, and (3) the accountability challenges
associated with the use of these agreements.
What GAO Found:
DHS entered into 37 other transaction agreements between fiscal years
2004 and 2007, most of which were entered into in the first 2 years.
Though it has since used this authority less frequently, it continues
to obligate funds for its earliest agreements. Furthermore, about 77
percent of the dollars spent on these agreements have been for 7 of
DHS‘s 37 agreements. Contracting representatives also told us that all
of the agreements to date were for prototype projects and that each
agreement included at least one nontraditional contractor. GAO plans
further review of DHS‘s use of other transaction agreements as required
by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
DHS has made efforts to improve its use of other transaction agreements
and to prevent conflicts of interest. The department has taken the
following steps to address prior GAO recommendations including:
* creating guidance on when to include audit provisions in other
transaction agreements;
* creating a training program on using these agreements; and;
* improving controls over conflicts of interest.
GAO also recommended that DHS capture knowledge gained from the
agreements it has entered into. The department has compiled lessons
learned from the Department of Defense, but the document is not related
to DHS‘s experience. Furthermore, while DHS created guidance on when to
include audit provisions in agreements, its guidance only applies to
certain prototype projects and only in certain circumstances.
Risks inherent with the use of other transaction agreements create
several accountability challenges. These challenges include attracting
and ensuring the use of nontraditional contractors, acquiring
intellectual property rights, ensuring financial control, and
maintaining a skilled acquisition workforce with the expertise to
create and maintain these agreements.
DHS‘s Other Transaction Agreements and Related Spending from Fiscal
Year 2004 to 2007 (approximations in millions):
Year: 2004;
Number of other transaction agreements: 13 million;
Total value of other transaction agreements: 350 million.
Year: 2005;
Number of other transaction agreements: 17 million;
Total value of other transaction agreements: 45 million.
Year: 2006;
Number of other transaction agreements: 4 million;
Total value of other transaction agreements: 5 million.
Year: 2007;
Number of other transaction agreements: 4.5 million;
Total value of other transaction agreements: 50 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
What GAO Recommends:
While GAO is not making recommendations in this testimony, GAO has made
recommendations over the past few years to help improve DHS‘s Science
and Technology Directorate‘s use its other transaction authority. The
department has generally concurred with these recommendations and has
taken action to improve its use of other transaction authority, but has
not fully addressed all of GAO‘s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-471T]. For more information, contact John
K. Needham at (202) 512-4841 or needhamjk1@gao.gov.
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) use of its other transaction authority.
According to DHS officials, this authority, which is set to expire in
September 2008, is a critical tool because it has given the department
the flexibility to attract new contractors to help develop and manage
the mission of an integrated program of science and technology from
basic research to production. However, the flexibility afforded by
other transaction authority also carries the risk of reduced
accountability and transparency. For this reason, it is important to
monitor the use of this authority to help ensure that the benefits
outweigh the risks to the government. We have previously reviewed DHS's
use of this authority and ethics related management controls and made
recommendations for improvements.
My statement today will focus on (1) the extent to which DHS has used
its other transaction authority, (2) the status of DHS's implementation
of GAO's previous recommendations, and (3) the accountability
challenges associated with the use of these agreements. In preparation
for this hearing, we obtained recent data on other transaction
agreements from DHS and looked at several of these agreements,
interviewed DHS representatives from the Science and Technology
Directorate, reviewed related reports and studies, and identified the
efforts DHS has made to address our previous recommendations.[Footnote
1] We conducted our work from January to February 2008 and in
accordance with the 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. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We plan to conduct
additional audit work on DHS's use of other transaction authority as
required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Summary:
In fiscal years 2004 through 2007, DHS entered into 37 other
transaction agreements with a total value of $443 million. DHS entered
into most of the agreements in the first 2 fiscal years, with only
seven new agreements in 2006 and 2007 combined. Most of the spending
was for a small number of its earliest agreements. Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate contracting representatives stated that
all of the 37 agreements were for prototype projects and included at
least one nontraditional contractor.
DHS has taken steps to improve its use of other transaction agreements
and to avoid conflicts of interest. Specifically, the department has
developed guidance on when to include audit provisions in agreements,
developed an other transaction agreement training program, and improved
management controls over conflicts of interest. DHS also created a
document on lessons learned to capture knowledge gained from using
other transactions, but the document is not specific to DHS's
experience.
Risks inherent with the use of other transaction agreements create
several accountability challenges. These challenges include attracting
and ensuring the use of nontraditional contractors, acquiring
intellectual property rights, ensuring financial control, and
maintaining a skilled acquisition workforce.
Background:
Other transaction authority was created to enhance the federal
government's ability to acquire cutting-edge science and technology by
attracting nontraditional contractors that have not typically pursued
government contracts. Other transactions are agreements other than
government contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements and may take a
number of forms. These agreements are generally not subject to the FAR.
This authority originated in 1958 when Congress gave the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) the authority to enter into
contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or "other transactions." In
1989, Congress granted the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) temporary authority to use other transactions for advanced
research projects. In 1991, Congress made this authority permanent and
extended it to the military services. In 1993, Congress temporarily
expanded DARPA's other transaction authority, allowing the agency to
use the agreements for prototype projects. The Homeland Security Act of
2002 created DHS and granted the agency the authority to enter into
other transactions for research and development and prototype projects
for a period of 5 years. Congress granted DHS this authority to attract
nontraditional[Footnote 2] firms that have not worked with the federal
government, such as high-tech commercial firms that have resisted doing
business with the government because of the requirements mandated by
the laws and regulations that apply to traditional FAR contracts. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 extended this authority until
September 30, 2008.[Footnote 3]
DHS began operations in March 2003 incorporating 22 federal agencies to
coordinate and centralize the leadership of many homeland security
activities under a single department.[Footnote 4] Since then, DHS has
become the third largest agency for procurement spending in the U.S.
government. DHS's acquisition needs range from basic services to
complex investments, such as sophisticated screening equipment for air
passenger security and upgrading the Coast Guard's offshore fleet of
surface and air assets. In fiscal year 2006, according to agency data,
the department obligated $15.9 billion for goods and services to
support its broad and complex acquisition portfolio. DHS's S&T
Directorate supports the department's mission by serving as its primary
research and development arm. In fiscal year 2006, according to S&T
data, S&T obligated over $1.16 billion dollars to fund and develop
technology in support of homeland security missions. The directorate
has funded technology research and development in part through the use
of other transaction authority. According to agency officials, S&T is
the only component within DHS that uses this authority. Because of
their flexibility, other transactions give DHS considerable latitude in
negotiating with contractors on issues such as intellectual property,
reporting on cost, and data rights. In addition, it may relieve the
parties from certain contract administration requirements that
nontraditional contractors find burdensome.
DHS's Use of Other Transaction Authority Has Declined Since Fiscal Year
2005:
The number and value of DHS's other transaction agreements has
decreased since 2005. Its recent other transaction agreements represent
just a small portion of its total procurement spending. Most of the
department's use of other transaction authority to date occurred
between fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Though it has since used this
authority less frequently, it continues to obligate funds for its
earliest agreements. About 77 percent of the $443 million spent on
DHS's agreements has been on 7 of the 37 agreements. S&T contracting
representatives reported that all of these agreements were for
prototype projects.
In fiscal year 2006, other transactions accounted for almost $153
million of DHS's reported $15.9 billion in procurement obligations,
approximately 1 percent (see fig. 1). In addition, other transactions
represent only a small portion of S&T spending. For example, the
department estimates that from fiscal years 2004 through 2007, S&T
spent 13 percent of its total obligations on its other transaction
agreements.[Footnote 5]
Figure 1: DHS Other Transaction Spending as a Portion of Science &
Technology and Overall Procurement Spending, Fiscal Year 2006:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
* DHS 2006 procurement obligations (without S&T): 93%;
* S&T 2006 total procurement obligations: 7%;
- All other S&T 2006 obligations: 6%;
- S&T 2006 other transaction obligations: 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
[End of figure]
DHS reported a total of 37 other transaction agreements, 30 of which
were entered into in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Accordingly, 88
percent of total spending was for agreements reached in fiscal years
2004 and 2005 (see fig. 2). While the total number of new agreements
has decreased since 2005, the total obligations under these agreements
have generally increased because funds are obligated for agreements
made in prior years (see fig. 3).
Figure 2: DHS's Other Transaction Agreements by Agreement Fiscal Year
and Associated Obligations:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a combination line and vertical bar graph depicting the
following data:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Agreements per year: 13;
Total spent by agreement year: $16 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Agreements per year: 17;
Total spent by agreement year: $2 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Agreements per year: 3;
Total spent by agreement year: 0.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Agreements per year: 4;
Total spent by agreement year: $50 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: DHS's Other Transaction Agreements and Associated Obligations
by Fiscal Year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a combination line and vertical bar graph depicting the
following data:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Agreements per year: 13;
Total spent by fiscal year: $75 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Agreements per year: 17;
Total spent by fiscal year: $120 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Agreements per year: 3;
Total spent by fiscal year: $150 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Agreements per year: 4;
Total spent by fiscal year: $130 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
[End of figure]
About 77 percent of obligations was for the seven largest other
transaction agreements (see appendix I). According to S&T, all of these
agreements included at least one nontraditional contractor, most
commonly as a subcontractor.
Though the acquisition outcomes related to DHS's use of other
transaction authority have not been formally assessed, the department
estimates that at least some of these agreements have resulted in time
and cost savings. According to an S&T contracting representative, all
of its current agreements are for development of prototypes, but none
of the projects have yet reached production. Therefore, it is too soon
to evaluate the results. However, the department believes that some of
these agreements have reduced the time it takes to develop its current
programs, as compared to a traditional FAR-based contract. In addition,
DHS has stated that its two cost-sharing agreements for development of
its Counter-MANPADS technology have resulted in savings of over $27
million and possibly more. However, the extent to which these savings
accrue to the government or to the contractor is unclear.
DHS Has Made Progress in Improving Its Use of Its Other Transaction
Authority, but Has Yet to Fully Address Prior GAO Recommendations:
Soon after DHS established the S&T Directorate, S&T issued other
transaction solicitations using some commonly accepted acquisition
practices and knowledge-based acquisition principles. For example, DHS
used integrated product teams and contractor payable milestone
evaluations to manage other transaction agreements.[Footnote 6] To
quickly implement its early projects, S&T relied on experienced staff
from DARPA, other government agencies, and industry to help train S&T
program and contracting staff in using other transactions and help DHS
create and manage the acquisition process. S&T also brought in program
managers, scientists, and experts from other government agencies on a
temporary basis to provide assistance in other areas. Beyond these
efforts, GAO found some areas for improvement and recommended that: DHS
provide guidance on when to include audit provisions in agreements;
provide more training on creating and managing agreements; capture
knowledge gained from current agreements for future use; and take
measures to help rotational staff avoid conflicts of interest. DHS has
implemented some measures to address many of these recommendations;
however, it has not addressed all of them.
* Provide guidance: We recommended that DHS develop guidance on when it
is appropriate to include audit provisions in other transaction
agreements. Subsequently, DHS modified its management directive to add
guidance on including GAO audit provisions in agreements.[Footnote 7]
However, the guidance only addresses prototype agreements over $5
million. While S&T contracting officials recently told us that they
have only issued other transaction agreements for prototypes, they
noted that the department intends to issue agreements for research
projects in the future. In addition, it is unclear how the $5 million
threshold is to be applied. In at least one agreement, the audit
provision did not apply to subcontractors unless their work also
exceeded the $5 million threshold.
* Provide additional training: We recommended that DHS develop a
training program for staff on the use of other transactions. DHS has
developed a training program on other transactions, and S&T contracting
representatives said they have plans to conduct additional sessions in
2008. The training includes topics such as intellectual property
rights, acquisition of property in other transactions, and foreign
access to technology created under other transaction authority. An S&T
contracting representative told us the Directorate currently has three
staff with other transaction warrants and has additional in-house
expertise to draw on as needed, and they said S&T no longer needs to
rely on other agencies for contracting assistance.
* Capture lessons learned: We recommended that DHS capture knowledge
obtained during the acquisition process for use in planning and
implementing future other transaction projects. In 2005, DHS hired a
consultant to develop a "lessons learned" document based on DOD's
experience using other transactions. This is included in DHS's other
transaction training. However, it was not evident based on our follow-
up work that DHS has developed a system for capturing knowledge from
its own experience regarding other transaction agreements the
directorate has executed since it was created.
* Ethics: We made a number of recommendations regarding conflicts of
interest and ethics within S&T. When the S&T Directorate was
established in 2003, it hired scientists, engineers, and experts from
federal laboratories, universities, and elsewhere in the federal
government for a limited time under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act
(IPA) with the understanding that these staff would eventually return
to their "home" institution.[Footnote 8] This created potential
conflicts of interest for those staff responsible for managing S&T
portfolios as these staff could be put in a position to make decisions
on their "home" institutions. We recommended that DHS help the
portfolio managers assigned through IPA comply with conflict of
interest laws by improving the S&T Directorate's management controls
related to ethics. DHS has complied with these recommendations to
define and standardize the role of these portfolio managers in the
research and development process; provide regular ethics training for
these portfolio managers; and determine whether conflict of interest
waivers are necessary. The only outstanding recommendation concerns
establishing a monitoring and oversight program of ethics-related
management controls. Furthermore, an S&T official told us the use of
rotational portfolio managers has largely been eliminated with the
exception of one portfolio manager who is currently serving a two-year
term.
Inherent to Other Transactions' Flexibility Are Certain Accountability
Challenges:
With federal agencies' increased reliance on contractors to perform
mission related functions comes an increased focus on the need to
manage acquisitions in an efficient, effective, and accountable manner.
The acquisition function is one area GAO has identified as vulnerable
to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. An unintended consequence of
the flexibility provided by other transaction authority is the
potential loss of accountability and transparency. Accordingly,
management controls are needed to ensure intended acquisition outcomes
are achieved while minimizing operational challenges. Operational
challenges to successfully making use of other transaction authority
include: attracting and ensuring the use of non-traditional
contractors; acquiring intellectual property rights; financial control;
and maintaining a skilled acquisition workforce.
Nontraditional Contractors: One of the goals of using other
transactions is to attract firms that traditionally have not worked
with the federal government. S&T contracting officials confirmed that
at least one nontraditional contractor participated in each other
transaction agreement, generally as a partner to a traditional
contractor. We have not assessed the extent of the involvement of
nontraditional contractors or what portion of the funding they receive.
However, we have reported in the past that DOD had a mixed record in
attracting nontraditional contractors.[Footnote 9]
Intellectual Property Rights: One reason companies have reportedly
declined to contract with the government is to protect their
intellectual property rights. Alternatively, insufficient intellectual
property rights could hinder the government's ability to adapt
developed technology for use outside of the initial scope of the
project. Limiting the government's intellectual property rights may
require a trade-off. On the one hand, this may encourage companies to
work with the government and apply their own resources to efforts that
advance the government's interests. However, it also could limit the
government's production options for items that incorporate technology
created under an other transaction agreement. For example, we
previously reported that DARPA received an unsolicited proposal from a
small commercial firm to develop and demonstrate an unmanned aerial
vehicle capable of vertical take-off and landing based on the company's
existing proprietary technology. DARPA agreed not to accept any
technical data in the $16.7 million agreement. To obtain government
purpose rights,[Footnote 10] DOD would have to purchase 300 vehicles or
pay an additional $20 million to $45 million.[Footnote 11] Therefore,
using an other transaction agreement could potentially limit
competition and lead to additional costs for follow-on work.
Financial Controls and Cost Accounting: Other transactions are exempt
from CAS. While other transaction recipients have flexibility in
tracking costs, they still need to provide cost information and
demonstrate that government funds are used responsibly. This is
particularly true for traditional contractors that are performing work
under both FAR-based contracts as well as other transaction agreements.
For example, contractors may use in-kind donations to satisfy cost-
sharing requirements; therefore, it is important that DHS has a means
to ensure that companies do not satisfy their other transaction cost-
sharing requirements with work funded under a FAR-based contract.
Maintaining a Skilled Acquisition Workforce: Other transactions do not
have a standard structure based on regulatory guidelines and therefore
can be challenging to create and administer. Prior GAO work has noted
the importance of maintaining institutional knowledge sufficient to
maintain government control. The unique nature of other transaction
agreements means that federal government acquisition staff working with
these agreements should have experience in planning and conducting
research and development acquisitions, strong business acumen, and
sound judgment to enable them to operate in a relatively unstructured
business environment. Retaining a skilled acquisition workforce has
been a continual challenge at DHS, and we have ongoing work in this
area for this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have
at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgements:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact John
Needham at (202) 512-4841 or (needhamjk1@gao.gov). Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this product. Staff making key contributions to
this statement were Amelia Shachoy, Assistant Director; Brandon Booth;
Justin Jaynes; Tony Wysocki; Karen Sloan; Laura Holliday; and John
Krump.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Selected DHS Other Transaction Agreements:
Table 1: Seven Largest DHS Other Transaction Agreements Entered into
Since Fiscal Year 2004 (dollars in millions):
Project: Counter-Man Portable Air Defense System;
Prime contractor: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation;
Nontraditional contractor: FedEx;
Total obligations: $105.5.
Project: Counter-Man Portable Air Defense System;
Prime contractor: BAE Systems Information and Electronics Systems
Integration I;
Nontraditional contractor: American Airlines and ABX Air Inc.;
Total obligations: 105.4.
Project: Bioagent Autonomous Networked Detectors;
Prime contractor: U.S. Genomics, Inc.;
Nontraditional contractor: Impact Technologies Consulting;
Total obligations: 37.0.
Project: Kentucky Critical Infrastructure Protection Institute;
Prime contractor: National Institute for Hometown Security, Inc.;
Nontraditional contractor: Prime contractor is nontraditional;
Total obligations: 36.5.
Project: Bio Watch Gen 3 Detection Systems - A Microfluidic-Based
Autonomous Pathogen Detection System;
Prime contractor: Microfluidic Systems Inc;
Nontraditional contractor: Cycle Start;
Total obligations: 23.3.
Project: Bio Watch Gen 3 Detection Systems - Lab-in-a-Tube (LIAT)
Bioagent Autonomous Networked Detector;
Prime contractor: IQuum LLC;
Nontraditional contractor: Dyax Corporation;
Total obligations: 18.4.
Project: Bioagent Autonomous Networked Detectors;
Prime contractor: Science Applications International Corp (SAIC);
Nontraditional contractor: Genomic HealthCare (GHC);
Total obligations: 15.4.
Source: DHS reported data on other transaction as of January 2008.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] We followed up on recommendations made in GAO, Homeland Security:
Further Action Needed to Promote Successful Use of Special DHS
Acquisition Authority; and GAO-05-136 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15,
2004), and GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Needs to Improve Ethics-Related
Management Controls for the Science and Technology Directorate, GAO-06-
206 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2005).
[2] DHS's Management Directive No. 0771.1, July 8, 2005, defines a
nontraditional government contractor as a business unit that has not,
for at least a period of 1 year prior to the date of entering into or
performing an other transaction agreement, entered into or performed:
any contract subject to full coverage under federal Cost Accounting
Standards (CAS); or any contract in excess of $500,000 to carry out
prototype projects or to perform basic, applied, or advanced research
projects for a federal agency that is subject to compliance with the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
[3] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, Dec.
26, 2007.
[4] The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, Sec. 101, Nov.
25, 2002, defined the department's missions to include preventing
terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing U.S. vulnerability
to terrorism; and minimizing the damages, and assisting in the recovery
from, attacks that occur within the United States.
[5] According to S&T, total spending through other transaction
agreements includes four that are managed by DHS's Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO). S&T contracting representatives told us that
these agreements were entered into by the S&T Directorate before DNDO
was created.
[6] Payable milestones are predetermined, observable technical events
or other measures of progress that the contractor and government agree
upon in advance.
[7] The guidance grants GAO access for a period of 3 years after the
final payment is made.
[8] The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970, U.S.C. §§ 3371-
76, allows employees to be temporarily assigned to a federal agency.
[9] GAO, Acquisition Reform: DOD's Guidance on Using Section 845
Agreements Could Be Improved, GAO/NSIAD-00-33 (Washington, D.C.: April,
2000).
[10] Government purpose rights enable the government to allow others to
use the data for government purposes. See GAO, Intellectual Property:
Information on the Federal Framework and DOD's Other Transaction
Authority, GAO-01-980T (Washington, D.C.: July 2001).
[11] GAO-01-980T.
[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO
posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web
site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go
to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
