212:
progress of the program. Specifically, DNDO officials told GAO that when they made their course correction and cancelled the acquisition part of the program in 2007, they also decided not to conduct a cost benefit analysis because such analyses are generally needed to justify going forward with acquisitions. In addition, DNDO completed CAARS testing in March 2010; however, as of today, the final test results for two of the three CAARS machines are not yet available. Currently, no CAARS machines have been deployed. CAARS machines from various vendors have either been disassembled or sit idle without being tested in a port environment, and CBP is considering whether to allow DNDO to collect operational data in a port environment. During recent discussions with DNDO officials, they agreed that the language in the budget justifications lacked clarity and stated that they are not planning to complete a cost benefit analysis since such analyses are generally associated with acquisition programs.
199:
because during the first year or more of the program DNDO and CBP had few discussions about operating requirements for primary inspection lanes at ports of entry. In addition, the CAARS program was among numerous acquisition programs at DNDO for which appropriate DHS oversight was lacking. Furthermore, the development of the CAARS algorithms—a key part of the machine needed to identify shielded nuclear materials automatically—did not mature at a rapid enough pace to warrant acquisition and deployment. Moreover, the description of the progress of the CAARS program used to support funding requests in DNDO’s budget justifications for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 was misleading because it did not reflect the actual status of the program.
208:
cancel the acquisition of CAARS. For example, in its fiscal year 2009 budget justification, DHS stated that a preliminary DNDO/CBP CAARS production and deployment program had been successfully developed and that CAARS machines would be developed that would detect both contraband and shielded nuclear material with little or no impact on CBP operations. The fiscal years 2010 and 2011 DHS budget justifications both cited that an ongoing testing campaign would lead to a cost benefit analysis, followed by rapid development of a prototype that would lead to a pilot deployment at a CBP point of entry.
170:
U.S. government’s nuclear detection efforts. DNDO conducts its own research, development, test, and evaluation of nuclear and radiological detection technologies, and is responsible for acquiring the technology systems necessary to implement the domestic portions of the global nuclear detection architecture. DNDO also provides standardized
166:(DNDO) is a jointly staffed office established on April 15, 2005 by the United States to improve the nation’s capability to detect and report unauthorized attempts to import, possess, store, develop, or transport nuclear or radiological material for use against the nation, and to further enhance this capability over time.
194:
has concluded is only marginally better than existing technology. The ASP may have drained resources from other programs, including development and deployment of mobile, portable or hand-held technologies that could screen other types of inbound cargo or bulk shipments, like international trains and
169:
DNDO coordinates United States federal efforts to detect and protect against nuclear and radiological terrorism against the United States. DNDO, utilizing its interagency staff, is responsible for the development of the global nuclear detection architecture, the underlying strategy that guides the
211:
Furthermore, the fiscal year 2010 budget justification stated that while the CAARS technology was less mature than originally estimated, successful development was still feasible. However, DHS’s description and assessment of the CAARS program in its budget justification did not reflect the actual
207:
For fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011, DHS justified annual budget requests to
Congress by citing significant plans and accomplishments of the CAARS program, including that CAARS technology development and deployment was feasible, even though DNDO had made the decision in December 2007 to
198:
According to the GAO, from the start of the CAARS program in 2005 until the course correction in
December 2007, DNDO planned the acquisition and deployment of CAARS machines without understanding that they would not fit within existing primary inspection lanes at CBP ports of entry. This occurred
24:
187:
174:, technical support, training, and response protocols for federal and non-federal partners. In December 2017, DNDO became one of the constituent components of the newly formed Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office.
299:
285:
333:
190:
has accused DNDO of wasting 5 years and millions of dollars. As of June 30, 2010, DNDO had spent $ 200 million trying to develop a new radiation detection technology – the ASP - that the
358:
363:
348:
250:
103:
314:
Inadequate
Communication and Oversight Hampered DHS Efforts to Develop an Advanced Radiography System to Detect Nuclear Materials, GAO, September 15, 2010
191:
353:
182:
DNDO has come under heavy criticism for its failed
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitor (ASP) and
295:
293:
272:
171:
243:
328:
229:
149:
342:
61:
313:
183:
23:
273:"Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office | Homeland Security"
334:
188:
U.S. Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs
286:
Senate
Homeland Security Committee Press Release, Sept. 15, 2010
300:
Senate
Homeland Security Committee Press Release, June 30, 2010
309:
307:
230:"Domestic Nuclear Detection Office | Homeland Security"
244:"Homeland Security Budget-in-Brief Fiscal Year 2009"
184:
Cargo
Advanced Automated Radiography System (CAARS)
144:
109:
99:
85:
75:
67:
57:
43:
35:
30:
125:Transformational and Applied Research Directorate
128:Systems Engineering and Evaluation Directorate
122:Product Acquisition and Deployment Directorate
359:United States Department of Homeland Security
251:United States Department of Homeland Security
104:United States Department of Homeland Security
50:Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
8:
16:
134:National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center
22:
364:2005 establishments in the United States
154:/about-domestic-nuclear-detection-office
349:Federal government of the United States
221:
192:Government Accountability Office (GAO)
15:
7:
203:Accusations of Misleading Congress
14:
329:Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
164:Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
17:Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
137:Red Teaming and Net Assessments
116:Systems ArchitectureDirectorate
178:Accusations of Failed Programs
131:Operations Support Directorate
119:Mission Management Directorate
1:
92:James F. McDonnell, Director
380:
21:
195:commercial aviation.
253:. 2009. p. 109
18:
172:threat assessments
44:Superseding agency
160:
159:
371:
316:
311:
302:
297:
288:
283:
277:
276:
269:
263:
262:
260:
258:
248:
240:
234:
233:
226:
156:
153:
151:
86:Agency executive
81:
26:
19:
379:
378:
374:
373:
372:
370:
369:
368:
354:Nuclear weapons
339:
338:
325:
320:
319:
312:
305:
298:
291:
284:
280:
271:
270:
266:
256:
254:
246:
242:
241:
237:
228:
227:
223:
218:
205:
186:programs. The
180:
148:
140:
95:
80:US$ 563,800,000
79:
53:
31:Agency overview
12:
11:
5:
377:
375:
367:
366:
361:
356:
351:
341:
340:
337:
336:
331:
324:
323:External links
321:
318:
317:
303:
289:
278:
264:
235:
220:
219:
217:
214:
204:
201:
179:
176:
158:
157:
146:
142:
141:
139:
138:
135:
132:
129:
126:
123:
120:
117:
113:
111:
110:Child agencies
107:
106:
101:
97:
96:
94:
93:
89:
87:
83:
82:
77:
73:
72:
69:
65:
64:
59:
55:
54:
52:
51:
47:
45:
41:
40:
39:April 15, 2005
37:
33:
32:
28:
27:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
376:
365:
362:
360:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
346:
344:
335:
332:
330:
327:
326:
322:
315:
310:
308:
304:
301:
296:
294:
290:
287:
282:
279:
274:
268:
265:
252:
245:
239:
236:
231:
225:
222:
215:
213:
209:
202:
200:
196:
193:
189:
185:
177:
175:
173:
167:
165:
155:
147:
143:
136:
133:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
115:
114:
112:
108:
105:
102:
100:Parent agency
98:
91:
90:
88:
84:
78:
76:Annual budget
74:
70:
66:
63:
62:United States
60:
56:
49:
48:
46:
42:
38:
34:
29:
25:
20:
281:
267:
255:. Retrieved
238:
224:
210:
206:
197:
181:
168:
163:
161:
58:Jurisdiction
343:Categories
257:31 January
216:References
68:Employees
145:Website
36:Formed
247:(PDF)
259:2010
162:The
152:.gov
150:dhs
71:137
345::
306:^
292:^
249:.
275:.
261:.
232:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
