[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET
FOR DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AND OPERATIONS AT DHS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 4, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-057 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�0900012010
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California PETER T. KING, New York
JANE HARMAN, California LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Columbia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
ZOE LOFGREN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi
LAURA RICHARDSON, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas
JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio
ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada
VACANCY
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Conner, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL PASCRELL, Jr, New Jersey ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
AL GREEN, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio PETER T. KING, New York, (ex
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, officio)
(ex officio)
Tamla T. Scott, Staff Director
Carla Zamudio-Dolan, Clerk
Michael Russell, Senior Counsel
Kerry Kinirons, Minority Subcommittee Lead
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
from the Sate of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 3
The Honorable Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana.................................... 15
The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 16
Witness
The Honorable Elaine C. Duke, Under Secretary for Management,
U.S.
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
For the Record
Prepared Opening Statements:
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security............................................ 4
Appendix
Questions and Responses:
Responses from Hon. Elaine C. Duke............................. 25
THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET FOR
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS AT DHS
Thursday, June 4, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations,
and Oversight,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney, Green, Bilirakis, and Cao.
Mr. Carney. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee on Management,
Investigations, and Oversight will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
fiscal year 2010 budget for the departmental management and
operations of DHS.
On May 7, 2009, President Obama delivered his fiscal year
2010 budget request to Congress. His vision for the Department
of Homeland Security was clear: The safety and security of our
nation is a top priority, and we must achieve this goal through
our spending of scarce homeland security dollars in a fiscally
responsible manner.
Since its inception, the department has struggled with
management and operational challenges that include integrating
22 separate and distinct agencies into one, managing one of the
largest workforces in the federal government, ensuring that the
department's acquisition policies are sound, economical and
fair, and creating one unified DHS culture.
The committee has continually taken the position that the
department's low morale, lack of common culture, and the lack
of diversity stem from a series of flawed policy approaches to
establish an internally consistent human resources architecture
for the department as a whole.
While the department recently moved up one spot from the
prior year in a recently released 2009 best places to work
rankings, it was still ranked 28th out of 30. There is much
work to be done to bring the department up to the same
standards of morale expected of its federal peers.
The department continues to face acquisition and
procurement challenges. Currently, there are more than 200
vacant positions in DHS contracting. And within the next 5
years, more than 25 percent of the DHS contracting workforce
will retire or will be eligible for retirement.
Although the department has been disjointed and lacks a
common culture, we are now seeing efforts to consolidate its
operations both physically to the St. Elizabeths project and
systemically through its data centers and financial management
integration efforts.
As we recently saw with the release of the right-wing
extremism report, mistakes are still being made by the
department. However, we witnessed a swift response, which
indicates that the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties
of those it seeks to protect are an important aspect of the
department's work. I will be interested today in hearing how
the department's budget reflects the need to ensure that such
an incident never happens again.
As we move forward with the new departmental leadership,
new priorities, and a new budget, unfortunately, some things
remain the same. Our nation is still at risk from terrorist
attacks, both homegrown and abroad, and the Department of
Homeland Security must be ready to fulfill its mission to
protect the American people from threats both foreign and
domestic, both natural and manmade.
The president's fiscal year 2010 budget requests for the
department in general and the management and operations
directorates in particular recognize these realities and
provide us with a financial framework for addressing them. Last
month, Secretary Napolitano testified before the full committee
about how she plans to implement the president's proposed
budget department-wide.
Today, we will hear how the undersecretary for management
intends to work with the secretary to incorporate the budget's
priorities into the department's operational and management
functions, including its human capital, procurement, security,
financial and information technology missions.
What I would like today is an honest assessment of the
department's needs. If more resources are needed, I expect the
undersecretary to tell us that.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony regarding the
president's budget and how the department intends to use
proposed funds to build a stronger and more secure America.
[The statement of Mr. Carney follows:]
Prepared Opening Statement of the Honorable Christopher P. Carney,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight
On May 7, 2009, President Obama delivered his Fiscal Year
2010 Budget Request to Congress.
His vision for the Department of Homeland Security was clear:
the safety and security of our Nation is a top priority and we
must achieve this goal through spending our scarce homeland
security dollars in a fiscally responsible manner.
Since its inception, a short six years ago, the Department
has struggled with management and operational challenges that
include integrating 22 separate and distinct agencies into one;
managing one of the largest workforces in the federal
government; ensuring that the Department's acquisition polices
are sound, economical and fair; and creating one unified DHS
culture.
Having said that, the Department has also come a long way, in
a very short period of time.
Although the Department is not ranked where it wants to be in
federal government employee satisfaction surveys, it is moving
upward.
Although the Department continues to face acquisition and
procurement challenges, it is attempting to expand its
acquisition workforce to better confront it needs.
Although the Department has been disjointed and lacking of a
common culture, we now see its efforts to consolidates its
operations, both physically through the St. Elizabeths project
and systematically through its data center and financial
management integration efforts.
Although, as we recently saw with the release of the
Rightwing Extremism Report, things still fall through the
cracks; however, we also witnessed a swift and effective
response, which indicates that the privacy, civil rights and
civil liberties of those it seeks to protect are an important
aspect of the Department's work.
As we move forward with new Departmental leadership, new
priorities, and a new budget, unfortunately, some things remain
the same.
Our Nation is still at risk from terrorist attacks both
homegrown and abroad and the Department of Homeland Security
must be ready to fulfill its mission to protect the American
people from threats both foreign and domestic, both natural and
manmade.
The President's FY 2010 requests for the Department in
general, and the Management and Operations Directorates in
particular, recognize these realities--and provides us with a
financial framework for addressing them.
Last month, Secretary Napolitano testified before the Full
Committee about how she plans to implement the President's
proposed budget Department-wide.
Today, we will hear how the Under Secretary for Management
intends to work with the Secretary to incorporate the budget's
priorities into the Department's operational and management
functions, including its human capital, procurement, security,
financial and information technology missions.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony regarding the
President's budget request and how the Department intends use
the proposed funds to build a stronger and more secure America.
Mr. Carney. The chair now recognizes the ranking member for
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis,
for an opening statement.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Madam Secretary, I am pleased you could appear before us
today to discuss the president's 2010 budget request for the
department's Management Directorate and your plans for the
coming fiscal year. I look forward to your testimony.
I am particularly interested in hearing about efforts at
the department to become more efficient and effective in both
achieving the department's vital mission and using taxpayer
resources.
There are a number of very necessary, but costly projects
underway at the department, including the St. Elizabeths
project and SBInet. And I look forward to working with you to
highlight areas in which we can ensure the department is as
nimble and efficient as possible and avoids cost and time
overruns.
I am also interested to hear your plans to address the
concerns of the more than 200,000 employees who work at the
department. The 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey showed
improved results for DHS, but I am sure that you and I will
agree that more work needs to be done to recruit qualified
candidates and retain them once they are on board, including
better training programs and defined career paths.
You indicate in your written testimony that you are
striving to make DHS a place where people want to work. And I
am interested to hear how you plan to work with the
department's new chief human capital officer to achieve this
important goal.
As the newest federal department and one with a very
challenging and critical mission, there is much work to be done
to ensure that the ``One'' one, DHS culture, advocated by both
Secretaries Chertoff and Napolitano, is achieved. I look
forward to working with you and the members of this committee
to ensure you have the resources and authorities you need to
get the job done.
To that end, I hope the committee will consider a
comprehensive authorization bill for the department this year.
Thank you again for being here, Secretary Duke, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
And other members of the subcommittee are reminded that,
under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for
the record.
For the Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman,
Committee on Homeland Security
I want to thank Chairman Carney for conducting this hearing on the
President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request for the Management and
Operational functions of the Department of Homeland Security.
I would also like to thank Under Secretary Duke for being here
today to testify in support of the President's request.
This hearing is the first in a series of hearings that each
Subcommittee will conduct, in an effort to further explore how the
President's proposed requests will be used to further the Department's
mission.
As I stated during the Full committee Budget Hearing with Secretary
Napolitano, the President submitted a very comprehensive budget that
answers a lot of the questions we've had about where the Department
wants to go.
In particular, the budget includes a number of critical
programmatic changes that I support and would like to highlight.
The transfer of the Office of Intergovernmental Programs to the
Office of the Secretary makes sense and will surely enhance DHS'
ability to coordinate with State, local, and tribal governments.
I also support the requested increase for the Office of
Procurement. The acquisition workforce must be expanded in order to
meet the Department's needs. In previous years, over 40% of DHS' budget
went out the door to contractors to perform a host of functions,
including policymaking. This over-reliance on contractors has
undermined DHS' ability to execute its missions and the hiring of new
acquisition professionals should help stem that tide.
Furthermore, I fully expect, the Human Capital Office to use its
allocation to increase diversity among the Department's workforce so
that it will be more reflective of the public it serves.
In these tough economic times, I am committed to working to help
secure a budget for the Department that keeps on our commitment to
fiscal responsibility while strengthening the security of our Nation.
Thank you and I look forward to your testimony today.
Mr. Carney. I now welcome the undersecretary for
management, Elaine Duke. Elaine C. Duke currently serves as the
Department of Homeland Security's undersecretary for
management. In this role, Ms. Duke is responsible for the
management and administration of the Department of Homeland
Security.
She oversees management of the department's $47 billion
budget, appropriations, expenditures of funds, accounting, and
finance. It is quite a plateful.
Ms. Duke also administers control over the department's $17
billion in acquisition and procurement. She is responsible for
directing human capital resources and personnel programs for
the department's 216,000 employees.
She administers control of the department's enterprise
architecture through strategic use of information technology
and communications systems. And she is responsible for
oversight of the department's facilities, property, equipment,
and other material resources.
Prior to her appointment as the undersecretary for
management, Ms. Duke served as the deputy undersecretary for
management. She was the department's chief procurement officer
from January 2006 until her appointment as deputy
undersecretary for management in October of 2007.
Ms. Duke was the department's deputy chief procurement
officer from October 2004 to December of 2005, when she
championed the creation of the Acquisition Professional Career
Program to rebuild the federal acquisition workforce for the
21st century.
Ms. Duke assisted in the standup of the Department of
Homeland Security while at the Transportation Security
Administration, where she served as the deputy assistant
administrator beginning in August of 2002.
Ms. Duke spent a great deal of her career with the U.S.
Navy, where she held various acquisition positions of
progressive responsibility. She began her career as a
contracting officer for the U.S. Air Force. Ms. Duke holds a
bachelor of science degree in business management from New
Hampshire College and a master's degree in business
administration from Chaminade University in Honolulu, Hawaii.
We welcome you and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MELAINE C. DUKE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Duke. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to come and talk to you about the fiscal year 2010
management directive budget.
DHS and its many component agencies fulfill a broad mandate
and conduct many different activities but with a single,
unified security mission. In order to meet its priorities and
support the department, the management directive has delineated
six lines of business that are responsible for significant
enterprise-wide functions. These six lines of business produce
integration and standardization and efficiencies throughout the
department.
Allow me to highlight just a few of Management
Directorate's recent accomplishments. In competition of federal
acquisition contracts within DHS, we were able to increase our
percentage of competed contracts from 69 percent in 2007 to 75
percent in fiscal year 2008. That surpassed our competition
goal of 68 percent, and we are on target in 2009 to keep that
level of competition up.
We have exceeded all our small business contracting goals.
We have began to actively and aggressively manage the Working
Capital Fund within the CFO's office. We have established a
program review board to look at our major acquisition programs.
We are on target to review 17 programs this year.
Additionally, with the start-up of the acquisition program
management division, we have been able to increase the number
of certified program managers running acquisition programs,
level one, from 20 percent a few years ago up to near 90
percent this year. That is a significant step in getting a
handle on our requirements of our acquisition programs, which I
have talked with this committee before about how important that
is to successful procurements.
While we still have vacancies within the contracting career
field, through our acquisition intern program and other efforts
have nearly doubled the size of the 1102, the contract
specialist workforce, from about 700 about 4 years ago to over
1,100 now, with about 200 vacancies remaining.
When we can get those filled, we will have doubled our
workforce in 4 years, which, given the challenging recruiting
of that market, we were really proud of that. And thank you for
your support of the intern program. That has contributed
significantly to that.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget really is focused on two areas.
One is integration, one DHS, and the second is oversight and
control. We are not building a management budget that seeks to
build a big bureaucracy. In fact, my budget from my immediate
office is staying flat, at 13 full-time equivalents, 13 people.
What we are trying to do is use the offices of management
to build the building blocks that a new department like DHS has
to have to successfully move forward in implementing its
initiatives. Some of the initiatives we have in the president's
2010 budget on the integration front include the DHS
headquarters consolidation, which includes St. E's and the
other consolidation in the D.C. area.
A DHS-wide enterprise records management system, which is
critical to moving forward in terms of our appropriate records
and retention policy, this is very important in light of the
president's transparency initiatives.
Right-sizing human capital, focused on getting better
diversity, better staffing processes within the department. And
within this chief information officer, several initiatives,
including continuing the data center, development and
migration, using single sign-on, putting all our--we have a
huge emphasis on security in this budget, including moving a
lot of our initiatives behind the trusted Internet connections
to really improve DHS's security.
On the oversight and control initiatives, we have under
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, which talks about
managing of employees and contractors. We have a centralized
$25 million for that to be able to issue cards to about half
our employees in fiscal year 2010.
We continue our acquisition workforce. And we have a new
initiative on selective acquisitions, which is really our
attempt to get a handle on highly classified programs within
DHS. This is a new initiative, very much needed.
So I look forward to talking with you about these
initiatives and answering your questions. And I do truly
appreciate this opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. Duke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine Duke
Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2010
budget for the Management Directorate within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
DHS and its many component agencies fulfill a broad mandate and
conduct many different activities within a single, unified security
mission. DHS performs critical tasks from protecting transportation
hubs to conducting maritime rescues, from aiding disaster victims to
securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws. Within this broad
portfolio, the Department aims to secure the American people from all
hazards--including terrorist threats and natural or accidental
disasters--and to work effectively with its many Federal, State, local,
tribal, and private sector partners to lead the collaborative effort to
secure the Nation. DHS undertakes the mission of securing the United
States against all threats through five main action areas, each of
which is strengthened by this budget:
Guarding Against Terrorism--Protecting the American people from
terrorist threats is the founding purpose of the Department and DHS'
highest priority. Our budget expands DHS efforts to battle terrorism,
including detecting explosives in public spaces and transportation
networks, helping protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks
from attack, detecting agents of biological warfare, and building
information-sharing partnerships with State and local law enforcement
to mitigate threats.
Securing Our Borders--DHS prevents and investigates illegal
movements across our borders, including the smuggling of people, drugs,
cash, and weapons. In March, the Department announced a new initiative
to strengthen security on the southwest border in order to disrupt the
drug, cash, and weapon smuggling that fuels cartel violence in Mexico.
Our budget strengthens those efforts by adding manpower and technology
to the southwest border. This budget also funds smart security on the
northern border and facilitates international travel and trade.
Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Improving
Immigration Services--DHS welcomes legal immigrants, protects against
dangerous people entering the country, and pursues tough, effective
enforcement against those who violate the Nation's immigration laws.
Our budget contains funding to strengthen our employment eligibility
verification systems, target and crack down on criminal aliens, and
expedite the application process for new legal immigrants.
Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Natural
Disasters--The Department must aid local and State first responders in
all stages of a natural disaster--preparing for the worst, responding
to a disaster that has occurred, and recovering in the long run. This
budget contains funding to strengthen DHS assistance for local first
responders and the communities and families affected by disasters.
Unifying and Maturing DHS--DHS must continue to evolve in order to
operate in unity and with maximum effectiveness across the wide range
of the Department's security and other missions. This budget contains
funding to initiate consolidation of mission support activities that
will remain off-site from the St. Elizabeths campus, reducing the many
small and widely scattered leased locations and supporting the goal to
build ``One DHS.''
The Management Directorate provides the business framework that
enables the Department to achieve its mission. It does so by providing
policy, guidance, operational oversight and support, and innovative
solutions for the management needs throughout DHS. While the Management
Directorate does not serve on the frontlines, our role remains critical
to the Nation's security. We enable the Department to achieve its
mission by ensuring the provision of high quality, efficient, and
integrated management services.
In order to meet its priorities and support the Department, the
Management Directorate has delineated six lines of business that are
responsible for significant enterprise-wide functions. These lines of
business achieve management objectives by implementing and integrating
functional support and services to DHS Offices and Components. The
Management lines of business include:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAO)--Responsible for
asset management, mail screening and delivery, occupational safety and
health, environmental planning and management, historic preservation,
energy management, records, directives, forms, printing, library
services, and graphics. Priorities include:
Improving, consolidating, and reducing operating costs
for DHS facilities;
Effective and efficient management of real and
personnel property; and
Providing operational support for all OCAO functions
to DHS Headquarters.
The OCAO makes sure that Department employees are fully equipped to
work and in the safest conditions possible. The Chief Administrative
Officer manages over 86 million square feet of Real Property and $11.8
billion of personal property and ensures that the buildings, vehicles,
and equipment employed by DHS are ready to support the mission.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO))--Responsible for
departmental compliance with Federal budget planning, formulation, and
execution practices, accounting, and financial reporting. The Chief
Financial Officer also reports directly to the Secretary on financial
management matters. Priorities include:
Integrating financial management systems across the
Department;
Implementing financial internal controls consistent
with Federal standards; and
Facilitating departmental authorization and
appropriation efforts.
The OCFO works with partners throughout the Department to determine
how funding will be allocated and prioritize budgetary needs. The OCFO
attempts to ensure that every dollar spent is accounted for and that it
is tracked according to Federal standards.
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO)--Responsible for
Department-wide human capital policy development, planning and
implementation functions. Priorities include:
Proud to Protect--Becoming a premier employer that
attracts and retains high-quality, diverse talent.
Reflecting the Nation We Serve--Increasing diversity
at all levels throughout DHS to better reflect the composition
of the Nation.
Leading Through Learning--Building Department-wide
capabilities and systems that provide employee training,
Capturing and Sharing Human Capital Resources, Best
Practices and Innovation--Implementing consistent, but
flexible, human capital policies, programs and practices.
A critical task faced by the Department today is to build, sustain
and develop a world-class workforce that keeps the Nation safe. The
Department recognizes that advancing our critical mission clearly
depends on our most valuable asset--our people. If you work at DHS, the
Chief Human Capital Officer affects many aspects of your daily life and
is dedicated to ensure that you and your colleagues meet your full
potential as employees and, collectively across the DHS human capital
community, realize the DHS human capital vision--Unparalleled Mission,
Unparalleled Talent, Where People Want to Work.
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)--Responsible for
information technology operations and infrastructure, enterprise
software applications, and information security. Priorities Include:
Improving information sharing across DHS and its
external partners,
Ensuring the security of our IT systems and
information through a comprehensive defense-in-depth IT
security strategy, and
Expanding citizen access to DHS through e-Gov
initiatives.
The Chief Information Officer is responsible for the oversight and
management of information technology used throughout the Department.
The OCIO contributes directly and substantially to the operational
missions of the Department, by ensuring that information is shared
reliably, rapidly, and securely throughout the Department, as well as
with the broader Homeland Security Community.
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO)--Responsible for
acquisition and procurement policy, strategic sourcing, and investment
oversight. Priorities include:
Implementing a unified DHS acquisition support
program,
Maintaining best practices for major program
acquisition and management, and
Ensuring compliance with all Federal laws and
regulations governing procurements.
To deliver mission operations capabilities, the OCPO establishes
contracts for critical goods and services required for the men and
women of DHS to do their jobs. Each year the OCPO ensures sound DHS
business deals through thorough investment review and program
management practices. Their efforts facilitate the decisive execution
of dollars in support of major mission areas attempting to avert
threats to the Nation's border and citizens.
Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO)--Responsible for
protection of the Department's personnel, property, and facilities.
Priorities include:
Developing and implementing comprehensive DHS security
policies, procedures and programs;
Conducting defensive activities to identify espionage
or terrorist collection efforts; and
Overseeing employee suitability operations, background
investigations, and security training briefs.
The Homeland Security mission requires the Department to possess
and work with extremely sensitive information. The OCSO works to ensure
that the Department's buildings and physical security systems are
worthy of the trust and confidence of the American people who rely on
them.
Some of Management's 2008 fiscal year accomplishments include:
Our Chief Procurement Office implemented a centrally funded and
managed Acquisition Professional Career Program modeled after the
highly successful Navy Intern Program. This program features three,
single year rotations through various Components and provides the
participants with all the experience and training they need to become
journeyman-level acquisition professionals.
The percentage of DHS obligations awarded through competitive
contract actions increased from 69 percent in FY 2007 to 75 percent in
FY 2008. This surpassed the FY 2008 competition goal of 68 percent by
seven percentage points, allowing us to realize a 75 percent level of
competition two years ahead of a FY 2010 target.
Management's Office of Security reduced vulnerabilities to DHS
facilities by bolstering personnel assigned to the Technical Security
Counter-Measures Program, allowing increased capacity for critical
security sweeps. We increased training for State and local government
as well as private-sector personnel who handle classified and sensitive
information from the Department.
The Chief Administrative Office collaborated with the General
Services Administration (GSA) to expeditiously bring the Master
Planning, Environmental Impact Statement and National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Consultations to a successful conclusion
for the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths West Campus.
The OCAO achieved milestones with delivery of a Consolidated Remote
Delivery Site to provide mail and courier services to DHS Component
locations in the Washington, DC metropolitan area thereby improving
efficiency, strengthening accountability, and reducing risk to DHS
employees by screening for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
and explosive threats.
We developed a transition-planning approach for DHS to ensure
operational continuity before, during, and after the 2009 Presidential
administration transition and change in DHS political leadership.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer developed and implemented
a comprehensive, web-based DHS Financial Management Policy Manual with
nearly 30 new CFO policies.
Our CFO managed the Working Capital Fund (WCF) to provide cost-
effective support services throughout DHS. The CFO successfully
implemented a number of key initiatives that have resulted in more
effective and efficient management of the WCF, including the
establishment of a WCF Governance Board which has resulted in better
management of the fund by engaging senior leadership of both customers
and service providers in a focused policy and planning process to
assess internal controls over financial reporting.
The Management Directorate established the Program Review Board
(PRB), chaired by the Deputy Secretary and comprised of senior career
leadership of each Component, which institutionalized an analytically-
based, open and transparent Program and Budget Review process.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer's Enterprise
Architecture governance process resulted in more than $90 million in
cost avoidance/savings and achieved ``Green'' on the OMB scorecard.
The CIO removed 77 percent of DHS third quarter FY 2008 Exhibit
300s from the OMB Management Watch List and achieved 75 percent of
Level One investments within 10 percent of planned cost and schedule.
Through the CIO's efforts, the Department received a B+ on the
Congressional FISMA Report Card on ``Computer Security'' for 2007
compliance, the highest grade for compliance since the Department was
established in 2003.
The CIO completed the migration of DHS headquarters data center to
Stennis Data Center to reduce data center operations cost across the
Department.
FY 2010 Budget
In total, the Under Secretary for Management fiscal year 2010
budget request is for 976 positions, 869 FTE, and $741,913,000. A large
portion of the USM budget is designed to assist us with integration and
to continue to unify into one DHS. This request sets the way forward
for:
DHS Headquarters Consolidation--$75 million. The initial phase of
this project to consolidate leadership, policy, program, and operations
coordination at the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, DC, has been
funded and is underway with the remaining phases in beginning design.
In FY 2010, we propose to initiate consolidation of mission support
activities that will remain off-campus, reducing the many small and
widely scattered leased locations. The on-campus and off-campus parts
of this project both support the goals of a consolidated headquarters
for DHS.
HSPD-12 Card Issuance--$25 million. Office of the Chief Security
Officer is requesting resources for HSPD-12 Card Issuance. The
requested funds will be used to provide enterprise Public Key
Infrastructure certificates, procure enrollment / card issuance work
stations, card stock, and required support for the issuance of
smartcards. Completion of smartcard issuance efforts will provide the
infrastructure and baseline technology to support other DHS security
programs.
Enterprise Records Management System--$3.1 million. DHS records are
officially maintained through manual, paper-based processes. This
includes many records developed or transmitted electronically that must
be printed and filed. Implementation of this first phase of an
electronic records management system will ensure that DHS personnel
have access to timely and accurate information for decision making and
to efficiently document government processes while preserving the
public interest in the course of normal business and in cases of
emergency. This system, once fully implemented, will streamline record
retention activities, from creation to disposal and including retrieval
for use and responses to FOIA requests.
Right-sizing Human Capital Programs--$3.3 million. The Office of
the Chief Human Capital Officer will use these funds to meet the
demands and needs of a growing Department and additional funding to pay
for Working Capital Fund Shared service costs. The new positions will
allow the CHCO to meet the key goals of the FY 2009--2013 Human Capital
Strategic Plan, which include becoming a premier employer while
attracting and retaining high-quality employees; enhancing diversity at
all levels of the organization to reflect the composition of the
Nation; enhancing the training, education and professional development
of our employees; and implementing flexible yet consistent Department-
wide human capital policies, programs, and practices to strengthen and
unify departmental operations and management.
DHS-Wide Acquisition Workforce Program. The Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer is requesting $7 million and 50 FTE for training,
certifying, and retaining an appropriate workforce of acquisition
professionals. To address the shortage of contracting professionals,
DHS is expanding the Acquisition Workforce Program and adding the
Student Career Experience Program positions to form the core of the
procurement workforce.
DHS Selective Acquisition Transactions. The Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer is requesting $9 million and 12 FTE to establish
the initial capacity to provide contract support for all DHS classified
acquisitions.
Acquisition Program Management Policy. The Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer is requesting $9 million and 10 FTE to expand
Department Management Teams that support DHS program offices in
delivering timely and effective acquisitions that currently comprise
the Division.
Personnel Security Adjudication Team--$3 million. The Office of
Chief Security Officer is requesting resources to create a DHS
Personnel Security Adjudication Team that will allow DHS the ability
and flexibility to adjudicate the sudden increase of completed
background investigations in a proactive manner.
Special Access Program Control Office (SAPCO) Staffing--$5 million.
The Office of the Chief Security Officer is requesting resources to
create a SAPCO and to expand Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
Oversight. SAPCO will develop and implement policy and procedures for
DHS SAP governance and will serve as the single point of contact for
coordinating component requirements. The SCI Oversight expansion will
limit the systemic risk to the Department's most critical form of
intelligence information.
Improve Financial Accountability--$2.5 million. This program
increase provides 20 Positions and $2.495 million for increased
staffing and support necessary to meet the demands of reviewing and
conducting independent analysis for the majority of programs within DHS
along with increased financial and budget support for the Department.
External Evaluations of Programs--$3 million. The requested program
increase is for the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) to
support a series of external evaluations of programs to be conducted
periodically by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (or
other independent parties outside the Department). These funds will
enhance the PA&E mission to provide information on key analytical
issues to Department leadership and the Administration.
Data Center Development/Migration--$58.8 million for the CIO and
$141.2 million for Components. Increased funding in FY 2010 will focus
on further migration activity of Component systems, applications, and
disaster recovery to the DHS Enterprise Data Centers for central DHS
management. FY 2010 funding will provide essential data center
capability enhancements and support services to facilitate Components
migrations from legacy Component data centers into the DHS Data
Centers. Collocation and consolidation will provide a number of
benefits over the environments that currently exist within the
disparate Component computing facilities. Reducing the overall
computing asset footprint will result in reduced system maintenance,
management, and administration costs. Merging of existing operations
and maintenance contracts will further reduce overhead and
administrative costs as well as improve the confidentiality, integrity,
and availability for mission critical systems and data.
Network Security Enhancements--$10.4 million. This funding will
mitigate high risk areas within the DHS firewall. This request will
establish critical Policy Enforcement Points across the DHS Network,
improve DHS Security Operation Center capabilities (i.e., remediation
forensics), and establish robust classified facilities with highly
skilled analysts. Network Security Enhancements will identify all
internet connections for remediation by migrating legacy connections
behind the DHS Trusted Internet Connections (TICs).
Internet Gateway Enhancements--$8.4 million. Additional funding
will diminish elevated threat areas for DHS at the perimeter. This
request will implement a High Assurance Guard to support mission
requirements for accessing social networking sites and establish the
DHS Email Disaster Recovery capability where 100 percent of email
traffic will be behind the two DHS TICs.
Single Sign-On (SSO)--$4.2 million. Increased FY 2010 funding will
be utilized to initiate the application integration efforts and the
Single Sign-On project. This funding will leverage best-of-breed
technologies to improve timely, secure operator access to mission
applications for DHS employees as well as Federal, State, Local and
Private Sector Partners. This implementation will be closely aligned
with the Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HPSD) 12: Policy for
a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors.
Specifically, funding will establish an implementation team to oversee
and execute the application integration and establishment of the core
infrastructures for the SSO Gateway and Service Oriented Architecture.
By implementing SSO, DHS computer users will be able to log-in to their
systems with only a single set of credentials in order to access
multiple applications, minimizing the need for a user to log-in
multiple times for different applications.
COMSEC Modernization--$6.7 million. This funding will replace 100
percent of legacy COMSEC equipment across the DHS enterprise, improving
DHS ability to share classified information across the Homeland.
Additionally, the request upgrades critical communications nodes to the
Federal Government and to the States in support of the Infrastructure
Protection Program under HSPD 63. COMSEC support is also essential to
the maintenance of secure communications required in NSPD 3-10.
I look forward to working with you to make certain that we have the
right resources to protect the homeland and the American people and
that we make the most effective and efficient use of those resources.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Committee today. I look
forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the FY
2010 Budget Request and other issues.
Mr. Carney. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony.
And I will remind each member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question Ms. Duke. And I will begin with myself for
5 minutes.
Now, last week, the secretary announced the apartment of
Jeff Neal as the new human capital officer, and he will be the
department's seventh human capital officer in 6 years. This
high-rated turnover, obviously, has hindered some of the human
capital efforts and caused this subcommittee and, indeed, the
full committee a bit of concern here, quite a bit of concern,
actually.
What is Mr. Neal going to do to fix this problem? You know,
first of all, with the turnover at the leadership, but, you
know, I understand you continue to have recruiting problems
even in an economic environment like this one. It seems to me
that this is a perfect opportunity to get some of the best and
brightest available. I hope that is going to be the case.
Ms. Duke. I think it is a perfect opportunity. As you know,
with legislation last year, this administration had the choice
of filling this position, again, with a political or a career.
Secretary Napolitano chose to fill it with a political
appointment, but with someone with federal experience. Mr. Neal
has significant federal experience in human capital.
So what he is going to bring to the table is both being
able to support the agenda of this administration, which is
very much focused on human capital, but also he knows the
federal system. I think some of the challenges we have in human
resources really are federal challenges.
And how do we work with Office of Personnel Management and
really look at, how can we keep the basic tenets of the
fairness and transparency of federal hiring, but make it more
efficient? So I think he is going to be a great representative
to that federal initiative of really looking at--we talk a lot
about acquisition reform, and I am looking forward to human
resources reform.
Mr. Carney. Because as you know, the department has been
plagued for the last several years with dissatisfaction and low
morale, some people say insufficient training, et cetera. Can
you say specifically how he is going to address those issues?
Ms. Duke. Well, I am going to work with him personally. I
chair the diversity council and the recruiting council. I think
that one of the basic things we have to do is really fill our
vacant positions, because people love the work they do, so we
have the basic foundation. We have to get where we have a
better--I think a better balance of quality of life, family and
work.
And so one of the things we will be working on is
recruiting. That is one of my top two priorities for human
capital. The second thing is diversity. I believe a more
diverse workforce will bring a better representation for this
country, and that is, we have targeted recruiting events. And
Mr. Neal will be directly involved in that.
And the third thing is a much more tactical, but that is
actually improving within DHS how we do hiring, so that for the
area--you know, we hire for 3,500 of the headquarters
functions, doing that more effectively.
Mr. Carney. Good, good. The human capital strategic plan,
it is supposed to be from fiscal year 2009. We are all moving
into fiscal year 2010 and we haven't seen it implemented. Do
you have the budget for it? Do you have the personnel in place
to implement the plan? How does it stand?
Ms. Duke. We do have an increase--it is called right-sizing
human capital--that gives us an increase in personnel, in human
capital that I think can move forward.
One of the challenges we have in managing the budget is
really the systems issues. So in human capital, there is the
H.R. I.T., which is looking at reducing the number of systems.
And that is funded through the working capital fund, and it is
currently in there.
But I think that we really have to have the discipline to
put the upfront costs to migrate to systems. For instance, we
had eight personnel systems when we started as a department.
Now we are down to one. To have that discipline to put the
money up front, of course, you know, make sure the components
are willing to put the money up front and get to efficient
systems.
Mr. Carney. Okay. I have just one more for this round.
I was pleased to see that the president's fiscal year 2010
budget creates the new office within the office of procurement,
the Office of Selective Acquisitions. I think that is really
remarkable, and it requests 24 new positions to staff the
office. This new office will provide, as you know, contracting
support to the department's classified programs.
And given my personal interest and background in management
operations in homeland security intelligence issues, I was
really happy to see this office created. I believe it fulfills
a significant gap the department needs to have filled.
However, do we even have the proper facilities yet to do
this? Do we have a skiff even created for the procurement
program? Do we have the necessary contracting officials with
the necessary clearances to do these programs?
Ms. Duke. The fiscal year 2010 president's budget has money
to get skiff space that will house about 17 people. So that is
in the budget. It has the FTEs.
And the FTEs that you see in the CBO budget are contracting
people. We were able to recruit a woman that is very qualified.
She was doing this for the Navy, and she is with us now and is
the head of contracting for this new office. So I feel
confident that, with the president's budget, we can stand up
that office.
Now, we also in future years will have to build the other
business functions around the experienced contracting function.
Mr. Carney. Does a skiff exist? I mean, is there physical
skiff yet for them?
Ms. Duke. We are hoping to be able to maybe where DOD has
moved out. There are some areas in Crystal City and other
places, but we have not secured the space yet.
Mr. Carney. Okay. All right. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, my constituents are rightly concerned
about getting the most bang for their buck when it comes to
federal spending, especially when it comes to homeland
security. They want to know that their tax dollars are being
spent wisely.
Will the budget request support efforts or initiatives to
ensure that the programs we are funding with their money are
operating as efficiently and effectively as possible? And how,
if at all, have projects under the Efficiency Review Initiative
impacted the fiscal year 2010 budget request? And how will the
findings of the initiative inform and guide future budget
requests?
Ms. Duke. I think there are two initiatives in our
president's budget that will specifically look at--they all
contribute to it, but specifically at spending taxpayer dollars
well.
One is the increase of the acquisition program management
directorate in the chief procurement office. We want to double
the number of acquisition program reviews we do from about 17
to about 40 in fiscal year 2010, and that is important because
we spend--our top acquisitions, 50 acquisitions total about $55
billion in costs. So that is a big, high-risk chunk we want to
manage.
A second area we are looking at is in the program analysis
and evaluation division of the CFO's office. There is about a
$3 million request actually to do independent assessments
through like a federally funded research development center,
someone of our programs to make sure that, before we even put
them in the budget, they have the right metrics and objectives
to actually deserve to be in the budget.
And I think those are two specifically addressed at your
question.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I was pleased to read in your written testimony that
becoming a premier employer that attracts and retains high-
quality talent is a priority for the department. Unfortunately,
the department has fallen short of that goal in the eyes of its
employees, especially when it comes to employee learning and
development, a critical goal of the office of the chief human
capital officer.
A May 20th article in the Washington Post noted that, in
many cases, federal workers value strong leadership and
straight answers from their bosses even more than higher pay
and improved benefits. That is very admirable.
The article referenced a study from the Partnership for
Public Service that found DHS employees rate the department
very poorly in this regard. How would the budget request
improve training and learning opportunities for leadership
managers, and supervisors within the department to help improve
job satisfaction and performance among all department
employees?
Ms. Duke. Well, I think there are two ways. Within the
human capital budget, we do have a training budget. And there
are several centralized programs, the national security
professional program, which trains employees that are in
national security professional positions under the executive
order, to look at national security from more of a holistic,
not just a DHS perspective.
We have our fellows program, which is targeted at 13s, 15s.
So we are trying to--those are examples of where we are trying
to make sure we have training opportunities for the employees
themselves.
The second thing we learned from the employee survey is,
some of the dissatisfaction was actually based on a very more
fundamental thing of supervisors not knowing how to be a
supervisor. When we saw that people were saying that
supervisors aren't dealing with problem employees or rewarding
employees that do well, we went back to the supervisors and
learned that there was a fundamental--they didn't know how to
do it.
So we have developed supervisory training, not the real
glossy, you know, self-actualization, but how do you deal with
federal employees in rewarding and taking care of problems? And
this is becoming a mandatory course.
And I actually think knowing the fundamentals is really
going to help. And that is a lot of our initiatives. You know,
they don't sound really impressive, but if you skip over them,
it is kind of a Maslow's hierarchy thing. We have to deal with
the basics. And that is what you see in our president's budget.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, will there be a second round?
Mr. Carney. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay, very good. Thank you. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cao,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I am looking through your testimony, and
there is a section that states, ``Smart and tough enforcement
of immigration laws and improving immigration services.''
Before coming here to Congress, I was an immigration
lawyer. And one of my worst experiences as an immigration
lawyer was to come to the New Orleans district office. The
people there are rude, and they are downright inefficient. I
have not seen a federal office that shuts down at 2 p.m.,
oftentimes leaving people hanging, waiting, or what have you.
What plans do you have to improve efficiency and to
improve, I guess, the quality of the personnel at the district
offices, especially in USCIS districts?
Ms. Duke. Well, to be honest, that is the first that has
been brought to me, but I will certainly take it back. The main
area we have been focusing on, USCIS, is a business
transformation program, where we are in the process right now
of actually transforming the processes, with a contract with
IBM that we are going to built an I.T. system that will
actually manage the processes.
This is going to be good customer service from an
efficiency standpoint because we will be able to do case
management, meaning an individual will be in the system once,
regardless of a number of benefits they are looking for. We
will be able to do online payment, online form processing. That
does not address the human side that you just brought up. And I
will bring that back and look into it.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much. And I have also noticed that
the fees for various applications in recent years have gone up
dramatically. And it reaches a point where it might be
prohibitively expensive for many of the immigrants to apply.
For instance, an application for a green card now runs
close to $1,100. When you factor in application costs, when you
factor in fingerprinting fees, on top of that, you have
attorney's fees that these people have to pay for. I want to
know, what is the rationale behind the increase in the fees so
dramatically in the last couple of years?
Ms. Duke. I believe the last--the CIS is fundamentally fee-
funded. And so that the increase in the fees that they had was
basically to cover costs.
Now, that doesn't mean we sit back with the current state
and say, ``We can just keep increasing fees.'' I think both the
last administration and this administration is fully committed
to making sure CIS is running for efficiency.
In fact, part of the commitment of getting the last fee
increase was that we would move forward with the CIS business
transformation program to try to make things more efficient and
bring down actual costs.
I know it is a huge initiative of the secretary. And we are
just going to continue to try to look through that. And we do
realize--we have seen immigration--we are challenged right now
in the CIS, because the number of immigration applications is
going down, which decreases revenue, so we are faced with that
fiscal reality and really is trying to decide what to do with
it.
Mr. Cao. That is the only question I have, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back my time.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the
ranking member.
This is an important hearing today. And I thank the
undersecretary for appearing today.
I am not sure whether this is your first time before the
committee, but I welcome you to the committee. And I assure you
that my desire is to be as helpful as I can to you, to do all
that I can to make your tenure in office and your office a
success.
To this end, I would like to have somewhat of a dialogue,
but forgive me if it becomes more of a soliloquy.
I would like to acknowledge that we should only employ
capable, competent and qualified people. We should only hire
for procurement purposes those who are capable, competent and
qualified. I understand that big companies can do big things,
that big companies can provide great innovation.
But many times the innovation was originated with a small
company. Small companies are known for being original,
originating new ideas. I think that probably one of the
supreme, superb and sterling examples of this would be a very
popular phone that we--many of us carry that really innovated
technology that was originated by a small company.
I mention these things because I think that we have to look
beyond the horizon of the big into the area of the small so as
to make sure we capture all of these innovations that are out
there.
I was at a meeting not too long ago with the chairman,
Chairman Thompson, and we had a large company, big company
represented. The president and CEO was in attendance, and we
had small companies there, as well.
And this CEO had an opportunity to hear some of these
purveyors, these small companies, talk about the innovations
that they have produced. And you could see in his demeanor, in
his body language that he was pleasantly surprised with what he
heard.
It is not unusual for the person at the top to have the
vision. But for some reason, many times that vision is not
given the opportunity to see the entire horizon because we have
policies and procedures and intellectual property that has to
be protected so the person at the top is sometimes sheltered to
the extent that he doesn't have the opportunity or she will not
have the opportunity to see all of these innovations that
exist.
These innovations are important to us. So my question and
more of an encouragement is, is this, that we try to find new
and creative ways to allow small, capable, competent and
qualified businesses. Don't want anybody to do business that is
not prepared to do business and who is not capable, competent
and qualified. But those that are ought to be given
opportunities.
And my question, in summary, is, how do you propose to
enhance the opportunities for capable, competent, and qualified
small businesses to have a marriage, perhaps, with large
businesses such that they can produce off-springs of innovation
that can make a significant difference for us?
Ms. Duke. Well, actually, I am glad you brought that up.
And I have had many conversations with Chairman Thompson about
small business and appreciate his support.
This is one of the areas we are most proud of. DHS
continually exceeds the federal goals for all the small
business contracting goals, but we are never done. So some of
the main areas for small business is in the technology, kind of
the emerging technology. The best places are small business
innovative research program, where we actually can fund
businesses as they develop solutions. This is in the earliest
stages.
Within our contracting, what we are doing is always
looking--we have a robust small business office in the
headquarters that reports via me to the deputy secretary. We do
outreach regularly.
We are also looking at setting aside programs. We have
often set aside specific contracts, but we are looking at
setting aside programs where, for instance, professional
services will award only to service-disabled veteran companies
so that they can--themselves, because it is sometimes hard for
them to compete even against--even within small business
program, you have many categories.
So we find like small businesses, some of the service-
disabled vets, which is the hardest goal to meet, they can't
compete against some of the bigger small businesses. So we are
looking for the niche opportunities where then competition
would be restricted as we issue task orders among those.
So this is a huge area. And we constantly look for outreach
opportunities to help small businesses understand the
complicated federal bureaucracy, and we will continue to do
that.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
Mr. Carney. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
I will begin the second round of questions here. Ms. Duke,
the department currently is undertaking quite an enormous task,
I think, of consolidating its 24 data centers into two
locations. The budget request is $200 million for this effort.
Can you tell me the status of the project, why it was
necessary, and how much you anticipate it ultimately costing?
Ms. Duke. The project was necessary for two basic reasons.
The first is efficiency. We have to get down to--we shouldn't
be spending our tax dollars that we receive for maintaining
facilities. And so this is just an efficiency from a facilities
measure.
The second area that I think is even more important is the
security measure. DHS, like other federal agencies, is under
constant attack from cyber threat. And it is not just at the
high side, the highly classified programs. It is just trying to
gather information.
And so by focusing our security efforts on two data
centers, a primary and a backup, we can use our limited dollars
to keep those at the highest level of security, which is
constantly evolving. We all hear about the new threats and
really make it a security initiative.
It is actually also a building block to standardizing data
and keeping--what we found is, we are keeping the same data
multiple times, each program because of our stove-piping. So
the third piece of data center consolidation is going to be
that we are going to start looking at, where are we keeping
data? And let's keep it once and then give access to it from
different programs to try to further make things more efficient
and consistent.
In terms of the $200 million, that does do the majority of
the migration. We believe the cost of maintaining Stennis is--I
think there is about $58 million in the budget. That includes
some upgrades. But just the annual operation of maintenance is
about $35 million.
Mr. Carney. I am concerned about redundancies here and
having backup. You know, does one center back up the other and
vice versa? You know, going from 24 to 2 is quite a reduction,
and we have to be sure we protect that. And can we be assured
that we are going to have redundancy?
Ms. Duke. Yes. And I think that the--it will be about $30
million in power upgrades, and facility upgrades that were
planned in the 2010 president's budget will really go a long
way to make sure that we have a great primary center. And
backup redundancy is absolutely a part of our plan.
Mr. Carney. You may know that physically located right next
to one of the data centers--you have this picture, too, I
imagine--are fuel storage tanks, which causes some concern,
obviously. Depending on what kind of fuel is in those things,
it can be exceptionally explosive.
How are we mitigating that? I mean, that is really a
concern.
Ms. Duke. I would have to get back to you on that. I do not
know specific plans for the fuel tanks. I will get back to the
committee.
Mr. Carney. Thank you very much.
Look, during the H1N1 outbreak, there was significant
controversy regarding what the department's frontline employees
at CBP and ICE and TSA could wear personal protective
equipment, in order--such as gloves and respirators and masks
and things to do their job.
The guidance received was inconsistent and changed actually
several times during the course of the outbreak. What has the
department done to rectify this situation? Can you share with
us the most recent communications, et cetera?
Ms. Duke. We have continued--the guidance has changed,
because the medical evidence has changed, and we have continued
to work with CDC and Department of Labor, OSHA.
Our most recent guidance, I personally issued two pieces of
guidance. One was on April 30th, and it dealt with mandatory
use for persons in high-risk situations. The CDC guidance then
was modified based on the change in H1N1. And I issued
additional guidance or revised guidance to the component heads
on May 29th, last Friday, that addresses both the fact that
mandatory use is no longer required per CDC guidance and it
addresses the permissive use of personal protective equipment.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Now, given what you told us about the
supervisors, are you satisfied or comfortable that the
supervisors will be giving this directive down to the frontline
workers?
Ms. Duke. I am satisfied with that. I have talked with each
of the major component heads, of course, are CBP, ICE and TSA.
And I have talked with each of them. And I issued it only to
the component heads so that they could deploy it within their
components, but they have assured me they are doing that.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis again.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Madam Secretary, on May 27th, the Director of the Office of
Personal Management announced that President Obama plans to
institute pay-for-performance throughout the federal
government. Please discuss the benefits of pay-for-performance
versus the current title five grade and step system. Have you
spoken to OPM Director Berry about how this would work at DHS?
And would you plan to use the chapter 97 flexibilities provided
in the Homeland Security Act of 2002?
Ms. Duke. The difference between pay-for-performance and
step increases is just step increases, if you are performing
satisfactorily, you get paid for longevity. And someone
performing just satisfactorily and someone performing
exceptionally gets the same pay increase based on annual
anniversaries.
Pay-for-performance tries to distinguish between just
satisfactorily performance and outstanding performance. So it
is obviously--it is more akin to what is used in industry.
I think it would address a lot of the--it has the potential
to both address or make worse a lot of the issues that were
brought up in our employee survey. It has the possibility to
make better because employees complaining that they don't get
adequate rewards for performing at an exceptional level.
The issue is of fairness. And so as we do pay-for-
performance, if we do--and I have not talked to Mr. Berry
personally--we are going to have to make sure that it is on
clear enough standards, any pay-for-performance, so that it
doesn't appear to employees, whether it is reality or just
perception, that there is unfairness in the process. And I
think that is the biggest thing that has caused pay-for-
performance to be kind of controversial, as it appears to be
subjective.
So I think the important thing of pay-for-performance, when
instituted, is that it has clear objectives so that both the
employee, the supervisor, and other people can see that that
employee did, indeed, exceed on objectives and in a somewhat
either qualitative or quantitative way, not just because a
supervisor prefers them.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And I would like
to keep in touch with you on this issue. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, I do.
Mr. Carney. Okay. That is all right.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana
again, Mr. Cao.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much.
And I apologize, Madam Secretary, for keep beating on
USCIS, but my experiences with the agency have not been very
positive. And another area of my concern is the length of time
that it takes to process some of these applications.
Let me give you some examples. An application for
naturalization, at least at the district office in New Orleans,
I would say it takes about a year-and-a-half. An application
for, I guess, adjustment status between marriages with an
immigrant with a U.S. citizen's spouse can take as long as 4
years, especially when the spouse comes from countries that
might be suspect, such as the Middle East, some of those other
areas where we might have concerns in regards to terrorism.
You know, I appreciate the agency's concern for our
security and possibly to weed out fraud, which I know is a
major problem when we are dealing with immigration cases. But
to me, it seems that the length of time to process and
adjudicate some of these category of cases, you know, is
somewhat extensive.
And I am just wondering whether or not it is a particular
problem at the district office in New Orleans or whether or not
this is a national problem in connection with all district
offices. Can you provide me with some insight in that regard?
Ms. Duke. Well, speed of benefits is always going to be an
issue. It is like small business. You know, you are never
satisfied. You always want to get better.
Two specific areas that--as undersecretary for management,
I am involved in working with CIS to improve, one is lack of
feedback. So it is one thing to take 6 months; it is another
thing to not know it is going to take 6 months and not know how
much longer.
So there are two things that this transformed CIS system is
going to deliver. One is more feedback, so that the applicants
actually know the status and they know if there is a problem or
they know if there is--you know, it is just kind of in the
infamous, I guess, federal black hole.
The second thing that is going to be huge, because we find
that a lot of people applying for benefits apply for more than
one benefit. And under the existing CIS system, every time you
enter the immigration system, you are a new case, a new person.
And under case management, although it sounds simple, when you
apply for a benefit, you will have a number, and that number
will stay with you.
So when you apply for a second benefit, you are not going
to have to start over with, you know, verifying and doing all
the security. All that information will transfer to your next
benefit or related immigration benefit. And that is going to be
huge so that, if you do need multiple benefits, your
information will be stored and they will only start and get the
extra information they need for the different benefit.
And that is probably the single most thing that will help,
in terms of the time for--and actually be an electronic system
that--via a paper-based system, I think is really going to
help. It will also add some transparency to it and allow us to
better track kind of the notional cases you are talking about
or the examples you are talking about from New Orleans through
better management information.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much.
And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Cao.
We now recognize Mr. Green again for another 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you. One of the great challenges that we
face has to do with FEMA and HUD.
But before I go on, let me compliment you on your
testimony. You have 13 pages, and it is quite substantive and
quite inclusive. And you address our having to prepare for and
respond to natural disasters.
I want to go a little bit beyond what you have here. FEMA
and HUD, FEMA has as its mission immediate short-term
assistance, in as quickly as possible, stay no longer than is
necessary, and then HUD, as it relates to housing, HUD becomes
the provider of choice.
There has been some question as to when FEMA's aid ends and
HUD's begins. There have been, as I understand it,
conversations, dialogue has taken place to try to come up with
some means by which we can know when FEMA will no longer
provide temporary housing and HUD will step in and start to
provide the long-term assistance that HUD provides.
Have you looked at this question? And if you have, how are
we hopefully going to resolve the question of FEMA temporary,
HUD long term, and when they actually end and begin?
Ms. Duke. Yes, definitely. And Secretary Napolitano is very
engaged in this. I mean, the issue--and it was highlighted by
Katrina--I mean, FEMA, you talked about having competent in
place--FEMA is not in the long-term housing business. It is in
the response and recovery, just as you said.
What happened is, temporary housing is only temporary if it
is returning to a permanent solution. So if somebody is
rebuilding their home, then it is temporary housing.
But in the case of Katrina and some other of the major
disasters, there--the people in temporary housing were not
returning or had nothing to return to. Either they weren't
rebuilding or they didn't have something before the disaster,
so there was nothing to return to.
So I think the main thing we are working on is really
just--both HUD and DHS agrees there should be a handoff in
those cases and really just working out how that can happen
seamlessly so that the person needing the housing, the victim
of disaster isn't, you know, disadvantaged by the transition.
And how do we define at what point does temporary housing
end and when HUD takes over? And it is not necessarily a
timeframe. It more has to do with the reasonable expectation?
Mr. Green. Conditions.
Ms. Duke. ----of end to the temporary need versus a more
permanent need. And that is what we are working with HUD on
now. And I think you will see that continue to be a better
relationship.
Mr. Green. Well, I thank you for your efforts in this area,
because one of the most disenchanting aspects of this is when
we find persons who are housed temporarily and they are being
told--it always seems to happen this way--right around some
significant event or holiday that they are going to have to
move and we find ourselves, members, asking for extensions of
time.
And to be candid, the FEMA reps have been fairly responsive
in granting extensions, but it does create quite a bit of
disruption and turmoil in the lives of the people who are
trying to gain stability after having suffered a tragedy.
So the appeal, I suppose, is that we do as expeditiously
this work as we can so that we don't continue to have people
who are uncertain as to what will happen next. If we can just
give people a degree of certainty, they will have a degree of
confidence. And that degree of confidence will allow them to
start to rebuild their lives in the community that they happen
to be in, that the school of choice may be the one that is
right nearby, but if you are not going to live in that
community very long, then you have to look for another school.
So I thank you for the comments, and my hope is that we can
move expeditiously on this point. I sit on, by the way,
Financial Services, so I happen to see it from both sides,
Homeland dealing with FEMA, Financial Services dealing with
HUD.
Ms. Duke. And I agree. And because every family's situation
is unique, Mr. Green, we have added, a little while after
Katrina, case services that are almost like social services
that we can actually counsel individual families based on their
needs and their financial situation and their social situation.
So that, I think, was a huge step on the department's part
in terms of the human side of the effects of a disaster on a
family.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My time is expired.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Ms. Duke, I had a question on the QHSR. As you know, the
review is due in December of this year. And in fiscal year
2009, President Bush's budget requested a total of $1.65
million for the completion of a QHSR. Is the department on
target to meet the December completion deadline?
Ms. Duke. Yes, we are.
Mr. Carney. Okay. That is heartening. Is it going to be,
from your perspective, a thorough, complete review? Or is it
going to be more skeletal, as it was explained to us about a
year ago?
Ms. Duke. I think it is going to be a complete review from
purposes of base-lining, mission alignment. What we did
choose--there was kind of a two paths to go with variance in
both. One is to try to solve world hunger, which would mean
working out a lot of interagency-type work. And, you know, the
department made the decision that we have--we want to get our
own house in order from a mission alignment standpoint first.
So the QHSR is very comprehensive from a DHS perspective,
but it does not go out--because it would probably add 2 years
to it--to the really broader scope of federal alignment based
on, you know, the interactions. So it does do the touch points,
but we are looking forward to doing this step of DHS mission
alignment and then, in the next one, even broadening it more to
the interagency, which I think is critical.
Mr. Carney. Well, I agree 100 percent on that. I look
forward to reading the report, in any case.
Finally, I do want to return back to the data centers and
certainly the physical location of those tanks. It is a huge
concern of mine and almost anybody who has seen it. Please--you
can do, give us a plan on how we are going to mitigate that. We
could have an enormous crisis on our hands if we don't get that
taken care of soon.
And if we caught you flat-footed on that one, I apologize.
It is just something that has been a concern, and we really
have to get that taken care of, either moving the tanks or
relocating the center, whatever we have to do to secure that
building.
Ms. Duke. I will get back to you with that. And I
apologize, I don't have an answer for you right now.
Mr. Carney. Okay, well, seeing as I am the only one left,
and I have no more questions, we will adjourn here in a moment.
But we do have more questions, and I imagine we will. We will
give them to you and expect an expeditious return in writing.
Thanks for everything you have done. And, you know, we look
forward to working with you for years to come.
Ms. Duke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions and Responses
Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security
Responses from The Honorable Elaine C. Duke, Under Secretary for
Management
Question 1.: Last week, Secretary Napolitano announced that the
Department reached its second Efficiency Review milestone. According to
her announcement, effectively immediately, all of the Department's
professional services contracts exceeding one million dollars will
undergo a mandatory review before a new contract is awarded or an
existing contract is renewed. When is this review scheduled to be
complete and how will the Department use the results of the review to
help formulate new acquisition polices?
Will the Efficiency Review include an assessment of large contracts
to determine if they are efficient and consider unbundling large
inefficient contracts to provide more opportunities for small,
minority, and disadvantaged businesses?
Response: The Workforce Assessment initiative is a focused effort
to review the balance between in-house and contract DHS resources. The
desired end result of the initiative on Workforce Assessments is to
ensure that DHS operates in the most economical and efficient manner
possible, seeks the appropriate balance of Federal and contract
employees, and ensures that our contracts do not inappropriately
include functions that must be performed by Federal employees. This
efficiency initiative is not designed to assess large contracts to
determine if they are efficient or to consider bundling issues with
contracts.
DHS has taken a number of significant actions to ensure
competition. This includes putting controls in place for the SBA to
review all DHS proposed contract actions over $2 million for bundling;
further, for upcoming procurements including those to be re-competed
and those reviewed as part of the efficiency initiative, DHS will
conduct market research to determine which projects can be set-aside
for small, minority, and disadvantaged businesses in accordance with
FAR 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, and 19.14 and our small business review policy.
As part of the Department's efforts to achieve that end result, all
professional services, as well as administrative and management support
contracts with an annual value in excess of $1 million are now required
to be reviewed by the Head of the Contracting Activity, and such
contracts with an annual value in excess of $50 million must be
reviewed by the Chief Procurement Officer. The purpose of the review is
to assure that these contracts do not include inherently or nearly
inherently governmental requirements, personal services, or impact core
functions that must be performed by federal employees.
Question 2.: The Department has already received approximately $1.2
billion for its Data Center consolidation and the FY 2010 budget
requests an additional $200 million. The Data Centers located in
Clarkesville, VA is expected to be contract-owned and contract-run.
Given the sensitive nature of the Data Center's contents and the
importance of its upkeep, why did the Department choose to contract out
this facility?
Response: The Department has not received $1.2B for Data Center
consolidation. The Department has received a total of $253.4M toward
this effort, broken down in the following manner:
DHS Data Center Migration Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Funding
--------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriated to DHS Appropriated to DHS
HQ Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2007 $53M $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008 $72.3M $0M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 $46.1M $82M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conference report accompanying the 2007 DHS appropriation bill
(House Report 109-699) offered the following guidance in how DHS should
acquire the second data center services
To provide for continuity of operations and fulfill back-up
requirements, the conferees direct the secondary facility and
infrastructure be at a separate remote location and the site
selection be conducted in a fair and open evaluation process.''
DHS chose to enter into a contract for a complete data center
managed service with a focus on the technology service elements, but
also inclusive of necessary hosting support. This strategy places more
emphasis on the needed outcomes for data center consolidation and
operation. Use of a contract for managed services offered the following
benefits
Entailed a fair, open and competitive process in
keeping with Congressional guidance.
Hosting at a contractor owned and operated facility is
provided as an element of the technology service offerings,
eliminating the need for traditional and lengthy Federal
facility acquisition process through the General Services
Administration.
Decreases financial risk, as DHS pays for managed
services only as required.
Provides for migration services.
Provides for technology refreshment as an element of
the service.
Provides for ``cloud-like'' services such as
Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service and
virtualization.
Allows for sole occupancy by DHS. Contract terms
require the facility to be dedicated to DHS and no other
tenants.
All security features and processes defined by DHS
under the terms of the contract.
Addresses contract exit strategy through an option to
negotiate a sale or lease of the facility.
Oversight
Data Center 2 (DC2) is contractor-owned and contractor-operated,
however the Government retains sufficient oversight of the Center and
its operations through the following processes:
Government personnel are assigned for onsite oversight
of DC2 operations
Government personnel conduct Quality Assurance
Surveillance Plan (QASP) inspections to provide oversight and
assurance of all physical and operational areas:
Network Services
Physical Facilities and Services
Security Services
Other support areas (e.g. Installation of
equipment)
DHS Security Team provide final approval to initiate work at
DC2 for all onsite contract support personnel
DHS HQ staff work to verify, track, and monitor all invoices and
financial matters relevant to DC2
Question: How will the funds in the budget be allocated?
Response: The funds in the budget will be allocated as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component OMB Approved Elements of Migration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP $38.65 10% of Production System Racks to
Migrate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HQ DC $58.80 Stennis and EDS Upgrades and O&M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA $7.90 All systems out of Denton, Texas
and Northern Virginia DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLETC $6.00 100% Migration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE $33.85 100% out of Dallas, Rockville,
Broomfield & Oak Ridge. 25% out of
ICE HQ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD $10.00 Implement Data Replication and
(NCSD/NCPS) Production Environment at EDS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPPD (US--Visit) $0.00 Migrate 100% of DOJ Dallas; Start
migration of DOJ Rockville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA $11.40 50% of Atlantic City Data Centers,
5% of HQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG $22.40 17% of USCG's Operations Center
will migrate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS $11.00 CIS will migrate 50% out of Dallas
and Rockville. 0% of Manassas
(Verizon).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $200.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3.: Unfortunately, the Committee continues to receive
complaints regarding the long delays that occur with respect to
adjudicating EEO Complaints. To your knowledge, will any CRCL funds be
used to improve the Department's EEO process?
Response: The President's Budget for FY 2010 includes funding to
support DHS EEO Programs and Diversity activities. CRCL intends to
dedicate nine positions requested in the President's Budget to support
CRCL's expanded efforts to identify and eliminate barriers to EEO,
including promoting standardized EEO and Diversity Programs policies
and practices throughout the Department. These positions will enable
CRCL to more effectively: promote proactive measures throughout the
Department to avoid EEO complaints (thereby reducing the EEO complaint
inventory and enabling increased efficiency in processing current
complaints); improve the processing of EEO complaints prior to
adjudication (to lower average processing time of EEO counseling, EEO
complaint acceptances, and EEO investigations); and to recruit
additional staff to adjudicate EEO complaints.
Question 4.: Although the Department recently received $200 million
for the DHS Headquarters Consolidation, that money was part of the
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act stimulus funds. The FY 2010
budget, only requests $75 million for the consolidation effort, which
is not scheduled for completion until 2016. If Congress chose to
increase funding to accelerate the schedule, what funding amount would
be sufficient? Will the Department's capacity allow for an acceleration
of the schedule?
Response: The $75 million requested in the FY 2010 budget is to
commence the equally critical mission support consolidation effort for
those functions/occupancies that do not relocate to St. Elizabeths.
Currently DHS and Component headquarters functions are housed in over
40 locations. Our plan proposes to reduce the total number of locations
down to about eight, including federal space at St. Elizabeths, the
Nebraska Avenue Complex, the U.S. Secret Service building, and the
Ronald Reagan Office Building. Additionally, we plan to retain two long
term leases currently housing TSA and ICE. Our remaining requirements
for mission support and projected growth would then be accommodated in
two long term lease locations. A prospectus to begin this mission
support consolidation effort will be submitted to the Congress in the
near future. This plan addresses our critical need for a consolidated
headquarters and also addresses our future needs for the growth and
evolution of the department.
On a macro level, the schedule for the mission support
consolidation is tied to the occupancy schedule of functions relocating
to St. Elizabeths. As mission execution functions move out of their
existing locations to St. Elizabeths, remaining mission occupancies can
be transitioned to a final mission support consolidation location and
the existing lease(s) terminated. Accordingly, with the final moves to
St. Elizabeths scheduled for FY 2016, the mission support functions
would move at that time as well to minimize vacancy risk to the Federal
Government and align with lease expirations. On a micro level, it is
possible to accelerate the mission support migration unilaterally or in
conjunction with an acceleration of the St. Elizabeths development
completion.
While it is possible to accelerate the mission support
consolidation independent of the St. Elizabeths development, the
Federal Government via GSA would assume additional vacancy risk and the
lease locations would remain until the mission execution functions
moved to St. Elizabeths.
Acceleration of the mission support consolidation in conjunction
with an acceleration of the St. Elizabeths development presents
additional challenges as well as opportunities.
The amount of funding to accelerate the mission support
consolidation is $251 million. If this funding were received in FY2010
DHS would have the capacity to utilize the majority of the accelerated
funding within the FY 2010 and the balance within FY2011, which is why
we have requested these funds be identified as no year funds as in
previous requests.
The Department appreciates the strong support received from the
Congress in the FY 2009 appropriation and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act for the DHS Consolidated Headquarters development at
St. Elizabeths. The funds provided will allow construction of Phase 1,
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters to include the new 1.1 million gross
square feet office building and the renovation of certain historic
buildings for shared use services such as a cafeteria, fitness center,
etc. The funding also allows design to commence the follow-on phases
(Phases 2 and 3) and GSA is in the process of getting these contracts
initiated.
The acceleration of St. Elizabeths funding would have no impact on
Phase 1 completion currently planned for FY 2013 as construction
funding has already been provided and GSA is poised to achieve an FY
2009 award for a Design-Build Bridging contract. It will take all of FY
2010 to advance the designs for Phase 2 (DHS HQ, FEMA and the NOC/
Collocation of Component Operations Centers) and Phase 3 (Remaining
components) to a point where GSA will be in a position to award
construction contracts for the future phases.
We understand that the funding for this project competes with other
priorities within the department and the Administration's overall
budget priorities and believe the current phasing provides the right
balance of consultation and execution to effectively and efficiently
complete the development.
Should construction funding for the remaining phases be provided in
FY 2010, it is questionable as to whether a contract could be awarded
during FY 2010. However, with the remaining St. Elizabeths funding in
hand, it is possible to award a construction contract for the remaining
development in FY 2011 that has the potential to reduce the total
development by up to one year (FY 2015).
Question 5.: There is a shortage of acquisition personnel
throughout the Federal Government and the Department has not been
spared from this fate. As a result, the budget for the Office of
Procurement seeks to increase FTEs for the DHS Intern program from 100
to 150. However, our Committee oversight has revealed that the greatest
need for acquisition personnel is at the mid and senior level.
How will the Department use funds from the budget to address the
lack of journeyman level acquisition personnel?
Response: Fifty additional FTE's for FY-2010 was requested for the
Acquisition Professional Career Program (APCP) (aka DHS Acquisition
Intern Program) to continue the build up to a full compliment of 300
participants (100 annually) required to meet the Department's entry
level accession plans.
To address the mid-career recruitment issues, the Office of the
Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) is exploring several courses of
actions. The first is building a business case to recruit from non-
traditional mid career sources, such as purchasing agents and
purchasing clerks that have recently been laid off from private
industry due to the economic downturn. The business case looks at the
total cost of hiring individuals with purchasing experience outside the
federal sector and training them up quickly in the particulars that
result from federal processes, laws and regulations. Additionally, the
Department has partnered with the Federal Acquisition Institute on a
mid-career recruiting initiative that hopes to bring fresh ideas on
targeted pools of candidates and resources and flexibilities in hiring
available to government agencies. The Department is also attempting to
identify mid-career recruits from within the employee ranks in other
jobs series and targeting them to ``bridge'' into the procurement
profession. All programs are in the concept phase but show great
promise.
To address the senior level shortages, the Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer continues to appropriately encourage the use of the
re-employed annuitant authority and will continue to centrally
advertise in professional trade magazines for efficiency. Additionally,
OCPO has employed a central recruitment strategy for senior level and
hard to fill vacancies by hiring a recruitment coordinator dedicated to
working with the Heads of Contracting and Level I Program Managers to
identify personnel requirements and hard to fill vacancies. In
coordination with the human resource specialists, the coordinator will
employ innovative techniques and use recruiting technology tools to
assist in filling these senior level positions.
Question 6.: The budget includes a $3.1 million request for the
implementation of a department-wide contract records management system.
The budget requests two FTEs to implement this system Department-wide.
I am concerned about whether the requested personnel increase is
sufficient. Please explain how the Department plans to achieve this
important goal with such a small staff allocation.
Response: The additional 2 FTE/3Postions requested for the
Electronic Records Management System (ERMS), will provide the Program
Office with adequate FTE to support the initial activities of the ERMS
project. We anticipate this to be sufficient for the first year,
however based on the complexity of the project and the significant
change management plan that will be needed, additional FTE's may be
requested in future year budget requests.
In addition, DHS HQ is also working with all Components to identify
the appropriate number of FTE needed to rollout and sustain the ERMS
effort department wide. It is estimated through the synergistic effort
of all Components and the DHS HQ office, a total of 25 FTE will be
realized through the lifecycle of the ERMS program.
Question 7.: There is an $8 million request for the Privacy Office.
This is only $1.2 million over the FY09 enacted amount of $6.8 million.
Given the FOIA backlog, amount of training done by the office, and the
number of reports the office produces, please explain how this minimal
increase will allow the Office meet its obligations?
The budget request for the Privacy Office asks for an increase of 2
FTE. Please explain why an office that is involved in training
throughout each DHS component, drafting quarterly reports, conducting
privacy impact assessments, and providing training to fusion centers
would only need an increase of 2 full time employees? Please explain
why this office was not provided with more than 2 FTEs and how, in
light of this allocation, it will adequately complete its mission?
Response: In FY10, the Privacy Office is requesting $7.9M. This is
an increase of nearly 50% above its 2008 expenditures. The Privacy
Office is using much of this increase to hire new professional staff:
between now and the end of FY10, the Privacy Office anticipates hiring
seven additional full-time, Federal employees. This will bring the
total complement for the privacy and FOIA functions to 36 FTE, in
addition to some minimal contractor support.
I am confident that this budget and workforce level will permit the
Privacy Office to complete its statutory responsibilities to the
highest standards. The Department has already shown remarkable progress
in reducing the FOIA backlog, and the Privacy Office's FOIA staff is
adequately staffed to provide the guidance necessary to assist the
components to further reduce and ultimately clear the FOIA backlog. The
quarterly reporting is now fully integrated into the Privacy Office's
routine. The next annual report, moreover, will be both timely and
thorough. Finally, the Privacy Office continues to meet all its
statutory obligations to provide training. Inside the Department, the
Privacy Office coordinates training efforts closely with DHS' component
privacy officers and privacy points of contact; while they are not
formally part of the Privacy Office budget, they extend the reach of
the office throughout the Department. Where appropriate, the office
further leverages its relationships with other Federal partners: for
the fusion centers, for example, the Privacy Office has partnered with
the DHS Office for Civil for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the
Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, and ODNI's
Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment. Together, they
are developing and providing training required under the 9/11
Commission Act for both I&A analysts as well as for State and local
fusion center representatives.
The Privacy Office currently achieves all these responsibilities
while setting the bar within the Federal Government for it
comprehensive compliance program. The addition of seven new employees
will only increase their performance.
Question 8.: According to the Department's Inspector General, GSA
offers a shared service solution to federal agencies for a significant
portion of HSPD-12 implementation, including card issuance. GSA
estimated it would cost the Department approximately $17M to issue
cards to each employee, and $7.5M in annual maintenance, if the
Department chose to utilize the GSA shared service solution. With these
numbers in mind please explain:
How does the Department justify the $25 million request when GSA is
offering a solution that they estimate will cost only $17 million?
Response: Initial Department estimates were for 150,000 employees
and contractors. However, since that time additional workforce
populations have been identified and the Department has hired a
significant number of new employees and contractors. The most recent
DHS workforce estimate is a total of approximately 250,000 employees
and contractors nationwide.
Based on the estimated population of 250,000, an initial issuance
($49) and maintenance ($3 per month * 59 months) for the population
through GSA would total $56.5 million over a five-year period. [GSA
Cost = 250,000 * $226/ea = $56.5 million]
Additionally, GSA issuance would not provide the four PKI
certificates that are necessary for backend integration, logical access
control system (computer login with Personal Identity Verification
(PIV)) or physical access control (use of PIV with facility entry
reader) integration.
DHS would still need to develop and maintain its backend identity
management system (IDMS) in order to support physical access control
and logical access control validation and interoperability. Recent OMB
guidance recommends that agencies develop backend IDMS in order to
support usage and interoperability of the PIV cards.
The GSA cost estimate also does not include reissuance, which would
be required for a significant amount of the workforce due to turnover,
lost or damaged cards, and renewals.
Question: What metrics/analyses were used by the Department to
determine the $25 million included in the budget for HSPD-12 card
issuance?
Response: Please see attached cost analysis spreadsheet.
Attachment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2010 Estimate (135,000 Individuals FY2011 Estimate (105,000 Individuals
------------------------------------------------------------------ Badged) Badged)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Cost Number of Units Cost Number of Units Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Additional Personnel Credentialed Per 135000 Issuances 105000 Issuances
Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Reissuance/Renewal/Damaged/Lost 36250 Reissuances 62500 Reissuances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Issuance Support and Workstations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card Issuance Workstation (CIWS) 15,672.67 192 Workstations 3,444,947 190 Workstations 3,068,598
Lease/Installation/Maintenance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surge Labor Suppo$70/$74/$77 60 Contractor8,169,969 57 Contracto8,169,969
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surge Labor Supp4,216,160.72de TraveFor Surge Support 4,216,161 For Surge Support 4,015,391
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Management Office Support 783,064.61 N/A 783,065 N/A 783,065
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training 2,584.24 150 Sessions 387,636 150 Sessions 387,636
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduling Software Hosting and Licensing For up to 144,716 For up to 144,716
Fee 200 Locations 200 Locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interfaces Development for Connection to 3 Interfaces 142,853
Vetted Databases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuance Consumables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIV Card Stock 13.12 171250 Cards 2,246,800 167500 Cards 2,197,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badge Holders 3.00 136000 408,000 130000 390,000
Badge Holders Badge Holders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanyards 1.12 136000 Lanyards 152,320 130000 Lanyards 145,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer Consumables 3.68 For 171250 Cards 630,234 For 167500 Cards 616,434
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Enterprise Back-End System Costs
Required to Support Technical Solution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of Identity Management System 70,000.00 N/A 70,000 N/A 70,000
(IDMS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card Management System (CMS)/Identity 800,000.00 N/A 800,000 N/A 800,000
Management System (IDMS) License Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDMS Server Hosting 16,634.50 N/A 16,635 N/A 16,635
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury Certificate Authority Maintenance 350,000.00 N/A 350,000 N/A 350,000
Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PKI Support (Treasury Liaison, 4 Contractor1,008,843 4 Contracto1,008,843
Registration, Technical Support,
PKI Engineering, Policy and Oversight)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications (VPN) to Support PKI 120,000.00 N/A 120,000 N/A 120,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of IDMS Interface to N/A 5,550 N/A 5,744
Certificate Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PKI Certificates and Maintenance 3.20 250000 Identities 1,470,000 250000 Identities 220,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of HQ and Component Interfaces 5 Interfaces 83,522 5 Interfaces 85,529
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logical Access Ent1.40ise Midd250000 Identities 348,750 250000 Identities 348,750
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 25,000,000 22,944,509
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 9.: In early March, this subcommittee held a hearing on
the DHS workforce. In that hearing, we received testimony about the
benefits of a rotation program that assigns employees to other
positions within their components and within the Department to further
knowledge, collaboration and leadership skills.
For the record, do you believe this kind of program would benefit
the employee and the Department?
Response: Yes. To carry out the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) mission effectively, it is imperative that Departmental offices
and Components share a common understanding of DHS goals and how
Components contribute to achieve those goals. Rotational assignments
provide for better understanding of Department-wide perspectives and
facilitate successful interoperability.
Rotations are an integral part of the development of future leaders
at DHS and as such, have been built into numerous enterprise-wide
programs including: the Department's Senior Executive Service Candidate
Development Programs, the DHS Fellows program, and the DHS National
Security Professional Development (NSPD) program.
Further, would any portion of your budget request be allocated to
furthering such a program?
Response: Yes. Investing in a Rotational Program that spans the
Department is an efficient way to develop and retain strong leadership
within the organization. The Chief Human Capital Officer has hired a
Program Coordinator to manage the DHS Rotations Program throughout the
Department. In addition, by the end of the current Fiscal Year the DHS
University Learning and Development website will house a Library of
Rotational Assignments .
Question--General Background 10.: The Committee is pleased to see
that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reached its second major
Efficiency Review milestone last week. As part of the Efficiency Review
process, Secretary Napolitano issued a mandatory review of all new
contracts for professional services. However, the budget request does
not specifically identify resources for this effort.
Response--General Background. The Secretary's announcement of the
efficiency initiative on Workforce Assessments is one of five
initiatives launched on May 26. The Workforce Assessment initiative is
a focused effort to review the balance between in-house and contract
DHS resources, ensure that DHS operates in the most economical and
efficient manner possible, improve contract oversight and ensure that
our contracts do not inappropriately include functions that must be
performed by federal employees.
As a part of that larger efficiency initiative, DHS now requires
that all professional services contracts with an annual value in excess
of $1 million will be reviewed by the Heads of the Contracting
Activity. In addition, professional services contracts with an
estimated annual value in excess of $50 million will be reviewed by the
Chief Procurement Officer.
What resources will DHS use to conduct this review?
Response: Existing resources within the Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer will be used to conduct this review.
What is the desired programmatic outcome of this review?
Response: The overall intent of this initiative is to ensure DHS
operates in the most economical and efficient manner possible.
Specifically, DHS will conduct a series of comprehensive assessments of
organizational resources to determine the most effective balance of
contractor and federal employees, while maintaining appropriate
oversight.
The specific purpose of the contract reviews is to assure that any
new DHS professional services contracts do not include inherently
government functions, personal services, or otherwise adversely affect
core capabilities that must be performed by federal employees. The
reviews will also assure that there is adequate Government contract
oversight of contractor employees and sufficient Federal employees to
ensure performance in accordance with the terms of the contract. The
larger organizational efficiency and manpower management reviews
included in the initiative are being designed, consistent with our
human capital resource planning process, to seek the most efficient
organization and developmental needs and to then transition to that
organization, taking into account the total workforce, existing gaps
and weaknesses, economies and efficiencies.
Do you anticipate cost savings as a result of the review, and if
so, how much?
Response: We do anticipate significant savings. While the
Department cannot quantify the exact performance improvements or
operational cost savings that will be realized, DHS is working with
OMB, as a member of its Multi-Sector Working Group, to develop
Workforce Assessment performance and cost metrics and anticipates that
the overall Workforce Assessment initiative will yield significant cost
savings. These savings will be achieved by employing the most efficient
and effective balance of Federal employees and contractor requirements.
OMB's June 11, 2009 FY 2011 budget guidance requires agencies to (a)
freeze at the FY 2010 request level (if the FY 2010 budget request is
lower than the FY 2011 amount in the FY 2010 Budget) and (b) achieve a
5 percent reduction from the FY 2011 level in the FY 2010 Budget. In
conjunction with the reviews of contracts included in the DHS Workforce
Assessments, the 5 percent reduction should reduce contract spending by
ending contracts that are inappropriate, ineffective, wasteful, or not
otherwise likely to meet the agency's needs, and by using strengthened
acquisition oversight practices and resources.
Question 11.: The Department's HSPD-12 implementation process has
been significantly delayed in the past. In fact, the Department has
never once met one of the Federal government-mandated deadlines.
Response: The Department has met Federal government-mandated HSPD-
12 deadlines set forth by OMB:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Agency Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/26/05 Provided list of other potential uses of
Standard to OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/05 Complied with FIPS 201, Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/06 Began compliance with FIPS 201, Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/07 Verified and/or completed background
investigations for current employees and
contractors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/08 Completed background investigations for
Federal department or agency employees
employed over 15 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, before beginning card issuance, DHS spent the time
necessary to develop the technology required to support the DHS PIV
cards. This technical solution will enable the DHS PIV cards to be used
for physical and logical access and will allow the cards to be
electronically validated in real time.
Will the current budget request allow the Department to get back on
track?
Response: The current budget request will allow the Department to
remain on track to complete issuance of badges to approximately 150,000
by 2010. However, the Department will require additional resources in
fiscal year 2011 to complete the badge issuance to the remaining
Department personnel, which is currently estimated to be an additional
105,000.
How does establishing a separate line-item request for HSPD-12
assist the Department in its efforts?
Response: The $25 million will provide a unified and collaborative
DHS-wide effort through a Component-supported, centrally managed
deployment approach to HSPD-12. This will help gain significant
economies of scale by reducing overall program cost through the use of
shared resources and coordinated planning across components. Central
management and execution of this program is expected to save $20M in
the initial issuance of HSPD-12 cards. It will also support the
establishment of a performance-based acquisition strategy that enables
the Department to meet DHS and OMB milestones and timelines.
Question 12.: Has the Department conducted any investigations or
analysis of the potential privacy and civil liberties liabilities posed
by the implementation of HSPD-12? If so, what steps have the department
taken to mitigate privacy-related concerns?
Response: Since the issuance of HSPD-12, the DHS Privacy Office has
worked closely with the Office of Security to ensure the directive is
implemented in a manner that respects privacy.
On October 13, 2006, the Department published an initial Privacy
Impact Assessment (PIA) entitled ``Personal Identity Verification,''
(PIV) which assessed DHS's ``role in the collection and management of
personally identifiable information (PII) for the purpose of issuing
credentials to meet the requirements of HSPD-12.'' It examined the
Department's efforts to comply with credentialing standards created by
the National Institute for Standards and Technology related to privacy.
That PIA concluded that substantial ``consideration has been given
in establishing the DHS HSPD-12 PIV system to ensure that the system is
compliant with applicable E-Government of 2002, Privacy Act of 1974 and
Freedom of Information Act provisions, and the PIV Program has worked
closely with the DHS Privacy Office and the Chief Information Officer
to ensure all requirements have been met in a timely manner.''
An update to the initial PIA was signed on April 2, 2009, to, among
other things, examine the Department's use of a more robust, second-
generation Identity management system for HSPD-12. This new PIA
contains analysis and steps the Department has taken to enhance privacy
related to (1) the System and the Information Collected and Stored
within the System; (2) Uses of the System and the Information; (3) Data
Retention; (4) Internal Sharing and Disclosure; (4) External Sharing
and Disclosure; (5) Individual Access, Redress, and Correction; (6)
Technical Access and Security; and (7) Technology.
Finally, on June 26, 2009, the Department published an update to
the System of Records Notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 30301)
entitled ``DHS Personal Identity Verification Management System
SORNDHS/All-026.''
The compliance documents discussed in this response are available
to the public online on the DHS Privacy Office's website, www.dhs.gov/
privacy.
Question 13.: In reviewing the plan to migrate various components
from their current locations to the two established Data Centers it
appears as if some components will be 100% transferred from where they
are now by the end of FY2010. While I appreciate the quick progression
of the project, I have some concerns. The DHS IG has reported several
additions to the current capabilities including items such as
additional telecommunications circuits, computer floor space and
redundant equipment.
What measures are the Department taking to ensure that all of the
equipment and Data stored at these facilities is appropriate?
Response: This question appears to be directed towards the
questions raised in the recent Office of Inspector General (OIG)
report, DHS' Progress in Disaster Recovery Planning for Information
Systems.
The OIG's report examined disaster recovery, which the data center
consolidation effort is designed to improve. The report indicates that
establishment of DHS' two enterprise data centers is significant
progress towards improvement; however, the report did not portray a
fully accurate picture of the DHS enterprise data centers. Of the seven
recommendations contained in the OIG's report, three focused on the
data centers.
OIG Recommendation # 1--Provide necessary resources to ensure that
the DC1 and DC2 have the connectivity, equipment, and computer room
floor space to act as alternate processing sites for each other.
Necessary connectivity existed at the time of the OIG
examination, and the situation has improved since. Both the
Stennis Data Center (DC1) and the EDS Data Center (DC2) have
redundant connections to the DHS wide area network, OneNet.
Both DC1 and DC2 have redundant connections to the Internet.
The two centers have long been interconnected by virtue of
their OneNet connections and have ample capacity for current
inter-center communications. Nonetheless, DHS has installed a
high-speed link between the centers in anticipation of greater
center-to-center communications. Installation of that link was
ongoing at the time of the OIG's information collection.
Floor space at both centers is adequate for projected needs.
During the course of detailed, on-site discovery efforts at
older data centers targeted for consolidation, DHS CIO found a
much lower use of space than earlier data calls revealed. Two
examples of this trend are the space used by several elements
of DHS at the Department of Justice data centers and space used
by the Transportation Security Agency at their older data
center. In both these cases, actual floor space consumed was
approximately 25% of original estimates. Consequently, space at
DC1 and DC2 is adequate.
OIG report indicates agreement with DHS CIO concerning both the
connectivity and space issue. Specifically, ``These
recommendations will be considered resolved.''
OIG Recommendation # 2--Provide redundancy to eliminate reported
power and telecommunications single points of failure at DC1
DC1 was constructed with modern backup power systems consisting
of an uninterruptible power supply (batteries), diesel
generators and automatic switching systems to invoke the backup
capability in the event of a failure in utility power. This
capability is routinely tested, and was fully and successfully
demonstrated during Hurricane Gustav. There are, however,
essential power capacity improvements needed at DC1. A large
percentage of the funds requested for the DHS CIO under
Security Activities are for these power improvements. Thus,
support of the President's budget is fully consistent with the
OIG report.
The NASA Stennis Space Center, on which DC1 resides, did indeed
have a telecommunications redundancy shortcoming revealed
during Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, both the
telecommunications routes serving the facility were impacted by
the storm. Subsequently, NASA established a new tertiary
northbound telecommunications route that would be impervious to
the kinds of disruptions that a worst-case scenario, such as
Hurricane Katrina, might present. DHS has made full use of this
northbound route for redundant telecommunications services.
Again, OIG report indicates agreement with DHS CIO.
Specifically, ``These recommendations will be considered
resolved.''
Recommendation # 6--Re-perform risk assessments at DC1 and DC2 and
continue to do so whenever there has been a significant change to the
system configuration or the operating environment.
DHS undertook thorough due diligence in examining risk at both DC1
and DC2. Prior to commencing operations at DC1, the Federal Protective
Service undertook a risk assessment with positive results. The Navy
examined the facility and certified it for processing of sensitive
information. DC2, as a contractor owned facility was not subject to an
examination by the Federal Protective Service. However, the DHS Office
Security had dedicated participation on the evaluation team that
reviewed contractor proposals for DC2, fully supporting the selection.
Furthermore, the DHS Office of Security conducted a comprehensive on-
site review of DC2 security conditions. DC2 received support from the
Defense Security Service for processing of sensitive information at the
facility.
A number of the specific circumstances cited in the OIG's report
were not representative of the full context of industry practices or
facility history. For many years, the Stennis Space Center has been
home to a number of computer processing centers for other agencies with
demonstrable reliability and safety. The facility DHS occupies at the
Stennis Space Center did undergo an environmental study with favorable
findings. Hurricane Katrina tested the facility's readiness in the most
stringent possible way. Only telecommunications was found lacking and
that has been resolved as indicated above. Fencing at DC1 is a desired
improvement and funds to do so are in the President's budget. DC2 fuel
tanks are in proximity to the diesel generators that they serve, which,
in turn, are in proximity to the facility to which they provide backup
power. This is the common industry practice for data center facility
generator installation and the tanks are constructed with a variety of
safety features. DC2 fire suppression does use water, which is not an
uncommon industry practice. The DC2 fire suppression system is a dry-
pipe system that requires two-stage activation. Risk in this regard is
further mitigated through a comprehensive smoke detection system.
DHS will undertake renewed risk assessments periodically and as
environmental circumstances dictate.
The Department has already entered into two multi-year contracts
totaling over $1 billion for Data Center consolidation, shouldn't these
items have been dealt with in the initial contract?
Response: As outlined in the text above, telecommunications
circuits, computer floor space and redundant equipment issues raised in
the OIG report were all considered during the acquisition and
implementation phases for data center services. DHS did undertake
significant due diligence to verify that these concerns were addressed.
Question 14.: President Obama's budget request for the Department
of Homeland Security includes only $75 million for the Headquarters
Consolidation Project. According to the budget justification, none of
this funding will be used for the St. Elizabeths portion of the
project. Instead, this funding will be used to consolidate expiring
leases around the National Capital Region. The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act included a sizable amount ($650 million) of funding
for the St. Elizabeths project, an amount nearly equaling what would
have been the President's Fiscal Year 2010 request.
Please explain why the FY10 budget request does not include
additional construction funding for the St. Elizabeths project.
Response: The department is grateful for the generous level of
funding provided by the Congress in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009
appropriation and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). We
understand that the funding for this project competes with other
programs within the department and the Administration's overall budget
priorities.
The provided funds will be used to construct St. Elizabeths (St.
E's) Phase 1, the United States Coast Guard Headquarters (USCG), a new
1.1 million gross square feet office building plus the renovation of
selected historic buildings that will be adaptively restored for shared
use services such as a cafeteria and fitness center. The funding also
allows the design to begin for follow-on phases 2 (DHS HQ, FEMA and the
NOC/Collocation of Component Operations Centers) and 3 (Remaining
components).
It will take all of FY 2010 to advance the designs for Phase 2 and
3 to a point where the General Services Administration (GSA) can award
construction contracts for these phases. Consequently, we did not
request construction funding for Phases 2 and 3 in the FY 2010 budget
because we will not be in a position to execute these funds in the year
they are appropriated.
If the funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is
truly meant to be stimulative, shouldn't the FY10 budget include
additional funding for construction at St. Elizabeths?
Response: The ARRA brought the FY 2010 request for St. E's forward
into FY 2009 aligning the funding with the planned schedule to produce
the stimulating effect the Act intended. Given the time necessary to
develop and advance the designs for Phases 2 and 3 to a point where
construction contracts can be awarded additional funding can not be
used during FY 2010. Since GSA is responsible for construction/
renovation of the ``warm lit shell'' of the buildings and DHS is
required to fund the tenant improvements (TI), any additional funding
for construction at St. E's would need to be provided to GSA.
By not including additional funding for St. Elizabeths in the FY10
budget, is the President using the stimulus to ``rob Peter to pay
Paul?''
Response: Not including additional funding for St. E's in the FY
2010 budget is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. The ARRA brought the FY
2010 request for St. E's forward into FY 2009 aligning the funding with
the planned schedule. Given the time necessary to develop and advance
the designs for Phases 2 and 3 to a point where construction contracts
can be awarded additional funding can not be used during FY 2010.
Why is the FY10 request focused solely on lease consolidation?
Response: The $75 million requested in the FY 2010 budget is to
commence the equally critical mission support consolidation effort for
those functions/occupancies that do not relocate to St. Elizabeths.
Currently DHS and Component headquarters functions are housed in over
40 locations. Our plan proposes to reduce the total number of locations
to about eight, including federal space at St. Elizabeths, the Nebraska
Avenue Complex, the U.S. Secret Service building, and the Ronald Reagan
Office Building. Additionally, we plan to retain two long term leases
currently housing TSA and ICE. Our remaining requirements for mission
support and projected growth would then be accommodated in two long
term lease locations. A prospectus to begin this mission support
consolidation effort will be submitted to the Congress in the near
future. This plan addresses our critical need for a consolidated
headquarters and also addresses our future needs for the growth and
evolution of the department.
The funds already provided will be used to construct St. Elizabeths
(St. E's) Phase 1, the USCG HQ plus the renovation of selected historic
buildings that will be adaptively restored for shared use services such
as a cafeteria and fitness center. The funding also allows the design
to commence for follow-on phases 2 (DHS HQ, FEMA and the NOC/
Collocation of Component Operations Centers) and 3 (Remaining
components).
It will take all of FY 2010 to advance the designs for Phase 2 and
3 to a point where the General Services Administration (GSA) can award
construction contracts for these phases. Consequently, we did not
request construction funding for Phases 2 and 3 in the FY 2010 budget
because we will not be in a position to execute these funds in the year
they are appropriated.
Wouldn't the inclusion of additional money for St. Elizabeths in
the FY10 budget accelerate the project by up to one year, saving
additional taxpayer dollars in the out years and advancing the priority
of fostering a ``One DHS'' culture?
Response: The inclusion of additional money for St. E's in the FY10
budget will not advance Phase 1 completion which is currently planned
for FY 2013 because construction funding has already been provided. GSA
will award the Design-Build Bridging contract in FY 2009. It will take
all of FY 2010 to advance the designs for Phase 2 (DHS HQ, FEMA and the
NOC/Collocation of Component Operations Centers) and Phase 3 (Remaining
components) to a point where GSA will be in a position to award
construction contracts for these phases.
Should construction funding for the remaining phases be provided in
FY 2010, it is questionable as to whether a contract could be awarded
during FY 2010. However, with the remaining St. Elizabeths funding in
hand, it is possible to award a construction contract for the remaining
development in FY 2011 that has the potential to reduce the total
development by up to one year (FY 2015).
Given the National Historic Landmark (NHL) status of the campus,
the current phasing provides the right balance of consultation and
execution to effectively and efficiently complete the development.
Question 15.: Are you comfortable with the level of cooperation
between DHS and the General Services Administration on the St.
Elizabeths project?
Are there specific areas that need attention or improvement to
which Congress should pay particular attention to avoid missteps or
cost overruns?
DHS is comfortable with the level of cooperation from the General
Services Administration (GSA) for the St. Elizabeths program. When the
St. Elizabeths program moved from the planning to the execution phase,
GSA National Capital Region (NRC) assigned a Deputy Regional
Commissioner to lead the St. Elizabeths development. The individual
assigned brings a wealth of experience to this program from his
experience as the GSA Project Executive for design and construction of
the FDA White Oak Campus development. He demonstrates a keen
understanding of the complexities associated with the St. Elizabeths
program and displays a customer focused no-nonsense approach toward
scope, schedule and budget accountability. The DHS Program Management
team and the GSA team, led by the Deputy Regional Commissioner,
executed a partnering agreement that ensures both parties agree to work
together to achieve a successful program delivering the scope on
schedule and within budget.
DHS does not have any specific areas that need attention or
improvement from Congress at this juncture and we will provide you with
updates and status reports to keep you apprised of the programs
progress. We will immediately notify Congress if a situation arises
that requires particular attention to avoid missteps or cost overruns.
Question 16.: The budget includes $25 million for the Department to
meet the mandate to issue HSPD-12 compliant identification cards by
October 2010.
Please discuss the Department's progress to date in meeting this
requirement.
Response: The Department has developed a scalable technical
solution that will support nationwide deployment. DHS has established a
centralized Identity Management System (IDMS) that consolidates PIV-
related information and will support interoperable usage of the PIV
cards across the Department. This system is required in order to
support real-time validation of PIV card information.
To date, the Department is in the process of completing issuance to
the approximately 10,000 personnel at DHS Headquarters, and is on track
to complete this by September. Additionally, the Department has
established several pilot issuance location at Component Headquarters
facilities. DHS is continuing to roll-out PIV card capabilities at the
Component level and, based on FY10 funding, will be able to continue to
do so on a larger scale.
For what will the FY10 funding be used?
Response: The $25 million will provide support for a centralized
approach to HSPD-12 implementation to include:
Initial DHS PIV card issuance effort
Initial quantities of card stock, badge holders, and
consumables
PKI certificates for the Department
Managing the back-end IDMS and infrastructure
Providing guidance and coordination for DHS-wide
centralized deployment efforts
Will the Department be able to meet the October 2010 deadline?
Response: The Department will be able to complete PIV card issuance
to approximately 150,000 employees and contractors, i.e., the majority
of the estimated DHS workforce. The Department will need to complete
badging for the remaining estimated 105,000 employees and contractors
in fiscal year 2011. It is important to note that the initial estimates
for the employee population at DHS were approximately 150,000; however,
further data calls and growth of the Department have resulted in larger
employee numbers and estimates for contractor numbers.
Question 17.: Through its HR Access Program, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) has developed an online ``Candidate
Dashboard'' to allow potential Transportation Security Officers to
track the status of their application. According to TSA, this has
served to give candidates a better understanding and expectation of the
hiring timeline while also eliminating frequent calls to TSA's
personnel helpdesk and to the airports.
As you work to develop ways to streamline the hiring process at
DHS, have you considered implementing a tool such as the ``Candidate
Dashboard'' to make the process a little more user friendly?
What other initiatives do you plan to implement to prevent talented
and motivated people from slipping away due to the lengthy and
complicated Federal hiring process?
Response: Modernization of our hiring process is one of the top
human capital priorities of DHS. The TSA Candidate Dashboard is an
interim solution that provides status visibility to many applicants.
DHS will deploy an enterprise staffing solution that streamlines the
application process, provides real time status, and provides hiring
officials more control over the hiring process. This solution will
surpass the guidance included in the latest OMB directive regarding
modernization of the federal hiring process.
In 2008, DHS began the enterprise-wide implementation of a modern,
automated end-to-end hiring system that not only provides applicants
real time status of their application, but also allows prospective DHS
employees to apply from any commercial job board or social networking
site that DHS utilizes, in addition to USAJobs. We call this system
``TALENTLink.'' TALENTLink is part of the DHS enterprise-wide Human
Resources Modernization Strategy and was selected by a diverse team of
subject matter experts from across the Department.
Rather than focus on one segment of DHS employees, TALENTLink
allows all applicants from outside or within the government to easily
and quickly apply for DHS jobs via a streamlined process. This approach
enables a broad basis from which to attract the best talent to DHS. The
TALENTLink system and supporting processes are fully OPM compliant and
provide immediate and ongoing communication with the candidate on the
status of their application. TALENTLink is interactive and provides
visibility, accountability, and comprehensive help desk support
throughout the entire hiring process for managers, recruiters, and
applicants.
We will eliminate outdated manual HR processes and replace
expensive fragmented HR systems across DHS with TALENTLink, the
integrated departmental hiring system, which dramatically increases
efficiency, improves the quality of hires, elevates the DHS brand as an
employer of choice, and reduces operational costs by a minimum of 45%.
DHS has implemented several innovative initiatives to assist
applicants and hiring managers in navigating the federal hiring process
by:
Eliminating the requirement for applicants to write
cumbersome ``essays'' on knowledge, skills, and abilities when applying
for DHS jobs;
Streamlining the recruitment and selection process for
Senior Executive Service positions;
Standardizing vacancy announcements by using plain
language terminology to the extent possible;
Allowing Veterans to submit appropriate documentation in
lieu of a Form DD-214 when a Veteran is on terminal leave. (A time when
they can apply for jobs but have not yet been issued a DD-214);
Developing a streamlined ``EZ'' Job Application Form for
collecting applications at job fairs; and
Coordinating DHS wide hiring efforts through Human Capital
Council members.
Question 18.: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus)
provided more than $2.7 billion to the Department and its components.
Please discuss efforts underway within the Management Directorate,
be it through your office, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
or the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, to ensure that there is
appropriate oversight of how this funding is distributed.
Response: DHS Management, the Office of Inspector General (OIG),
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have identified
management challenges that DHS must mitigate to effectively manage
Recovery Act funds. DHS is currently implementing corrective actions to
address identified risks across DHS, as outlined in the FY 2009 DHS
Internal Control Playbook. To mitigate risks and remediate known
deficiencies, DHS is implementing the following key strategies:
Acquisition Management:
The DHS Acquisition Review Board (ARB) is the forum
through which Department executives assess a program's progress
against defined management criteria throughout the acquisition
lifecycle, bring essential issues to the Acquisition Decision
Authority (ADA), and recommend decisions and courses of action
to the ADA, who exercises final ARB decision authority. All
Recovery Act initiatives are undergoing a review by the Under
Secretary for Management's Senior Management Council using a
``Mini-ARB'' format. The purpose of the Mini-ARBs is for the
program or Component to provide an accounting of how the ARRA
funds are being used independent of or within existing programs
and to provide a briefing on the impact of the influx of ARRA
funds to an existing program baseline in terms of cost,
schedule, performance and scope changes. The program also
reports on the procurement strategy and plan for the ARRA
funding and addresses the Accountability Measures as tracked by
the Administration. The review, authorizations, and action
items are documented in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum
(ADM).
OCPO will perform special procurement oversight
reviews of contracts that were awarded using ARRA funds. OCPO
will selectively identify approximately ten of the largest DHS
contracts funded with ARRA funds for review, and will also
include a statistical sample of all other DHS contracts funded
with ARRA for review. The reviews will focus on compliance
with: (a) all ARRA procurement-related requirements; (b) key
requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Homeland
Security Acquisition Regulation, and Homeland Security
Acquisition Manual; and (c) good business practices. The first
review will be initiated during the first quarter of Fiscal
Year 2010, with subsequent review(s) performed based on the
findings of the first review as well as the rate of subsequent
DHS expenditures of ARRA funds.
To ensure that DHS contracting personnel understand
the special requirements that apply to use of Recovery Act
funds, the Chief Procurement Officer issued transmittal
memoranda highlighting key aspects of Office of Management and
Budget guidance (initial and updated). OCPO also issued
Advisories explaining how to implement the unique Federal
Acquisition Regulation requirements and provided two training
sessions for contracting personnel assigned to Recovery Act
procurements.
In order to track progress on solicitation milestones
and accomplishment of the Department's targets for competition
and fixed price contract awards, the Senior Accountable
Official solicits and compiles information from Component
operational offices for each planned Recovery Act solicitation
and interagency agreement (IAA). This information includes the
contract type, level of competition, estimated dollar value of
the solicitation, and whether each contract awarded by the
Component or by the servicing agency receiving the IAA will be
a fixed-price contract. Upon receipt, the Senior Accountable
Official scrutinizes Component input and where discrepancies
are discovered, clarification is sought. With respect to
competition, anticipated Component sole source awards are
questioned to ensure there is sufficient justification to
warrant a non-competitive acquisition strategy. Current
projections indicate that a minimum of 87% of Recovery Act
procurement funds will be awarded competitively. DHS plans to
solicit and compile Component information on a monthly basis to
track progress against the plan; additional information may be
solicited as determined necessary.
Financial Management:
Develop, implement, and monitor policies and
procedures around financial reporting processes. Provide
training and communicate new policies and procedures; and
Improve current processes by implementing internal
controls.
To ensure the accuracy of the data presented on
www.Recovery.gov, DHS proposes to implement a multi-phased
Business Intelligence (BI) pilot to assist with reporting. The
pilot is a collaboration among DHS' Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer and
Office of the Chief Information Officer and includes a data
warehouse and reporting tool adhering to OMB's architecture
guidance.
Grants:
The Chief Financial Officer will obtain a Delegation
of Authority from the Under Secretary for Management for
responsibility of assistance award policy and oversight. This
Delegation of Authority will complete the transition of grants
oversight from the Chief Procurement Officer to the Chief
Financial Officer;
Complete pending grant management policies;
Initiate a Grant Officer Certification and Warrant
program;
Establish infrastructure for oversight and monitoring;
Develop an OMB Circular A-133 Resolution Process; and
Initiate development of an OMB Circular A-133 Audit
Resolution Tracking System.
Improper Payment Information Act (IPIA):
Expand the IPIA risk assessment, sample testing, and
corrective action work to include targeted sampling of current
period Recovery Act payments. Perform additional management
control procedures on the Recovery Act vendor payments as part
of DHS' Recovery Audit work.
The FY 2009 DHS Internal Control Playbook outlines the DHS strategy
to design and implement an effective internal control system to support
the DHS mission, eliminate internal control weaknesses, and build
management assurances. DHS has focused its management assurance efforts
on the design and implementation of internal control to eliminate
pervasive material weakness conditions and to stabilize the DHS control
environment. DHS will expand this process to also provide assurances
over the Recovery Act. OMB Circular A-123 assessments support the
management assurance process and will incorporate the Recovery Act in
FY 2009. Control evaluation matrices will be completed to assess
grants, property, and financial reporting functions. Issues identified
by OMB Circular A-123 assessments and IPIA assessments will result in
the development and implementation of Mission Action Plans, which
outline remediation actions.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
