Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs
Gao ID: GAO-09-244R January 29, 2009
Much of the United States' 6,000 miles of international borders with Canada and Mexico remains vulnerable to illegal entry of aliens, criminals, and cargo. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apprehends hundreds of thousands of people and seizes large volumes of cargo entering the country illegally each year; however, several hundreds of thousands of individuals and an unknown volume of contraband also enter the United States illegally and undetected. DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency responsible for securing the nation's borders along and between ports of entry. In November 2005, DHS announced the launch of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration. CBP's SBI program office is responsible for managing the SBI program and for developing a comprehensive border protection system. This system has two main components: SBInet, which employs radars, sensors, and cameras to detect, identify, and classify the threat level associated with an illegal entry into the United States between the ports of entry, and SBI tactical infrastructure (TI), fencing, roads, and lighting intended to enhance U.S. Border Patrol agents' ability to respond to the area of the illegal entry and bring the situation to a law enforcement resolution (i.e., arrest). The current focus of the SBI program is on the southwest border areas between ports of entry that CBP has designated as having the highest need for enhanced border security because of serious vulnerabilities. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, required DHS to complete construction by December 31, 2008, of either 370 miles or other mileage determined by the Secretary, of reinforced fencing along the southwest border wherever the Secretary determines it would be most practical and effective in deterring smugglers and aliens attempting illegal entry. DHS set a goal to complete approximately 670 miles of fencing by December 31, 2008. In September 2008, we testified that SBI fencing project costs were increasing and land acquisition issues posed a challenge to DHS in meeting its goal to have about 670 miles of fencing completed by December 31, 2008. Also in September 2008, DHS revised its goal such that it planned to have these miles either built, under construction, or under contract by December 31, 2008. In December 2008, DHS reported that it planned to complete all but one of the fence projects by March 2009. As directed by the Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, we examined the costs of constructing fencing along the southern border of the United States. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What were the construction costs of primary pedestrian and vehicle fencing miles completed under the SBI program as of September 30, 2007, and October 31, 2008? (2) What were the construction costs of secondary pedestrian fencing completed along existing primary fencing as of October 31, 2008? (3) If appropriated SBI funds from fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that were allocated for SBInet had been used to construct fencing, how many additional miles of pedestrian or vehicle fencing could have been constructed?
CBP had completed about 73 miles of primary SBI fencing costing approximately $198 million as of September 30, 2007, and about 215 miles of fencing costing about $625 million as of October 31, 2008. Seventy-one of the miles completed as of September 30, 2007, were pedestrian fencing completed at costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8 million per mile and averaging $2.8 million per mile. CBP had also finished about 2 miles of vehicle fencing at a cost of $2.8 million. Pedestrian fencing accounted for 140 of the miles that CBP had completed as of October 31, 2008, with costs ranging from $400,000 to $15.1 million per mile for an average of $3.9 million per mile. Seventy-five of the miles were vehicle fencing and costs ranged from $200,000 to $1.8 million per mile, averaging $1.0 million per mile. The per mile costs to build the fencing varied considerably because of the type of fencing, topography, materials used, land acquisition costs, and labor costs, among other things. As of October 31, 2008, CBP reported that approximately 32 miles of secondary fence existed along the southwest border and about 18 of those miles had an average construction cost of $2 million per mile. CBP officials said that they do not have cost information for the remaining miles because they were constructed by the International Boundary and Water Commission. In addition, CBP had obligated $58 million of fiscal year 2008 funding on a 3.5-mile secondary fencing project in the San Diego sector that is scheduled to be completed in calendar year 2009. If the approximately $393 million in appropriated SBI funds from fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that were allocated for SBInet had been used to construct fencing, depending on the operational needs of the Border Patrol and a number of assumptions that were discussed above, we estimate that CBP could have built about 73 miles of additional pedestrian fencing or about 232 miles of additional vehicle fencing. Alternatively, depending on the operational needs of the Border Patrol, CBP could have constructed a mix of additional pedestrian and vehicle fencing. For example, if the additional funding had been divided equally between pedestrian and vehicle fencing in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, CBP could have constructed 36 miles of pedestrian and 116 miles of vehicle fencing. However, these estimates are approximate, and depending on actual costs at the time, more or less fencing could have been built, particularly taking into account the complexities of fence construction, specifically, increased material costs, a short supply of labor, and a compressed schedule to complete fence construction projects.
GAO-09-244R, Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-244R
entitled 'Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs' which was
released on January 29, 2009.
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-09-244R:
January 29, 2009:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs:
Much of the United States' 6,000 miles of international borders with
Canada and Mexico remains vulnerable to illegal entry of aliens,
criminals, and cargo. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
apprehends hundreds of thousands of people and seizes large volumes of
cargo entering the country illegally each year; however, several
hundreds of thousands of individuals and an unknown volume of
contraband also enter the United States illegally and undetected. DHS's
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency responsible for
securing the nation's borders along and between ports of entry.
[Footnote 1] In November 2005, DHS announced the launch of the Secure
Border Initiative (SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program aimed
at securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration. CBP's SBI
program office is responsible for managing the SBI program and for
developing a comprehensive border protection system. This system has
two main components: SBInet, which employs radars, sensors, and cameras
to detect, identify, and classify the threat level associated with an
illegal entry into the United States between the ports of entry, and
SBI tactical infrastructure (TI), fencing, roads, and lighting intended
to enhance U.S. Border Patrol agents' ability to respond to the area of
the illegal entry and bring the situation to a law enforcement
resolution (i.e., arrest). The current focus of the SBI program is on
the southwest border areas between ports of entry that CBP has
designated as having the highest need for enhanced border security
because of serious vulnerabilities.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, required DHS to complete
construction by December 31, 2008, of either 370 miles or other mileage
determined by the Secretary, of reinforced fencing along the southwest
border wherever the Secretary determines it would be most practical and
effective in deterring smugglers and aliens attempting illegal entry.
[Footnote 2]DHS set a goal to complete approximately 670 miles of
fencing by December 31, 2008. Of these miles, DHS planned about 370
miles of pedestrian fencing--fencing that prevents people on foot from
crossing the border, and about 300 miles of vehicle fencing--barriers
used primarily in remote areas to prohibit vehicles engaged in drug
trafficking and alien smuggling operations from crossing the border.
Most of the pedestrian fencing under construction is single layer
fencing--referred to as primary fencing. However, in some areas a
second layer of fencing--referred to as secondary fencing--is being
constructed parallel to existing primary fencing for additional
operational advantage to deter illegal cross-border activities. In
September 2008, we testified that SBI fencing project costs were
increasing and land acquisition issues posed a challenge to DHS in
meeting its goal to have about 670 miles of fencing completed by
December 31, 2008.[Footnote 3] Also in September 2008, DHS revised its
goal such that it planned to have these miles either built, under
construction, or under contract by December 31, 2008. In December 2008,
DHS reported that it planned to complete all but one of the fence
projects by March 2009.
As directed by the Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year
2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act,[Footnote 4] we examined the costs
of constructing fencing along the southern border of the United States.
This report addresses the following questions:
* What were the construction costs of primary pedestrian and vehicle
fencing miles completed under the SBI program as of September 30, 2007,
and October 31, 2008?[Footnote 5]
* What were the construction costs of secondary pedestrian fencing
completed along existing primary fencing as of October 31, 2008?
* If appropriated SBI funds from fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that were
allocated for SBInet had been used to construct fencing, how many
additional miles of pedestrian or vehicle fencing could have been
constructed?
To determine the construction costs of fencing miles completed under
the SBI program and costs of existing completed secondary fencing and
to estimate the total number of miles of fencing that could be
constructed if appropriated funds from fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that
were allocated for SBInet were used to construct fencing, we obtained
agency documents regarding SBI fence construction costs, including
construction estimates, contract awards, overhead expenditures, and
real estate acquisition costs. To report on costs of fencing miles
completed, we relied on CBP's estimates for total contract awards for
various fencing segments as of September 30, 2007, and October 31,
2008, however, total contract amounts will not be known until closeout
of the contracts. According to CBP, these data include costs for
planning and oversight, environmental compliance, design, real estate
acquisition, labor, and materials. To estimate the total number of
miles of additional fencing that could have been constructed in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008, we used average cost per mile estimates developed
by CBP in response to our information needs for this review. CBP
officials said that these cost estimates were based on averages of
commercial contracts awarded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and assumed
the construction industry had access to needed resources--steel,
cement, and labor--to complete fence construction. CBP officials said
the cost estimates also assume that the fencing miles would have been
completed by commercial contractors in both fiscal years because Border
Patrol and Department of Defense (DOD) labor--which was used to
complete previous fencing--would not have been available. CBP officials
said that the average cost estimates include all construction and
related costs, including costs for planning and oversight,
environmental compliance, design, real estate acquisition, labor, and
materials.[Footnote 6] However, they noted that the estimates do not
include contingency funding for increased costs caused by delays and
construction risk. We also interviewed CBP's SBI TI program officials
and officials from CBP's contractor, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), about costs, fencing locations, and construction schedule. We
reviewed data, such as fence miles completed and fencing construction
costs provided by CBP and inquired about the source of these data, the
systems used to record and maintain the data and the policies and
procedures used to maintain the integrity of these data. CBP officials
said they believe their data and their cost estimates are complete,
accurate and sufficient for the purposes of our work. However, we did
not independently verify, validate, or test the data underlying the CBP
cost estimates.[Footnote 7] We conducted our work from September 2008
through January 2009.
Results in Brief:
CBP had completed about 73 miles of primary SBI fencing costing
approximately $198 million as of September 30, 2007, and about 215
miles of fencing costing about $625 million as of October 31, 2008.
Seventy-one of the miles completed as of September 30, 2007, were
pedestrian fencing completed at costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8
million per mile and averaging $2.8 million per mile. CBP had also
finished about 2 miles of vehicle fencing at a cost of $2.8 million.
Pedestrian fencing accounted for 140 of the miles that CBP had
completed as of October 31, 2008, with costs ranging from $400,000 to
$15.1 million per mile for an average of $3.9 million per mile. Seventy-
five of the miles were vehicle fencing and costs ranged from $200,000
to $1.8 million per mile, averaging $1.0 million per mile. The per mile
costs to build the fencing varied considerably because of the type of
fencing, topography, materials used, land acquisition costs, and labor
costs, among other things.
As of October 31, 2008, CBP reported that approximately 32 miles of
secondary fence existed along the southwest border and about 18 of
those miles had an average construction cost of $2 million per mile.
CBP officials said that they do not have cost information for the
remaining miles because they were constructed by the International
Boundary and Water Commission.[Footnote 8] In addition, CBP had
obligated $58 million of fiscal year 2008 funding on a 3.5-mile
secondary fencing project in the San Diego sector[Footnote 9] that is
scheduled to be completed in calendar year 2009.
If the approximately $393 million in appropriated SBI funds from fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 that were allocated for SBInet had been used to
construct fencing, depending on the operational needs of the Border
Patrol and a number of assumptions that were discussed above, we
estimate that CBP could have built about 73 miles of additional
pedestrian fencing or about 232 miles of additional vehicle fencing.
Alternatively, depending on the operational needs of the Border Patrol,
CBP could have constructed a mix of additional pedestrian and vehicle
fencing. For example, if the additional funding had been divided
equally between pedestrian and vehicle fencing in fiscal years 2007 and
2008, CBP could have constructed 36 miles of pedestrian and 116 miles
of vehicle fencing. However, these estimates are approximate, and
depending on actual costs at the time, more or less fencing could have
been built, particularly taking into account the complexities of fence
construction, specifically, increased material costs, a short supply of
labor, and a compressed schedule to complete fence construction
projects.
Background:
For fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the SBI program received about $3.6
billion in appropriated funds. Of this amount, about $2.4 billion has
been allocated to complete approximately 670 miles of vehicle and
pedestrian fencing along the roughly 2,000 miles of border between the
United States and Mexico. The SBI TI program office is using USACE to
contract for ongoing fencing construction projects and supporting
infrastructure (such as lights and roads), complete required
environmental assessments, and acquire necessary real estate.[Footnote
10] Segments of pedestrian and vehicle fencing projects have been built
across portions of the southwest border, extending from the San Diego
sector through the Rio Grande Valley sector, and include fencing
segments in urban, rural and remote areas along the southwest border.
As of January 2009, the majority of the fencing has been constructed in
Border Patrol sectors in California, Arizona, and New Mexico (see
figure 1).
Figure 1: Map of Border Patrol Sectors Along the Southwest Border:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Southwestern United States. Indicated on
the map are state boundaries as well as the following Border Patrol
Sector boundaries:
San Diego;
El Centro;
Yuma;
Tucson;
El Paso;
Marfa;
Del Rio;
Laredo;
Rio Grande Valley.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
[End of figure]
Prior to initiating the SBI program, DHS constructed approximately 78
miles of pedestrian fencing and 57 miles of vehicle fencing along the
southwest border using primarily Border Patrol and DOD labor. SBI TI
program office officials refer to fencing in place before the SBI
program as legacy fencing. Much of the legacy fencing was built along
the border in more populated urban areas because urban areas require a
greater number of enforcement personnel to effectively confront the
illegal activity. In this environment, pedestrian fencing slows the
progress of illegal entrants in areas where they can be across the
border and into the community in a matter of minutes or seconds. For
example, in 1990, the Border Patrol began erecting a 10-foot-high
welded steel primary fence in the San Diego sector to deter illegal
entries and drug smuggling.
In addition to the legacy fencing, the SBI TI program office has
completed or plans to complete projects known as Pedestrian Fence 70
(PF 70), Pedestrian Fence 225 (PF 225), and Vehicle Fence 300 (VF 300)
to reach the DHS goal of constructing about 670 miles of fencing along
the southwest border. PF 70 was the initial SBI project under which 81
miles of fencing were constructed. PF 225 is the second pedestrian
fencing project and is expected to result in approximately 210 miles of
fence construction. The VF 300 project is expected to construct
approximately 227 miles of vehicle fencing barriers along the southwest
border. SBI program officials explained that the total fencing miles
completed or planned under these projects total 661 because several
fencing segments that were scheduled to be built in calendar year 2008
will now be constructed through a different project in calendar year
2009 (see table 1).
Table 1: Fence Projects along the Southwest Border:
Fence projects: PF 70;
Pedestrian fence miles: 81;
Vehicle fence miles: N/A;
Total miles: 81.
Fence projects: PF 225;
Pedestrian fence miles: 210;
Vehicle fence miles: N/A;
Total miles: 210.
Fence projects: VF 300;
Pedestrian fence miles: N/A;
Vehicle fence miles: 227;
Total miles: 227.
Fence projects: Legacy pedestrian fence;
Pedestrian fence miles: 67[A];
Vehicle fence miles: N/A;
Total miles: 67.
Fence projects: Legacy vehicle fence;
Pedestrian fence miles: N/A;
Vehicle fence miles: 76[A];
Total miles: 76.
Fence projects: Total;
Pedestrian fence miles: 358;
Vehicle fence miles: 303;
Total miles: 661.
Source: SBI.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] Seventy-eight miles of pedestrian fencing and 57 miles of vehicle
fencing were in place before the SBI program began. However, since SBI
began construction, some miles of fencing have been removed, replaced
or retrofitted resulting in mileage totals that are different from
those we have previously reported.
[End of table]
In an effort to identify lower-cost and easily deployable fencing
solutions, CBP funded a project called Fence Lab in February 2007.
Fence Lab tested fence/barrier prototypes and evaluated them based on
performance criteria such as their ability to disable a vehicle
traveling at 40 miles per hour, allowing animals to migrate through
them, and cost-effectiveness. SBI TI program office officials told us
these performance standards apply only to primary fencing, and SBI
currently does not have performance standards for secondary fencing.
Each style of fencing has different costs associated with construction,
and the Border Patrol determines which fencing style is appropriate
based on the operational need of a specific geographic area along the
southwest border. Figure 2 shows examples of approved SBI Fence Lab
fencing.
Figure 2: Examples of SBI Fence Lab Fencing Styles:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure contains four photographs:
Picket fence (pedestrian fence);
Post and rail with wire mesh (pedestrian fence);
Bollard fence (pedestrian fence);
Normandy vehicle barrier (vehicle fence).
Source: CBP and GAO.
[End of figure]
In October 2007, we reported that fencing costs vary based on the type
of terrain, materials used, land acquisition, who performs the
construction, and the need to meet an expedited schedule.[Footnote 11]
To minimize one of the many factors that add to cost, in the past, DHS
used Border Patrol agents and DOD personnel to construct the fencing.
At that time, CBP officials also reported that they planned to use
commercial labor for future infrastructure projects because using
Border Patrol agents took them away from their other duties and the
Department of Defense had notified DHS that military personnel would no
longer be available to build fencing.
Costs of Fencing Completed:
As of September 30, 2007, about 73 miles of SBI fencing had been
completed by CBP at a cost of approximately $198 million. Of the 73
miles of fencing, the SBI program had completed about 70 miles of
pedestrian fencing through the PF 70 project at a cost of approximately
$192 million, with per mile costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8 million
and about 1 mile of pedestrian fencing through the PF 225 project at a
cost of about $3.0 million. In addition, approximately 2 miles of
vehicle fencing were constructed at a cost of $2.8 million. Table 2
summarizes SBI fencing miles, costs, and cost ranges and average costs
as of September 30, 2007.
Table 2: Completed Miles and Cost of SBI Fencing as of September 30,
2007 (Dollars in millions):
Project: PF 70;
Miles completed: 70[A];
Project cost: $192.3 million;
Cost range per mile: $0.4 to $4.8 million;
Average cost per mile: $2.7 million.
Project: PF 225;
Miles completed: 1[B];
Project cost: $3.0 million;
Cost range per mile: $4.2 million;
Average cost per mile: $4.2 million.
Project: VF 300;
Miles completed: 2[C];
Project cost: $2.8 million;
Cost range per mile: $1.8 million;
Average cost per mile: $1.8 million.
Project: Total;
Miles completed: 73;
Project cost: $198.1;
Cost range per mile: N/A;
Average cost per mile: N/A.
Source: SBI.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] This excludes approximately 5 miles that were completed under PF
70, but were not funded by SBI.
[B] Actual fence completed was 0.72 miles.
[C] Actual fence completed was 1.6 miles.
[End of table]
As of October 31, 2008, CBP had completed a total of about 215 miles of
SBI fencing at a cost of approximately $625 million. Of the 215 miles
of fencing, 75 miles were completed under PF 70 at a cost of
approximately $214 million, 65 miles were completed under PF 225 at a
cost of about $334 million, and 75 miles were completed under VF 300 at
a cost of approximately $78 million. Table 3 summarizes SBI fencing
miles, costs, and cost ranges and average costs as of October 31, 2008.
Table 3: Completed Miles and Cost of SBI Fencing as of October 31, 2008
(Dollars in millions):
Project: PF 70;
Miles completed: 75[A];
Project cost: $213.6 million;
Cost range per mile: $0.4 to 4.8 million;
Average cost per mile: $2.8 million.
Project: PF 225;
Miles completed: 65;
Project cost: $333.7 million;
Cost range per mile: $2.8 to $15.1 million;
Average cost per mile: $5.1 million.
Project: VF 300;
Miles completed: 75;
Project cost: $78.1 million;
Cost range per mile: $0.2 to $1.8 million;
Average cost per mile: $1.0 million.
Project: Total;
Miles completed: 215;
Project cost: $625.4 million;
Cost range per mile: N/A;
Average cost per mile: N/A.
Source: SBI.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] This excludes approximately 5 miles that were completed under PF
70, but were not funded by SBI.
[End of table]
The per mile cost ranges can be attributed to several factors. For
example, by design, it is less expensive to construct vehicle fencing
than pedestrian fencing. Also, as discussed previously, costs for
fencing completed by commercial contractors are higher than for fencing
built by the Border Patrol or the military. In addition, differences in
terrain and other factors, such as whether the fencing is built on
public or private land, can drive cost differences. More specifically,
the increase in costs between the PF 70 and PF 225 projects occurred,
in part, because there were minimal land acquisition costs in fiscal
year 2007 when most of PF 70 was being built, while costs for real
estate, labor, and materials increased in fiscal year 2008 when PF 225
was being built. In addition, about 40 percent of PF 70 was built by
Border Patrol and DOD personnel, while PF 225 was built solely by
commercial contractors. We reported in September 2008, that beginning
in July 2008, as SBI TI officials were in the process of finalizing
construction contracts, cost estimates for pedestrian fencing in Texas
began to increase.[Footnote 12] For example, the officials said that as
a result of a construction boom in Texas, labor was in short supply and
contractors reported that they needed to provide premium pay and
overtime to attract workers. In terms of materials, USACE officials
stated that the price of cement and steel had increased and in some
areas within Texas obtaining cement near the fence construction site
was difficult.
Costs of Secondary Fencing Completed:
As of October 31, 2008, CBP reported that approximately 32 miles of
secondary fencing existed along the southwest border and about 18 of
those miles had an average construction cost of $2 million per mile,
but CBP was not able to provide cost information for the remaining
miles. CBP reported that 9.1 miles were constructed using military
labor at a total cost of about $20 million, and 9.2 miles were
constructed using commercial contracts at a total cost of about $19
million.Construction of the 18.3 miles initially began in the 1990s
under the management of CBP legacy agencies.[Footnote 13] Construction
on these miles was intermittent and continued through 2008, during
which time legacy agencies were merged into DHS and fence construction
fell under the management of CBP's SBI program. CBP does not have the
cost information for remaining secondary fencing miles because those
were funded and constructed by the International Boundary and Water
Commission.
In 2009, CBP has obligated $58 million of fiscal year 2008 SBI funds to
construct approximately 3.5 miles of secondary fencing in the San Diego
sector at an average cost of about $16 million per mile. This per mile
cost is substantially higher than the cost for existing secondary
fencing because of the difficult terrain where the secondary fencing is
to be built. In addition to the 3.5 fencing miles being constructed,
CBP officials said that SBI would need to undertake significant earth
and drainage work, construct all-weather access roads, and deploy
additional lighting.
Estimates of Additional Pedestrian and Vehicle Fencing That Could Have
Been Constructed with Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2008
Appropriated Funds Allocated to SBInet:
If the SBI funding from fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that was allocated
for SBInet had been used to construct fencing, we estimate that CBP
could have built about 73 additional miles of pedestrian fencing or
about 232 additional miles of vehicle fencing. For fiscal years 2007
and 2008, once program management funds, operations and maintenance
funds, and funds already obligated to the TI program are accounted for,
about $227 million and $166 million, respectively, that was allocated
for SBInet, would have been potentially available for fence
construction projects (see table 4).
Table 4: Appropriated Funds Allocated to SBInet That Could Have Been
Potentially Available to Construct Fencing, Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008
(Dollars in millions):
Funds: Appropriated funds;
FY 2007: $1,188;
FY 2008: $1,225[A];
Total: $2,413.
Funds: SBI program management funds;
FY 2007: $68;
FY 2008: $39;
Total: $107.
Funds: Operations and maintenance funds;
FY 2007: $43;
FY 2008: $38;
Total: $81.
Funds: Funds allocated to SBInet and TI programs;
FY 2007: $1,077;
FY 2008: $1,148;
Total: $2,225.
Funds: Funds allocated to the TI program;
FY 2007: $850;
FY 2008: $982;
Total: $1,832.
Funds: Funds allocated to the SBInet program;
FY 2007: $227;
FY 2008: $166;
Total: $393.
Source: SBI.
[A] The SBI program also received an additional $77.6 million in
reprogrammed funds in fiscal year 2008 that were not included in this
total. All of these funds were obligated to TI projects.
[End of table]
To estimate how much fencing could have been built with the funds
allocated to SBInet, we used estimated average cost per mile figures
supplied by CBP. CBP based the cost estimates on averages of commercial
contracts awarded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. CBP assumed that the
fencing miles would have been completed by commercial contractors in
both fiscal years because, as previously discussed, Border Patrol
agents and DOD labor would not have been available. The average cost
estimates include all construction and related costs, including costs
for planning and oversight, environmental compliance, design, real
estate acquisition, labor, and materials.[Footnote 14] However, they do
not include contingency funding for increased costs because of delays
and construction risk. Using these estimates, pedestrian fencing would
have cost approximately $4.8 million per mile in fiscal year 2007 and
$6.5 million per mile in fiscal year 2008. Based on these averages,
about 47 and 26 additional miles of pedestrian fencing could have been
built in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively. Furthermore, using
the CBP estimates, vehicle fencing would have cost $1.7 million per
mile in both fiscal years 2007 and 2008. If vehicle fencing had been
built instead of pedestrian fencing, about 134 and 98 additional miles
could have been built in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively.
Alternatively, depending on the operational needs of the Border Patrol,
a mixture of additional pedestrian fencing and vehicle fencing could
have been built. For example, if the additional funding had been
divided equally between pedestrian and vehicle fencing in fiscal years
2007 and 2008, 36 miles of pedestrian and 116 miles of vehicle fencing
could have been built.
Taking into account the complexities of fence construction,
specifically, uncertain land acquisition costs, increased material
costs, a short supply of labor, and a compressed schedule to complete
fence construction projects, the estimates of additional miles of
pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing that could have been constructed
are approximate, and depending on actual costs at the time, more or
less fencing could have been built. Finally, based on the environmental
features and natural terrain along the southwest border, the actual
mixture of pedestrian and vehicle fencing that would be deployed would
be based on the operational needs of the Border Patrol.
Agency Comments:
On January 9, 2009, we provided a draft of this report to the Secretary
of Homeland Security for comment. We received written comments on
January 22, 2009. In its written comments, which appear in Enclosure I,
DHS agreed with our findings. In addition, the department provided
technical clarifications that we considered and incorporated as
appropriate.
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. This report is also 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
to this report are listed in Enclosure II.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patrick Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]
January 22, 2009:
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:
RE: Draft Report 09-244R, Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction
Costs (GAO Job Code 440722):
The Department of Homeland Security, particularly U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), appreciates the opportunity to review and
comment on the draft report referenced above. As directed by the House
Committee on Appropriations, the U.S. Government Accounting Office
(GAO) examined the costs of constructing fencing along the southern
border. The report does not include any recommendations.
The CBP Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program worked closely with the
GAO to develop the appropriate assumptions for this report. CBP
believes that the draft report properly reflects the Tactical
Infrastructure program operational costs and resulting estimates of
additional pedestrian and vehicle fencing that could have been
constructed with FY 2007 and FY 2008 appropriated funds to the SBInet
program.
Technical comments have been provided under separate cover and should
help clarify statements in the draft report before issuance of the
final report. With regard to the classification of the report, CBP did
not identify any sensitive information that would require a "For
Official Use Only" designation or warrant protection under the Freedom
of Information Act.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Richard M. Stana (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Susan Quinlan, Assistant
Director, and Jeanette Espinola, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this
assignment. Frances Cook, Katherine Davis, Jeremy Rothgerber, and Erin
Smith made significant contributions to the work.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs
Lack Appropriate Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-29]. Washington, D.C.: November 18,
2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Deployment Challenges.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1141T]. Washington,
D.C.: September 10, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in
Delivering Key Technology Investment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1148T]. Washington, D.C.: September
10, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows
Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS
Accountability. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R].
Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed
to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-263]. Washington, D.C.: April 22,
2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying
Lessons Learned to Future Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/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/products/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/products/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/products/GAO-07-309]. Washington, D.C.: February 15,
2007.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] At a port of entry location, CBP officers are to secure the flow of
people and cargo into and out of the country, while facilitating
legitimate travel and trade.
[2] Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. E, § 564(a)(2)(B)(ii), 121 Stat. 1844,
2090-91 (2007) (amending section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208,
div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554, as amended by section 3(2) of the
Secure Fence Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638, 2639).
This provision also required the construction of reinforced fencing
along a total of not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where
fencing would be most practical and effective, but it did not establish
a deadline for completion of the full 700 miles.
[3] See GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Deployment
Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1141T]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008).
[4] [4] H. Comm. on Appropriations, 110th Cong., Committee Print on
H.R. 2764/Public Law 110-161, at 1036-37 (2008) (referring to H.R.
2638, 110th Cong. § 560 (as passed by Senate, July 26, 2007)).
[5] We used data as of October 31, 2008 because they were the most
recently available data at the time of our review.
[6] Because fiscal year 2007 projects were primarily constructed on
government land, there were no real estate acquisition costs and few
environmental costs. However, CBP officials said that had they built
more fencing in fiscal year 2007, they would have encountered these
costs because they were constructing on private land. Therefore, based
on its estimates, CBP added a factor of $0.8 million per mile to
account for these additional costs.
[7] An Independent Auditor's Report on DHS's Fiscal Year 2008 Financial
Statements found that CBP did not have adequate policies and procedures
in place to properly account for steel purchases and construction of
the U.S. border fence in an accurate and timely manner. As a result,
for several months throughout the year, CBP's financial statements did
not accurately reflect the construction activity. The report noted that
the error made as a result of the improper accounting was corrected in
September 2008. The report also stated that since the SBI initiative is
not part of CBP's normal course of business, CBP did not implement
processes to record these transactions properly. Accordingly, for
several months throughout the year, CBP's financial statements did not
accurately reflect the construction activity. It is unclear whether or
to what extent this audit finding was material to the cost estimates
provided to us by CBP.
[8] The International Boundary and Water Commission is an international
organization that operates bilateral projects related to the borders
and rivers shared by the United States and Mexico.
[9] The Border Patrol has 20 sectors and is responsible for detecting,
interdicting, and apprehending those who attempt to illegally enter or
to smuggle people, including terrorists, or contraband, including
weapons of mass destruction, across U.S. borders between official ports
of entry.
[10] 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 most of the remaining pedestrian fencing and
vehicle barriers to be deployed.
[11] See GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected
Aspects of SBInet Program Implementation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-131T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24,
2007).
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1141T].
[13] Legacy agencies are the entities (i.e., Immigration and
Naturalization Service and U.S. Customs Service) that existed before
the creation of DHS; they have since been merged into CBP and other DHS
components.
[14] Because fiscal year 2007 projects were primarily constructed on
government land there were no real estate acquisition costs and few
environmental costs. However, CBP officials said that had they built
more fencing in fiscal year 2007, they would have encountered these
costs because they were constructing on private land. Therefore, CBP
added a factor of $0.8 million per mile, to account for these
additional costs.
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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: