战略与国际研究中心-DHS-Contract-Spending-and-the-Supporting-Industrial-Base_38页_981kb

Summary of DHS Contract Spending and the Supporting Industrial Base (July 2011)

Core Content

This report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides an analysis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contract spending from 2004 to 2010, along with insights into the industrial base that supports these activities. The report focuses on six key components of DHS: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Office of the Secretary (OSEC), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also examines the broader contractor landscape, including the distribution of contracts among firms of different sizes and the top 20 contractors.

Main Points

• DHS Contract Spending Trends (2004–2010):

  • Total DHS contract spending increased by 56% from $9 billion in 2004 to $14 billion in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
  • Spending on services dominated, accounting for 78% of total contract spending in 2006, while product spending declined significantly.
  • R&D spending was minimal, representing less than 10% of total contract spending in any given year, with a notable drop from $1.1 billion in 2006 to $400 million in 2010.
  • Noncontract spending remained consistently higher than contract spending, reflecting the response-based nature of DHS operations, especially after major events like Hurricane Katrina.

• Contract Spending by DHS Component:

  • CBP: Experienced the highest growth in contract spending, increasing by 71% over the period. Major factors included the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and the Secure Fence Act, which led to increased border security efforts.
  • USCG: Maintained relatively stable contract spending, fluctuating between $2.3 billion and $2.8 billion annually. Product spending remained stable at around $1 billion per year.
  • TSA: Showed no overall growth in contract spending, but experienced annual fluctuations. The introduction of the Screener Partnership Program (SSP) and the increase in Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units contributed to higher service spending.
  • OSEC: Saw dramatic growth, increasing by 900% from $300 million in 2004 to $1.2 billion in 2006, and further to $3 billion in 2010. This was largely due to organizational changes and increased procurement activities.
  • FEMA: Experienced the most volatility, with spending peaking at $7.5 billion in 2006 for disaster relief and declining sharply to less than $100 million in 2010.
  • ICE: Increased its contract spending by 100% over the period, driven by new responsibilities such as the Criminal Alien Program and the Secure Communities initiative.

• Key Contract Characteristics:

  • Competition: The report notes that the level of competition in contract awards varied, with some years showing higher competition due to increased funding from supplemental appropriations, particularly in 2006 and 2009.
  • Funding Mechanism: The majority of contract spending was through the base budget, with supplemental appropriations contributing to spikes in spending.
  • Contract Vehicle: The report highlights the use of different contract vehicles, though specific details on the distribution are not provided in the summary.

• Industrial Base Supporting DHS:

  • The contractor base included a mix of small, medium, and large firms, with large firms dominating the market.
  • The top 20 DHS contractors were identified, and their spending was analyzed across products, services, and R&D categories.
  • The report indicates that there may be discrepancies between how companies classify contracts and how the federal government does, especially between services and products.

Key Information

• Data Source: The report uses data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), which includes only prime contracts and excludes classified contracts.
• Funding Context: The report acknowledges that contract spending does not equate to budget authority, as outlays often lag behind congressional appropriations.
• Volatility: Noncontract spending was more volatile than contract spending, often influenced by specific events such as natural disasters or security threats.
• Supplemental Appropriations: These were significant in driving contract spending increases, especially in 2006 and 2009, with FEMA and OSEC being heavily impacted.
• R&D Spending: Despite being a minor portion of total contract spending, R&D management and support accounted for a larger share than actual R&D, with the latter declining sharply from 2006 to 2010.
• Industry Distribution: Large firms were the primary contractors, with the top 20 contractors accounting for a significant portion of the total contract spending. Smaller firms had a smaller share but were still part of the industrial base.

Conclusion

The report underscores the significant growth and volatility in DHS contract spending from 2004 to 2010, driven by events such as Hurricane Katrina, the Secure Border Initiative, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also highlights the dominance of services in DHS spending and the limited role of R&D, as well as the structure of the industrial base that supports these contracts. The findings suggest that DHS's procurement activities are closely tied to its operational and strategic priorities, and that the contractor base is largely composed of large firms, with some notable exceptions and fluctuations in smaller firm participation.