Customs Service Modernization

The U.S. Customs Service fully recognizes the severity of its problems in managing import trade. Customs' existing import processes and supporting systems are simply not responsive to the business needs of either the agency or the trade community, which imports about $1 trillion in goods annually. These processes and systems are paper-intensive and error-prone and they are out of step with the just-in-time inventory practices used by the trade. In response, Customs has undertaken the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a 15-year project whose cost is estimated at upwards of $1.05 billion. Unfortunately, Customs has not used disciplined and rigorous management practices in developing ACE during the last five years. This testimony, which is based on a February 1999 report (GAO/AIMD-99-41), describes the following management and technical weaknesses plaguing ACE: (1) building ACE without a complete and enforced enterprise systems architecture, (2) investing in ACE without a firm basis for knowing that it is a cost-effective solution, and (3) building ACE without using engineering rigor and discipline. GAO makes several recommendations for addressing these problems.

GAO noted that: (1) Customs is well over 2 years behind its original National Customs Automation Program prototype schedule; (2) Customs was not building ACE within the context of an enterprise systems architecture, or blueprint of its agencywide future systems environment; (3) Customs developed and published an architecture in July and August 1997; (4) GAO reviewed this architecture and reported in May 1998 that it was not effective because it was neither complete nor enforced; (5) in response, Customs agreed to develop a complete architecture and establish a process to ensure compliance; (6) Customs reports that its architecture will be completed in May 1999; (7) Customs did not identify and evaluate a full range of alternatives to its defined ACE solution before commencing development activities; (8) Customs did not develop a reliable life cycle cost estimate for the approach it selected; (9) Customs is not making investment decisions incrementally as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act and the Office of Management and Budget; (10) although Customs has decided to implement ACE as a series of 21 increments, it is not justifying investing in each increment on the basis of defined costs and benefits and a positive return on investment for each increment; (11) Customs lacks the capability to effectively develop or acquire ACE software; and (12) Customs lacked a software process improvement program to effectively address these and other software process weaknesses.