U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan
Gao ID: GAO-10-877R July 30, 2010This letter formally transmits the summary of a briefing we gave in June 2010 in response to a mandate in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, and subsequent agency comments. This mandate required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to complete an expenditure plan that satisfied 11 specified conditions, and for the plan to be submitted to and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees before the agency could obligate $75 million of the $800 million appropriated for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) border security fencing, infrastructure and technology. Also, the Act required us to review this expenditure plan. In addition, Conference, Senate, and House committee reports accompanying the act directed that the plan address 7 items (referred to as "committee reports' directions" in this letter). In response to these requirements, the Department of Homeland Security submitted a plan to Congress on May 20, 2010, titled "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan." As required by the act, we reviewed the plan and on June 17 and 18, 2010, briefed the offices of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees, respectively, on the analysis of whether the plan satisfied the 11 legislative conditions and the 7 committee reports' directions.
The expenditure plan did not fully satisfy all of the legislative conditions and committee reports' directions. Specifically, of the 11 legislative conditions, the expenditure plan satisfied 4, partially satisfied 6, and did not satisfy 1. Also, of the 7 committee reports' directions, the expenditure plan satisfied 2 and partially satisfied 5. Based on the results of our review, we are not making any recommendations for congressional consideration or agency action. We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS responded to the findings related to 1 of the 11 legislative conditions and did not comment on the findings related to the 7 committee reports' directions. Specifically, DHS stated that it concurred in part with our assessment of partially satisfied for legislative condition 8. This condition requires that the expenditure plan include a certification by the DHS Chief Procurement Office (CPO) that the program (1) complies with DHS's acquisition management review process, among other things; (2) meets federal acquisition requirements; and (3) is adequately staffed. The condition also requires that the plan includes required supporting documentation used to obtain this certification.
GAO-10-877R, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-877R
entitled 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure
Plan' which was released on July 30, 2010.
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-10-877R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 30, 2010:
The Honorable Frank Lautenberg:
Interim Chairman:
The Honorable George Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
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:
Subject: U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan:
This letter formally transmits the summary of a briefing we gave in
June 2010 in response to a mandate in the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2010, and subsequent agency comments.
[Footnote 1] This mandate required the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to complete an expenditure plan that satisfied 11 specified
conditions, and for the plan to be submitted to and approved by the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees before the agency could
obligate $75 million of the $800 million appropriated for U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) border security fencing, infrastructure
and technology.[Footnote 2] Also, the Act required us to review this
expenditure plan.[Footnote 3] In addition, Conference, Senate, and
House committee reports accompanying the act directed that the plan
address 7 items (referred to as "committee reports' directions" in
this letter).[Footnote 4] In response to these requirements, the
Department of Homeland Security submitted a plan to Congress on May
20, 2010, titled "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and
Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan." As required by
the act, we reviewed the plan and on June 17 and 18, 2010, briefed the
offices of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees,
respectively, on the analysis of whether the plan satisfied the 11
legislative conditions and the 7 committee reports' directions. To
conduct this work, we analyzed the expenditure plan and documents
referenced within the plan, such as strategic plans and reports and
interviewed CBP program officials to obtain clarification on material
contained in the expenditure plan. Additional details on our scope and
methodology are included in enclosure I, slides 5 and 6.
In summary, the expenditure plan did not fully satisfy all of the
legislative conditions and committee reports' directions.
Specifically, of the 11 legislative conditions, the expenditure plan
satisfied 4, partially satisfied 6, and did not satisfy 1.[Footnote 5]
For more information on the legislative conditions and the results of
our analyses, see slides 7, 8, and 9. Also, of the 7 committee
reports' directions, the expenditure plan satisfied 2 and partially
satisfied 5. For more information on the committee reports' directions
and the results of our analyses, see slides 10, 11, and 12. Based on
the results of our review, we are not making any recommendations for
congressional consideration or agency action.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS
provided written comments which are reprinted in Enclosure II. In
commenting on a draft of this report, DHS responded to the findings
related to 1 of the 11 legislative conditions and did not comment on
the findings related to the 7 committee reports' directions.
Specifically, DHS stated that it concurred in part with our assessment
of partially satisfied for legislative condition 8. This condition
requires that the expenditure plan include a certification by the DHS
Chief Procurement Office (CPO) that the program (1) complies with
DHS's acquisition management review process, among other things; (2)
meets federal acquisition requirements; and (3) is adequately staffed.
The condition also requires that the plan includes required supporting
documentation used to obtain this certification.
The expenditure plan included the CPO certification, but this
certification partially satisfied the condition, as indicated in our
assessment of the condition in slides 47-49. The certification
satisfied one aspect of the condition by certifying that the program
complied with federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and
practices, but it did not fully address the two other aspects of the
condition regarding the certification.[Footnote 6] Specifically, in
certifying that the program complied with DHS's acquisition management
review process and capital planning and investment control procedures,
the certification did not satisfy this aspect of the condition because
it did not provide information on the status of required actions from
investment reviews. Also, it did not specifically certify that the
program has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the
program, another aspect of the condition.
In its comments, DHS said that it believes that the CPO certification
satisfied the aspect of the condition regarding compliance with DHS's
acquisition management review process and capital planning and
investment control procedures. Also, DHS believes that the
certification satisfied the intent of the aspect of the condition
regarding staffing. We do not agree that the certification satisfied
these aspects of the condition. Specifically, we disagree with DHS's
response that the CPO certification does not need to indicate the
status of action items resulting from DHS's Acquisition Management
Review process, as documented in the Acquisition Decision Memoranda,
to satisfy the condition. The CPO certification cites the Acquisition
Decision Memoranda as evidence of review and approval according to the
DHS acquisition management review process, but it omits that action
items resulting from the review process were not completed by their
due dates. We believe that these items are required by the review
process and that, by not including information on these items, the CPO
certification provided an incomplete picture of the results of the
review process.
DHS also commented that the CPO certification satisfied the intent of
the aspect of the condition requiring that the CPO certify that the
program has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the
program and all contracts, including the exercise of technical
oversight. However, the CPO certification did not satisfy the
condition because it did not specifically certify that the program has
adequate staff and resources. Also, the language in the certification
on whether staffing is adequate is unclear because the plan mentions
staffing challenges while at the same time stating that the program
office has increased government staffing and has adequate resources.
In its comments, DHS agreed that to meet this aspect of the condition,
the certification should have included a more specific statement
regarding the adequacy of SBI staffing levels.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman 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 will also be available at no
charge on our Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you
or your offices have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8816 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. Susan Quinlan, Assistant Director; and
Juan Tapia-Videla, Analyst-in-Charge; managed this assignment. Frances
Cook, Celina Davidson, Deborah Davis, Katherine Davis, Dan Gordon,
Jeremy Manion, Taylor Matheson, Jamelyn Payan, Jerry Seigler, Amelia
Shachoy, and Adam Vogt made significant contributions to the work.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Enclosures (2):
[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 Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology:
Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan:
Prepared for the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations:
June 17 and 18, 2010:
Briefing Overview:
* Introduction;
* Objective, Scope, and Methodology;
* Results in Brief;
* Background;
* Findings;
* Legislative Conditions;
* Committee Reports' Directions;
* Related GAO Products.
Introduction:
In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the lead agency within DHS
responsible for the development and deployment of SBI technology
(e.g., cameras, sensors, radars, and tactical communications) and
tactical infrastructure (TI) (e.g., fences, roads, and lighting).
The focus of the SBI program has been on the southwest border areas
between the ports of entry[Footnote 7] that CBP has designated as
having the highest need for enhanced border security because of
serious vulnerabilities. However, the SBI program also has several
ongoing initiatives to secure the northern border.
The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, required
DHS to complete an expenditure plan that would address 11 conditions
and that would be submitted to and approved by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees before the agency could obligate $75 million
of the $800 million appropriated for CBP fencing, infrastructure, and
technology.[Footnote 8] Also, the act required GAO to review this
expenditure plan. In response to similar requirements in previous
appropriations acts, we issued three reports containing the results of
our reviews of the fiscal year 2007, 2008, and 2009 BSFIT expenditure
plans.[Footnote 9]
In addition, Conference, Senate, and House committee reports
accompanying the act directed that the plan address seven items
(referred to as committees reports' directions in this briefing).
[Footnote 10]
In response to the above requirements, DHS submitted a plan to
Congress on May 20, 2010, titled Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure
Plan.[Footnote 11]
[End of section]
Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objective was to determine whether CBP's BSFIT expenditure plan
(1) satisfied the 11 legislative conditions specified in the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, and (2)
satisfied the 7 committee reports' directions contained in the
Conference, Senate, and House committee reports accompanying the act.
To accomplish our objective, we:
* analyzed the BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced within
the plan, such as strategic plans and reports, and;
* interviewed cognizant CBP program officials in Washington, D.C., to
obtain clarification on material contained in the BSFIT expenditure
plan.
In making our determination regarding whether the BSFIT expenditure
plan satisfied each of the 11 legislative conditions and 7 committees
reports' directions, we limited our assessment to the information in
the expenditure plan and documents referenced in the plan because both
the conditions and the directions specified that the expenditure plan
was to contain the information to address them.
We determined that funding, staffing, and fencing mileage data
provided in the plan 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 also met with DHS officials, including the Executive Director of
the SBI Program, to obtain their oral comments on a copy of this
briefing. They provided additional information for our consideration
and technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through June
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
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.
[End of section]
Results in Brief: Legislative Conditions:
Of the 11 legislative conditions, the BSFIT expenditure plan satisfied
4, partially satisfied 6, and did not satisfy 1.[Footnote 12] The 11
legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction are summarized in
table 1.
Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions:
Legislative condition: 1. A detailed accounting of the program's
implementation to date for all investments, including technology and
tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended 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, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and
description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 2. A description of how specific projects will
further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the Department of
Homeland Security Secure Border Strategic Plan,[A] and how the
expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs.
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition: 3.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. An identification of SBI staffing, including
full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 5. A description of how the plan addresses
security needs at the northern border and ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements,
specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for
northern border activities. Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition: 6. A report on the budget, obligations and
expenditures, activities completed, and 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. A listing of all open GAO and 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: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 8. A certification by the Chief Procurement
Officer (CPO) of the Department, including all supporting documents or
memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment
review processes used to obtain such certifications, that (a) 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 as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; (b) the plans for the
program to 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
such actions, together with any plans for addressing these risks, and
the status of the implementation of such actions; (c) 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 Secure Border
Initiative program, all contracts, including the exercise of technical
oversight.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 9. A certification by the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) of the Department, including all supporting documents
and memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment
review processes used to obtain such certifications, that (a) 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 or were not assessed in making the alignment
determination, the date of the alignment determination, and any known
areas of misalignment together with the associated risks and
corrective actions to address any such areas; (b) 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 U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and Department of Homeland Security investment decision-
makers, as well as a listing of all the program's high risks and the
status of efforts to address such risks; and (c) an independent
verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the
projects funded.
Status: Not satisfied.
Legislative condition: 10. A certification by the Chief Human Capital
Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs of the
Secure Border Initiative program are being addressed so as to ensure
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border
Initiative.
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition: 11. An analysis by the Secretary for each
segment, defined as not more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical
infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other,
alternative means of achieving operational control, and such analysis
should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended
effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision
making process.
Status: Satisfied.
Sources: Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-47 (2009), and GAO
analysis.
[A] Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan
(Washington, D.C., Dec. 1, 2006).
[End of table]
Of the seven committees reports' directions, the BSFIT expenditure
plan satisfied two and partially satisfied five. These committees
reports' directions and the level of satisfaction are summarized in
table 2.
Table 2: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Committees Reports'
Directions:
Committees reports' directions:
Status:
1. Funding for SBI net Block-2:
Conference report direction: The conferees are concerned about the
delays in deployment for SBInet "Blocks" 1 and 2,[A] while also
recognizing the need to proceed carefully and to ensure steps are
taken to address all mission and operational requirements. Therefore,
the conferees also direct that the expenditure plan specify how
additional funding included will be used to further key deployment and
demonstrations in support of the launch of Block 2. Senate report
direction: The expenditure plan for the use of the recommended
$800,000,000 shall provide an evaluation of opportunities to add key
technology development and demonstrations for the launch of Block 2 of
the SBI plan.
Satisfied
2. Evaluation and acceptance criteria for SBInet.
Conference report direction: The conferees continue to support
expeditious deployment of effective technology to enhance CBP's
execution of its border security mission, and recognize the renewed
rigor with which the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is evaluating the
operational utility of such technology. In fiscal year 2010, the OBP
is expected to evaluate the SBInet Block 1 increment through
operational field testing along the Southwest Border. While OBP's
operational requirements for border security technology are well
documented, the criteria OBP will use to determine acceptance of the
SBInet prime mission product remain unclear. The conferees direct CBP
to delineate the evaluation and acceptance criteria for SBI net in the
required BSFIT[B] expenditure plan.
Satisfied
3. Investment tradeoffs along the northern border: Conference report
direction: The conferees direct that the expenditure plan, in
describing Northern Border technology investments, explicitly address
tradeoffs between intensive investments (by operation or location)
versus providing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology and
support to more areas of the Northern Border.
Partially satisfied.
4. Expediting tactical communications modernization:
Conference report direction: The conferees direct that the plan
provide specific details on how additional funding shall be used to
expedite P25 tactical communications modernization.[C] Senate report
direction: Additional funds shall be used to expedite the P25 tactical
communications modernization plan. The expenditure plan shall provide
specific details for these additional activities.
Partially satisfied.
5. Environmental planning and mitigation plan:
Conference report direction: CBP is directed to include within the
fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan and as specified in the House
report, its proposed environmental planning and mitigation plan. House
report direction: The Committee directs CBP to examine the use of
buffer areas to accommodate both mitigation and security objectives
for detecting and responding to illegal border crossing, such as those
employed by the Department of Defense around bases and testing areas,
and report on findings. Also, CBP is to include a detailed
environmental mitigation plan and report on mitigation efforts. The
plan should be science-based; include an extensive monitoring
protocol; incorporate best practices developed in consultation with
relevant federal, state, local and tribal authorities; and support
land acquisition efforts for mitigation purposes, where applicable.
The plan should also address mitigating and minimizing the impact not
only of SBI construction and infrastructure, but also of increasingly
intensive Border Patrol operations in sensitive border ecosystems.
Partially satisfied.
6. Rationale for application of operations and maintenance funding:
House report direction: The Committee includes $200,000,000, as
requested, for the operation and maintenance of systems and
infrastructure deployed with BSFIT funding. This represents a 33
percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 appropriated level. Within
this amount, the Committee understands that $75,000,000 is for
operations and maintenance costs for tactical infrastructure, with the
remaining $125,000,000 for support of technology, including tactical
communications and integrated logistics support of newly deployed
systems. The Committee expects to see a detailed rationale for the
application of this funding.
Partially satisfied
7. Analyses of alternatives for fence construction:
House report direction: To the extent that additional fencing is
proposed, include analyses of alternatives for effective control of
the border. Specifically, the Committee expects the fiscal year 2010
expenditure plan to document the decision process that led to
selection of fencing as the optimal solution. The Committee also
directs that such comparisons include the following: 1) A methodology
section to explain how CBP determined ratings and weightings, and the
standard direction applied to all segment analyses; 2) A description
of baseline costs of each segment, broken out by personnel,
infrastructure, and technology, and a detailed comparison of the cost
of each alternative against that baseline; 3) A comparison of
estimated level of border control, by segment, under each alternative
(deterrence and time/distance) relative to the current level of border
control. In defining the latter, CBP's estimates should incorporate
natural barriers or other features of the landscape as appropriate and
fully describe the contribution of such features in the plan.
Alternatives should consist of reasonable combinations of elements
(e.g., agents, sensors, and cameras), instead of being limited to
individual elements unlikely to be used in isolation. CBP should also
include alternatives proposed by communities or other stakeholder
groups, such as eradication of vegetation; enhancement of natural
barriers; or incorporation of security features into projects.
Partially satisfied[D].
Sources: H.R. Rep. No. 111-298, at 68-70 (2009) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep.
No. 111-31, at 37-38 (2009); and H.R. Rep. No. 111-157, at 41-45
(2009), and GAO analysis.
[A] SBInet refers to a technology system to include sensors; cameras;
radars; command, control, communications; and intelligence
technologies. CBP plans to deploy SBInet capabilities in "blocks." For
example, CBP is currently deploying Block 1 in two areas in Arizona.
Block 1 is the first phase of an effort to design, develop, integrate,
test, and deploy a technology system of hardware, software, and
communications.
[B] Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT).
[C] P25 refers to a set of open system standards that apply to digital
land mobile radio communications services and enable federal,
state/province, and local public safety agencies in North America to
communicate with other agencies and mutual aid response teams in
emergencies regardless of their land mobile radio systems'
manufacturers.
[D] Although the expenditure plan does not specifically mention this
House report direction, we assessed it because it was one of the
requirements in the House report.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Background: SBI Program Operations:
BSFIT funds SBI technology and TI programs and the CBP program offices
responsible for their implementation:
* The SBI Systems Program Office administers all BSFIT funding and is
responsible for SBI's main technology program, SBInet.
* The Tactical Communications Program Office within CBP's Office of
Information Technology is responsible for tactical communications.
* The TI program is administered by the Office of Administration's
Facilities Management and Engineering division.[Footnote 13]
Background: SBI Appropriations:
About $4.5 billion has been allocated for SBI for fiscal years 2005
through 2010 (see table 3).
Table 3: SBI Funding, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010 (Dollars in
Thousands):
Fiscal year: 2005
Appropriated funds: $38,480.
Fiscal year: 2006
Appropriated funds: $325,014.
Fiscal year: 2007
Appropriated funds: $1,187,565[A].
Fiscal year: 2008
Appropriated funds: $1,302,587[B].
Fiscal year: 2009
Appropriated funds: $845,000[C].
Fiscal year: 2010
Appropriated funds: $800,000.
Fiscal year: Total
Appropriated funds: $4,498,646.
Sources: CBP budget data and DHS's annual appropriations acts.
[A] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L
No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1359-60 (2006). SBI funds from this
appropriation act are no-year dollars, meaning they do not expire at
the end of a given fiscal year.
[B] Includes approximately $77.6 million of reprogrammed funds from
other DHS accounts, plus $1.225 million appropriated through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat.
1844, 2047-49 (2007). SBI funds from this appropriations act are no-
year dollars.
[C] Includes $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 162, 302 (2009), which
expires at the end of fiscal year 2010, plus $775 million appropriated
through the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3655
(2008), which are no-year dollars. DHS later reprogrammed $30 million
to DHS's Office of Emergency Communications for an interoperable
border communications technology demonstration project.
[End of table]
Background: SBI Technology:
SBI technology efforts have included Project 28, SBI net Block 1,
mobile surveillance capabilities, the Northern Border Project,
sustainment of legacy surveillance systems, the Innovative Technology
Pilot Program, and tactical communications modernization.
* Project 28 was a pilot surveillance and situational awareness
technology effort deployed to control 28 miles along the Arizona
border. As we reported in October 2007 and February 2008, Project 28
was accepted for deployment by the government 8 months behind schedule
for a number of reasons, including underestimation of project scope
and complexity and limited contractor oversight.[Footnote 14] While
DHS affirmed that Project 28 met contractual requirements, SBI program
officials stated that it did not fully meet their expectations and
that the outcomes of future SBInet development will define the
equipment that will replace most of Project 28 system components.
Project 28 is currently operating, but will be disassembled and used
for other purposes following deployment of the initial SBI net Block 1
technology project, Tus-1, which is being deployed along 23.5 of the
same miles covered by Project 28.
* SBInet Block 1 is a surveillance technology effort that consists of
a system of sensor towers that are networked, including radar,
cameras, sensors, and communications equipment. The system also
includes command and control software and hardware to produce a common
operating picture (COP)-”a uniform presentation of activities along
the border. The sensors, radars, and cameras are to gather information
along the border, which the system is to transmit to COP terminals
located in command centers to provide CBP agents with border
situational awareness.
- The first deployments of SBInet Block 1 are to take place in two
geographic areas within the Tucson border sector, designated as Tus-1
and Ajo-1. As of May 2010, the Tus-1 and Ajo-1 systems were scheduled
to be ready for government acceptance in September 2010 and the fourth
quarter of calendar year 2010, respectively.[Footnote 15] Figure 1
shows the changes in the planned deployment schedule for Tus-1 and Ajo-
1 from February 2008 through May 2010.
Figure 1: Depiction of Changes in the SBInet Block 1 Deployment
Schedule from February 2008 through May 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: table]
Planned SBInet Block 1 technology deployment: TUS-1”one of two
geographic sectors within Tucson sector (23.5 miles);
2008: (as of Feb. 2008);
2009: (as of Dec. 2008, Feb. 2009 and, Apr. 2009);
2010: (as of May 2010).
Planned SBInet Block 1 technology deployment: Ajo-1”one of two
geographic sectors within Tucson sector (29.9 miles);
2008: (as of Feb. 2008);
2009: (as of Dec. 2008;
2010: (as of Feb. 2009, Apr. 2009 and May 2010).
As of: Estimated completion date.
Sources: COP's SBI Program Office and Border Patrol.
[End of figure]
* Mobile surveillance capabilities consist of Mobile Surveillance
System (MSS) units that integrate surveillance technologies (e.g.,
cameras and radars) mounted on a trailer or truck chassis, for
deployment along the southwest and northern borders. As of May 2010,
the SBI Systems Program Office had procured 44 MSS units.
* The Northern Border Project consists of three technology increments
and is intended to demonstrate technology for addressing the
vulnerabilities of the northern border maritime, cold weather
environment as well as to deploy proven, stand-alone technology.
Through the first increment of this project, 3 MSS units were deployed
to the Detroit and Swanton sectors in June 2009. Five Remote Video
Surveillance Systems”systems of towers with cameras that transmit
information to video monitors at a sector's headquarters”have been
deployed to the Buffalo sector, while 10 have been deployed in the
Detroit sector. The second increment, a demonstration project
currently under way, is intended to evaluate the integration of border
security capabilities in the Detroit sector. The third increment,
which is planned to be initiated in fiscal year 2010, is intended to
fill remaining capability gaps through investments against priority
threats (e.g., low-flying aircraft in remote areas) across the
northern border.
* Prior to SBI, CBP acquired and fielded a variety of video
surveillance systems to monitor large spans of the border. Using BSFIT
funding, SBI has sustained these legacy systems.
* The Innovative Technology Pilot Program is assessing near-term, low-
cost border technologies, such as contraband detection and tunnel
detection systems.
* The Tactical Communications Modernization Program is upgrading
tactical communications radio systems used by CBP agents and officers
nationwide to provide expanded coverage and to ensure communications
equipment interoperability with that of neighboring federal, state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. This program, which CBP
officials said is expected to be completed in 2021, has received
funding from multiple sources, but BSFIT is currently the primary
source.
We have reported on the SBI program 19 times since February 2007, and
made more than 20 recommendations (see list of related GAO products).
Among other things, our reports and recommendations point to an SBInet
technology program in a constant state of flux, with delays in
deployment that require the Border Patrol to continue relying on
existing technology for securing the border and weaknesses in testing
and acquisition that have resulted in a program that has not produced
expected results. We have a report scheduled to be released in June
2010 that provides recommendations on the way forward for SBI net.
With respect to TI, we have reported on delays in fence construction
and recommended that an impact analysis be conducted.
In January 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security ordered a
department-wide assessment of the SBI program and, in March 2010,
froze funding for efforts beyond Tus-1 and Ajo-1 until the assessment
is completed, scheduled for October 2010.
In March 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that the
department was redirecting the $50 million in funding received through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act[Footnote 16] originally
allocated to SBI net Block 1 to procure tested and commercially
available technologies, such as MSS.
Background: SBI Tactical Infrastructure:
CBP planned to have a total of 670 miles of fencing, including 370
miles of single-layer pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle
fencing, completed, under construction, or under contract by December
31, 2008. According to the BSFIT expenditure plan, the goal was
changed to 652 because some miles were removed because of hydrology
issues, among other things.
According to the BSFIT expenditure plan, as of October 2009, CBP had
completed a total of about 641 of the 652 miles of fencing and planned
to complete the remaining 11 miles by December 2010; however, meeting
this schedule depends on several factors, including the resolution of
pending litigation to acquire the necessary property rights from
landowners who have not agreed to sell these rights to the federal
government.
In addition, according to the BSFIT expenditure plan, approximately 14
additional miles of pedestrian fence are expected to be built using
fiscal year 2010 funds.
The TI program management office is using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to contract for the construction of fencing and supporting
infrastructure (e.g., roads and lighting), complete required
environmental assessments, and acquire necessary real estate.[Footnote
17]
See figure 2 for examples of fencing.
Figure 2: Examples of Fencing Styles along the Southwest Border:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs]
Sources: CBP and GAO.
Picket fence (upper left), post and rail with wire mesh (upper right),
and bollard fence (lower left) are examples of pedestrian fencing;
Normandy vehicle barrier (lower right), is an example of vehicle
fencing.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Findings: Legislative Condition #1: Details SBI Program Progress to
Date (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a detailed accounting of the program's
implementation to date for all investments, including technology and
tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended 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, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and
description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied this condition. Specifically, the plan
included some required information, such as a detailed accounting of
milestones completed to date.
However, it did not include a detailed accounting of the program's
progress to date relative to other aspects of the legislative
condition, including capabilities for some technology investments and
life-cycle costs for technology investments and TI.
With regard to technology investments, the BSFIT expenditure plan and
documentation referenced therein:
* Provided a detailed accounting of the milestones completed to date,
including previously planned versus currently planned or actual
implementation dates.
* Described system capabilities provided by some technology
investments, such as the capability provided by the $20.7 million
investment in Project 28 to detect items of interest (e.g., humans or
vehicles) at a distance using radar, then to use cameras to identify
them. However, it did not provide a detailed description of the
capabilities provided by BSFIT investments in tactical communication
modernization.
* Provided cost baselines for SBInet Block 1 and the Tactical
Communications Modernization Program, but did not include maximum
investment figures or life-cycle costs for these or other technology
program components (e.g., MSS).
Additionally, with regard to technology investments, the BSFIT
expenditure plan and documentation referenced therein referenced a
cost estimate for the Tactical Communications Modernization Program;
however, as of June 2010, this estimate had not been finalized.
According to SBI officials, the Tactical Communications Modernization
Program Office is in the process of revising the program's logistical
support plans, which will affect the cost estimate, and the estimate
will not likely be finalized until the end of calendar year 2010.
With regard to TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan and documentation
referenced therein:
* Provided an accounting of TI program implementation to date relative
to system capabilities and services, such as the completion of
approximately 342 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299 miles of vehicle
fencing as of October 30, 2009.
* Identified fence performance standards, such as the requirement for
pedestrian fencing to have the capability to disable a vehicle, and a
design that will allow for expedient repair of damage or breaching.
* Included milestones for activities completed, such as the miles of
fence completed, and an accounting of the planned versus actual
implementation dates by milestones.
* Included a life-cycle cost estimate for all fencing on the southwest
border and other types of TI, including roads, lights, and drainage
structures deployed or planned to be completed by fiscal year 2011,
based on a 20-year life span. However, this estimate did not meet our
criteria for a life-cycle cost estimate because it did not include
cost estimates for environmental mitigation, or costs for the
retirement and disposal of TI after the end of its 20-year life span.
[Footnote 18]
Findings: Legislative Condition #2: Describes How Activities Will
Further the Objectives of SBI's Strategic Plan (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a description of how specific projects
will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Secure Border Strategic Plan, and how the
expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein satisfied the condition. The plan provided information on how
SBInet technology and pedestrian and vehicle fencing further the
specific goals established in DHS's Secure Border Strategic Plan and
how CBP determines the highest priority border security needs and
allocates funding accordingly.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Described how projects align with and contribute directly to the
achievement of the goal in the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan lo
develop and deploy the optimal mix of personnel, infrastructure,
technology, and response capabilities to identify, classify, and
interdict cross-border violators." Examples of specific projects that
align with this goal include:
- SBI net technology, which provides CBP agents with an enhanced
ability to identify illegal cross-border activity, and;
- pedestrian and vehicle fencing, which persistently impedes
(consistently slows, delays, and obstructs movement of) illegal cross-
border traffic and facilitates patrol and interdiction efforts.
* Stated that funding is allocated to the highest-priority border
security needs through a review of threat and vulnerability
assessments, operational requirements, strategic priorities, and
performance targets, informed by congressional direction.
Findings: 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.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied this condition. Specifically, the plan
included some information required by the condition, such as planned
obligations for tactical communications modernization and TI
activities for fiscal year 2010 funds and program management
capabilities for SBI net.
However, all of the information required to satisfy this condition was
not provided. For example, the plan did not describe program
management capabilities for SBI TI or tactical communications
modernization, describe program activities associated with all planned
fiscal year 2010 technology obligations, or link planned fiscal year
2010 expenditures to the milestone-based delivery of mission benefits
and outcomes.[Footnote 19]
For SBI technology and TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan defined how
fiscal year 2010 funds are planned to be obligated to meet future
program commitments. Table 4 provides a summary of the planned
obligations of fiscal year 2010 funds.
Table 4: Planned Obligations of Fiscal Year 2010 Funding (Cumulative
Dollars in Millions):
Program Management Office:
2010 Obligated[A]: $11.7;
2010 Quarter 3: $88.4;
2010 Quarter 4: $92.0;
2011 Quarter 1: $92.0;
2011 Quarter 2: $92.0.
SBI net:
2010 Obligated[A]: $56.6;
2010 Quarter 3: $288.4;
2010 Quarter 4: $352.6;
2011 Quarter 1: $358.3;
2011 Quarter 2: $469.0.
Tactical communications:
2010 Obligated[A]: [Empty];
2010 Quarter 3: $30.0;
2010 Quarter 4: $54.0;
2011 Quarter 1: $54.0;
2011 Quarter 2: $54.0.
Tactical infrastructure:
2010 Obligated[A]: $11.8;
2010 Quarter 3: $108.4;
2010 Quarter 4: $185.0;
2011 Quarter 1: $185.0;
2011 Quarter 2: $185.0.
Total:
2010 Obligated[A]: $80.1;
2010 Quarter 3: $515.2;
2010 Quarter 4: $683.6;
2011 Quarter 1: $689.3;
2011 Quarter 2: $800.0.
Source: CBP.
[A] Funds obligated are as of March 31, 2010.
[End of table]
With regard to SBI technology, the BSFIT expenditure plan and
documents referenced therein:
* Described planned obligations for some technology activities for
fiscal year 2010 funds, including the operation and maintenance of
SBInet deployments and tactical communications modernization, but did
not describe program activities associated with approximately $270
million in technology development and deployment funds.
* Described the performance requirements for SBI net Block 1, but did
not identify performance requirements for Northern Border Increments
1, 2, and 3, and stated that the Tactical Communications Modernization
Program is in the process of developing system availability
requirements.
* Described the program management capabilities that will continue to
be used in the future for technology activities administered by the
SBI program office, such as the strategic human capital management
plan, but did not include such descriptions for the Tactical
Communications Modernization Program.
Additionally, with regard to SBI technology, the BSFIT expenditure
plan and documents referenced therein described the links between
planned activities, expenditures, and outputs for some technology
activities,[Footnote 20] but did not link these to mission benefits
and outcomes (i.e., planned Tactical Communications Modernization
Program activities were linked to outputs, such as the purchase of all
services and equipment to complete the El Paso sector modernization,
but these outputs were not directly linked to outcomes, such as
improvements in operational control).
We plan to release a report in June 2010 that provides, among other
things, our assessment of Block 1 performance requirements,
acquisition, and mission benefits associated with SBI net investments.
With regard to TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* identified milestones and planned dates of completion for TI
projects planned for fiscal year 2010;
* included planned obligations for TI activities;
* described planned TI activities for fiscal year 2010, including
construction of pedestrian fencing and real estate planning and
acquisition to support future TI deployments; and;
* described fence performance standards”such as the ability of
pedestrian fencing to disable a vehicle”and described the miles of
fencing needed, for instance, in the Rio Grande Valley sector.
However, with regard to TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* linked planned actions and expenditures generally to outputs, but
did not link these to the outcome of operational control of the border
(i.e., planned TI activities were linked to outputs, such as the
construction of approximately 14 miles of fence along the southwest
border in the Rio Grande Valley sector, but these outputs were not
linked to improvements in operational control), and;
* mentioned the transfer of TI management from the SBI System Program
Office to Facilities Management and Engineering”CBP's primary
organization for accomplishing construction efforts, but did not
include information on the program management capabilities under the
new office.
Findings: Legislative Condition #4: Identifies Staffing by Activity
(Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Identifies staffing, including full-time
equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied the condition because they identified
staffing by program office, including contractors and detailees.
However, they did not specify whether this information included full-
time equivalents.
* The BSFIT expenditure plan and documentation referenced therein
identified staffing by program office for organizations that execute
BSFIT funds. As of December 31, 2009, CBP's program offices executing
BSFIT funds, including the SBI System Program Office, Office of
Administration, and Office of Information Technology, were staffed
with 299 employees (see table 5).
* However, they did not specify whether this information included full-
time equivalents.
Table 5: CBP Employees Executing BSFIT Funds, as of December 31, 2009:
SBI System Program Office:
Government employees: 87;
Contract employees: 88;
Detailees: 13;
Total: 188.
CBP Office of Administration:
Government employees: 29;
Contract employees: 35;
Detailees: 2;
Total: 66.
CBP Office of Information Technology:
Government employees: 6;
Contract employees: 31;
Detailees: 0;
Total: 37.
Other CBP Offices:
Government employees: 8;
Contract employees: 0;
Detailees: 0;
Total: 8.
Total
Government employees: 130:
Contract employees: 154;
Detailees: 15;
Total: 299.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
[End of table]
Findings: Legislative Condition #5: Describes Security Needs at the
Northern Border and Ports of Entry (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a description of how the plan
addresses security needs at the northern border and ports of entry,
including infrastructure, technology, design and operations
requirements, specific locations where funding would be used, and
priorities for northern border activities.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein satisfied this condition. For example, the plan provided a
general description of northern border security initiatives and
described the priorities and specific locations where the funding
designated for northern border technology will be used.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein:
* Provided a general description of northern border security
initiatives at and between ports of entry, such as (1) enhancing
technology infrastructure at and between ports of entry, (2)
modernizing communications infrastructure, and (3) deploying
additional border patrol agents to the northern border.
* Described how the $20 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007 was
used to start deploying additional existing sensor capability
technologies in four areas along the northern border.
* Described how the $40 million appropriated in fiscal year 2009 was
used to start a laboratory for improving operational integration of
border security efforts in the Detroit area.
* Described how the $40 million appropriated in fiscal year 2010 for
northern border technology will be mainly used to start filling
capability gaps against priority threats in six high-threat areas
across the northern border.
* Linked planned activities to primary threats along the northern
border, including terrorism, drug smuggling, contraband smuggling,
human smuggling, and travelers with bad intent (at ports of entry).
Findings: Legislative Condition #6: Reports on Budget, Activities
Completed, and Progress (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a report on budget, obligations and
expenditures, the activities completed, and the progress made by the
program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border
of the United States.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied this condition. The plan reported budget,
obligations, and expenditure amounts from fiscal years 2006 through
2010, and discussed activities completed. However, the plan did not
explicitly discuss the progress that the program has made in terms of
obtaining operational control of the U.S. border.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Reported on appropriations, obligations,[Footnote 21] and
expenditures for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 (see table 6).
Table 6: Funds Appropriated, Obligated and Expended, from Fiscal Years
2006-2010 through March 31, 2010 (Dollars in Millions):
Activity: Program management;
Appropriated: $300.0;
Distributed: $299.6;
Obligated: $188.0;
Expended: $156.0;
Available: $102.1.
Activity: SBInet;
Appropriated: $1,469.2;
Distributed: $1,464.6;
Obligated: $958.0;
Expended: $745.9;
Available: $448.4.
Activity: P25 tactical communications;
Appropriated: $150.7;
Distributed: $153.4;
Obligated: $22.4;
Expended: $10.2;
Available: $86.5.
Activity: TI;
Appropriated: $2,540.2;
Distributed: $2,542.0;
Obligated: $2,332.4;
Expended: $2,095.1;
Available: $197.7.
Activity: BSFIT total;
Appropriated: $4,460.2;
Distributed: $4,459.7;
Obligated: $3,500.8;
Expended: $3,007.3;
Available: $834.7.
Source: CBP data.
Note: Amounts may not add to totals because of rounding. Distributed
funds do not always match appropriated funds because of the status of
recoveries and their redistribution by CBP.
* Discussed completed activities, including;
- completion of over 640 miles of fencing as of October 30, 2009;
- deployment of Project 28; and;
- procurement of 44 MSS units.
* Did not explicitly discuss the progress made by these and other
program's activities in obtaining operational control of the U.S.
border. Instead, the plan focused on describing the progress made by
the program in terms of securing the U.S. border without defining this
term, linking it to the operational control of the border, or
providing performance measures on the progress made in obtaining
operational control of the border.
In September 2009, we recommended that the Commissioner of CBP conduct
a cost-effectiveness evaluation of the impact of TI on effective
control of the border in order to improve the quality of information
available to allocate resources and determine TI's contribution to
effectively controlling the border.[Footnote 22] CBP concurred with
our recommendation, and according to SBI officials, the Homeland
Security Institute is conducting the evaluation.
Findings: Legislative Condition #7: Lists All Open GAO and OIG
Recommendations (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include a listing 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.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied the condition because they listed and
provided the status and actions taken to address 9 of 14 open GAO
recommendations and 2 of 5 open OIG recommendations.
The expenditure plan lists nine open GAO recommendations.
* In February 2007, we recommended that "future expenditure plans
include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the
capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual
SBInet program activities."[Footnote 23] The BSFIT expenditure plan
stated that the fiscal year 2010 plan is more developed because it
includes additional information, such as SBInet milestones and life-
cycle costs for TI, and fully addresses this recommendation.
* However, based on our review, the fiscal year 2010 BSFIT expenditure
plan and documentation referenced therein did not fully address our
February 2007 recommendation because it did not include explicit and
measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, costs, and
benefits for all individual SBI program activities. For example, the
TI life-cycle cost information included in the plan did not meet our
criteria for a life-cycle cost estimate, and the plan did not include
complete life-cycle cost estimates for any SBI technology activities.
* In September 2008, we made eight recommendations related to
improving DHS's efforts to acquire and implement SBInet.[Footnote 23]
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documentation referenced therein
includes the status of actions to address each of these eight
recommendations. For example, the plan stated that since January 2009,
the SBI program has been actively working with the Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security and the DHS Acquisition Review Board on issues
regarding SBI net Block 1 deployment activities. We plan to publicly
release a report in June that among other things, addresses the DHS
efforts to address our prior SBInet recommendations.
The expenditure plan lists two open OIG recommendations:
* In April 2009, the OIG made four recommendations intended to help
CBP improve its management of TI fencing construction, two of which
remain open.[Footnote 24] The BSFIT expenditure plan and documentation
referenced therein includes the status of actions to address both of
these recommendations and associated time frames. For example, the
plan described CBP efforts under way to refine the capabilities of its
TI monitoring system.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein did not
list or provide the status of actions taken to address three open DHS
OIG recommendations and five open GAO recommendations.
* In June 2009, the OIG made two recommendations related to improving
oversight of support services contractors in SBI programs.[Footnote 26]
* In February 2010, the OIG recommended that CBP continue to monitor
prime contractor efforts to identify and recruit small businesses to
participate in awards under the SBI net contract.[Footnote 27]
* In September 2009, we recommended that CBP conduct a cost-
effectiveness evaluation of the impact of TI on operational control of
the border.[Footnote 28]
* In January 2010, we made four recommendations related to improving
DHS's management of SBI net testing.[Footnote 29]
Findings: Legislative Condition #8: Includes Certification by the DHS
CPO (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the Chief
Procurement Officer (CPO) of the Department, including all supporting
documents or memoranda, and documentation and a description of the
investment review processes used to obtain such certifications, that
(a) 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 as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; (b) 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
such actions, together with any plans for addressing these risks, and
the status of the implementation of such actions; and (c) 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 program,
all contracts, including the exercise of technical oversight.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied this condition. The DHS CPO certified that
the program met the condition's requirements. However, this
certification did not fully address all aspects of the condition. For
example, the assessment did not provide information on the status of
required action items from investment reviews, and the assessment did
not specifically certify that the program has adequate staff and
resources to effectively manage the program. Also, the plan did not
include all supporting documents or memoranda and documentation and a
description of the investment review processes used to obtain such
certification.
* On April 12, 2010, the DHS CPO certified that the SBI program was
reviewed in accordance with DHS capital planning and investment
control procedures, per OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, as well as DHS's
Acquisition Management Review process as documented in Acquisition
Decision Memoranda. The DHS Acquisition Review Board issued five
Acquisition Decision Memoranda in fiscal year 2009. These memoranda
authorized aspects of the program with required action items and
associated due dates as part of the acquisition review process.
However, the DHS CPO certification letter did not indicate the status
of required program action items resulting from the review process. In
related work, we found overdue action items for the SBI net program.
* The DHS CPO also certified that the program complied with federal
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices. A recent
DHS CPO review identified opportunities for improvement in contracting
processes and procedures, and the SBI Acquisition Office has
incorporated these recommendations into an action plan.
* The DHS CPO also certified that procedures to prevent conflicts of
interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are
established. The DHS CPO reported that procedures put in place prior
to fiscal year 2009 remain in effect and no changes have been made. We
previously reported that the prime contractor's Organizational
Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan delineates responsibilities,
rules, and procedures for avoiding, identifying, evaluating, and
resolving organizational conflicts of interest.[Footnote 30] However,
the DHS CPO's assessment did not specifically certify that the program
has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the program and
all contracts, including the exercise of technical oversight. The CPO
stated that staffing challenges remained and the SBI Program Office
had made progress in increasing its government staffing.
Findings: Legislative Condition #9: Includes Certification by the DHS
CIO (Not Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the Chief
Information Officer of the Department, including all supporting
documents and memoranda, and documentation and a description of the
investment review processes used to obtain such certification, that:
(a) 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 or were not assessed in making the
alignment determination, the date of the alignment determination, and
any known areas of misalignment together with the associated risks and
corrective actions to address any such areas; (b) 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 such risks; and (c) an
independent verification and validation agent is currently under
contract for the projects funded under this heading.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein did not satisfy this condition. The expenditure plan included
a CIO certification memorandum dated May 12, 2010. However, this
certification did not explicitly certify the conditions required by
the law. Also, the plan did not include any supporting documents or
memorandums and did not contain documentation and a description of the
investment review processes to obtain such certification.
* The CIO's May 12, 2010, memorandum did not certify that the system
architecture has been sufficiently aligned with the department's
architecture, that an effective risk management process is in place,
or that the program has an independent verification and validation
(IV&V) agent under contract.
* Instead, the CIO's memorandum certified "the FY10 Expenditure Plan,"
and identified a number of required actions that must be completed to
ensure enterprise architecture alignment, robust risk management, and
an effective use of an IV&V agent. For example:
- The CIO directed the SBInet Program Office to develop a target
architecture consistent with the CBP Technical Architecture and DHS
Service Oriented Architecture Technical Framework, and submit a plan
to show how the program will transition from the current SBInet COP to
the target architecture. DHS states in the Expenditure Plan that it
has begun a new initiative to procure an open architecture. Compliance
with the CBP and DHS target architecture is important because it
facilitates information sharing across DHS, as well as the sharing of
common system components and services across the department, thus
avoiding wasteful duplication.
* In addition, the CIO directed that the SBInet program undergo a
comprehensive, department-level evaluation to ensure that all risks
are being identified and managed, among other things. This evaluation
is to be completed by September 30, 2010.
Findings: Legislative Condition #10: Includes Certification by the DHS
CHCO (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the Chief Human
Capital Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs
of the SBI program are being addressed so as to ensure adequate staff
and resources to effectively manage SBI.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein satisfied the condition. On April 13, 2010, the DHS CHCO
certified that the CBP SBI human capital capabilities are sufficient
to execute the plans discussed in the Human Capital Strategic Plan and
supporting documentation. In the certification, the DHS CHCO noted
that the certification was based on a review of the SBI program's
human capital documents and on regular discussions with human capital
personnel.
* On April 13, 2010, the DHS CHCO certified that the CBP SBI human
capital capabilities are sufficient to execute the plans discussed in
the Human Capital Strategic Plan and supporting documentation.
* The DHS CHCO commended SBI for working aggressively to increase the
size of the federal staff, working more closely with managers to
ensure that positions are appropriately announced and highly qualified
candidates are referred for selection, and recognizing the need to
develop strategies for knowledge management and transfer, among other
things.
* The DHS CHCO also said that SBI recognizes that there are ongoing
staffing challenges, but is working to address those challenges
through its dedicated human capital staff to ensure the success of SBI
and to demonstrate its strong commitment to the workforce.
* To ensure continued compliance, the DHS CHCO said he will continue
to track progress toward identified goals and will meet quarterly with
SBI staff starting in July 2010 to track the progress of their efforts
and ensure that action plans and metrics show the results of these
activities and how they align with DHS strategic human capital
initiatives.
Findings: Legislative Condition #11: Includes Analysis of Alternatives
(Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes an analysis by the Secretary for each
segment, defined as not more than 15 miles, of fencing or TI, of the
selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving
operational control, and such analysis should include cost, level of
operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and
other factors critical to the decision making process.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein satisfied the condition. Specifically, the plan includes the
required information for each fencing segment, such as an alternative
means of achieving operational control, including cost, level of
operational control, and the possible unintended effects on
communities.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein provided
an analysis of alternatives for three fencing segments[Footnote 31]
and the analysis included:
* lengths of each fencing segment,
* level of operational control for each fencing segment,
* an analysis of the selected approach compared to other alternative
means of achieving operational control,
* costs associated with the different alternatives, and,
* the possible unintended effects on communities.
Conference and Senate Reports' Directions #1: Block 2 Funding
(Satisfied):
Conference report direction: The conferees are concerned about the
delays in deployment for SBInet "Blocks" 1 and 2, while also
recognizing the need to proceed carefully and to ensure steps are
taken to address all mission and operational test requirements.
Therefore, the conferees also direct that the expenditure plan specify
how additional funding included under this heading will be used to
further key deployment and demonstrations in support of the launch of
"Block 2."
Senate report direction: The expenditure plan for the use of the
recommended $800,000,000 shall provide an evaluation of opportunities
to add key technology development and demonstrations for the launch of
Block 2 of the SBI plan.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein satisfied the Conference and Senate reports' directions
because they stated that SBInet is not approved beyond Block 1 and
that funding is frozen beyond the Tus-1 and Ajo-1 Block 1 deployments
pending the department's assessment of SBInet, and described
activities that may contribute to the launch of Block 2, if Block 2
were to be approved. For example, the expenditure plan stated that DHS
intends to use $3 million of the additional fiscal year 2010 funds to
procure an open architecture COP that among other things, could be
used to meet existing and future SBI net requirements.[Footnote 32]
Conference Report's Direction #2: SBI net Evaluation and Acceptance
Criteria (Satisfied):
Conference report direction: The conferees continue to support
expeditious deployment of effective technology to enhance CBP's
execution of its border security mission, and recognize the renewed
rigor with which the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is evaluating the
operational utility of such technology. In fiscal year 2010, OBP is
expected to evaluate the SBInet"Block 1" increment through operational
field testing along the Southwest Border. While OBP's operational
requirements for border security technology are well documented, the
criteria OBP will use to determine acceptance of the SBInet prime
mission product remain unclear. The conferees direct CBP to delineate
the evaluation and acceptance criteria for SBInet in the required
BSFIT expenditure plan.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein satisfied the conference report direction because they
described how OBP will operationally assess the SBI net system.
Specifically, the expenditure plan states that OBP will assess the
SBInet Block l's system performance under actual operational
conditions in order to evaluate the system's mission effectiveness and
suitability, and it identifies the measures to be used to do so. It
further states, for example, that suitability will be evaluated by
assessing system reliability, operational availability, and
interoperability with legacy capabilities. According to SBI officials,
an operational test and evaluation plan for the initial SBI net
deployment to the Tucson sector, Tus-1, is being developed by the U.S.
Army, which has been appointed to plan and execute the testing, and is
anticipated to be completed by August 2010.
Conference Report's Direction #3: Northern Border Investment Trade-
offs (Partially Satisfied):
Conference report direction: The conferees are concerned that not all
options are receiving due consideration when allocating funding to
deploy technology to Border Patrol Sectors along the northern border.
While proven commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, such as
cameras, can significantly leverage existing manpower, many Border
Patrol stations lack such basic technology. At the same time, most
northern border technology investment is being put into one sector's
integration center. The conferees direct that the expenditure plan, in
describing northern border technology investments, explicitly address
tradeoffs between intensive investments (by operation or location)
versus providing COTS technology and support to more areas of the
northern border.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied the Conference report direction because,
although the expenditure plan acknowledged tradeoffs between intensive
investments versus providing COTS technology and support to more areas
of the northern border and described initiatives involving both, the
expenditure plan did not provide an explicit discussion of those
tradeoffs.
Conference and Senate Reports' Direction #4: Tactical Communications
Modernization (Partially Satisfied):
Conference report direction: The conferees direct that the plan
provide specific details on how additional funding shall be used to
expedite P25 tactical communications modernization.
Senate report direction: These additional funds shall be used to
expedite the P25 tactical communications modernization plan. The
expenditure plan shall provide specific details for these additional
activities.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied the Conference and Senate reports'
directions because, of the $11 million SBI determined would be
dedicated to P25, the plan described how $10 million would be used to
expedite P25 tactical communications modernization, for example, by
supporting environmental analysis in advance of contract awards for
the El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, and Houlton sectors. However, it did
not explain how the remaining $1 million would be used.
Conference and House Reports' Direction #5: Environmental Efforts
(Partially Satisfied):
Conference report direction: CBP is directed to include within its
fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan and as specified in the House
report, its proposed environmental planning and mitigation plan.
House report direction: The Committee directs CBP to examine the use
of buffer areas to accommodate both mitigation and security objectives
for detecting and responding to illegal border crossings, such as
those employed by the Department of Defense around bases and testing
areas, and report on findings. Also, include a detailed environmental
mitigation plan and report on mitigation efforts. The plan should be
science-based; include an extensive monitoring protocol; incorporate
best practices developed in consultation with relevant federal, state,
local and tribal authorities; and support land acquisition efforts for
mitigation purposes, where applicable. The plan should also address
mitigating and minimizing the impact not only of SBI construction and
infrastructure, but also of increasingly intensive Border Patrol
operations in sensitive border ecosystems.
GAO analysis: Regarding environmental planning and mitigation efforts,
the BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially
satisfied the Conference and House reports' directions because they:
* examined the use of buffer areas in future projects and provided
examples where use the buffer area concept may be successful, and;
* contained detailed information about environmental planning and the
agency's approach in developing a science-based mitigation plan.
However, they did not include a detailed environmental mitigation plan
and did not discuss how CBP will address mitigating the impact of
increasingly intensive Border Patrol operations.
House Report's Direction #6: Operations and Maintenance Funding
(Partially Satisfied):
House report direction: The Committee includes $200,000,000, as
requested for the operation and maintenance of systems and
infrastructure deployed with BSFIT funding. This represents a 33
percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 appropriated level. Within
this amount, the Committee understands that $75,000,000 is for
operations and maintenance costs for TI, with the remaining
$125,000,000 for support of technology, including tactical
communications and integrated logistics support of newly deployed
systems. The Committee expects to see a detailed rationale for the
application of this funding.
GAO analysis: Regarding the application of operations and maintenance
(O&M) funding, the BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfied the House report's direction because the
plan:
* identified how the $125 million in total O&M funding for technology
would be used, but did not provide a detailed rationale for the
application of all of these funds (for example, the plan identified a
contingency reserve, but it did not provide details for the
application of this funding);
* identified how the $50 million representing the 33 percent increase
in O&M funding would be used, but did not provide a detailed rationale
for the application of all of this funding (for example, the plan
again identified the contingency reserve, but it did not provide any
details); and;
* mentioned that $75 million in total O&M funding would be used for TI
and provided a detailed rationale for the application of this funding.
House Report's Direction #7: Analyses of Alternatives (Partially
Satisfied):
House report direction: To the extent that additional fencing is
proposed, include analyses of alternatives for effective control of
the border. Specifically, the Committee expects the fiscal year 2010
expenditure plan to document the decision process that led to
selection of fencing as the optimal solution. The Committee also
directs that such comparisons include the following: 1) A methodology
section to explain how CBP determined ratings and weightings, and the
standard direction applied to all segment analyses; 2) A description
of baseline costs of each segment, broken out by personnel,
infrastructure, and technology, and a detailed comparison of the cost
of each alternative against that baseline; 3) A comparison of
estimated level of border control, by segment, under each alternative
(deterrence and time/distance) relative to the current level of border
control. In defining the latter, CBP's estimates should incorporate
natural barriers or other features of the landscape as appropriate and
fully describe the contribution of such features in the plan.
Alternatives should consist of reasonable combinations of elements
(e.g., agents, sensors, and cameras), instead of being limited to
individual elements unlikely to be used in isolation. CBP should also
include alternatives proposed by communities or other stakeholder
groups, such as eradication of vegetation; enhancement of natural
barriers; or incorporation of security features into projects.
GAO analysis: Regarding the analyses of alternatives, the BSFIT
expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially satisfied
the House report's directions because it, for example, provided the
required methodology section and described baseline costs; however,
the costs were not broken out by personnel, infrastructure, and
technology for each alternative, as required. The BSFIT expenditure
plan and documents referenced therein:
* provided a methodology section to explain how CBP determined ratings
and weightings, and the standard guidance applied to all segment
analyses;
* compared the estimated level of border control, by segment, under
each alternative relative to the current level of border control;
* considered alternatives that consist of combinations of elements
(e.g., agents, sensors, and cameras), instead of being limited to
individual elements”in addition to individual elements analyses; and;
* provided a description of baseline costs for each segment broken out
by each alternative of control, but did not provide estimated costs
broken out by personnel, infrastructure, and technology for each
alternative.
However, the BSFIT expenditure plan and documentation referenced
therein did not provide information about alternatives proposed by
communities or other stakeholder groups, such as eradication of
vegetation, enhancement of natural barriers, or incorporation of
security features into projects.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Has Faced Challenges Deploying
Technology and Fencing Along the Southwest Border. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-651T]. Washington, D.C.: May 4,
2010.
Secure Border Initiative: Testing and Problem Resolution Challenges
Put Delivery of Technology Program at Risk. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-511T]. Washington, D.C.: March 18,
2010.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and Performance
Limitations That Place Key Technology Program at Risk. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-158]. Washington, D.C.: January 29,
2010.
Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the
Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1013T]. Washington, D.C.: September
17, 2009.
Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the
Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-896]. Washington, D.C.: September
9, 2009.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure Border Initiative Fiscal
Year 2009 Expenditure Plan. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-274R]. Washington, D.C.: April 30,
2009.
Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-244R]. Washington, D.C.: January
29, 2009.
Northern Border Security: DHS's Report Could Better Inform Congress by
Identifying Actions, Resources, and Time Frames Needed to Address
Vulnerabilities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-93].
Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2008.
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: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in
Delivering Key Technology Investment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086]. Washington, D.C.: September
22, 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: Observations on Deployment Challenges.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1141T]. 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 Oversight Needed
to Improve Complex Service Acquisition Outcomes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-765T]. Washington, D.C.: May 8,
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 briefing slides]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528
July 14, 2010:
Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and
Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan, GAO-10-877R.
A mandate in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations
Act, 2010, required DHS to complete an expenditure plan that satisfied
11 specified conditions, and for the plan to be submitted to and
approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee before the
agency could obligate $75 million of the $800 million appropriated for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) border security fencing,
infrastructure and technology. Also, the Act required GAO to review
this expenditure plan. In addition, Conference, Senate, and House
committee reports accompanying the Act directed that the plan address
7 items (referred to as "committee reports' directions").
In response to these requirements, DHS submitted a plan to Congress on
May 20, 2010, titled, "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and
Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan." As required by
the Act, GAO reviewed the plan and on June 17 and 18, 2010, briefed
staff of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees,
respectively, on the analysis of whether the plan satisfied the 11
legislative conditions and the 7 committee reports' directions. CBP
and the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) provided
comments to this draft report. GAO did not make any recommendations
for congressional consideration or agency action.
GAO's Findings: Certification by the DHS CPO was partially satisfied.
CPO failed to completely satisfy two of the three conditions to which
it certified.
CPO's Response: Concur in Part, We believe that the CPO certification
completely satisfied two of the three conditions of the legislative
requirements. In addition, we believe that the CPO certification
satisfied the intent of the third condition, although we agree it
could have included a more specific statement regarding the adequacy
of SBI staffing levels.
The GAO position and the CPO response for the two conditions cited by
the GAO are provided below:
1. GAO Assertion: GAO noted the CPO certified the SBI program was
reviewed in accordance with DHS capital planning and investment
control procedures, per OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, as well as DHS's
Acquisition Management Review process as documented in the Acquisition
Decision Memorandum. GAO further notes that the DHS Acquisition Review
Board issued five Acquisition Decision Memorandum in fiscal year 2009,
and that these memoranda authorized aspects of the program with
required action items and associated due dates as part of the
acquisition review process. However, despite all of these actions, GAO
does not believe the legislative requirement was satisfied because
"the DHS CPO certification letter did not indicate the status of
required program action items resulting from the review process. In
related work, we found overdue action items for the SBI Net Program."
CPO Response: CPO believes that this portion of the legislative
requirement was completely satisfied. The BSFIT programs have been
reviewed in accordance with the Department's Acquisition Management
Review process (attached Directive 102-01, Acquisition Management) and
documented in the five Acquisition Decision Memorandums (ADMs). These
ADMs document the Department's decisions concerning the BSFIT
programs, and specify the actions assigned, and the next Department
Management Reviews. This is per the Department's Acquisition
Management Review process. Including a statement regarding the status
of each of the action items assigned by the ADM is not required to
satisfy the legislative condition (although each action item is
tracked by the CPO).
2. GAO Assertion: The DHS CPO is required to certify that the SBI
Program Office has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage
the program and all contracts, including the exercise of technical
oversight. The GAO contends that this legislative requirement was not
satisfied because "the DHS CPO's assessment did not specifically
certify that the program has adequate staff and resources to
effectively manage the program and all contracts, including the
exercise of technical oversight. The CPO stated that staffing
challenges remained and the SBI Program Office had made progress in
increasing its government staffing."
CPO Response: CPO believes that the statement made in the
certification provides an accurate depiction of the current status of
the SBI staffing. However, we agree with the GAO that, in order to
meet the specific language in the statute, the certification statement
should have stated that the progress SBI has made in increasing its
Government staffing has resulted in having adequate staff to
effectively manage the program and all contracts. including the
exercise of technical oversight. However, as noted in the CPO
certification, we also believe it is important to recognize that
staffing challenges remain. This assures that the users of the
certification recognize that we are continuing to work on improving
the staffing levels across all acquisition functions to assure optimal
management of the program and its contracts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report and we
look forward to working with you on future homeland security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-47 (2009).
[2] The act required that the expenditure plan be submitted within 90
days after enactment.
[3] In response to similar requirements in previous appropriations
acts, we issued three reports containing the results of our reviews of
the fiscal year 2007, 2008, and 2009 SBI expenditure plans. See GAO,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure Border Initiative Fiscal
Year 2009 Expenditure Plan, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-274R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30,
2009); 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); and 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.: Feb. 15,
2007).
[4] H.R. Rep. No. 111-298, at 68-70 (2009) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No.
111-31, at 37-38 (2009); H.R. Rep. No. 111-157, at 41-45 (2009).
[5] Satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein
either satisfied or provided for satisfying each requirement of the
condition or direction that we reviewed. Partially satisfied means
that the plan either satisfied or provided for satisfying some, but
not all, key aspects of the condition or direction that we reviewed.
Not satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein
did not satisfy any of the key aspects of the condition or direction
we reviewed.
[6] The expenditure plan also did not satisfy condition 8, as noted in
slide 48, because it did not include the required supporting documents
or memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment
review process used to obtain the CPO certification.
[7] At a port of entry location, CBP officers are responsible for
securing the flow of people and cargo into and out of the country,
while facilitating legitimate travel and trade.
[8] Pub. L No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-47 (2009).
[9] GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure Border Initiative
Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-274R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30,
2009); 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); and Secure Border Initiative: SB/net Expenditure Plan Needs to
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15,
2007).
[10] H.R. Rep. No. 111-298, at 68-70 (2009) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No.
111-31, at 37-38 (2009); H.R. Rep. No. 111-157, at 41-45 (2009).
[11] For purposes of this briefing, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT
expenditure plan.
[12] Satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced
therein either satisfied or provided for satisfying each requirement
of the condition or direction that we reviewed. Partially satisfied
means that the plan either satisfied or provided for satisfying some,
but not all, key aspects of the condition or direction that we
reviewed. Not satisfied means that the plan and documentation
referenced therein did not satisfy any of the key aspects of the
condition or direction we reviewed.
[13] For the purposes of this briefing, we call this office the TI
Program Management Office.
[14] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects
of SB/net Program Implementation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-131T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24,
2007), and 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.: Feb. 27,
2008).
[15] The SBI Program Office defines government acceptance as the SBI
Program Office taking ownership of the SBInet technology system from
the contractor.
[16] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L No. 111-5,
123 Stat. 115, 162, 302 (2009).
[17] The SBI Program Office also has a supply and supply chain
management contract with Boeing to provide some construction
materials, such as steel, for fence construction projects. Boeing was
previously contracted to construct 32 miles of fencing in the Barry M.
Goldwater Range in 2007.
[18] For guidance on estimating costs, see GAO, GAO Cost Estimating
and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing
Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March
2009), p. 32.
[19] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 states that
outcomes describe the intended result of carrying out a program or
activity. Outcomes define an event or condition that is external to
the program or activity and that is of direct importance to the
intended beneficiaries, the public, or both.
[20] OMB Circular A-11 states that outputs describe the level of
activity that will be provided over a period of time, including a
description of the characteristics (e.a.. timeliness) established as
standards for the activity. Outputs refer to the internal activities
of a program (i.e,. the products and services delivered).
[21] An independent auditor's report on DHS's fiscal year 2009
financial statements found that CBP did not enforce its policies and
procedures to monitor and deobligate or close out its obligations in a
timely manner, but noted that CBP had initiated a review of open
obligations and, as a result, had deobligated funds. We did not assess
the extent to which this audit finding is material to the obligation
and expenditure data provided by CBP in its BSFIT expenditure plan.
See Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
Independent Auditors' Report on U.S. Custom and Border Protection's FY
2009 Financial Statements (Washington. D.C.. Feb. 2. 2010).
[22] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays
Persist and the Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-896] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 9, 2009).
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-07-309].
[242] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant
Risks in Delivering Key Technology Investment, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22,
2008).
[25] Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
Progress in Addressing Secure Border Initiative Operational
Requirements and Constructing the Southwest Border Fence (Washington,
D.C., Apr. 15, 2009).
[26] Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
Better Oversight Needed of Support Services Contractors in Secure
Border Initiative Programs (Washington, D.C., June 17, 2009).
[27] Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, CBP
Faces Challenges in Achieving Its Goals for Small Business
Participation in Secure Border Initiative Network. (Washington, D.C.,
Feb. 3, 2010).
[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-896].
[29] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and
Performance Limitations That Place Key Technology Program at Risk,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-158] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 29, 2010).
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-09-274R].
[31] An attachment to the BSFIT expenditure plan provided an analysis
of alternatives for three fencing segments that are expected to be
completed, under construction, or under contract using fiscal year
2010 funds.
[32] An open architecture is an architecture that employs public and
nonproprietary standards for key interfaces within a system. The BSFIT
expenditure plan identifies the benefits of an open architecture to
include the ability to reuse components among systems and to insert
technology as it evolves.
[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:
