Detailed Information on the
Science and Technology: Chemical and Biological Assessment

Develop an integrated Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear risk assessment that assesses emerging CBRN threats and homeland security vulnerabilities.

Conduct assessment of program and project milestones.

Develop 5 Year Research and Development Plan.

Collect requirements from customers and make adjustments in current and out year plans.

Measure: Percent completion of an effective restoration capability to restore key infrastructure to normal operation after a chemical or biological attack.

Explanation:Numerous objectives of the Target Capabilities List, a companion document to the National Preparedness Goal, address capabilities related to response and recovery from chemical and biological attacks. These objectives include identifying the contaminant, determining hazard zone, decontaminating, and determining level of cleanliness after decontamination. Substantial improvements in several of these areas are required to ensure local, regional, and national response assets are adequately prepared to respond and recover from a chemical or biological attack. This measure reflects program activities to develop the required components of a capability to restore critical infrastructure from an attack with persistent chemical agents, including TICs, CWAs, and NTAs, as well as to restore areas contaminated with biological agents, such as anthrax. On the chemical side, the effort comprises development of a prototype mobile laboratory capable of analyzing a wide range of environmental samples, including those that may contain CWA and NTA contamination, the prototyping of fixed laboratories to enable increased national capability for analysis of environmental samples containing highly toxic materials, a prototype sample "triage" capability to ensure safe handling of unknown samples by laboratories, development of guidance for the selection and application of decontamination technologies, and the validation of approaches to collect samples from contaminated areas both before and after decontamination. A critical demonstration is to be conducted for Los Angeles International Airport in 2009 (Actual demonstration will be conducted at Ontario CA International Airport due to lack of LAX terminal availability.). The overall effort is highly coordinated with EPA and other agencies, and will conclude with the development and demonstration of special capabilities to handle agents of classified nature in the period beyond 2009. Biological restoration efforts target key deliverables related to wide area contamination such as the development of a consequence management plan incorporating a framework for prioritization of infrastructure decontamination, characterization of sampling methodologies, evaluation of decontamination methodologies, and improvement in understanding of the fate of biological agents in the environment. The effort incorporates a demonstration in the Seattle urban area in 2010 and is targeted to extend in 2011 to an additional UASI (Urban Area Security Initiative) city to demonstrate generality of restoration approaches. The overall biological restoration effort is conducted in close collaboration with DoD and EPA. Progress in the comprehensive chemical and biological restoration effort is measured as the percentage of key products and deliverables that comprise together the full required capability. Such deliverables and products include the required technologies and guidance documents along with key reports developed to enable critical decisions along the development pathway. Through the broad proliferation of the guidance documents, restoration templates, and technology surveys that are products of this effort, the preparedness of local, regional, and national response entities for response to and recovery from a chemical or biological attack will be greatly enhanced.

Measure: Percent of high-priority chemical and biological agents detectable in target operational scenarios

Explanation:As part of the National Preparedness Goal, the Target Capabilities List outlines a number of required capabilities to ensure local, regional, and national assets are prepared for events outside the normal emergency. As part of the Prevent mission area, CBRNE Detection is identified as a major target capability to counter the manufacture, transport, and/or use of CBRNE materials. Current chemical and biological detection capabilities address a limited spectrum of agents and a limited spectrum of target use scenarios. This measure reflects progress across the entire chemical and biological detection program toward developing technologies for transition to appropriate customers for deployment and use. The measure reflects, on the chemical detection side, the development of prototypes to address the warning, response, and restoration needs in operational environments for toxic industrial chemicals (TICs), chemical warfare agents (CWAs), and non-traditional agents (NTAs). Specific application areas include detection of vapor chemical agents in critical infrastructure such as transit terminals and other buildings, the use of detectors by responders to guide response and protect their health, and the rapid survey of potentially contaminated areas for highly toxic chemical materials. In the biological program, the operational needs addressed are primarily warning/notification of the release of biological agents, laboratory-based analysis of environmental and clinical samples potentially containing biological agents, and on-site detection of unknown materials suspected to be biological in nature (e.g., "white powders"). Specific applications include environmental monitoring through automated sampler/analyzers (such as BioWatch), examination of suspect samples by customs/border agents and responders, and the confirmation of biological contamination in environmental and clinical samples by other agencies such as EPA and CDC using assays developed in this program. Targeted agents for these detection systems are prioritized through biological and chemical terrorism risk assessments, which are updated by the program on a biennial basis and reviewed by other agencies with a stake in the outcome. The set of agents chosen comprise some 90-95% of total risk presented by chemical and biological agents. Measurement of progress is tracked via a matrix of agents versus operational scenarios, with success shown through the demonstration of prototypes capable of detecting the agents and/or the validation of assays for use in target operational applications. These technologies, when demonstrated, will generally be accessed by the intended users through transition to and through other DHS components (the S&T Directorate develops but does not deploy technologies, per current Department policy) or by commercialization and access by local entities through grants processes.

Measure: Number of planned products completed in development of a restoration capability

Explanation:This annual measure reflects specifically the annual outputs associated with performance measure 2, which tracks long-term progress toward the completion of an effective restoration capability to restore key infrastructure to normal operation after a chemical or biological attack. In the conduct of these efforts, a variety of products, such as restoration templates, stakeholder workshop reports, guidelines, market surveys, and demonstration/transition of technical items are produced. The annual measure reflects the targeted number of these on an annual basis over the course of the comprehensive restoration effort.

Measure: Number of chemical and biological agents for which detection is demonstrated in operational prototype or application.

Explanation:The output depicted in this annual measure reflects the number of high-priority chemical and biological agents for which detection is demonstrated in a variety of selected operational scenarios for which the program is obligated. The measure is based on the projected successful development and demonstration of several detection platforms funded by the program as well as the validation and transition of biological assays to other agencies for use in meeting their detection and identification requirements. A peak in the annual number of agent/scenario combinations is projected in the 2010-2011 timeframe as several current development projects are completed and transitioned

Measure: Percent of cost, schedule, and performance goals for all CB Program Transition projects that are met, as established in the fiscal year's budget five-year plan.

Explanation:This measure reflects the overall performance of the Chem Bio program in accomplishing cost, schedule, and performance goals described in the FY five-year plan. Through improvements in program management the CB Program will demonstrate increased efficiency by increasing the programs performance while maintaining a steady level of resource investment. The performance of the CB program against these goals is measured by the Under Secretary of Science and Technology twice a year and is reported to the Chem Bio Capstone IPT. The data from this review will be used to determine the percentage of cost schedule and performance goals met each year. For example in 2007 there were 30 transition projects in the CB program each of which was measured against their cost, schedule, and technical goals. Out of a potential score of 90 the CB program achieved 80 of these goals or 88% of the annual program goals were achieved in 2007. FY07 was the first year that the chemical and biological programs where combined into one program and will serve as the baseline year. The CB program will aim for a 2% per year percentage improvement until the overall program efficiency is brought up to 96%, which is 6% higher than the average 90% that agencies are expected to achieve according to Appendix D in the PART Guidance.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program is clear and supports the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) as defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This Program improves the understanding, technologies, and systems needed to anticipate, deter, protect against, detect, mitigate, and recover from possible biological and chemical attacks on the Nation's population, agriculture, or infrastructure. The Program is executed by the Chemical and Biological Division, whose mission as stated in 2009 President's budget request is "to work to increase the Nation's preparedness against chemical and biological threats through improved threat awareness, advanced surveillance and detection, and protective countermeasures."

Evidence: Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 (Title III of Public Law 107-296); FY 2009 DHS Budget Submission, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib-fy2009.pdf, p 109); 5-Year R&D Plan; Execution Plan; Congressional Justification

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological Division (CBD) supports science and develops technology to address gaps in the nation's ability to protect against and respond to chemical and biological attacks. The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program addresses a set of specific and existing vulnerabilities as defined by Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) issued by the President, capability gaps identified by DHS components and stakeholders through the Integrated Product Team (IPT) process, and interagency strategic plans established among government agencies with a common interest. The manner in which these problems are addressed is shaped by risk assessments, systems studies, and population threat assessments conducted within the CB Program. For example, through the Bioagent Autonomous Network Detector Program, designed to meet BioWatch Generation 3 Detection System requirements, the CB Program addresses the specific need for more rapid detection of biological threats released into the environment to support the Office of Health Affairs (OHA). Addressing this requirement is consistent with directives outlined in HSPD-10. A full list of capability gaps being addressed by the CB Program is provided as evidence. The recently submitted Coordination of Homeland Security Science and Technology (CHSST) identifies a range of near-, mid-, and long-term objectives to improve our National defensive posture. The CB Program is designed to address those objectives which fall to it based on Homeland Security Presidential Directives, legislation, and interagency strategic assessments carried out in the past several years. In all cases, the efforts of the program are consistent with the mission as described under Question 1.1.

Evidence: HSPD-7, "Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection" December 2003; HSPD-9 "Defense of the United States Agriculture and Food" January 30, 2004; HSPD-10 "Biodefense for the 21st Century" April 28, 2004; HSPD-22 "National Domestic Chemical Defense" December 2007 (Classified); CB Defense Capstone IPT Capability Gaps List (FY2008); CB Defense Capstone IPT briefing (Mar 08) (describing the S&T CB IPT Capability Gap collection and prioritization process); Draft Coordination of Homeland Security Science and Technology (CHSST)

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program is designed to avoid redundancy and duplication by several means. First, the Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) define which agencies hold lead as well as shared responsibilities for specific issues within each directive, ensuring an efficient and effective approach between Federal agencies. For example, HSPD-10 and HSPD-22 require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop risk assessments for biological and chemical threats, respectively, while HSPD-18 requires DHS to execute an integrated all-CBRN risk assessment to inform acquisition of medical countermeasures by Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, members of the CB Program interact with other government agencies through participation in interagency meetings; working groups; and program, solicitation, and product review committees as a conduit for information sharing and leveraging opportunities. As a result, a number of efforts are conducted as joint programs with other agencies not only to prevent unwanted redundancy and duplication but also to reflect the Federal Government's objective to utilize resources to the maximum benefit of the Nation. As another means of preventing redundancy and duplication, strategic assessments were conducted in 2004 to assess research and development (R&D) programs across the Federal Government in Biological and Chemical Defense (participants included DHS, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Intelligence Community). Projects within the CB Program were formulated largely to address gaps identified in those interagency working groups. In an effort to continue to expand existing interactions, the CB Program, DOD, and EPA have agreed to formalize a process to examine areas of joint interest to better leverage opportunities and investments, have shared program information, and are conducting the analysis.

Evidence: HSPD-7, "Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection" December 2003; HSPD-9 "Defense of the United States Agriculture and Food" January 30, 2004; HSPD-10 "Biodefense for the 21st Century" April 28, 2004; HSPD-22 "National Domestic Chemical Defense" December 2007 (Classified); HSPD-18, "Medical Countermeasures against Weapons of Mass Destruction" January 2007; Counter-Proliferation Technology Coordinating Committee (CTCC) Documents; S&T Solicitation Review Panel Lists; CBD Annual Program Review Panel Lists; Review Panel Invitation for other government agencies; Interagency Group meeting minutes; Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Agreement (MOA) documents for joint programs

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

Explanation: Technical content of the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program is determined through Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) chaired by DHS customer components. These IPTs create and validate capability gaps which require technology-based solutions. They also approve the overall technical content to assure the CB Program meets the user needs. The Program is reviewed semi-annually by the Undersecretary of Science and Technology and through the customer-populated IPTs. Communication in these reviews helps ensure effective products are targeted to be consistent with both the CB mission and the needs of the end user. These reviews also enable discussion of issues related to cost, technical, and schedule performance of projects within the CB Program. To ensure maximized effectiveness of the efforts to meet customer needs, the CB program has engaged vigorously in a process of developing and agreeing to Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs), which are intended to describe requirements and transition pathways to guide the development of technology solutions for customer use. In order to be confident that design flaws are prevented in the CB Program, panels have been established to evaluate our strategy. Specifically, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-10, Biodefense for the 21st Century, calls on DHS to conduct a "periodic senior-level net assessment that evaluates progress in implementing that policy, identifies continuing gaps in vulnerabilities in our biodefense posture, and makes recommendations for rebalancing and refining investments among the pillars of our overall biodefense posture". This BioDefense Net Assessments group analyzes S&T's current biodefense strategy as well as that of the Nation against the current and future environment and provides guidance to ensure that program investments are correctly targeted for maximum effectiveness. The first of these net assessments is due in 2008 and every four years thereafter. Additionally, in 2006 an Executive Review Panel comprising senior-level subject matter experts was set up to provide independent review and guidance regarding the Chemical Countermeasures Portfolio's existing and out- year programs. This independent review incorporated a strategic review to assess and promote improved effectiveness (as documented in a formal report) and will be used as the model for the annual joint CB program review. The CB Program has developed several procedures to improve efficiency and has continued to reduce overhead costs resulting in the ability to allocate those resources to research and development (R&D). The Program continues to employ a variety of cost efficient techniques such as competitive awards, awards with incentive fee components, incrementally funded awards, and performance based follow-on contracting options. The program has decreased the number of contracts that utilize external contracting agencies thereby reducing administrative fees paid by the program. We continue to seek cost and schedule efficiencies with our internal reviews that assess contractor performance, project execution and schedule adherence. Through the stated processes, no indication has been presented that suggests a more effective alternative approach to ensuring effectiveness and efficiency.

Evidence: Undersecretary's Review briefings (July 07, Dec 07); CB Defense Capstone IPT briefing (Mar 08); Sample Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Solicitation (BAA04-18); Sample Awards with Incentive Fee Component; Sample Incrementally Funded Award; Sample Award with Options; Percentage of Projects with Administrative Fees, Percent of Competitively Awarded Programs, Overhead cost as a percentage of Divisions budget including selection criteria and source selection plan; Review Panel reports. (See also question 2.8.)

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

Explanation: The products and knowledge developed within the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program are targeted to reach the customers and end users who defend and protect the Nation from chemical and biological threats. The CB Program works with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agency customers and stakeholders through the Integrated Product Team (IPT) process to identify and prioritize capability gaps to ensure program resources are targeted to meet the program requirements and that appropriate planning and coordination is in place to effectively transition science and technology products to intended beneficiaries. Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs) and Technology Commercialization Agreements (TCAs) are written, negotiated, and signed by both the CB Program and its customers to define specific needs and the parameters influencing the use of a targeted solution. To address the prioritized capability gaps identified by customers and stakeholders, the CB Program funds research and development efforts for solutions to address these gaps. These efforts are selected on a competitive basis where the solicitations clearly state the Program's purpose so that awardees are addressing the specified needs. Awards are structured with the flexibility to adapt to changing customer needs through multi-phased award vehicles and incorporate design and progress to ensure desired objectives are being met. The CB Program also makes use of the Grants Program through the Program's customers to make technologies available to end users. In demonstration programs which involve and benefit regional/local entities, the program works closely with those authorities to ensure it understands their needs and tailors products to meet their needs. For example, upon completion of the Airport Biological Restoration Project in 2006 initially with San Francisco International Airport, additional stakeholders workshops were held around the country to improve how other airports and transit systems may improve their posture to respond to and recover from a biological attack. The same methodology is being used in the current restoration projects (Facility Chemical Restoration and Wide-Area Biological Restoration) that constitute the restoration long-term performance measure. To avoid unintended subsidies, competitive resourced project performers are required to disclose current or proposed sources of funding in related work areas as part of the award process.

Evidence: TTA Template; TCA Template; CB Defense Capstone IPT Capability Gap Template; CB Defense Capstone IPT Capability Gaps; Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) solicitation; Multi-phases contract award sample; Award milestone schedule sample (showing Critical Design Reviews (CDRs) and Quarterly Performance Reviews (QPRs)); Grants and Training (GNT) Office grants listing highlighting CB products; 2005 Transit Security Grants Program listing highlighting Program for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical Terrorism (PROTECT); Airport Biological Restoration Guidance Document 2007.

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 Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has two specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the Program's purpose of improving the understanding, technologies, and systems necessary to protect against and recover from biological and chemical attacks on the Nation's population, agriculture, or infrastructure through science and technology. The first measure addresses recovery after a chemical or biological attack and focuses on restoration of key infrastructure to normal operations. This measure reflects CB Program activities which develop the required components of a restoration capability. The second measure addresses protection from a chemical or biological attack through detection of threat agents. This measure increases the range of priority chemical and biological agents detectable in a wide range of operational scenarios. Each of these long-term performance measures comprises a number of individual projects within the CB Program. These measures are augmented by a larger set of performance measures associated with individual projects which are tracked through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) system.

Evidence: Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Long-Term Performance Measures (2008); FYHSP Performance Measures (FY08), FHYSP Performance Measures Correlate with PART Long-Term Measures

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has ambitious targets for each long-term measure which are quantifiable and substantially increase the Nation's capability to protect against and respond to chemical and biological attacks. Percent improvement towards the long-term goal is measured by milestones completed along the critical path, as defined in the long-term measure matrices described below, with anticipated completion in approximately seven years. Progress towards the first measure, addressing recovery after a chemical or biological attack, reflects percentage of key products and deliverables completed that together comprise the full restoration capability. Targets are tracked through a matrix of restoration activities, associated completion goals, and relation to the overall restoration capability to verify successful progress towards accomplishing this measure. Progress towards the second measure, addressing detection of chemical or biological threat agents, reflects percentage of agents detectable either through demonstration of prototypes capable of detecting the agents and/or the validation of assays for use in target operational applications. Targets are tracked through a matrix of agents versus operational scenarios to verify successful progress regarding this measure. For each long-term performance measure, technical capabilities will be generated that do not exist today. Development pathways are characterized by technical risk. The potential for a concomitant schedule risk conveys ambition to these goals.

Evidence: CB Program Long-Term Restoration Measure Matrix; CB Program Long-Term Agent Detection Matrix (classified)

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: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has two annual performance measures which demonstrate progress toward reaching the long-term goals. To support the long-term measure for recovery after a chemical or biological attack, the number of products completed in development of a restoration capability is tracked annually. Completion of these outputs is directly related to the percentage completion of the overall restoration capability. The specific outputs of this annual measure are defined in the CB Program matrix used to verify successful progress regarding its related long-term measure. To support the long-term measure for detection of chemical and biological agents, the number of assays developed for use in detection systems are tracked annually as is also the demonstration of new detection systems. Completion of these outputs is directly related to the percentage of agents detectable in operational scenarios. Identification of the high-priority agents addressed by these efforts is accomplished through risk assessments updated biennially to ensure that the target of the performance measures is focused to an ever-improving picture of the threat environment.

Evidence: CB Program Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Annual Performance Measures (2008); CB Program Long-Term Restoration Measure Matrix; CB Program Long-Term Agent Detection Matrix (classified)

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

Explanation: The annual measures for the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program outline the incremental progress toward the long-term outcomes. Baselines for the annual measures were determined as existing state-of-the-art capability at the time the long-term goals were established. The targets for the annual measures are ambitious towards ensuring continuous advancement toward long-term goals. Targets for the annual measure addressing chemical and biological restoration were developed identifying the key programmatic milestones and deliverables and accumulating by year. The activities for developing an overall restoration capability are closely coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) which helps ensure the annual outputs are completed on schedule and smoothly progress toward the long-term development of a restoration capability. Annual targets for the measure which tracks the number of agents detectable in targeted operational scenarios are similarly based on the programmatics of the composite detection program, with a baseline that rises incrementally each year based on projected success. Targeted agents were established using biological and chemical threat risk assessments which are updated by the CB Program on a biennial basis and reviewed by other agencies with a stake in the outcome such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Office of Health Affairs (OHA). The set of agents chosen comprise some 90-95% of total risk present by chemical and biological agents. Technological and schedule risk as the overall program proceeds ensure the targets are ambitious in nature.

Evidence: Biological Terrorism Risk Assessment (BTRA)(2006); Chemical Terrorism Risk Assessment (CTRA) (2008); CB Program Long-Term Restoration Measure Matrix; CB Program Long-Term Agent Detection Matrix; Environmental Chemical Laboratory Response (ECLRN) Technical Working Group Monthly Meeting Minutes (Dec 07, Jan 08, Feb 08) and Invitation List

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: Efforts carried out by partners of the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program commit to and support the long-term and annual goals of the CB Program. To the extent that commitment is reflected by formal arrangement to conduct contracted or agreed upon efforts, all partners do make such commitment across the CB Program. Contractors are necessarily obliged to conduct arranged work via acceptance of funds from the program, and are subject to termination if they do not perform or their performance or results convey higher than tolerable risk. Across the two comprehensive long-term performance goals and related annual performance measures, numerous joint activities occur with other agencies, in particular the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Center for Disease Control (CDC). Most of these activities are reinforced by regular meetings with these partners at which commitment is frequently reviewed and documented. Interagency agreements (IAAs), memoranda of agreement/understanding (MOA/Us), and joint briefings reinforce the mutual commitments of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to these agencies and these agencies to S&T. In demonstration activities involving local/regional entities, similar MOAs reflect the commitment of key parties in the execution of programs to desired outcomes. For example, both chemical and biological restoration programs have established agreements with local authorities (Los Angeles and Seattle, respectively) to work with DHS within their areas of responsibility. In both cases, EPA is a close partner that plays an advisory role and participates in the working groups, while in the biological restoration demonstration, both DoD and DHS contribute funding to what is in fact a joint effort. As part of the larger chemical restoration activity, monthly meetings are held among DHS (chair), EPA, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and several EPA regional laboratories and two state public health laboratories, with occasional representation by DoD and CDC as necessary. EPA is increasing its level of investment in this activity and has worked closely with DHS to enable an increasing level of capability to analyze large numbers of environmental chemically-contaminated samples. In the past year, DHS S&T has begun the practice of establishing Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs), which reflect the intention of each party of a project to work together to agreed ends by means which are defined in the agreement. The process for drafting these TTAs encourages the negotiations and communication necessary to reach a joint consensus on capability requirements, the strategy for addressing these requirements, as well as partner responsibilities. CB Division leads the way in DHS S&T in crafting and having these agreements signed, with several already in place for component activities of the chemical and biological detection projects. These agreements include other DHS components as well as other Federal agencies, including HHS/CDC in the detection area. By summer 2008, approximately twenty such agreements will be in place to cement the commitment of all players to work toward the realization of the long-term goals of the CB program at the project level.

Evidence: Signed TTA Agreement; Interagency MOU/MOA; Published Solicitation; Final Contract Award; Interagency Working Group Agenda/Minutes; Sample Signed IAA

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 chemical countermeasure portion of the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program was reviewed in late 2006 by an independent review panel comprising knowledgeable experts with recent experience at senior levels of government in chemical and biological defense programs but who had no current responsibilities in leading such programs. The review assessed the strategy of the program and its consistency with relevant guidance documents and interagency strategies and found that the strategy being followed by the chemical countermeasures program was consistent with prevailing guidance and interagency approaches. The review also assessed the technical content and performance of individual projects in the program. Technical assessment ratings were based on the criteria of relevance, quality, management, coordination, and progress. While the summary assessments across the program converged on "average," some overarching observations were made. These suggested improvements included increasing the level of other agency participation and collaboration, improved understanding of user requirements and technology transition strategies, and much improved contracting and funding execution support. Corrective actions were stimulated by these assessments. For the past three years, the biological countermeasures program (including the chemical countermeasures program in 2007) underwent reviews with assessments made by Federal agency experts in CB countermeasures. The critical comments of these reviews also stimulated improvements in program effectiveness, particularly at individual project level. The CB Program is currently planning a full independent review using the chemical countermeasures review as a model for the entire CB defense program in June 2008. This review methodology will be utilized on an annual basis to ensure the full chemical and biological program continues to achieve a high degree of technical performance as well as maintains its alignment with prevailing guidance and national strategies.

Evidence: 2008 SOW for CBD Annual Review, Independent Review; 2006 Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review Panel; Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review Assessment Summary (March 2007); 2005 Biological Countermeasures Review, Reviewer Comments; 2006 Biological Countermeasures Review, Reviewer Comments; 2007 CBD Annual Review, Reviewer Comments

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: Budget requests, both annual budget request submitted in February 2008 and the annually-updated five-year plan, incorporate funds aligned specifically with annual and long-term performance measures. Budget details to project level over a five-year plan are provided to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chief Financial Office (CFO) and are called out and defended in annual budget defenses to Congressional committees. Projects tied specifically to the comprehensive performance and annual measures are readily identified within these budget details and serve as the basis for formulating annual and long-term targets. Project-level program details are further provided in briefings to the DHS customer-chaired CB Defense Capstone Integrated Product Team (IPT) and its participants, scrutinized for adequacy to overall DHS interests, and approved by that group. The program at same level of detail is briefed to the DHS Deputy Secretary-chaired Transition Oversight Group (TOG). The budget requests are supported and approved by CB Capstone IPT co-chairs and the TOG. Annual and long-term performance targets are scaled to size of the budget allocated to the constituent projects. Reductions in funding guidance directly impact the annual and long-term performance goals. Should a project or key constituent effort prove too high risk to meet a performance target, such project is clearly subject to early conclusion. In addition, there are indirect costs associated with the management of the CB program. The CB program submits budget requests that link research and development costs with management and administration costs to more effectively reflect the amount it takes to accomplish measures and achieve long-term goals.

Evidence: Congressional Justification; FY08 - FY14 CB Program Budget Allocation; Resource Allocation Plan (RAP); Report to TOG Briefing (2008)

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has reviewed the measures used in previous PART examinations and assessed that they were insufficiently comprehensive to reflect the overall goal of the Program. The Program has since revised the goals to be more focused, more comprehensive, and farther reaching. Additionally, in response to the 2006 Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment of the Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures Program, the chemical countermeasures component of what is now the CB Program underwent a fully independent review in 2006 to assess both program strategy and technical content. Three key findings were noted in the strategic review. (1) At the guidance level, the assessment found that, while there were interagency efforts which described gaps in the chemical and biological defense domains, and that the Chemical Countermeasures program was well-aligned with these interagency assessments, Federal objectives, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) objectives. The assessment also determined that there was no official formally accepted national policy guidance in the chemical defense domain, which led to some uncertainty in Federal agency roles in research, development, and operations. In response, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) CB Program participated with Homeland Security Council (HSC) and other Federal agencies in the development of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-22, "National Domestic Chemical Defense," signed by the President in December 2007, which now outlines those roles. (2) The panel recommended that the program develop a systematic, defensible, and transparent program prioritization process. In response, the program established the first steps in this process by initiating and completing in January 2008 the first chemical terrorism risk assessment, which prioritizes chemical threats across a wide area of potential scenarios. In this second year of the DHS S&T Integrated Product Team (IPT) process with its internal customers, the CB Program has committed with the IPT co-chairs (Infrastructure Protection [IP] and Office of Health Affairs [OHA]) to work with them and other components to prioritize overall objectives and align program strategy with these prioritized and agreed objectives. (3) The review panel strongly recommended that DHS act to resolve ongoing resource and contracting issues, which in 2006 had resulted in a substantial rescission of funding allocated to the program that year. Recognizing this issue, S&T has taken affirmative steps to address these program execution issues, and the CB Program has made remarkable advances in funding execution through improved overall planning and oversight. The cumulative actions taken to address this issue are consistent with the budget item in the Program Improvement Plan from the 2006 Chemical and Explosives Countermeasure Program PART Assessment. The Chemical Countermeasures review panel also encouraged improved interface with users to identify requirements and to transition technology solutions. This recommendation is also found in the Program Improvement Actions of the 2006 Chemical and Explosives Countermeasure Program PART Assessment. To address this deficiency, the CB Program has worked with DHS users and interagency customers to identify more than fifty unique capability gaps. The CB Program has demonstrated maximum flexibility in amending its program to accommodate these DHS customer requirements. Additionally the CB Program has led the way among DHS S&T programs in developing and having signed with users the Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs) which outline project requirements, coordination plans, and transition pathways. Indeed several major products have been transitioned to program customers within the past two years.

Evidence: 2004 Biological Countermeasure Program PART Assessment; 2006 Chemical and Explosives Countermeasure PART Assessment; Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review Assessment Summary (March 2007); Chemical Terrorism Risk Assessment (CTRA); HSPD-22 "National Domestic Chemical Defense" December 2007 (Classified); CB Defense Capstone IPT Briefing (March 2008); CB Program Spend Plan (FY2008); Monthly S&T Funds Status Report (March 2008); Signed TTAs

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: Performers are required to submit monthly program status reports to the Program Managers containing metrics pertaining to financial, schedule, scope, risk and performance assessment information of all worked performed. These monthly reports are reviewed and analyzed to assess progress against Enterprise Portfolio Management Initiative System EPMI (the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Program Planning Tool), spend plans, and DHS priorities. This information along with information from regular communications with performers is presented to Chemical and Biological (CB) Program senior leadership at the monthly key program reviews. These program reviews cover projects within the chemical, biological, and agricultural thrust areas. They provide program managers with an opportunity to discuss programmatic performance while allowing the CB Program senior leadership team an opportunity to provide direction that will improve the cost, schedule and scope of projects. On an annual basis, the CB Program collects high quality, comprehensive external evaluations of all chemical and biological efforts from Interagency Stakeholders at the Chemical and Biological Division (CBD) annual program review which covers the strategic and technical performance of the current program. This evaluation data is used at the Branch and Director level to assess the quality, relevance, and performance of CBD's programs and make appropriate adjustments. CBD program management members also attend periodic technical project reviews with performers to verify that work is progressing according to the contractual requirements. In addition specific evaluations are periodically performed at key points in the technology development process and inform management decisions moving forward for example, a report on the Portable High throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification System (PHILIS) field test in fiscal year (FY) 2006 was used to compare the performance of three contractor provided solutions and improve system design and select a single service provider to move to the next phase of development. The product was transitioned to the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) in March 2008. This is a significant milestone captured in the restoration performance measure as well as the performance matrix provided in the evidence section.

Evidence: Sample Monthly Reports from contractors supporting the CB program are provided in the evidence as an illustrative example of the type of information collected from contractors; Sample documents from project reviews; Presentations for 2 of the projects that were reviewed at the monthly Key Program Reviews are included for 2 different time periods, these briefs capture schedule and project issue discussions that are part of these reviews; List of Milestones from the EPMI system showing the over 200 FY08 Milestones that are tracked in EPMI; Reviewer Comments from 2006 Bio Review; Reviewer Comments from the 2007 CBD Annual Review Meeting and the TCA Branch's Corrective Plan to address these comments show the feedback collected and how this information was used by the CB program; PHILIS Field Trial Report; CB Restoration Roadmap Milestones matrix

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: Chemical and Biological (CB) Program costs are monitored monthly by program management against the budget and spend plan. Progress on milestones is reported quarterly using the Enterprise Portfolio Management Initiative System (EPMI) a planning tool. Annual targets for Performance Measures are reported quarterly in the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) database which is reported to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress. Cost and schedule are measured using a set of targets and measures, and are reviewed on a quarterly basis through the Quarterly Resource Reviews (QRR) and semi-annual reviews to the Undersecretary for Science and Technology. Underperforming projects are subject to reallocation of resources to address DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) priorities. The CBD Division Head, Branch Chiefs, and Program Managers are held accountable for program performance goals as they are directly linked to their annual appraisals. Attainment of performance measures is included in annual individual performance evaluations. Performance based contracts are utilized to incentivize performers to meet or exceed criteria established in the contractual requirements, resulting in follow-on contracts or award fee incentives. CB Research and Development (R&D) efforts that involve the execution of substantial funds are set up as option based awards. These contracts incorporate an option to proceed based on performance. The declination of an option to proceed with the next phase constitutes a cost effective means of terminating the effort.

Evidence: CBD FYHSP Performance Measures and FY08-FY13 Targets; Sample Contracts that demonstrate the CB program's use of incentive fees, incremental funding structure, Other Transaction Agreements OTAs, and performance based options; 2008 Staff Performance Goals; EPMI Milestones, Sample QRR Reports, CBD Presentation for Under Secretary Review

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has made great strides in managing its resources and carefully limiting the amount of unobligated funds at year end. It is now up to the program to demonstrate that funds are obligated in a timely manner from year to year. The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) has rigorous financial targets for commitments and obligations. Weekly Status of Funds reports are used to monitor the Program's execution against these targets. Congressional Justifications (CJ), Execution plans, and Five-Year Research and Development (5-Yr R&D) Plans which detail program plans down to project level milestones are reported annually to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress. Spend plans are developed annually and maintained weekly. The purchase requests approval process ensures all expenses are in accordance with the intended purposes as stated in CJs, Execution Plans, 5-Yr R&D Plans and appropriations language.

Evidence: S&T Financial Targets and Events for 2007 and 2008; FY08 CBD Spend Plan; Sample Weekly Status of Funds Reports and Graphs; The Status of Funds September 30, 2007 report (page 5) indicating a 80.47% obligation on page 5; End of Year Obligation Documents ; S&T Execution Plan; S&T 5-Year Plan ; PR Approval Process

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 Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has a number of procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The Program's efficiency measure is an indicator of how the Division achieves efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution by using achievement of annual cost, schedule and performance goals defined in the Five Year Research and Development (5-Yr R&D) Plan as a metric. This metric utilizes targets which increase, raising the percentage of these goals expected to be increased annually thereby demonstrating improvement in the management of the CB Program and an increase in cost effectiveness. Twice a year, the Under Secretary of S&T reviews the CB transition program's performance against the annual cost, schedule, and performance goals using the indicators provided in these reports the CB program is able to measure its success in achieving of these goals. The Program has developed several procedures to improve efficiency. To begin, the CB Program has continued to reduce overhead costs resulting in the ability to allocate those resources to research and development. The Program continues to employ a variety of cost efficient techniques such as competitive awards, awards with incentive fee components, incrementally funded awards, and performance based follow-on contracting options. The program has decreased the number of contracts that utilize external contracting agencies thereby reducing administrative fees paid by the program. We continue to seek cost and schedule efficiencies with our internal reviews that assess contractor performance, project execution and schedule adherence.

Evidence: S&T 5 Year Plan; CBD FYHSP Performance Measures and FY08-FY13 Targets demonstrates tracking of performance measures that track the reduction of administration costs and the increasing percentage of accomplishment of milestones called out in the S&T 5 Year Plan; Data pulled from S&T's financial systems on the BioAssays Project demonstrates reduction in Administration fees charged to the program by external contracting agencies in FY06 the total project value was $25M and had $154,307 in administrative charges while in FY07 the projects total value was $23M and had only $43,461 in administrative charges; Efficiency Performance Measure "Percent of milestones that are met, as established in the fiscal year's budget five year plan"

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program collaborates both with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components and other federal agencies. Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-9, -10, and -22 delineate specific federal agency research and development (R&D) roles and responsibilities for biological, agricultural and chemical R&D. A few examples are provided: the CB Program leads with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Biological Decontamination Standards Working Group that is responsible for the development of the Cleanup Decision-Making Guidance For Biological Incidents which is a collaboration amongst (DHS, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), United States Postal Service (USPS), EPA/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - Office of Emergency Management (OSWER-OEM), EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), EPA/National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC), EPA/Office of Research and Development (ORD), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)/Center for Disease Control (CDC), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Agriculture Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Transportation (DOT)/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and Department of Defense (DOD)/Joint Program Executive Office (JPEO)). This document describes a general risk management framework for decision-makers in planning and executing activities required for restoration and recovery from a biological incident in a domestic, civilian setting and helps the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to strategize priorities within the Response and Restoration program. Under the National Biomonitoring Architecture, the CB Program has a lead role in collaborating and coordinating a number of matters that relate to assuring cohesive response among the several agencies which operate biodetection and warning systems. The CB Program chairs the key interagency working group, the Network Coordinating Group (NCG), of the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks (ICLN). This activity derives from an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by ten agencies, with regular close participation by some seven agencies. The overall goal is to ensure that decision makers preparing for and leading response to incidents requiring an integrated analytical approach are informed by data and information that can withstand the highest scrutiny for quality and completeness. In the biological area, DHS leads the Validated Sampling Plan (VPS) Working Group, with active participation by EPA, CDC, DOD, Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and NIST. This effort works toward developing and executing a collaborative program to demonstrate that the United States (US) Government can state with confidence whether areas are contaminated with biological agents and determine with confidence that such areas have been cleaned after decontamination. Coordination takes place through the CB Defense Capstone Integrated Product Team (IPT) process where the CB Program works with its customers to identify capability gaps, prioritize programs to meet those gaps, and develop Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs) that outline the path for transitioning R&D efforts into operational components in DHS or other agencies.

Evidence: Consolidated Bio Monitoring Architecture which contains the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Coordinated Monitoring of Biological Threat Agents (page 26); Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks (ICLN) MOU, Minutes, and Strategic Plan; MOA between FBI and CBD Relative to Chemical and Biological Forensics Programs; DRAFT ; Memorandum of Understanding for an Interagency Plan for Environmental Microbiology Sampling Among DHS, EPA, CDC, FBI, NIST, and DOD; Interagency Strategic Plan for Validation of Environmental Sampling Methods Used in Detection and Cleanup of B. anthracis Contamination in Facilities; MOU between S&T and EPA on Transfer of Portable High-Throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification System (PHILIS); Appendix I to HSPD-10 ensures that classified life science research is peer reviewed and that unclassified findings are shared; IPT Process Documents; CB Capstone IPT Presentation; Capability Gap Process Documents and Disposition; TTA template; Status of CBD TTAs

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program is covered by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet all statutory requirements. Our evidence references the Independent Auditor's Report from the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) which is an independent opinion on the Balance Sheet and Statement of Custodial Activities provided by the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), and provides the Department's Annual Financial Statements and accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements. This report shows that DHS S&T has no Significant Deficiencies or Material Weaknesses for 2006 or 2007. DHS S&T is in the process of conducting a multi-year assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting (ICOFR) for various business processes. This assessment is being conducted in accordance with the DHS ICOFR Playbook, Track Two, Management Assurance Process Guide, fiscal year (FY) 2007, which implements the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123 Appendix A and the DHS Financial Accountability Act. The purpose of the ICOFR assessment is to determine whether current S&T internal controls over financial reporting are adequately designed and operating effectively. This document summarizes and aggregates the internal control process deficiencies identified during the S&T's FY07 assessment efforts. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) performed an internal controls audit resulting in a Summary of Aggregated Deficiencies which resulted in no reportable conditions or material weaknesses. The PwC audit is the process DHS S&T uses to identify and correct financial management deficiencies upon identification.

Evidence: PAR 2007 (financial information) http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cfo_afrfy2007_vol2.pdf ; PAR 2006: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cfo_par2006_fullreport.pdf; S&T SAD Executive Summary_08.27.07_Final.doc

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has a well-structured process in place to conduct regularly scheduled reviews which require program managers to present data on management, technical, and financial status of their programs. In 2007 CBD instituted a monthly key program review with senior leadership to analyze selected programs, for example senior leadership recognized that the testing to be applied to Chemical Detector candidates to be insufficiently robust to support a defensible selection of best technologies to move forward in the program. As a result, the level of independent testing was increased. The Division Director has frequent contact and interaction with the project leadership team to include the Program Manager (PM), Branch Chief, and Science Advisors to discuss and mitigate any management deficiencies. In addition, all CB projects were kicked-off in FY08 with a meeting between the program manager, their Branch Chief and the CBD Division Head to review the programs technical objectives, annual milestones, and spend plan for FY08. Quarterly Resource Reviews (QRRs) with the S&T Chief Financial Office (CFO) and CB Program senior leadership utilizing data from Enterprise Portfolio Management Initiative System (EPMI) and CFO databases take a more in-depth look at the execution of funds and the status of milestones as they relate to the accomplishments of annual program goals, for example the weekly financial status reports and QRR process identified the Autonomous Rapid Facility Chemical Agent Monitor (ARFCAM) project as under-executing project resources were reallocated to another project with an immediate funding requirement. The Program is formally reviewed semi-annually by the Undersecretary of Science and Technology to determine effectiveness of the Directorate's portfolio as a whole and to identify and address projects with performance issues. On an annual basis, the CB Program collects high quality, comprehensive external evaluations of all chemical and biological programs from Interagency Stakeholders at the Chemical and Biological (CBD) Annual Review. This evaluation data is used at the Branch and Division head level to assess the quality, relevance, and performance of CBD's programs and make appropriate adjustments.

Evidence: Sample Key Program Review Presentations; Sample QRR reports; CBD Presentation for Under Secretary Review; Reviewer Comments from the 2007 CBD Annual Review Meeting; Status of CBD TTAs; Sample Funds Realignment Form

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals. Several key milestones in the restoration and agent detection long-term measure matrices have been met. In the chemical aspect of restoration goal, market surveys of decontamination approaches and draft restoration templates have been completed, a mobile laboratory has been developed and transitioned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have jointly developed prototype fixed laboratories, the Department of Defense (DOD) and EPA have developed an Interagency Agreement (IAA) enabling transfer of ultradilute chemical warfare agent samples to EPA, and DHS and EPA have jointly tested and evaluated an all-hazards receipt facility. In the biological aspect of restoration goal, DHS and EPA have completed and published a guidance document for preparation and restoration of transportation facilities, and key stakeholders have agreed to path forward for demonstration of wide-area restoration. An interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed among key players for validation of environmental biological sampling approaches, and a field test of such approaches has been conducted. In the detection goal, the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Detection System and the environmental bioaerosol detection system BioWatch were transitioned to DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) in 2007, a DHS CB project to develop an autonomous bioaerosol detector is on track and is currently in field testing, and assays are being produced and transitioned. Next-generation chemical detectors are in development and have been evaluated in independent lab testing. Prioritization of agents for detection long-term performance measure was enabled by the completion of the Biological and Chemical Terrorism Risk Assessments in 2006 and 2008. In addition to the targets identified in the restoration and agent detection long-term measure matrices, the CB Program has additional performance measures for the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP), the status of which is reported to DHS on a quarterly basis. Reporting as "on target" includes a short description of the accomplishments showing validity in the report. Off target reports include a mitigation strategy for realigning with the appropriate goals and schedules. As multiple FYHSP performance measures support a single long-term measure, on target status for a majority of FYHSP performance measures demonstrates adequate progress in achieving long-term performance goals.

Evidence: DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) CB FYHSP Measures 1QFY08 Report; CB Program Long-Term Restoration Measure Matrix; CB Program Long-Term Agent Detection Matrix; Portable High-throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification System (PHILIS) signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); Validated Sampling Plan VSP signed MOU

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

Explanation: The majority of milestones associated with output measures have been met to date as shown in the long-term measure matrices. The annual outputs are further supported by a more detailed set of milestones that are internally reported to assure progress toward annual performance goals. In this Quarterly Resource Review (QRR), milestones are marked as either completed, on schedule, or delayed where a delayed status also includes a justification. Milestones reaching completion demonstrates progress toward achieving annual performance goals. As multiple milestones support a single annual measure, a majority of milestones completed demonstrates adequate achievement of annual performance goals. Due to the technological challenge associated with most milestones, occasionally a milestone is delayed, suggesting a rating of 'large extent' on this factor.

Evidence: CB Program Long-Term Restoration Measure Matrix; CB Program Long-Term Agent Detection Matrix; Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Annual Milestones Quarterly Resource Review (QRR) - 4QFY07

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

Explanation: The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program has an efficiency measure tied to the percentage of milestones that are met, as established in the Five-Year Research and Development (5-Yr R&D) Plan, and successfully met its target in 2007. The CB Program has reduced overhead costs as a percentage of research and development costs in 2007 and plans to do the same in 2008 maintaining a rate at or below the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) target. The Program tries to restrain unwarranted growth in cost and schedule (thereby increasing efficiency) by employing a variety of cost efficient techniques such as competitive awards, awards with incentive fee components, incrementally funded awards, and performance based follow-on contracting options. The Program has decreased the number of contracts that utilize external contracting agencies, thereby reducing administrative fees paid by the program.

Evidence: S&T 5 Year Plan; CBD FYHSP Performance Measures and FY08-FY13 Targets demonstrates tracking of performance measures that track the reduction of administration costs and the increasing percentage of accomplishment of milestones called out in the S&T 5 Year Plan; Data pulled from S&T's financial systems on the BioAssays Project demonstrates reduction in Administration fees charged to the program by external contracting agencies in FY06 the total project value was $25M and had $154,307 in administrative charges while in FY07 the projects total value was $23M and had only $43,461 in administrative charges

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

Explanation: Very few other programs exist with similar purpose and goals. The objectives of these programs are tailored for different customers and an independent comparative analysis of these programs using the same metrics would be exceedingly difficult. Such a comprehensive review has not ever been performed. The Chemical and Biological (CB) Program attempted to do this in the 2006 Chemical Countermeasure Independent Review and was unsuccessful because of the inherent difficulty associated with such a review.

Evidence: Other agencies known to have similar programs are DOD Chem/Bio Defense Program, Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) CBRNE Program, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (multiple small programs taken together). A PART assessment for any of these programs cannot be found on expectmore.gov.

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

Explanation: Independent and comprehensive reviews have shown that the Chemical and Biological (CB) Program is effective. The assessment from the 2006 Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review of strategy and technical content, as discussed in 2.6 and 2.8, indicated that progress across the program was "satisfactory" in the collective opinions of the panel members. A summary discussion of the findings of the evaluation are provided in the Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review Assessment Summary. Annual assessments across the entire CB Program by other agency reviewers (2005-2007) have reached the same conclusions. The independent review process will be repeated annually for the entire CB Program to ensure it continues to achieve a high degree of technical performance as well as maintains its alignment with prevailing guidance and national strategies. Comparison of each annual assessment will demonstrate where advances have been made.

Evidence: 2008 SOW for CBD Annual Review, Independent Review; Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review Panel (2006); Chemical Countermeasures Independent Review Assessment Summary; 2005 Biological Countermeasures Review, Reviewer Comments; 2006 Biological Countermeasures Review, Reviewer Comments; 2007 CBD Annual Review, Reviewer Comments