Survey on Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Interoperability and Procurement
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Contents
- Introduction
- Definitions
- Use of Land Mobile Radios (LMR)
- Your Agency's Mission
- Characteristics of LMR System
- Characteristics of LMR Devices
- Characteristics of LMR Devices
- LMR Procurement Practices
- LMR Procurement Practices - Contracting Vehicles
- Federal Partner Agencies
- Federal Partner Agencies: Challenges
- Non-Federal Partner Entities
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Usage
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Technology
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Technology
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Training
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Exercises
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Governance
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Governance
- SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements:
Standard Operating Procedures - SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements:
Standard Operating Procedures - Policies, Directives, and Best Practices
- Additional Comments
- End of Survey
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).
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.
Use of Land Mobile Radios (LMR)
1. Does your agency use LMR to communicate with at least one other federal agency?
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.
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.
2a. Transportation
| Yes, core mission |
Yes, secondary mission |
No, not part of our mission |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 13 | 28 | 54 |
2b. Communications
| Yes, core mission |
Yes, secondary mission |
No, not part of our mission |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | 12 | 19 | 54 |
2c. Public Works and Engineering
2d. Firefighting
2e. Emergency Management
| Yes, core mission |
Yes, secondary mission |
No, not part of our mission |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 17 | 14 | 55 |
2f. Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services
2g. Logistics Management and Resource Support
| Yes, core mission |
Yes, secondary mission |
No, not part of our mission |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 14 | 29 | 54 |
2h. Public Health and Medical Services
2i. Search and Rescue
| Yes, core mission |
Yes, secondary mission |
No, not part of our mission |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 11 | 32 | 54 |
2j. Oil and Hazardous Materials Response
| Yes, core mission |
Yes, secondary mission |
No, not part of our mission |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 15 | 29 | 55 |
2k. Agriculture and Natural Resources
2l. Energy
2m. Public Safety and Security (e.g., law enforcement, drug interdiction, etc.)
2n. Long-Term Community Recovery
2o. External Affairs
2p. 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?
Please describe your agency's additional emergency support functions, as related to your core mission, below:
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.
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.
Please briefly explain why the non-standardized features are needed:
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.
If you checked "other manufacturer" (above), please specify:
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?
1. Mobile
2. Portable
3. Dual-band
4. Tri-band
5. Quad-band
6. Analog
7. Digital
8. Encryption
9. LTE handsets (as an LMR radio)
10. Other (please specify below):
If you checked "other characteristics" (above), please specify:
7. Which of the following manufacturers provided the majority of LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units) currently used by your agency?
1. Airbus
2. Codan Radio Communications
3. Datron
4. EF Johnson Technologies
5. Harris
6. ICOM
7. Kenwood USA
8. Midland Radio Corporation
9. Motorola
10. PowerTrunk
11. Raytheon
12. RELM
13. Simoco
14. Tait Communications
15. Thales Communications, Inc
16. Other (please specify below):
If you checked "other manufacturer" (above), please specify:
Characteristics of LMR Devices
8. Does your agency or department generally require its LMR devices to comply with P25 standards?
9. Does your agency use P25-compliant LMR devices (i.e., subscriber units)?
What are the reasons that your agency does not exclusively use P25-compliant LMR devices?
9a. No perceived need
9b. Benefits of technology are unclear
9c. Lack of support from leadership/decision maker(s) to acquire P25-compliant devices
9d. Difficult to integrate technology with current system
9e. Cost of P25-compliant devices is too high
9f. Lack of technical expertise in using and maintaining P25-compliant devices
9g. My agency requires LMR devices with proprietary or unique features that do not meet P25 standards
9h. Other (please specify below):
If you indicated "other" (above), please specify:
10. Does your agency use LMR devices with customized, proprietary (i.e., non-standardized), or vendor-specific features?
Please briefly explain why these features are needed:
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.
What, if any, barriers limit your ability to engage in coordinated procurement with other federal agencies?
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?
12a. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Tactical Communications (TacCOM)
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12b. DHS Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading Edge Solutions (EAGLE) or EAGLE II
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12c. General Services Administration (GSA) Connections II
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12d. GSA Networx program
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12e. GSA Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions program
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12f. GSA IT Schedule 70
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12g. GSA Schedule 84 (for law enforcement, fire, etc.)
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12h. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP)
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
12i. Department of Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service Land Mobile Radio System Support Services IDIQ
To what extent, if at all, has your agency realized any of the following benefits from using this contract vehicle?
Cost savings
Reduced administrative burden
Enhanced LMR interoperability
Standardized equipment with partner agencies
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:
14. Has your agency used sole source contracts to procure LMR devices in the past 5 years?
Please explain why your agency used a sole source contract to procure LMR devices:
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:
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)
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)
Q. For which of the following has your agency required interoperability?
( ) Daily operations
( ) Planned events
( ) Unplanned events (including emergencies)
Q. What is the general level of LMR interoperability that has been achieved?
( ) Excellent
( ) Good
( ) Fair
( ) Poor
( ) Nonexistent
Q. Do you coordinate with this agency to identify common technical requirements when purchasing new equipment?
( ) Yes
( ) No
Q. Do you have standard operating procedures related to your LMR operability with this agency?
( ) Yes
( ) No
Federal Partner Agencies: Challenges
26. Please briefly explain two or three main challenges limiting your interoperability with federal partner agencies, if applicable:
Non-Federal Partner Entities
27. Has your agency required interoperable LMR communications with any of the following entities over the past 5 years?
27a. State entities
27b. Local entities
27c. Tribal entities
28. Are there any challenges that have limited your interoperability with any non-federal partner entities? If so, please describe below.
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.
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?
29a. Federal agencies within your Department
29b. Federal agencies outside your Department
29c. Non-federal entities (e.g., at the state, local, or tribal levels)
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.
Please explain why your radios are not pre-programmed to this channel:
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.
Please explain why your radios are not pre-programmed to this channel:
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.
32. Have any of the following technology-related factors been implemented in your agency's operating environment?
32a. Transition from conventional radio systems to trunked radio systems
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 12 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32b. Use of IP-based systems or other technologies to “bridge†otherwise incompatible LMR systems (e.g., gateway)
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 9 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32c. Use of software-defined radios
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32d. Use of multi-band radios
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 21 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32e. Increased use of standards-based and/or P25-compliant equipment
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 36 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32f. Use of a dedicated interoperability channel
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 27 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32g. Use of shared resources or systems (such as providing loaner radios or swapping radios with key partners)
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
32h. Use of console patching
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
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:
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?
34a. Incompatible LMR communications equipment used by partner agencies or entities
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 12 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 57 |
34b. Proprietary standards or features in LMR systems used by partner agencies or entities
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 9 | 14 | 18 | 10 | 57 |
34c. Incompatible encryption capability with systems used by partner agencies or entities
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 10 | 9 | 21 | 9 | 57 |
34d. Limited funding to replace or upgrade incompatible or aging LMR equipment
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 57 |
34e. Unclear internal methods, procedures, processes or requirements for interoperability
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 15 | 12 | 16 | 9 | 57 |
34f. Inconsistent application of interoperability methods, procedures, processes or requirements across Federal Departments and agencies
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 57 |
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:
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.
36. Does your agency maintain training plans detailing the type and frequency of training provided?
36a. Do the plans include integrated training with state and local first responders?
37. Have any of the following training-related factors been implemented in your agency's operating environment?
37a. Training on standard operation procedures, continuity processes, and related topics
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 19 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37b. Completion of National Incident Management System (NIMS) training
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 21 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37c. Training related to accessing NTIA-regulated Federal interoperability channels
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 15 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37d. Training related to accessing FCC nationwide interoperability channels
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 9 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37e. Sharing best practices and lessons learned (e.g., from after-action reports)
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 23 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37f. Training on LMR equipment for daily operations (e.g., on-the-job training)
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 32 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37g. Training on LMR equipment for planned events
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 29 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
37h. Training on LMR equipment for unplanned events or emergency incidents
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 26 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
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:
SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements: Exercises
39. Have any of the following exercises-related factors been implemented in your agency's operating environment?
39a. Exercises for agencies to test specific technologies and procedures
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
39b. Tabletop exercises including the mechanics of LMR communications
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
39c. Regular schedule of exercises to allow agencies to plan ahead and participate
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
39d. Joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment for daily operations
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
39e. Joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment for planned events
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
39f. Joint exercises with key partners to gain familiarity with LMR equipment for unplanned events or emergency
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
39g. Integrated exercises to include state and local first responders
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
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:
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.
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?
41a. At the agency level
41b. At the Department level
42. Have any of the following governance-related factors been implemented in your agency's operating environment?
42a. Established strategic planning process to address LMR operations
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
42b. An established governance structure within your agency to manage the use of LMR technologies
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 22 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
42c. Formalized agreements with key partners to strengthen governance among participants in the agreement (e.g., by working with regional or statewide governing bodies)
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
42d. Participation in an established inter-agency governance structure to coordinate on issues related to interoperability, such as spectrum policy, standards, compatible systems, etc.
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 24 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
42e. Participation in external emergency-communications-related working groups
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
42f. Leveraging state governing bodies (e.g., Statewide Interoperability Coordinators, Governing Boards, or Executive Committees)
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
42g. Requiring grant recipients (at state, local, or tribal level) to coordinate with federal agency administering grant
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
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:
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?
44a. Differences in budget cycles of non-federal partner entities, making it difficult to coordinate equipment purchases
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 6 | 6 | 26 | 11 | 57 |
44b. Differences in funding priorities of non-federal partner entities, making it difficult to coordinate equipment purchases
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 3 | 6 | 25 | 12 | 57 |
44c. Differences in procurement cycles of federal partner agencies, making it difficult to coordinate equipment purchases (e.g., through strategic sourcing)
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 8 | 7 | 23 | 11 | 57 |
44d. Limited or ineffective coordination and cooperation among key partners, in general
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 10 | 57 |
44e. Limited availability of Federal spectrum
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 11 | 10 | 19 | 5 | 57 |
44f. Limited availability of non-Federal spectrum
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 7 | 11 | 20 | 13 | 57 |
44g. Differences in security requirements of LMR system among the key partners (e.g., encryption)
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 14 | 8 | 19 | 7 | 56 |
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:
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.
46. Have any of the following governance-related factors been implemented in your agency's operating environment?
46a. SOPs for sharing of encryption keys or agreeing to an encryption standard
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
46b. SOPs for using shared channels
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
46c. Integration of NIMS ICS structure in SOPs
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 14 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
46d. Involving non-Federal entities, such as state and/or local first responders, involved when developing your agency's SOPs
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
46e. Determination of an Incident Commander
How much, if at all, has this factor helped your agency's interoperability with key partners?
| Greatly helped | Somewhat helped | Slightly helped | Has not helped | Don't know | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 30 |
How much, if at all, is it a priority for your agency to implement this factor?
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:
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?
48a. Undefined or unclear command and control structure for interoperable communications during emergencies or unplanned events
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 11 | 10 | 20 | 14 | 57 |
48b. Lack of common procedures and protocols for emergency communications
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 12 | 9 | 19 | 11 | 57 |
48c. Partner agency or entity does not follow the agreed-upon SOP
| Greatly hindered | Somewhat hindered | Slightly hindered | Has not hindered | Don't know |
Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 9 | 18 | 22 | 57 |
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:
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?
What are the source(s) of these policies, directives, or best practices?
50a. My agency
50b. My Department
50c. External to my Department
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:
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.
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.