Survey on Land Mobile Radio (LMR)
Interoperability and Procurement

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Introduction

  The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and other members of the Senate to report on the state of land mobile radio (LMR) interoperable communications among federal government agencies, and with identified partner entities at the state, local, and tribal levels.

To respond to this request, we are administering a survey to your agency: ______, as well as other civilian (non-military) agencies that use LMR to communicate with at least one other agency for daily operations, planned events, or unplanned/emergency events. Your Department, as a member of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC), has identified your agency as a user of LMR technology for these purposes.

Our aim is to provide an assessment of LMR needs, current capabilities, and remaining technical and non-technical challenges toward achieving LMR interoperability. Therefore, we have several questions for you, related to the LMR technology you use, relevant procurement activities, and the five elements of interoperability, as identified in SAFECOM’s Interoperability Continuum. These five elements are: Usage, Technology, Training and Exercises, Governance (including practices related to LMR procurement), and Standard Operating Procedures.

As necessary, please gather information from appropriate personnel at your agency to provide the most accurate responses to the survey. If you have any questions while completing this survey, please contact (the name, email, and telephone number of two GAO staff appeared here).
(View responses)
 

Definitions

  When completing this survey, please refer to the following definitions:

Interoperability: FCC defines interoperability as an essential communications link within public safety and public service wireless communications systems which permits units from two or more different entities to interact with one another and to exchange information according to a prescribed method in order to achieve predictable results. For purpose of this report, we are only interested in interoperability as it relates to the use of land mobile radio (LMR) technology to communicate effectively (i.e., as needed and as authorized), even if using disparate LMR systems.

LMR systems are terrestrially-based, wireless communications systems commonly used by federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial emergency responders, public works companies, others to support voice and low-speed data communications.

For the purpose of this survey, we use the term “LMR system” to include:
• Base station radios located in fixed positions, such as public safety answering points or dispatch centers, with powerful transmitters.
• Repeaters, to retransmit radio signals received from handheld portable radios, mobile radios, and base station radios.
• Related network infrastructure, required to connect the different base stations to the same communications system.

Also, for the purpose of this survey, we use the term “LMR devices” (i.e., subscriber unit) to include:
• Handheld portable radios carried by public safety personnel, which tend to have a limited transmission range.
• Mobile radios, often located in vehicles, which use the vehicle's power supply and a larger antenna, providing a greater transmission range than handheld portable radios.

Department: Cabinet-level federal government organization.

Agency: Component organization of a federal government Department—includes federal bureaus (e.g., BLM), administrations (e.g., NOAA), agencies (e.g., FEMA), etc.

Entity: Non-federal organization, including state, local, or tribal organizations.  
(View responses)
 

Use of Land Mobile Radios (LMR)

1.  Does your agency use LMR to communicate with at least one other federal agency?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  This survey is intended for agencies that use LMR to communicate with at least one other federal agency. Your agency was identified by your department as an LMR user. To confirm, does your agency use LMR to communicate with any other federal agencies?
If "no", you will be directed to the end of this survey.
(Skip to Question End of Survey)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 

Your Agency's Mission

2.  For each emergency support function listed below, please identify whether the function relates directly to your agency's core mission, or whether it is secondary or not applicable to your agency's core mission.
(View responses)
   
Yes, core mission
Yes, secondary mission
No, not part of our mission
Reset
a.  Transportation
(View responses)
b.  Communications
(View responses)
c.  Public Works and Engineering
(View responses)
d.  Firefighting
(View responses)
e.  Emergency Management
(View responses)
f.  Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services
(View responses)
g.  Logistics Management and Resource Support
(View responses)
h.  Public Health and Medical Services
(View responses)
i.  Search and Rescue
(View responses)
j.  Oil and Hazardous Materials Response
(View responses)
k.  Agriculture and Natural Resources
(View responses)
l.  Energy
(View responses)
m.  Public Safety and Security (e.g., law enforcement, drug interdiction, etc.)
(View responses)
n.  Long-Term Community Recovery
(View responses)
o.  External Affairs
(View responses)
 
p.  Are there any other emergency support functions that are directly related to your agency’s core mission that were not included in the list above?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  Please describe your agency's additional emergency support functions, as related to your core mission, below:
(View responses)
 

Characteristics of LMR System

3.  Does the LMR system your agency uses most often to communicate with other federal agencies comply with the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) Project-25 (P25) standards (i.e., a P25-compliant system)?

Please do NOT include LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) in your response.

↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
4.  Does this LMR system include customized, proprietary (i.e., non-standardized) equipment or features?

Please do NOT include LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) in your response.

↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  Please briefly explain why the non-standardized features are needed:
(View responses)
 
5.  What company manufactured the majority of this LMR system’s technological components, such as repeaters, base station radios, etc.?

Please do NOT include LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) in your response.

↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  If you checked "other manufacturer" (above), please specify:
(View responses)
 

Characteristics of LMR Devices

6.  Which of the following characteristics most accurately describe the LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) used most often by your agency?
Please check all that apply.
(View responses)
 
  If you checked "other characteristics" (above), please specify:
(View responses)
 
7.  Which of the following manufacturers provided the majority of LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) currently used by your agency?
Please check all that apply.
(View responses)
 
  If you checked "other manufacturer" (above), please specify:
(View responses)
 

Characteristics of LMR Devices

8.  Does your agency or department generally require its LMR devices to comply with P25 standards?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
9.  Does your agency use P25-compliant LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units)?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  What are the reasons that your agency does not exclusively use P25-compliant LMR devices?
(View responses)
   
Reason
Not a reason
Don't know
Reset
a.  No perceived need
(View responses)
b.  Benefits of technology are unclear
(View responses)
c.  Lack of support from leadership/decision maker(s) to acquire P25-compliant devices
(View responses)
d.  Difficult to integrate technology with current system
(View responses)
e.  Cost of P25-compliant devices is too high
(View responses)
f.  Lack of technical expertise in using and maintaining P25-compliant devices
(View responses)
g.  My agency requires LMR devices with proprietary or unique features that do not meet P25 standards
(View responses)
h.  Other (please specify below):
(View responses)
 
  If you indicated "other" (above), please specify:
(View responses)
 
10.  Does your agency use LMR devices with customized, proprietary (i.e., non-standardized), or vendor-specific features?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  Please briefly explain why these features are needed:
(View responses)
 

LMR Procurement Practices

11.  Has your agency coordinated procurement activities of LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) and related equipment with other federal agencies, either within your Department or outside your Department, within the past 5 years?

Examples of these activities may include identifying common technical requirements, developing common contracting vehicles to leverage buying power through strategic sourcing, etc.

↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  What, if any, barriers limit your ability to engage in coordinated procurement with other federal agencies?
(View responses)
 

LMR Procurement Practices - Contracting Vehicles

12.  Has your agency used any of the following common contracting vehicles to purchase new LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) or related equipment over the past 5 years?
(View responses)
 
a.  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Tactical Communications (TacCOM)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
b.  DHS Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading Edge Solutions (EAGLE) or EAGLE II
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
c.  General Services Administration (GSA) Connections II
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
d.  GSA Networx program
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
e.  GSA Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions program
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
f.  GSA IT Schedule 70
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
g.  GSA Schedule 84 (for law enforcement, fire, etc.)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
h.  National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
i.  Department of Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service Land Mobile Radio System Support Services IDIQ
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
(View responses)
   
Great benefit
Some benefit
Slight or no benefit
Don’t know
Reset
  Cost savings
(View responses)
  Reduced administrative burden
(View responses)
  Enhanced LMR interoperability
(View responses)
  Standardized equipment with partner agencies
(View responses)
 
13.  Has your agency used any other contracting vehicles to purchase new LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) or related equipment over the past 5 years? If so, please name them below:
(View responses)
 
14.  Has your agency used sole source contracts to procure LMR devices in the past 5 years?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  Please explain why your agency used a sole source contract to procure LMR devices:
(View responses)
 

Federal Partner Agencies

  This page represents an example of a series of questions (questions 15 through 25) that appeared in the survey.

In the survey, we asked respondents to indicate whether their agency had required interoperable LMR communications, over the past 5 years, with civilian (i.e., non-military) federal agencies within the following departments:

• Agriculture
• Treasury
• Interior
• Labor
• Energy
• State
• Justice
• Homeland Security
• Federal Communications Commission
• Health & Human Services
• Commerce

We noted that respondents could provide answers for agencies within their Department or outside of their Department.

Questions 15 through 25 appeared as follows in the survey:
(View responses)
 
  Q. Has your agency required interoperable LMR communications over the past 5 years with any of the following agencies under the Department A?

• Agency 1
• Agency 2
• etc.
( ) Yes, with at least one of these agencies
( ) No (If No, skip to next department)
(View responses)
 
  Q. Has your agency required interoperable LMR communications over the past 5 years with Agency 1 (i.e., an agency within Department A)?
( ) Yes
( ) No (If No, skip to next agency)
(View responses)
 
  Q. For which of the following has your agency required interoperability?
( ) Daily operations
( ) Planned events
( ) Unplanned events (including emergencies)
(View responses)
 
  Q. What is the general level of LMR interoperability that has been achieved?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
( ) Nonexistent
(View responses)
 
  Q. Do you coordinate with this agency to identify common technical requirements when purchasing new equipment?
( ) Yes
( ) No
(View responses)
 
  Q. Do you have standard operating procedures related to your LMR operability with this agency?
( ) Yes
( ) No
(View responses)
 

Federal Partner Agencies: Challenges

26.  Please briefly explain two or three main challenges limiting your interoperability with federal partner agencies, if applicable:
(View responses)
 

Non-Federal Partner Entities

27.  Has your agency required interoperable LMR communications with any of the following entities over the past 5 years?
(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Reset
a.  State entities
(View responses)
b.  Local entities
(View responses)
c.  Tribal entities
(View responses)
 
28.  Are there any challenges that have limited your interoperability with any non-federal partner entities? If so, please describe below.
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Usage

  The usage element of SAFECOM’s interoperability continuum involves the familiarity with and usage of communications procedures and technologies across all types of events, including daily operations, planned events, and unplanned events.
(View responses)
 
29.  Does your agency provide loaner radios (i.e., shared radios for temporary use) to any of the following agencies or entities to communicate as needed?
(View responses)
   
Yes, on a routine basis
Yes, on a case-by-case basis
No
Don't know
Reset
a.  Federal agencies within your Department
(View responses)
b.  Federal agencies outside your Department
(View responses)
c.  Non-federal entities (e.g., at the state, local, or tribal levels)
(View responses)
 
30.  Are your agency’s radios pre-programmed to be able to use NTIA-regulated Federal interoperability channels in tactical communications with other agencies?

Examples of these channels may include Law Enforcement, Incident Response, etc.

↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  Please explain why your radios are not pre-programmed to this channel:
(View responses)
 
31.  Are your agency’s radios pre-programmed to be able to use FCC nationwide interoperability channels in tactical radio communications when authorized?

Examples of these channels may include VTAC, UTAC, 7TAC, 8TAC, etc.

↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  Please explain why your radios are not pre-programmed to this channel:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Technology

  The technology element of SAFECOM’s interoperability continuum involves standards and emerging communications technologies. This includes acquiring technologies that (i) meet user needs and standards, (ii) are compatible with other relevant technologies, and (iii) are sufficiently scalable to support response to day-to-day incidents as well as large-scale disasters.
(View responses)
 
32.  Have any of the following technology-related factors been implemented in your agency’s operating environment?
(View responses)
 
a.  Transition from conventional radio systems to trunked radio systems
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
b.  Use of IP-based systems or other technologies to “bridge” otherwise incompatible LMR systems (e.g., gateway)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
c.  Use of software-defined radios
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
d.  Use of multi-band radios
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
e.  Increased use of standards-based and/or P25-compliant equipment
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
f.  Use of a dedicated interoperability channel
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
g.  Use of shared resources or systems (such as providing loaner radios or swapping radios with key partners)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
h.  Use of console patching
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
33.  Are there any other technology-related factors, not listed above, that have helped your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Technology

34.  To what extent, if at all, have the following factors hindered your agency’s ability to maintain LMR interoperability with your partner agencies or entities?
(View responses)
   
Greatly hindered
Somewhat hindered
Slightly hindered
Has not hindered
Don't know
Reset
a.  Incompatible LMR communications equipment used by partner agencies or entities
(View responses)
b.  Proprietary standards or features in LMR systems used by partner agencies or entities
(View responses)
c.  Incompatible encryption capability with systems used by partner agencies or entities
(View responses)
d.  Limited funding to replace or upgrade incompatible or aging LMR equipment
(View responses)
e.  Unclear internal methods, procedures, processes or requirements for interoperability
(View responses)
f.  Inconsistent application of interoperability methods, procedures, processes or requirements across Federal Departments and agencies
(View responses)
 
35.  Are there any other technology-related factors, not listed above, that have hindered your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Training

  The training and exercises element of SAFECOM’s interoperability continuum involves implementing effective training and exercise programs to ensure that LMR users have the skills and capabilities to communicate effectively during emergencies.
(View responses)
 
36.  Does your agency maintain training plans detailing the type and frequency of training provided?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
a.  Do the plans include integrated training with state and local first responders?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
37.  Have any of the following training-related factors been implemented in your agency’s operating environment?
(View responses)
 
a.  Training on standard operation procedures, continuity processes, and related topics
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
b.  Completion of National Incident Management System (NIMS) training
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
c.  Training related to accessing NTIA-regulated Federal interoperability channels
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
d.  Training related to accessing FCC nationwide interoperability channels
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
e.  Sharing best practices and lessons learned (e.g., from after-action reports)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
f.  Training on LMR equipment for daily operations (e.g., on-the-job training)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
g.  Training on LMR equipment for planned events
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
h.  Training on LMR equipment for unplanned events or emergency incidents
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
38.  Are there any other training-related factors, not listed above, that have helped your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Exercises

39.  Have any of the following exercises-related factors been implemented in your agency’s operating environment?
(View responses)
 
a.  Exercises for agencies to test specific technologies and procedures
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
b.  Tabletop exercises including the mechanics of LMR communications
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
c.  Regular schedule of exercises to allow agencies to plan ahead and participate
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
d.  Joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment for daily operations
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
e.  Joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment for planned events
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
f.  Joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment for unplanned events or emergency
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
g.  Integrated exercises to include state and local first responders
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
40.  Are there any other exercises-related factors, not listed above, that have helped your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Governance

  The governance element of SAFECOM’s interoperability continuum involves decision-making groups or governance structures through which stakeholders collaborate and make coordinated decisions.
(View responses)
 
41.  Does your agency and/or Department have an established, centrally-coordinated internal governance structure with the ability to actively negotiate decisions or establish policies related to interoperability solutions for your agency or Department?
(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Don't know
Reset
a.  At the agency level
(View responses)
b.  At the Department level
(View responses)
 
42.  Have any of the following governance-related factors been implemented in your agency’s operating environment?
(View responses)
 
a.  Established strategic planning process to address LMR operations
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
b.  An established governance structure within your agency to manage the use of LMR technologies
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
c.  Formalized agreements with key partners to strengthen governance among participants in the agreement (e.g., by working with regional or statewide governing bodies)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
d.  Participation in an established inter-agency governance structure to coordinate on issues related to interoperability, such as spectrum policy, standards, compatible systems, etc.
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
e.  Participation in external emergency-communications-related working groups
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
f.  Leveraging state governing bodies (e.g., Statewide Interoperability Coordinators, Governing Boards, or Executive Committees)
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
g.  Requiring grant recipients (at state, local, or tribal level) to coordinate with federal agency administering grant
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
43.  Are there any other governance-related factors, not listed above, that have helped your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Governance

44.  To what extent, if at all, have the following factors hindered your agency’s ability to maintain LMR interoperability with your partner agencies or entities?
(View responses)
   
Greatly hindered
Somewhat hindered
Slightly hindered
Has not hindered
Don't know
Reset
a.  Differences in budget cycles of non-federal partner entities, making it difficult to coordinate equipment purchases
(View responses)
b.  Differences in funding priorities of non-federal partner entities, making it difficult to coordinate equipment purchases
(View responses)
c.  Differences in procurement cycles of federal partner agencies, making it difficult to coordinate equipment purchases (e.g., through strategic sourcing)
(View responses)
d.  Limited or ineffective coordination and cooperation among key partners, in general
(View responses)
e.  Limited availability of Federal spectrum
(View responses)
f.  Limited availability of non-Federal spectrum
(View responses)
g.  Differences in security requirements of LMR system among the key partners (e.g., encryption)
(View responses)
 
45.  Are there any other governance-related factors, not listed above, that have hindered your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements:
Standard Operating Procedures

  The standard operating procedures (SOP) element of SAFECOM’s interoperability continuum involves policies, practices and procedures, such as formal guidelines or instructions that enable emergency responders to coordinate across disciplines and jurisdictions to address common interoperability interests.
(View responses)
 
46.  Have any of the following governance-related factors been implemented in your agency’s operating environment?
(View responses)
 
a.  SOPs for sharing of encryption keys or agreeing to an encryption standard
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
b.  SOPs for using shared channels
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
c.  Integration of NIMS ICS structure in SOPs
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
d.  Involving non-Federal entities, such as state and/or local first responders, involved when developing your agency’s SOPs
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
e.  Determination of an Incident Commander
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency’s interoperability with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
47.  Are there any other SOP-related factors, not listed above, that have helped your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements:
Standard Operating Procedures

48.  To what extent, if at all, have the following factors hindered your agency’s ability to maintain LMR interoperability with your partner agencies or entities?
(View responses)
   
Greatly hindered
Somewhat hindered
Slightly hindered
Has not hindered
Don't know
Reset
a.  Undefined or unclear command and control structure for interoperable communications during emergencies or unplanned events
(View responses)
b.  Lack of common procedures and protocols for emergency communications
(View responses)
c.  Partner agency or entity does not follow the agreed-upon SOP
(View responses)
 
49.  Are there any other SOP-related factors, not listed above, that have hindered your agency's interoperability with key partners? If so, please describe below:
(View responses)
 

Policies, Directives, and Best Practices

50.  Does your agency follow specific policies, directives, or best practices which prioritize achieving and maintaining LMR interoperable communications with key partners?
↻ Reset
(View responses)
 
  What are the source(s) of these policies, directives, or best practices?
(View responses)
   
Yes
No
Don't know
Reset
a.  My agency
(View responses)
b.  My Department
(View responses)
c.  External to my Department
(View responses)
 

Additional Comments

51.  Please provide any additional comments you may have about your agency’s LMR interoperability, including additional steps your agency is taking to facilitate interoperability and address remaining challenges:
(View responses)
 

End of Survey

  Are you done with this questionnaire?
Clicking "Yes" below tells GAO your answers are final. We will not use your answers unless the "Yes" button is checked when you last exit the questionnaire.
(View responses)
 
  If you would like a record of your answers to this questionnaire, click the "Print" button below.

Click the "Save and Exit" button below to save your answers and close the questionnaire.
(View responses)



Questionnaire Programming Language - Version 6.3
U.S. Government Accountability Office

Please wait, file upload in progress.