Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS Accountability
Gao ID: GAO-08-739R June 26, 2008In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the launch of Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration. Elements of SBI are carried out by several organizations within DHS. One component is the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) SBI program office, which is responsible for developing a comprehensive border protection system using people; technology, known as SBInet; and tactical infrastructure (TI)--pedestrian and vehicle fencing; roads; and lighting. Initially, the focus of SBI is on the U.S. southwest border areas, between the ports of entry, that CBP has designated as most in need of enhanced border security because of serious vulnerabilities. In September 2006, CBP awarded a prime contract to the Boeing Company for 3 years, with three additional 1-year options. As the prime contractor, Boeing is responsible for acquiring, deploying, and sustaining selected SBInet technology and tactical infrastructure projects, and for providing supply chain management for selected tactical infrastructure projects. For fiscal years 2005 through 2008, Congress appropriated more than $2.7 billion for the SBI program. For fiscal year 2009, the President's budget includes a request for an additional $775 million for SBI. The Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required DHS to submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees an expenditure plan for the department's efforts to establish a security barrier along the borders of the United States, including pedestrian and vehicle fencing as well as other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology. This plan was to address 15 legislative conditions and was submitted to Congress on March 31, 2008. As required by the act, we reviewed the plan and on April 7 and April 10, 2008, briefed staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees, respectively, on our results.
The SBI fiscal year 2008 expenditure plan, including related documentation and program officials' statements, satisfied seven legislative conditions, partially satisfied seven legislative conditions, and did not satisfy one legislative condition. The SBI expenditure plan is intended to provide Congress with the information needed to effectively oversee the program and hold DHS accountable for program results. Satisfying the conditions is important since the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required an expenditure plan that satisfies the 15 conditions summarized above to be submitted to and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees before the agency could obligate $650 million of the approximately $1.2 billion appropriated for CBP fencing, infrastructure and technology. Satisfying the conditions is also important to minimize the program's exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. The fiscal year 2008 plan states that it addresses our February 2007 recommendation that the plan include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual program activities. However, based on our review, while the 2008 plan is more detailed than the 2007 plan, it does not provide detailed justification for all planned SBI expenditures, nor does it permit progress against program commitments to be adequately measured and disclosed. In addition, the 2008 plan does not clearly demonstrate how specific CBP SBI activities link with the DHS Secure Border Strategy and further the objectives of DHS's overall border strategy, nor does it provide Congress with reasonable assurance that funding is used for the highest priority requirements.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Richard M. Stana Team: Government Accountability Office: Homeland Security and Justice Phone: (202) 512-8816GAO-08-739R, Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS Accountability
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-739R
entitled 'Secure Border Initiative (SBI) Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure
Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight
and DHS Accountability' which was released on June 27, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-08-739R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 26, 2008:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Secure Border Initiative (SBI) Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure
Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight
and DHS Accountability:
In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced
the launch of SBI, a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program aimed at
securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration. Elements of SBI
are carried out by several organizations within DHS. One component is
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) SBI program office
[Footnote 1] which is responsible for developing a comprehensive border
protection system using people, technology, known as SBInet, and
tactical infrastructure (TI)--pedestrian and vehicle fencing, roads,
and lighting. Initially, the main focus of SBI is on the U.S. southwest
border areas, between the ports of entry, that CBP has designated as
most in need of enhanced border security due to serious
vulnerabilities.[Footnote 2] In September 2006, CBP awarded a prime
contract to the Boeing Company for 3 years, with three additional 1-
year options. As the prime contractor, Boeing is responsible for
acquiring, deploying, and sustaining selected SBInet technology and
tactical infrastructure projects, and for providing supply chain
management for selected tactical infrastructure projects. For fiscal
years 2005 through 2008, Congress appropriated more than $2.7 billion
for the SBI program. For fiscal year 2009, the President's Budget
includes a request for an additional $775 million for SBI.
The fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required DHS to
submit to Congress an expenditure plan for the Department's efforts to
establish a security barrier along the borders of the United States,
including pedestrian and vehicle fencing as well as other forms of
tactical infrastructure and technology.[Footnote 3] This plan was to
address 15 legislative conditions and was submitted to Congress on
March 31, 2008 [Footnote 4]. As required by the act, we reviewed the
plan and on April 7 and April 10, 2008, briefed the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee staff, respectively, on our results. This
correspondence transmits these results and the full briefing is
reprinted in enclosure I.
To accomplish our objective, we analyzed the SBI March 2008 expenditure
plan and supporting documentation. We also interviewed cognizant
program officials at CBP headquarters in Washington, D.C. We determined
that the financial, staffing, and fencing data provided by DHS were
sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report. We based our
decision on an assessment for each respective area by questioning
cognizant DHS officials about the source of the data and policies and
procedures to maintain the integrity of these data. We conducted this
performance audit from January 2008 to April 2008, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the work to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our objectives.
Results in Brief:
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials' statements, satisfied seven legislative conditions,
partially satisfied seven legislative conditions, and did not satisfy
one legislative condition.[Footnote 5] The 15 legislative conditions
and the level of satisfaction are summarized in table 1.
Table 1: Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions:
Legislative condition:
1. Includes a detailed accounting of the program's progress to date
relative to system capabilities or services, system performance levels,
mission benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program
management capabilities, identification of the maximum investment
(including lifecycle costs) required by the SBI network or any
successor contract, and description of the methodology used to obtain
these cost figures;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
2. Describes how activities will further the objectives of SBI, as
defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan, and how the plan
allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs;
Status: Not satisfied.
Legislative condition:
3. Includes an explicit plan of action defining how all funds are to be
obligated to meet future program commitments, with the planned
expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery of specific
capabilities, services, performance levels, mission benefits and
outcomes, and program management capabilities;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
4. Identifies staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors,
and detailees) requirements by activity;
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
5. Describes how the plan addresses security needs at the northern
border and the ports of entry, including infrastructure, technology,
design, and operations requirements;
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
6. Reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the
progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control
of the entire border of the United States;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
7. Includes a list of all open GAO and DHS Office of Inspector General
(OIG) recommendations related to the program and the status of DHS
actions to address the recommendations, including milestones to fully
address them;
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
8. Includes a certification by the DHS Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
that the program has been reviewed and approved in accordance with the
investment management process of the Department, and that the process
fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and
reviews established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
including Circular A-11, part 7;
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
9. Includes a certification by the DHS Chief Information Officer (CIO)
that the system architecture of the program is sufficiently aligned
with the information systems enterprise architecture of the Department
to minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of
the architectures that were and were not assessed in making the
alignment determination, the date of the alignment determination, and
any known areas of misalignment along with the associated risks and
corrective actions to address any such areas;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
10. Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that the plans for the
program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and practices, and a description of the actions being taken
to address areas of non-compliance, the risks associated with them
along with any plans for addressing these risks, and the status of
their implementation;
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
11. Includes a certification by the DHS CIO that the program has a risk
management process that regularly and proactively identifies,
evaluates, mitigates, and monitors risks throughout the system life
cycle and communicates high risk conditions to CBP and DHS investment
decision makers, as well as a listing of all the program's high risks
and the status of efforts to address them;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
12. Includes a certification by the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer
(CHCO) that the human capital needs of the program are being
strategically and proactively managed, and that current human capital
capabilities are sufficient to execute the plans discussed in the
report;
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
13. Includes an analysis by the Secretary for each segment, defined as
no more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the
selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving
operational control, including cost, level of operational control,
possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical
to the decision making process;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
14. Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that procedures to prevent
conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major
subcontractors are established and that the SBI program office has
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the SBI program, SBI
network contract, and any related contracts, including the exercise of
technical oversight, and includes a certification by the DHS CIO that
an independent verification and validation (IV&V) agent is currently
under contract for the projects funded under this heading;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
15. Is reviewed by GAO;
Status: Satisfied.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
[End of table]
The SBI expenditure plan is intended to provide Congress with the
information needed to effectively oversee the program and hold DHS
accountable for program results. Satisfying the conditions is important
since the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required an
expenditure plan that satisfies the 15 conditions summarized above to
be submitted and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees before the agency could obligate $650 million of the
approximately $1.2 billion appropriated for CBP fencing, infrastructure
and technology. Satisfying the conditions is also important to minimize
the program's exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. The
fiscal year 2008 plan states that it addresses our February 2007
recommendation that the plan include explicit and measurable
commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits
associated with individual program activities.[Footnote 6] However,
based on our review, while the 2008 plan is more detailed than the 2007
plan, it does not provide detailed justification for all planned SBI
expenditures, nor does it permit progress against program commitments
to be adequately measured and disclosed. In addition, the 2008 plan
does not clearly demonstrate how specific CBP SBI activities link with
the DHS Secure Border Strategy and further the objectives of DHS's
overall border strategy nor does it provide Congress with reasonable
assurance that funding is used for the highest priority requirements.
We are recommending that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
Secure Border Initiative Executive Director ensure that future
expenditure plans include an explicit description of how activities
will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border
Strategy; and how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority
border security needs. Because DHS has yet to implement our February
2007 recommendation that it ensure that future expenditure plans
include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the
capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual
SBInet program activities, we are not making new recommendations with
respect to these issues.[Footnote 7]
Compliance with Legislative Conditions:
The 15 legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction are
summarized below.
* Legislative condition 1: Includes a detailed accounting of the
program's progress to date relative to system capabilities or services,
system performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes, milestones,
cost targets, program management capabilities, identification of the
maximum investment (including lifecycle costs) required by the SBI
network or any successor contract, and description of the methodology
used to obtain these cost figures (partially satisfied).
The expenditure plan includes information about the program's progress
to date for its various SBInet and TI efforts and general cost
information for proposed activities; however, other information
required by the legislative condition is missing. For instance, the
expenditure plan reports on the SBInet program's progress to date,
including progress against key milestones, lessons learned, and efforts
to improve SBInet program management and performance measurement
capabilities. However, the plan lacks detail on SBInet's capabilities,
performance levels, benefits and outcomes, and milestones. For example,
the Boeing prime contract introduced performance goals for SBInet, such
as the rate of detection of border entries, but the plan does not
report on SBInet's progress towards meeting those goals. In addition,
with regard to SBI TI, the expenditure plan includes progress towards
2008 mileage goals, fencing performance requirements, and cost targets
for SBI TI contracts. However, it does not include other important TI-
related information, such as life-cycle costs,[Footnote 8] future
fencing costs, and information on TI program management capabilities
such as internal communications and reporting channels, any formal
process improvement programs, or tools for effective program
management.
* Legislative condition 2: Describes how activities will further the
objectives of SBI, as defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan, and
how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security
needs (not satisfied).
The expenditure plan states that SBI activities align with DHS's Secure
Border Strategic Plan[Footnote 9], and that funding is allocated toward
program priorities, but does not provide additional detail on these
assertions. Specifically, the plan also states that CBP's SBI program
aligns with the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan goal to "develop and
deploy the optimal mix of personnel, infrastructure, and technology and
response capabilities to identify, classify, and interdict cross-border
violators." However, beyond this statement, the expenditure plan does
not demonstrate how specific CBP SBI activities link with that goal and
further the objectives of DHS's overall border strategy. Similarly,
while the plan states that, "CBP prioritizes requirements and allocates
funding to the highest priority requirements," it does not provide
detail to support this claim. For instance, the plan does not assign a
priority to specific SBI activities nor does it link funding decisions
with priorities. As a result, the plan does not provide Congress with
reasonable assurance that SBI program activities support DHS's overall
border strategy and that funding is used for the highest priority
requirements as required by the legislative condition.
* Legislative condition 3: Includes an explicit plan of action defining
how all funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments,
with the planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based
delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance levels,
mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities
(partially satisfied).
The expenditure plan includes some of the information required by the
condition; however, the plan does not link the planned expenditure of
funds to the milestone-based delivery of specific program capabilities
or services. With regard to SBInet, the plan includes information such
as budgeted amounts for specific SBInet activities for fiscal year
2008. However, the plan states that CBP intends to spend all of the
$411 million allocated to SBInet within the fiscal year 2008
appropriation, but it does not link this planned expenditure of the
funds to the planned technology efforts for fiscal year 2008. In
addition, the expenditure plan and related documentation do not detail
expected performance levels for fiscal year 2008 or link planned
expenditures to mission benefits and outcomes for SBInet efforts. With
regard to SBI TI, the expenditure plan and related documentation
include information required by the condition, such as budget amounts
for specific SBI TI activities for fiscal year 2008, including
pedestrian and vehicle fencing projects on the southwest border. It
also presents planned SBI TI activities for calendar year 2008,
including construction of a total of 370 miles of pedestrian fencing
and 300 miles of vehicle fencing. However, the plan does not include
milestone-based delivery of capabilities to ensure that the SBI program
office will meet its 2008 goal of completing 670 miles of fencing by
December 2008.[Footnote 10] Nor does it include detailed expected
performance levels for fiscal year 2008 or link planned expenditures to
mission benefits and outcomes.
* Legislative condition 4: Identifies staffing (including full-time
equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity
(satisfied).
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials' statements, identifies staffing requirements by activity,
and describes how the SBI program office has made progress towards
meeting its staffing goals. The SBI program office, which includes the
SBInet and SBI TI offices, manages the SBI program. SBI staff work in
Integrated Project Teams, which are teams that work across office
functions, in order to draw on different areas of expertise to achieve
their objectives. As of February 22, 2008, the program office had 249
government and contractor support staff, including 20 detailees, and
had plans to increase its staff numbers by 110, to a total of 359
staff. In December 2007, the SBI office published the first version of
its Strategic Human Capital Management Plan and is now in the early
implementation phase. The plan outlines seven main goals for the office
and activities to accomplish those goals, which align with federal
government best practices.
* Legislative condition 5: Describes how the plan addresses security
needs at the northern border and the ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design, and operations requirements
(satisfied).
The SBInet expenditure plan broadly addresses the security needs at the
northern border and ports of entry by providing a description of
activities for the funds the SBI program office plans to expend;
however, the northern border plan is in the preliminary stage and much
more evaluation needs to be done as border security solutions are
proposed and concepts tested. Specifically, the plan includes
information about infrastructure, design, and operations requirements,
as well as descriptions of how the $20 million of fiscal year 2007
funds for northern border security will be spent. In addition, a
February 2008 CBP report to Congress about ongoing DHS northern border
initiatives discussed steps that CBP is taking to address security
needs at the northern border and the ports of entry, including
increasing personnel (e.g., Border Patrol), upgrading land port
inspection facilities, implementing SBInet technology and tactical
infrastructure solutions, expanding liaison efforts with international
stakeholders, and improving intelligence sharing with federal, state,
and local law enforcement.[Footnote 11] We are evaluating the February
2008 report to Congress as mandated by the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007[Footnote 12] and expect to report on
the results later this year.
* Legislative condition 6: Reports on costs incurred, the activities
completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining
operational control of the entire border of the United States
(partially satisfied).
The expenditure plan and related documentation report on obligations
and budgeted amounts incurred, but the documentation does not include
program progress in terms of operational control of the U.S.
border.[Footnote 13] Specifically, the expenditure plan reports
obligations and budgeted amounts, but it does not clearly distinguish
between the two, nor does it report program expenditures. However, CBP
officials subsequently provided us with related documentation to
clarify information in the plan related to appropriations, obligations,
and expenditures. In addition, the plan discusses the progress of
specific SBI activities and presents a breakdown of border miles under
operational control for the U.S. southwest, northern, and coastal
borders for fiscal years 2005 through 2007. However, it does not
delineate between improvements in operational control that are directly
attributable to SBI activities and those that could be caused by
concurrent government actions, such as the hiring of additional Border
Patrol agents, deploying National Guard members along U.S. borders, and
coordinating efforts between DHS and local authorities.
* Legislative condition 7: Includes a list of all open GAO and DHS OIG
recommendations related to the program and the status of DHS actions to
address the recommendations, including milestones to fully address them
(satisfied).
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials' statements, lists all open GAO and DHS OIG recommendations
and provides the status and actions taken to address each one. The plan
and related documentation list five open DHS OIG recommendations. CBP
reports that it concurred with all five recommendations and is taking
corrective actions to address these recommendations. In addition, the
plan lists one open GAO recommendation.[Footnote 14] The GAO
recommendation, made in February 2007, was to "ensure that future
expenditure plans include explicit and measurable commitments relative
to the capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with
individual SBInet program activities." The plan states that the status
of the recommendation depends on GAO's review of the fiscal year 2008
expenditure plan. Based on our review, the fiscal year 2008 expenditure
plan is more detailed and thorough than the fiscal year 2007 plan, but
does not fully satisfy our February 2007 recommendation because it does
not include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the
capabilities, schedule, costs and benefits for individual SBI program
activities.
* Legislative condition 8: Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that
the program has been reviewed and approved in accordance with the
investment management process of the Department, and that the process
fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and
reviews established by OMB, including Circular A-11, part 7
(satisfied).
On March 20, 2008, the DHS CPO certified that the program had multiple
reviews from DHS upper management, complied with capital planning and
investment control procedures, per OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, and
underwent an out-of-cycle investment review. Specifically, a Deep Dive
Review[Footnote 154] of the SBInet program was conducted from September
11 through 20, 2007, by a team that included experts from various
institutions, such as Johns Hopkins University and the Defense
Acquisition University. However, the Deep Dive Review is not part of
the DHS investment management process. In addition, DHS officials have
indicated that the DHS Joint Requirement Council, responsible for
reviewing the program and providing recommendations to the DHS
Investment Review Board, has not been active. We have ongoing work on
the oversight process of major acquisitions at DHS, including SBInet,
and plan to report on the results of that review in the fall of 2008.
* Legislative condition 9: Includes a certification by the DHS CIO that
the system architecture of the program is sufficiently aligned with the
information systems enterprise architecture of the Department to
minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of the
architectures that were and were not assessed in making the alignment
determination, the date of the alignment determination, and any known
areas of misalignment along with the associated risks and corrective
actions to address any such areas (partially satisfied).
On March 26, 2008, the Acting DHS CIO conditionally certified that
SBInet was sufficiently aligned with the department's enterprise
architecture. The certification was based on a 6-month old DHS
Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB) conditional approval of the program
that preceded recent changes to the program. In addition, GAO has
previously reported that the EAB's architecture alignment decisions are
not based on a documented methodology and explicit decision criteria,
and are thus not verifiable.[Footnote 16] The EAB's approval cited
eight issue (i.e., areas of misalignment) that needed to be addressed.
In general the issues were due to program documentation that needed to
be updated to reflect the current state of the program, and program
aspects that were not part of the scope of the EAB's alignment
assessment. As of the DHS Acting CIO's March 2008 conditional
certification, this documentation had not been updated and the missing
program aspects had not been assessed. This is important because the
March 2008 conditional certification states that sufficient alignment
with the DHS enterprise architecture depends upon completing each of
the corrective actions associated with the eight areas of misalignment.
The SBI program office is to submit a status report to the Enterprise
Architecture Board by May 30, 2008. At that time, the DHS Acting CIO
will reevaluate this conditional certification.
* Legislative condition 10: Includes a certification by the DHS CPO
that the plans for the program comply with the Federal acquisition
rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices, and a description of
the actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance, the risks
associated with them along with any plans for addressing these risks,
and the status of their implementation (satisfied).
On March 20, 2008, the DHS CPO certified that the plans for the SBI
program complied with federal acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and practices. Specifically, DHS CPO officials noted that
the program had multiple reviews from DHS upper management, and that it
underwent an out-of-cycle investment review (e.g., the Deep Dive
Review), as well as contract and pricing reviews based on the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and DHS regulations. The DHS CPO officials
did not identify areas of non-compliance.
* Legislative condition 11: Includes a certification by the DHS CIO
that the program has a risk management process that regularly and
proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors risks
throughout the system life cycle and communicates high risk conditions
to CBP and DHS investment decision makers, as well as a listing of all
the program's high risks and the status of efforts to address them
(partially satisfied).
On March 26, 2008, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified that the
SBInet program has a risk management process in place for the fiscal
year 2008 expenditure plan. In the certification documentation, the DHS
Acting CIO noted that the risk management process utilized by SBInet is
not vigorous enough to mitigate the risks of a program of its size.
Currently, the SBI program office is working to improve its risk
management process to better identify and monitor risks throughout the
system life cycle, and the SBI program office is to submit revised
documentation by May 30, 2008. At that time, the DHS Acting CIO will
reevaluate this conditional certification.
* Legislative condition 12: Includes a certification by the DHS Chief
Human Capital Officer (CHCO) that the human capital needs of the
program are being strategically and proactively managed, and that
current human capital capabilities are sufficient to execute the plans
discussed in the report (satisfied).
On February 14, 2008, the DHS Acting CHCO certified that the fiscal
year 2008 expenditure plan provides specific initiatives to address
hiring, development, and retention of employees in the SBI program.
According to officials from the CHCO office, the Human Capital
Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) was the primary
criterion used for the basis of his certification.[Footnote 17]
Specifically, the agency officials said that the SBI Strategic Human
Capital Management Plan issued in December 2007 is modeled after the
HCAAF and addresses the areas outlined in the HCAAF. They said that the
plan is aligned with DHS-wide human capital strategic planning
initiatives, incorporates a section that deals with metrics, and shows
how SBI is going to measure human capital needs.
* Legislative condition 13: Includes an analysis by the Secretary for
each segment, defined as no more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical
infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative
means of achieving operational control, including cost, level of
operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and
other factors critical to the decision making process (partially
satisfied).
The expenditure plan and related documentation include reports on
fencing segments and possible effects on communities, but do not
include information on costs per segment or a comparative analysis of
alternative means of achieving operational control. The segment
analyses in the plan comply with the legislative condition by including
required information for segments that were 15 miles or less in length,
such as possible unintended effects on communities and the environment,
and other decision-making factors relevant to each segment.
Additionally, the plan reports that the SBI program office estimates
that pedestrian fencing will cost about $4 million per mile and vehicle
fencing will cost about $2 million per mile. Further, the plan states
that TI will be constructed where it is most appropriate to achieve and
maintain control of the border and the SBI program office is
considering possible effects on communities through town hall meetings,
meetings with public groups and state and local officials, and open
houses. However, the segment analyses do not include cost information
per fencing segment, nor do they include comparative analyses of
alternative means of achieving operational control, such as technology
or additional Border Patrol agents at the border.
* Legislative condition 14: Includes a certification by the DHS CPO
that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime
integrator and major subcontractors are established and that the SBI
program office has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage
the SBI program, SBI network contract, and any related contracts,
including the exercise of technical oversight, and includes a
certification by the DHS CIO that an IV&V agent is currently under
contract for the projects funded under this heading (partially
satisfied).
The expenditure plan partially satisfied this condition because
although the DHS CPO certified that the plan met necessary
requirements, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified this
condition. Specifically, in a March 20, 2008, certification, the DHS
CPO noted that the SBInet technology prime contractor has an
Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan in place that
delineates, among other things, responsibility for avoiding,
identifying, evaluating, and resolving organizational conflicts of
interest, and complies with FAR Subpart 9.5.[Footnote 18] In addition,
the DHS CPO noted that CBP realigned its procurement function and
created a separate Senior Executive Service Head of Contracting
Activity (HCA) position that reports directly to CBP's Assistant
Commissioner of Finance, and has a functional relationship with the DHS
CPO. Currently, the HCA is working with DHS CPO staff to develop an
initial workforce plan that outlines the number of additional personnel
required, skill sets required, and an approach for hiring and retaining
the staffing needed.
On March 13, 2008, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified that the
SBI program has an IV&V agent under contract for the fiscal year 2008
expenditure plan. The certification was conditional for two reasons,
(1) although funding has been obligated for the SBI program to receive
IV&V support via an existing CBP IV&V contract, the task order for this
has not yet been awarded to an IV&V agent, and (2) although the CBP
IV&V contract states that the chosen IV&V agent's approach will comply
with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)
standards, the agent's documents proving this to be the case will not
be available for review until after the task order is awarded. The DHS
Acting CIO directed the SBI program office to submit the necessary
documentation approximately 30 to 60 days after contract award and is
to then review the documentation to ensure that the IV&V agent is
executing a process that complies with DHS and IEEE standards.
* Legislative condition 15: Is reviewed by GAO (satisfied).
We reviewed the final version of the SBI expenditure plan that CBP
submitted to Congress on March 31, 2008. We also reviewed draft
versions of the plan as well as supporting documentation provided by
CBP. We conducted our review from January 29 through April 2, 2008. On
April 7, 2008 we briefed the House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations staff and on April 10, 2008 we briefed the Senate
Committee on Appropriations staff regarding the results of our review.
Conclusions:
The SBI fiscal year 2008 expenditure plan, including related
documentation and program officials' statements, satisfied 7, partially
satisfied 7, and did not satisfy 1 of the 15 conditions legislated by
Congress. The legislatively mandated expenditure plan requirement for
SBI is a congressional oversight mechanism aimed at ensuring that
planned expenditures are justified, performance against plans is
measured, and accountability for results is established. The plan,
combined with other available program documentation and program
officials' statements, does not provide sufficient justification for
all planned SBI expenditures, nor does it permit progress against
program commitments to be adequately measured and disclosed. In
addition, the plan does not demonstrate how specific CBP SBI activities
link with the goals of the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan and how the
activities further the objectives of DHS's overall border strategy.
Although 7 of the 15 stated legislative conditions for the expenditure
plan are fully satisfied, 8 others have gaps that, until they are
addressed, could limit DHS's ability to manage the program today. For
example, the plan does not assign a priority to specific SBI activities
nor does it link funding decisions with priorities, therefore Congress
does not have reasonable assurance that funding is used for the highest
priority requirements. Satisfying the legislative conditions is
important because the expenditure plan is intended to provide Congress
with the information needed to effectively oversee the program and hold
DHS accountable for program results. Satisfying the legislative
conditions is also important to minimize the program's exposure to
cost, schedule, and performance risks.
The SBI fiscal year 2008 expenditure plan is more detailed and thorough
than the fiscal year 2007 plan. However, it does not satisfy our
February 2007 recommendation that the plan include explicit and
measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule, costs,
and benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities
because, among other things, it does not provide complete information
about the SBI schedule and costs.[Footnote 19] As investment in SBI-
related projects continues, fulfilling this recommendation will become
increasingly important to ensure accountability and transparency. Also,
given that this is the second expenditure plan requested by Congress
for CBP's SBI program and that the DHS Acting CIO has stated that the
SBI risk management program does not mitigate risks for a program of
its size, it is even more important that the plan meet the legislative
conditions and that our recommendation be fully implemented.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure
Border Initiative Executive Director ensure that future expenditure
plans include an explicit description of how activities will further
the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic
Plan; and how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs to provide Congress with information it needs to oversee
the program.
Agency Comments:
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Members of other Senate and House committees that have authorization
and oversight responsibilities for homeland security. We are also
sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget. Copies of this report will also be available
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report,
please contact Richard Stana at (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors
of this report are listed in enclosure III.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing to the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations:
Briefing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection‘s Secure Border
Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan:
Prepared for the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations:
April 7 and 10, 2008:
Briefing Overview:
* Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
* Results in Brief:
* Background:
* Findings:
* Concluding Observations:
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
* Related GAO Products.
Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objective was to determine whether U.S. Customs and Border
Protection‘s (CBP) Secure Border Initiative (SBI) fiscal year 2008
expenditure plan satisfies 15 legislative conditions as required by the
Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.[Footnote 20]
To accomplish our objective, we analyzed the SBI March 2008 expenditure
plan and supporting documentation. We also interviewed cognizant
program officials at the Department of Homeland Security‘s (DHS) CBP
headquarters in Washington, D.C. We determined that the financial,
staffing, and fencing data provided by DHS were sufficiently reliable
for purposes of this briefing. We based our decision on an assessment
for each respective area by questioning cognizant DHS officials about
the source of the data and policies and procedures to maintain the
integrity of these data. We conducted this performance audit from
January 2008 to April 2008, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the work to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
Results in Brief: Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions:
The SBI 2008 expenditure plan, including related documentation and
program officials‘ statements, satisfied 7 legislative conditions,
partially satisfied 7 legislative conditions, and did not satisfy 1
legislative condition.[Footnote 21] The following is a summary of the
15 legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction.
Legislative condition:
1. Includes a detailed accounting of the program's progress to date
relative to system capabilities or services, system performance levels,
mission benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program
management capabilities, identification of the maximum investment
(including lifecycle costs) required by the SBI network or any
successor contract, and description of the methodology used to obtain
these cost figures;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
2. Describes how activities will further the objectives of SBI, as
defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan, and how the plan
allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs;
Status[A]: Not satisfied.
Legislative condition:
3. Includes an explicit plan of action defining how all funds are to be
obligated to meet future program commitments, with the planned
expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery of specific
capabilities, services, performance levels, mission benefits and
outcomes, and program management capabilities;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
4. Identifies staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors,
and detailees) requirements by activity;
Status[A]: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
5. Describes how the plan addresses security needs at the northern
border and the ports of entry, including infrastructure, technology,
design, and operations requirements;
Status[A]: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
6. Reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the
progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control
of the entire border of the United States;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
7. Includes a list of all open GAO and DHS Office of Inspector General
(OIG) recommendations related to the program and the status of DHS
actions to address the recommendations, including milestones to fully
address them;
Status[A]: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
8. Includes a certification by the DHS Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
that the program has been reviewed and approved in accordance with the
investment management process of the Department, and that the process
fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and
reviews established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
including Circular A-11, part 7[B];
Status[A]: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
9. Includes a certification by the DHS Chief Information Officer (CIO)
that the system architecture of the program is sufficiently aligned
with the information systems enterprise architecture of the Department
to minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of
the architectures that were and were not assessed in making the
alignment determination, the date of the alignment determination, and
any known areas of misalignment along with the associated risks and
corrective actions to address any such areas;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
10. Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that the plans for the
program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and practices, and a description of the actions being taken
to address areas of non-compliance, the risks associated with them
along with any plans for addressing these risks, and the status of
their implementation;
Status[A]: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
11. Includes a certification by the DHS CIO that the program has a risk
management process that regularly and proactively identifies,
evaluates, mitigates, and monitors risks throughout the system life
cycle and communicates high risk conditions to CBP and DHS investment
decision makers, as well as a listing of all the program's high risks
and the status of efforts to address them;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
12. Includes a certification by the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer
(CHCO) that the human capital needs of the program are being
strategically and proactively managed, and that current human capital
capabilities are sufficient to execute the plans discussed in the
report;
Status[A]: Satisfied.
Legislative condition:
13. Includes an analysis by the Secretary for each segment, defined as
no more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the
selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving
operational control, including cost, level of operational control,
possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical
to the decision making process;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
14. Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that procedures to prevent
conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major
subcontractors are established and that the SBI program office has
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the SBI program, SBI
network contract, and any related contracts, including the exercise of
technical oversight, and includes a certification by the DHS CIO that
an independent verification and validation (IV&V) agent is currently
under contract for the projects funded under this heading;
Status[A]: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition:
15. Is reviewed by GAO;
Status[A]: Satisfied.
[A] Satisfied means that the plan, in combination with supporting
documentation and program officials‘ statements, either satisfied or
provides for satisfying each requirement of the condition that we
reviewed. Partially satisfied means that the plan, in combination with
supporting documentation and program officials‘ statements, either
satisfied or provides for satisfying some, but not all, key aspects of
the condition that we reviewed. Not satisfied means that the plan, in
combination with supporting documentation and program officials‘
statements, does not satisfy any of the key aspects of the condition
that we reviewed.
[B] Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Executive Office of the President, OMB
Circular No. A-11, pt. 7, ’Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition, and
Management of Capital Assets (2007).“
Background: SBI Program Operations:
In November 2005, DHS announced the launch of SBI, a multiyear,
multibillion-dollar program aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing
illegal immigration. Elements of SBI will be carried out by several
organizations within DHS.
The CBP SBI Program Office is responsible for developing a
comprehensive border protection system that is intended to enable CBP
officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents and officers to gain effective
control [Footnote 22] of the U.S. borders.
The main focus of the SBI program is on the southwest border areas
between the ports of entry [Footnote 23] that CBP has designated as
having the highest need for enhanced border security because of serious
vulnerabilities.
Figure 1 shows U.S. Border Patrol sectors [Footnote 24] along the
southwest border.
Figure 1: Map of Border Patrol Sectors along the Southwest Border:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Southwest United States depicting state
boundaries as well as Border Patrol Sectors. The following sectors are
depicted:
San Diego;
El Centro;
Yuma;
Tucson;
El Paso;
Marfa;
Del Rio;
Laredo;
Rio Grande Valley.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
[End of figure]
Background: SBI Appropriations:
Congress has appropriated more than $2.7 billion for fiscal years 2005
through 2008 (see table 1). For fiscal year 2009, the President‘s
Budget includes a request for an additional $775 million for SBI.
Table 1: Funds Appropriated, Fiscal Years 2005-2008 (Dollars in
thousands):
Fiscal year: 2005;
Appropriated authority: $38,480.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Appropriated authority: $325,000.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Appropriated authority: $1,187,565.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Appropriated authority: $1,225,000.
Fiscal year: Total:
Appropriated authority: $2,776,045.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
The SBI program office includes:
* the SBInet office, which is responsible for technology projects
(e.g., sensors, cameras, radars, communications systems, and mounted
laptop computers for agent vehicles), and;
* the SBI Tactical Infrastructure (TI) office, which is responsible for
pedestrian and vehicle fencing, lighting, and roads.
In September 2006, CBP awarded a prime contract to the Boeing Company
for 3 years, with three additional 1-year options. As the prime
contractor, Boeing is responsible for acquiring, deploying, and
sustaining selected SBI technology and tactical infrastructure
projects, and providing supply chain management for selected tactical
infrastructure projects.
CBP is executing part of SBI‘s activities through a series of task
orders to Boeing for individual projects. As of February 15, 2008, CBP
had awarded eight task orders to Boeing. Table 2 is a summary of the
task orders awarded to Boeing for SBI projects.
Table 2: Task Orders Awarded to Boeing for SBI Projects as of February
15, 2008 (Dollars in millions):
Task order description: Program Management: Related to mission
engineering, facilities and infrastructure, systems engineering, test
and evaluation, and program management services to develop and deploy
the SBInet system.
Date awarded: 09/21/2006;
Task order obligation: $135.9.
Task order description: Project 28: Boeing's pilot project and initial
implementation of SBInet technology for 28 miles of the border in the
Tucson sector.
Date awarded: 10/20/2006;
Task order obligation: $20.6.
Task order description: Barry M. Goldwater Range: Related to the
construction of 32 miles of fencing in the Yuma sector; also known as
Project 37.
Date awarded: 01/12/2007;
Task order obligation: $122.2.
Task order description: Fence Lab: Related to the testing of potential
pedestrian and vehicle fence and barrier solutions.
Date awarded: 03/16/2007;
Task order obligation: $0.7.
Task order description: Design: Related to the SBI deployment design
solution, including design and locations for the SBInet technology
solution in the Yuma, Tucson, and El Paso sectors.
Date awarded: 08/01/2007;
Task order obligation: $69.0.
Task order description: Project 28 Contractor Maintenance and Logistics
Support: Provides Project 28 with the required maintenance and
logistics support to operate the system.
Date awarded: 12/07/2007;
Task order obligation: $8.0.
Task order description: Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence (C3I) and Common Operating Picture (COP): Provides for
SBInet operating software to design develop, and demonstrate a
functional SBInet C3I/COP system.
Date awarded: 12/07/2007;
Task order obligation: $64.5.
Task order description: Supply and Supply Chain Management: The
development and the implementation of a supply and supply chain
management system solution to support execution of tactical
infrastructure projects.
Date awarded: 01/07/2008;
Task order obligation: $733.3.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
[End of table]
Background: SBInet:
SBInet technology is intended to include the development and deployment
of a COP that provides uniform data through a command center
environment to Border Patrol agents in the field and all DHS agencies
and to be interoperable with stakeholders external to DHS, such as
local law enforcement.
DHS announced final acceptance of Project 28 on February 22, 2008.
CBP describes Block 1 as the first phase of an effort to
design,develop, integrate, test, and deploy a technology system of
hardware, software, and communications to the Yuma, Tucson, and El Paso
sectors, with deployment beginning in summer 2008 and completion
expected in 2011.
Boeing‘s solution is to include a variety of sensors, communications
systems, information technology, and command and control capabilities
to enhance situational awareness of the responding officers (see figs.
2 and 3).
Figure 2: Tower Deployed in Tucson Sector with Camera and Radar:
{See PDF for image]
This figure is a photograph of a tower, with a close-up view of the
camera and radar.
[Source: GAO.
{End of figure]
Figure 3: At Left, Mounted Laptop Installed in Border Patrol Vehicle;
at Right, Command and Control Center in Tucson, Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
Figure contains photographs as described.
Source: GAO.
{End of figure]
Background: SBI TI:
CBP, through the SBI program office, plans to deploy a total of 670
miles of fencing, including 370 miles of single-layer pedestrian
fencing and 300 miles of vehicle fencing, by December 31, 2008.
[Footnote 25]
The SBI program office, through the SBI TI program, is using the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to contract for the construction of
fencing and supporting infrastructure (such as lights and roads),
complete required environmental assessments, and acquire necessary real
estate.[Footnote 26]
See figures 4 and 5 for examples of fencing.
Figure 4: At Left, Fencing Deployed at Sasaber, Arizona; at Right,
Fencing Deployed at Yuma, Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
Two photographs, as described.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Examples of Fencing Styles along the Southwest border:
[See PDF for image]
The Picket Fence, Bollard Fence, and Post and Rail with wire mesh are
examples of pedestrian fencing. The Normandy Vehicle Fence in an
example of vehicle fencing.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Legislative Condition #1: CBP‘s SBI Program Progress (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a detailed accounting of the program‘s
progress to date relative to system capabilities or services, system
performance levels, mission benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost
targets, program management capabilities, identification of the maximum
investment (including life cycle costs) required by the Secure Border
Initiative network or any successor contract, and description of the
methodology used to obtain these cost figures.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied this condition.
Specifically, we examined the information provided for the SBInet and
the SBI TI areas within SBI. We found that the expenditure plan
provides much useful information on program progress, plans and costs,
but does not contain a detailed(emphasis added) accounting of the
program‘s progress to date relative to capabilities, costs, performance
levels, etc., that is called for in the legislative condition.
With regards to SBInet, the expenditure plan reports the program‘s
progress to date in various technology efforts, such as Project 28 and
Block 1.
For example, the plan:
* provides progress made against key milestones for fiscal year 2007
and describes why some completion dates for activities have been
revised;
* describes lessons learned from Project 28 and, in some instances, how
these have and will affect Block 1 technology projects;
* includes efforts to build program management capabilities for SBInet,
such as the formal process improvement program developed to create and
adopt key program management, acquisition, and operational activities;
* states that SBInet is developing and maturing capabilities to
evaluate system performance for technology projects; and;
* includes the estimated fiscal years 2008 through 2013 investment
required for implementing CBP‘s SBInet projects (approximately $3.5
billion).
However, with regards to SBInet, the expenditure plan does not contain
a detailed accounting of the program‘s capabilities, performance
levels, benefits and outcomes, and milestones. For example:
* the Boeing prime contract introduced performance goals for SBInet,
such as the rate of detection of border entries, but the expenditure
plan does not report on SBInet‘s progress toward meeting performance
goals; and;
* the plan and supporting documentation indicate that CBP is continuing
testing of Project 28, the outcomes of which CBP intends to use to help
guide the development of the next COP. However, the plan and supporting
documentation do not provide specific milestones for when testing of
Project 28 will be complete or when the next version of the COP will be
deployed; thus, it is unclear whether the testing outcomes can be used
to influence this version of the COP. This is noteworthy since CBP
officials have stated the importance of applying lessons learned from
Project 28 to future SBInet development. In addition, in February 2007
we reported that a greater number of concurrent SBInet activities can
increase the program‘s exposure to cost, schedule, and performance
risks.[Footnote 27]
With regard to SBI TI, the plan and related documentation include:
* progress to date in meeting the December 2008 goal (see table 3);
Table 3: Tactical Infrastructure Deployment as of February 21, 2008:
Infrastructure type: Pedestrian fencing;
Miles in place before SBI: 78;
Miles deployed through SBI: 90;
Total miles in place as of 2/21/08: 168;
Target for 12/31/08: 370;
Miles remaining to meet 12/31/08 target: 202.
Infrastructure type: Vehicle fencing;
Miles in place before SBI: 57;
Miles deployed through SBI: 78;
Total miles in place as of 2/21/08: 135;
Target for 12/31/08: 300;
Miles remaining to meet 12/31/08 target: 165.
Infrastructure type: Total;
Miles in place before SBI: 135;
Miles deployed through SBI: 168;
Total miles in place as of 2/21/08: 303;
Target for 12/31/08: 670;
Miles remaining to meet 12/31/08 target: 367.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
End of table]
* fencing requirements, such as the requirement for the pedestrian
fence to have the capability of disabling a vehicle, and a design that
will allow for expedient repair of damage or breaching;
* accomplishments from May 2007 through February 2008; and;
* cost targets for the SBI TI contracts.
However, the plan does not include some information about SBI TI
required by the legislative condition:
* life cycle costs because, according to the plan, CBP officials have
little or no history with estimating the cost for fence-related
maintenance support; [Footnote 28]
* future fencing costs because, according to program officials, it is
not yet possible to derive these estimates because of unknown factors
such as the type of terrain where the fencing is to be constructed, the
materials to be used, the costs of materials and labor, and the cost to
acquire the land where fencing is to be built; and;
* information on SBI TI program management capabilities such as
internal communications and reporting channels, any formal process
improvement programs, or tools for effective program management.
Legislative Condition #2: Describes How Activities Will Further the
Objectives of SBI‘s Strategic Plan (Not Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Describes how activities will further the
objectives of SBI, as defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan, and
how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security
needs.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, did not satisfy the condition. While the plan
asserts that SBI activities align with the DHS Secure Border Strategic
Plan, [Footnote 29] it did not describe the linkage. Similarly, while
the plan asserts that funding is allocated toward program priorities,
it provides no additional detail with respect to priorities or funding
decisions.
The expenditure plan presents some of the goals and objectives of:
* the DHS Strategic Plan;
* the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan, and;
* the CBP Strategic Plan.
The plan states that CBP‘s SBI program aligns with the DHS Secure
Border Strategic Plan goal to ’develop and deploy the optimal mix of
personnel, infrastructure, and technology and response capabilities to
identify, classify, and interdict cross-border violators.“ However,
beyond this assertion, the expenditure plan does not clearly
demonstrate how specific CBP SBI activities link with that goal and
further the objectives of DHS‘s overall border strategy.
In addition, while the plan states that, ’CBP prioritizes requirements
and allocates funding to the highest priority requirements,“ it does
not provide detail to support this claim. For instance, the plan does
not assign a priority to specific SBI activities nor does it link
funding decisions with priorities. As a result, the plan does not
provide Congress with reasonable assurance that funding is used for the
highest priority requirements.
Legislative Condition #3: Describes How Funds Are Obligated to Meet
Future Program Commitments (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes an explicit plan of action defining how
all funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with
the planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery
of specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission
benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied this condition.
Specifically, the plan included some required information, such as
budgeted amounts for SBInet and SBI TI activities for fiscal year 2008.
However, all of the information required to meet the legislative
condition was not provided, such as expected performance levels for
fiscal year 2008 for SBInet and SBI TI program activities.
With regard to SBInet, the expenditure plan includes information
required by the condition, such as:
* budgeted amounts for specific SBInet activities for fiscal year 2008,
including the program areas related to technology; and;
* planned SBInet activities for fiscal year 2008 across a range of
areas, including developing technology system requirements and
deploying technology to geographical areas in Block 1.
However, the plan and related documentation do not include information
required by legislative condition #3 for SBInet. For example, the
documentation:
* Does not link the planned expenditure of funds to the milestone-based
delivery of specific program capabilities or services. The plan states
that CBP intends to spend all of the $411 million allocated to SBInet
within the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, but does not specify how
this amount will be allocated among the planned fiscal year 2008
technology efforts described in the plan.
* Describes a new SBInet task order to be awarded in March 2008 but
does not provide an estimated total cost for it. As of April 2, 2008,
SBI officials told us that they are negotiating the costs with the
vendor.
In addition, with regard to SBInet,the plan and related documentation:
* Describe planned activities, but do not include a clear timeline for
fiscal year 2008 interim milestones. For example, the plan states that
CBP will break ground on two technology deployments later this summer,
but specific start and end date estimates are not provided. In
addition, according to the plan, CBP is planning to develop
requirements for a future project later this year, but CBP
documentation does not indicate whether this depends on the completion
of interim technology efforts. SBI officials told us on April 2, 2008,
that they have a draft master schedule that includes more details and
interim milestones for SBInet activities. However, the document is with
CBP and DHS management for final approval.
* Do not include details about expected performance levels for fiscal
year 2008 or link planned expenditures to mission benefits and
outcomes.
With regard to SBI TI, the expenditure plan includes information
required by the condition, such as:
* budget amounts for specific SBI TI activities for fiscal year 2008,
including pedestrian and vehicle fencing projects on the southwest
border, and;
* planned SBI TI activities for calendar year 2008, including
construction of a total of 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300
miles of vehicle fencing.
However, for SBI TI, the plan and related documentation do not include:
* milestone-based delivery of capabilities to ensure that the SBI
office will meet its 2008 goal of completing 670 miles of fencing by
December 2008; or;
* detailed expected performance levels for fiscal year 2008 or link
planned expenditures to mission benefits and outcomes.
Legislative Condition #4: Identifies Staffing Requirements by Activity
(Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Identifies staffing (including full-time
equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, satisfied the condition because it identified
staffing requirements by activity and how the program office has made
progress toward meeting its staffing goals.
As of February 22, 2008, CBP‘s SBI program office, including its
offices of SBInet and SBI TI, have 249 employees on-board and projects
having 359 employees on-board by the end of fiscal year 2008 (see table
4).
Table 4: Actual and Projected CBP SBI Employees:
Actual, February 22, 2008:
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008:
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008:
CBP SBI staff: Government employees: SBInet;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 68;
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 44;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 112.
CBP SBI staff: Government employees: Program Office;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 33;
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 21;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 54.
CBP SBI staff: Government employees: Tactical Infrastructure;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 3;
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 11;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 14.
CBP SBI staff: Contract support employees: SBInet;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 117;
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 18;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 135.
CBP SBI staff: Contract support employees: Program Office;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 19;
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 2;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 21.
CBP SBI staff: Contract support employees: Tactical Infrastructure;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 9;
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 14;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 23.
CBP SBI staff: Total;
Actual, February 22, 2008: 249[A];
Projected increases for fiscal year 2008: 110;
Projected total by the end of fiscal year 2008: 359.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
[A] According to the plan, this includes 20 detailees.
[End of table]
The SBI staff work in Integrated Project Teams, which are teams that
work across office functions, in order to draw on different areas of
expertise to achieve their objectives.
In December 2007, the SBI office published the first version of its
Strategic Human Capital Management Plan and is now in the early
implementation phase. The plan outlines seven main goals for the office
and activities to accomplish those goals, which align with federal
government best practices.
Legislative Condition #5: Describes How the Plan Addresses Security
Needs at the Northern Border and Ports of Entry (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Describes how the plan addresses security needs
at the northern border and the ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design, and operations requirements.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, satisfied the condition. The plan addressed the
security needs at the northern border and ports of entry by providing a
description of planned activities; however, the northern border plan is
in the preliminary stage and much more evaluation needs to be done as
border security solutions are proposed and concepts tested. At this
preliminary stage, consideration has been given to the overall security
needs of the northern border, but implementation strategies are in the
early stages of development.
The plan and related documentation includes information about
infrastructure, design, and operations requirements, for example:
* CBP‘s Air and Marine plans to have five air wings in five northern
border locations by spring 2008;
* CBP plans to install vehicle fencing along the U.S.-Canada border in
the Blaine Sector in Washington state;
* CBP and SBI are developing up to four Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statements based on northern border sectors; and;
* elements of CBP, including Field Operations, Border Patrol, and Air
and Marine, have worked together to determine the mix of personnel,
technology, and infrastructure to achieve the maximum strategic
advantage of the northern border.
A February 2008 CBP report [Footnote 30] to Congress about ongoing DHS
northern border initiatives discussed steps that CBP is taking to
address security needs at the northern border and the ports of entry,
specifically infrastructure, technology, design, and operations
requirements, including:
* increasing personnel (e.g., Border Patrol) along northern border;
* improving intelligence sharing with federal, state, and local law
enforcement;
* implementing SBInet technology and tactical infrastructure solutions;
* upgrading land port inspection facilities; and;
* expanding liaison efforts with international stakeholders.
Additionally, GAO is evaluating the February 2008 report to Congress as
mandated by section 731 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007.[Footnote 31]
Legislative Condition #6: Reports on Costs Incurred, Activities
Completed, and Progress (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Reports on costs incurred, the activities
completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining
operational control of the entire border of the United States.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied the condition because it
reports obligations and budgeted amounts. In addition, SBI officials
provided us with aggregate expenditure data as of March 26, 2008.
However, the plan does not attribute changes in the level of
operational border control to SBI activities.
The expenditure plan reports on ’costs“ for specific SBI activities but
does not clearly distinguish between obligated or budgeted amounts, nor
does it report program expenditures. CBP officials provided us with
related program documentation to clarify information in the plan
related to appropriations, obligations and expenditures.
The plan also discusses the progress of specific SBI activities and
presents a breakdown of border miles under operational control for the
U.S. southwest, northern, and coastal borders for fiscal years 2005
through 2007. However, it does not delineate between improvements in
operational control that are directly attributable to SBI activities
and those that are caused by concurrent government actions. Other
concurrent activities include hiring of additional Border Patrol
agents, deploying National Guard members along U.S. borders, and
coordinating efforts between DHS and local authorities.
Legislative Condition #7: Lists All Open GAO and OIG Recommendations
(Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a list of all open GAO and OIG
recommendations related to the program and the status of DHS actions to
address the recommendations, including milestones to fully address
them.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, satisfied the condition. The plan lists the
recommendations and provides the status and actions taken to address
each one.
The plan and related documentation list five open DHS OIG
recommendations. CBP reports that it concurred with all five
recommendations and is taking corrective actions to address these
recommendations.
The plan lists one open GAO recommendation.[Footnote 32] The GAO
recommendation, made in February 2007, was to ’ensure that future
expenditure plans include explicit and measurable commitments relative
to the capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with
individual SBInet program activities.“ The plan states that the status
of the recommendation depends on GAO‘s review of the fiscal year 2008
expenditure plan.
Based on our review, the fiscal year 2008 expenditure plan is more
detailed and thorough than the fiscal year 2007 plan, but does not
fully satisfy our February 2007 recommendation because it does not
include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the
capabilities, schedule, costs and benefits for individual SBI program
activities.
Legislative Condition #8: Certification by the DHS CPO (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that the
program has been reviewed and approved in accordance with the
investment management process of DHS, and that the process fulfills all
capital planning and investment control requirements and reviews
established by OMB, including Circular A-11, part 7.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, satisfied the condition. The DHS CPO certified
that the program underwent multiple reviews from DHS upper management,
and that it complied with capital planning and investment control
procedures, per OMB Circular A-11, Part 7.
The DHS CPO also certified that the SBI program underwent an out-of-
cycle investment review. Specifically, a Deep Dive Review of the SBInet
program,[Footnote 33] was conducted from September 11 through 20, 2007,
by a team that included experts from various institutions, such as
Johns Hopkins University and the Defense Acquisition University.
However, the Deep Dive Review is not part of the DHS investment
management process. In addition, DHS officials have indicated that the
DHS Joint Requirement Council, responsible for reviewing the program
and providing recommendations to the DHS Investment Review Board, has
not been active.
We have ongoing work on the oversight process of major acquisitions at
DHS, including SBInet, and plan to report on the results of that review
in the fall of 2008.
Legislative Condition #9: Certification by the DHS CIO (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the DHS CIO that the
system architecture of the program is sufficiently aligned with the
information systems enterprise architecture of the Department to
minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of the
architectures that were and were not assessed in making the alignment
determination, the date of the alignment determination, and any known
areas of misalignment along with the associated risks and corrective
actions to address any such areas.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied the condition. The DHS
Acting CIO conditionally certified this condition, and as part of this
certification described aspects of the architecture that were and were
not assessed, cited the date of the alignment determination, and
identified areas of misalignment and associated corrective actions to
address them. However, the DHS Acting CIO certification was based on a
dated review of the program that was not grounded in an explicit
methodology or alignment decision criteria. Moreover, the DHS Acting
CIO conditional certification did not address the program risks
associated with identified areas of misalignment.
On March 26, 2008, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified that
SBInet was sufficiently aligned with the department‘s enterprise
architecture. Specifically:
* The certification was based on a 6-month old DHS Enterprise
Architecture Board (EAB) conditional approval of the program that
preceded recent changes to the program. In addition, GAO has previously
reported that the EAB‘s architecture alignment decisions are not based
on a documented methodology and explicit decision criteria, and are
thus not verifiable.[Footnote 34]
* The EAB‘s approval cited eight issues (i.e., areas of misalignment)
that needed to be addressed. In general the issues were due to:
- program documentation that needed to be updated to reflect the
current state of the program, and;
- program aspects that were not part of the scope of the EAB‘s
alignment assessment.
* As of the DHS Acting CIO‘s March 2008 conditional certification,this
documentation had not been updated and the missing program aspects had
not been assessed. This is important because the DHS Acting CIO‘s March
2008 conditional certification states that sufficient alignment with
the DHS enterprise architecture depends upon completing each of the
corrective actions associated with the eight issues.
* The SBI program office is to submit a status report to the EAB by May
30, 2008. At that time, the DHS Acting CIO will reevaluate this
conditional certification.
Legislative Condition #10: Certification by the DHS CPO (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that the
plans for the program comply with the Federal acquisition rules,
requirements, guidelines, and practices, and a description of the
actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance, the risks
associated with them along with any plans for addressing these risks,
and the status of their implementation.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, satisfied the condition. The DHS CPO certified
that the program complied with Federal acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and practices.
On March 20, 2008, the DHS CPO certified that the plans for the SBI
program complied with Federal acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and practices. Specifically, DHS CPO officials:
* noted that the program had multiple reviews from DHS upper
management, and that it underwent an out-of-cycle investment review
(e.g., the Deep Dive Review);
* conducted contract and pricing reviews based on the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and DHS regulations; and;
* did not identify any areas of non-compliance.
Legislative Condition #11: Certification by the DHS CIO (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the DHS CIO that the
program has a risk management process that regularly and proactively
identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors risks throughout the
system life cycle and communicates high risk conditions to CBP and DHS
investment decision makers, as well as a listing of all the program‘s
high risks and the status of efforts to address them.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied the condition. The DHS
Acting CIO conditionally certified this condition because, among other
things, he said that the risk management process used by the SBInet
program is not vigorous enough to mitigate the risks of a program of
its size.
On March 26, 2008, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified that the
SBInet program has a risk management process in place for the fiscal
year 2008 expenditure plan. In the certification documentation, the DHS
Acting CIO noted that:
* the risk management process utilized by SBInet is not vigorous enough
to mitigate the risks of a program of its size;
* the SBInet program office is working to improve its risk management
process to better identify and monitor risks throughout the system life
cycle; and;
* the SBInet program office is to submit revised documentation by May
30, 2008. At that time, the DHS Acting CIO will reevaluate this
conditional certification.
Legislative Condition #12: Certification by the DHS CHCO (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the DHS CHCO that
the human capital needs of the program are being strategically and
proactively managed, and that current human capital capabilities are
sufficient to execute the plans discussed in the report.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, satisfied the condition. The DHS Acting CHCO
certified this condition because he determined that the SBI human
capital plan meets federal government best practices.
On February 14, 2008, the DHS Acting CHCO certified that the fiscal
year 2008 expenditure plan provides specific initiatives to address
hiring, development, and retention of employees in the SBI program.
According to officials from the CHCO office, the Human Capital
Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) was the primary
criterion used for the basis of his certification. [Footnote 35]
Specifically, the agency officials said that the SBI Strategic Human
Capital Management Plan issued in December 2007:
* is modeled after the HCAAF,•addresses the areas outlined in the
HCAAF;
* incorporates a section that deals with metrics;
* shows how SBI is going to measure human capital needs, and;
* is aligned with DHS-wide human capital strategic planning
initiatives.
Legislative Condition #13: Analysis of Fencing Segments (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes an analysis by the Secretary for each
segment, defined as no more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical
infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative
means of achieving operational control, including cost, level of
operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and
other factors critical to the decision making process.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied the condition because, among
other things, it reports on fencing segments and possible effects on
communities.However, the plan does not include information on cost per
segment nor does it provide a comparative analysis of alternative means
(e.g., the use of technology instead of fencing and vice versa) of
achieving operational control.
The segment analyses in the expenditure plan include:
* segments that are 15 miles or less in length;
* possible unintended effects on communities and the environment (e.g.,
effects on wildlife, vegetation, and cultural and historic resources);
and;
* other decision making factors relevant to each segment (e.g., the
average time it would take illegal entrants to blend in with the local
population, the terrain, and possible smuggling threats).
Additionally, the expenditure plan reports that the SBI program office:
* estimates that pedestrian fencing will cost about $4 million per mile
and vehicle fencing will cost about $2 million per mile;
* plans to construct infrastructure where it is the most appropriate to
achieve and maintain control of the border; and;
* is considering possible effects on communities through town hall
meetings, meetings with public groups and state/local officials, and
open houses.
However, segment analyses do not include:
* cost information per segment or;
* comparative analyses of alternative means of achieving operational
control.
Legislative Condition #14: Certifications by the DHS CPO and the DHS
CIO (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the DHS CPO that
procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime
integrator and major subcontractors are established and that the SBI
Program Office has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage
the SBI program, SBI network contract, and any related contracts,
including the exercise of technical oversight, and includes a
certification by the DHS CIO that an independent verification and
validation (IV&V) agent is currently under contract for the projects
funded under this heading.
The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program
officials‘ statements, partially satisfied the condition. The DHS CPO
certified that the SBI program office has established procedures to
prevent conflicts of interest between the prime contractor and major
subcontractors, and has adequate staff and resources to manage the
program. In addition, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified this
condition because, among other things, although funding has been
obligated for the entire SBI program to receive IV&V support via an
existing CBP IV&V contract, the task order for this has not yet been
awarded to an IV&V agent.
On March 20, 2008, the DHS CPO certified this condition on the basis of
information from ongoing and past SBI reviews conducted by his office.
Specifically:
* The DHS CPO noted that the SBInet technology prime contractor has an
Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan in place that:
- delineates, among other things, responsibility for avoiding,
identifying, evaluating, and resolving organizational conflicts of
interest; and;
- complies with FAR Subpart 9.5.[Footnote 36]
* In addition, the DHS CPO noted that CBP realigned its procurement
function and created a separate Senior Executive Service Head of
Contracting Activity (HCA) position that reports directly to CBP‘s
Assistant Commissioner of Finance, and has a functional relationship
with the DHS CPO. Specifically, the HCA is working with DHS CPO staff
to develop an initial workforce plan that outlines the number of
additional personnel required, skill sets required, and an approach for
hiring and retaining the staffing needed.
On March 13, 2008, the DHS Acting CIO conditionally certified that the
SBI program has an IV&V agent under contract for the fiscal year 2008
expenditure plan. The certification was conditional for two reasons:
* although funding has been obligated for the SBI program to receive
IV&V support via an existing CBP IV&V contract, the task order for this
has not yet been awarded to an IV&V agent; and;
* although the CBP IV&V contract states that the chosen IV&V agent‘s
approach will comply with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) standards, the agent‘s documents proving this to
be the case will not be available for review until after the task order
is awarded.
The DHS Acting CIO directed the SBI program office to submit the
necessary documentation 30 to 60 days after contract award.The DHS
Acting CIO is to then review the documentation to ensure that the IV&V
agent is executing a process that complies with DHS and IEEE standards.
Legislative Condition #15: Is Reviewed by GAO (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Is reviewed by GAO.
Our review of the expenditure plan satisfied the condition.
The SBI program office provided draft versions of the expenditure plan
and supporting documentation.
We also reviewed the final version of the plan submitted to Congress on
March 31, 2008.
We conducted our review from January 29 through April 2, 2008.
Concluding Observations:
The fiscal year 2008 SBI expenditure plan, including related
documentation and program officials‘ statements, satisfied 7, partially
satisfied 7, and did not satisfy 1 of the 15 conditions legislated by
Congress. The legislatively mandated expenditure plan requirement for
SBI is a congressional oversight mechanism aimed at ensuring that
planned expenditures are justified, performance against plans is
measured, and accountability for results is established.
The fiscal year 2008 SBI expenditure plan, combined with other
available program documentation and program officials‘ statements, does
not provide sufficient justification for all planned SBI expenditures,
nor does it permit progress against program commitments to be
adequately measured and disclosed. Although 7 of the 15 stated
legislative conditions for the expenditure plan are fully satisfied, 8
others have gaps that, until they are addressed, could limit DHS‘s
ability to manage the program today.
Satisfying the legislative conditions is important because the
expenditure plan is intended to provide Congress with the information
needed to effectively oversee the program and hold DHS accountable for
program results. Satisfying the legislative conditions is also
important to minimize the program‘s exposure to cost, schedule, and
performance risks.
The fiscal year 2008 expenditure plan is more detailed and thorough
than the fiscal year 2007 plan. However, it does not fully satisfy our
February 2007 recommendation that the plan include explicit and
measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule, costs,
and benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities
[Footnote 37] because, among other things, it does not provide complete
information about the SBI schedule and costs. As investment in SBI-
related projects continues, fulfilling this recommendation will become
increasingly important to ensure accountability and transparency.
Given that this is the second expenditure plan requested by Congress
for CBP‘s SBI program and that the DHS Acting CIO has stated that the
SBI risk management program does not mitigate risks for a program of
its size, it is even more important that the plan meet the legislative
conditions and that our recommendation be fully implemented.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this briefing, CBP officials generally
agreed with most of our findings. However, they did not agree with our
assessments that the expenditure plan did not satisfy legislative
condition #2, and partially satisfied conditions #3 and #6.
Legislative condition #2 requires CBP to describe how activities will
further the objectives of SBI‘s multi-year strategic plan, and how the
plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs.
We stated that the expenditure plan did not satisfy this legislative
condition because it did not clearly demonstrate how specific CBP SBI
activities link with the overall goal of controlling the border, nor
did it show how funding was allocated to the highest priority
requirements. CBP commented that all SBInet and SBI TI activities have
clear strategic alignment to the various DHS, CBP, and SBI strategic
plans, and that these activities are described throughout the
expenditure plan and are paramount to achieving the goal of controlling
the border. We agree that the expenditure plan shows some alignment to
the strategic plans, but maintain our position because the expenditure
plan and supporting documentation does not make detailed and explicit
linkages to various SBI activities, nor does it show that funding is
allocated to the highest priorities. Therefore, Congress is not in a
position to understand how SBI‘s specific activities contribute to
these objectives, or to understand the priorities and how they are
addressed.
Legislative condition #3 requires an explicit plan of action defining
how all funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments,
with the planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based
delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance levels,
mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities. We
stated that the plan partially satisfies this legislative condition
because it does not provide explicit information, for example, on
expected performance levels for fiscal year 2008 SBInet and SBI TI
program activities. CBP commented that the expenditure plan‘s Executive
Summary contains this information. We agree that the Executive Summary
contains this information at a high level, but does not present the
explicit plan of action required by the legislative condition.
Therefore, we maintain our position that this condition is partially
satisfied.
Legislative condition #6 requires reports on costs incurred, the
activities completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of
obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United
States. We stated that the plan partially satisfies this condition
because it does not attribute changes in the level of operational
border control to SBI activities. CBP commented that the plan clearly
states the objectives for the construction of tactical infrastructure
and links these efforts to the goal of gaining effective control of the
border. We maintain our position that the plan partially satisfies this
condition because it does not delineate between improvements in
operational control that are directly attributable to SBI activities
and those that are caused by concurrent government actions.
DHS, CBP and SBI officials also provided clarifying information that we
incorporated as appropriate in this briefing.
Related GAO Products:
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying
Lessons Learned to Future Projects. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-508T]. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet
Program Implementation. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-131T]. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements
Needed to Control Risks. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-504T]. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better
Support Oversight and Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309]. Washington, D.C.:
February 15, 2007.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]:
June 16, 2008:
Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's)
draft report Secure Border Initiative: SBI Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure
Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight
and DHS Accountability, GAO-08-739R. The fiscal year (FY) 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act required the DHS to submit to Congress
an expenditure plan for our efforts to establish a security barrier
along the borders of the United States, including pedestrian and
vehicle fencing as well as other forms of tactical infrastructure and
technology. This plan was to address 15 legislative conditions and was
submitted to Congress on March 13, 2008.
GAO found that the expenditure plan, including related documentation
and program officials' statements, satisfied seven legislative
conditions, partially satisfied seven others, and did not satisfy one
condition.
In addition to assessing the program's fulfillment of the legislative
conditions, GAO recommended that U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP's) Secure Border Initiative Executive Director ensure that future
expenditure plans include an explicit description of how activities
will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border
Strategic Plan; and how the plan allocates funding to the highest
priority border security needs to provide Congress with information it
needs to oversee the program.
The Department agrees with the recommendation. CBP will ensure that
future expenditure plans are developed in accordance with the
legislative conditions and clearly document how SBI activities align
with the Department's Secure Border Strategic Plan, including budget-
specific details regarding funding allocation for the highest priority
border security needs. Department and CBP officials will continue to
work with the GAO to improve future SBI Expenditure Plans to provide
Congress with the information needed for better oversight.
Our response to this draft report reflects the information that was
provided to Chairman David Price, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Committee on Appropriations regarding the Secure Border Initiative's
Expenditure Plan for FY 2008 in a letter dated June 3, 2008. In that
letter the Secretary provided an addendum to the SBI FY 2008
expenditure plan addressing the legislative conditions that were
partially satisfied or not satisfied.
The following replicates the Secretary's response to Chairman Price.
The investment for the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
Technology (BSFIT) account for securing America's borders has been
successful and continues to yield systematic and tangible results with
the appropriations provided. For example, since the end of FY 2006, the
miles of southern border under effective control increased by 204
miles. This increase can be attributed, in large part, to the
investments in personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure. As
of May 2008, $1.3 billion dollars have been obligated of the FY 2007
and FY 2008 BSFIT appropriation. DHS's U.S. Customs and Border
Protection plans to obligate the full FY 2008 appropriation this
calendar year upon release of the remaining FY 2008 appropriation.
The information below details the overall strategy for securing our
southwest land border between the ports of entry. Also provided is an
update on the capabilities our BSFIT investments have and will provide
to CBP's operators. This addendum to the FY 2008 expenditure plan
addresses Chairman Price's concerns in the following sections:
Conditions 2, 3, and 6: National Border Patrol Strategy:
Capabilities Enabling Effective Control of the Border:
Determining the Level of Control:
CBP Priorities for BSFIT Funding:
Conditions 1, 9, 11, 13, and 14: SBI Tactical Infrastructure:
SBInet Technology:
The Department is at the point where, if $175 million of the $650
million being held is not released immediately, a number of time-
sensitive projects will be delayed including 19 pedestrian fencing
projects that will be placed at high risk of not being completed by the
congressionally mandated date of December 31, 2008.
National Border Patrol Strategy:
Heretofore, BSFIT funding has been spent almost exclusively on CBP's
efforts to gain control of the border between the ports of entry. As
such, the operational requirements of the Border Patrol have been the
principal driver of BSFIT planning and expenditures.
CBP's strategy to secure our Nation's borders between the ports of
entry is prescribed largely in the National Border Patrol Strategy.
Below is a brief explanation of the principles employed by
deployments in support of the National Strategy.
The primary goal of the National Border Patrol Strategy is Effective
Control, which is achieved when a Chief Patrol Agent determines that
agents deployed in any given area are able to:
* Detect an illegal entry into the United States between the Ports of
Entry;
* Identify and classify the threat level associated with that illegal
entry;
* Respond to the area of the illegal entry, and;
* Bring the situation to a law enforcement resolution (i.e. arrest).
Effective Control is established through the proper mix of technology,
personnel, and infrastructure (to include pedestrian and vehicle
fencing) that will allow us to confront illegal cross border activity.
The mix of these three components will vary depending on the challenges
of the focus area.
* Technology is the baseline requirement for any area of operations. It
allows us to detect the entries and to identify and classify the
threat.
* Personnel provide the response to confront illegal cross border
activity.
* Tactical Infrastructure supports the response by providing access,
and also extends response time by deterring or slowing the ability to
easily cross the border and escape.
The Strategy is to gain, maintain, and expand effective control.
* Gain: Deploy resources based on known threats, vulnerability, and
risk;
* Maintain: Sustain effective control once gained and seek efficiencies
to allow us to hold the area with fewer resources;
* Expand: As we gain control of any given area, smuggling activity will
be displaced to other areas of operations. We will adjust deployment of
resources to expand effective control to areas where smuggling activity
shifts in reaction to our enforcement efforts.
It is important to note that the National Border Patrol Strategy, and
BSFIT funded activities, directly support DHS's SBI Performance Goal
1.1 -- "Develop and deploy the optimal mix of personnel,
infrastructure, technology, and response capabilities to identify,
classify, and interdict cross-border violators."
Capabilities Enabling Effective Control of the Border:
Each Sector has developed operational plans to achieve effective
control of the border in their area of responsibility (AOR). These
plans are updated annually, and provide a baseline assessment of the
current level of control throughout their AOR and the resources (e.g.,
Border Patrol Agents, air support, fencing, radars, cameras, ground
sensors, etc.) needed to ultimately gain effective control of their
AOR.
Based on an analysis of the terrain and operational dynamic, the Border
Patrol Planner will determine the right mix of technology,
infrastructure, and personnel needed to detect, identify and classify,
respond, and resolve illegal incursions in that area. The planner
"rates" the different components' capabilities. Some of the key
components employed today are rated against the following capabilities:
* Sensors = Detection & Tracking;
* Cameras = Identification and Classification;
* Radars, Aircraft, Sensors = Detection and Tracking;
* Pedestrian Fence = Persistent Pedestrian Impedance/Delay;
* Vehicle Fence = Persistent Vehicle Impedance/Delay;
* Border Patrol Agents = Response and Resolution.
Determining the Level of Control:
Since 2004, the Border Patrol has used a very complex, analytical
process to determine the level of border security. It involves defined
analysis of operational data, available resources, third party
indicators, and the experience and professional expertise of the Border
Patrol's senior field managers.
Operational Data. The Border Patrol uses a variety of operational data
to determine the current level of border security. Data include:
* sensor activations;
* narcotic seizures;
* known entries;
* border rescues/deaths;
* agent observations;
* assaults on agents, etc.;
* apprehensions.
The data are examined in-depth. When reviewing apprehensions,
considerations include:
* the country of citizenship of the illegal aliens;
* method of entry (foot or vehicle);
* the size of the groups or smuggling loads involved;
* the time and day of the activity;
* the location of activity;
* smuggling fees;
* violence associated with the apprehensions.
Narcotics seizures are analyzed in terms of the amount of narcotics
involved in each seizure, the types of narcotics seized, and whether
there were weapons involved. The analysis includes reviews of sector
intelligence reports and interviews of apprehended aliens and
smugglers.
Available Resource. The Border Patrol resources available are a
critical consideration. Resources are assessed to determine whether
available staffing levels are sufficient to deter illegal entries,
adequately secure known smuggling routes, and respond to agent
observations and sensor activations. This also includes an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the available technology (sensors, night vision
scopes, cameras, etc.) and their effectiveness at detecting and
deterring entries. Further, the impact of existing tactical
infrastructure and its role in facilitating deterrence or interdictions
is reviewed.
Other Indicators. Other indicators of activity within the station's AOR
are considered. These include:
* intelligence reports concerning the political/economic/social climate
of the region on the other side of the border and alien smuggling
operations;
* the volume of litter along known or new smuggling routes;
* abandoned vehicles;
* caches of narcotics;
* breached fences;
* the volume or "freshness" of footprints or vehicle tracks along known
or new smuggling routes;
* the activities at checkpoints in other AORs at which illegal aliens
or narcotics entering through the AOR were apprehended or seized
Third Party Indicators. The analysis of operational data is then
supplemented with the analysis of third party indicators. Examples of
third party indicators include:
* local crime rates (vandalism, vehicle thefts, burglaries, assaults);
* hospital emergency room records concerning injured illegal aliens;
* media reports;
* information received from local police departments;
* complaints from ranchers regarding missing livestock and damaged
fences;
* complaints from farmers about damaged crops;
* traffic accidents involving illegal aliens;
* citizen complaints;
* abandoned vehicles or vessels found in remote areas;
* complaints from Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, tribal officials, etc., concerning fires, litter, and
desecration of protected areas involving illegal alien activity.
Experience and Professional Expertise of Sector Chiefs. The compilation
of all that is known about the situation within the AOR is then coupled
with the experience and expertise of the Border Patrol agents and their
knowledge of the AOR to determine the level of border security.
Strategic definitions of effective control are assessed using the
following criteria:
Level of Control: Effective Control;
Criteria: Situation Awareness is High; Ability to Respond is High:
* Probability of detection is high;
* The ability to identify and classify entries is high;
* The Border Patrol's ability to consistently respond to entries and
resolve events is high, and;
* These miles are usually located in urban or high risk areas.
Level of Control: Initial Control Capabilities Established:
Criteria: Situation Awareness is High; however, the ability to respond
is defined by accessibility to the area and/or availability of
resources:
* Probability of detection is high;
* The ability to identify and classify entries is high, and;
* The Border Patrol's ability to consistently respond to entries and
resolve events may be limited due to a lack of resources (staff,
technology or accessibility due to terrain);
* These miles are usually located in less urban areas.
Level of Control: Less Monitored;
Criteria: Situation Awareness is Low; the ability to respond is defined
by accessibility to the area and/or availability of resources:
* Ability to conduct any of the four steps (detect, identify/classify,
respond or resolve) may be limited due to remoteness, terrain, lack of
resources, etc.;
* These miles are often located in less accessible rural or remote
areas.
Level of Control: Remote/Low Activity;
Criteria: Situation Awareness is Low; the ability to respond is defined
by accessibility to the area and/or availability of resources:
* Often located in extremely remote areas, where access is limited,
alien traffic less active, and less traditional methods of border
security must be employed.
Current Level of Control. As highlighted below, as of March 31, 2008,
there were 549 miles of the southern border considered under effective
control. In the first six months in FY 2008, 63 additional miles of
effective control were achieved through the deployment of additional
fencing, sensor technology and increased personnel numbers.
Number of Miles Under Control, Southwest Border:
Data as of: 03/31/2008:
Date: October 2005:
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Effective Control: 241;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Initial Control Capabilities
Established: 586;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Less Monitored: 903;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Remote/Low Activity: 263;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Border Patrol Agents: 11,264;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Fence Miles: 119.4.
Date: March 2006:
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Effective Control: 284;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Initial Control Capabilities
Established: 626;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Less Monitored: 827;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Remote/Low Activity: 256;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Border Patrol Agents: 11,902*;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Fence Miles: 126.9.
Date: October 2006:
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Effective Control: 345;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Initial Control Capabilities
Established: 662;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Less Monitored: 783;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Remote/Low Activity: 203;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Border Patrol Agents: 12,349;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Fence Miles: 139.4.
Date: March 2007:
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Effective Control: 380;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Initial Control Capabilities
Established: 698;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Less Monitored: 712;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Remote/Low Activity: 203;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Border Patrol Agents: 12,957;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Fence Miles: 163.1.
Date: October 2007:
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Effective Control: 486;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Initial Control Capabilities
Established: 622;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Less Monitored: 885;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Remote/Low Activity: 0;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Border Patrol Agents: 14,923;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Fence Miles: 264.2.
Date: March 2008:
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Effective Control: 549;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Initial Control Capabilities
Established: 622;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Less Monitored: 822;
Miles Under Control, Southwest Border: Remote/Low Activity: 0;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Border Patrol Agents: 15,985;
Deployed Resources (National Total): Fence Miles: 313.5.
* July 2006 data. March 2006 data not available.
[End of table]
While additional resources, tactical infrastructure, and technology
will continue to contribute to enhancing effective control of the
Nation's borders, it is important to emphasize that effective control
of a specific segment is not necessarily gained through the deployment
of just one tool or resource. In most cases, fencing will be
complemented with technology and enforcement personnel. In some cases,
such as pedestrian fencing in urban areas, sensors and cameras will be
installed to alert agents to any attempted breaches of the fencing. In
more rural areas where vehicle fencing is installed, any range of
technologies may be required to detect, monitor, and facilitate a
response to intrusions by foot.
Additionally, once established, border security levels remain dynamic.
While the goal is always to increase the level of border security,
security may decline as a result of many factors. These factors include
the effect of enforcement efforts in adjacent stations or sectors,
changes in the level or nature of criminal activity, or unanticipated
declines in resources availability. Therefore, to maintain and expand
on our established border security levels, it is critical to continue
the appropriate application of personnel, technology, and tactical
infrastructure.
CBP's priorities for BSFIT Funding:
CBP's priorities for using BSFIT funds to support DHS SBI Strategic
Goal 1.1 and the National Border Patrol Strategy are:
SBI Tactical Infrastructure:
1. Completion of 370 miles of pedestrian fence;
2. Completion of 300 miles of vehicle fence.
SBInet Technology:
1. Deploy SBInet technology in the TUS-1 project area;
2. Deploy SBInet technology in the AID-1 project area;
3. Northern Border Demonstration Project;
4. Complete the deployment design work necessary to field SBInet
technology in the remaining areas of the Tucson Sector.
Chairman Price's specific concerns regarding SBI Tactical
Infrastructure (TI) and SBInet technology deployment activities are
discussed below. As an aid for this discussion, an overview of the key
milestones, obligations, capabilities supported, and metrics DHS will
use to measure mission effectiveness are found at Attachment 1.
SBI Tactical Infrastructure:
Progress in Deploying Persistent Impedance Capability. Persistent
impedance is the enduring capability to consistently and constantly
slow, delay, and be an obstacle to movement. Pedestrian and vehicle
fence are utilized to provide this capability along our borders. As of
May 12, 2008, the SBI TI program has constructed fencing totaling 324.3
miles along the southwest border (179.3 miles of pedestrian and 145
miles of vehicle fence). There are 100 tactical infrastructure projects
remaining and the SBI TI performance schedule, as set forth in
Attachment 2, will assist in ensuring that our goal of constructing 670
miles of tactical infrastructure by the end of calendar year 2008 is
met. Capability and performance outcomes are already being realized,
for example:
* Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). CBP deployed 31 miles of vehicle and
pedestrian fencing on the southern border of the Barry M. Goldwater
Range (BMGR) to mitigate illegal border crossings interfering with
Department of Defense activities. As a result of this project, from
January to April 2008, the number of apprehensions declined from 30,441
to 6,667 along the BMGR border area where the fencing is deployed,
representing a 78 percent decline year-to-date from the same period in
2007. Similarly, only one single vehicle incursion occurred from
October 2007 to May 2008, a decline from 172 vehicle incursions in the
same period a year earlier. This project is a firm example of the value
persistent impedance provides to CBP.
Analysis of Specific Segments of Miles Intended for Fencing. On May 13,
2008, the SBI Executive Director and other CBP officials met with
Chairman Price's staff to discuss the analysis of alternatives and
provided two sample segment analyses for review and comment. CBP
received feedback from Chairman Price's staff on May 19, 2008, and has
been working to revise our templates and analyses to address a request
for additional details. There are extensive documentation and field
experience-based judgments to support fencing decisions, but this
knowledge base is not available in the construct the Chairman
requested. The Department is, however, committed to producing a more
user-friendly technical alternatives analysis along the lines the
Chairman requested, and will deliver the analyses of alternatives to
the Chairman's office as they are completed in the coming weeks.
Pedestrian Fence Costs. As requested, to support the analysis of
alternatives for pedestrian fence, Attachment 2 also provides a
detailed listing of estimated pedestrian fence costs for projects
scheduled to be completed this calendar year.
Life Cycle Fence Costs. The Department anticipates the fence will have
a 20-year useful life. In addition to the cost of construction, the
primary factor contributing to the life cycle cost is operation and
maintenance (O&M). This O&M cost is largely influenced by costs of
repair resulting from illegal activity. Moreover, given the magnitude
of the current TI deployment activities, our ability to more accurately
estimate O&M costs is limited. Heretofore, Border Patrol agents in the
field have been repairing damaged fencing. Accordingly, we do not have
historical cost data on fence repair upon which to estimate.
We are currently collecting information and believe that by early
calendar year 2009, we will have enough history and experience from
which we can assess the life cycle cost estimate, and plan more
accurately for future budgets and program baselines. In the near term,
the FY 2009 President's budget requests $75 million for operations and
maintenance of tactical infrastructure that we believe is sufficient to
repair damages due to incursions and general maintenance after full
construction is completed.
Program Management. As with other CBP SBI programs, SBInet and SBI
Transportation, the SBI Tactical Infrastructure Program Management
Office (SBI TI PMO) is organized into a strong, matrix organization
headed by a program manager who is certified in acquisition program
management and reports directly to the SBI Program Executive Director.
This strong, matrix organizational structure provides for the formation
of Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) composed of the dedicated functional
personnel required to execute SBI TI projects. Appropriate
representatives of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and other government
stakeholder organizations are active participants in the IPTs.
The SBI TI PMO was established in the fall 2007 to manage the
unprecedented investment of tactical infrastructure along our southwest
border. A comprehensive staffing plan, along with defined roles and
responsibilities for each position in the office, was prepared and used
to guide and manage priority staffing requirements. Moreover, an
intensive and focused staffing effort is ongoing to ensure that the
office is adequately staffed with the government professionals and
contractor support necessary to accomplish its mission.
Recurring internal communications, reporting channels, and knowledge
sharing systems have been established and are being utilized to
integrate and align the office's activities. This includes weekly
senior staff meetings and integrated bi-weekly program management
reviews. Program and project information is maintained in shared
repositories and an Integrated Master Plan/Integrated Master Schedule
has been developed. Of note is the information system and performance
dashboard developed and maintained by the SBI TI PMO to track all fence
projects, their schedule and costs, real estate acquisition, and
supporting documents such as individual project statements of work and
task orders. These tools and reporting structure provide a robust
management program that has enabled visibility and mitigation of risks
and issues as they arise.
SBInet Technology:
Progress in Deploying SBInet Technology Capability. CBP is currently
completing design of its first operational configuration for the SBInet
technology solution. Laboratory integration and testing of production
software and hardware began in late spring 2008, and pending successful
integration and testing of the production software and hardware in a
laboratory environment, we anticipate beginning tower construction and
deployment in late summer 2008 with a target completion date of our
first operational spiral in December 2008. The projects included in
this deployment effort are TUS-1 located in a 23-mile area of the
Tucson Sector and AJO-1 located in a 30-mile area in the Tucson Sector.
Specific milestones associated with SBInet technology deployment this
calendar year are included in Attachment 1. Going forward, CBP plans to
complete SBInet deployment in the balance of the Tucson Sector in CY
2009, Yuma Sector in CY 2010, and El Paso Sector in CY 2011.
We have several key projects that support development and deployment of
technology capability for CBP and the Border Patrol. These projects
include:
* Project 28. Project 28 was implemented along 28 miles of border
flanking the Sasabe, Arizona port of entry. This project was the
initial demonstration of Boeing's technology concept. As such, the
system was designed to be an operational prototype that could be tested
and evaluated to serve as the initial building block for the system's
future technology. After successful field testing, CBP formally
accepted the prototype and completed the project in February 2008.
The lessons learned and information gathered from use of the system has
allowed CBP to proceed on a deliberate path to future technology
integration and deployment. Moreover, the system continues to provide
technology capability to the Border Patrol in an area that previously
did not have these resources. The system has increased our
effectiveness, is providing operational value, and has supported the
Border Patrol in apprehending over 3,520 illegal aliens and smugglers
since late September 2007.
* SBInet System Design. Since September 19, 2006, CBP has been
gathering operational requirements from its operators and developing
the SBInet Block 1 system that will be deployed later this calendar
year. Through this effort, they have completed:
- a set of modeling and analytical tools 10 requirements;
- a detailed assessment and refinement of the operator's system
performance requirements;
- approximately 50 percent of all SBInet Block I design drawings;
- source selection and vendor qualification for SBInet equipment
providers (e.g., radars, cameras, communications);
- a hardware-in-the-loop System Integration Laboratory for component
and full-system development and integration testing.
Additionally, CBP has emplaced a systems engineering and program
management cadre to support execution of the full SBInet portfolio of
projects in both Arlington, Virginia, and Huntsville, Alabama.
* SBInet Common Operating Picture. In December 2007, CBP began design,
development, and testing of upgraded Common Operating Picture (COP)
software for the SBInet Block I system. This software will deliver
enhanced sensor management, scene understanding, and situational
awareness for CBP operators. To date, CBP has completed:
- detailed operator requirements reviews;
- development of a detailed software performance specification;
- installation of a software integration laboratory in Arlington,
Virginia;
- engineering of initial graphic user interfaces (i.e., computer images
and screens to be displayed to the operators) supported by hands-on
prototyping with the Border Patrol;
- coding of the initial release of software.
This software is currently undergoing integration testing in the
Huntsville, Alabama, System Integration Laboratory. Initial release of
the software is planned for August 2008. The software will be deployed
with the initial SBInet Block 1 system this calendar year.
* SBInet Deployment Laydown Design. Beginning in the summer of 2007,
CBP began the process of completing detailed plans for tower locations
and access road, incorporating feedback from Border Patrol agents in
the field, to support deployment of the SBInet system in the Tucson,
Yuma, and El Paso Sectors. This effort included completing just over
200 site surveys for environmental and construction clearance, and
hundreds of detailed engineering and assembly drawings for the initial
Block I deployment. CBP plans to complete review and approval the TUS-1
design in June 2008, and AJO-1 design in September 2008.
Performance Parameters. At the start of the program CBP established
performance metrics and parameters for the SBInet technology solution.
When fully deployed on the southwest border, these system performance
parameters include a range of metrics like probability of detection (95
percent), probability of identification (90 percent), and system
operational availability (95 percent).
The system level of performance parameters are expected to be achieved
by the end of the full deployment along the southwest border and take
into account the full range of technologies that are planned to be part
of the end state solution, e.g. ground based radars, cameras, air and
marine assets, unattended ground sensors, etc. To ensure progress
toward meeting these performance goals, each deployment task order will
contain tailored performance metrics.
Appropriate performance metrics and parameters are determined by
modeling, actual performance during system testing, and more
importantly by the technology capabilities included in the individual
deployments. Moreover, given that these metrics are predicted targets,
we will also continue to utilize the current process for determining
effective control as the key measure of merit for the overall system's
performance. A discussion of the process to predict and validate
performance parameters is provided in Attachment 3.
CIO Conditional Certification for the SBInet System. The House
Appropriations Committee had several questions and requests for
additional information regarding the CIO's conditional certification of
the SBInet system, each are addressed in turn below:
* CIO Certification that the SBI system architecture is aligned to the
DHS enterprise architecture. The CIO only gave a conditional
certification, which in turn was based on a conditional Enterprise
Architecture Board (EAB) assessment. GAO found that necessary
documentation of alignment has not been updated, and that corrective
actions called for by the EAB have not been completed. GAO also found
that the conditional CIO certification did not address program risks.
On March 26, 2008, the EAB conditionally certified that the SBInet's
program system architecture met the requirements of the DHS systems
enterprise architecture for the FY 2008 Expenditure Plan. To support
this conditional certification, the SBInet technology system was
reviewed by the EAB at Milestone Decision Points (MDP) 1 and 2 in FY
2007. MDP 1 conditions identified by the EAB were resolved with the
submittal of MDP 2 in June 2007. Moreover, CBP is committed to
continued participation in all EAB MDP reviews throughout the system
life cycle.
A status of the outstanding deliverables identified in the MDP 2 review
has been provided to Chairman Price's staff and is enclosed for
reference in Attachment 4. We expect to have these items closed with
the EAB in the fall 2008.
* CIO certification of the SBInet risk management process. The CIO only
gave a conditional certification because, among other things, he deemed
the SBI risk management process inadequate for such a large program.
In accordance with the DHS CIO conditional certification, CBP continues
to progress with improvements to better identify and manage program
risks and will provide the following revised documents for review in
June 2008:
- Risk Management Policy;
- Risk Management Plan;
- System Life Cycle Catalog of high priority active risks, realized
risks and issues;
- Risk Management Status Report;
- Any high risk communications to component and DHS investment decision
makers (stakeholders).
* CIO certification that there are no conflicts of interest between the
prime integrator and subcontractors. The CIO only gave a conditional
certification as no independent verification and validation agent is
yet under contract.
CBP does indeed have independent verification and validation support
services under contract. The conditional certification recognizes that
CBP is currently working to expand these existing support services
under a separate competitive procurement that will support its long
term needs. We expect this procurement to be awarded in late September
2008.
The Department would like to emphasize that we are committed to
fulfilling the legislative requirements outlined in Public Law 110-161,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. While the Department
remains committed to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely,
the Department is also aware of the urgency to proceed with the
critical fencing and technology projects that will be funded with the
5650 million being withheld by Congress.
Also, while all of our planned projects are designed to support Border
Patrol Agents in carrying out their mission more effectively and
safely, one project we are particularly anxious to begin work on is the
"Pack Truck Trail" project. Three Border Patrol Agents have lost their
lives responding to border intrusions in this high traffic area. While
persons can easily and quickly cross from Mexico into the U.S. and make
their way to a residential area, responding agents must traverse very
dangerous terrain to reach and intercept the intruders. Fencing and
access roads here are critical to divert the illegal traffic and
provide agents a safe route of travel through the area. Although we
have the funding to carry out this project, as well as the J2 project,
these are among the projects Chairman Price asked to be placed on hold
pending receipt of a full alternative analysis. The analysis of
alternatives for these projects was provided to Chairman Price's office
on May 29, 2008. We hope that CBP will be allowed to proceed with these
projects as soon as possible.
Signed by:
Penelope G. McCormack:
Acting Director
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
Attachments:
Attachment 1:
BSFIT Inputs to Effective Control of the Border as of May 21, 2008:
Projects and Activities: Tactical Infrastructure: PF 225:
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Complete environmental stewardship plans (ESP); Completion Date:
06/2008;
* Complete sending value letters to property owners; Completion Date:
06/2008;
* Complete relocation process for home owners being relocated;
Completion Date: 07/2008;
* Complete condemnation process; Completion Date: 08/2008;
* Complete and issue RFP's for construction; Completion Date: 08/2008;
* All contracts awarded for fence segments: Completion Date: 09/2008;
* PF 225 complete, 370 total miles PF; Completion Date: 12/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: $195,123,000;
FY 2008 Obligations: $130,326,000;
Capability: Persistent Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Cumulative Miles of Permanent
TI.
Projects and Activities: Tactical Infrastructure: VF 300;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Complete environmental stewardship plans (ESP); Completion Date:
07/2008;
* Complete sending value letters to property owners; Completion Date:
06/2008;
* Complete relocation process for home owners being relocated;
Completion Date: N/A;
* Complete condemnation process; Completion Date: 09/2008;
* Complete and issue RFP's for construction; Completion Date: 11/2008;
* All contracts awarded for fence segments: Completion Date: 12/2008;
* VF 300 complete, 300 total miles VF; Completion Date: 12/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: $75,350,000;
FY 2008 Obligations: $0;
Capability: Persistent Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Cumulative Miles of Permanent
TI.
Projects and Activities: Supply & Supply Chain Management;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Provide steel and fence panels for construction projects;
Completion Date: 11/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: $333,000,000;
FY 2008 Obligations: $0;
Capability: Persistent Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Cumulative Miles of Permanent
TI.
Projects and Activities: Hidalgo Cooperative Agreement;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Bid and complete construction;
Completion Date: 12/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: $65,700,000;
Capability: Persistent Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Cumulative Miles of Permanent
TI.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Project 28;
Key Milestones Remaining: Completed;
Completion Date: 02/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: (FY 06) $20,665,456;
FY 2008 Obligations: $0;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Project TUS-1 Deployment;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Award task order (w/AJO-1); Completion Date: 06/2008;
* Site construction; Completion Date: 09/2008;
* Integration and testing; Completion Date: 11/2008;
* C&A SAT; Completion Date: 11/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: NA;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $85,000,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Project AJO-1 Deployment;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Award task order (w/TUS-1); Completion Date: 06/2008;
* Site construction; Completion Date: 11/2008;
* Integration and testing; Completion Date: 11/2008;
* C&A SAT; Completion Date: 12/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: NA;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $85,000,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: System Design &
Engineering;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* System Integration Testing: COP Drop 1; Completion Date: 04/2008;
* System Integration Testing: Block 1 (Hardware) CDR; Completion Date:
06/2008;
* System Integration Testing: COP Drop 2 testing in SIL; Completion
Date: 07/2008;
* System Integration Testing: COP Drop 23 testing in SIL; Completion
Date: 08/2008;
* System Integration Testing: Independent OT&E; Completion Date:
12/2008;
* Capability Gap Analysis; Completion Date: 02/2009;
* Block 2 system planning and requirements; Completion Date: 02/2009;
* Intelligence Analysis Support; Completion Date: 02/2009;
FY 2007 Obligations: $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: $93,581,078;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Common Operating
Picture/C3I;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Release 0.5 developed and released; Completion Date: 08/2008;
* Release 1.0 developed and released; Completion Date: TBD;
FY 2007 Obligations: $64,529,788;
FY 2008 Obligations: $0;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Tactical
Communications/P.25;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* P.25 upgrades; Completion Date: 09/2009;
FY 2007 Obligations: $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $39,000,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Tactical
Communications/P.25;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* DHS OneNet direct connect; Completion Date: TBD;
FY 2007 Obligations: $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $10,600,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Deployment Design for
Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso Sectors;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* TUS-1 deployment readiness review; Completion Date: 07/2008;
* Tucson West EA FONSI; Completion Date: 07/2008;
* AJO-1 deployment readiness review; Completion Date: 09/2008;
* AJO-1 Organ Pipe EA FONSI; Completion Date: 09/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: (FY06) $19,942,535 and $49,070,731;
FY 2008 Obligations: $0;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: SBInet Technology: Northern Border Demo;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Award task order for demonstration of technology in northern border
environment; Completion Date: 07/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: est. $20,000,000;
FY 2008 Obligations: $0;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: Support Activities: SBInet Logistics,
Operations, and Maintenance;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Project 28 logistics support; Completion Date: 06/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: $5,803,193;
FY 2008 Obligations: $3,000,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification; Persistent
Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: Support Activities: SBInet Logistics,
Operations, and Maintenance;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Task order award for ILS for TUS-1 and AJO-1 Projects; Completion
Date: 06/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $36,000,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification; Persistent
Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: Support Activities: Tactical Infrastructure
Logistics, Operations, and Maintenance;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Near term maintenance contract awarded; Completion Date: 12/2008;
FY 2007 Obligations: est. $8,555,000;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $10,500,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification; Persistent
Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: Support Activities: Tactical Infrastructure
Logistics, Operations, and Maintenance;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Award long term maintenance contract(s); Completion Date: 01/2009;
FY 2007 Obligations: est. $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. TBD;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification; Persistent
Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
Projects and Activities: Support Activities: Program Management &
Oversight;
Key Milestones Remaining:
* Manage and oversee SBI TI and SBInet execution;
Completion Date: On-going;
FY 2007 Obligations: $0;
FY 2008 Obligations: est. $54,000,000;
Capability: Detection, Identification, Classification; Persistent
Impedance;
Metric[A]: Miles Under Effective Control; Miles with Increased
Situational Awareness.
[A] Metric included in FY 2009 FYHSP.
[End of Attachment 1]
Attachment 2:
Table: PF 225 Detailed Cost Estimates and Schedules:
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector:
Miles: 13.57;
Estimate: $107,367,398;
Cost/mile: $7,912,115
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/28/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-1;
Miles: 3.58;
Estimate: $63,863,945;
Cost/mile: $17,839,091;
Scheduled Completion Date: 03/06/2009.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2A;
Miles: 0.76;
Estimate: $3,191,492;
Cost/mile: $4,199,332;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/24/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2B;
Miles: 0.48;
Estimate: $2,301,320;
Cost/mile: $4,794,416;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/06/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2C;
Miles: 0.40;
Estimate: $2,073,023;
Cost/mile: $5,182,557;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/06/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2D;
Miles: 0.82;
Estimate: $4,076,487;
Cost/mile: $4,971,326;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/06/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2E;
Miles: 0.12;
Estimate: $617,309;
Cost/mile: $5,144,242;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/06/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2F;
Miles: 0.49;
Estimate: $2,036,142;
Cost/mile: $4,155,392;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/12/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2G;
Miles: 0.44;
Estimate: $1,995,808;
Cost/mile: $4,535,927;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/12/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2H;
Miles: 0.17;
Estimate: $707,356;
Cost/mile: $4,160,918;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/12/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2I;
Miles: 1.06;
Estimate: $4,432,547;
Cost/mile: $4,181,648;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/24/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2J;
Miles: 0.09;
Estimate: $381,739;
Cost/mile: $4,241,544;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/09/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2K;
Miles: 1.63;
Estimate: $6,884,413;
Cost/mile: $4,223,566;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/18/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2L;
Miles: 2.01;
Estimate: $8,445,839;
Cost/mile: $4,201,910;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/18/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2M;
Miles: 0.05;
Estimate: $209,083;
Cost/mile: $4,181,660;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/24/2008.
Map Project ID: San Diego Sector: A-2N;
Miles: 1.47;
Estimate: $6,150,895;
Cost/mile: $4,184,282;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/18/2008.
Map Project ID: El Centro Sector;
Miles: 32.96;
Estimate: $137,221,347;
Cost/mile: $4,163,269;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/10/2008.
Map Project ID: El Centro Sector: B-2;
Miles: 2.36;
Estimate: $8,260,000;
Cost/mile: $3,500,000;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/10/2008.
Map Project ID: El Centro Sector: B-4;
Miles: 8.59;
Estimate: $41,505,441;
Cost/mile: $4,831,832;
Scheduled Completion Date: 08/27/2008.
Map Project ID: El Centro Sector: B-5A;
Miles: 19.16;
Estimate: $67,060,000;
Cost/mile: $3,500,000;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Centro Sector: B-5B;
Miles: 2.85;
Estimate: $20,395,906;
Cost/mile: $7,156.458;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/27/2008.
Map Project ID: Yuma Sector;
Miles: 11.98;
Estimate: $80,130,575;
Cost/mile: $5,732,087;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/12/2008.
Map Project ID: Yuma Sector; C-1;
Miles: 10.28;
Estimate: $60,970,815;
Cost/mile: $5,931,013;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/12/2008.
Map Project ID: Yuma Sector; C-2B;
Miles: 3.70;
Estimate: $19,163,760;
Cost/mile: $5,179,394;
Scheduled Completion Date: 08/19/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector;
Miles: 28.71;
Estimate: $137,486,363;
Cost/mile: $7, 912,115;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/08/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; D-2 (east);
Miles: 3.18;
Estimate: $13,645,979;
Cost/mile: $4,291,188;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/26/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; D-2 (west);
Miles: 2.10;
Estimate: $12,203,571;
Cost/mile: $5,811,224;
Scheduled Completion Date: 07/26/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; D-5;
Miles: 4.01;
Estimate: $19,248,000;
Cost/mile: $4,800,000;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/28/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; D-5B;
Miles: 5.16;
Estimate: $23,503,291;
Cost/mile: $4,554,901;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/25/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; D-6;
Miles: 2.23;
Estimate: $10,157,430;
Cost/mile: $4,554,901;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/25/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; E-2A;
Miles: 6.06;
Estimate: $27,268,148;
Cost/mile: $4,499,694;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/14/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; E-3;
Miles: 5.00;
Estimate: $21,337,074;
Cost/mile: $4,267,415;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/10/2008.
Map Project ID: Tucson Sector; F-1;
Miles: 0.97;
Estimate: $10,122,870;
Cost/mile: $10,435,948;
Scheduled Completion Date: 08/02/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector;
Miles: 89.63;
Estimate: $113,373,891;
Cost/mile: $5,488,648;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/10/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; H-2A;
Miles: 14.11;
Estimate: $67,728,000;
Cost/mile: $4,800,000;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/26/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; I-lA;
Miles: 2.56;
Estimate: $7,960,782;
Cost/mile: $3,109,680;
Scheduled Completion Date: 07/15/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; I-1B;
Miles: 9.77;
Estimate: $46,896,000;
Cost/mile: $4,800,000;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/21/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; J-2;
Miles: 3.49;
Estimate: $17,813,821;
Cost/mile: $5,104,247;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/02/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-1A;
Miles: 1.07;
Estimate: $7,570,600;
Cost/mile: $7,075,327;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-1B;
Miles: 0.65;
Estimate: $8,899,756;
Cost/mile: $13,691,932;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-1C;
Miles: 1.26;
Estimate: $11,089,159;
Cost/mile: $8,800,920;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-2A;
Miles: 9.60;
Estimate: $36,779,492;
Cost/mile: $3,831,197;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-2B;
Miles: 2.32;
Estimate: $8,898,312;
Cost/mile: $3,835,479;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-2C;
Miles: 7.62;
Estimate: $29,193,722;
Cost/mile: $3,831,197;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-2D;
Miles: 9.47;
Estimate: $36,281,436;
Cost/mile: $3,831,197;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-3;
Miles: 9.02;
Estimate: $49,598,274;
Cost/mile: $5,498,700;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-4;
Miles: 13.48;
Estimate: $64,704,000;
Cost/mile: $4,800,000;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/10/2008.
Map Project ID: El Paso Sector; K-5;
Miles: 5.21;
Estimate: $19,960,537;
Cost/mile: $3,831,197;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/31/2008.
Map Project ID: Marfa Sector;
Miles: 10.7;
Estimate: $41,318,453;
Cost/mile: $3,861,538;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/03/2008.
Map Project ID: Marfa Sector; L-1;
Miles: 4.55;
Estimate: $20,730,157;
Cost/mile: $4,556,078;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Marfa Sector; L-1A;
Miles: 3.28;
Estimate: $10,980,425;
Cost/mile: $3,347,691;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Marfa Sector; L-1B;
Miles: 2.87;
Estimate: $9,607,871;
Cost/mile: $3,347,690;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Del Rio Sector;
Miles: 3.88;
Estimate: $12,886,550;
Cost/mile: $3,321,276;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Del Rio Sector; M-1;
Miles: 2.07;
Estimate: $6,841,930;
Cost/mile: $3,305,280;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Del Rio Sector; M-2A;
Miles: 0.75;
Estimate: $3,023,834;
Cost/mile: $4,031,779;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Del Rio Sector; M-2B;
Miles: 1.06;
Estimate: $3,020,786;
Cost/mile: $2,849,798;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Laredo Sector:
No projects.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector;
Miles: 69.83;
Estimate: $279,519,565;
Cost/mile: $4,003,287;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/15/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; O-1;
Miles: 3.76;
Estimate: $16,880,862;
Cost/mile: $4,489,591;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/26/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-2;
Miles: 8.75;
Estimate: $36,757,954;
Cost/mile: $4,200,909;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/29/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-3;
Miles: 1.85;
Estimate: $7,888,265;
Cost/mile: $4,263,927;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/21/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-4 - 0-10;
Miles: 20.27;
Estimate: $65,700,000;
Cost/mile: $3,241,243;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/15/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-11;
Miles: 2.33;
Estimate: $9,742,967;
Cost/mile: $4,181,531;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/16/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-12;
Miles: 0.96;
Estimate: $4,331,990;
Cost/mile: $4,512,490;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/02/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-13;
Miles: 1.59;
Estimate: $6,648,634;
Cost/mile: $4,181,531;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/22/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-14;
Miles: 3.59;
Estimate: $17,018,757;
Cost/mile: $4,740,601;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/22/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-15;
Miles: 2.21;
Estimate: $8,864,915;
Cost/mile: $4,011,274;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-16;
Miles: 2.05;
Estimate: $9,109,664;
Cost/mile: $4,443,739;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/16/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-17;
Miles: 1.63;
Estimate: $7,183,429;
Cost/mile: $4,407,012;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/19/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-18;
Miles: 3.58;
Estimate: $15,049,800;
Cost/mile: $4,203,855;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/12/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-19;
Miles: 3.37;
Estimate: $14,309,985;
Cost/mile: $4,246,286;
Scheduled Completion Date: 11/04/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-20;
Miles: 0.91;
Estimate: $3,825,508;
Cost/mile: $4,203,855;
Scheduled Completion Date: 10/20/2008.
Map Project ID: Rio Grande Valley Sector; 0-21;
Miles: 12.98;
Estimate: $56,236,835;
Cost/mile: $4,332,576;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/01/2008.
Map Project ID: Total;
Miles: 263.26;
Estimate: $1,209,338,142;
Cost/mile: $4,593,703;
Scheduled Completion Date: 12/30/2008.
NOTE: Cost per mile for pedestrian fence was requested by the
Committee. Segment price estimates include construction and supply
chain, planning/oversight, environmental compliance, design, and real
estate.
[End of table]
Table: VF 300 Project Schedule:
Project: El Centro Sector: BV-1;
Miles: 6.41;
Fence Complete: 10/30/2008.
Project: Yuma Sector; CV-la;
Miles: 5.00;
Fence Complete: 11/04/08.
Project: Yuma Sector; CV-lb;
Miles: 8.30;
Fence Complete: 12/04/08.
Project: Yuma Sector; CV-2;
Miles: 10.62;
Fence Complete: 12/23/08.
Project: Yuma Sector; CV-3;
Miles: 22.48;
Fence Complete: 12/14/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-2;
Miles: 1.52;
Fence Complete: 12/19/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-3a;
Miles: 15.48;
Fence Complete: 11/29/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-3b;
Miles: 0.49;
Fence Complete: 12/20/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-4a;
Miles: 19.36;
Fence Complete: 11 /28/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-4b;
Miles: 11.02;
Fence Complete: 06/16/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-4c;
Miles: 0.40;
Fence Complete: 11/28/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-5;
Miles: 1.82;
Fence Complete: 12/23/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-6;
Miles: 2.33;
Fence Complete: 12/17/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-7;
Miles: 10.10;
Fence Complete: 12/17/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; DV-8;
Miles: 2.90;
Fence Complete: 12/17/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; EV-lb;
Miles: 2.79;
Fence Complete: 11/23/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; EV-2a;
Miles: 0.25;
Fence Complete: 10/14/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; FV-1a;
Miles: 3.10;
Fence Complete: 07/09/08.
Project: Tucson Sector; FV-1b;
Miles: 15.73;
Fence Complete: 12/25/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: HV-1;
Miles: 3.79;
Fence Complete: 12/10/08
Project: El Paso Sector: HV-2;
Miles: 6.65;
Fence Complete: 12/06/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: HV-3;
Miles: 5.80;
Fence Complete: 12/06/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: HV-4;
Miles: 5.98;
Fence Complete: 11/28/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: IV-2;
Miles: 12.79;
Fence Complete: 12/14/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: IV-4a;
Miles: 3.74;
Fence Complete: 06/30/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: 1V-4b;
Miles: 1.95;
Fence Complete: 11/16/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: JV-1a;
Miles: 9.25;
Fence Complete: 11/24/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: JV-1b;
Miles: 8.81;
Fence Complete: 11/24/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: JV-2;
Miles: 11.82;
Fence Complete: 11/28/08.
Project: El Paso Sector: JV-3;
Miles: 10.04;
Fence Complete: 11/30/08.
[End of table]
[End of Attachment 2]
Attachment 3:
SBInet Performance Assessment:
SBInet performance analysis and resulting prediction is based upon
results of modeling and simulation. Therefore, high level modeling and
simulation are developed to represent the system. These higher level
models are decomposed into component models [radar, camera, unattended
ground sensors (UGSs)] which are validated using engineering models.
These engineering models have the required fidelity to represent the
complex phenomenology of the environment, hardware, software, and human
interaction. These engineering models rely on test results to anchor
their performance estimates. SBInet modeling and simulation have been
validated to date using available field test data.
The method used to predict the detection and identification
effectiveness of a particular SBInet system solution is to estimate it
in a simulation that models the performance and operations of the
components (radar, camera and UGSs) in a 3-D terrain environment. The
type, quality, and frequency of the sensor data delivered to the COP,
the COP operator's proficiency at interpreting the delivered data, and
the routes of ingress and tactics used by illegal border crossers are
key factors. The effectiveness of identification is dependent on
detection effectiveness and therefore it is necessary to assess these
two measures concurrently against the same intruder scenario.
Field tests will be conducted to validate the performance of the
sensors (radar, camera, and UGS) as well as the system performance. The
TUS-1 field test results will be incorporated into the model and the
model will be rerun and compared to the requirements of the TUS-1 and
AJO-1 projects. Once the models have been validated we will rerun the
model with the TUS-1 field data to generate updated performance numbers
and compare this performance to the project requirements. Moreover,
given that these metrics are predicted targets, we will also continue
to utilize the current process for determining effective control as the
key measure of merit for the overall system's performance.
Over time we will improve SBInet modeling, simulation realism, and
accuracy by incorporating the results of field testing. Future model
validation will be accomplished using test data from the Huntsville
System Integration Laboratory, the TUS-1 and AJO-1 system qualification
tests, and system acceptance tests. Validated models will also provide
a better representation of the system and trade studies can be used
more effectively to optimize system performance.
[End of Attachment 3]
Attachment 4:
Current Status of Certification of Enterprise Architecture Alignment
SBInet was conditionally approved at Milestone Decision Point (MDP) 1
in January 2007. The MDP 1 conditions were resolved with the submittal
of MDP 2 in June 2007. The DHS Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB)
conditionally approved SBInet at MDP 2. The following outlines and
provides a status of the current outstanding conditions.
1. Updated Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Acquisition
Program Baseline (APB) with aligned key performance parameters should
be submitted.
Status: The ORD is undergoing an update and it is expected to be
completed during the summer 2008. An updated draft APB is in process
and is expected to be completed in summer 2008.
2. Program Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) do not include
legacy system decommissioning and schedule.
Status: The legacy system decommissioning will be addressed when C3I
COP version 1.0 architecture is approved. Expected timeframe for this
approval is fall 2008, following the completion of trade studies and
business reviews. Legacy systems will not be decommissioned until we
have full deployment across all borders where the legacy systems are in
use.
3. Program Plan does not show compliance with the Homeland Security
Enterprise Architecture (HLS EA).
Status: The Program Plan, currently planned to be updated in the summer
2008 will be updated to include references of compliance with the HLS
EA.
4. Technical Insertions shall be provided for all "new" instances based
on the revised technical reference model mapping.
Status: Technical insertions will be submitted summer 2008.
5. Block (0) P-28 is not compliant with the HLS EA. The SBI Program
shall submit & receive approval of their plan to migrate from their
current solution.
Status: As a prototype, P-28 was not designed to comply with HLS EA.
The results of the C3I COP trade study will identify the migration plan
for HLS EA compliance.
6. The Tucson and Yuma designs have not been evaluated by the EAB.
Status: Tucson and Yuma designs have been put on hold pending the TUS-1
and AID-1 deployments.
7. The Texas Mobile (TXM) design has not been reviewed by the EAB.
Status: TXM designs have been put on hold pending the TUS-1 and AJO-1
deployments. In addition, TXM has been rolled into the El Paso Sector
lay down.
8. The BMGR Phase III design has not been reviewed by the EAB.
Status: BMGR Phase III designs have been put on hold pending the TUS-1
and AJO-1 deployments. In addition, BMGR Phase III has been rolled into
the Yuma Sector lay down.
[End of Attachment 4]
[End of section]
Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact:
Richard M. Stana, 202-512-8777, StanaR@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgements:
In addition to the person named above, Susan Quinlan, Assistant
Director; Deborah Davis, Assistant Director; Jeanette Espínola; Karen
Febey; Michael Parr; Jamelyn Payan; David Perkins; Jeremy Rothgerber;
and Leslie Sarapu made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying
Lessons Learned to Future Projects. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-508T]. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet
Program Implementation. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-131T]. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements
Needed to Control Risks. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-504T]. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better
Support Oversight and Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309]. Washington, D.C.:
February 15, 2007.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The CBP SBI Program Executive Office, referred to in this report as
the SBI program office, is responsible for overseeing all SBI
activities; for acquisition and implementation, including establishing
and meeting program goals, objectives, and schedules; for overseeing
contractor performance; and for coordinating among DHS agencies.
[2] At a port of entry location, CBP officers secure the flow of people
and cargo into and out of the country, while facilitating legitimate
travel and trade.
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. E, tit. II,121 Stat. 1844, 2047-49
(2007). The Act required that the expenditure plan be submitted within
90 days after the enactment of the act.
[4] U.S Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection: SBI Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology
(BSFIT) Expenditure Plan (Washington, D.C.: March 2008). For purposes
of this correspondence, we refer to this plan as the ’SBI expenditure
plan“.
[5] Satisfied means that the plan, in combination with supporting
documentation and program officials' statements, either satisfied or
provides for satisfying each requirement of the condition that we
reviewed. Partially satisfied means that the plan, in combination with
supporting documentation and program officials' statements, either
satisfied or provides for satisfying some, but not all, key aspects of
the condition that we reviewed. Not satisfied means that the plan, in
combination with supporting documentation and program officials'
statements, does not satisfy any of the key aspects of the condition
that we reviewed.
[6] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.:
February, 2007).
[7] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.:
February, 2007).
[8] For guidance on estimating costs, see GAO, Cost Assessment Guide:
Best Practices for Estimating and Managing Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP] (Washington, D.C.:
July 2007).
[9] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan
(Washington, D.C.: December 1, 2006)
[10] Under the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, DHS is
to identify the 370 miles, or other mileage determined by the
Secretary, along the southwest border where fencing would be most
practical and effective in deterring illegal entrants and complete
construction of reinforced fencing along these miles no later than
December 31, 2008. The Act also requires DHS to construct a total of
700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border where
fencing would be most practical and effective but does not provide a
deadline. Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 564(a)(2)(B), 121 Stat. 1844, 2090-91
(2007).
[11] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Report to Congress on Ongoing
DHS Initiatives to Improve Security along the U.S. Northern Border;
(Feb. 29, 2008).
[12] Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 731(c), 121 Stat. 266, 351.
[13] DHS defines effective control of U.S. borders as the ability to
consistently: (1) detect illegal entries into the United States; (2)
identify and classify these entries to determine the level of threat
involved; (3) respond to these entries; and (4) bring events to a
satisfactory law enforcement resolution.
[14] We concur that one recommendation remains open.
[15] The purpose of the Deep Dive Review was to review the progress of
the program and to gain the perspective of independent technical
experts. The scope of the review included both technology and program
management aspects of SBInet.
[16] GAO, Homeland Security: Some Progress Made, but Many Challenges
Remain on U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-202]
(Washington, D.C.: February 2005), and GAO, Information Technology:
Improvements for Acquisition of Customs Trade Processing System
Continue, but Further Efforts Needed to Avoid More Cost and Schedule
Shortfalls, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-46]
(Washington, D.C.: October 2007).
[17] The HCAAF was developed by OMB, the Office of Personnel
Management, and GAO. The HCAAF includes strategic alignment,
leadership, knowledge management, results-oriented performance culture,
talent management, and accountability.
[18] FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of
Interest.
[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309].
[20] Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. E, tit. II, 121 Stat. 1844, 2047-49
(2007). The Consolidated Appropriations Act required an expenditure
plan that satisfies 15 specified conditions to be submitted to and
approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees before the
agency could obligate $650 million of the approximately $1.2 billion
appropriated for CBP fencing, infrastructure, and technology. In
response to this requirement, the Department of Homeland Security
submitted a plan on March 31, 2008, titled ’SBI Border Security,
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Expenditure Plan.“ The
Consolidated Appropriations Act also required GAO to review the
expenditure plan.
[21] Satisfied means that the plan, in combination with supporting
documentation and program officials‘ statements, either satisfied or
provides for satisfying each requirement of the condition that we
reviewed. Partially satisfied means that the plan, in combination with
supporting documentation and program officials‘ statements, either
satisfied or provides for satisfying some, but not all, key aspects of
the condition that we reviewed. Not satisfied means that the plan, in
combination with supporting documentation and program officials‘
statements, does not satisfy any of the key aspects of the condition
that we reviewed.
[22] DHS defines effective, or operational, control of U.S. borders as
the ability to consistently (1) detect illegal entries into the United
States, (2) identify and classify these entries to determine the level
of threat involved, (3) efficiently and effectively respond to these
entries, and (4) bring events to a satisfactory law enforcement
resolution.
[23] At a port of entry location, CBP officers secure the flow of
people and cargo into and out of the country, while facilitating
legitimate travel and trade.
[24] The U.S. Border Patrol has 20 sectors for which the Border Patrol
is responsible for detecting, interdicting, and apprehending those who
attempt illegal entry or to smuggle people or cargo”including
terrorists or contraband, including weapons of mass destruction”across
U.S. borders between official ports of entry.
[25] Under the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, DHS is
to identify the 370 miles, or other mileage determined by the
Secretary, along the southwest border where fencing would be most
practical and effective in deterring illegal entrants and complete
construction of reinforced fencing along these miles no later than
December 31, 2008. The Act also requires DHS to construct a total of
700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border where
fencing would be most practical and effective but does not provide a
deadline. Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 564(a)(2)(B), 121 Stat. 1844, 2090-91
(2007).
[26] The SBI program office contracted with Boeing Company to construct
32 miles of fencing in the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Deployment of this
fencing has been completed, and the SBI program office plans to use
USACE to contract for all remaining pedestrian fencing and vehicle
barriers to be deployed through December 2008.
[27] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.:
February 2007).
[28] For guidance on estimating costs, see GAO, Cost Assessment Guide:
Best Practices for Estimating and Managing Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1134SP] (Washington, D.C.:
July 2007).
[29] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan
(Washington, D.C.: December 1, 2006).
[30] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Report to Congress on Ongoing
DHS Initiatives to Improve Security along the U.S. Northern Border;
(Feb. 29, 2008).
[31] Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 731(c), 121 Stat. 266, 351.
[32] We concur that one recommendation remains open.
[33] The purpose was to review the progress of the program and to gain
the perspective of independent technical experts. The scope of the
review included both technology and program management aspects of
SBInet.
[34] GAO, Homeland Security: Some Progress Made, but Many Challenges
Remain on U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-202]
(Washington, D.C.: February 2005), and GAO, Information Technology:
Improvements for Acquisition of Customs Trade Processing System
Continue, but Further Efforts Needed to Avoid More Cost and Schedule
Shortfalls, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-46]
(Washington, D.C.: October 2007).
[35] The HCAAF was developed by OMB, the Office of Personnel
Management, and GAO. The HCAAF includes strategic alignment,
leadership, knowledge management, results-oriented performance culture,
talent management, and accountability.
[36] FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of
Interest.
[37] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.:
February, 2007).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
