Detailed Information on the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Automation Modernization Program Assessment

Improve implementation of the existing System Lifecycle Management (SLM) methodology by incorporating industry best practices regarding scope, time, cost, and quality planning processes for each sub-project.

Develop a program level Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) from sub-project schedules to identify interdependencies and improve management of program risks.

Implement program level integrated change control processes to incorporate industry best practices in the management of sub-project baselines.

Measure: Percentage of ICE users employing Single Sign-On (SSO) for systems access

Explanation:This effort is the Single Sign On subproject to the "Information Assurance" Project in the Atlas Program. An enterprise-wide single sign on will enable users to access multiple systems securely and efficiently by using a single mechanism to uniquely identify them. This will improve productivity through the reduction of the number of logins for individuals and enable more robust security and enable ICE to centrally manage all aspects of user administration, identification, authentication, authorization and access control. Achieved 100% accessibility in the 2nd quarter of FY 2007. This project is complete and this measure will be retired in FY 2008.

Measure: Percent of ICE investigative and enforcement personnel with access to Decision Support Systems

Explanation:ICE personnel have to query a large number of databases to gain access to the law enforcement information they need. This measure will serve as an indicator of the attainment of the Atlas goal to increase workforce productivity by giving ICE personnel easy, complete access to ICE consolidated enforcement data. More importantly, it helps to verify through increased usage that the consolidated data mart Decision Support System is meeting the requirements of the ICE investigative and enforcement communities. Realigned schedule to accommodate changes in implementation priorities. The PART goal was based on an IMI project plan first drafted in FY 2005, which proceeded accordingly through FY 2006. During planning for the DRO modernization program in FY 2007, an inter-program dependency was identified requiring alterations to the IMI project plan. As a result, the project plan was reorganized in mid-2007 to change scope of the ICE enterprise data warehouse's initial production release in order to deliver specific reporting capabilities required as part of a major DRO application release. The change in scope has caused a five month delay in the data warehouse's expected initial production release, after which the IMI project expects to meet both the FY 2007 and FY 2008 goals for this PART measure. Therefore, the project schedule was realigned to accommodate changes in implementation priorities.

Measure: Percent of ICE personnel using the DHS standard Microsoft Outlook E-mail platform

Explanation:One of the ICE Program goals is to establish a standard IT environment. This measure, combined with the 'Percent of investigative and enforcement personnel with access to Decision Support System data marts' measure and others, will serve as an indicator of the attainment of this goal. Ensuring ICE personnel are connected and integrated through a single-standard communications infrastructure (DHS One Network) will provide seamless interoperability between ICE offices and other DHS components. Achieved 100% of 263 sites connected to DHS OneNet. This project is complete and this measure will be retired in FY 2008.

Measure: Percent of ICE personnel using DHS standard high speed network circuits.

Explanation:With this measure ATLAS demonstrates achievement of 100% of 263 sites connected to the DHS One Net. This project is 100% complete.

Measure: Percent of increase in ICE investigative and enforcement systems incorporated into Decision Support Systems

Explanation:This measure contributes to the Atlas Program goal to enhance security and protection of US citizens by improving investigative and intelligence capabilities to prevent terrorist and other criminal activities both domestically and internationally. Measure helps to ensure that ICE law enforcement personnel have access to and can retrieve enforcement information from a single integrated-source of enforcement data.

Measure: Percent of progress in implementing a complete refresh of ICE personnel desktop equipment

Explanation:This measure contributes to the Atlas Program goal to enhance ICE workforce productivity by building a technology foundation to empower ICE staff with the tools necessary to achieve mission requirements. Measure helps to ensure that state-of-the-art desktop equipment is available for use by ICE personnel through a continuous 3 year ICE hardware refresh project. Contract for Desktop Deployment Services initially delayed. Awarded in FY 2007 Q4; expected completion date is June 2008. Major, complex contract procurement for desktops was initiated in Q4 FY2006 and awarded in May 2007. This contract was successfully protested, preventing any work from being performed within the contract until the protest was resolved. Additional schedule delays were realized when subsequent security clearances and access badges for installation technicians were also delayed. The number of machines deployed is directly related, among other variables, to the number of installation technicians. While attempts are being made to expedite the process, there has not been a substantial increase in the number of cleared technicians and thus delays persist. Atlas anticipates meeting FY 2007 and FY 2008 milestones for this measure in FY 2008 Q3.

Measure: Percent of modernized IT services available to users

Explanation:This outcome is aligned directly with Atlas stated goals: establish a standard IT environment across ICE by ensuring conformance to the Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture (EA), which will facilitate communication; promote information sharing and collaboration by enabling ICE to increase resource sharing capabilities between ICE users and program areas throughout ICE and the DHS community; and enhance ICE workforce productivity by building a technological foundation to empower ICE staff with the tools necessary to achieve mission requirements. Measures percent of progress toward IT modernization available to ICE users through seven investment initiatives (i.e., E-mail migration, desktop refresh, file and print services upgrade, OCONUS upgrade, DHS OneNet migration, streaming video, and LAN connectivity upgrade). Percent of progress is measured by summing the investments for each initiative and then determining the initiative's percentage of the total IT modernization investment. Weighted annual targets for each initiative are then determined by multiplying the annual performance targets for the initiative by their overall investment weighting factor. Actual results for each initiative are then applied against their weighted annual targets and then summed with the weighted results from the other initiatives to determine weighted progress towards meeting the annual performance measure target.

Measure: Cost per desktop deployed

Explanation:The Hardware Refresh segment will replace existing, obsolete, desktop computers throughout for 17,000 of ICE community users with new desktop computers using the ICE standard desktop image. This will provide modernized desktop computers, capable of running current and future applications, and a standard desktop hardware and software configuration, which will reduce desktop support costs.This effort will measure the program reductions per unit desktop deployment cost over the life of the project.

Measure: Percent of Network Availability

Explanation:The Atlas Program was established to improve information availability and sharing across the DHS and ICE organizations within a fully secure EA. In support of this goal, the Atlas Integration Project objectives are designed to successfully migrate the ICE offices from the ICE network to the DHS OneNet.The ICE network provides the basis for linking all IT systems for communications and access to mission critical systems. High levels of system availability are needed to accomplish ICE mission.

Measure: Percent of field offices with access to secure tactical communications

Explanation:In the Atlas Tactical Communications project, Immigration and Custom Enforcement Field Directors and Special Agents in 17 Field Offices will receive new standard two-way radios for federal, state, and local law enforcement and public safety. Each of these radios will improve agent and officer safety and mission effectiveness by enabling them to speak to other federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and first responders with the simple touch of a button while participating in enforcement and emergency operations. Therefore, the deployment of each of these radios provides an accurate measure of progress towards providing planned operational benefits.

Measure: Percent of tactical communication infrastructure sites deployed

Explanation:In the Atlas Tactical Communications project, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's tactical wireless communications infrastructure will be upgraded to better support new standard two-way radios for federal, state, and local law enforcement and public safety. Each deployed infrastructure site will provide significant benefits, including increased coverage, improved clarity, encrypted communications, improved grade of service, and greater interoperability. Therefore, the deployment of each of infrastructure sites provides an accurate measure of progress towards providing planned operational benefits.

Measure: Percent of agents, officers, and technical staff trained to use tactical communications

Explanation:In the Atlas Tactical Communications project, an in-depth training course will be delivered to all Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and officers using new standard two-way radios for federal, state, and local law enforcement and public safety.?? The course will also be delivered to the technical staff that must maintain the new radios and associated tactical wireless communications infrastructure sites.?? The training course will include manuals, quick reference cards, and wireless coverage charts to enable the users to make optimum use of the new system.?? Historically, the successes of new system deployments have been increased with effective training.?? Therefore, the percent of agents, officers, and technical staff trained to use tactical communications provides an accurate measure of progress towards providing planned operational benefits.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Atlas is the principal ICE automation modernization program for improving information sharing across the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE organizations, strengthening information availability, providing a fully secure IT environment, and maintaining workforce productivity. The Atlas Program's purpose is clearly defined in numerous documents. The program's primary purpose has remained unchanged since it became an ICE program in 2003.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp.1-2 & 2-1; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-4; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-5; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 4-8; 2005 Atlas Business Case, pp. 1-4; Atlas Intranet Web Page; DHS Exhibit 300 Public Release Report.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Atlas Business Case identifies the specific problems that hinder ICE's mission. Many of the problems were inherited from legacy organizations. For example, ICE users were on multiple email systems and directories that did not cross-communicate effectively. There were also aging file servers that had a high-risk potential of failing. Similar problems, along with DHS and ICE's expanding mission, growth, and service demands, place a burden on the current IT infrastructure. Atlas expenditure plans continue to address specific problems, interests, and needs that support the ICE mission such as: facilitating interagency collaboration and information sharing capabilities through information technology enhancements (ICE Mission Information, Data Center Migration); facilitating improved internal and external communications by implementing IT standards that align with the DHS Enterprise Architecture (Integration, Architecture Engineering); implementing state-of-the-art technology to replace outdated technologies (Common Computing Environment, Tactical Communications); ensuring data integrity, availability, and privacy through enhanced data management and information assurance (Information Assurance); and committing to sound program management of IT modernization through staff augmentation and by providing ICE personnel with project and program management training to align with industry best practices (Transportation Planning). Atlas is addressing the latest specific interests and needs by updating the 2005 Atlas Business Case in 2008.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, p. 2-2; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 6-7; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 6-7; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-8; 2005 Atlas Business Case, pp.2-5; Mission Needs Statement, p. 3; 2008 Business Case Statement of Work (Procurement Sensitive) p. 3.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Atlas Program addresses only organizational components, networks, systems, and equipment within ICE. No other program provides similar services for ICE. Atlas is designed to meet ICE's technological needs. Program priorities are reviewed and approved by the ICE CIO and the ICE Investment Review Board, chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary, with final approval by the ICE Assistant Secretary. Annual expenditure plans define the activities to be accomplished during each fiscal year.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, p. 2-2; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. 6; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, p. 7; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, p. 3; 2005 Atlas Business Case, p.1; DHS Exhibit 300 Public Release Report.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Atlas continues to ensure the program is effective and efficient through its management structure. A DHS level III certified Atlas Program Manager reports directly to the ICE CIO on Atlas matters. For each of the Atlas projects, there is a Government Project Manager that reports directly to the Atlas Program Manager. Atlas also has a full-time Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) assigned and an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) contractor to provide impartial oversight. These key staffers improve the execution of the program by executing and overseeing business processes related to configuration, quality, communications, documentation, and financial and procurement controls. Fiscal controls are in place to monitor program progress. Fiscal Year budgets are prepared, reviewed, and approved by the Program Manager and the ICE CIO. Expenditure plans are developed identifying project activities, how funds are to be obligated, and the contract vehicles to be used. Weekly and one-on-one Project Manager meetings are held to discuss project activities, performance, and project risks. Performance measures have been defined for each project area.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp.2-4; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 5-7; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 6-9; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 5-9; Mission Needs Statement, p.3; OMB New Proposed PART Measures; Atlas Project Manager meeting minutes (example).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program design is effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries. These beneficiaries and their needs have been identified by DHS and ICE. These include an array of needs from upgraded hardware and software to the ability to organize and share information that can be used by all ICE agents and law enforcement partners. Specifically, the Atlas Program is targeted to address specific IT automation modernization initiatives that would not receive funding from other sources. For example, the Common Computing Environment project updates the ICE IT infrastructure; the Integration project migrates ICE legacy networks to the DHS OneNet infrastructure which improves access, distribution, and management of interagency information; and the Tactical Communications project will deploy a nationwide state-of-the-art, interoperable, encrypted wireless core infrastructure to enhance ICE mission effectiveness and improve ICE agent and officer safety. Updates to the Atlas Business Case and expenditure plans continue to address the program's design so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries (ICE users' community). The Business Case has established projects activities that clearly define deliverables targeted to the intended beneficiaries and avoid unintended subsidies. These deliverables include deployment of hardware (desktops, laptops, and printers), integration into DHS OneNet, a common email platform, and streaming video that will enhance workforce productivity. All of these projects have been completed except for the deployment of hardware (expected completion in third quarter FY 2008). Atlas is also focusing on future deliverables such as interoperability and data warehousing that will allow effective access to law enforcement data. These deliverables will directly impact the intended beneficiaries by providing much needed modern equipment and resources to allow the ICE user community to focus on their mission.

Evidence: 2005 Atlas Business Case, pp. ES-3, 5-8, 25, 28 & 38; Project Plans (example); Program Management Plan, pp. 8-19; Acquisition Program Baseline, pp. 3-12.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Atlas Program has proposed a second long-term outcome measure that focuses on the progress of IT modernization deployment since 2005. The measure identifies the percent of modernized IT services available to users. The program now has proposed well defined long-term performance measures. Two long-term outcomes: 1) Percent of ICE investigative and enforcement personnel with access to Decision Support Systems; and 2) Percent of modernized IT services available to users.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-6; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-35; FYHSP System Report; Acquisition Program Baseline, pp. 3-12.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Atlas has targets for improvement and ambitious timeframes or maintenance of exemplary targets through FY 2014. Baselines for the measures and unit cost improvements were developed using historical data and future projections, and are designed to be ambitious. For example, in one long-term measure, "Percent reduction in ICE's Operation & Maintenance (O&M) contribution for network services," Atlas set ambitious targets by aiming to reduce costs by an additional 10% each year after an initial savings of 20%. They achieved this goal even though the actual costs for O&M, especially for labor, increased with the rate of inflation. In addition, the outcome measure "Percent of modernized IT services available to users" has eight years of integrated performance targets that measures performance of seven independent investment initiatives over the life cycle of the long-term measure. Each investment must perform as planned to meet the integrated performance targets.

Evidence: 2005 PART Measures Report; FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-6; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-35; FYHSP System Report; Acquisition Program Baseline, pp. 3-12.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Atlas has three specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals: 1) Percent of progress in implementing a complete refresh of ICE personnel desktop equipment; 2) Percent of ICE sites using DHS standard high speed network circuits; and 3) Percent of ICE personnel using the DHS standard Microsoft Outlook E-mail platform. These annual output measures are used to demonstrate the long-term outcome of Atlas percent of IT modernization available to users. Atlas has an appropriate amount of Output and Outcome measures; its Outcome measures are long-term, measured on an annual basis. The Atlas Program annual output measures demonstrate progress toward achieving the program long-term goals. In addition, these results are directly tied to the outcome of Atlas Program and its measure: "Percent of modernization IT services available to users" through 2014. These annual output measures are aligned with the Atlas long-term program performance goal of establishing a standard IT environment across ICE by ensuring conformance to the Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture (EA). Another long-term Output: "Percent of increase in ICE investigative and enforcement systems incorporated into Decision Support Systems" spans seven years is directly tied to show the progress for the second Atlas long-term Outcome measure: "Percent of ICE investigative and enforcement personnel with access to Decision Support Systems."

Evidence: 2005 PART Measures Report; FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-6; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-35; FYHSP System Report; Acquisition Program Baseline, pp. 3-12.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Project baselines are detailed in the Atlas Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). All funded projects now have specific and ambitious annual measures; There are seven PART measures in FYHSP and PARTWeb, as well as 13 non-PART performance measures maintained internally by the Atlas Program Office. In one long-term measure, "Percent reduction in ICE's Operation & Maintenance (O&M) contribution for network services," Atlas set ambitious targets by aiming to reduce costs by an additional 10% each year after an initial savings of 20%. This goal was achieved even though the actual costs for O&M, especially for labor, increased with the rate of inflation. Another ambitious target is the measure, "Percent of network availability." Atlas started with a target currently being used by a sister component (CBP). It exceeded that target and reestablished higher targets for future years, despite other agencies and components maintaining the same targets year-after-year. Yet another example is the "Cost per desktop deployed." Atlas set ambitious goals to lower the cost per desktop despite the anticipated raise of inflation, travel, equipment, and labor costs.

Evidence: Acquisition Program Baseline, pp. 3-12; 2005 PART Measures Report; FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-6; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-35; FYHSP System Report; 1st Qtr FY 2008 PMR.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the Atlas Program. The Atlas Program goals are specified in each contractor's statement of work (SOW). Performance criteria in project contractual documentation align to one or more of the program goals. These partners' measure and report on their performance goals in required periodic progress reports, through weekly Project Manager Status meetings, and in quarterly Program Management Reviews. Furthermore, each manager's goals are aligned with the Chief Information Officer's (CIO's) goals, as well as the ICE and DHS strategic goals. The Atlas Project Managers are committed to their specific project performance measures. Atlas has been approved by the ICE Investment Review Board as the cornerstone to modernize and integrate systems in support of the DHS strategic goal of "One DHS, One Network." Atlas's work is performed primarily by contractors. Compliance and progress are tracked through weekly Project Manager Status meetings and quarterly Program Management Reviews. The Atlas PMO ensures that program goals are met, by overseeing those contracts and requisitions contain the specific requirements of projects.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-6; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-35; Acquisition Program Baseline; Program Management Plan; Atlas Project Manager Status meeting minutes (example); Task Order Statements of Work (examples).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews the program in conjunction with the submission of the annual Atlas expenditure plans. The scope of the GAO is extensive and broader than typical GAO reviews. GAO routinely conducts independent evaluations of the Atlas Program. The GAO has performed annual reviews each year from 2005 to 2007, resulting in detailed reports (65-90 pages) of findings and recommendations for the Atlas Program. From those reports, Atlas has created meaningful improvement plans. GAO has further noted steady progress in Atlas Program maturity over each of its last three reports. In addition, an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) team was contracted through the Policy and Planning Branch of ICE OCIO to assess Atlas' processes and provide recommendations on a recurring basis. In August 2007, the IV&V team identified 24 findings and recommendations for the Atlas Program. Atlas has taken many of the recommendations into consideration and implemented programmatic changes to address them. Atlas is continuing to respond to the remaining issues. In November 2007, the DHS Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) conducted an assessment of all DHS Level 1 acquisition programs. Atlas scored the highest of all ICE-inspected programs. All of these evaluations are of high quality and each take a rigorous look at different depths of scope of the Atlas Program, from "quick looks" to "deep dives." In each case, Atlas management has satisfactorily responded to the evaluations and taken the opportunities to improve on its processes and procedures.

Evidence: GAO reports: GAO-05-805, GAO-06-823, GAO-07-565; Atlas Program IV&V SOW.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Atlas budget requests and related program documentation has consistently mapped planned program expenditures to performance goals and targets, and to the Atlas Program goals. The Atlas Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) and annual Atlas Expenditure Plans (which are reviewed by ICE, DHS, OMB, and Congress) continue to reaffirm program and project goal alignments articulated in the Atlas Business Case and have also provided an additional level of detail by mapping each planned program capability not only to program goals but also to multiple specific annual and long-term performance measures and performance targets. The APB articulates total performance/resource mixes required by each project to enable the program to achieve annual and long-term performance targets. Atlas Expenditure Plans, prepared annually for every appropriated program dollar, articulate how performance/resource mixes for a given funding year by project will enable the program to achieve annual performance targets and make progress against long-term performance targets. Budget requests and these annual and long-term performance goals align to the Atlas Program goals. The Atlas Business Case defines the six program goals and provides tables clearly mapping 1.) the program goals to ICE and DHS goals and 2.) the program goals to each planned program capability by project. The six program goals are: ?? Atlas Goal 1: Enhance the security and protection of U.S. citizens by improving investigative and intelligence capabilities to prevent terrorism and other illegal activities both domestically and abroad ?? Atlas Goal 2: Facilitate interagency collaboration and information sharing capabilities through information technology enhancements ?? Atlas Goal 3: Facilitate improved internal and external communications by implementing ICE IT standards that align with the DHS Enterprise Architecture ?? Atlas Goal 4: Implement state-of-the-art technology that increases productivity and empowers the ICE workforce to achieve mission objectives ?? Atlas Goal 5: Ensure data integrity, availability, and privacy through enhanced data management and information assurance ?? Atlas Goal 6: Commit to sound program management of ICE IT modernization through staff augmentation and by providing ICE personnel with project and program management training to align with industry best practices The Atlas Business Case also articulates the entire lifecycle cost estimate for each Atlas project for the purposes of reporting all direct and indirect costs needed to meet performance goals. The alignment of requested resources with the six program goals has been repeated in Atlas Congressional Justifications prepared for inclusion in annual President's Budget Requests. Atlas Congressional Justifications have also aligned budget requests with the program's primary Outcome performance measure, "Percent of ICE investigative and enforcement personnel with access to Decision Support System" and have made clear the impact of funding, policy, and legislative decisions on expected performance.

Evidence: Acquisition Program Baseline; FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 2-3; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-3.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Atlas management has conducted strategic planning sessions and off-sites to address its near and long-term strategies. The only strategic deficiency noted in this section was the Atlas Program having only one long-term outcome measure. However, Atlas has taken action to correct this deficiency. Recently, Atlas proposed a second outcome measure that focuses on the progress of IT modernization deployment since 2005. The measure identifies the percent of modernized IT services available to users. The program now has proposed well defined long-term performance measures. As part of Atlas's 2006 Program Improvement Plan, it developed a long-range strategic plan that helped ICE share information with its law enforcement and immigration enforcement partners. This strategic plan was completed on July 12, 2007, and ICE presented the DHS Law Enforcement Information Sharing Strategy to the Department for review and approval. The plan defines context, vision, governance, architecture, and key stakeholders that will lead to more effective sharing of law enforcement information in order to better protect the homeland. Atlas reviews its planning efforts and identifies any deficiencies (e.g., strategic, tactical, operational) in weekly Project Managers meetings and quarterly Program Management Reviews.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 2-3; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. C-1; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-28; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 19-35; DHS Exhibit 300 Public Release; RAP milestones; Atlas Intranet Web Page; Atlas Strategic Planning Briefing (example); 2008 Business Case Statement of Work (Procurement Sensitive).

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: The 2005 Atlas Business Case provides a credible analysis of alternatives reviewed by the ICE Investment Review Board (IRB), DHS IRB, and GAO. The Business Case describes ICE's baseline IT infrastructure environment and includes a cost/benefit analysis, risk analysis, sensitivity analysis, and comparative analysis that considers trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals. Upon review by GAO, GAO published a report that recommended three improvements; 1.) incorporate all key mission requirements into the business case, 2.) refine the sensitivity analysis to include a Monte Carlo simulation, and 3.) refine the detail of the cost-benefit and alternatives analyses down to the sub-project level to support incremental decision making. ATLAS responded to the GAO report and published a minor revision to the original business case to properly document the results of a Monte Carlo analysis conducted at the time of the original publishing date. Additionally, ATLAS has clarified mission requirements in program documentation, including Congressional Justifications, Expenditure Plans, performance measure definitions, and Exhibit 300s. ATLAS continues to refine cost-benefit and alternatives analyses on an individual subproject basis for subprojects nearing initiation of work and has continuously reassessed future program plans to reflect evolving ICE mission needs, Congressional requirements, both GAO and OMB program guidance. For example, OMB requested the program to focus appropriated resources solely on acquiring and implementing new technology investments and to compress certain project resource requests into shorter timelines to better comply with Clinger-Cohen standards for IT project management. In response, the program moved steady-state funding requirements, as documented in business case project life-cycle cost estimates, from program budget requests and Expenditure Plans to ICE base budget requests. In compliance with OMB's recommendation, ATLAS also achieved compressed costs, schedules, and performance targets specified in planning documents for FY 2006 and future years funds. In doing so, the program stayed within established program resource constraints by compressing higher priority mission capabilities forward while delaying the implementation of other planned capabilities. Another example is ATLAS' response to a GAO recommendation on improving performance management. Atlas has developed several new performance measures and accompanying annual targets that will better reflect progress against stated program goals to be accomplished by implementing major capabilities planned over the next five years. Some of these measures will be formalized for public reporting as part of the program's FY 2008 OMB PART assessment. A major update of the ATLAS Business Case will incorporate the improvements made to program plans since Dec. 2005 into a newly published Business Case that fully addresses guidance received from all program stakeholders to date. Pending formal publication of the updated business case, the program continues to utilize working program documents, already aligned with the recommended alternative outlined in the original Business Case and modified for program stakeholder guidance, to develop acquisition plans and annual Expenditure Plans. Acquisition and Expenditure Plans executed for FY 2004 and FY 2005 program funds mapped exactly to intended use, cost, and schedule specified in the Dec. 2005 Business Case. Acquisition and Expenditure Plans executed or in progress for FY 2006 through FY 2008 program funds follow intended use specified in the Dec. 2005 Business Case with accompanying adjustments in cost, schedule, and performance targets that are aligned with stakeholder expectations and recommendations.

Evidence: 2005 Atlas Business Case, pp. 2-5; 2008 Business Case Statement of Work (Procurement Sensitive), p. 3; DHS Exhibit 300 Public Release.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Atlas regularly collects timely and credible performance data, including data from key program partners, relating to the program goals. Partners report project status and present data at weekly Project Manager Status Meetings and quarterly Program Management Reviews. Daily communications between project managers, contractors, customers, and other key partners are used to effectively track performance and keep focused on the goal(s). Atlas uses these communications tools to adjust program priorities, allocate resources, or take other appropriate management actions. Customers primarily communicate interests and satisfaction through their senior leadership, directly to Atlas-associated personnel working in the field, and to the Atlas Program Manager at periodic meetings. Atlas is planning on developing a series of surveys to evaluate the level of satisfaction with Atlas projects and to assess future needs. All these methods allow Atlas to consider the performance of its partners while assessing progress on key program activities to actively manage the program and improve performance. Atlas has established 20 critical performance measures, seven of which are OMB measures posted in PARTWeb. Performance data is collected from project managers, program partners, and other key stakeholders on a routine basis in order to calculate these measures. For these performance calculations, the program uses standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure consistency of data collection. These SOPs include baseline performance data Atlas has collected to set meaningful, ambitious targets.

Evidence: FYHSP System Report; 1st Qtr FY 2008 PMR; Performance Measurement SOPs (examples).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Atlas Program Manager is responsible for and accountable for the execution of all projects under the auspices of the Atlas Program. He oversees the project managers, the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR), and the contractors assigned to the program. The Program Manager reports directly to the ICE Chief Information Officer (CIO) and reports the status of the program to higher headquarters, oversight organizations, and key stakeholders, as required. Project Managers are responsible for the overall progress of their assigned project(s), to include project planning, costing, scheduling, identification of funding requests, risk management, and chairing project meetings. They also oversee government support personnel and any contractors with a stake in their project(s). Each manager's goals are aligned with the goals of the program and their specific project(s). Furthermore, each manager's goals are aligned with the CIO's goals, and managers are rated according to how well they do in achieving those goals through appraisals using a government e-Performance tool. Managers are also evaluated through progress reported and demonstrated in weekly Project Managers' status meetings; through a weekly Intranet-based reporting system called OPAR (OCIO Project/Activity Report) to the ICE CIO; at quarterly Performance Management Reviews (PMRs) with the CIO and senior staff; and through mini PMRs with the CIO, as requested. Project Managers are held accountable to the performance measures specific to their project(s). Program partners (contractors) have performance standards which are detailed in contractual documentation. Project managers are required to work with the COTR to ensure that system development activities meet key contract tracking and oversight requirements as described in the ICE System Lifecycle Management (SLM) Handbook, which directs the COTR to enforce contracts. Contractors are required to provide monthly status reports, and they are held accountable to the performance criteria through paid invoices. Atlas Program invoices have been withheld for contractors failing to meet criteria specified in their contract.

Evidence: Atlas Project Manager meeting minutes (example); ICE SLM Handbook, pp. 11-12; Program Management Plan, pp. 8-19.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The Atlas PMO manages procurements via the Acquisition Pipeline Report (APR). Through daily communications with project stakeholders, procurement actions are identified and added to the APR. The ICE Office of Acquisition Management publishes a procurement action schedule which is incorporated into the APR to ensure timely procurement action. Progress on procurement actions is reported during weekly status meetings. A current Improvement Plan action is to incorporate the APR as an acquisition project within the Atlas Master Schedule. By linking procurement milestone dependencies into project schedules, Atlas management can exercise enhanced control to ensure prompt procurement awards. Program funds are non-expiring funds that must and have been spent according to congressionally approved Expenditure Plans detailing the intended use of provided resources. The Program has obligated appropriated funds in a timely manner after obtaining release of funds according to legislative requirements. Atlas experienced long lead times to meet the legislative requirement for obtaining ICE, DHS, OMB, Congressional and GAO approval of annual Expenditure Plans before obtaining funding release. For example, Atlas obtained release of appropriated funds for FY04 in Sept. 2005, FY05 in June 2006 and FY06 in March 2007. Therefore, the program experienced a large build up of funds from prior years, which peaked with a $68.1M carry over of funds from FY06 to FY07. In FY07, the program worked extensively with stakeholders to reduce the Expenditure Plan approval timeline. During FY07, the program also made progress in obligating prior year funds, reducing the carry over of funds between FY07 and FY08 from the peak of $68.1M down to $28.9M. The program achieved this reduction by obligating the remainder of the $39.6M FY05 appropriation not obligated the prior fiscal year, obligating almost two-thirds of the $39.7M FY06 appropriation released at the fiscal year half way point, and obligating a small portion of the $15M FY07 appropriation. In FY08, Congress removed the Atlas legislative requirement for an Expenditure Plan for all but $5M of appropriated funds. As a result, the program is executing an acquisition plan that will reduce the carry over of funds down to the $5M level or below. With the inclusion of the program in the FY09 President's Budget Request, Atlas will be able to more easily complete large portions of the Expenditure Plan approval process prior to appropriations in future years. Through continued efforts to work with stakeholders on improving and approving program plans at earlier stages in the budget formulation process, Atlas will be able to keep carry over balances between future fiscal years only at minimal levels required for sound risk management practices. Atlas has implemented strong oversight to ensure that funds are obligated for their intended use by defining intended uses in annual Expenditure Plans. Atlas also assigns subproject budgets which entail a greater level of detail and identifies specific items or services intended for purchase. A rigorous review process has been implemented for each procurement submitted using program funds. Atlas also prepares weekly reports from commitment, obligation, and expenditure information in ICE Federal Financial Management System (FFMS). These reports provide a listing of every procurement activity undertaken by the program up to the report date as well as a summary of commitments, obligations, expenditures, and available balances compared to project budgets. During the report assembly process, Atlas ensures that award and expenditure actions have been recorded accurately. Through this reporting process, the program regularly maintains an up to date financial overview for reviewing cost compliance throughout the Program while also ensuring that data is properly recorded in FFMS for reporting at the component and Department levels.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-1 & 3-3; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 15-17; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, p. 27; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, p. 32; Atlas Funding Schedule; Weekly Budget Status Report (example).

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Atlas Program has procedures in place to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. One efficiency measure is "Cost per desktop deployed." The cost has been reduced as a result of Atlas implementing best practices such as the deployment approach now including a more structured procedure that consists of adding more software components to the standardized desktop image, which reduces the time to install additional software components after the desktop has been deployed. Furthermore, the deployment procedure now incorporates a data migration tool that reduces the labor intensive effort to transfer data from the old desktop to the replacement desktop thereby reducing labor costs in hours required per unit. In addition, Atlas has met targets for its efficiency measure to reduce network O&M costs. In FY 2007, Atlas achieved a 42% reduction in ICE O&M contributions for circuits migrated via Atlas. Atlas is in the process of adding two more PART efficiency measures. The first efficiency will measure reductions in per unit desktop deployment costs The second efficiency measure will quantify the operational efficiency of network (uptime) availability for users. New contract vehicles - EAGLE and First Source - have recently been initiated into the Atlas procurement process which will provide the following competitive sourcing benefits: streamlining access to the services and products required by Department CIOs and IT organizations, maximizing the Department's IT purchasing power and achieving economies of scale, improving efficiency of IT purchases, reducing costs, enhancing the acquisition effectiveness of DHS components, and establishing performance measures for contactors and partners.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 3-1& 3-3; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 8-11; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 10-13; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 9-11; Expenditure Plans; Briefing: DHS EAGLE and First Source; FYHSP System Report, p. 9; 2005 PART Measures; OMB New Proposed PART Measures.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Atlas Program Goal #3 is to "??implement ICE IT standards that align with the DHS Enterprise Architecture." Being ICE's IT infrastructure modernization program, many Atlas projects represent ICE's contribution to DHS-wide coordinated modernization efforts governed by the DHS Infrastructure Transformation Program (ITP) office. For example, the Atlas Integration project collaborated with other DHS components when it migrated its legacy wide-area network to the new DHS "OneNet". In that case, all Department components coordinated single deployment teams to convert shared office locations, combined purchasing power by ordering required circuits using the same GSA contract vehicle, and participated in integrated Network Operations Command services run by the Department OneNet steward. As a second example, the program migrated all ICE users to a common e-mail platform and user authentication mechanism, as specified by the U.S. Coast Guard, which acts as Department steward for e-mail systems. This allows all Department personnel to participate in an integrated Single Sign-On environment for Active Directory enabled software, such as the selected common e-mail system. Additionally, all Department personnel can use a common e-mail address gallery when sending communications within their own component or to other components who have also migrated to the Department's e-mail standard. As a third example, ICE has been selected as the steward to lead Cyber Identity Management standards for the entire Department. Atlas has already implement the selected standard for all ICE personnel for those systems that use Active Directory enabled authentication. Atlas will implement the selected standard for all ICE personnel for legacy systems that are not Active Directory enabled once the standard is completely defined by ICE. This will allow ICE personnel to utilize Single Sign-On for Department-wide systems access as appropriate once systems are converted to the new standard. As a fourth example, the Atlas Tactical Communications project is coordinating both inside and outside the Department to conform to nationwide interoperability standards and take advantage of shared infrastructure, bulk purchasing, and similar efficiencies when modernizing its field communications networks. ICE Atlas currently participates in bulk buy discounts coordinated through an existing U.S. Secret Service (USSS) contract with Motorola for new P-25 standard tactical communications radios. This contract allows Atlas to leverage significant economies of scale by receiving discounted bulk pricing when certain thresholds in quantities are achieved by any orders placed through this shared contract vehicle, regardless of whether they are ICE orders or orders by another component or agency. On the ground, ICE is working extensively with CBP in El Paso and Arizona to jointly share infrastructure equipment and/or site leases where possible to optimize sharing, improve interoperability, and realize cost avoidance. ICE is jointly planning additional systems modernization efforts with CBP in Havre, MT; Houlton, ME; and other strategic border areas. Atlas also collaborates with state and local entities on a case-by-case regional basis. For example, in New Orleans, arrangements have been made for local police frequencies to be programmed into the ICE radios, so that the ICE agents and officers can leverage the local police infrastructure to improve interoperability. In addition, ICE has Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) in place with CBP, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the U.S. Park Police (USPP) to leverage cost-sharing opportunities wherever and whenever feasible.

Evidence: FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 10-11; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 8-11; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, p. 11; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, p. 9; EAB conditional approval.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Atlas has sound financial management practices in place to ensure proper administration of program funds from allotment through final payment. To support these practices, the program utilizes the ICE Office of Acquisitions (OAQ) for contract award support, the ICE finance center for payment processing support, and the Federal Financial Management System (FFMS), ICE's component-wide financial management system. By integrating program financial management practices with existing ICE financial management systems and personnel, Atlas accomplishes several important financial goals: 1.) The program ensures timely reporting of its financial data up to the ICE and DHS levels; 2.) The program uses a financial management system that ICE keeps in compliance with statutory requirements; and 3.) Atlas financial management practices get covered by ICE level audits. In financial audits conducted at the ICE level, no audit findings indicated material internal control weaknesses within the program. The program suballots funds based on established sub-project budgets as specified in the annual Expenditure Plans and underlying program planning documentation. Procurement packages are then developed and aligned to subproject budgets, and generate a supporting requisition document in FFMS. The program reviews each requisition for compliance with budgets, acquisition plans, and intended use prior to submission for funds certification. At funds certification, an ICE budget official outside of the program, along with FFMS system verification checks, ensures that the requested procurement amount will not exceed the program's allotment. Reports regularly generated from FFMS and reviewed by both program and ICE Budget personnel ensure that committed funds also conform to sub-project suballotments. Certified requisitions move forward to the Atlas Program Manager for approval to ensure timely reporting of status information. Approved documents are reviewed by the Atlas Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) and Contracting Officer to review the package for completeness and conformance to acquisition regulations. For contracts over $100,000, the ICE OAQ will review a program-prepared standardized procurement review checklist to facilitate this process. For contracts over $2.5M, DHS must also review and approve this checklist before an award can be made. At the time of award, an ICE acquisition official will record award data in FFMS and provide a copy of the contract obligation document to the Atlas COTR. Once invoices begin arriving for awarded contracts, the program has procedures in place to minimize erroneous payments and ensure payments are made for intended purposes. This process begins with the Atlas COTR receiving the invoice and assembling an invoice review package. The project manager overseeing the contract reviews the invoice to ensure that billed work has been performed according to contract specifications. Next, program finance personnel validate billing rates and available funds on the contract for payment. They also record receiving and acceptance information provided by the project manager in FFMS to ensure timely reporting of invoices under review for payment. Finally, the program manager, the Atlas COTR, and the Contracting Officer validate adherence to the entire process before forwarding the invoice to ICE's finance center for payment. The finance center verifies that all reviews have been completed and entered into FFMS prior to certifying the invoice for payment. Program financial personnel assemble all described FFMS entries for that reporting period into a comprehensive Atlas financial weekly status report. These reports are reviewed at weekly project manager meetings where the Program Manager, project managers, and support personnel review day-to-day program operations of prior and future planned activities with emphasis upon progress against cost, schedule, and performance.

Evidence: 2005 Atlas Business Case, pp. ES-4-14; FY 2005 Expenditure Plan, pp. 1-4, 2-6, 3-9 to 4-22; FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, pp. 15-19; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 21-32; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 28-46; Weekly Budget Status Report (example); Statement of Work template.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Atlas managers have taken meaningful steps to use systems and controls to bring about necessary changes. Some examples are Quarterly Project Management Reviews (PMRs), which are thorough and comprehensive process reviews with the ICE Chief Information Officer (CIO) designed to evaluate the program management and correct deficiencies in a timely manner; SLM review processes and procedures to control Program documentation; and Change Control Boards that review and approve the program's costs, schedules, and performance. Necessary changes are also brought about as a result of managers reporting project status in weekly meetings; through a weekly Intranet-based reporting system called OPAR (OCIO Project/Activity Report) to the ICE CIO; and through mini PMRs with the CIO, as requested. These systems and controls have resulted in many successes. Atlas developed a long-range strategic plan that helps ICE share information with its law enforcement and immigration enforcement partners. Another example, in one of GAO's initial findings in 2005, it recommended Atlas established a strong program office to monitor program's performance and use of appropriated resources. Since then, Atlas hired a DHS-certified Level III Project Manager to lead the program; named project managers for each Atlas project; hired a dedicated Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR); and staffed a contractor Program Management Office to provide program and project oversight. Atlas also developed a spending plan for current resources. The Atlas Business Case was finalized in Dec. 2005, providing the baseline for documenting future requirements. The FY 2006 Expenditure Plan was approved by Congress in March 2007; the FY 2007 Expenditure Plan was approved by Congress in June 2007; and the FY 2008 Expenditure Plan has been approved by all appropriate ICE elements and has been forwarded to the DHS Investment Review Board (IRB) for approval.

Evidence: Atlas Organization Chart; DHS Project Manager Certification List; IV&V certification letter; Contractor Position Designation Determinations (examples); Acquisition Plan; Acquisition Program Baseline.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Deliverables, performance characteristics, cost, schedules, and goals are clearly defined in the Atlas Business Case, Project Plans, and Acquisition Program Baseline. Further, Atlas now has a fully staffed Program Management Office (PMO) and IV&V contractor to provide oversight. Program managers and partners are held accountable through GAO, Congress, OMB, and other oversight organizations. To date, Atlas has refreshed over 8,300 desktops, consolidated all ICE employees to a common email platform, integrated all network sites with DHS high speed circuits, and began consolidating enforcement systems into query accessible data marts.

Evidence: 2005 Atlas Business Case, pp. 21-24; Acquisition Program Baseline, pp. 3-12; 1st Qtr FY 2008 PMR; Performance Measurement SOPs (examples); Project Plans (examples); Congressional Briefing (example); Congressional Funding Release Letters (examples).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Atlas met one of the two long-term performance goals (outcome measures) for FY 2007, and the program is currently 85% complete on the second measure and on pace to meet its FY 2008 goal. The first long-term outcome measure: "Percent of ICE investigative and enforcement personnel with access to Decision Support Systems" is on target for FY 2008. In FY 2008, Atlas will enable an additional 2,100 personnel with access to information for investigative and enforcement decisions. Atlas's second long-term performance measure "Percent of modernized IT services available to users" had been on target until circumstances outside of the program's control occurred and resulted in schedule slippage. The problems concerned a contract protest and ICE's ability to issue I.D. badges to deployment technicians. Although these were not permanent delays that perpetuate year-after-year, Atlas worked with appropriate ICE staff and organizations to resolve the issues and set aggressive milestones to get back on track to meets its FY 2008 goal. The issues have since been resolved and is on target. Despite the delay of the Desktop Refresh sub-project contract, ICE end users (customers) have been very satisfied after receiving the new desktop equipment. Comments relayed to management have indicated that this new equipment is helping ICE end users to be more efficient and productive in performing their jobs. Also, several lessons learned were documented and will be used to enhance future project deployments.

Evidence: FYHSP System Report; Project Managers Weekly Status meeting minutes (example); Lessons Learned (example).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: In FY 2007, the Atlas Program met three of four (75%) annual PART performance measures??two ahead of schedule. For Output measure #1: "Percent of ICE personnel using the DHS standard Microsoft Outlook E-mail platform," the project baseline was successfully met in the second quarter of FY 2007. This output assured all ICE users were using and communicating on the same e-mail platform. Output #2: "Percent of ICE sites using DHS standard high speed network circuits" was successfully completed ahead of schedule in the second quarter of FY 2007. This measure ensures ICE end users are connected and integrated through a single-standard communications infrastructure. Output #3: "Percentage of ICE users employing Single Sign-On (SSO) for systems access" was successfully completed ahead of schedule in the third quarter of FY 2007. This output capability ensures that users can access multiple systems securely and efficiently by using a single mechanism for uniquely identifying themselves, as well as, providing authentication to validate identity and access to ICE systems. For Output measure #4: "Percent of progress in implementing a complete refresh of ICE personnel desktop equipment," the project schedule was delayed due to circumstances outside of the program's control. These issues did not cause permanent delay, and will not perpetuate year-after-year. Atlas management worked with appropriate ICE staff and organizations to resolve the issues and set aggressive milestones to get back on track to meets its FY 2008 goal. The issues have since been resolved and the project is on target to meet its FY 2008 goal of 100% deployment.

Evidence: FYHSP System Report.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program has met targets for its efficiency measure to reduce ICE's contribution to network O&M costs. In FY 2007, ICE achieved a 42% reduction in O&M contributions for circuits migrated via Atlas. Atlas is in the process of adding two more efficiency measures. One is measuring reductions in desktop deployment costs (per unit) over the life of the desktop refresh project. The other is measuring percent of network uptime available to users. With the latter measure, Atlas is being aggressive by increasing its baseline to 98.5% compared to a similar DHS program??the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) automation modernization??that uses 98.0% as a baseline. In addition, Atlas is constantly in quest of industry best practices and benchmarks associated with information technology from both government and private sector sources, especially when establishing targets for achieving efficiencies and cost effectiveness that align to Atlas program goals. Atlas management also attends IT-related conferences and routinely meets with vendors and industry leaders to learn of the latest emerging technologies.

Evidence: Performance Measures SOPs (examples); 1st Qtr FY 2008 PMR; Custom Border Protection (CBP): Automation and Modernization (Program Assessment from PARTWeb).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Atlas performance does compare favorably to other programs. For example, Custom Border Protection: Automation and Modernization, and Atlas are producing approximately similar results, as reported in PARTWeb. GAO has noted steady progress in Atlas Program maturity over its last three reports.

Evidence: GAO reports: GAO-05-805, p. 8; GAO-06-823, p. 5; GAO-07-565, p. 3; Custom Border Protection (CBP): Automation and Modernization (Program Assessment from PARTWeb).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Atlas undergoes annual GAO, OMB, and Congressional reviews of its program and expenditure plans. GAO's initial program review (2005) gave Atlas mixed reviews, but credited the program with some small successes. This initial review cited five recommendations. These recommendations were at a high general level??common for a program just starting out. In the follow up review (2006), GAO cited a solid program foundation and thus focused on more detailed findings??it cited 19 more recommendations. The Atlas team was very active in responding to the recommendations. The Atlas PMO met frequently with GAO to clarify issues, provide responses to recommendations, and answer follow-on questions. The 2006 (FY 2005) GAO report noted that the Atlas Program officials addressed the previous year's recommendations by finalizing staff roles and responsibilities and assigning high-level tasks for each staff member. GAO also stated that Atlas program officials have begun to implement project management best practices methodologies. The Atlas Program has benefited by these recommendations by implementing processes and procedures, such as a Process Improvement Plan, a thorough Risk Management Plan, and rigorous performance measures, In the 2007 (FY 2006) review, the maturity of the Atlas Program was evident as the GAO's findings were reduced to only five. For example, one recommendation was for Atlas to "Employ practices essential to assuring that the Atlas program's independent verification and validation (IV&V) agent is and remains independent." The Atlas team updated the IV&V contract to contain language to assure that the IV&V agent is and remains independent, and it revised the statement of work to prevent any conflict of interest. Another example included a recommendation to "Fully implement key contract management and oversight practices, including those specified in ICE's policies and procedures." Atlas responded by hiring a full-time COTR for the program; by garnering approval for the final Acquisition Plan in May 2007; by revising the ICE System Lifecycle Management (SLM) Handbook in July 2007; and by including clearly defined SOWs with detailed requirements and acceptance criteria for all Atlas procurement efforts. In each case, the Atlas team routinely met with GAO to address all findings and respond to the recommendations. The U.S. House of Representatives verbally acknowledged its satisfaction with the Atlas Program and it has not requested any further information of Atlas from GAO since July 2007. In addition to GAO, an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) contractor also periodically reviews the Atlas Program.

Evidence: GAO reports: GAO-05-805, p. 8; GAO-06-823, p. 5; GAO-07-565, p. 3 & 5; Atlas Program IV&V Statement of Work.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Atlas is a multiyear investment program planned out through FY 2015. Even though Atlas was initiated in FY 2002, funding did not begin until FY 2004. Not even four years into the funding stream, Atlas has already begun 17 of the planned 21 project segments. As of Q1 FY 2008, seven work segments were scheduled to be finished??all seven have been completed within budgeted costs and established schedules. Ten other segments are currently active, some of which are not scheduled to be completed until FY 2015. The remaining four work segments are scheduled to begin in future years. As of Q1 FY 2008, the program has a negative cost and schedule variance. The variances are related to issues beyond Atlas's direct control; however, they are not on the program's critical path. The primary cause of the negative variances is due to a major contract protest on the desktop upgrade segment and delays in obtaining security clearances/badges for a large number of deployment technicians. Those issues have been resolved now and the project segment is now expected to be completed within budgeted costs during Q3 FY 2008. Several segments experienced delays in Q2 FY 2008 resulting in anticipated schedule variances. Again, these delays were beyond Atlas's control. The Single Sign-On (SSO) segment was put on hold pending a DHS decision on stewardship. ICE was later selected as the steward for the entire department and it is actively addressing the issues resulting from the delay. The Alternate Web Platform segment was impacted by a security clearance delay in obtaining a qualified system administrator. Atlas management has resolved many of the issues and is actively addressing those that remain.

Evidence: 1st Qtr FY 2008 Periodic Report; 1st Qtr FY 2008 PMR; 2006 Expenditure Plan, p. 39; FY 2007 Expenditure Plan, pp. 43-49; FY 2008 Expenditure Plan, pp. 54-58.