U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan
Gao ID: GAO-12-106R November 17, 2011This letter is the formal response to a mandate in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. This mandate required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to (1) update its Fiscal Year 2010 expenditure plan on border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) for fiscal year 2011 budget authority and (2) submit the updated plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The plan is to address 10 legislative conditions in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations act and be reviewed by GAO. DHS submitted an updated plan to Congress on September 8, 2011. As required by the act, we reviewed the plan.
The expenditure plan satisfied some but not all of the legislative conditions. Specifically, of the 10 legislative conditions, the expenditure plan satisfied 3, partially satisfied 5, and did not satisfy 2. Based on our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans over 5 consecutive years, DHS has consistently not included all required elements in the plans leading to partially satisfied or not satisfied legislative conditions each year. Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress with a more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs. Similarly, including an explanation in the certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of the condition were or were not certified, along with references to supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more clarity on how and why the BSFIT programs were or were not certified. Based on the results of our review, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that are not fully addressed. Further, we are recommending that the Secretary enhance the plan by ensuring that the required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review processes used for the certifications along with references to the documentation used to make certifications for each relevant BSFIT-funded program.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Richard M. Stana Team: Government Accountability Office: Homeland Security and Justice Phone: (202) 512-8816GAO-12-106R, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-106R
entitled 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure
Plan' which was released on November 17, 2011.
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-12-106R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 17, 2011:
The Honorable Mary Landrieu:
Chairman:
The Honorable Frank Lautenberg:
Vice Chairman:
The Honorable Dan Coats:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt:
Chairman:
The Honorable David E. Price:
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 2011 Expenditure Plan:
This letter formally transmits the briefing slides we provided on
November 16, 2011, in response to a mandate in the Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.[Footnote 1]
This mandate required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to (1)
update its Fiscal Year 2010 expenditure plan on border security
fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) for fiscal year 2011
budget authority and (2) submit the updated plan to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees. The plan is to address 10
legislative conditions in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations act
and be reviewed by GAO.[Footnote 2]
DHS submitted an updated plan to Congress on September 8, 2011.
[Footnote 3] As required by the act, we reviewed the plan. To conduct
this work, we analyzed the expenditure plan and documents referenced
within the plan, such as strategic plans and reports, and interviewed
DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to obtain
clarification on material contained in the expenditure plan, including
certification memoranda from the DHS Chief Procurement, Chief
Information, and Chief Human Capital Officers.
In summary, the expenditure plan satisfied some but not all of the
legislative conditions. Specifically, of the 10 legislative
conditions, the expenditure plan satisfied 3, partially satisfied 5,
and did not satisfy 2 (see enclosure, table 1, slides 7 through 9).
[Footnote 4] For more information on the legislative conditions and
the results of our analyses, see enclosure, slides 16 through 25.
Based on our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans over 5 consecutive
years, DHS has consistently not included all required elements in the
plans leading to partially satisfied or not satisfied legislative
conditions each year. Providing an explanation of which elements of
the legislative conditions were not included in the expenditure plan
and why the elements were not included would help DHS to provide
Congress with a more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-
funded programs. Similarly, including an explanation in the
certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of
the condition were or were not certified, along with references to
supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more clarity on
how and why the BSFIT programs were or were not certified. Based on
the results of our review, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that
explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that
are not fully addressed. Further, we are recommending that the
Secretary enhance the plan by ensuring that the required certification
memoranda include descriptions of the review processes used for the
certifications along with references to the documentation used to make
certifications for each relevant BSFIT-funded program.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS
provided written comments which are reprinted in the enclosure,
appendix V. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS concurred
with our first recommendation to enhance the expenditure plan by
ensuring that explanations are included for all required legislative
conditions that are not fully addressed and stated that CBP is
committed to providing complete and thorough information in future
BSFIT expenditure plans. In addition, DHS concurred with our second
recommendation to enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that
required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review
processes used for the certifications along with references to
supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. In
commenting on the draft, DHS noted that the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT
expenditure plan is mandated to be an update to the fiscal year 2010
and earlier BSFIT expenditure plans and that CBP therefore omitted
discussions that were addressed in the earlier plans such as detailed
program management capabilities. We recognize that the fiscal year
2011 expenditure plan was mandated to be an update and reviewed the
plan accordingly. For example, in instances where changes in BSFIT
programs were significant, we assessed whether the fiscal year 2011
plan provided current and accurate information. Specifically,
regarding detailed program management capabilities, between the
issuance of the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 BSFIT expenditure plans, DHS
reorganized its management of the acquisition, deployment and
integration of surveillance and detection technologies, dissolving the
Secure Border Initiative program management office and creating the
Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition. We assessed whether
the BSFIT plan addressed detailed program management capabilities of
the new office, among other things.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. 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
correspondence will also be available at no charge on our web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have
questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777
or stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Key contributors to this report were Chris Keisling, Assistant
Director; Kevin Copping, Analyst-in-Charge; Sarah Arnett; Michael
Sweet; Frances Cook; Celina Davidson; Rebecca Wilson; Richard Hung;
Linda Miller; and Lara Miklozek.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Briefing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology:
Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan:
Prepared for the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations:
November 16, 2011:
Briefing Overview:
* Introduction;
* Objective, Scope, and Methodology;
* Results in Brief;
* Background;
* Finding:
- Legislative Conditions;
* Conclusions;
* Recommendations;
* Agency Comments;
* Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs;
* Appendix II: Tactical Infrastructure Program;
* Appendix III: Tactical Communications Modernization Program;
* Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis;
* Appendix V: Comments from DHS;
* Related GAO Products.
Introduction:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched the Secure Border
Initiative (SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort aimed at
securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration, in November
2005. Under this initiative, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
the lead agency within DHS for border security, implemented the
following programs:
* SBI Network (SBInet)-”A mix of radars, sensors, and cameras along 53
miles of Arizona's 376-mile border with Mexico.
* Northern Border Program”-A mix of cameras, radars, and operations
centers along the northern border.
* Tactical Communications (TACCOM) Modernization-”Upgrade to CBP
communications systems.
* Tactical Infrastructure (TI)-”Fences, roads, and lighting along the
southwest border.
In January 2011, after 5 years and a cost of nearly $1 billion, DHS
ended SBInet because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability
standards.
DHS is developing a successor plan to secure the southwest border
called the Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology plan. The plan's
first phase is the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, which
also includes a mix of radars, sensors, and cameras. The Arizona
Border Surveillance Technology Plan is expected to cost approximately
$1.5 billion over 10 years.
The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011, required DHS to update its fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan on
border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology for fiscal
year 2011 budget authority and submit the updated plan to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees.[Footnote 5] The plan is to
address 10 legislative conditions set forth in the fiscal year 2010
DHS appropriations act and be reviewed by GAO.[Footnote 6] DHS
received approximately $573 million for border security fencing,
infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) programs for fiscal year 2011.
[Footnote 7]
In response to similar requirements in previous appropriations acts,
we issued four reports discussing the extent to which DHS met
legislative conditions for its fiscal year 2007, 2008, 2003, and 2010
BSFIT expenditure plans.[Footnote 8]
In response to the above requirements, DHS submitted a plan to
Congress on September 8, 2011, titled Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure
Plan. [Footnote 9]
Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objective was to determine whether CBP's BSFIT expenditure plan
satisfied 10 legislative conditions as specified in the Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.
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 DHS and 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 10 legislative conditions, we limited our
assessment to information in the expenditure plan and documents
referenced in the plan because the legislative conditions specified
that the expenditure plan was to contain the information to address
them.
Also, in making our determination regarding the extent to which the
plan satisfied the 10 legislative conditions, we examined the
expenditure plan and documents referenced therein for the presence of
the required elements. We did not assess the quality of these elements.
We compared the results of our analysis of the 2007 through 2010 BSFIT
expenditure plans with the results of our 2011 analysis.
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 conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through November
2011 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.
Results in Brief:
Of the 10 legislative conditions, the BSFIT expenditure plan and
documents referenced therein satisfy 3, partially satisfy 5, and do
not satisfy 2.[Footnote 10] The 10 legislative conditions and the
level of satisfaction are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions:
Legislative conditions: 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[A];
Status: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative conditions: 2. A description of how specific projects will
further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DI-IS Secure Border
Strategic Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding to the
highest priority border security needs[B]
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative conditions: 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 conditions: 4. An identification of staffing, including
full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office.
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative conditions: 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 conditions: 6. A report on 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 conditions: 7. A listing of all open GAO and Office of
Inspector General (01G) recommendations related to the program and the
status of DI-IS actions to address the recommendations, including
milestones to fully address such recommendations;
Status: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative conditions: 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 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, and all contracts under the program, including the
exercise of technical oversight;
Status: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative conditions: 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 has been determined to be
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 DI-IS 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 the BSFIT heading;
Status: Not Satisfied.
Legislative conditions: 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: Not Satisfied.
Sources: Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. at 2145-47, as made applicable
with modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat.
at 102-03,140. and GAO analysis.
[A] Since 2007, SBI programs, including tactical infrastructure,
SBlnet, Northern Border program and TACCOM, have been funded from the
BSFIT account in DHS appropriations. While SBlnet was canceled in
January 2011, the other SBI programs listed above in addition to the
SBlnet successor program, the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology
plan, are still funded from the BSFIT account. The legislative
conditions refer to these programs when stating the program" or the
SBI program."
[B] Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan
(Washington, D.C., Dec. 1, 2006).
[End of table]
For the five legislative conditions that we determined that DHS
partially satisfied, DHS officials told us that they did not include
the required elements because of an oversight or because the elements
were under development. An explanation was not included in the BSFIT
expenditure plan.
For the two legislative conditions that we determined that DHS did not
satisfy, in one case DHS officials told us that they did not include
the required element because of an oversight and in the other case
they did not provide supporting documentation for the certification.
An explanation was not included in the BSFIT expenditure plan.
By providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative
conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the
elements were not included, DHS would provide Congress with a more
complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs. Moreover,
for those conditions that require a certification, including an
explanation in the certification memorandum of why elements of the
condition were or were not certified, along with references to
supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more information
in appropriating funds to BSFIT.
We are recommending that the Secretary of DHS enhance the expenditure
plan by ensuring that explanations are included for all legislative
conditions that are not fully addressed and that required
certification memoranda include descriptions of review processes used
for the certifications along with references to supporting
documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. DHS concurred
with these recommendations.
Background: BSFIT Appropriations:
Over $4.7 billion has been appropriated for BSFIT activities from
fiscal years 2007 through 2011 (see Table 2).
Table 2: BSFIT Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011 (Dollars
in Thousands):
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[D].
Fiscal year: 2011;
Appropriated funds: $573,000[E].
Fiscal year: Total;
Appropriated funds: $$4,708,152.
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 (2006). BSFIT funds 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 (2007). BSFIT 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.
[D] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L.
No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145 (2009).
[E]Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act,
2011, Pub. L. No.112-10 div. B, § 1610(a), 125 Stat. 38, 140,
appropriated $574,173,000. An across-the-board cut to DHS
appropriations of 0.2 percent reduced the BSFIT appropriation to $573
million.
[End of table]
Map of 20 Border Patrol Sectors:
The Border Patrol has 20 sectors as shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: U.S. Border Patrol Sectors:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
U.S. Border Patrol Sectors:
Blaine;
Buffalo;
Del Rio;
Detroit;
El Centro;
El Paso;
Grand Forks;
Havre;
Houston;
Laredo;
Miami;
New Orleans;
Ramey;
Rio Grande Valley;
San Diego;
Spokane;
Swanton;
Tucson;
Yuma.
Source: CBP.
[End of figure]
Background: BSFIT-Funded Programs:
BSFIT-funded programs include:
* Surveillance technology programs:
- Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan”-is to place border
surveillance and related technologies in Arizona.
- Northern Border Program”-is to provide technology deployments and
demonstrations for addressing the needs and vulnerabilities of the
Northern Border.
- Legacy Systems--provide surveillance, detection, tracking and
identification capabilities.[Footnote 11]
* Tactical infrastructure (TI) program”projects for pedestrian
fencing, vehicle fencing, roads, and lighting.[Footnote 12]
* Tactical communications (TACCOM) modernization pro dram”-systems
such as mobile radios to enable communications for CBP agents and
officers.[Footnote 13]
Background: Program Management Responsibilities:
The CBP program offices responsible for the implementation of BSFIT-
funded programs are the:
* Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA). OTIA manages
the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, the Northern Border
Program, and other technology projects. OTIA was formed in July 2010
and took over the responsibilities of the SBI program office related
to the acquisition, deployment and integration of surveillance and
detection technologies.
* Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure (BPFTI) ”
Program Management Office (PMO). The BPFTI PMO is part of CBP's Office
of Administration and manages TI projects.
* Office of Information and Technology (OIT) ” Wireless Systems
Program Office (WSPO). 01T-WSPO manages TACCOM Modernization.
Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for program management: $76.4
million.
Background: Summary of GAO Products related to SBI and the Alternative
Southwest Border Technology Plan:
We have publicly reported on the SBI program 23 times since February
2007 and have made 38 recommendations (see list of related GAO
products at the end of this briefing).
* Our reports and recommendations pointed to an SBlnet technology
program that was in a constant state of flux, with delays in
deployment that required 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 did not produce
expected results.
On November 4, 2011 we reported on the extent to which CBP has the
information needed to develop and implement its Arizona Border
Surveillance Technology Plan, the first stage of the Alternative
Southwest Border Technology Plan, and the extent to which CBP's
estimated life-cycle costs for the Arizona Border Surveillance
Technology Plan reflect best practices. The report had three
recommendations related to CBP's planning for its new technology
approach and three recommendations related to increasing the
reliability of cost estimation for the plan.[Footnote 14]
Legislative Condition #1: Detail Program Progress to Date (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include 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 satisfy legislative condition 1. The plan provides a
detailed accounting of the BSFIT funded programs' implementation to
date, milestones, and system capabilities and services for technology
investments. However, the plan and documents referenced therein do not
provide system performance levels, mission benefits or outcomes for
all investments or programs, or detailed descriptions of program
management capabilities. The plan and documents referenced therein do
not provide cost targets, maximum investment, and the methodology for
determining cost figures for each technology investment program. CBP
officials told us that they did not include this information in the
plan because of an oversight. Additionally, for TACCOM, CBP did not
include a cost target because it was still under development.[Footnote
15]
Legislative Condition #2: Describe How Activities Further the
Objectives of SBI's Strategic Plan (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include a description of how specific projects
will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the 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 satisfies condition 2. The
expenditure plan provides information on how technology investments
and tactical infrastructure projects further objectives from the
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and CBP's Missions, Goals,
and Strategies FY 2011-2013; these objectives align with those in DHS's
Secure Border Strategic Plan (2006).[Footnote 16] The expenditure plan
states that CBP has determined that Arizona is the highest priority
security need. CBP used an operational assessment to determine the
allocation of funds within the Tucson Sector of Arizona.[Footnote 17]
Legislative Condition #3: Describe How Funds Are Obligated to Meet
Future Program Commitments (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include 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 satisfy legislative condition 3. The BSFIT
expenditure plan includes some information required by the condition,
such as a plan defining how all funds are to be obligated for
surveillance technology, TACCOM, and TI, and the planned expenditures
needed to achieve TI milestones. However, the expenditure plan and
documents referenced therein do not include a link between planned
expenditures and milestones, services, system performance levels,
mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities.
CBP officials told us that because of an oversight they did not draft
the BSFIT expenditure plan with a level of detail to establish such a
linkage.[Footnote 18]
Legislative Condition #4: Identify Staffing by Activity (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Identify staffing, including full-time
equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies the condition. The
plan identifies staffing levels by program office for organizations
that execute BSFIT funds.[Footnote 19]
Legislative Condition #5: Describe Security Needs at the Northern
Border and Ports of Entry (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include 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 satisfies this condition. The
plan describes how $46.5 million of appropriated funds will address
the security needs at the northern border and POEs including
infrastructure, deployment of surveillance technologies, and the
northern border security priorities related to the missions, goals,
and objectives of DNS and CBP.[Footnote 20]
Legislative Condition #6: Report on Budget, Activities Completed, and
Progress (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include 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 satisfy this condition. The plan reports the budget,
obligations, and expenditure amounts from fiscal years 2006 through
2011 and discusses activities completed. However, the plan and
documents referenced therein do not discuss the progress that the
BSFIT-funded programs have made in terms of obtaining operational
control of the U.S. border.[Footnote 21] CBP officials told us that
they no longer use operational control as a measure of border security
but instead are developing three new performance measures to measure
security at the southwest border.[Footnote 22]
Legislative Condition #7: Provide a Status of 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 satisfy the condition because although the plan
lists all six open GAO recommendations and two open OIG
recommendations, the description of the status of DHS actions to
address the open recommendations does not contain milestones for five
of the six GAO open recommendations and one of the two open OIG
recommendations. CBP officials told us that they had information
available on milestones for addressing open recommendations but did
not include this information in the BSFIT expenditure plan because of
an oversight.[Footnote 23]
Legislative Condition #8: Include Certification by the DHS CPO
(Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include a certification by the 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, and all contracts under the program;
including the exercise of technical oversight.
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced
therein partially satisfy this condition. The DHS CPO certified that
the programs met the condition's requirements and referenced
supporting documentation. However, the certification memorandum did
not fully address all aspects of the condition because the assessment
did not certify that the program has adequate staff. DHS CPO officials
told us that they used the term "resources" in the certification
memorandum to encompass both resources and program staff. However,
because the memorandum did not specify "staff', DHS technically did
not satisfy the condition.[Footnote 24]
Legislative Condition #9: Include Certification by the DHS CIO (Not
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include a certification by the CIO 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 has been determined to be 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 do not satisfy this condition. The plan includes a CIO
certification memorandum; however, this certification does not
explicitly certify the conditions required by law, including that the
system architecture was sufficiently aligned with DHS's architecture,
that an effective risk management process is in place, and that the
program has an independent verification and validation agent under
contract. Also, the plan does not include or reference supporting
documents or memoranda and does not contain a description of the
investment review processes used to obtain the certification. A senior
DHS CIO official told us that the office did not include this
information in the certification memo but could not explain why this
was not done.
Legislative Condition #10: Include Certification by the DHS
CHCO (Not Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include 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 do not satisfy the condition. In a July 28, 2011, memorandum,
the DHS CHCO declined to certify the BSFIT expenditure plan because
the OTIA human capital plans and supporting documentation were
unavailable during the transition from the SBI program to OTIA.
Further, the CHCO did not address the human capital needs of the OIT
WSPO and BPFTI PMO. DHS officials told us that they did not direct the
CHCO to conduct a certification of the other two program offices
because they focused on the legacy SBI PMO's transition to OTIA. DHS
officials agreed that human capital certifications in future BSFIT
expenditure plans should address all three program management offices.
[Footnote 25]
Status of Legislative Conditions from 2007 through 2011:
Our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans in fiscal years 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2011 have consistently shown that the plans have not
satisfied all elements of the legislative conditions specified for
each year. (See Table 3 for selected results of our reviews for these
years.)
While DHS told us why certain conditions were not fully satisfied in
the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT expenditure plan”including that required
elements were omitted or under development”these explanations were not
included in the plan. Internal control standards for the federal
government call for agencies to promptly record and clearly document
significant events to maintain their relevance and value to decision
makers in ensuring that their objectives are met.[Footnote 26]
Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative
conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the
elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress with a
more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs as
well as reasonable assurance that CBP's planned expenditures for its
multi-billion dollar border security efforts are in accordance with
legislative requirements. Similarly, including an explanation in each
certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of
the condition were or were not certified, along with references to
supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more clarity on
how and why the BSFIT programs were or were not certified.
GAO Reviews of Fiscal Years 2007 - 2011 BSFIT Expenditure Plans:
Table 3: GAO Reviews of Fiscal Years 2007-2011 BSFIT Expenditure Plans:
Legislative Condition: No. 1: Detailed accounting of implementation to
date (including milestones and costs);
FY 2007[A]: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 2: Describes how projects further the
objectives of the Secure Border Initiative and funding is allocated
according to highest priority security needs;
FY 2007[A]: Not Satisfied;
FY 2008: Not Satisfied;
FY 2009: Satisfied;
FY 2010: Satisfied;
FY 2011: Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 3: Explicit plan of how funds obligated and
how planned expenditures link to milestones, services, performance
levels, benefits and outcomes, and management capabilities;
FY 2007[A]: Satisfied[B];
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 4: Identification of staffing by program
office;
FY 2007[A]: Satisfied;
FY 2008: Satisfied;
FY 2009: Satisfied;
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2011: Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 5: Addresses security needs at northern
border (including infrastructure, technology, and priorities for
activities);
FY 2007[A]: N/A;
FY 2008: Satisfied;
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Satisfied;
FY 2011: Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 6: Report on budget, obligations and
expenditures and progress made to obtain operational control of entire
U.S. border;
FY 2007[A]: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 7: Listing of all open GAO and DHS OIG
recommendations related to program and status of DHS actions to
address them;
FY 2007[A]: N/A;
FY 2008: Satisfied;
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No 8: Certification by Chief Procurement
Officer (DHS);
FY 2007[A]: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2008: Satisfied[C];
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 9: Certification by Chief Information
Officer (DHS);
FY 2007[A]: Satisfied[C];
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied[C];
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Not Satisfied;
FY 2011: Not Satisfied.
Legislative Condition: No. 10: Certification by Chief Human Capital
Officer (DHS);
FY 2007[A]: N/A;
FY 2008: Satisfied;
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied;
FY 2010: Satisfied;
FY 2011: Not Satisfied.
Source:GAO.
[A] Several of the legislative conditions were less detailed in fiscal
year 2007 than in subsequent fiscal years, but wed the same broad
categories.
[B] In fiscal year 2007, conditions 3 and 4 were combined into one
legislative condition as identifies funding and the organization
staffing requirements by activity. This condition received a satisfied
rating.
[C] Fiscal years 2007 and 2008 legislative conditions did not have a
rolled-up assessment of the CPO and CIO's certifications. In fiscal
year 2007, all elements of the CPO certification were included;
however, only one of three elements of the CIO legislative condition
was present GAO gave the CPO-related conditions two partially
satisfied and one satisfied rating. The CIO-related condition received
a satisfied rating. In fiscal year 2003 all CIO and CPO sub-criteria
were present and received the same rating as is shown in this table.
[End of table]
Conclusions:
Based on our reviews of the current BSFIT expenditure plan and those
of the previous 4 years, DHS has consistently not included all
required elements in the plans leading to partially or not satisfied
legislative conditions each year. While DHS told us why certain
conditions were not fully satisfied, these reasons were not described
in the plans.
Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative
conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the
elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress with a
more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs as
well as the extent to which CBP's planned expenditures for its multi-
billion dollar border security efforts are reported in accordance with
legislative requirements.
Similarly, including an explanation in each certification memorandum
of why all legislatively required elements of the condition were or
were not certified, along with references to supporting documentation,
would provide Congress with more clarity on how and why the BSFIT
programs were or were not certified.
Recommendations:
To provide the Congress with the best information possible on the
status and proposed expenditures of the programs described in any
future BSFIT expenditure plan, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that:
1. explanations are included for all required legislative conditions
that are not fully addressed; and;
2. required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review
processes used for the certifications along with references to
supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS
provided written comments which are reprinted in Appendix V. DHS
concurred with our first recommendation and stated that CBP is
committed to providing complete and thorough information in future
BSFIT expenditure plans. DHS also concurred with our second
recommendation. Further, DHS noted that the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT
expenditure plan is mandated to be an update to the fiscal year 2010
and earlier BSFIT expenditure plans and that CBP omitted discussions
that were addressed in the earlier plans such as detailed program
management capabilities. We recognize this point and reviewed the plan
accordingly. For example, where changes in BSFIT programs were
significant, we assessed whether the fiscal year 2011 plan provided
current and accurate information. Specifically, regarding detailed
program management capabilities, between the fiscal year 2010 and 2011
BSFIT expenditure plans, DHS reorganized its management of the
acquisition, deployment, and integration of surveillance and detection
technologies, dissolving the Secure Border Initiative Program
management office and creating OTIA. We assessed whether the BSFIT
plan addressed detailed program management capabilities of the new
office, among other things. DHS also provided technical comments which
we incorporated, as appropriate.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs:
Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan:
Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment:
$185 million:
Projects:
* Agent Portable Surveillance System: portable ground-sensing radar
and computer equipment to provide surveillance.
* Integrated Fixed Tower: system of fixed towers, commercial sensors,
and Border Patrol (BP) stations to provide a wide area surveillance.
* Mobile Surveillance Capabilities: suite of vehicle-mounted mobile
sensory equipment to provide wide area surveillance.
* Mobile Video Surveillance System: camera system mounted on a vehicle
to provide surveillance.
* Remote Video Surveillance System: remotely-controlled video cameras
attached to towers or other structures for day and night surveillance.
* Thermal Imaging Devices: device for BP agents to see clearly at an
effective range in areas that are dimly lit or in total darkness.
* Unattended Ground Sensors and Imaging Sensors: ground detection and
imaging systems to detect activity and transmit information.
Northern Border Program:
Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment,
Operations and Maintenance: $46.5 million.
Projects:
* Operational Integration Center: collaborative operations center for
DHS, CBP, and federal, state, local, and Canadian partners.
* Low-Flying Aircraft Surveillance: short-range radar systems to
detect low-flying aircraft.
* Aircraft Video Down Link: technology to send aircraft video imagery
to BP agents on the ground.
* Ku Band Satellite Backhaul: technology to send aircraft video and
data long distances.
* Maritime Radar: detection system for maritime traffic.
* Combined Agency Security Centers: surveillance monitoring centers
that support land ports of entry (POE) on the northern border.
[Footnote 27]
* Border Security Deployment Project: project to deliver technologies
to CASC and associated land POE.
* Northern Border-1: surveillance systems at Detroit, Buffalo, and
Swanton Sectors, and the Champlain POE.
* Mobile Surveillance Capabilities: suite of vehicle-mounted mobile
sensory equipment to provide wide area surveillance.
Legacy Surveillance Systems:
Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Operations and Maintenance:
$61.8 million:
Projects:
* Block 1 System: legacy SBlnet deployment of towers with integrated
day and night cameras, radars, unattended ground sensors and a "Common
Operating Picture" that displays the results at a command center.
Deployed to 53 miles of the Arizona border with Mexico.
* Static Remote Video Surveillance: static cameras for day and night
surveillance of fixed areas such as a road or tunnel.
* Border Intrusion Surveillance System: camera system to monitor and
record border intrusions.
* Trailered Remote Video Surveillance: remotely-controlled cameras
that are integrated on a mobile trailer or platform.
* Remote Video Surveillance System: remotely-controlled video cameras
attached to towers or other structures for day and night surveillance.
* Mobile Video Surveillance System: camera system mounted on a vehicle
to provide surveillance.
Other Technology:
Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment:
$40.6 million:
Projects:
* Open Architecture: investment to standardize interfaces for future
information technology deployments.
* Innovative Technology Pilot Program: program to augment CBP's
selection of technology-based tools through testing and operational
demonstrations.
* Systems Engineering/Modeling and Simulation (Technology Road Map):
tool that will link technology capabilities to mission needs.
* Ultra Light Aircraft Detection: detection and tracking system for
slow-flying aircraft.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Tactical Infrastructure Program:
Since fiscal year 2006, CBP has allocated approximately $2.9 billion
for TI along the southwest border. Fiscal year 2011 planned
expenditures are $25 million for TI deployment and $75 million for TI
maintenance.
TI includes both pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Pedestrian fencing is
intended to help prevent people on foot from crossing the border and
vehicle fencing is intended to help prevent vehicles engaged in drug
trafficking and alien smuggling operations from crossing the border.
* As of August 2011, CBP had constructed 649 miles of pedestrian and
vehicle fencing on the 1,993-mile southwest border, covering about 33
percent of the border.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Tactical Communications Modernization Program:
TACCOM systems such as mobile radios enable communications for CBP
agents and officers. CBP's fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures
include $40 million on development and deployment of TACCOM projects
and $16.4 million on TACCOM maintenance. Primarily funded by BSFIT in
fiscal year 2011, TACCOM modernization includes the following projects:
* Project-25 Modernization:[Footnote 28]
- Replacement of current voice communications infrastructure to
provide expanded coverage and capacity, encryption to allow for secure
voice communications, and enhanced interoperability with other
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
- Tucson, Yuma, Rio Grande Valley, Houlton, and El Paso BP Sectors are
receiving the Project-25 Modernization.
* Digital in Place:
- Transitions CBP analog radio equipment in the remaining 15 BP
Sectors to the digital Project-25 interoperability standard.
TACCOM 2:
* Would enable CBP to provide voice, video, and data capabilities to
end users by using third-party subscriber broadband wireless systems.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis:
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1:
With regard to surveillance technology investments in the Arizona
Border Surveillance Technology Plan and the Northern Border Program,
the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date, including
completed and future milestones.
* Describes the system capabilities and services provided by each
technology investment. For example, Mobile Video Surveillance Systems
provides persistent video surveillance and situational awareness in
rural, remote areas.
* Provides mission benefits for each technology investment. For
example, Low Flying Aircraft Surveillance provides area surveillance
and situational awareness in rural, remote, and semi-urban areas.
* Describes the formation and organization of the OTIA Program
Management Office.
* Provides system performance levels for six of the seven Arizona
Border Surveillance Technology Plan projects and states that system
performance levels are under development for the remaining project.
* Provides system performance levels for one of the eight Northern
Border technology projects and states that system performance levels
are under development for four of the Northern Border technology
projects and in draft form for the other three projects.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Do not provide outcomes for technology investments. According to
OTIA officials, CBP is no longer measuring operational control of the
border”their previous outcome measure. Slide 53 discusses CBP's plans
for developing a Border Condition Index as an outcome measure of the
condition or state of the border.
Additionally, with regard to surveillance technology investments in
the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan and Northern Border
program, the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* Provides cost targets for four of the seven Arizona Border
Surveillance Technology plan projects”including life cycle costs.
[Footnote 29] For the remaining three projects, the BSFIT expenditure
plan states that life cycle cost estimates are under development or
being revised.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein:
* Do not provide cost targets for any of the eight Northern Border
program projects. The BSFIT expenditure plan states that cost targets
are in development for two Northern Border projects and does not
provide life cycle cost information on the remaining 6 projects.
* Do not describe the methodology used to obtain cost figures or
identify the maximum investment required for each technology
investment with life cycle costs specified. For example the
expenditure plan estimates Thermal Imaging Devices will cost
approximately $10.4 million for acquisition, operation, and
maintenance over 10 years, but does not describe the methodology used
to obtain cost figures.
* Do not detail the OTIA Program Management Office's program
management capabilities. For example, the expenditure plan states that
the OTIA Program Management office oversees planning, staffing,
organizing, and leading the management of specific acquisition
programs, but the plan does not detail specific responsibilities
regarding the projects in the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology
plan or the projects along the northern border.
With regard to technology investments in TACCOM, the BSFIT expenditure
plan:
* Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date with
completed and future milestones.
* Describes the mission benefits, capabilities and services of TACCOM
as providing increased secure coverage, capability, reliability, and
improved interoperability to-CBP law enforcement officers and agents.
* Provides the system performance level as meeting 95percent of
coverage requirements in the sectors undergoing TACCOM modernization.
* Names the program office that manages TACCOM: OIT-WSPO.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Do not describe the OIT-WSPO's program management capabilities. The
plan states that OIT-WSPO manages the entire scope of the existing
TACCOM program, but does not provide specific program management
capabilities.
* Do not include the cost target, the maximum investment including
life cycle costs, or the methodology used to obtain TACCOM cost
figures.
* Do not provide outcomes for TACCOM modernization.
With regard to investments in TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date with
completed and future milestones.
* Describes the capabilities and services provided as pedestrian
fencing, vehicle fencing, and roads.
* Describes the mission benefits of TI as persistent impedance of
illicit cross-border activity and facilitating agent access to border
regions.
* Provides system performance levels for TI projects including
pedestrian and vehicle fencing as well as roads. For example, vehicle
fencing should have the capability of disabling a 6,000 pound vehicle
traveling at 40 miles per hour.
* Provides a cost target, the maximum investment with life cycle costs
and the methodology used to determine cost figures.
* Names the program office responsible for managing TI projects”BPFTI
PMO.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Do not detail the BPFTI PMO's program management capabilities. The
plan states that the BPFTI PMO plans, constructs, and maintains TI,
but does not detail specific program management capabilities.
* Do not provide an outcome for TI.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 2:
The BSFIT expenditure plan:
* Describes how each project furthers the objectives of the QHSR and
CBP's Missions, Goals, and Priorities FY 2011-2013. The expenditure
plan does not reference the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan because,
according to OTIA officials, that plan is no longer in use. However,
the goals and objectives outlined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic
Plan align with the goals and objectives of the QHSR and CBP's
Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013 (see Table 4).
Table 4: Comparison of Goals and Objectives in DHS Secure Border Plan,
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Customs and Border
Protection's Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013:
Secure Border Strategic Plan, 2006: Goal 1: Gain Effective Control of
the Border;
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, 2010: Goal 2.1:
Effectively Control U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders;
CBP's Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013: Goal 1.1: Secure
the Southwest Border;
Goal 1.2: Secure the Northern Border, Littoral Borders, and Associated
Airspace.
Secure Border Strategic Plan, 2006: 1.1 Develop and deploy the optimal
mix of personnel, infrastructure technology, and response capabilities
to identify, classify, and interdict cross-border violators;
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, 2010: Objective: Prevent
the illegal flow of people and goods across the U.S. air, land, and
sea borders while expediting the safe flow of lawful travel and
commerce;
CBP's Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013: Objective 1.1.1:
Reduce the illicit flows and crimes associated with smuggling at and
between the ports of entry in Arizona in order to reduce criminality,
illegal migration, and the threat of terrorism;
Objective 1.1.3: Build a mobile and flexible response capability to
anticipate and respond to security threats;
Objective 1.2.1: Secure the northern border through an integrated
approach to border enforcement;
Objective 1.2.2: Secure the littorals and continental airspace.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.
[End of table]
Regarding the allocation of funds to the highest priority border
security needs, the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* Describes securing the southwest border, specifically reducing the
illicit flows and crimes associated with smuggling at and between the
ports of entry in Arizona, as a priority.
* States that funds are allocated based on operational assessments of
the threats and vulnerabilities to the nation's borders. While the
expenditure plan states that all operational assessments of BP sectors
are not complete, the operational assessment for the Tucson sector is
complete.
* Provides a description of how TI operations and maintenance funds
were allocated based on operational requirements. For example, the
expenditure plan states that an analysis of operational requirements
resulted in the allocation of TI funds to replace primary pedestrian
fencing in Nogales, Douglas, and Naco, Arizona”considered the highest
priority TI projects.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 3:
The BSFIT expenditure plan describes fiscal year 2011 planned
expenditures, including surveillance technology, TACCOM and TI. Table
5 summarizes the planned expenditure of fiscal year 2011 funds.
Table 5: Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Expenditures:
Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Expenditures:
Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan: $185.0 million.
Northern Border Program: $46.5 million.
TACCOM: $56.4 million.
TI: $100.0 million.
Border Surveillance Technology: $68.1 million.
Other Technology Projects: $40.6 million.
Program Management: $76.4 million.
Total: $573.0 million.
Source: CBP.
[End of table]
With regard to technology investments for both the Arizona Border
Surveillance Technology Plan and Northern Border program, the BSFIT
expenditure plan:
* Describes planned expenditures for each technology investment for
fiscal year 2011, including development and deployment and operations
and maintenance. For example, the plan describes $5.1 million for
development and deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers and $5 million
for operations and maintenance of Combined Agency Security Centers
along the northern border.
* Describes milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities (e.g.
contract awards and deliveries for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems),
system performance levels, services, and mission benefits, but does
not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example,
Mobile Video Surveillance Systems are to detect items of interest
during night and day operations at a range that is effective to
provide a system operator with sufficient resolution to determine if
an item of interest is human, vehicle, or animal. The expenditure plan
does not link the cost of these system performance levels to fiscal
year 2011 planned expenditures.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein:
* Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link
these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures.
With regard to technology investments in TACCOM, the BSFIT expenditure
plan:
* Describes planned expenditures for fiscal year 2011 including
development and deployment ($40 million) and operations and
maintenance ($16.4 million).
* Describes milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities (e.g.,
contract awards for commodity purchases), system performance levels
for the system as a whole, services, and mission benefits, but did not
link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example,
TACCOM has a target of meeting 95 percent of identified coverage
requirements in sectors undergoing full modernization. The expenditure
plan and documents referenced therein do not link this level of
coverage to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link
these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures.
With regard to TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan:
* Provides planned expenditures for fiscal year 2011 including
development and deployment ($25 million) and operations and
maintenance ($75 million).
* Links milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities to the
fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example, conducting all
activities for fence replacement construction in Nogales, Arizona, is
expected to cost $10.4 million.
* Describes system performance levels, capabilities, services, and
mission benefits, but does not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned
expenditures. For example, the BSFIT expenditure plan mentions
providing for safe use and maintainability of steep grades as a
performance requirement for roads, but does not provide the fiscal
year 2011 planned expenditures needed to meet this level of
performance.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:
* Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link
these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 4:
The BSFIT expenditure plan identifies staffing by program office for
organizations that execute BSFIT funds. As of April 28, 2011, CBP's
program offices executing BSFIT funds identified approved staffing at
403 employees, including government full-time equivalents,
Contractors, and detailees (see Table 6).
Table 8: BSFIT-Funded Approved Staff as of April 28, 2011:
OTIA Program Management Office:
Government Employees: 161;
Contract Employees: 105;
Detailees: 5;
Total: 271.
CBP Office of Administration:
Government Employees: 19;
Contract Employees: 0;
Detailees: 0;
Total: 19.
CBP Office of Information and Technology:
Government Employees: 7;
Contract Employees: 63;
Detailees: 0;
Total: 70.
BPFTI:
Government Employees: 15;
Contract Employees: 26;
Detailees: 2;
Total: 43.
Total:
Government Employees: 202;
Contract Employees: 194;
Detailees: 7;
Total: 403.
Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
[End of table]
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 5:
The BSFIT expenditure plan describes how security needs are addressed
at the northern border and ports of entry including:
* Infrastructure. For example, procurements are under way to increase
the monitoring capability for the Detroit Operational Integration
Center, including a hardware and services acquisition for sensor
infrastructure and construction of a tower site in Grosse Pointe,
Michigan.
* Technology. For example, $5 million of fiscal year 2011 appropriated
funds are planned for the procurement, deployment, and first year of
operation for up to four maritime radar systems to the Buffalo Sector.
* Design and Operations Requirements. For example, $2.1 million of
fiscal year 2011 appropriated funds for the acquisition of Mobile
Surveillance Capabilities on the northern border is to provide Border
Patrol with operational capabilities such as detection,
identification, and tracking.
* Specific locations. For example, $5 million of fiscal year 2011
appropriated funds are planned to support operations and maintenance
of rural land POE surveillance systems in Maine through April 2012.
* Priorities for northern border activities. Projects align to the
missions, goals, and objectives under the QHSR and the CBP Missions,
Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013 by providing mission benefits such
as improved situational awareness, collection of intelligence,
detection of suspicious activity, and illegal smuggling or entry.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 6:
The BSFIT expenditure plan reports on appropriations, obligations, and
expenditures for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 (see Table 7).
Table 7: BSFIT Funding Summary as of June 28, 2011 ($ in millions):
Activity: Program Management;
Funding Received: $332.2;
Obligated $294.8;
Unobligated Balance: $37.3;
Expenditures: $234.4.
Activity: OTIA/SBI;
Funding Received: $1,607.8;
Obligated $1,225.2;
Unobligated Balance: $382.6;
Expenditures: $1,085.2.
Activity: TACCOM;
Funding Received: $207.8;
Obligated $110.0;
Unobligated Balance: $97.8;
Expenditures: $43.4.
Activity: TI;
Funding Received: $2,652.2;
Obligated $2,534.8;
Unobligated Balance: $117.4;
Expenditures: $2,260.9.
Activity: BSFIT Total;
Funding Received: $4,799.9;
Obligated $4,164.8;
Unobligated Balance: $635.1;
Expenditures: $3,604.0.
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.
[End of table]
The BSFIT expenditure plan discusses completed activities, including:
* As of June 2011 CBP had completed 351 miles of pedestrian fencing
and 299 miles of vehicle fencing.
* CBP deployed 250 Remote Video Surveillance Systems on the southwest
border.
* CBP deployed 38 Mobile Surveillance Systems along the southwest
border.
The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein do not
discuss the progress made in obtaining operational control of the
border. CBP no longer uses operational control as a measure of border
security. Instead, the plan measures progress in securing the border
through output measures such as seizures and apprehensions. [Footnote
30]
CBP is currently developing three new performance measures to measure
security at the southwest border, including:
* A CBP-led initiative to estimate total illegal crossings at the
southwest border and the probability of apprehension. This measure,
based on a Homeland Security Institute statistical model using
apprehension and recidivism data, is to consider data from external
sources, such as census data.[Footnote 31] CBP expects to introduce
this measure in February 2012.
* A CBP-led initiative to develop a "Border Condition Index" outcome
measure of the condition or state of the border. CBP expects to
introduce this measure in February 2012.
* A BP-led initiative to standardize and strengthen metrics that had
formerly supported the operational control measure. As part of this
effort, BP is finalizing its 2012-2016 Border Patrol National Strategy
and developing measures to support the implementation of this
strategy. BP plans to introduce these measures in fiscal year 2013.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 7:
As of September 2011, there are six open recommendations from two GAO
reports for BSFIT funded programs.[Footnote 32]
The expenditure plan lists all six of the open GAO recommendations.
* In September 2009, we recommended that CBP conduct a cost-effective
evaluation of the impact of tactical infrastructure on effective
control of the border. The expenditure plan describes CBP actions to
address this recommendation with an analysis of the effectiveness of
border fencing and provides a February 2012 completion date for this
analysis.
* For the five recommendations we made in May 2011, the expenditure
plan and documents referenced therein provide general information on
planned CBP actions but do not provide milestones for addressing the
recommendations. For example, we recommended that CBP establish
procedures for coordinating with the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) to monitor the status of closeout audits related to the
original SBlnet program. While the expenditure plan notes CBP is
developing an electronic database to track closeout audits, the plan
does not provide milestones as to when the database will be
operational or how this will ensure coordination with DCAA.
The DHS Office of Inspector General has two open recommendations
related to BSFIT-funded programs. The expenditure plan lists both
recommendations; however, the plan does not include milestones to
address one of the two recommendations.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 8:
On June 28, 2011, the DHS CPO certified that the BSFIT-funded programs:
* were reviewed in accordance with the DHS Capital Planning and
Investment Control process, which complies with the requirements set
forth in the OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, as well as the DHS Acquisition
Management Review Process.
* have adequate processes in place to ensure compliance with federal
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices.
* have established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between
the prime integrator and major subcontractors.
The certification letter did not specifically certify that the BSFIT-
funded programs have adequate staff to effectively manage the programs
and contracts. DHS CPO officials told us that they used the term
"resources" in the certification memorandum to encompass both
resources and program staff. Further, CPO officials stated that they
consider staffing levels to be adequate given the increase in the
staffing level from 36 percent of authorized staffing in fiscal year
2010 to 88 percent in fiscal year 2011. However, because the
memorandum did not specify "staff", DHS technically did not satisfy
the condition.
Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 10:
In its memorandum, the DHS CHCO recommended a provisional
certification of the OTIA Human Capital Strategic Plan based, in part,
upon the timely completion of three items:
* OTIA Workforce Plan-”estimated completion February 2012:
This plan is to identify anticipated workforce needs, including goals
and strategies to meet those needs, and performance targets that
measure success in meeting those goals.
* OTIA Human Capital Plan-”estimated completion March 2012:
This plan is to outline human capital management goals, actions,
timeline and
milestones, measurements, and the responsible accountability program
official. According to DHS CHCO officials, the plan is to align to the
DHS Workforce Strategy for FY2011-FY2016.
* OTIA Human Capital Implementation Framework”-estimated completion
May 2012:
This document is to describe how OTIA plans to implement the Human
Capital Plan in management areas such as developing leaders and
growing the workforce.
The DHS CHCO memorandum focused on OTIA human capital needs, but it
did not address human capital needs for the other BSFIT-funded
programs, including tactical infrastructure”managed by BPFTI PMO”-or
TACCOM-”managed by OIT-WSPO.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from DHS:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC:
November 9, 2011:
Richard Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
411 G Street, NW:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington DC 20548:
Re: Draft Report GAO-12-106R, "U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year
2011 Expenditure Plan"
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
report.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security appreciates the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and issuing this
report. The Department is pleased that GAO notes that U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) "satisfied" or "partially satisfied" 8 out of
10 legislative conditions. DHS and CBP will continue to work to
satisfy the legislative requirements.
A mandate in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriation Act, 2011 required DHS to update its Fiscal Year (FY)
2010 Expenditure Plan on border security, fencing, infrastructure, and
technology (BSFIT) for FY 2011 budget authority and to submit the
updated plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Pursuant to this mandate, DHS submitted an updated plan to Congress on
September 8, 2011.
As the FY 2011 Expenditure Plan is mandated to be an update to the FY
2010 Expenditure Plan, CBP opted to omit certain discussions that had
been addressed in the FY 2010 and earlier Expenditure Plans, such as
detailed program management capabilities and instead focused on the
substantial changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011, fulfilling the spirit of
the legislative mandate.
The draft report contained two recommendations directed at DHS, with
which the Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the
Secretary of Homeland Security:
Recommendation 1: Enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that
explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that
are not fu11y addressed.
Response: Concur. CBP is committed to providing complete and thorough
information in future BSF1T Expenditure Plans.
Recommendation 2: Enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that
required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review
processes used for the certifications along with references to
supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT funded program.
Response: Concur. The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer
(OCHCO) has stated that, in providing required certification
memoranda, OCHCO will include descriptions of the review processes
used for the certifications along with references to supporting
documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. OCHCO will also
continue to coordinate with CBP's Office Human Resources (HRM) and
Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) staff in
developing the OITA strategic and human capital plans as well as work
with CBP's HRM and appropriate CBP staff in developing future
strategic and human capital plans, which include each relevant BSPIT-
funded program. In addition, DHS's Office of the Chief Information
Officer (OCIO) is committed to enhancing the expenditure plan by
modifying the required memorandum certification by OCIO to include
sufficient responses to legislative conditions as outlined by
Congress, along with supporting documentation, as evidence of
compliance.
As part of a recent transition of technologies and associated offices,
DHS and CBP's Chief Information Office's are in the process of
reassessing and updating the congressionally requested benchmarks for
the new systems and technologies-”until these new reviews are
completed, the Department cannot testify to the extant legislative
criteria.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
draft report. General, technical, and sensitivity comments on the
report were previously provided under separate cover. We look forward
to working with GAO on future Homeland Security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and
Costs Is Needed before Proceeding. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-22]. Washington, D.C.: November 4,
2011.
Secure Border Initiative: Controls over Contractor Payments for the
Technology Component Need Improvement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-68]. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011.
Border Security: DHS Progress and Challenges in Securing the U.S.
Southwest and Northern Borders. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-508T]. Washington, D.C.: March 30,
2011.
Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Key
Southwest Border Technology Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-448T]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2011.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Strengthen Management and
Oversight of Its Prime Contractor. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-11-6]. Washington, D.C.: October 18,
2010.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-877R]. Washington,
D.C.: July 30, 2010.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Follow Through on Plans to
Reassess and Better Manage Key Technology Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-840T]. Washington, D.C.: June 17,
2010.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed
Investment in Key Technology Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-340]. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010.
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. 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.
Homeland Security: DHS Has Taken Actions to Strengthen Border Security
Programs and Operations, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-542T]. Washington, D.C.: March 6,
2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed
to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-263]. Washington, D.C.: April 22,
2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying
Lessons Learned to Future Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-508T]. Washington, D.C.: February
27, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet
Program Implementation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-131T]. Washington, D.C.: October
24, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements
Needed to Control Risks. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-504T]. Washington, D.C.: February
27, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better
Support Oversight and Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309]. Washington, D.C.: February
15, 2007.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1601, 125 Stat. 38, 140.
[2] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L.
No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-2147 (2009), as made applicable with
modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. at
102-03, 140.
[3] For purposes of this report, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT
expenditure plan.
[4] 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.
[5] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1601, 125 Stat. 38, 140.
[6] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L.
No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-47 (2009), as made applicable with
modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. at
102-03, 140.
[7] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1610(a), 125 Stat. at 140.
[8] GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing,
Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-877R] (Washington D.C.:
July 30, 2010); 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).
[9] For purposes of this briefing, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT
expenditure plan.
[10] 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.
[11] For more information on surveillance technology programs, see
appendix I.
[12] For more information on the tactical infrastructure program, see
appendix II.
[13] For more information on the tactical communication program, see
appendix Ill.
[14] GAO, Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on
Plans and Costs Is Needed before Proceeding. GAO-12-22. (Washington,
D.C.: November 4, 2011).
[15] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 1,
see appendix IV.
[16] The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), issued in
February 2010, was required by the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The QHSR provides a review of national
security threats and outlines DHS's strategic framework to address
these threats.
[17] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 2,
see appendix IV.
[18] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 3,
see appendix IV.
[19] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 4,
see appendix IV.
[20] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 5,
see appendix IV.
[21] CBP defined operational control as the number of border miles
where Border Patrol had the ability to detect, respond, and interdict
cross-border illegal activity.
[22] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 6,
see appendix IV.
[23] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 7,
see appendix IV.
[24] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 8,
see appendix IV.
[25] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition
10, see appendix IV.
[26] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
[27] At a port of entry location, CBP officers secure the flow of
people and cargo into and out of the country while facilitating
legitimate travel and trade.
[28] Project-25 is a suite of national standards that are intended to
enable interoperability among the communications products of different
vendors.
[29] A life cycle cost estimate provides the total cost to the
Government of acquisition and ownership of the system over its full
life time. It includes the cost of development, acquisition,
operations and support, and (where applicable) disposal.
[30] Output measures are performance measures that address the direct
products and services delivered by a program, while outcome measures
focus on the results of products and services. See GAO, Performance
Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-11-
646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011).
[31] Established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6.U.S.C. § 192,
the Homeland Security Institute is a specialized studies and analysis
Federally Funded Research and Development Center to assist DHS in
addressing homeland security issues, particularly issues requiring
scientific, technical, and analytical expertise.
[32] GAO, 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.:
Sept 9, 2009) and GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Controls over
Contractor Payments for the Technology Component Need Improvement,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-68] (Washington, D.C.:
May 25, 2011).
[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly
posted products, 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
website, [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.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [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, DC 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, DC 20548.
