Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 1 of 9
ADRMOP,CONSENT,REFSET−TSH
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:17−cv−05273−KAW

Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore Referred to: Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson (Settlement) Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/12/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Sierra Club

represented by Andrea S. Issod Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster Street Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 415−977−5544 Email: andrea.issod@sierraclub.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Douglas Smith Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster Street Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 United Sta (415) 977−5560 Email: joshua.smith@sierraclub.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marta R. Darby Sierra Club 2101 Webster St. Ste. 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 415−977−5779 Email: marta.darby@sierraclub.org TERMINATED: 02/21/2018

V. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by David Alejandro Pereda Office of The Oakland City Attorney Litigation Division 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 235−6520 Fax: (510) 238−6500 Email: dpereda@oaklandcityattorney.org TERMINATED: 01/23/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Bibb Davis United States Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Ave San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 2 of 9

Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection

415−436−7066 Fax: 415−436−7169 Email: Julie.Davis@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann Marie Reding United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102−3495 (415) 436−6813 Fax: (415) 436−6748 Email: annie.reding@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/28/2018
represented by David Alejandro Pereda (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Bibb Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann Marie Reding (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2018

Date Filed 09/12/2017 09/12/2017 09/12/2017
09/13/2017 09/13/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−11708843.). Filed bySierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet)(Darby, Marta) (Filed on 9/12/2017) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
2 Proposed Summons. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 9/12/2017) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 9/26/2017. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2017) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 12/5/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
Electronic filing error. Only one Summons will be issued in each case. Please list all defendants on one summons, using additional pages if necessary, and re−file in its

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 3 of 9

09/13/2017 09/13/2017 09/15/2017 09/20/2017 10/18/2017 10/19/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/09/2017 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 11/21/2017
12/04/2017 12/05/2017
12/05/2017
12/07/2017 12/08/2017
12/12/2017

entirety. Re: 2 Proposed Summons filed by Sierra Club (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
5 Proposed Summons. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
6 Summons Issued as to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sierra Club (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 9/15/2017) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
8 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Sierra Club.. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
9 ANSWER to Complaint byU.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Pereda, David) (Filed on 10/18/2017) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
10 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by U.S. Department of Homeland Security.. (Pereda, David) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
11 Amended ANSWER to Complaint byU.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Pereda, David) (Filed on 11/1/2017) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrea S Issod (Issod, Andrea) (Filed on 11/1/2017) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed (FOIA) by Sierra Club. All Defendants. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
14 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3−5 d) (Pereda, David) (Filed on 11/20/2017) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
15 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 11/20/2017) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
16 ADR Clerk's Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on Thursday, December 7, 2017, at 2:00 PM Pacific time. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2017) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
17 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Sierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Darby, Marta) (Filed on 12/4/2017) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
18 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT re 17 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Sierra Club. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 12/5/17. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and Sierra Club. (Pereda, David) (Filed on 12/5/2017) Modified on 12/6/2017 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2017)
20 ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held on 12/7/2017 by Tamara Lange. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2017) (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
21 CLERK'S NOTICE − Case Management Conference will be held in Courtroom 5 on the 2nd floor.
(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)
(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2017) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARTORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants. Filed bySierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 4 of 9

12/12/2017
12/13/2017 12/15/2017 01/11/2018 01/23/2018 03/27/2018 03/29/2018
06/28/2018 07/10/2018 07/10/2018 07/16/2018
08/07/2018 08/08/2018

Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H)(Darby, Marta) (Filed on 12/12/2017) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore: Initial Case Management Conference held on 12/12/2017. Matter referred to magistrate judge for settlement. Case Management Statement due by 4/17/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/24/2018 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland.FTR Time: 1:49−1:58. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/12/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
24 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge: Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2018 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria−Elena James on 12/15/2017. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2017) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
25 ANSWER to Amended Complaint byU.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Pereda, David) (Filed on 1/11/2018) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
26 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Ann Marie Reding (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 1/23/2018) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
27 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 23 Case Management Conference − Initial,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, 24 Order Setting Settlement Conference filed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Sierra Club. (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 3/27/2018) Modified on 3/28/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2018)
28 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 27 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 23 Case Management Conference − Initial, Set Deadlines/Hearings, 24 Order Setting Settlement Conference filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Sierra Club. Settlement conference is vacated. Case Management Statement due by 7/10/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/17/2018 01:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/29/18. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2018) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
29 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Julie Bibb Davis (Davis, Julie) (Filed on 6/28/2018) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
30 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 7/10/2018) Modified on 7/10/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2018)
31 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 28 Stipulation and Order,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,, Terminate Hearings,, filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 7/10/2018) Modified on 7/10/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2018)
32 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 31 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 28 Stipulation and Order. Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Hearings. filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Sierra Club. Case Management Statement due by 8/14/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/21/2018 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/16/18. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2018) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
33 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971−12574919.) filed by Sierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Joshua Smith − Certificate of Good Standing Oregon State Bar)(Smith, Joshua) (Filed on 8/7/2018) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
34 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 33 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Joshua Smith. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2018) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 5 of 9

08/13/2018 08/14/2018
09/06/2018 10/09/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018 10/23/2018
10/23/2018 10/30/2018

35 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 32 Stipulation and Order,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 8/13/2018) Modified on 8/14/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/2018)
36 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 35 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 32 Stipulation and Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Sierra Club. Case Management Statement due by 10/9/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2018 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/14/18. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
37 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson for Settlement. (tnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2018) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
38 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 10/9/2018) Modified on 10/10/2018 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2018)
39 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [ 10/16/2018 1:47:28 PM ]. File Size [ 6064 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:12:38 ]. (courtspeak). (Entered: 10/16/2018)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/16/2018. Case Management Statement due by 1/22/2019. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2019 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor.FTR Time: 1:47−2:00. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/16/2018) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
41 CLERK'S NOTICE Scheduling a Pre−Telephonic Settlement Conference call:
This case has been referred for a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. A Telephonic conference is scheduled for Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:30 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel shall be prepared to discuss the current status of this case, as well as schedule a Settlement Conference date.
Counsel shall call into the following phone number: 1−888−684−8852/Passcode: 2925506
If any questions please contact the Courtroom Deputy, Rose Maher, by phone: 415−522−4708 or by email: Rose_Maher@cand.uscourts.gov
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
Set/Reset Hearing re 41 Clerk's Notice: Telephone Conference set for 10/30/2018 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson: Pre−Telephonic Settlement Conference call held on 10/30/2018.

FTR Time: Not Reported Total Time: 16 minutes

Plaintiff's Attorney: Marta Darby, Esq., appearing by telephone.

Defendant's Attorney: Julie Bibb Davis, AUSA, appearing by telephone

Proceedings: Pre−Telephonic Settlement Conference called held. Final telephonic call scheduled for 12/4/2018 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel shall call the following phone number: 1−888−684−8852/Passcode: 2925506. Settlement Conference scheduled for 1/11/2019 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Settlement Conference

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 6 of 9

10/30/2018 10/30/2018 10/30/2018 12/04/2018
12/30/2018 12/31/2018 01/02/2019

Statements shall be lodged, with Chambers, seven (7) days prior to the Settlement Conference. Court shall issue a Settlement Conference Order shortly.
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/30/2018) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
Set/Reset Hearing re 42 Telephone Conference: Pre−Telephone Settlement Conference call set for: 12/4/2018 at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2018) Modified on 10/30/2018 (rmm2S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/30/2018)
Set/Reset Hearing re 42 Telephone Conference: Final Pre−Telephone Settlement Conference call set for 12/4/2018 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2018) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
43 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge : Settlement Conference set for 1/11/2019 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor. Signed by Judge Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 10/30/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2018) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson: Final Pre−Telephone Settlement Conference call held on 12/4/2018.
FTR Time: Not Reported Total Time: 24 minutes
Plaintiff Attorney: Marta R. Darby, Esq.
Defendant Attorney: Julie Bibb Davis, AUSA.
Proceedings: Pre−Settlement Telephone Conference Call held.
Plaintiff's Counsel shall send its Proposal and Settlement Demand to Defendant's Counsel by 12/11/2018.
Defendant's Counsel shall respond to Plaintiff's Proposal and Settlement Demand by 12/18/2018. Defendant shall also send its Proposed Schedule for all productions and its Settlement Demand to Plaintiff's Counsel by 12/18/2018.
Both sides, in their Settlement Conference Statements shall set out a concrete plan for resolving the case, which would also include all the redactions.
All documents shall be copied and sent by email to the Courtroom Deputy, Rose Maher, at the following email address: Rose_Maher@cand.uscourts.gov
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/4/2018) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE DUE TO PARTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN filed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Responses due by 1/3/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Davis, Julie) (Filed on 12/30/2018) (Entered: 12/30/2018)
46 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE DUE TO PARTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN ) filed bySierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Darby, Marta) (Filed on 12/31/2018) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
Electronic filing error. Please file proposed order in accordance with L.R. 5−1(g) Re: 45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE DUE TO PARTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 7 of 9

01/03/2019 01/03/2019 01/03/2019 01/03/2019 01/30/2019 02/01/2019 02/04/2019
02/19/2019 02/20/2019 02/21/2019 02/21/2019 02/25/2019 02/26/2019
02/27/2019

47 Proposed Order re 45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE DUE TO PARTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Davis, Julie) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
48 Proposed Order re 45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE DUE TO PARTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Davis, Julie) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
49 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson granting 45 Administrative Motion Continue Settlement Conference. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
50 ORDER granting 45 Administrative Motion to Continue Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/3/19. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
51 STATUS REPORT by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Davis, Julie) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
52 STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST TO SET A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Sierra Club. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 2/1/2019) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
53 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/19/2019. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/26/2018 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2019) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
54 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Sierra Club, U.S. DHS and U.S. CBP. (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 2/19/2019) Modified on 2/20/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/2019)
Set/Reset Hearing (Correcting year from 2018 to 2019). Further Case Management Conference set for 2/26/2019 01:30 PM. (ivaS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
55 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Marta R. Darby (Darby, Marta) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
56 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Sierra Club. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Smith, Joshua) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
57 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion To Appear by Telephone (Smith, Joshua) (Filed on 2/25/2019) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
58 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore: Further Case Management Conference held on 2/26/2019. Joint Case Management Statement due by 6/18/2019. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/25/2019 01:30 PM.FTR Time: 1:59 −2:29. (ivaS, COURTSTAFF) (Date Filed: 2/26/2019) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
59 CLERK'S NOTICE: Telephone Conference re Scheduling Further Settlement Conference:
A Telephone Conference re scheduling a Further Settlement Conference is scheduled for 03/07/2019 at 3:00 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel shall be prepared to speak about the status of this case and to schedule a Further Settlement Conference date.
Counsel shall call the following conference call number: 1−888−684−8852/Access Code: 2925506
If counsel have any questions please contact the Courtroom Deputy, Rose Maher, at

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 8 of 9

03/07/2019
03/20/2019 04/18/2019 04/18/2019 06/05/2019 06/11/2019 06/18/2019 06/19/2019

415−522−4708 or email: Rose_Maher@cand.uscourts.gov
. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2019) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
60 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson: Pre−Settlement Conference Telephone Call held on 3/7/2019.
FTR Time: Not Reported Total Time: 26 minutes
Plaintiff Attorney: Joshua D. Smith, Esq.
Defendant Attorney: Jule B. Davis, AUSA.
Proceedings: Pre−Settlement Conference Telephone Call held. Proposed Settlement Conference Dates: 4/24/2019 at 10:00 a.m., or 4/30/2019 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel shall check with their clients and alert the Courtroom Deputy, Rose Maher, of the date they are available.
Courtroom Deputy Contact Information: Email: Rose_Maher@cand.uscourts.gov or Phone: 415−522−4708
(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/7/2019) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
61 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge:
Settlement Conference set for 4/24/2019 at 10:00 am, in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor.. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 3/20/2019.
(Attachments: # 1 Standing Order re Settlement Conference)
(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2019) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
62 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Custom and Border Protection. (Smith, Joshua) (Filed on 4/18/2019) Modified on 4/19/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2019)
63 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson granting 62 Stipulation Continuing Settlement Conference. Settlement Conference CONTINUED to 6/19/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor, before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2019) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
64 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE AND PROPOSED ORDER by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security., Sierra Club (Davis, Julie) (Filed on 6/5/2019) Modified on 6/6/2019 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2019)
65 ORDER re 64 Status Report filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Sierra Club. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 6/11/2019. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2019) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
66 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection . (Issod, Andrea) (Filed on 6/18/2019) Modified on 6/18/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2019)
67 Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting as modified 66 Stipulation Continuing Case Management Conference. Joint Case Management Statement due by 10/22/2019. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/29/2019 01:30 PM.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2019) (Entered: 06/19/2019)

Case: 4:17-cv-5273 As of: 05/04/2020 04:58 PM PDT 9 of 9

10/22/2019 10/22/2019 04/21/2020 04/22/2020

68 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Continuing Case Management Conference filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Issod, Andrea) (Filed on 10/22/2019) Modified on 10/23/2019 (jjbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2019)
69 Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 68 Stipulation Continuing Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 4/21/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/28/2020 01:30 PM.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2019) (Entered: 10/23/2019)
70 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Continuing Case Management Conference filed by Sierra Club, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Issod, Andrea) (Filed on 4/21/2020) Modified on 4/22/2020 (jjbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2020)
71 Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 70 Stipulation Continuing Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 10/20/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/27/2020 01:30 PM.(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2020) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

 
 Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 19

1 Andrea Issod (SBN 230920) Marta Darby (SBN 310690)
2 Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
3 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 977-5544
4 Fax: (510) 208-3140 andrea.issod@sierraclub.org
5 marta.darby@sierraclub.org

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sierra Club

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

OAKLAND DIVISION

10 SIERRA CLUB,
11 Plaintiff,
12
13 vs.

14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
15 HOMELAND SECURITY and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
16 PROTECTION,

17

Defendants.

) Civil No.

)

)

)

)

) ) )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

18

19

20

21

22
COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 2 of 19

1

Plaintiff Sierra Club, through counsel, alleges as follows:

2

INTRODUCTION

3

1. Sierra Club brings this case under the Freedom of Information Act to

4 obtain timely disclosure of agency documents regarding the Trump

5 Administration’s controversial plans to expand or replace the border wall along the

6 United States-Mexico border.

7

2. On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order,

8 entitled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” directing

9 the Secretary of Homeland Security to vastly expand the existing walls along the

10 roughly 1,900-mile southern border that spans California, Arizona, New Mexico,

11 and Texas. On February 20, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security

12 accordingly directed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to

13

immediately begin planning, design, construction and maintenance of a wall,

including the attendant lighting, technology (including sensors), as well as

14

patrol and access roads, along the land border with Mexico in accordance

with existing law, in the most appropriate locations and utilizing appropriate

15

materials and technology to most effectively achieve operational control of

the border.

16 The Department further directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to

17 “immediately identify and allocate all sources of available funding” for the

18 planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining of the border wall.

19

3. Sierra Club is concerned about and seeks documentation of the

20 potential environmental impacts associated with border wall planning, construction

21

22

Page 2 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 3 of 19

1 and operation. For example, the Secretary of Homeland Security invoked a

2 statutory waiver to exempt border wall construction during the George W. Bush

3 administration. The act of waiving federal statutes like the Clean Water Act,

4 Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act put wildlife and

5 the public health of local communities at risk. Habitat set aside for endangered

6 species, including the ocelot, jaguar, and Sonoran pronghorn, has been fragmented

7 and will be damaged even further by building new wall segments.

8

4. The human cost of new walls would also be immense, dividing border

9 communities, destroying private land, impeding water flow, harming human

10 health, and causing unnecessary deaths.

11

5. The Trump Administration has called for $1.7 billion in development

12 funds for 60 miles of new border wall construction in fiscal year 2017, and $2.8

13 billion in fiscal year 2018. If built, the new walls would bifurcate the Santa Ana

14 National Wildlife Refuge in the southern tip of Texas, and harm other sensitive

15 areas along the border. The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat

16 for a diverse of array of rare wildlife species, including the ocelot, an endangered

17 cat of which there are only about 50 remaining in the United States. Expanded

18 walls and related infrastructure also threatens to undermine the tourist economy of

19 the surrounding communities.

20

6. Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest grassroots environmental

21

22

Page 3 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 4 of 19

1 organization, and has long advocated to protect and preserve the cultures of the

2 borderland communities, as well as the region’s land, wildlife, and environment.

3 As part of this advocacy, and in line with its longstanding interest in government

4 accountability and transparency, the Sierra Club has filed several requests under

5 the Freedom of Information Act with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to

6 obtain documents regarding plans to expand or replace the border wall along the

7 U.S.-Mexico border. The Sierra Club’s Borderlands Grassroots Network Team has

8 been organizing around border issues for many years, and its advocacy has become

9 more urgent in light of President Trump’s recent activities.

10

7. The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border

11 Protection (the Agencies) have violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing

12 to make a “determination,” and failing to produce any documents in response to

13 Sierra Club’s 2016 and 2017 record requests, and a 2013 Sierra Club request that

14 was remanded back to the Agencies after Sierra Club successfully appealed the

15 final determination.

16

8. The Agencies have also violated the Freedom of Information Act by

17 failing to conduct an adequate search for records and wrongfully withholding

18 records.

19

9. Sierra Club brings this lawsuit to hold the Agencies accountable under

20 the law and respectfully requests that the Court order the Agencies to expeditiously

21

22

Page 4 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 5 of 19

1 produce all non-exempt documents responsive to Sierra Club’s records requests.

2

10. Timely disclosure is imperative. The controversial border wall is a

3 matter of significant public interest and concern; yet, in secret, the Agencies are

4 actively planning, designing, and preparing for construction and maintenance of

5 the wall. Given the significant threat the wall poses to communities and the

6 environment, the public must have timely information about the Trump

7 Administration’s plans, including the potential impacts on communities, lands, and

8 wildlife.

9

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

10

11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28

11 U.S.C. § 1331.

12

12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)

13 because Plaintiff Sierra Club has its principal place of business in Oakland,

14 California.

15

13. For the same reason, intradistrict assignment is proper in the Oakland

16 Division. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-2.

17

PARTIES

18

14. Plaintiff Sierra Club is incorporated in the State of California as a

19 nonprofit public benefit corporation with headquarters in Oakland, California. The

20 Sierra Club is a national organization with 67 chapters and more than 825,000

21

22

Page 5 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 6 of 19

1 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the

2 earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems

3 and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the

4 quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to

5 carry out these objectives. Sierra Club is a leading non-governmental organization

6 seeking to educate and mobilize the public on issues of climate change, habitat

7 destruction, and the myriad of human and environmental impacts of the Trump

8 Administration’s proposed Border Wall. Sierra Club’s Borderlands Grassroots

9 Network Team has been organizing around border issues for many years. To

10 support the Borderlands Team’s efforts and to further Sierra Club’s longstanding

11 interest in government accountability and transparency, Sierra Club submitted the

12 records requests at issue in this case.

13

15. Sierra Club brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its

14 members. Sierra Club and its members have been and continue to be injured by the

15 Agencies’ failure to provide requested records on matters of great public interest

16 and urgency within the timeframes mandated by the Freedom of Information Act.

17 Absent this critical information, Sierra Club cannot advance its mission to educate

18 the public about the proposed expansion of the border wall and its impacts on

19 communities and the environment. The requested relief will redress this injury.

20

16. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a department of

21

22

Page 6 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 7 of 19

1 the executive branch of the U.S. government headquartered in Washington, D.C.,

2 and an agency of the federal government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

3 § 552(f)(1). It has in its possession and control the records sought by Sierra Club,

4 and as such, is subject to FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).

5

17. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an agency

6 within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is also headquartered in

7 Washington, D.C. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has possession, custody,

8 and control of the records that Sierra Club seeks.

9

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

10

18. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to

11 promptly release to a public requester, documents and records within the

12 possession of the agency, unless a statutory exemption applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)–

13 (b).

14

19. Agencies must make reasonable efforts to search for records in a

15 manner that is reasonably calculated to locate all records that are responsive to the

16 FOIA request. Id. § 552(a)(3)(C)–(D).

17

20. The agency must make a determination whether to disclose records

18 within twenty business days of an agency’s receipt of a FOIA request. Id.

19 § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

20

21. If an agency determines that it will comply with the request, it must

21

22

Page 7 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 8 of 19

1 “promptly” release responsive, non-exempt records to the requester. Id.

2 § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

3

22. The Act recognizes that in certain, limited instances, records may be

4 withheld as exempt from FOIA’s broad disclosure mandate, and thus the Act

5 identifies nine categories of exemptions. Id. § 552(b).

6

23. FOIA places the burden on the agency to prove that it may withhold

7 responsive records from a requester. Id. § 552(a)(4)(B).

8

24. If an agency makes a final determination to withhold or partially

9 withhold documents, the requester is entitled to appeal the adverse decision to the

10 agency within a period of time “that is not less than 90 days after the date after

11 such adverse determination.” Id. § (a)(6)(A)(i)(III)(aa).

12

25. An agency must make a determination on any appeal within twenty

13 business days of receipt. Id. § (a)(6)(A)(ii)

14

26. If the agency fails to comply with the statutory time limits to respond

15 to a FOIA request or appeal, the requester is deemed to have exhausted her

16 administrative remedies. Id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

17

27. District courts have jurisdiction to enjoin an agency from withholding

18 agency records and “order the production of any agency records improperly

19 withheld.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(B).

20

28. The Freedom of Information Act provides a mechanism for

21

22

Page 8 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 9 of 19

1 disciplinary action against agency officials who have inappropriately withheld

2 records. Specifically, when requiring the release of improperly withheld records, if

3 the Court makes a written finding that “the circumstances surrounding the

4 withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or

5 capriciously,” a disciplinary investigation is triggered. Id. § 552(a)(4)(F)(i).

6

FACTS

7 Sierra Club’s 2013 FOIA Request for Border Wall Documents and Appeal

8

29. On April 17, 2013, Sierra Club submitted a FOIA request to U.S.

9 Customs and Border Protection seeking access to the following records:

10

The Sierra Club requests records dating from January 1, 2010 to the present pertaining to the construction of border fencing (also commonly referred to

as the border wall, pedestrian fence, and tactical infrastructure) in the

11

vicinity of the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos,

Texas. These sections of border fencing will be built in the Border Patrol’s

12

Rio Grande Valley sector have been designated O-1, O-2, and O-3. Very little information has been released to the public regarding these sections of

border fencing, despite a great deal of local public interest. The Sierra Club

13

is particularly interested in the impact of these fencing sections on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the potential for the

impedance of flood waters that may accompany the erection of fencing in

14

the Rio Grande flood plain.

15

Responsive documents should include (but not be limited to) internal CBP discussions, memos, meeting notes, presentation materials such as

Powerpoints and handouts, and reports regarding fencing sections O-1, O-2,

16

and O-3. Any contracts that have been prepared and/or put out for bid and/or granted for these sections should be included. Documents should

also include consultations, interactions, and discussions with the Army

17

Corps. of Engineers, the International Boundary Water Commission, US

Fish and Wildlife, the State Department, and local government officials and

18

residents regarding these fencing sections.

See Exhibit A. 19

30. Customs and Border Protection assigned Sierra Club’s request with 20

tracking number CBP-2013-016845. 21

22

Page 9 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 10 of 19

1

31. On September 4, 2015, Customs and Border Protection’s FOIA

2 Division stated that CBP-2013-016845 was currently being processed.

3

32. After repeated requests for updates by Sierra Club, in January 2016,

4 the FOIA request CBP-2013-016845 disappeared from the online queue at

5 FOIAonline, a federal website dedicated to processing FOIA requests.

6

33. On January 29, 2016, a new tracking number appeared in Sierra

7 Club’s online queue, CBP-2016-018165, corresponding to the same April 17, 2013

8 FOIA request.

9

34. On December 9, 2016, Customs and Border Protection determined

10 that the requested documents were partially releasable, and asserted that FOIA

11 exemptions (b)(4) and (b)(5) applied to Sierra Club’s request.

12

35. Also on December 9, 2016, Customs and Border Protection provided

13 Sierra Club with 10 documents, but those documents were redacted almost in their

14 entirety. See Exhibit B.

15

36. On February 3, 2017, Sierra Club filed a timely administrative appeal

16 to Custom and Border Protection’s determination on CBP-2013-016845/CBP-

17 2016-018165. See Exhibit C.

18

37. On March 16, 2017, Customs and Border Protection’s Chief of the

19 FOIA Appeals, Policy and Litigation Branch, replied to Sierra Club’s February 3,

20 2017 appeal of the 2013 FOIA request in part with:

21

22

Page 10 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 11 of 19

1

In this case, the FOIA Division released certain redacted documents to you

but it does not appear as if the FOIA Division searched for a number of other

2

agency records you identified in your appeal. In this respect, your appeal

specifically identifies various reports, presentations, plans, and other

3

documents that were requested in your initial FOIA submission. However,

as it appears as if the FOIA Division did not search for these records, there is

4

an incomplete administrative record for us to review on appeal in this case.

5

Accordingly, we are remanding your request to the FOIA Division for

processing with instructions that the request should be processed within

6

twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. . . . As mentioned above, you

may immediately challenge the FOIA Division’s failure to respond to your

7

request in district court.

8 See Exhibit D.

9

38. On April 14, 2017, Customs and Border Protection stated:

10

Please be advised this case has been remanded to the FOIA Division to

complete additional searches for responsive records. An additional 30

11

business days from the date of this letter are needed for the program office to

complete a comprehensive search of records. Once the searches have been

12

completed, you will receive additional correspondence with a projected time

frame for the completion of the remand.

13

See Exhibit E.

14

15

39. As of the date of this filing, the Agencies have not made any further

16 determination on Sierra Club’s 2013 request or released any additional documents.

17

Sierra Club’s 2016 FOIA Requests for Border Wall Documents

18

40. On November 19, 2016, Sierra Club submitted a FOIA request to

19 Customs and Border Protection seeking access to the following:

20

The Sierra Club trying to understand the scope of work that LMI (the Logistics Management Institute) did for Customs and Border Protection

regarding border fencing and related tactical infrastructure. According to

21

22

Page 11 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 12 of 19

1

LMI’s website this work was quite expansive, and LMI and its employees repeatedly pop up in FOIA documents that we have received from CBP and

other agencies. LMI employees appear to have played an important role in

2

the Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office. We have

received some SBI PMO meeting minutes from 2007 and 2008 that indicate

3

that meetings were held at LMI's McLean, Virginia office.

The Sierra Club specifically seeks documents, including SBI PMO and other

4

meeting minutes and notes, as well as emails, memos, and reports, that involve and/or relate to the participation of LMI employees in the Secure

Border Initiative Program Management Office, and meetings at LMI's

5

McLean, Virginia office from January 2006 through the present.

6

Please include emails, letters, call logs, and other communications regarding these meetings. Customs and Border Protection discussions, reports,

updates, presentation materials such as Powerpoints, etc., that pertain to

7

these meetings should be included.

8 See Exhibit F.

9

41. Customs and Border Protection assigned the request tracking number

10 CBP-2017-011338.

11

42. The Agencies have not made any further determination on Sierra

12 Club’s 2016 request, CBP-2017-011338, and have not released any documents.

13

Sierra Club’s 2017 FOIA Request for Border Wall Documents

14

43. On May 4, 2017, Sierra Club submitted a FOIA request to Customs

15 and Border Protection seeking access to the following:

16

1. All records related to the Border Wall referred to on p. 32 of the

Administration’s FY 2017 supplemental appropriations request (see

17

Exhibit A), including, but not limited to:

a. the 14 miles of new Border Wall and 14 miles of replacement

18

Border Wall near San Diego, CA; and

b. the 28 miles of levee-Border Wall in the Rio Grande Valley

19

Sector; and

c. the 6 miles of new Border Wall proposed in South Texas,

20

hereinafter (“Border Wall Proposals”).

2. All maps and related documents that identify all locations considered or

21

22

Page 12 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 13 of 19

1

planned for border fencing/tactical infrastructure described in the FY

2017 Appropriations legislation passed in May 2017 (see Exhibit B, p.

2

69), including but not limited to:

a. Replacement of primary pedestrian fencing in high priority areas -

3

20 miles; and

b. Replacement of vehicle fencing with primary pedestrian fencing in

4

high priority areas - 20 miles; and

a. Gates for existing barriers- 35 gates.

5

3. All bids submitted by vendors to Customs and Border Protection

(“CBP”) and/or the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) related

6

to the Border Wall Proposals; and

4. All communications between CBP and/or DHS and vendors related to

7

Border Wall Proposals; and

5. All communications between CBP and DHS related to the Border Wall

8

Proposals, including, but not limited to: funding, timetables, and vendor

selection; and

9

6. All existing and/or proposed timetables for the execution and

construction of the Border Wall Proposals; and

10

7. All communications between CBP and/or the DHS with the White House

that relate to the Border Wall Proposals; and

11

8. All communication between CBP and/or DHS and any other Federal

Agencies that relate to the Border Wall Proposals.

12

See Exhibit G.

13

14

44. Customs and Border Protection assigned the request tracking number

15 CBP-2017-054695.

16

45. On August 11, 2017, three months after Sierra Club’s initial request,

17 Customs and Border Protection sent Sierra Club a letter notifying it that the

18 average time to process a request related to “travel/border incidents” was a

19 minimum of 3 to 6 months.

20

46. On August 29, 2017, the Sierra Club received an email from Customs

21

22

Page 13 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 14 of 19

1 and Border Protection with an attached letter, dated August 30, 2017, stating:

2

[W]e have determined that your request is too broad in scope or did not

specifically identify the records which you are seeking. . . . Whenever

3

possible, a request should include specific information about each record

sought, such as the event that would have created the record, a date range for

4

the request, and subject matter of the records.

5 The letter directed the Sierra Club to “narrow the scope of your request,” noting

6 that “a search for records responsive to your request in it’s [sic] present state could

7 potentially return a massive amount of documents which would create an

8 reasonable [sic] burden on the agency.” The letter went on asking Sierra Club

9 to “please provide a time frame for items 4 through 8 of your request.” The letter

10 concluded with “[t]his is not a denial of your request for records.” See Exhibit H.

11

47. The Agencies have not made any further determination on Sierra

12 Club’s 2017 request, CBP-2017-054695, nor have the Agencies released any

13 documents.

14

15

COUNT I

16

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

17

Failure to Comply with Mandatory Determination Deadline

18

48. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing

19 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

20

49. Sierra Club properly requested records within the Agencies’ control.

21

22

Page 14 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 15 of 19

1

50. Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act requires

2 that an agency make a determination as to a records request within twenty business

3 days after receipt of the request.

4

51. More than twenty business days have passed since the Agencies

5 received Sierra Club’s November 19, 2016 records request, CBP-2017-011338.

6

52. The Agencies have failed to provide Sierra Club with a final

7 determination in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

8

9

COUNT II

10

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

11

Failure to Comply with Mandatory Determination Deadline

12

53. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing

13 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

14

54. Sierra Club properly requested records within the Agencies’ control.

15

55. Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act requires

16 that an agency make a determination as to a records request within twenty business

17 days after receipt of the request.

18

56. More than twenty business days have passed since the Agencies

19 received Sierra Club’s May 4, 2017 records request, CBP-2017-054695.

20

57. The Agencies have failed to provide Sierra Club with a final

21

22

Page 15 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 16 of 19

1 determination in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

2

3

COUNT III

4

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

5

Failure to Comply with Mandatory Determination Deadline

6

58. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing

7 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

8

59. Sierra Club properly requested records within the Agencies’ control.

9

60. Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act requires

10 that an agency make a determination as to a records request within twenty business

11 days after receipt of the request.

12

61. On March 16, 2017, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Chief of

13 the FOIA Appeals replied to Sierra Club’s February 3, 2017 appeal of the April 17,

14 2013 FOIA request, and remanded the request back to the FOIA Division with

15 instructions that “the request should be processed within twenty (20) days from the

16 date of this letter.”

17

62. More than twenty business days have passed since the FOIA Appeal

18 Branch remanded the 2013 records request, CBP-2016-018165, back to the

19 Agencies “to complete additional searches for responsive records.”

20

63. The Agencies have failed to provide Sierra Club with a final

21

22

Page 16 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 17 of 19

1 determination in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

2

64. Sierra Club has exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to

3 the processing of its records request.

4

5

COUNT IV

6

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

7

Failure to Conduct Adequate Search for Records

8

65. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing

9 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

10

66. Sierra Club properly asked for records within the Agencies’ control.

11

67. Section 552(a)(3)(C) of the Freedom of Information Act requires that

12 an agency make reasonable efforts to search for requested records.

13

68. The Agencies’ failure to conduct an adequate search for records

14 responsive to Sierra Club’s requests violates the Freedom of Information Act.

15 COUNT V
16 Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
17 Wrongful Withholding of Non-Exempt Records
18 69. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing
19 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
20 70. Sierra Club properly asked for records within the Agencies’ control.
21

22

Page 17 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 18 of 19

1

71. Sierra Club is entitled by law to access to the records requested under

2 the Freedom of Information Act, unless the agency makes an explicit and justified

3 statutory exemption claim.

4

72. There is no legal basis for the Agencies to assert that any of the nine

5 exemptions to mandatory disclosure apply to withhold records or portions of

6 records from Sierra Club. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)–(9).

7

73. The Agencies have violated the Freedom of Information Act by

8 withholding records or portions of records that are responsive to Sierra Club’s

9 requests.

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

Sierra Club respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

12

1. Order the Agencies to conduct a search reasonably calculated to

13 uncover all records responsive to Sierra Club’s FOIA requests identified in this

14 complaint;

15

2. Order the Agencies to produce, within twenty days or by such a date

16 as the Court deems appropriate, any and all non-exempt records responsive to

17 Sierra Club’s FOIA requests, and indexes justifying the withholding of any

18 responsive records, or portion thereof, withheld under claim of exemption;

19

3. Enjoin the Agencies from continuing to withhold any and all non-

20 exempt records or portions thereof responsive to Sierra Club’s FOIA requests;

21

22

Page 18 of 19

COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 19 of 19

1

4. Declare that the circumstances surrounding the delay and withholding

2 raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously;

3

5. Award Sierra Club’s attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs

4 reasonably incurred in this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and

5

6. Grant other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

6

7 Dated: September 12, 2017

8 Respectfully submitted,
9

10

/s/

Andrea Issod (SBN 230920)

11

Marta Darby (SBN 310690)

SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM

12

2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300

Oakland, CA 94612

13

Telephone: (415) 977-5544

Fax: (510) 208-3140

14

andrea.issod@sierraclub.org

marta.darby@sierraclub.org

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 19 of 19

COMPLAINT

 
 Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 18

1

ANDREA ISSOD (SBN 230920)

MARTA DARBY (SBN 310690)

2

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

3

2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300

Oakland, CA 94612

4

Telephone: (415) 977-5544

5

Fax: (510) 208-3140

andrea.issod@sierraclub.org

6

marta.darby@sierraclub.org

7

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sierra Club

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
OAKLAND DIVISION
13

14

15

SIERRA CLUB,

) ) Case Number: 17-5273 KAW )

16

)

Plaintiff,
17

) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

v.

) FOR DECLARTORY AND

19
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF )

20

HOMELAND SECURITY and

)

21

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER

)

PROTECTION,

)

22

)

23

Defendants.

)

24

25

26

27

28

Page 1 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 18

1

Plaintiff Sierra Club, through counsel, alleges as follows:

2

INTRODUCTION

3

1. Sierra Club brings this case under the Freedom of Information Act to

4

obtain timely disclosure of agency documents regarding the Trump

5

Administration’s controversial plans to expand or replace the border wall along the

6

United States-Mexico border.

7

2. On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order,

8

entitled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” directing

9

the Secretary of Homeland Security to vastly expand the existing walls along the

10
roughly 1,900-mile southern border that spans California, Arizona, New Mexico,
11
and Texas. On February 20, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security
12
accordingly directed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
13

14

immediately begin planning, design, construction and maintenance of a wall,

including the attendant lighting, technology (including sensors), as well as

15

patrol and access roads, along the land border with Mexico in accordance with

16

existing law, in the most appropriate locations and utilizing appropriate

17

materials and technology to most effectively achieve operational control of the

border.

18
The Department further directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to

19
“immediately identify and allocate all sources of available funding” for the
20
planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining of the border wall.
21
3. Sierra Club is concerned about and seeks documentation of the
22
potential environmental impacts associated with border wall planning, construction,
23
and operation. For example, the Secretary of Homeland Security invoked a
24

25

statutory waiver to exempt border wall construction during the George W. Bush

26

administration. The act of waiving federal statutes like the Clean Water Act,

27

Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act put wildlife and

28

Page 2 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 18

1

the public health of local communities at risk. Habitat set aside for endangered

2

species, including the ocelot, jaguar, and Sonoran pronghorn, has been fragmented

3

and will be damaged even further by building new wall segments.

4

4. The human cost of new walls would also be immense, dividing border

5

communities, destroying private land, impeding water flow, harming human health,

6

and causing unnecessary deaths.

7

5. The Trump Administration has called for $1.7 billion in development

8

funds for 60 miles of new border wall construction in fiscal year 2017, and $2.8

9

billion in fiscal year 2018. If built, the new walls would bifurcate the Santa Ana

10
National Wildlife Refuge in the southern tip of Texas, and harm other sensitive

11
areas along the border. The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat
12
for a diverse of array of rare wildlife species, including the ocelot, an endangered
13
cat of which there are only about 50 remaining in the United States. Expanded walls
14
and related infrastructure also threatens to undermine the tourist economy of the
15

surrounding communities.
16

17

6. Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest grassroots environmental

18

organization, and has long advocated to protect and preserve the cultures of the

19

borderland communities, as well as the region’s land, wildlife, and environment. As

20

part of this advocacy, and in line with its longstanding interest in government

21

accountability and transparency, the Sierra Club has filed several requests under the

22

Freedom of Information Act with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to obtain

23

documents regarding plans to expand or replace the border wall along the U.S.-

24

Mexico border. The Sierra Club’s Borderlands Grassroots Network Team has been

25

organizing around border issues for many years, and its advocacy has become more

26

urgent in light of President Trump’s recent activities.

27

28

Page 3 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 18

1

7. The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border

2

Protection (the Agencies) have violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing

3

to make a “determination,” and failing to produce any documents in response to

4

Sierra Club’s 2016 and 2017 record requests, and a 2013 Sierra Club request that

5

was remanded back to the Agencies after Sierra Club successfully appealed the

6

final determination.

7

8. The Agencies have also violated the Freedom of Information Act by

8

failing to conduct an adequate search for records and wrongfully withholding

9

records.

10
9. Sierra Club brings this lawsuit to hold the Agencies accountable under

11
the law and respectfully requests that the Court order the Agencies to expeditiously
12
produce all non-exempt documents responsive to Sierra Club’s records requests.
13
10. Timely disclosure is imperative. The controversial border wall is a
14
matter of significant public interest and concern; yet, in secret, the Agencies are
15

actively planning, designing, and preparing for construction and maintenance of the
16

17

wall. Given the significant threat the wall poses to communities and the

18

environment, the public must have timely information about the Trump

19

Administration’s plans, including the potential impacts on communities, lands, and

20

wildlife.

21

22

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

23

11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28

24

U.S.C. § 1331.

25

12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)

26

because Plaintiff Sierra Club has its principal place of business in Oakland,

27

28

Page 4 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 18

1

California.

2

13. For the same reason, intradistrict assignment is proper in the Oakland

3

Division. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-2.

4

5

PARTIES

6

14. Plaintiff Sierra Club is incorporated in the State of California as a

7

nonprofit public benefit corporation with headquarters in Oakland, California. The

8

Sierra Club is a national organization with 67 chapters and more than 825,000

9

members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the

10
earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and

11
resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of

12
the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these
13
objectives. Sierra Club is a leading non-governmental organization seeking to
14

educate and mobilize the public on issues of climate change, habitat destruction,
15

and the myriad of human and environmental impacts of the Trump Administration’s
16

17

proposed Border Wall. Sierra Club’s Borderlands Grassroots Network Team has

18

been organizing around border issues for many years. To support the Borderlands

19

Team’s efforts and to further Sierra Club’s longstanding interest in government

20

accountability and transparency, Sierra Club submitted the records requests at issue

21

in this case.

22

15. Sierra Club brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its

23

members. Sierra Club and its members have been and continue to be injured by the

24

Agencies’ failure to provide requested records on matters of great public interest

25

and urgency within the timeframes mandated by the Freedom of Information Act.

26

Absent this critical information, Sierra Club cannot advance its mission to educate

27

28

Page 5 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 18

1

the public about the proposed expansion of the border wall and its impacts on

2

communities and the environment. The requested relief will redress this injury.

3

16. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a department of

4

the executive branch of the U.S. government headquartered in Washington, D.C.,

5

and an agency of the federal government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

6

§ 552(f)(1). It has in its possession and control the records sought by Sierra Club,

7

and as such, is subject to FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).

8

17. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an agency

9

within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is also headquartered in

10
Washington, D.C. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has possession, custody,

11
and control of the records that Sierra Club seeks.
12

13
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
14
18. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to
15

promptly release to a public requester, documents and records within the possession
16

17

of the agency, unless a statutory exemption applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)–(b).

18

19. Agencies must make reasonable efforts to search for records in a

19

manner that is reasonably calculated to locate all records that are responsive to the

20

FOIA request. Id. § 552(a)(3)(C)–(D).

21

20. The agency must make a determination whether to disclose records

22

within twenty business days of an agency’s receipt of a FOIA request. Id.

23

§ 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

24

21. If an agency determines that it will comply with the request, it must

25

“promptly” release responsive, non-exempt records to the requester. Id.

26

§ 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

27

28

Page 6 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 7 of 18

1

22. The Act recognizes that in certain, limited instances, records may be

2

withheld as exempt from FOIA’s broad disclosure mandate, and thus the Act

3

identifies nine categories of exemptions. Id. § 552(b).

4

23. FOIA places the burden on the agency to prove that it may withhold

5

responsive records from a requester. Id. § 552(a)(4)(B).

6

24. If an agency makes a final determination to withhold or partially

7

withhold documents, the requester is entitled to appeal the adverse decision to the

8

agency within a period of time “that is not less than 90 days after the date after such

9

adverse determination.” Id. § (a)(6)(A)(i)(III)(aa).

10
25. An agency must make a determination on any appeal within twenty

11
business days of receipt. Id. § (a)(6)(A)(ii).
12
26. If the agency fails to comply with the statutory time limits to respond
13
to a FOIA request or appeal, the requester is deemed to have exhausted her
14
administrative remedies. Id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
15

27. District courts have jurisdiction to enjoin an agency from withholding
16

17

agency records and “order the production of any agency records improperly

18

withheld.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(B).

19

28. The Freedom of Information Act provides a mechanism for

20

disciplinary action against agency officials who have inappropriately withheld

21

records. Specifically, when requiring the release of improperly withheld records, if

22

the Court makes a written finding that “the circumstances surrounding the

23

withholding raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or

24

capriciously,” a disciplinary investigation is triggered. Id. § 552(a)(4)(F)(i).

25

26

27

28

Page 7 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 18

1

FACTS

2

Sierra Club’s 2013 FOIA Request for Border Wall Documents and Appeal

3

29. On April 10, 2013, Sierra Club submitted a FOIA request to U.S.

4

Customs and Border Protection seeking access to the following records:

5

The Sierra Club requests records dating from January 1, 2010 to the present

6

pertaining to the construction of border fencing (also commonly referred to

7

as the border wall, pedestrian fence, and tactical infrastructure) in the vicinity

8

of the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas.

These sections of border fencing will be built in the Border Patrol’s Rio

9

Grande Valley sector have been designated O-1, O-2, and O-3. Very little

10

information has been released to the public regarding these sections of

border fencing, despite a great deal of local public interest. The Sierra Club is

11

particularly interested in the impact of these fencing sections on the Lower

12

Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the potential for the

impedance of flood waters that may accompany the erection of fencing in the

13

Rio Grande flood plain.

14

15

Responsive documents should include (but not be limited to) internal CBP

discussions, memos, meeting notes, presentation materials such as

16

Powerpoints and handouts, and reports regarding fencing sections O-1, O-2,

17

and O-3. Any contracts that have been prepared and/or put out for bid and/or

granted for these sections should be included. Documents should also include

18

consultations, interactions, and discussions with the Army Corps. of

19

Engineers, the International Boundary Water Commission, US Fish and

Wildlife, the State Department, and local government officials and residents

20

regarding these fencing sections.

21

22

See Exhibit A.

23

30. Customs and Border Protection assigned Sierra Club’s request with

24

tracking number CBP-2013-016845.

25

31. On September 4, 2015, Customs and Border Protection’s FOIA

26

Division stated that CBP-2013-016845 was currently being processed.

27

32. After repeated requests for updates by Sierra Club, in January 2016,

28

Page 8 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 18

1

the FOIA request CBP-2013-016845 disappeared from the online queue at

2

FOIAonline, a federal website dedicated to processing FOIA requests.

3

33. On January 29, 2016, a new tracking number appeared in Sierra Club’s

4

online queue, CBP-2016-018165, corresponding to the same April 10, 2013 FOIA

5

request.

6

34. On December 9, 2016, Customs and Border Protection determined that

7

the requested documents were partially releasable, and asserted that FOIA

8

exemptions (b)(4) and (b)(5) applied to Sierra Club’s request.

9

35. Also on December 9, 2016, Customs and Border Protection provided

10
Sierra Club with 10 documents, but those documents were redacted almost in their

11
entirety. See Exhibit B.
12
36. On February 3, 2017, Sierra Club filed a timely administrative appeal
13
to Custom and Border Protection’s determination on CBP-2013-016845/CBP-
14
2016-018165. See Exhibit C.
15

37. On March 16, 2017, Customs and Border Protection’s Chief of the
16

17

FOIA Appeals, Policy and Litigation Branch, replied to Sierra Club’s February 3,

18

2017 appeal of the 2013 FOIA request in part with:

19

In this case, the FOIA Division released certain redacted documents to you

20

but it does not appear as if the FOIA Division searched for a number of other

agency records you identified in your appeal. In this respect, your appeal

21

specifically identifies various reports, presentations, plans, and other

22

documents that were requested in your initial FOIA submission. However, as

23

it appears as if the FOIA Division did not search for these records, there is an incomplete administrative record for us to review on appeal in this case.

24

25

Accordingly, we are remanding your request to the FOIA Division for

processing with instructions that the request should be processed within

26

twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. . . . As mentioned above, you

27

may immediately challenge the FOIA Division’s failure to respond to your

28

Page 9 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 18

1

request in district court.

2

See Exhibit D.

3

38. On April 14, 2017, Customs and Border Protection stated:

4

Please be advised this case has been remanded to the FOIA Division to

5

complete additional searches for responsive records. An additional 30

business days from the date of this letter are needed for the program office to

6

complete a comprehensive search of records. Once the searches have been

7

completed, you will receive additional correspondence with a projected time

8

frame for the completion of the remand.

9

See Exhibit E.

10

39. As of the date of this filing, the Agencies have not made any further

11

determination on Sierra Club’s 2013 request or released any additional documents.

12

13

Sierra Club’s 2016 FOIA Requests for Border Wall Documents

14

40. On November 19, 2016, Sierra Club submitted a FOIA request to

15

Customs and Border Protection seeking access to the following:

16

17

The Sierra Club trying to understand the scope of work that LMI (the

Logistics Management Institute) did for Customs and Border Protection

18

regarding border fencing and related tactical infrastructure. According

19

to LMI’s website this work was quite expansive, and LMI and its

employees repeatedly pop up in FOIA documents that we have received

20

from CBP and other agencies. LMI employees appear to have played an

21

important role in the Secure Border Initiative Program Management

22

Office. We have received some SBI PMO meeting minutes from 2007

and 2008 that indicate that meetings were held at LMI's McLean,

23

Virginia office.

24

The Sierra Club specifically seeks documents, including SBI PMO and

25

other meeting minutes and notes, as well as emails, memos, and reports,

26

that involve and/or relate to the participation of LMI employees in the

Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office, and meetings at
27

28

Page 10 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 18

1

LMI’s McLean, Virginia office from January 2006 through the present.

2

Please include emails, letters, call logs, and other communications

3

regarding these meetings. Customs and Border Protection discussions,

reports, updates, presentation materials such as Powerpoints, etc., that

4

pertain to these meetings should be included.

5

See Exhibit F.

6

41. Customs and Border Protection assigned the request tracking number

7

CBP-2017-011338.

8

42. The Agencies have not made any further determination on Sierra

9

Club’s 2016 request, CBP-2017-011338, and have not released any documents.

10

11
Sierra Club’s 2017 FOIA Request for Border Wall Documents
12
43. On May 4, 2017, Sierra Club submitted a FOIA request to Customs
13
and Border Protection seeking access to the following:
14

15

1. All records related to the Border Wall referred to on p. 32 of the

16

Administration’s FY 2017 supplemental appropriations request (see

Exhibit A), including, but not limited to:

17

a. the 14 miles of new Border Wall and 14 miles of replacement

18

Border Wall near San Diego, CA; and

b. the 28 miles of levee-Border Wall in the Rio Grande Valley Sector;

19

and

20

c. the 6 miles of new Border Wall proposed in South Texas,

hereinafter (“Border Wall Proposals”).

21

2. All maps and related documents that identify all locations considered or

22

planned for border fencing/tactical infrastructure described in the FY

23

2017 Appropriations legislation passed in May 2017 (see Exhibit B, p.

69), including but not limited to:

24

a. Replacement of primary pedestrian fencing in high priority areas -

25

20 miles; and

b. Replacement of vehicle fencing with primary pedestrian fencing in

26

high priority areas - 20 miles; and

27

a. Gates for existing barriers- 35 gates.

28

Page 11 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 18

1

3. All bids submitted by vendors to Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)

and/or the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) related to the

2

Border Wall Proposals; and

3

4. All communications between CBP and/or DHS and vendors related to

Border Wall Proposals; and

4

5. All communications between CBP and DHS related to the Border Wall

5

Proposals, including, but not limited to: funding, timetables, and vendor

selection; and

6

6. All existing and/or proposed timetables for the execution and construction

7

of the Border Wall Proposals; and

8

7. All communications between CBP and/or the DHS with the White House

that relate to the Border Wall Proposals; and

9

8. All communication between CBP and/or DHS and any other Federal

10

Agencies that relate to the Border Wall Proposals.

11

See Exhibit G.

12
44. Customs and Border Protection assigned the request tracking number
13
CBP-2017-054695.
14

15

45. On August 11, 2017, three months after Sierra Club’s initial request,

16

Customs and Border Protection sent Sierra Club a letter notifying it that the average

17

time to process a request related to “travel/border incidents” was a minimum of 3 to

18

6 months.

19

46. On August 29, 2017, Sierra Club received an email from Customs and

20

Border Protection with an attached letter, dated August 30, 2017, stating:

21

[W]e have determined that your request is too broad in scope or did not

22

specifically identify the records which you are seeking. . . . Whenever

23

possible, a request should include specific information about each record

sought, such as the event that would have created the record, a date range for

24

the request, and subject matter of the records.

25

26

The letter directed Sierra Club to “narrow the scope of your request,” noting that “a

27

search for records responsive to your request in it’s [sic] present state could

28

Page 12 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 18

1

potentially return a massive amount of documents which would create an

2

reasonable [sic] burden on the agency.” The letter went on asking Sierra Club to

3

“please provide a time frame for items 4 through 8 of your request.” The letter

4

concluded with “[t]his is not a denial of your request for records.” See Exhibit H.

5

47. On September 11, Sierra Club sent Customs and Border Protection an

6

email and letter, explaining that CBP-2017-054695 provides sufficient information

7

for Customs and Border Protection to perform a limited search with a “reasonable

8

amount of effort,” including “the event that would have triggered the record, the

9

subject matter, scope, and a reasonable date range.”

10
48. Without acknowledging Sierra Club’s response, Customs and Border

11
Protection closed the May 2017 FOIA request on September 12. That day,
12
Customs and Border Protection sent Sierra Club an email, stating:
13

14

On August 30, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Freedom of

15

Information Act (FOIA) Division sent you an email via your FOIAonline

16

account asking you to narrow the scope of your request, 2017-054695, and

provide a time frame for records search. Pursuant to 6 C.F.R. Part 5 § 5.3(b)

17

of the DHS FOIA regulations, you must describe the records you are seeking

18

with as much information as possible to ensure that our search of appropriate

systems of records can find them with a reasonable amount of effort. To date

19

we have not received a response and are unable to continue processing items

20

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of your request. Pertaining to item number 3 of your

request: “All bids submitted by vendors to Customs and Border Protection

21

(“CBP”) and/or the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) related to the

22

Border Wall Proposals”. CBP has determined that the records sought are

23

part of ongoing government procurements and consist of contractor bid or

proposal information or source selection information that CBP is prohibited

24

from releasing pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(3), Other Disclosure

25

Statutes; specifically 41 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1), Procurement Integrity Act; and

41 U.S.C. § 4702(b), Prohibition on release of contractor proposals, therefore

26

the records will be withheld in full.

27

28

Page 13 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 14 of 18

1

49. On September 12, Sierra Club called Customs and Border Protection,

2

requesting that the agency re-open the request. Customs and Border Protection re-

3

opened the request that day.

4

50. The Agencies have not made any further determination on Sierra

5

Club’s 2017 request, CBP-2017-054695, nor have the Agencies released any

6

documents.

7

8

COUNT I

9

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

10
Failure to Comply with Mandatory Determination Deadline

11
51. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing
12
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
13
52. Sierra Club properly requested records within the Agencies’ control.
14
53. Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act requires
15

that an agency make a determination as to a records request within twenty business
16

17

days after receipt of the request.

18

54. More than twenty business days have passed since the Agencies

19

received Sierra Club’s November 19, 2016 records request, CBP-2017-011338.

20

55. The Agencies have failed to provide Sierra Club with a final

21

determination in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

22

23

COUNT II

24

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

25

Failure to Comply with Mandatory Determination Deadline

26

56. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing

27

28

Page 14 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 15 of 18

1

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

2

57. Sierra Club properly requested records within the Agencies’ control.

3

58. Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act requires

4

that an agency make a determination as to a records request within twenty business

5

days after receipt of the request.

6

59. More than twenty business days have passed since the Agencies

7

received Sierra Club’s May 4, 2017 records request, CBP-2017-054695.

8

60. The Agencies have failed to provide Sierra Club with a final

9

determination in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

10

11

12
COUNT III
13
Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
14

Failure to Comply with Mandatory Determination Deadline
15

61. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing
16

17

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

18

62. Sierra Club properly requested records within the Agencies’ control.

19

63. Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act requires

20

that an agency make a determination as to a records request within twenty business

21

days after receipt of the request.

22

64. On March 16, 2017, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Chief of

23

the FOIA Appeals replied to Sierra Club’s February 3, 2017 appeal of the April 10,

24

2013 FOIA request, and remanded the request back to the FOIA Division with

25

instructions that “the request should be processed within twenty (20) days from the

26

date of this letter.”

27

28

Page 15 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 16 of 18

1

65. More than twenty business days have passed since the FOIA Appeal

2

Branch remanded the 2013 records request, CBP-2016-018165, back to the

3

Agencies “to complete additional searches for responsive records.”

4

66. The Agencies have failed to provide Sierra Club with a final

5

determination in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

6

67. Sierra Club has exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to

7

the processing of its records request.

8

9
COUNT IV

10
Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
11
Failure to Conduct Adequate Search for Records
12
68. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing
13
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
14
69. Sierra Club properly asked for records within the Agencies’ control.
15

70. Section 552(a)(3)(C) of the Freedom of Information Act requires that
16

17

an agency make reasonable efforts to search for requested records.

18

71. The Agencies’ failure to conduct an adequate search for records

19

responsive to Sierra Club’s requests violates the Freedom of Information Act.

20

21

COUNT V

22

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act

23

Wrongful Withholding of Non-Exempt Records

24

72. Sierra Club re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the foregoing

25

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

26

73. Sierra Club properly asked for records within the Agencies’ control.

27

28

Page 16 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 17 of 18

1

74. Sierra Club is entitled by law to access to the records requested under

2

the Freedom of Information Act, unless the agency makes an explicit and justified

3

statutory exemption claim.

4

75. There is no legal basis for the Agencies to assert that any of the nine

5

exemptions to mandatory disclosure apply to withhold records or portions of

6

records from Sierra Club. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)–(9).

7

76. The Agencies have violated the Freedom of Information Act by

8

withholding records or portions of records that are responsive to Sierra Club’s

9

requests.

10

11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12

13

Sierra Club respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

14

1. Order the Agencies to conduct a search reasonably calculated to

15

uncover all records responsive to Sierra Club’s FOIA requests identified in this

16

complaint;

17

2. Order the Agencies to produce, within twenty days or by such a date as

18

the Court deems appropriate, any and all non-exempt records responsive to Sierra

19

Club’s FOIA requests, and indexes justifying the withholding of any responsive

20

records, or portion thereof, withheld under claim of exemption;

21

3. Enjoin the Agencies from continuing to withhold any and all

22

nonexempt records or portions thereof responsive to Sierra Club’s FOIA requests;

23

4. Declare that the circumstances surrounding the delay and withholding

24

raise questions whether agency personnel acted arbitrarily or capriciously;

25

5. Award Sierra Club’s attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs

26
reasonably incurred in this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and

27

28

Page 17 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22 Filed 12/12/17 Page 18 of 18

1

6. Grant other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2

3

4

5

Dated: __Dec. 12___, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

6

7

/s/ Andrea Issod

8

ANDREA ISSOD (SBN 230920)

MARTA DARBY (SBN 310690)

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

SIERRA CLUB

2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300

11

Oakland, CA 94612

12

Telephone: (415) 977-5544

Fax: (510) 208-3140

13

andrea.issod@sierraclub.org

14

marta.darby@sierraclub.org

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 18 of 18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 17-5273 KAW

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit A

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 6
Submitted via email, fax, and certified mail to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office Diversity and Civil Rights Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Division 90 K Street NE, 9th Floor Washington DC 20229-1181 Fax Number: (202) 325-0230 E-mail: CBPFOIA@dhs.gov
Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear FOIA Officer,
The Sierra Club makes this request for records, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics, including electronic records and information, email, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. and Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) regulations, 6 C.F.R. Part 5.
The Sierra Club requests records dating from January 1, 2010 to the present pertaining to the construction of border fencing (also commonly referred to as the border wall, pedestrian fence, and tactical infrastructure) in the vicinity of the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas. These sections of border fencing will be built in the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector have been designated O-1, O-2, and O-3. Very little information has been released to the public regarding these sections of border fencing, despite a great deal of local public interest. The Sierra Club is particularly interested in the impact of these fencing sections on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the potential for the impedance of flood waters that may accompany the erection of fencing in the Rio Grande flood plain.
Responsive documents should include (but not be limited to) internal CBP discussions, memos, meeting notes, presentation materials such as Powerpoints and handouts, and reports regarding fencing sections O-1, O-2, and O-3. Any contracts that have been prepared and/or put out for bid and/or granted for these sections should be included. Documents should also include consultations, interactions, and discussions with the Army Corps. of Engineers, the International Boundary Water Commission, US Fish and Wildlife, the State Department, and local government officials and residents regarding these fencing sections.
Please search responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics. Where possible, please produce records electronically, in PDF or TIF format on a CD-ROM. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, e-mail, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs. Our request includes telephone messages, voice mail messages, e-mail, daily agenda and calendars, information about scheduled meetings and/or discussions regarding the aforementioned topics, whether in person or over the telephone, agendas for those meetings and/or discussions, participants included in those meetings and/or discussions, and transcripts, notes and/or minutes from any such meetings and/or discussions.
If it is your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure, the Sierra Club requests that you provide it with an index of those documents as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1972). As you are aware, a Vaugn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA.” Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Moreover, the Vaugn index must “describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for each

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 6
withholding it must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information.” King v. U.S. Department of Justice, 830 F. 2d 210, 223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Further, “the withholding agency must supply ‘a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.’” Id. At 224 (citing Mead Data Central v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
In the event that some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please disclose any reasonable segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. See 5 U.S.C § 552(b). If it is your position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that those non-exempt segments are so dispersed throughout the document as to make segregation impossible, please state what portion of the document is non-exempt, and how the material is dispersed throughout the document. Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261. Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for claims of exemptions in a Vaugn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.
Request for Expedition
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(E)(i) and DHS regulations, 6 CFR §5.5(d), the Sierra Club requests that Customs and Border Protection expedite the processing of this request in light of the compelling need for the requested information. There exists an urgent need to inform the public about federal government activity in regards to potential or realized impacts of “tactical infrastructure” along the U.S. – Mexico border (also commonly referred to as the border fence, border wall, pedestrian fence, and vehicle barriers) upon the water and hydrology of adjacent areas. “Tactical infrastructure” constructed along the U.S.-Mexico in recent years has been cited as a cause of flooding in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico; threatens the Tijuana River and estuary with sedimentation as a result of erosion; and may impact the Rio Grande, which is the primary source of drinking water for millions of residents on both sides of the border. A fuller understanding of the potential and/or realized impacts of “tactical infrastructure” will allow communities and land managers to better anticipate and mitigate likely impacts.
Further, the Sierra Club is primarily engaged in working to protect communities, wild places, and the natural environment. The Sierra Club is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code. The release of information garnered through this request is not in the Sierra Club’s financial interest. The Sierra Club will analyze the information responsive to this request, and will likely share its analysis with the public, either through memoranda, reports, or press releases. The Sierra Club has an established record of carrying out these types of activities. The Sierra Club also plans to disseminate any documents that it acquires from its request to the public through www.governmentdocs.org, an interactive website that includes thousands of pages of public documents obtained by a number of organizations.
As with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the ACLU, two organizations that the courts have found satisfy the criteria necessary to qualify for expedition, the Sierra Club “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw material into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” ACLU, 321 F. Supp.2d at 30 n.5 (quotation omitted).
Pursuant to 6 CFR §5.5(d)(3), I hereby certify that the bases for the Sierra Club’s request for expedition, as set forth herein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Accordingly, the Sierra Club requests that Customs and Border Protection expedite its processing of this FOIA request.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 6
Fee Waiver Request
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 6 C.F.R. Part 5, the Sierra Club requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The waiver is in the public interest because furnishing this information primarily benefits the general public. The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government and expenditures, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the Sierra Club and the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(A)(iii). See, e.g., McClellan Ecological v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 1987).
Customs and Border Protection has granted the Sierra Club fee waivers for prior FOIA requests. In a letter dated April 13, 2012 Customs and Border Protection’s FOIA Appeals, Policy & Litigation Branch affirmed the Sierra Club’s contention that our non-profit organization that will derive no commercial gain from requested FOIA documents, and will instead disseminate them to the public free of charge. We were therefore granted our fee waiver request. Other federal agencies have also granted the Sierra Club’s fee waiver request for documents related to border fencing.
The records requested by the Sierra Club are likely to contribute to the public’s understanding of the potential or realized impacts of border fencing upon ecosystems and human communities along the Rio Grande, to shed light upon the decision to move forward with these fencing sections, and provide the public with updated information as to where this process currently stands. This policy issue has been the subject of frequent press inquiry and public debate.
The Sierra Club, along with its members, has published articles, reports, fact sheets, and other educational materials based on information that we have gained from documents received from a number of federal agencies via the Freedom of Information Act. None of these resulted in any sort of financial profit for the Sierra Club. In regards to Customs and Border Protection and border fencing, in addition to other types of educational materials we have had a number of articles published in the Rio Grande Guardian, the Monitor, the Texas Observer, the Associated Press, and other news outlets based on documents provided to us through previous Freedom of Information Act requests. These articles were written for the sole purpose of educating the public, including readers of the Rio Grande Guardian who live in the border communities that will be directly impacted by the proposed border fencing. No payment of any kind was made to the Sierra Club for these articles, or for any of the other articles that have been written based on these documents. Many of the documents that have been received, and all of those that are quoted in the articles, have been posted at www.scribd.com, where they can be viewed and/or downloaded by the public free of charge. Copies of all of the documents regarding border fencing that the Sierra Club has received have been lodged at the University of Texas Pan American’s Border Studies Archive, where they are available to researchers and the public. At no point was the Sierra Club assessed fees by Customs and Border Protection, the Department of the Interior, US International Boundary Water Commission, or other federal agencies for FOIA requests pertaining to border fencing.
In considering fee waiver criteria, please note that the FOIA carries a presumption of disclosure, and that the fee waiver amendments of 1986 were specifically designed to afford groups such as the Sierra Club access to government documents without the payment of fees. As stated by the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judicial Committee, “[A]gencies should not be allowed to use fees as an offensive weapon against requesters seeking access to Government information . . .” 132 Cong. Rec. S. 14298 (statement of Sen. Leahy). The Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the amended statute “is to be liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.” McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1284 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Sen. Leahy). The Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals maintain that the amendment's main purpose is “to remove the roadblocks and technicalities which have been used by various Federal agencies to deny waivers or reductions of fees under the FOIA.” Id.; also see Judicial Watch,

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 6
326 F.3d at 1315. Therefore, Congress and the courts unequivocally hold that the main legislative purpose of the amendments is to facilitate access to agency records by noncommercial requesters and “watchdog” public interest organizations, such as the Sierra Club, that use information obtained under FOIA to monitor, and at times challenge, government activities, and to inform the general public about said activities. As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, the fee waiver provision was added to the FOIA “in an attempt to prevent government agencies from using high fees to discourage certain types of requesters and requests,” with explicit reference to requests from journalists, scholars and non-profit public interest groups. Better Government Association v. Department of State, 780 F.2d 86, 93-94 (D.C. Cir. 1986), quoting Ettlinger v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 596 F. Supp. 867, 876 (D. Mass. 1984).
Under these circumstances, the Sierra Club fully satisfied the criteria for a fee waiver.
Conclusion
Please respond to this request in writing within an expedited time-frame. If all of the requested documents are not available within that time period, the Sierra Club request that you provide all requested records or portions of records that are available within that time period.
If you have any questions about this request or foresee any problems in releasing fully the requested records within the twenty-day period, please contact me at (956) 532-5983. Also, if the Sierra Club’s request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact me immediately upon making such a determination.
Please send requested documents to:
Scott Nicol Chair, Sierra Club Borderlands Team 7300 N. 32nd McAllen, TX 78504
Thank you,
Scott Nicol Sierra Club Borderlands Team Chair www.sierraclub.org/borderlands

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 6

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 46
Exhibit B

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 46
Acquisition Strategy and Timeline

 (b) (5), (b) (4)  (b) (5), (b) (4)

Course of Action:

• (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5)
Base Plan:

Segment
(b) (4), (b) (5)

O-1

O-2

O-3

1

Budget

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 46

Total: (b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)

Primary Drivers:

•

Construction:

(b) (4), (b) (5)

•

Real Estate:

(b) (4), (b) (5)

•

Contingency:

(b) (4), (b) (5)

• Program, Project and Construction

Management:

(b) (4), (b) (5)

2

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 46
“Pivot” Plan
(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)

Consistent, Scalable Approach:
• Real Estate & Environmental: • Acquisition: (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
• Risk: (b) (4), (b) (5) • Budget: (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
• Staffing: (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Past Success on Similar Programs
(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

3

Activity ID
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Activity Name Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 FReilmeadinin1g2S/1ta2rt/17 PaFgineish5 of 46
Duration

(b) (4), (b) (5)

Activity ID

Activity Name Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 FReilmeadinin1g2S/1ta2rt/17 PaFgineish6 of 46
Duration
(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)
2(b) (4), (b) (5)

Activity ID

Activity Name Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 FReilmeadinin1g2S/1ta2rt/17 PaFgineish7 of 46
Duration
(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Activity ID

Activity Name Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 FReilmeadinin1g2S/1ta2rt/17 PaFgineish8 of 46
Duration
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 46
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (TI) PROJECT

Review Comments Matrix Comments are due by 10:00 AM (CDT) Friday, April 12, 2013

PROJECT: O-1, 2, 3

DATE: April 11, 2013

PROJECT MILESTONE: Draft Schedule

RESPONSE LEGEND:

A - Concur

D - Do Not Concur

E - Exception

X - Delete Comment

(All responses besides “Concur” require a brief explanation from the Designer.)

REVIEWER

COMMENT NO.

REVIEW COMMENT

The following comments are from: [(b) (6)

]

(b)

1.

(b) (4), (b) (5)

((6b))

2.

(b) (4), (b) (5)

((6b))

3.

(b) (4), (b) (5)

((6b))

4.

(b) (4), (b) (5)

(6) 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

RESPONSE BY SCHEDULER

El Cento Sector

Page 1 of 1

5/15/2015

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 46

CBP Office of Administration Facilities Management and Engineering
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) Planning Briefing
Aug 9, 2013

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be

controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in

accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information

shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior

authorization of the originator.

1

Agenda

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 46

Purpose: Discuss CIR Planning Process
• CIR Current Situation • Notional CIR Requirements • Acquisition Strategy and Timeline • Budget • Design • Real Estate • Environmental • Steel • Risks • Adapting to Change • Next Steps

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio2n of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 46
CIR Current Situation
CIR Current Language • $7.5B for fence construction • Standing up the Southern Border Fencing Strategy • Use of National Guard • Bill passed the Senate and is currently with the House for consideration
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorization of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 46
Notional CIR Requirements
(b) (5), (b) (7)(E)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio4n of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 14 of 46
Acquisition Strategy and Timeline

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

3-Phase Strategy:

• Early. (b) (4), (b) (5)

• Middle. (b) (4), (b) (5)

• Late. (b) (4), (b) (5)

Base Plan:

Sched

Const

Code

Type

Start RE Cert Awd

Existing MATOCs

A (b)

B (4b),

C ((b4b),

GNaepwGHDEFFMillAerT(((())()(((((O555b54,b5bbbbbC)))))))))s

(4), (4), (4), (4),
(4),

(b) (b) (b) (b)
(b)

(5) (5)

I (5b) (4), (b)

J (5b) (4),

(b) (5)
PA -Pre-Award

RE - Real Estate

PA&RE - Pre-Award and Real Estate Concurrent

CONST - Construction

Awd - Award

Const Comp

(b) ((b4))(,4), (b) (5) (b) (5)

(b ) (4

(b) (4),
(b) (54), (b) (54), (b) (5)

),

WARNING(:b This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be

controll)ed, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in

accosrhdaalnl nc(e5otwbiethdDisHtrSibpuotelidcybreeyloatnindgthtoe

FOUO information. original addresses

This information without prior

)

authorization of the originator.

Budget

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 15 of 46

Preliminary ROM

Total: (b) (4), (b) (5)
Range: (b) (4), (b) (5)
Primary Drivers:

• Fence Construction: • Road Construction: • Real Estate: • Construction Management: • Design: • Environmental: • Project Management: • Contingency*:
(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorization of the originator.

Design

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 16 of 46

(b) (5), (b) (4)

Examples:
(b) (5), (b) (4) (b) (5), (b) (4)

(b) (5), (b) (4)

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio7n of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 17 of 46
Real Estate
 Base ROM RE Budget: (b) (4), (b) (5)
 Key Budget Assumptions:
 ‘(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)
 RE Schedule: (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)
 (b) (4), (b) (5)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio8n of the originator.

Environmental Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 18 of 46

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)

.

 ROM ENV Cost: (b) (4), (b) (5)
 Projected ENV Requirements

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

 (b) (4), (b) (5)

WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio9n of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 19 of 46
Steel Approach
• (b) (4), (b) (5)
• (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
• Options: • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5)
(b) (4), (b) (5)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorization of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 20 of 46
Qualitative Risk
• Top risk categories: • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio1n1 of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 21 of 46
Adapt to Changing Requirements
(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)
Consistent, Scalable Approach:
• (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio1n2 of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 22 of 46
Next Steps
• (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5) • (b) (4), (b) (5)
• (b) (4), (b) (5)
WARNING: This document is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in
accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information. This information shall not be distributed beyond the original addresses without prior authorizatio1n3 of the originator.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 23 of 46
Douglas CIR Scenario

Tasks

Projected Completion Date

Real Estate Certified A/E Contract Awarded RTA Contract Award Construction Complete

(b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5) (b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)

1

ALL DATES ARE PRE-DECISIONAL

Program FM&E # & Project Title
Date Project Manager
Project Base Cost Est. $ PBC + Est. Impact $

Tactical Infrastructure
O-1 to O-3 Fence
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 24 of 46
Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure
Risk Matrix

ID #

Month/F Y

Risk May Affect Critical Path

Milestone Affected

(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)
1

Risk Category

Detailed Description of Risk (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Relevant,
Timebound)

Mitigation of Risk

(b)R(I4S),K(bM) (5A)NAGEMENT SUMMARY RESULTS (planned)

Impact to Critical Path - Total Days

-

Estimated Impact - Days

Probability (%)

$ Impact

Estimated Impact Risk

($)

Level

(b) (4), (b) (5)
2
(b) (4), (b) (5)
3
(b) (4), (b) (5)
4
5

(b) (4), (b) (5)
6

(b) (4), (b) (5)

7

(b) (4), (b) (5)

8

(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)

9

(b) (4), (b) (5)

(b) (4), (b) (5)

10

(

(b) (4),

b

(b) (5)

)

(

(b) (4), (b) (5)

5

12

(b) (4), (b) (5)

() b

)

(

5

)

FOUO

Program FM&E # & Project Title
Date Project Manager
Project Base Cost Est. $ PBC + Est. Impact $

Tactical Infrastructure
O-1 to O-3 Fence
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 25 of 46
Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure
Risk Matrix

ID #

Month/F Y

Risk May Affect Critical Path

Milestone Affected

(b) (5)
13

Risk Category

Detailed Description of Risk (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Relevant,
Timebound)

Mitigation of Risk

14

15

16

17

18

RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY RESULTS (planned)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Impact to Critical Path - Total Days

-

Estimated Impact - Days

Probability (%)

$ Impact

Estimated Impact Risk

($)

Level

19

20

21

FOUO

Program FM&E # & Project Title
Date Project Manager
Project Base Cost Est. $ PBC + Est. Impact $

Tactical Infrastructure
O-1 to O-3 Fence
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 26 of 46
Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure
Risk Matrix

ID #

Month/F Y

Risk May Affect Critical Path

Milestone Affected

(b) (4), (b) (5)

Risk Category

Detailed Description of Risk (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Relevant,
Timebound)

Mitigation of Risk

RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY RESULTS (planned)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Impact to Critical Path - Total Days

-

Estimated Impact - Days

Probability (%)

$ Impact

Estimated Impact Risk

($)

Level

22

23

24 25
26

27

28

$

-

29

$

-

33

$

-

34

$

-

35

$

-

FOUO

Program FM&E # & Project Title
Date Project Manager
Project Base Cost Est. $ PBC + Est. Impact $

ID #

Month/F Y

Risk May Affect Critical Path

36

Tactical Infrastructure
O-1 to O-3 Fence
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 27 of 46
Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure
Risk Matrix

Milestone Affected

Risk Category

Detailed Description of Risk (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Relevant,
Timebound)

Mitigation of Risk

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48
FOUO

(b) (4), (b) (5)

Impact to Critical Path - Total Days

-

Estimated Impact - Days

Probability (%)

$ Impact

Estimated Impact Risk

($)

Level

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

Program FM&E # & Project Title
Date Project Manager
Project Base Cost Est. $ PBC + Est. Impact $

ID #

Month/F Y

Risk May Affect Critical Path

49

Tactical Infrastructure
O-1 to O-3 Fence
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 28 of 46
Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure
Risk Matrix

Milestone Affected

Risk Category

Detailed Description of Risk (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Relevant,
Timebound)

Mitigation of Risk

RISK MANAGEMENT SUMMARY RESULTS (planned)
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Impact to Critical Path - Total Days

-

Estimated Impact - Days

Probability (%)

$ Impact

Estimated Impact Risk

($)

Level

$

-

FOUO

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 29 of 46
B
Category Construction Contractor Performance
Design
Environmental
External Entity Compliance
Latent Conditions

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 30 of 46 Real Estate Scope

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 31 of 46

(b) (4)

Definition

(b) (4)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 32 of 46

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 33 of 46

Categories
*(b) (4)

Examples

)

(b) (4)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 34 of 46

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 35 of 46

(b) (4)

Risk Matrix

5 - Near 4 - Highly 3 - Possib 2 - Unlike 1 - Very U

Likelihood of Occurrence

Impact of Consequence

1 - Very Lo 2 - Low 3 - Medium 4 - High
5 - Very Hig

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 36 of 46

(b) (4)

Risk Likelihood Levels

l

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 37 of 46

O-(b) (5)
Activity ID

Activity Name

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 38 of 46
(b) (4), (b) (5)

Start

Finish

D - Date

(b) (4), (b) (5)

t

Page 1 of 1

BPFTI PMO

Data Date: Mar-15-2013

O-123...O-1-2-3 Project Milestones...

Activity ID

Activity Name

(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 39 of 46

O-1-2-3 IMS Project

Planned Start

Finish

D - Date

2013

2014

2015

(b) (4), (b) (5)

2016

Mar-21-2013
2017

Page 1 of 1

BPFTI PMO

Data Date: Mar-15-2013

O-123...O-1-2-3 Project Milestones...

Activity ID

Activity Name

(b) (4), (b) (5)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 40 of 46

O-1-2-3 IMS Project

Planned Start

Finish

D - Date

2013

2014

2015

(b) (4), (b) (5)

2016

Mar-21-2013 2017

Page 1 of 1

BPFTI PMO

Data Date: Mar-15-2013

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 41 of 46
OMB/Senate Technical Assistance Request – Replace Vehicle Fence, Legacy Pedestrian Fence and Complete Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3
and Construct Secondary Fencing Behind All PF and VF
DISCLOSURE: These responses have been informed by the experience of Pedestrian Fence (PF) 225 and Vehicle Fence (VF) 300 projects. CBP has not had sufficient time to complete an in-depth analysis of each segment of proposed fence construction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (b) (5)
. Additionally, the timelines, estimates and assumptions detailed here assume the team that executed the PF225 project will execute these projects, allowing CBP to leverage their considerable technical expertise, experience and lessons learned.
(b) (4)

Phase 1 – Risks and Assumptions
Environmental • (b) (4)
(b) (4)

2/17/2013 8:09 PM

1

• (b) (4)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 42 of 46
OMB/Senate Technical Assistance Request – Replace Vehicle Fence, Legacy Pedestrian Fence and Complete Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3
and Construct Secondary Fencing Behind All PF and VF

Real Estate

• (b) (4)

• (b) (4)

(b) (4)

.

Procurement Strategy • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4) • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4) • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)

Construction • (b) (4) • (b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)

Staffing • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)

2/17/2013 8:09 PM

2

• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
Phase 1 – Concerns • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4) • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 43 of 46
OMB/Senate Technical Assistance Request – Replace Vehicle Fence, Legacy Pedestrian Fence and Complete Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3
and Construct Secondary Fencing Behind All PF and VF

Phase 2 – Risks and Assumptions
Environmental • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4) (b) (4)
Real Estate • (b) (4)
(b) (4)

.

2/17/2013 8:09 PM

3

• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4) • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 44 of 46
OMB/Senate Technical Assistance Request – Replace Vehicle Fence, Legacy Pedestrian Fence and Complete Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3
and Construct Secondary Fencing Behind All PF and VF

Procurement Strategy • (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)
(b) (4)
• (b) (4)

. .

Construction

• (b) (4)

• (b) (4)

.

• (b) (4)

(b) (4)

.

Staffing • (b) (4)
(b) (4)

2/17/2013 8:09 PM

4

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 45 of 46
OMB/Senate Technical Assistance Request – Replace Vehicle Fence, Legacy Pedestrian Fence and Complete Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3
and Construct Secondary Fencing Behind All PF and VF

(b) (4)

(b) (4)

• (b) (4)
(b) (4)

• (b) (4)

(b) (4)

.

Phase 2 – Concerns • (b) (4)
(b) (4)

• (b) (4)

• (b) (4)

(b) (4)

e

(b) (4)

• (b) (4)
(b) (4)

• (b) (4)
(b) (4)

• (b) (4)

2/17/2013 8:09 PM

5

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-2 Filed 12/12/17 Page 46 of 46 OMB/Senate Technical Assistance Request – Replace Vehicle Fence, Legacy Pedestrian Fence and Complete Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3 and Construct Secondary Fencing Behind All PF and VF
Cost Estimate to Complete Phase 1 & Phase 2:
(b) (4)

2/17/2013 8:09 PM

6

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 13
Exhibit C

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 13
FOIA Appeals Policy and Litigation Branch U.S. Customs and Border Protection 90 K Street, NE, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20229-1177
Sent via certified mail February 3, 2017
RE: FOIA APPEAL, File Number CBP-2013-016845/ CBP-2016-018165
The Sierra Club hereby timely appeals Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This FOIA request has repeatedly changed tracking numbers, beginning with CBP-2013-016845 when it was submitted on April 17, 2013, and ending with tracking number CBP-2016-018165 when the Sierra Club was provided with just 10 completely redacted documents on December 9, 2016 and no Vaughn index as required by Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), and as requested by the Sierra Club in our original 2013 FOIA request.
The Sierra Club requested the following on April 17, 2013:
The Sierra Club requests records dating from January 1, 2010 to the present pertaining to the construction of border fencing (also commonly referred to as the border wall, pedestrian fence, and tactical infrastructure) in the vicinity of the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas. These sections of border fencing will be built in the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector have been designated O-1, O-2, and O-3. Very little information has been released to the public regarding these sections of border fencing, despite a great deal of local public interest. The Sierra Club is particularly interested in the impact of these fencing sections on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the potential for the impedance of flood waters that may accompany the erection of fencing in the Rio Grande flood plain.
Responsive documents should include (but not be limited to) internal CBP discussions, memos, meeting notes, presentation materials such as Powerpoints and handouts, and reports regarding fencing sections O-1, O-2, and O-3. Any contracts that have been prepared and/or put out for bid and/or granted for these sections should be included. Documents should also include consultations, interactions, and discussions with the Army Corps. of Engineers, the International Boundary Water Commission, US Fish and Wildlife, the State Department, and local government officials and residents regarding these fencing sections.
Please search responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics. Where possible, please produce records electronically, in PDF or TIF format on a CD-ROM. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, e-mail, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs. Our request includes telephone messages, voice mail messages, e-mail, daily agenda and calendars, information about scheduled meetings and/or discussions regarding the aforementioned topics, whether in person or over the telephone, agendas for those meetings and/or discussions, participants included in those meetings and/or discussions, and transcripts, notes and/or minutes from any such meetings and/or discussions.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 13
It is the Sierra Club’s assertion that Customs and Border Protection’s response to our FOIA request fails to meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act in a number of ways:
1) Customs and Border Protection took far longer to provide responsive documents than FOIA allows. Three years and eight months elapsed before the Sierra Club received any documents. During most of that time the Sierra Club’s repeated requests for updates or a timeline for the delivery of responsive documents went unanswered. It was not until 2016, three years after the initial submission of our FOIA, that we began to have what we hoped would be productive discussions with CBP staff.
2) In January of 2016 the long-ignored FOIA request mysteriously dropped from the Sierra Club’s online queue in the Customs and Border Protection FOIA system. When the Sierra Club contacted CBP regarding the lost FOIA it was reinstated, but rather than retain the 2013 tracking number it was assigned a 2016 tracking number, which would give the false appearance that our FOIA was three years younger than it actually is. As CBP employs a “first come first served” policy, this likely moved our request to the back of CBP’s backlog.
3) Ultimately the documents provided were so heavily redacted as to be completely useless. All information was blacked out. While multi-year delays violate the letter of the Freedom of Information Act, providing allegedly responsive documents with every iota of information redacted clearly runs counter to the basis of the law.
4) The Sierra Club received just 10 documents in response to our request, despite the fact that our FOIA covered a broad range of documents and document types over multiple years. The Sierra Club has been submitting FOIA requests to a number of federal agencies over the past few years, including Customs and Border Protection, and has received many documents that would have been responsive to this FOIA, or that indicate the existence of far more documents that would have been responsive. Customs and Border Protection excluded many, many documents without providing a Vaughn index indicating what documents were withheld and the statutory reason for withholding them.
The Sierra Club therefore appeals Customs and Border Protection’s inadequate response to our 2013 – 2016 Freedom of Information Act request. Customs and Border Protection should immediately initiate a new, thorough search for responsive documents. These should be provided in a timely manner, and any redactions should be minimal and explained with sufficient detail to make their reasoning clear.
1 & 2) In regards to points one and two above, the Sierra Club provides a timeline of communications regarding our FOIA request, initially assigned tracking number CBP-2013-016845 in April 2013, and closed out with tracking number CBP-2016-018165 in December 2016. Both the duration and details of the Club’s interactions with CBP on this FOIA demonstrate that CBP has failed to comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
Timeline of communications with CBP re: the Sierra Club’s FOIA request:
 Submitted FOIA on April 17, 2013. CBP assigned it tracking number CBP-2013-016845.  September 4, 2013 it was merged with FOIA request CBP-2013-010601.  Repeated email requests for status update unanswered.  July 4, 2014 submitted an inquiry to CBP requesting an update.  August 14, 2014 received an email response from PIO Munoz which suggested looking at the
online queue for updates. No information provided in either this email or the queue. This was tagged Incident: 140704-000035.  August 22, 2014 sent an email to CBP:

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 13
“There has still been no response regarding the status of the Sierra Club's FOIA request, tracking # CBP2013-010601. This FOIA is well over a year old, having been submitted on 4/17/2013. Please provide us with a status update and when we should expect to begin receiving responsive documents immediately, as such a long delay with no explanation whatsoever is in no way keeping with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.”  August 22, 2014 received email response from CBP: “An account was automatically created for you but you can't login until your password has been set.”  August 22, 2014 replied to CBP email: “We already have an account. It would not matter anyway, since the email that you sent stated that only FOIA requests created after October 2013 can be checked online, and ours was submitted in April of 2013. Please call (956) 532-5983 if you would like to discuss this further, or simply send an email to this address to let us know when we can expect to begin receiving documents. Again, the request # is CBP-2013-010601.”  August 24, 2014 received email from PIO Lerma: “Thank you for contacting the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) INFO Center. Please contact FOIA directly 202-325-0150”  August 25, 2014 called CBP on the phone – received no information (details of the call described below).  August 25, 2014 responded to CBP’s August 24 email: “This was not helpful, as the person who answered at 202-325-0150 stated that she could not give me an update on the status of the Sierra Club's FOIA request CBP-2013-010601 which was submitted in April of 2013. She said that she could only look at the same online screen that I already have access to, and which has not changed for more than a year. To pass my request on to a supervisor she needed to find a pencil and paper to write a note. Essentially you have created a feedback loop that reinforces, rather than fixes, the problem of ascertaining when CBP intends to provide documents that are responsive to the Sierra Club's FOIA request. Online you say call this number, but when the number is called I am told to check online. At more than a year old and with no substantive response this is a clear violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Please provide a timeline for providing responsive documents immediately.”  July 1, 2015 received an email re: fee waiver request: “Your request for Fee Waiver for the FOIA request CBP-2013-016845 has been determined to be not applicable as the request is not billable.”  July 7, 2015 responded to CBP email requesting clarification.  January 2016 the FOIA request disappeared from the Sierra Club’s online queue  January 21, 2016 email sent to CBP protesting the “lost” FOIA. Included a copy of the FOIA request.  January 22, 2016 sent a second emai to CBP regarding the “lost” FOIA request.  January 29, 2016 “new” FOIA appears in Sierra Club’s queue, assigned tracking number CBP-2016-018165.  January 29, 2016 called CBP FOIA officer at (202) 344-1610 and left a message regarding our concern that this maneuver would restart the clock on a nearly 3 year old FOIA request.  February 2, 2016 received an email stating that the tracking number had changed to CBP-OBP-2016-018165. This email and subsequent emails also showed the “date

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 13
submitted” as January 29, 2016.  February 3, 2016 received an email stating that CBP-OBP-2016-018165 would change to
CBP-2016-018165  February 4, 2016 received an email stating that CBP-2016-018165 would change to
CBP-OA-2016-018165.  April 15, 2016 spoke on the phone with CBP (Grace Peterson, et. al.), who said that they were
working on the FOIA.  April 18, 2016 sent follow up email to Grace Peterson, et. al., regarding the April 15 phone call.
Focused primarily on a different FOIA, but this one was mentioned as well.  June 9, 2016 email from Grace Peterson suggesting a phone call re: this FOIA request and another pending FOIA.  Multiple emails regarding a separate FOIA request that was pending release.  October 2, 2016 sent an email to Grace Peterson, Paul Enriquez, and Ashley Tackett:
“Could you please provide a status update on the Sierra Club Borderlands Team's other FOIA requests, CBP2015-045142 and CBP-2016-018165 (which was originally submitted in 2013 and given the tracking number CBP-2013-016845).”  October 6, 2016 email from Grace Peterson with Paul Enriquez, and Ashley Tackett cc’d suggesting a call to discuss the long-pending FOIA requests.  October 10, 2016 phone call scheduled for October 11.  October 11, 2016 two more emails to establish the time for the call.  October 11, 2016 phone call to discuss the progress on the Sierra Club’s outstanding FOIA requests.  November 11, 2016 sent email to Grace Peterson, Paul Enriquez, and Ashley Tackett: “Could you please provide a status update on the Sierra Club Borderlands Team's other FOIA requests, CBP-2015-045142 and CBP-2016-018165 (which was originally submitted in 2013 and given the tracking number CBP-2013-016845).”  November 22, 2016 received email from Grace Peterson with Paul Enriquez, and Stacy Howell cc’d: “My sincerest apologies for missing the following email. To provide a brief update, CBP-2016-018165 should be wrapped up shortly. I sent up a partial release to our FOIA office a few months back, did you receive those documents?”  November 22, 2016 sent email to Grace Peterson, Paul Enriquez, and Stacy Howell: “I have not received any documents for either request.”  November 23, 2016 received email from Grace Peterson with Paul Enriquez, and Stacy Howell cc’d: “Okay thank you for letting me know, Scott. Let me check back with our FOIA office to see what the situation is there.”  December 8, 2016 sent email to Grace Peterson, Paul Enriquez, and Stacy Howell: “Have you found anything out regarding the Sierra Club's pending FOIA requests? Any idea when we will receive responsive documents?”  December 9, 2016 received a form email: “A search of CBP databases produced records responsive to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request CBP-2016-018165, requesting records dating from January 1, 2010 to the present pertaining to the construction of border fencing (also commonly referred to as the border wall, pedestrian fence, and

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 13
tactical infrastructure) in the vicinity of the communities of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas. CBP has determined that the responsive records are partially releasable, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552 and have applied the appropriate exemptions notated below:
Section 552 (FOIA) ___ (b)(1) ___ (b)(2) ___ (b)(3) _X__ (b)(4) _X__ (b)(5) ___ (b)(6) ___ (b)(7)(A) ___ (b)(7)(B) ___ (b)(7)(C) ___ (b)(7)(D) ___ (b)(7)(E) ___ (b)(7)(F) ___ (b)(3) Statute 49 U.S.C. § 114(s)  December 10, 2016 sent email to Grace Peterson, Paul Enriquez, and Stacy Howell: “Hi Grace, I just received the final disposition for the Sierra Club's FOIA request regarding border fence sections O1, O-2, and O-3. As you will recall, this request was initially submitted in 2013 and assigned tracking number CBP-2013-016845. It was lost by CBP and then reinstated as CBP-2016-018165. Did you have a look at the documents that were provided? It would not take long. Even though the request covered a date range of 2010 through the present, only 10 very short documents were provided. There are a number of CBP documents that would have been responsive to this FOIA that were provided to the Sierra Club by the US IBWC and the Army Corps of Engineers in prior FOIA requests that were left out, so the reason for the brevity of CBP's response, despite the years spent on it, is hard to fathom. Moreover, the documents that were provided were entirely redacted. There is literally no information visible on them. I am attaching the first two of the 10 documents, not because they are the worst of the very small lot, but because they are all likewise redacted. There is no way that this could be considered to be compliant with the Freedom of Information Act, as no information whatsoever was provided. It is difficult to see what it is that Customs and Border Protection feels that it is necessary to hide. One document, based on the fact that its file name has "CIR" in it, appears to be a planning document for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that came out a few years ago. That legislation was never signed into law, so I cannot imagine what information could be in that document that should be shielded from public view. It was contingency planning for something that did not occur. In other cases, such as the multi-colored spreadsheet that I have attached, there is no indication at all as to what it might relate to. I would appreciate it if we could discuss this next week. Please let me know when you are available.”  December 19, 2016. Received email and letter from Patrick Howard, which read in part: “CBP FOIA has been made aware that you reached out to another office with concerns about the response you received. Please be advised that this is not the correct format for filing an appeal.”  December 20, 2016. Responded to Mr. Howard: “I reached out to Grace Peterson regarding the inadequacy of the documents released in response to the Sierra Club's three year old FOIA because Grace and I had repeatedly discussed this FOIA request over the past year via phone and email. My hope was that she would see the withholding of relevant and releasable documents and excessive redactions and would act to rectify the situation without the need to file an appeal. I am disappointed to find that this could not be so easily resolved.”

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 7 of 13
3) In regards to point three, the Sierra Club asserts that redactions have been used far beyond the degree that is allowed under the Freedom of Information Act, to the extent that the documents that were provided in response to our FOIA request provide us with no actual information.
The FOIA response cites exemptions B(4) and B(5) extensively. Below is our analysis of the inappropriate use of these exemptions.
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), known as Exemption B(4), to be applied to documents which would reveal "[t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
Exemption 4 protects from public disclosure just two types of information: (1) trade secrets; and (2) information that is (a) commercial or financial, and (b) obtained from a person, and (c) privileged or confidential. All three parts of the commercial or financial exemption must be met. Congress intended this exemption to protect the interests of both the government and submitters of information. Its existence encourages submitters to voluntarily furnish useful commercial or financial information to the government and it correspondingly provides the government with an assurance that such information will be reliable. It is unclear whether the B(4) exemption was applied because of the “trade secrets” provision at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)(1), or the commercial or financial provision at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)(2), because no Vaughn index was provided. For many documents provided, it is impossible, due to the level of redaction, to infer from context what information has been redacted.
Trade Secrets, Exemption B(4)(1)
A trade secret is a commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device. This is a narrow and relatively easily recognized category of information. It is "a secret, commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, or processing of trade commodities and that can be said to be the end product of either innovation or substantial effort." Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983). An example of a trade secret might be the formula of a gasoline additive.
As an example of the inappropriate use of exemption B(4)(1), which may have been used to redact the responsive document “BH Schedule Comment Form 11 APR 13 a Redacted,” you can see from the context of the document that the material redacted is a comment by someone at DHS/CBP and is therefore not a trade secret. Similarly, for responsive document 143875 PF225 WBS View(2) Redacted” the use of exemption B(4)(1) appears to have been used to redact activity descriptions or names and the duration of the activity, neither of which are trade secrets. In other documents redactions under the B(4) exemption include dates, costs, staffing level information, and cost estimates. None of these redactions falls within the scope of the B(4)(1) exemption for “trade secrets.”
Commercial or Financial Information Obtained from a Person and Privileged or Confidential, Exemption B(4)(2)
The second form of protected data is "commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." Courts have held that data qualifies for withholding if disclosure by the government would be likely to harm the competitive position of the person who submitted the information. Detailed information on a company's marketing plans, profits, or costs can qualify as confidential business information. Information may also be withheld if disclosure would be likely to impair the government's ability to obtain similar information in the future.
Generally, the commercial/financial nature of a document is not difficult to ascertain, consequently, the main issue in contest is whether the information is privileged or confidential. However, for the responsive documents received, it is impossible to determine if any of the redacted information is commercial or financial and in fact, most of the redactions appear from the context of the documents to not fall within this exemption. For example (and again citing the same two

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 13
documents), in responsive document “BH Schedule Comment Form 11 APR 13 a Redacted,” you can see from the context of the document that the material redacted is a comment by someone at DHS/CBP and is therefore not commercial or financial information, nor provided by someone outside the agency. Similarly, for responsive document 143875 PF225 WBS View(2) Redacted” the use of exemption B(4)(2) appears to have been used to redact activity descriptions or names and the duration of the activity, neither of which are commercial or financial information. And again, in other documents redactions under the B(4) exemption include dates, costs, staffing level information, and cost estimates. None of these redactions falls within the scope of the B(4)(2) exemption for commercial or financial information. Not only do these redactions fail to meet all three parts of the test for the use of exemption B(4)(2), they fail to meet any part of that test.
A leading case on this aspect of Exemption 4 sets out the test for exempting commercial information from FOIA disclosure as follows:
"Commercial or financial matter is "confidential" for purposes of [Exemption 4] if disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1) to impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained." National Parks and Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C.Cir. 1974); see also Frasee v. U.S. Forest Service, 97 F.3d 367, 371 (9th Cir. 1996).
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), Documents which are "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters" which would be privileged in civil litigation.
Exemption 5 is an exemption very frequently invoked against public interest requesters because the nature of such party's intended uses are usually to get information regarding the agency's processes and conclusions. Notably, the exemption was intended to incorporate common-law privileges against discovery. Of all such privileges, the one most frequently encountered by public interest requesters is based on the concept of "executive" privilege which protects recommendations and advice which are part of the "deliberative process" involved in governmental decision-making. The rationale being to protect the integrity of agency decision-making by encouraging both full and frank discussions of policy proposals and to prevent premature disclosure of policies under review.
The exemption also incorporates other of privileges which would apply in litigation involving the government. For example, papers prepared by the government's lawyers can be withheld in the same way that papers prepared by private lawyers for clients are not available through discovery in civil litigation. However, this incorporation of discovery privileges requires that a privilege be applied in the FOIA context as it exists in the discovery context. See United States Dep't of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 13 (1988) (holding that presentence report privilege, designed to protect report subjects, cannot be invoked against them as first-party requesters). Thus, the precise contours of a privilege, with regard to applicable parties or types of information which are protectable, are also incorporated into the FOIA. Id.
Courts have resolved to distinguish "pre-decisional" documents, which fall within the protections of Exemption 5, and "post-decisional" documents, which must be disclosed. F.T.C. v. Warner Comm. Inc., 742 F2d 1156, 1161 (9th. Cir. 1984); NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151-153 (1975) (memos directing agency counsel criteria and actions involved in decision to file complaints are not final dispositions of issue, and are thus protected, while final opinions or dispositions can never be protected by Exemption 5).
However, even if a document is pre-decisional, some courts have upheld a distinction between "materials reflecting deliberative or policy-making process on the one hand, and purely factual, investigative matters on the other," the

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 13
exemption protects the former, not the latter. EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973). Those portions of a document which are not exempt must be disclosed unless they are "inextricably intertwined" with the exempt portions. Ryan v. Dept. of Justice, 617 F. 2d 781, 790-91 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
In the response to the FOIA request at issue in this appeal, exemption 5 was used in multiple times to redact what appears to be factual information such as dates, times, budget information, start and finish dates, activity names, activity ID numbers, staffing levels, definitions, next steps, options, environmental requirements, assumptions used in analysis, and requirements for projects. Very clearly, exemption 5 does not apply to these items and the extremely overbroad use of this exemption to redact nearly every word from the responsive documents is inappropriate as none of this information would be privileged or confidential in civil litigation.
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), Documents which are "personnel and medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
This exemption protects the privacy interests of individuals by allowing an agency to withhold personal data kept in government files. The Supreme Court has reviewed the application of this exemption.
First, in evaluating whether a request for information lies within the scope of a FOIA exemption, such as Exemption 6, that bars disclosure when it would amount to an invasion of privacy that is to some degree 'unwarranted, 'a court must balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest Congress intended the [e]xemption to protect." Department of Defense v. F.L.R.A., 114 S.Ct. 1006, 1012 (1994). Second, the only relevant "public interest in disclosure" to be weighed in this balance is the extent to which disclosure would serve the "core purpose of the FOIA," which is "contribut[ing] significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Id.
In other words, the requested materials must in some way illuminate "what the government is 'up to'" in order to justify disclosure. While a request for information from the government which illustrates what your neighbor or business competitor is "up to" will not meet the public interest balancing test under exemption 6. The exemption requires agencies to strike a balance between an individual's privacy interest and the public's right to know. However, since only a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy is a basis for withholding, there is a perceptible tilt in favor of disclosure in the exemption. "In the Act generally, and particularly under Exemption (6), there is a strong presumption in favor of disclosure." Local 598 v. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, 841 F.2d 1459, 1463 (9th. Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). In that case, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the context of applicable Exemption 6 case law:
In the documents produced as a response to the FOIA request at issue in this appeal exemption 6 has been used to redact the name of a person who commented on a DHS form. There is no way for the public to know if this person is an employee of DHS or a contractor hired by DHS. There is no invasion of privacy in releasing just the name of the person who filled out a government for while working in some capacity for the government, but there is a public interest in understanding whether DHS is using its own staff or outside contractors to fill out this form.
Unfortunately, DHS has a habit of redacting every individual’s name on every document released via FOIA, even when the name of the person is a publicly elected official and the document was produced in their official capacity. This is not an appropriate use of exemption 6 because no substantial privacy interest has been (or can be) identified and the public interest outweighs the (here, non-existent) privacy concern.
This habit of mechanical, thoughtless redactions flies in the face of FOIA. The Freedom of Information Act embodies a strong policy of disclosure and places a duty to disclose on federal agencies. As the district court recognized, 'disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.' Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 1599, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976). 'As a final and overriding guideline courts should always keep in mind the basic policy of the

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 13
FOIA to encourage the maximum feasible public access to government information....' Nationwide Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704, 715 (D.C.Cir.1977). As a consequence, the listed exemptions to the normal disclosure rule are to be construed narrowly. See Rose, 425 U.S. at 361, 96 S.Ct. at 1599. This is particularly true of Exemption (6). Exemption (6) protects only against disclosure which amounts to a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.' That strong language 'instructs us to 'tilt the balance [of disclosure interests against privacy interests] in favor of disclosure.'" Id. (emphasis added), citing Washington Post Co. v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252, 261 (D.C.Cir.1982) (quoting Ditlow v. Shultz, 517 F.2d 166, 169 (D.C. Cir.1975)).
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), Documents which include “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” and which would compromise law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.
Exemption 7(E) covers “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” that “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). This exemption was used for document “Brief CIR Draft 1 7 Redacted,” which is apparently a presentation about Comprehensive Immigration Reform where the “Notional CIR Requirements” are redacted. It is impossible to determine whether this is an appropriate use of exemption 7(E) because no Vaughn index was provided and no rationale for the redaction was provided.
The “requirement that disclosure risk circumvention of the law ‘sets a relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding.’” See Pub. Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, U.S.Mexico, 740 F.3d 195, 204–05 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). The agency “must demonstrate only that release of a document might increase the risk ‘that a law will be violated or that past violators will escape legal consequences.’” Id. at 205 (quoting Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS (“Mayer Brown”), 562 F.3d 1190, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). “Rather than requiring a highly specific burden of showing how the law will be circumvented, exemption 7(E) only requires that the [agency] demonstrate logically how the release of the requested information might create a risk of circumvention of the law.” Blackwell, 646 F.3d at 42 (quoting Mayer Brown, 562 F.3d at 1194 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
However, it stretches the imagination to understand how disclosure of these “Notional CIR Requirements” could be expected to risk circumvention of the law and here the agency has provide no such justification or explanation.
As stated in point four above, the Sierra Club has submitted numerous Freedom of Information Act requests regarding fencing along the US-Mexico border to various agencies. Many of the documents that have been provided, including many documents previously provided by Customs and Border Protection, would have been responsive to this FOIA and in a number of instances previously provided documents indicate the existence of other documents that Customs and Border Protection should have provided in response to this request.
On March 15, 2010 the Sierra Club submitted a Freedom of Information Request to Customs and Border Protection that was nearly identical to the FOIA request that we are currently appealing. Only the date range was different; the 2013 FOIA was intended to function as an update. In response to the 2010 FOIA the Sierra Club ultimately received 8 CDs between June 2010 and October 2011 containing 148 documents. While some redactions appeared to be arbitrary – for example, every dollar amount was redacted, even when the number referred to publicly available sums such as CBP’s total appropriation from Congress – there was a great deal of important information that had not previously been made known. A number of the documents provided in response to that FOIA would also have been responsive to this FOIA,

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 13
but they were neither provided nor described in a Vaughn index. The idea that since that time CBP has only produced 10 extremely brief, highly confidential documents, strains credulity.
The documents listed below highlight just a few of those which were previously provided by federal agencies that would either be responsive to this FOIA or indicate the existence of documents that CBP failed to provide, or even to acknowledge the existence of in a Vaughn index.
Partial list of documents previously provided to the Sierra Club via prior FOIA requests:
 PF 225 Phase II Draft Drainage Report Fence Segments O1, O2, O3 2-D Hydraulic Analysis of the Rio Grande Floodplain. Dated June 2011. Provided by Customs and Border Protection in October 2011. The final version of this report would be responsive to the Sierra Club’s FOIA request, along with emails, letters, meeting notes, Powerpoints, and other documents which make reference to either the draft or final version. Other reports discussing these proposed sections of border fence would likewise be relevant and responsive, and should be provided.
 CBP Office of Finance Facilities Management and Engineering Tactical Infrastructure Update January 20, 2010. Powerpoint provided by Customs and Border Protection in July 2010. Thirty responsive Powerpoint presentations were provided in response to the Sierra Club’s earlier FOIA, but only one Powerpoint, which was entirely redacted, was provided in response to this request. CBP should provide all Powerpoint presentations, updates, and meeting notes that mention border fence sections O-1, O-2, and/or O-3 from 2010 through the present.
 CBP Office of Finance Facilities Management and Engineering July 20, 2010 Briefing to Department of State Pedestrian Fence Segments O-1, O-2 and O-3. Powerpoint provided by Customs and Border Protection in May 2011. This Powerpoint was presented at a meeting in 2010, within the date range covered by this FOIA and explicitly discussing the topic of this FOIA. Meeting notes, emails, letters, etc. related to this meeting are clearly responsive to this FOIA and should be released.
 Subject: Fw: Emailing 02-012(a)USIBWC Approval Letter Segments O-123.pdf. February 23, 2012 email chain provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers in April 2013. This email from Loren Flossman says in part, “Sirs the attached letter to Scott Recinos from IBWC is the successful conclusion of over 3 years of singular dedication and tenacity by Scott. His commitment has resulted in IBWC's approval of the O-1 O-2 O-3 fence segments which are part of the 670 miles of proposed fence.” Emails, meeting notes, and correspondence covering the span of Mr. Recinos’s efforts related to these sections are relevant to our FOIA and should be provided. The Sierra Club’s previous CBP FOIA led to the release of 18 email chains, but the ten documents that were provided in response to this FOIA do not (so far as we can discern with their content entirely redacted) make any reference to these efforts or to the International Boundary and Water Commission.
 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Secure Border Initiative Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan. Provided by Customs and Border Protection in June 2010.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 13
This is an annual report that CBP develops for Congress. While the 2009 report would not fall within the 2010 through the present range of the FOIA which we are appealing, subsequent reports which make mention of border fence sections O-1, O-2, and/or O-3 would.
 Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure (BPFTI) Program Management Office (PMO) Real Estate Plan Proposed Pedestrian Fencing Segments O-1, O-2, O-3 Starr & Hidalgo Counties, Texas. November 30, 2012. Provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers in April 2013. Planning documents such as this are clearly responsive to the Sierra Club’s FOIA request, falling within its date range and discussing the relevant subject matter. CBP should release all similar planning documents that discuss proposed border fence segments O-1, O-2, and O-3.
If certain records are exempt from disclosure under FOIA CBP is still required to provide an index of those records that is sufficiently detailed for a reasonable person to be able to ascertain whether the record sought is actually exempt from disclosure. Vaughn v. Rosen, 282 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). CBP did not provide an index of any type despite the undeniable fact that many documents were withheld from this FOIA request.
CONCLUSION For these reasons, we respectfully request that Customs and Border Protection reverse the initial decision to redact the few documents it has provided, promptly conduct an additional search and provide us with full access to the requested information. The Sierra club has been waiting since April 2013 for this information. The lengthy and unreasonable delay by Customs and Border Protection is preventing us from fully understanding the impacts that Customs and Border Protection activities are having on threatened and endangered species and habitat, potential flooding and watershed impacts, and issues of concern to our membership along the U.S.-Mexico border. Our interests have been and continue to be negatively impacted by this unreasonable delay and inappropriate redaction of information as well as the failure to produce documents in the possession of Customs and Border Protection that are responsive to our original request. As we evaluate whether to seek judicial review of this matter, it would be useful for Customs and Border Protection to provide us with a projected date-certain by which we can expect a determination of this appeal, as required by FOIA. If Customs and Border Protection has implemented a “first-in/first-out” system for processing FOIA appeals, we ask that you inform us how many appeals are in line ahead of this one and that you take into consideration the fact that this FOIA request has been outstanding since April 2013. Please let us know how we can help you in your efforts to publicly disclose the important information contained in the requested documents. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sierra Club Borderlands Co-chair Scott Nicol at (956) 532-5983 or lrgvsierraclub@gmail.com.
Scott Nicol
Co-chair Sierra Club Borderlands Team
7300 N. 32nd McAllen, TX 78504

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 13
Enclosed: Copy of Sierra Club’s FOIA request from April 2013 Brief CIR Draft 1 7 _Redactedf BH Schedule Comment Form 11 APR 13 a_Redactedf

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit D

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 3
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

MAR 1o2017

DIS-3 OT:RR:RDL:FAPL CBP-AP-2017-028365

Mr. Scott Nicol Sierra Club 7300 N 32"d McAllen, TX 78504
Re: Remand of Freedom of Information Act Request CBP 20 16-018165

Dear Mr. Nicol:
aaippGfnndereirdenedtasiqcenaBeiusldnnotaegFrttrTiedOpaCslheneuyIiirrAtbsftyrPeaje,iensirssncaoucpitnitebnonedtm,ongcraLdteittinspohootsdloensiytothEFy(ante"ocoOb,CtcuayiIyoBcnrAoonaoAPuulssrr"rtpe,ir)nrqFruTefiFueceqlrrebt1axueisrs7oaeeutts,nsrdaa.ut2orreoc0yemYdtf1ui3boC3nro,uoe,Bft2r)hiidIP0nniene1nidfrtrU7iioetacf,hcr.elaSmeosntFu.recvadbOdBitismnicIooigiAdnirnnsad(iystrtAaeiiyeolrnocsqugnoPoturaf(efcsr"trtsoeurhoFtofnbemeOflcmor'ceIrsrJoiAersaRnmCds"niiiB)nmtuooogaDPnuGratinytrhsrvheiaetia1tcnishto,Ueider2sote.hd0SnboseV1'.o.fs0srCaRedf,Ilauncloeteiotsrmliyytuowotoarhnsmeu,aeeslrRcstloo,tiofor and are designated 0-1 , 0-2, and 0-3.
arSintrnsrdnehdeeeepuiqiedmqcedetmuriaeuceai5necsbnielbsfstoseUieiytaasttcerUdrcet.arsoSyrotdsneladib..lfodatCoyibvionnreTvcei.ctiaruechhytdh§tatlameeoeeyhkf5ursnuoeeae5satrarnupnei2pFgfitnptpinsOtieh(neehneianetaseIteao)icsArlc(lavseeyae6yla'sapsp)rsorprFnps(eeriuoaAyaOocoecdnroaucbo)aIymslre.sArudseddsjtivrusTsnpstesei,oditrhuparystiosledbohactolcermoroieuaraetaerwdedstsileisi,sqesmdsvrsptuineepeiesiCreoovnnrreaasBontimtisetinpsv.afePwtiptipirnnoiedHean.tptadoaetadceotilsItioevaicwinonptamoeroenernntaryraophvrstmsopavlihee,seugpicriaiptsfn,reetctelitenaaaaamoahalsscpnnnwedeiyppsi,s,math,FertawgtaoeaaaOihkernctpnlieh.etIneeidphAqsescsFeIturosyaranmODetancrihmstsItsoaihieAtovdrvieaairprmiesreksesdDpeichprairoooseiftetaovcrinscstvtlrouiphuootsesntmaeenwrhiencodshiaeeFettttnir,neyfOrsrctoptryiolhstgeIFrseooAelhaOvtuueadhgtresarrIeDaeletfsAavotstnoeiopiwvcrdaerpirinewaeeseecqdrsivaeoueilriatneetsnaswdti.n on appeal in this case. ilFAtneoOtsstyteImroAru.uecrDntIAitrfoiievctonhqcinssueoeiterodhFdsnaOtiatnsbiIgnthAohlovdyeuDei,rsl,weidtvyrqeiaioucsduateivorscmeitnossaeruiheysrymotu.oiumanulPnadmuodbbrilfenesedtughitpaoaeryntoetpoticlrumtyeoorseccrs5eheersaeqUdslqul.wtuSeehins.ierCttgehrt.edioen§tqtth5ouhtew5eer2sFeeFt(snOaOpwt)yIo(IiA4ntA(h)d2D(iD0nBti)oiv)tvd,witishayseiyeoionosunrtneyf'msqrf(ouo2afmeray0sip)ltdtu.rhdooreaecsydeotsoas,sitnertihenotseghpfewothniitdsh

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 3
U.S. District Court in the district in which you reside or have a principle place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Alternatively, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. You can contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services 800 N. Capitol Street, Suite 795 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202-741-5770 Facsimile: 202-741-5769 www.archi ve s.gov/ogis
Sincerely,
Shari Suzuki, Chief FOIA Appeals, Policy and Litigation Branch

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit E

FOIA - Freedom of Information Act

https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/registered/requestmod?requ...

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 6

Request Details

Tracking Number : CBP‐2016‐018165

Submi ed

Evalua on

Assignment

Processing

Closed
Full Name : Mr. Sco Nicol
Organiza on : Sierra Club Email Address : lrgvsierraclub@gmail.com Phone Number : 956‐532‐5983
Fax Number :

Territories

Mailing Loca on : United States/U.S.
Address Line 1 : 7300 N 32nd
Address Line 2 :

City : McAllen State/Province : Texas Zip Code/Postal Code : 78504

and Border Protec on

Agency : U.S. Customs

Will Pay Up To : $25.00

Date Submi ed :

01/29/2016

Es mated Date of Comple on :

02/29/2016

Request Phase : Processing Request Track : Simple Final Disposi on : Undetermined

849/2000
The Sierra Club requests records da ng from January 1, 2010 to the present pertaining to the construc on of border fencing (also commonly referred to as the border wall, pedestrian fence, and tac cal infrastructure) in the vicinity of the communi es of Roma, Rio Grande City, and Los Ebanos, Texas. These sec ons of border fencing will be built in the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector have been designated O‐1, O‐2, and O‐3. Very li le informa on has been released to the public regarding these sec ons of border fencing, despite a great deal of local public interest.

1 of 5

8/24/2017, 8:59 AM

FOIA - Freedom of Information Act

https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/registered/requestmod?requ...

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 6

Made Request ? No

Made Request ? No

A ached Files :

A ached File

Sierra Club FOIA request to CBP re starr county walls 2013.pdf

Type
PDF

Size (MB)
0.05

No payments to display.

Total Amount Billed : $0.00 Date Sent : No invoice has been added.

2 of 5

8/24/2017, 8:59 AM

FOIA - Freedom of Information Act

https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/registered/requestmod?requ...

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 6

Subject
CBP‐2016‐018165 ‐ Status le er
04/14/2017

From

Date

Detail

Jasmine Wiggins 2017‐04‐14

7300 N 32nd McAllen TX 78504
Mr. Nicol:
The U.S. Customs and Border Protec on (CBP) Freedom of Informa on Act (FOIA) Division is wri ng to provide a status update on the appeal you ﬁled pertaining to case CBP‐2016‐018165. Please be advised this case has been remanded to the FOIA Division to complete addi onal searches for responsive records. An addi onal 30 business days from the date of this le er are needed for the program oﬃce to complete a comprehensive search of records. Once the searches have been completed, you will receive addi onal correspondence with a projected
me frame for the comple on of the remand. Thank you,
CBP FOIA Division

Reply Final Disposi on, Request CBP‐2016‐018165 CBP‐2016‐018165 ‐ Acknowledgement Le er via Mail FOIA Request CBP‐2016‐018165 Submi ed

Jasmine Wiggins 2016‐12‐09 Lorian Beasley 2016‐01‐29
2016‐01‐29

3 of 5

8/24/2017, 8:59 AM

FOIA - Freedom of Information Act

https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/registered/requestmod?requ...

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 6

Filter by Title :

11 records found, displaying all records.

Download

Title

8 May Brief (BH input) V2_Redactedf

Type
PDF

143875 PF225 WBS View(2)_Redactedf

PDF

BH Schedule Comment

Form 11 APR 13

PDF

a_Redactedf

Brief CIR Dra 1 7 _Redactedf

PDF

CIR Pipelines _Redactedf PDF

Copy of O1 to O3 Risk

Register BPFTI PMO Risk Con ngency Calcula on

PDF

Te_Redactedf.

IMS‐CIR 03‐15‐2013 _Redactedf

PDF

IMS‐CIR 03‐18‐2013 _Redactedf

PDF

O123 Milestones Schedule March 21 2013 _Redactedf

PDF

OMB Senate CIR Tasking v3 nlk 021713_Redactedf

PDF

CBP‐AP‐2017‐028365

PDF

11 records found, displaying all records.

SUBMIT

CLEAR
Results 50 1

Size (MB)

Release Date

0.18 12/09/2016

Released With
Request ‐ Direct

0.09 12/09/2016

Request ‐ Direct

0.03 12/09/2016

Request ‐ Direct

0.44 12/09/2016 0.04 12/09/2016

Request ‐ Direct
Request ‐ Direct

0.16 12/09/2016

Request ‐ Direct

0.02 12/09/2016 0.01 12/09/2016 0.02 12/09/2016 0.08 12/09/2016 0.56 03/16/2017

Request ‐ Direct
Request ‐ Direct
Request ‐ Direct
Request ‐ Direct
Appeal ‐ Direct
1

4 of 5

8/24/2017, 8:59 AM

FOIA - Freedom of Information Act

https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/registered/requestmod?requ...

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 6

5 of 5

8/24/2017, 8:59 AM

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-6 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit F

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-6 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 4
November 19, 2016
Submitted electronically
Freedom of Information Act Request
The Sierra Club makes this request for records, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics, including electronic records and information, email, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq.
The Sierra Club trying to understand the scope of work that LMI (the Logistics Management Institute) did for Customs and Border Protection regarding border fencing and related tactical infrastructure. According to LMI’s website this work was quite expansive, and LMI and its employees repeatedly pop up in FOIA documents that we have received from CBP and other agencies. LMI employees appear to have played an important role in the Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office. We have received some SBI PMO meeting minutes from 2007 and 2008 that indicate that meetings were held at LMI's McLean, Virginia office.
The Sierra Club specifically seeks documents, including SBI PMO and other meeting minutes and notes, as well as emails, memos, and reports, that involve and/or relate to the participation of LMI employees in the Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office, and meetings at LMI's McLean, Virginia office from January 2006 through the present.
Please include emails, letters, call logs, and other communications regarding these meetings. Customs and Border Protection discussions, reports, updates, presentation materials such as Powerpoints, etc., that pertain to these meetings should be included.
Please search responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics. Our request includes email, telephone messages, voice mail messages, daily agenda and calendars, information about scheduled meetings and/or discussions regarding the aforementioned topic, whether in person or over the telephone, agendas for those meetings and/or discussions, participants included in those meetings and/or discussions, and transcripts, notes and/or minutes from any such meetings and/or discussions.
If it is your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure, the Sierra Club requests that you provide it with an index of those documents as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1972). As you are aware, a Vaugn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA.” Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Moreover, the Vaugn index must “describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for each withholding it must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information.” King v. U.S. Department of Justice, 830 F. 2d 210, 223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Further, “the withholding agency must supply ‘a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.’” Id. At 224 (citing Mead Data Central v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-6 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 4
In the event that some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please disclose any reasonable segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. See 5 U.S.C § 552(b). If it is your position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that those nonexempt segments are so dispersed throughout the document as to make segregation impossible, please state what portion of the document is non-exempt, and how the material is dispersed throughout the document. Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261. Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for claims of exemptions in a Vaugn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.
The Sierra Club is primarily engaged in working to protect communities, wild places, and the natural environment. The Sierra Club is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code. The release of information garnered through this request is not in the Sierra Club’s financial interest. The Sierra Club will analyze the information responsive to this request, and will likely share its analysis with the public, either through memoranda, reports, articles, or press releases. The Sierra Club has an established record of carrying out these types of activities. The Sierra Club will also deposit copies of all documents that are received with the Border Studies Archive at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, where they will be catalogued and made available free of charge to researchers, students, and the general public.
Fee Waiver Request
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 6 C.F.R. Part 5, the Sierra Club requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The waiver is in the public interest because furnishing this information primarily benefits the general public. The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the Sierra Club and the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(A)(iii). See, e.g., McClellan Ecological v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 1987).
The records requested by the Sierra Club are likely to contribute to the public’s understanding of the environmental impacts of border fencing along the U.S. – Mexico border. This policy issue has been the subject of frequent press inquiry and public debate.
The Sierra Club, along with its members, has published articles, reports, fact sheets, and other educational materials based on information that we have gained from documents received from a number of federal agencies via the Freedom of Information Act. None of these resulted in any sort of financial profit for the Sierra Club. In regards to border fencing, in addition to other types of educational materials a number of articles have been published by the Rio Grande Guardian, the Monitor, the Texas Observer, the Arizona Daily Star, the Associated Press, and other news outlets based on documents provided to us through previous Freedom of Information Act requests. These articles were written for the sole purpose of educating the public, including readers of the Arizona Daily Star and the Rio Grande Guardian who live in border communities. No payment of any kind was made to the Sierra Club for these articles, or for any of the other articles that have been written based on these documents. Copies of all of the documents regarding border fencing that the Sierra Club has received have been lodged at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley’s Border Studies Archive, where they are available to researchers and the public. At no point has the Sierra Club been assessed fees by Customs and Border Protection, US Fish and Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, US International Boundary Water Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, or other federal agencies who have honored our previous FOIA requests pertaining to border fencing.

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-6 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 4
In considering fee waiver criteria, please note that the FOIA carries a presumption of disclosure, and that the fee waiver amendments of 1986 were specifically designed to afford groups such as the Sierra Club access to government documents without the payment of fees. As stated by the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judicial Committee, “[A]gencies should not be allowed to use fees as an offensive weapon against requesters seeking access to Government information . . .” 132 Cong. Rec. S. 14298 (statement of Sen. Leahy). The Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the amended statute “is to be liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.” McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1284 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Sen. Leahy). The Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals maintain that the amendment's main purpose is “to remove the roadblocks and technicalities which have been used by various Federal agencies to deny waivers or reductions of fees under the FOIA.” Id.; also see Judicial Watch, 326 F.3d at 1315. Therefore, Congress and the courts unequivocally hold that the main legislative purpose of the amendments is to facilitate access to agency records by noncommercial requesters and “watchdog” public interest organizations, such as the Sierra Club, that use information obtained under FOIA to monitor, and at times challenge, government activities, and to inform the general public about said activities. As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, the fee waiver provision was added to the FOIA “in an attempt to prevent government agencies from using high fees to discourage certain types of requesters and requests,” with explicit reference to requests from journalists, scholars and non-profit public interest groups. Better Government Association v. Department of State, 780 F.2d 86, 93-94 (D.C. Cir. 1986), quoting Ettlinger v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 596 F. Supp. 867, 876 (D. Mass. 1984).
Under these circumstances, the Sierra Club fully satisfies the criteria for a fee waiver.
Conclusion
If you have any questions about this request or foresee any problems in releasing fully the requested records, please contact me at (956) 532-5983 or lrgvsierraclub@gmail.com. Also, if the Sierra Club’s request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact me immediately upon making such a determination.
Please send requested documents to:
Scott Nicol Chair, Sierra Club Borderlands Team
lrgvsierraclub@gmail.com
7300 N. 32nd McAllen, TX 78504

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 187
Exhibit G

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 187
VIA FOIA online
May 4, 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs & Border Protection FOIA Officer 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW (877) 227-5511
Re: Freedom of Information Act request – Border Wall Dear FOIA Officer:
On behalf of the Sierra Club, I am writing to request that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) provide copies of the records described below pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”), and the DHS regulations at 6 C.F.R. § 5.1, et seq. This request is sent to you because you were identified as the proper person to receive such requests. If this request should be directed at another person, please forward this request to that person.
Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest grassroots organization. It has more than 2.9 million members and supporters nationwide. Sierra Club is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the natural and human environment. Sierra Club’s purpose is to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environments.
Sierra Club is a leading non-governmental organization seeking to educate and mobilize the public on issues of climate change, habitat destruction and impacts to species that would be impacted by the Trump Administration’s proposed Border Wall. Sierra Club’s Borderlands Campaign has been organizing around border issues for many years; this request is made on behalf of this campaign, as well as the organization’s long standing interest in government accountability and transparency.
1

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 187
Sierra Club Requests the Following Records1 related to the Trump Administration’s Proposed Border Wall:
1. All records related to the Border Wall referred to on p. 32 of the Administration’s FY 2017 supplemental appropriations request (see Exhibit A), including, but not limited to: a. the 14 miles of new Border Wall and 14 miles of replacement Border Wall near San Diego, CA; and b. the 28 miles of levee-Border Wall in the Rio Grande Valley Sector; and c. the 6 miles of new Border Wall proposed in South Texas, hereinafter (“Border Wall Proposals”).
2. All maps and related documents that identify all locations considered or planned for border fencing/tactical infrastructure described in the FY 2017 Appropriations legislation passed in May 2017 (see Exhibit B, p. 69), including but not limited to: a. Replacement of primary pedestrian fencing in high priority areas - 20 miles; and b. Replacement of vehicle fencing with primary pedestrian fencing in high priority areas - 20 miles; and a. Gates for existing barriers- 35 gates.
3. All bids submitted by vendors to Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and/or the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) related to the Border Wall Proposals; and
4. All communications between CBP and/or DHS and vendors related to Border Wall Proposals; and
5. All communications between CBP and DHS related to the Border Wall Proposals, including, but not limited to: funding, timetables, and vendor selection; and
6. All existing and/or proposed timetables for the execution and construction of the Border Wall Proposals; and
7. All communications between CBP and/or the DHS with the White House that relate to the Border Wall Proposals; and
8. All communication between CBP and/or DHS and any other Federal Agencies that relate to the Border Wall Proposals.
Exempt Records
Should you decide to invoke a FOIA exemption with regard to any of the requested records, please include in your full or partial denial letter sufficient information for the Sierra Club to appeal the denial. To comply with legal requirements, the following information must be included:
1 “Records” means information of any kind, including writings (handwritten, typed, electronic or otherwise produced, reproduced or stored), letters, memoranda, correspondence, notes, applications, completed forms, studies, reports, reviews, guidance documents, policies, telephone conversations, telefaxes, e-mails, documents, databases, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, minutes of meetings, electronic and magnetic recordings of meetings, and any other compilation of data from which information can be obtained. Without limitation, the records requested include records relating to the topics described below at any stage of development, whether proposed, draft, pending, interim, final or otherwise. All of the foregoing are included in this request if they are in the possession of or otherwise under the control of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection and all of its Offices, Regions and other subdivisions.
2

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 187
1. Basic factual material about each withheld item, including the originator, date, length, general subject matter, and location of each item; and
2. Explanations and justifications for denial, including the identification of the category within the governing statutory provision under which the document (or portion thereof) was withheld and a full explanation of how each exemption fits the withheld material.
If you determine that portions of a record requested are exempt from disclosure, please redact the exempt portions and provide the remainder of the record to the Sierra Club at the address listed below.
Fee Waiver Request
I respectfully request that you waive all fees in connection with this request as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k). The Sierra Club has spent years promoting the public interest through the development of policies that protect human health and the environment, and has routinely received fee waivers under FOIA.
The Sierra Club is a national, nonprofit, environmental organization with no commercial interest in obtaining the requested information. Instead, the Sierra Club intends to use the requested information to inform the public, so the public can meaningfully participate in evaluating CBP’s operations and activities related to the proposed Border Wall.
As explained below, this FOIA request satisfies the factors listed in DHS’s governing regulations for waiver or reduction of fees, as well as the requirements of fee waiver under the FOIA statute – that “disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), see also 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k).
1. The subject matter of the requested records must specifically concern identifiable “operations and activities of the government.”
The requested records relate to CPB’s activities regarding the proposed Border Wall. These activities are “identifiable operations or activities of the government.” The Department of Justice Freedom of Information Act Guide expressly concedes that “in most cases records possessed by a federal agency will meet this threshold” of identifiable operations or activities of the government. There can be no question that this is such a case.
2. The disclosure of the requested documents must have an informative value and be “likely to contribute to an understanding of Federal government operations or activities.”
The FOIA Guide makes it clear that, in the Department of Justice’s view, the “likely to contribute” determination hinges in substantial part on whether the requested documents provide information that is not already in the public domain. The requested records are “likely to contribute” to an understanding of your agency’s activities and decisions because they are not
3

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 187
otherwise in the public domain and are not accessible other than through a FOIA request. This information will facilitate meaningful public participation in the decision-making process, therefore fulfilling the requirement that the documents requested be “meaningfully informative” and “likely to contribute” to an understanding of your agency’s decision-making process with regard to the proposed Border Wall .
3. The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of the public at large, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester or a narrow segment of interested persons. Under this factor, the identity and qualifications of the requester—i.e., expertise in the subject area of the request and ability and intention to disseminate the information to the public—is examined.
The Sierra Club and its members have long-standing experience and expertise in the subject area of FOIA requests, specifically, issues related to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the development and the protection of endangered species. Sierra Club also has a long standing interest in government accountability and transparency.
Sierra Club disseminates the information it receives through FOIA requests in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to: analysis and distribution to the media, distribution through publication and mailing, posting on the Club’s website, emailing and list serve distribution to our members across the U.S., and via public meetings and events. Every year the Sierra Club website receives 40,730 unique visits and 100,381 page views; on average, the site gets 104 visits per day. Sierra Magazine, which is a quarterly magazine published by the Sierra Club, has a circulation of approximately 1,000,000. Sierra Club Insider, an electronic newsletter, is sent to over 850,000 people twice a month. In addition, Sierra Club disseminates information obtained by FOIA requests through comments to administrative agencies, and where necessary, through the judicial system. In the past, the Sierra Club has published, posted, and disseminated numerous stories on coal and coal power plants regarding their impacts on health, the environment and alternative energy. This includes information on our various webpages, such as our Beyond Coal Campaign portal, our Clean Energies Solutions portal and our press releases.2
Sierra Club intends to share the information received from this FOIA request with our impacted members across the country, the media and our allies who share a common interest in the proposed Border Wall.
Sierra Club unquestionably has the “specialized knowledge” and “ability and intention” to disseminate the information requested in the broad manner outlined above, and to do so in a manner that contributes to the understanding of the “public-at-large.”
2 For example, the Sierra Club sought information about coal export and permitting activities in Oregon via a state public records act request at the Port of Coos Bay. All correspondence is published online and has received extensive media attention from press releases on the subject. See http://content.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuit/2013/sierra-club-challenges-dirty-and-dangerous-fossil-fuelexports-oregon.
4

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 187
4. The disclosure must contribute “significantly” to public understanding of government operations or activities. The public’s understanding must be likely to be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.
The records requested will contribute to the public understanding of the government’s role, or their “operations and activities” associated with the proposed Border Wall. The disclosure of the requested records is essential to the public’s understanding of CBP’s operations and activities. After disclosure of these records, the public understanding of CBP’s activities will be significantly enhanced. The requirement that disclosure must contribute “significantly” to the public understanding is therefore met.
5. Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure.
The Sierra Club has no commercial interest in the requested records. Nor does it have any intention to use these records in any manner that “furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest” as those terms are commonly understood. The Sierra Club is a tax-exempt organization under sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, and as such has no commercial interest. The requested records will be used for the furtherance of the Sierra Club’s mission to inform the public on matters of vital importance to the environment and public health.
6. Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”
When a commercial interest is found to exist and that interest would be furthered by the requested disclosure, an agency must assess the magnitude of such interest in order to compare it to the “public interest” in disclosure. If no commercial interest exists, an assessment of that nonexistent interest is not required.
As noted above, the Sierra Club has no commercial interest in the requested records. Disclosure of this information is not “primarily” in the Sierra Club’s commercial interest. On the other hand, it is clear that the disclosure of the information requested is in the public interest. It will contribute significantly to public understanding of CBP’s activities regarding the proposed Border Wall.
The Sierra Club respectfully requests, because the public will be the primary beneficiary of this requested information, that CBP waive processing and copying fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k). In the event that your agency denies a fee waiver, please send a written explanation for the denial. Also, please continue to produce the records as expeditiously as possible, but in any event no later than the applicable FOIA deadlines.
Record Delivery
In responding to this request, please comply with all relevant deadlines and other obligations set forth in FOIA and the agency’s regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i); 6 C.F.R.
5

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 7 of 187
§ 5.6. Please produce the records above by sending them to me at the address listed below. Please produce them on a rolling basis; at no point should the search for—or deliberation concerning—certain records delay the production of others that the agency has already retrieved and elected to produce.
If possible, please send all documents in PDF format via electronic mail, external website, or on CD or DVD via traditional mail. Alternatively, paper copies are acceptable, but electronic format is preferred. Please send all requested records as soon as possible to:
David Abell david.abell@sierraclub.org - or Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Thank you for your cooperation. If you find that this request is unclear in any way please do not hesitate to call me to see if I can clarify the request or otherwise expedite and simplify your efforts to comply. I can be reached at 415.977.5764 or by e-mail at david.abell@sierraclub.org.
_____________________________________ David Abell Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612
6

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 187
Exhibit A

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Amendment Congressional Justification
DHS- 1

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Table of Contents
Department of Homeland Security.......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ............................................................................................................................. 6
Operations and Support..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Budget Amendment Funding Request ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Pay by Object Class ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Non Pay by Object Class ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8
U.S. Customs and Border Protection .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Operations and Support................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Budget Amendment Funding Request ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Pay by Object Class ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Non Pay by Object Class ................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Procurement, Construction, and Improvements.............................................................................................................................................. 30 Budget Amendment Funding Request ............................................................................................................................................... 30 Non Pay by Object Class ................................................................................................................................................................... 31
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ...................................................................................................................................... 38 Operations and Support................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Budget Amendment Funding Request ............................................................................................................................................... 38 Pay by Object Class ........................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Non Pay by Object Class ................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Mission Support – O&S..................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Homeland Security Investigations – O&S ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Enforcement and Removal Operations – O&S .................................................................................................................................. 48
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers ....................................................................................................................................... 52 Operations and Support................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Budget Amendment Funding Request ............................................................................................................................................... 52

DHS- 2

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Pay by Object Class ........................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Non Pay by Object Class ................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Procurement, Construction, and Improvements.............................................................................................................................................. 56 Budget Amendment Funding Request ............................................................................................................................................... 56 Non Pay by Object Class ................................................................................................................................................................... 57

DHS- 3

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security Budget Amendment Funding Request

DHS- 4

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Budget Amendment Congressional Justification
DHS is submitting a request for an additional $3 billion appropriations to address the urgent needs of the Department to support the Executive Orders on border security and immigration enforcement. Funds requested for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would support high priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology investments, including efforts to plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border. The request also includes funding for DHS agencies to begin building the administrative capacity necessary to recruit, hire, train, and equip an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Further, the request proposes funding to increase daily immigration detention capacity to 45,700 detention beds by the end of FY 2017. This additional detention capacity is necessary to implement Administration policies for removing illegal aliens from the United States by enhancing interior enforcement efforts. Funding proposed for DHS would also be used to establish a real-time border and immigration data integration system within the Office of Immigration Statistics, and for other new border and immigration analyses.

DHS- 5

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 14 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Operations and Support Budget Amendment Funding Request
Dollars in Thousands

Organization Name
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management Operations and Support Office of Policy

POA
2017/2018

FY 2017

Amendment Request

Pos.

FTE

Amount

6

7.5 $

11,304

6

7.5 $

11,304

6

7.5 $

11,304

The Department of Homeland Security – Office of the Secretary and Executive Management (OSEM) – Office of Policy requests 6 positions, 7.5 FTE (1.5 FTE in FY 2017 and 6 FTE in FY 2018), and $11.304 million in personnel and support costs to effectively carry out the Executive Orders on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement.

DHS- 6

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 15 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management Operations and Support Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

Pay Object Classes
11.1 Full-time permanent 11.5 Other personnel compensation 12.1 Civilian personnel benefits Total - Personnel Compensation and Benefits Positions and FTE Positions - Civilian FTE - Civilian

FY 2017

Amendment Request

$

854

$

9

$

271

$

1,134

FY 2017

Estimated First Year

Funds

$

164

$

2

$

52

$

218

FY 2018

Estimated Second Year

Funds

$

690

$

7

$

219

$

916

6

6

6

7.5

1.5

6

The Office of Policy requests 6 positions, 7.5 FTE (1.5 FTE in FY 2017 and 6 FTE in FY 2018) , and $1.134 million in personnel costs.

The Office of Policy will increase the number of personnel in the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) data integration team to include 1 program manager, 4 statisticians, and 1 business analyst. The OIS data integration team will be responsible for the development of the acquisition, privacy, and security documentation to automate the current manual Immigration Data transfers into a secure environment and for the development of data tools and services in the integrated Immigration Data environment for DHS Components and partner agencies to inform and strengthen immigration related decision-making.

DHS- 7

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 16 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management Operations and Support Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

The Office of Policy requests $10.17 million in program costs. The Office of Policy – Office of Immigration Statistics will fund the following program elements:
• Immigration Data Integration – Policy will procure the necessary software, licensing agreements, and storage infrastructure to support the transfer and development of transactional and operational data into an integrated data environment that will allow for analysis and data reporting.
• Immigration Data Integration Independent Evaluations – Policy will work with an independent organization(s) to capture the current state and baseline of Immigration Statistics reports and make recommendations on new immigration analytics. The use of an independent organization is considered a best practice across DHS.
• Comprehensive Study of the Southern Border - Funding for additional border security analysis is required to enable policy and resource decision-making that is analytically informed as required by the Border and Imigration Enforcement Improvements Executive Order (Section 4(d)). This study is distinct from the data integration and evaluation requests as it focuses on predictive modeling vice reporting. Existing DHS research uses apprehension and enforcement data to derive empirical estimates of illegal Mexican flows. Additional work is required to estimate illegal flows from countries other than Mexico and
DHS- 8

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 17 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

non-traditional (child and family) flows. This funding will also support the development of a comprehensive model that assesses the impact of different enforcement policies on border security and immigration flows. A comprehensive borders and immigration model will allow systematic cost-benefit analysis of a range of enforcement tools, including border infrastructure, interior enforcement, and enforcement consequences. To date, it has taken several years to build a comprehensive model of Mexican flows due to limited funding. Additional support at the requested funding level will fill existing modeling gaps, provide interim models useful for immediate decision-making, and produce a comprehensive model over a two-year timeframe.

DHS- 9

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 18 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Operations and Support Budget Amendment Funding Request
Dollars in Thousands

I. IMMEDIATE BORDER WALL CONTRUCTION & PLAN
Overview As the frontline border agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the dual mission of preventing suspected terrorists, terrorist weapons, and other contraband from entering the United States, while also
DHS- 10

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 19 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel into and out of the United States. CBP ensures that all persons and cargo enter the United States legally and safely through official checkpoints and ports of entry. CBP achieves its mission using a combination of advanced information, risk assessment, appropriate scanning and other technologies, and by partnering with Federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies as well as private industry and international partners. CBP’s over 60,000 highly-trained employees ensure that the agency performs its mission with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism.
The Operations and Support funds all operating costs required to achieve CBP’s dual mission. The primary drivers behind these costs are the salaries and benefits (S&B) of CBP operational and mission support personnel. The balance of this appropriation is comprised of the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs necessary to sustain the daily effectiveness of CBP equipment and facilities. Without the resources requested in this appropriation, CBP would experience a degradation of frontline operations.
The following request is organized by the four specific sections within Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”
Immediate Border Wall Technologies ($5M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $5 million in two-year funding to provide data circuits and network bandwidth for Border Wall surveillance data/video.
BACKGROUND
The expansion of CBP Border Wall Infrastructure with embedded Information Technologies will significantly increase the amount of data/video being transmitted to USBP operation center(s). The increased transmission of data/video will require increased technologies, such as data circuits, and/or some other network capability, to be installed to ensure the quick, effective, and efficient transmission of data. These data links and associated network technologies will connect back to CBP’s existing network infrastructure which today consists of outdated and end-of-life technologies. Funding will enable CBP to ensure that data/video captured from wall technologies can swiftly and effectively traverse CBP’s network to be acted upon quickly by United States Border Patrol (USBP) Agents. Any delay in data transmission due to outdated and/or insufficient network bandwidth will have an adverse impact on USBP’s ability to meet their daily operational mission requirements.
JUSTIFICATION
The additional southwest Border Wall technologies will require network upgrades. CBP will need an engineering contract to conduct bandwidth analysis, site design, and provide initial data circuit upgrade requirements to handle the increased data traffic that will

DHS- 11

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 20 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

enable USBP’s effective monitoring of data from the southwest Border Wall embedded technologies. Costs will recur and will expand on capabilities as additional segments of the southwest Border Wall are completed.
Additional funding will enable CBP to acquire network field equipment required to effectively monitor and control data traversing CBP’s IT network from the southwest Border Wall to monitoring locations within USBP sectors that are required with initial expansion of the Border Wall. As necessary, upgrades may be needed to the IT infrastructure at USBP sectors or stations that will have day-to-day oversight of data captured by southwest Border Wall technologies. In addition, funding will cover replacement of consumable southwest Border Wall technologies, which may include items such as unattended ground sensors, surveillance cameras, power amplifiers, down converters, power supplies, and geological/infrared/step sensors and gaskets, etc.).
Office of Facilities and Asset Management Staff ($4.837M / 40 FTE)
CBP requests $4.837 million in two-year funding for the salaries and benefits for an increase of 53 personnel (40 FTE / 53 FTP, all in FY 2018) across the two-year period in support of the Executive Order for the immediate construction and planning of the Border Wall.
BACKGROUND
The Office of Facilities and Asset Management’s (OFAM) current areas of responsibility include managing and overseeing CBP’s Tactical Infrastructure, facilities, vehicles, uniforms and personal property. Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” included direction for the immediate construction and planning of a border wall, which represents a significant ramp up in mission, requirements, personnel, and funding needs for OFAM.
JUSTIFICATION
The total of 40 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) requested will work in full support of activities associated with the Executive Order, which includes initial planning, project management for construction, and also the continued oversight and maintenance of the Border Wall upon completion of construction. These positions are intended to be a permanent adjustment to the base as there will be significant work required to maintain the Border Wall and related tactical infrastructure even after planning and construction is completed.
The current baseline level of resources for OFAM only has the capacity to support current mission activities, which include the continued maintenance of the existing tactical infrastructure, facilities, vehicles, uniforms and personal property for the entire Agency.

DHS- 12

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 21 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

At the current resource level, CBP would be challenged to support the new Executive Order requirements without significant impacts to current baseline missions, which would include reallocating personnel that operate, maintain, and oversee operations of existing facilities and to begin the planning efforts for the new facility and asset requirements associated with the expected increase in 5,000 Border Patrol Agents.
Office of Chief Counsel Staff ($2.112M / 10 FTE)
CBP requests $2.112 million in two-year funding to hire an additional 12 positions and 10 FTE (1 FTE in FY 2017 and 9 FTE in FY 2018) within the Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC).
BACKGROUND
OCC’s base request funds mission critical legal advice, representation, and counsel to CBP. OCC is comprised of 29 offices (28 in field locations), and is authorized to employ attorneys and support staff with unique expertise in, and knowledge of, laws enforced by or impacting CBP. OCC handles all legal and ethics issues involving CBP’s global operations, both domestic and foreign. OCC attorneys provide legal services to CBP officials in matters relating to the activities and functions of CBP, including matters involving enforcement, operations, real property, trade, fiscal, procurement, ethics, labor, and employment. OCC requires supplemental funding to ensure timely implementation of the agency’s construction of the physical wall on the southwest border pursuant to the Executive Order.
OCC’s comprehensive legal services to CBP include representing the agency in offensive and defensive litigation in all federal courts, as well as representing the agency in all third-party administrative hearings. OCC will provide significant litigation support in defense of various challenges to the construction of the physical wall, including defending challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s exercise of waiver authority under Section 102(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), as amended, as well as in the condemnation of land along the southwest border. OCC provides appropriations and fiscal law advice, reviews contractual, procurement, and real property actions, and ensures compliance of proposed agency actions and policies with legal requirements.
JUSTIFICATION
OCC has experienced a significant increase in legal services on enforcement matters, including immigration, litigation involving the agency’s detention and processing of aliens, and in legal services resulting from the agency’s expansion of the Tactical Infrastructure Program, including the construction of a physical wall on the southwest border as mandated by Executive Order 13767, “Border

DHS- 13

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 22 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”. OCC will require additional positions and non-pay funding to ensure the agency’s timely implementation of the EO requirements. OCC anticipates an unprecedented increase in legal support in real property, procurement, fiscal law, as well as overall programmatic support to advance the construction of a physical wall. Further, OCC will provide significant litigation support in defense of various challenges to the construction of the physical wall, as well as in the condemnation of land along the southwest border. For instance, if the Secretary of Homeland Security exercises the waiver authority under Section 102(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), as amended, OCC will be responsible for defending any challenges to the waiver. The waiver authority has been exercised five times; all five times were challenged in federal court. Notably, in 2007, when the agency undertook the construction of 225 miles of pedestrian fencing (fence designed to prevent the illicit passage of people across the border) along the southwest border, the agency initiated nearly 400 land acquisition actions border-wide, 300 of which involved the filing of condemnation actions.
Operations Contract Support ($6M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $6 million in two-year funding for Operations Support, to produce documentation, integrate requirements, and allow for the development of advanced metrics for the southwest border in support of Executive Order requirements.
BACKGROUND
The Joint Requirements Integration and Management System was developed, in part, to ensure that the operational missions of DHS were pursuing the “right” capabilities to improve mission accomplishment supported by the analytical rigor necessary to support our decision making. The Acquisition Management Lifecycle is most effective when it can respond to well researched, measurable, achievable requirements. In support of this, Capabilities and Requirements Division (CRD) was created to help bridge the gap between the operational community and the solution development community (including Acquisition).
Within the Operations Support Office of CBP, the CRD is responsible for assisting the operational components in articulating their needs and conducting the mission analysis to ensure CBP is pursuing the right capabilities. Across government and industry, failed acquisitions and unsuccessful operational strategies can be traced back to an improper articulation of the actual need. In addition, CRD also conducts operational test and evaluation to ensure that solutions delivered are effective and suitable to operate in their intended environment.

DHS- 14

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 23 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

JUSTIFICATION
Investment in this area will support the development of operational requirements for the Executive Orders regarding CBP operations including the border wall and operational control of the southwest border. These resources will also support the development of concepts of operation to articulate how the Executive Order parameters will impact the way CBP will operate. In addition to requirements and operational concepts, this investment will provide resources to determine the appropriate metrics to measure the effectiveness of CBP’s response to the Executive Orders as they are delivered. The specific deliverables directly impacted by this investment will be the JRIMS’ Capability Analysis Study Plan (CASP) and the Capability Analysis Report (CAR) and the Acquisition Lifecycle’s Mission Needs Statement, Operational Requirements Document, Concept of Operations, and Test and Evaluation Master Plan.
Conducting appropriate analysis increases the likelihood that delivered solutions achieve the desired result. CRD has an established relationship with CBP’s operational components and can provide immediate value from an increase in resources. A current CRD priority is the development of Operational Concepts for each CBP operating domain to provide broad context for CBP’s needs and support gap analysis. We are also engaged in requirements efforts across the spectrum of Executive Orders regarding CBP operations including the Wall andoperational control of the southwest border. Although part of CBP’s long term personnel strategy, the Agency does not currently grow this capability organically. Additional contract staff will allow greater engagement with both CBP’s operational components as well as the Joint Requirements Council and the CBP program offices.
II. OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER

Tactical Infrastructure Investment ($21M / 0 FTE)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) anticipates investing approximately $21 million for road maintenance within the overall $200 million investment in Tactical Infrastructure.
BACKGROUND
CBP’s current TI portfolio requiring routine maintenance and repair needs includes approximately 654 miles of primary fence, 1,519 gates/crossings/game panels, 1,273 miles of roads, 14 bridges and 11 boat ramps. CBP requested $52.5 million to maintain and repair its tactical infrastructure portfolio.

DHS- 15

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 24 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

JUSTIFICATION
CBP’s spends approximately $49 million annually to support maintenance and repair requirements through the Comprehensive Tactical Infrastructure & Maintenance and Repair (CTIMR) program. Through the CTIMR program, contractors perform routine and urgent work such as infrastructure preventative maintenance, fence, gate and grate repairs, roadway maintenance (e.g., blading, grading, drainage, structure clearing and silt removal, culvert replacement), vegetation control, and debris removal. The additional funds requested will address operational requirements for road maintenance across the southwest border in order to provide better, safer, and more efficient border access for the Border Patrol.
Tactical Communications ($20M / 0 FTE)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requests $20 million in two-year funding to purchase 2,300 handheld radios ($10.12 million), 1,475 vehicle radios ($7.97 million), 95 base stations ($0.64 million), maintenance ($1.20 million), and circuits ($0.07 million) in support of USBP operations.
BACKGROUND
To support its mission, CBP operates and maintains one of the largest tactical voice communications infrastructures in the Federal government. Tactical communications capabilities are essential to coordinating mission activities and protecting the safety of CBP law enforcement agents and officers. These agents and officers operate in remote areas where their radio is often their only communications channel to coordinate activities or summon assistance. CBP has a tactical radio communication device inventory of over 70,000 units utilized by the USBP agents, CBP officers, and Air and Marine agents. Over 25,000 units of CBP’s radio inventory has exceeded its useful life and is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
JUSTIFICATION
This funding would procure additional radios and infrastructure necessary to address radio obsolescence, improve interoperability with local authorities and the Government of Mexico, and address some current coverage gaps. Replacing a significant number of aging or obsolete radios will directly contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of border security operations, and contribute to the goals outlined in the Executive Orders on border security and immigration enforcement.

DHS- 16

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 25 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

AMO Border Operations ($25.141M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $25.141 million in two-year funding to support Air & Marine Operations (AMO) 7 X 24 unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations along the southwest border of the United States. In order to support the President’s Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”, CBP AMO proposes to contribute to the security of the southwest border by enhancing situational awareness through 7 X 24 UAS operations. 7 X 24 flight operations are defined as two scheduled 18 hour flights within a 24 hour period from each of AMO’s two National Air Security Operations Centers (NASOC) based in Corpus Christi, Texas and Ft. Huachuca, Arizona along the southwest border.
BACKGROUND
CBP AMO UAS operations currently deploy specially equipped MQ-9 unmanned aircraft (UA) along the southern border of the United States. Primarily operating along the borders of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona CBP deploys six of our nine UA from three air operations centers, two permanent and one expeditionary. Based in Ft Huachuca, Arizona and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, CBP UAS support USBP and other Government agencies in maintaining border security as well as supporting local and national emergency response actions. CBP UAS activities include border surveillance through the use of two advanced sensors. The Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS-B) electro optical infrared sensor allows CBP UAS to receive high definition real time video imagery in day and night conditions and is an excellent system for long range surveillance and tracking. The Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar (VADER) provides accurate, real time dismounted ground moving target data and radar imagery supporting Border Patrol Agents on the ground while simultaneously recording strategic intelligence data.
JUSTIFICATION
This action is being pursued in order to support the President’s direction to secure the nation’s borders from illegal encroachment by human smugglers, illegal aliens, drug traffickers, and potential terrorists. In order to support this goal, CBP AMO would leverage their UAS fleet and its ability to maintain long endurance land surveillance and dismounted target (human) tracking. CBP’s UAS are a key capability for homeland security, providing persistent surveillance and mobility to fill potential gaps along the southwest border. CBP’s UAS will mitigate risk, while construction of a physical barrier is implemented and provide decision makers with a flexible tool to respond to future security threats.
With the $25.1 million requested in FY 2017, CBP would hire 20 contractor personnel with an availability horizon of 18 to 24 months. The timeframe for hiring contractor personnel will be dependent on the execution of the October 2017 UAS Services and operations support contract, availability of qualified candidates, and the CBP background investigation process. Contractor support will include

DHS- 17

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 26 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

aircraft, ground control station (GCS), and satellite technicians as well as VADER operations specialist and associated ground processing support. In additional to the contract personnel, the increased flight activity will accelerate the program’s consumption of materials through increased periodic inspections, routine maintenance, and component failure. Significant investments in spare parts and system upgrades will be required to sustain asset availability and reliability.

CBP will increase operating hours as the acquisition of contractor personnel, material, and infrastructure allow. The initial plan for

these investments in FYs 2017 and 2018 would be:

- 20 Contractor Personnel: $4.6M

- GCS Upgrades:

$4.8M

- 2 MTS-B EOIR Sensors: $6.0M

- VADER Upgrades:

$3.6M

- UAS Spares:

$6.1M

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ($18.1M / 0 FTE)

CBP requests $18.1 million in two-year funding for the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) program in FY 2017, to be used for the deployment of two technology enhancements over the next two years:
o Deploy new weather management systems at current TARS sites to improve flight operations efficiency (more surveillance hours) and flight safety to protect TARS personnel and equipment.
o Further, AMO will be ready to field test key technologies that now appear promising in the Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) – these technologies exist and perform well in DOD missions, but need to be piloted in scope and scaled for the border security role.

BACKGROUND

CBP AMO’s TARS system fulfills a unique, critical surveillance capability needed to maintain operational control of the U.S. southern border and associated air space. TARS supports effective monitoring the southern border in areas where other infrastructure may be in short supply. It is a key component to a risk-based approach for enhancing border security, and contributes to the goals outlined in the Executive Orders on border security and immigration enforcement. The TARS system is over 30 years old and past its intended operating service life and needs to be refreshed or replaced in the coming years. This amendment to the FY 2017 President’s Budget request will allow AMO to conduct field investigations and demonstrations with the most promising technology candidates that will inform a future departmental investment decision for the future TARS capability. Additionally, the funding will enable the acquisition and deployment of modern technology to replace failing weather management systems at today’s TARS sites. These

DHS- 18

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 27 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

“wind profilers” are essential to safe flight operations and, ultimately, to increase surveillance flight hours delivered to AMO law enforcement operators monitoring air and sea approaches to U.S. southern borders.
JUSTIFICATION
AMO is leading an ongoing department capability analysis and gaps identification study of our overarching air domain awareness mission area. A key element in this comprehensive study is the acknowledgement of how critical it is to overall CBP security operations to maintain persistent surveillance of low altitude air approaches to the U.S. southern border. Today, TARS fulfills this critical low-altitude surveillance capability, and AMO needs to prepare technologies and operational concepts for a future surveillance capability as TARS system(s) retires over the next few years. The funding requested will allow CBP to field test new technologies that will enhance domain awareness and help the agency determine the best path forward for low-altitude surveillance capabilities.
Inclement weather, and the inability to observe and react to weather in a timely manner, is the primary threat to reliable and safe TARS system flight operations and effectiveness. The past 19 of 21 catastrophic (and costly) aerostat mishaps over the previous two decades, while the program was managed by DoD, were weather induced. The funding requested will allow CBP to replace the onsite wind profiler units across the TARS fleet to improve weather awareness and alerts, and ultimately to increase surveillance time aloft, safely and efficiently.
OIT Equipment and Field Technology ($3.368M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $3.368 million in two-year funding to upgrade the Office of Information & Technology (OIT) equipment and field technology for the United States Border Patrol (USBP).
BACKGROUND
Much of the existing equipment in the sectors and stations of USBP is beyond its useful life. In order to gain operational control of the border, CBP must also make sure that the equipment used by USBP is upgraded to minimize impact of system slowdowns or outages. In addition, updated systems will minimize the potential of cyber intrusions from those that may desire to cause harm to CBP’s data or infrastructure. CBP’s mission critical applications are vital to the daily detention activities performed by USBP Agents, as they must have timely access to critical data to determine admissibility.

DHS- 19

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 28 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

JUSTIFICATION
Funds will upgrade data circuit capacity with the initial focus on the Tucson, Douglas, and Nogales USBP stations. In addition, funds will enable CBP to begin upgrade of aged USBP desktops, laptops, scanners, cameras, and other peripheral equipment that is no longer supported by the original equipment manufacturer.
Facilities Support On The Southern Border ($20M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $20 million in two-year funding to address the highest priority needs for the continued maintenance and upkeep of the existing facilities that support United States Border Patrol (USBP). This includes funding the nationwide regional maintenance and minor repairs contracts for USBP facilities and ensuring that there is funding available to address emergency repairs as they arise during the year of execution.
BACKGROUND
The USBP facilities inventory is comprised of over 6.5 million square feet including 135 Border Patrol Stations, 39 Permanent and Interim Checkpoints, 20 Sector Headquarters, 16 Forward Operating Bases and one Special Operations Group location. The backlog of deferred maintenance requirements for USBP facilities is $175 million.
JUSTIFICATION
The funding requested as part of this amendment will address the identified gap of $20 million for the regional preventative maintenance and minor repair contracts along with funding for each sector to address a minimal level of emergency repairs across all of the USBP Sectors; the majority of the facilities that are supported are along the southern border. These requirements are all currently unfunded and will result in the continued deterioration of facility conditions, the increased risk of operational impacts due to facility downtime, and the lack of basic services.
Funding will ensure that core facility services, including the continued maintenance, per warranty instructions, of core building systems, are provided to USBP facilities nationwide. This funding will also ensure that there are adequate resources to address emergency repairs that arise during the year. Emergency repairs are issues that are not planned, cannot be deferred to a future date and must be addressed upon occurrence to minimize impacts to operational capabilities. This includes fixing HVAC systems along the southwest border, resolving backed up sewage systems and repairing leaking roofs. The continued, uninterrupted operations of USBP facilities will also be critical throughout the implementation of the current Executive Orders, which includes increased activity,

DHS- 20

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 29 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

staging and deployment of assets along the southwest border.
USBP facilities provide the critical infrastructure that enables USBP to stage and deploy agents, and supports tactical and search-andrescue teams; command, control, and communications activity; detention and processing; intelligence units, canine and horse operations; fleet maintenance and storage; and administrative, training and law enforcement coordination.
III. INCREASE BPA FLOOR BY 5,000
United States Border Patrol Relocations ($25M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $25 million in two-year funding to support the United States Border Patrol (USBP) Voluntary Relocation Program (VRP) relocations and to initiate a USBP relocation incentive strategy. $15 million will be used for USBP Relocations specifically utilizing VRP authority, and $10M for a USBP relocation incentive strategy for remote locations.
BACKGROUND As a first step in hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol Agents, CBP must pursue smart strategies to minimize attrition of current, experienced BPAs. Implementing a stable relocation program for the USBP workforce will meet operational requirements and help to alleviate the lack of mobility significantly contributing to declining morale and increased attrition across the workforce. Although the attrition rate for Border Patrol Agents (BPA) dropped from FY 2015 (5.5%) to FY 2016 (4.3%), the current BPA attrition rate (year to date FY 2017) has risen to 4.5%. To achieve needed mobility, CBP proposes to begin implementing an incremental mobility program in FY 2017. The resultant mature program focuses the bulk of resources on mobility, addressing operational needs and documented employee concerns.
JUSTIFICATION
This funding will allow CBP to develop and implement a robust relocation program to stem the current attrition patterns, supported by data from internal/external surveys of BPAs. These surveys indicate that the inability to relocate is a key contributing factor in the decision to depart. This is especially true of mid-career BPAs who feel there is no opportunity to either relocate to a more desirable location or advance from their current position. Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, the Office of Human Resources Management surveys, and the USBP Human Capital Study show a strong correlation between agent mobility and lower morale and higher attrition. These same surveys indicate USBP espirit de corps remains strong when the U.S. Government’s immigration enforcement system is executing the laws of the nation.

DHS- 21

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 30 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Polygraph Examiner Recruitment & Retention ($4.271M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $4.271 million in two-year funding for recruitment and retention efforts targeted towards federally certified polygraph examiners.
BACKGROUND
Federally certified polygraph examiners possess a technical skill that is highly sought after by all 27 federal agencies that currently possess a polygraph capability. In order to maintain CBP’s current capacity for the hiring of 5,000 Border Patrol Agents (BPAs), the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) will need to retain their current employees, which has been difficult to accomplish in an increasingly competitive workforce. Adequate staffing of federally certified polygraph examiners within OPR is of critical importance to the frontline hiring requirements of CBP, due to the requirements of the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010, P.L. 111376, as amended, that all applicants for law enforcement positions in CBP receive a polygraph examination before being offered employment. Currently, CBP has 103 examiners on board with an additional 16 expected to EOD by the end of FY 2017.
Most other federal agencies that employee polygraph examiners use some form of additional compensation, putting pressure on CBP’s ability to recruit and retain certified examiners. These approaches include Law Enforcement Availably Pay (LEAP), Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO), and Special Salary Rate (SSR) pay-banding techniques. This normally equates up to 25% of the employee’s salary resulting in salaries much higher than the basic locality pay that CBP can offer.
As a result of this competition, CBP has seen a high attrition in its polygraph examiner workforce, up to almost 19% in FY 2015. Currently, an additional 43 law enforcement officers supplement the examiner staff, but will return to their home offices and will require replacement in the short term. With current hiring patterns for just CBPOs and BPAs, OPR processes around 8,000 polygraph examinations in a fiscal year. In order to meet the increased processing requirement to onboard an additional 5,000 BPAs, CBP will likely increase the number of examinations required and without sufficient polygraph examiner staff risks slowing the hiring timeline.
JUSTIFICATION
As a result, OPR is requesting a strategy to retain current polygraph examiners through a 10% retention incentives and a 10% special salary rate. CBP estimates for FY 2017, OPR will require $1.258 million for FY 2017, and $3.013 million for FY 2018. CBP’s calculations assume that the 10% retention incentive will be paid out in a lump sum in FY 2017 to all 52 certified polygraph examiner positions that perform polygraph examination duties as a primary responsibility and are not law enforcement officers, as defined in 5

DHS- 22

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 31 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S.C. 5541(3) and 5 CFR 550.103, anticipated to be on board in FY 2017. The 10% special salary rate will take effect in FY 2017 and will be paid to all 52 polygraph examiners anticipated to be on board in FY 2017.
Expand HRM Hiring Capacity ($21.129M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $21.129 million in two-year funding for the following initiatives: hiring hub program ($9.7 million); additional applicant processing ($7.8 million); recruiter training ($2 million); and recruitment/digital media strategy ($1.629 million).
BACKGROUND
To establish and sustain adequate staffing on the Nation’s borders, CBP must ensure its recruitment capabilities are commensurate with the expanding complexity and demands of its mission in order to become the employer-of-choice for law enforcement professionals. In light of the Executive Order requirement to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol Agents (BPA) and all associated positions, CBP requires additional funds and resources to strengthen five key areas of focus: • Hiring Hubs: Hiring Hubs have been very successful in decreasing the time-to-hire. Throughout FY 2016, CBP continued to
modify the pre-employment process to expand the Hiring Hub concept to as many applicants as possible while reducing costs. • Applicant Processing: Applicant processing comprises initial qualifications testing, medical examination, drug testing, and physical
fitness testing. This process also includes the polygraph and background investigation, which are administered by the Office of Professional Responsibility. CBP’s pre-employments process ensures a fair and consistent approach to hiring individuals who are qualified to perform the duties of the job. • Recruiter Training: Recruiters are the brand ambassadors of CBP and have a pivotal role in keeping applicants engaged throughout the hiring process. There are currently 1,400 recruiters within CBP. Currently, CBP does not have standardized recruiter training across all operational components. To fulfill this priority, CBP must develop a comprehensive recruiter training curriculum for its full-time and collateral duty recruiters. • Recruitment Strategy: Attracting a sufficient number of quality citizens to apply to CBP requires a concerted effort to focus not just on traditional recruitment efforts but also on digital media to attract applicants who are more engaged on mobile devices and the Internet in general.
JUSTIFICATION
Hiring Hubs This new frontline hiring process has consistently resulted in a reduction in time-to-hire. Funding will be utilized to provide the increase in staffing, contract services, and technology needed to continue this transformational effort. CBP’s execution plan includes

DHS- 23

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 32 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

the following initiatives: • Renew space lease contracts for the Laredo and El Paso hubs, as well as other locations as volume of applicants dictates; • Continued process improvements; • Implementation of new hiring hubs for applicants in areas of the country where CBP personnel are not readily available to perform
interviews and polygraph exams; and • Continuation of Military hiring hubs.
Additional Applicant Processing • As the process is currently configured, these funds will allow CBP to initially process over 57,000 applicants. We anticipate an
increase in the number of applicants through enhanced recruiting efforts and in the number of EODs as the hiring process continues to be transformed and streamlined. • OPM-mandated pre-employment tests are an important part of the hiring process that help determine each applicant’s suitability to be a frontline CBP employee. Failure to fund this program to the extent necessary will significantly impact CBP’s ability to meet the established hiring goals. • The medical services and drug testing collection services contract provides services to conduct the required medical examination, qualifications testing, and drug testing hiring steps. Not fully funding this contract would prevent applicants from completing hiring steps and prevent CBP from onboarding applicants into positions with medical or drug testing requirements. • The Pre-employment Fitness Test 1 contract provides PFT1 administration to all applicants and is a CBP hiring requirement. Not fully funding this contract would delay applicant processing and therefore increase the time-to-hire.
Recruiter Training CBP’s recruiter training program consists of two modules: core recruiter training and Special Emphasis Recruitment Team (SERT) training. CBP anticipates using the estimated $2 million FY 2017 funding to provide travel and associated costs for training at the CBP Advanced Training Center in West Virginia for more than 400 recruiters. SERT recruiters will remain three additional days to complete the SERT module, which focuses on veteran recruitment and enhancing the diversity of the workforce. The funding will be put toward all travel costs for participants and trainers. CBP’s goal is to leverage its certified recruiter workforce through train-thetrainer sessions, with the goal of reaching 3,000 recruiters across CBP.
Recruitment Strategy CBP seeks to increase the number of qualified applicants entering the hiring pipeline to enable CBP to meet its frontline staffing goals. CBP’s lack of brand awareness is contributing to the low number of Entries on Duty for its frontline positions. The funding requested will allow CBP to take the initial steps toward implementing its larger recruitment and marketing strategy. Increasing recruitment and marketing will also enable CBP to:

DHS- 24

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 33 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

• Ensure alignment to CBP’s brand messaging and incorporate available social media platforms, online job boards, and strategic partnerships that best allow CBP to communicate job opportunities to the desired applicant demographic;
• Enhance the applicant’s user experience in CBP’s digital environment; • Determine whether current digital marketing and recruitment messaging are yielding the desired Return on Investment ; • Analyze website traffic to understand user behaviors and levels of engagement; • Identify opportunities for marketing initiatives and analyze existing marketing performance against goals and objectives; and • Utilize online behavioral data to reach potential applicants where they are with a message that is relevant to them.
Additional HRM and OPR Staffing ($15M / 98 FTE)
CBP is requesting $15 million in two-year funding for 89 positions and 71 FTE for the Office of Human Resources Management (HRM) and 33 positions and 27 FTE for the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). HRM plans to onboard 5 FTE in FY 2017 and 66 FTE in FY 2018. OPR intends to onboard 2 FTE in FY 2017 and 25 FTE in FY 2018.
BACKGROUND
These positions are requested to provide direct support to the recruitment, hiring, and sustainment of the 5,000 additional Border Patrol Agents (BPA) and all associated positions.
JUSTIFICATION
HRM and OPR are requesting a total of 122 new employees over a two year period to implement Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” These positions are required to support CBP recruitment, hiring and law enforcement efforts to increase CBP's law enforcement population by the 5,000 Border Patrol Agents required in the Executive Order. Within OPR,the Personnel Security Division will have responsibility for determining the suitability for employment and eligibility to hold a National Security position for all new hires. OPR has been tasked by CBP with continuously monitoring staff to ensure that they remain suitable for employment based on a review of information such as criminal activity and suspicious financial transactions.
HRM’s staffing request is essential to managing anticipated increases in the number of applicants, recruitment actions, and maintaining CBP’s current time-to-hire improvements in light of increased hiring required in Executive Order 13767, as well as sustaining an effective law enforcement workforce. HRM’s request was developed by comparing the ratio of Human Resource (HR) employees to the total workforce in other DHS components, by applying the Office of Personnel Management standard ratio of one HR employee for every 100 employees.

DHS- 25

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 34 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

IV. DETAIN ALL IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS
Increase Temporary CBP Detention Facilities ($95M / 0 FTE)
CBP requests $95 million to address migration surge operations to include the rollout of soft-sided structure facilities in Tornillo and Donna, TX. CBP southern land border ports of entry and areas between the ports of entry experienced extraordinary levels of unlawful migration at the beginning of FY 2017 as thousands of foreign nationals, unaccompanied alien children (UAC), and family units (FMUA) attempt to migrate to the U.S. via Central American land routes.
BACKGROUND
Beginning in the summer of 2016, United States Border Patrol USBP began to report an increase in apprehensions along the southwest border, which included UC and FMUA populations. FY 2017 started with apprehensions roughly 40% above average for the last five fiscal years. CBP has developed contingency planning for multiple soft-sided facilities including the rollout of facilities in Tornillo and Donna, TX. Theses temporary facilities help CBP to mitigate the migration surge volume and create an increased capacity for the overflow at the stations and ports of entry.
JUSTIFICATION
In addition to the costs of the temporary detention facilities, CBP has incurred costs in critical overtime, TDY, transportation, supplies, and maintenance to support the surge operations. The effect is not limited to the southwest border, but felt nationwide as USBP and OFO create vacancies in inland, northern, and coastal areas to detail agents and officers to the southwest border. Through January, CBP incurred $35 million in costs related to the southwest border surge, which required diverting funds from other operational needs. The requested funding is critical to maintain CBP’s capacity through the seasonal influx normally seen in the spring and summer months.

DHS- 26

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 35 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Operations and Support Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

Funds requested include: • $4.837 million is to hire 53 positions and 40 FTE, all in FY 2018, for Office of Facilities and Asset Management Staff. • $10.527 million is to hire 122 positions and 98 FTE (seven in FY 2017 and 91 in FY 2018) for Additional HRM and OPR Staff. • $25 million is for USBP Relocations. • $19.88 million is for USBP agent and CBPO overtime in support of migration surge operations. • $1.773 million is to hire 12 positions and 10 FTE (one in FY 2017 and 9 in FY 2018) for Office of Chief Counsel Staff. • $4.271 million is for OPR Retention and Special Salary Rates.
DHS- 27

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 36 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Operations and Support Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

Funds requested include: • $20 million is for Facilities Support on the Southern Border. • $18.143 million is for Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). • $25.141 million is for AMO Border Operations. • $3.368 million is for OIT Equipment and Field Technology. • $5 million is for Immediate Border Wall Technologies. • $21.129 million is to Expand HRM Hiring Capacity. • $75.12 million is to Detain All Immigration Violators. • $20 million is for Tactical Communications.
DHS- 28

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 37 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

• $6 million is for Operations Contract Support. • $.339 million is for Office of Chief Counsel Staff. • $21 million is for Tactical Infrastructure. • $4.473 million is for Additional HRM and OPR Staff.

DHS- 29

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 38 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Procurement, Construction, and Improvements
Budget Amendment Funding Request
Dollars in Thousands

Organization Name
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Border Security Assets and Infrastructure

POA
$ 2017/2021 $

FY 2019 Ammendment Request
Amount 1,377,483 1,377,483

DHS- 30

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 39 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Procurement, Construction, and Improvements
Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 31

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 40 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Border Infrastructure Investment
Investment Description
CBP requests $999 million in 5-year funding to support construction of a Border Wall. This amendment to the FY 2017 President’s Budget supports a robust suite of infrastructure investments to help CBP achieve operational control of the southern border, as required by the President’s Executive Orders on border security. CBP anticipates investing approximately $999 million in FY 2017.
JUSTIFICATION
The $999 million investment includes the construction of a new Border Wall system in areas identified by United States Border Patrol (USBP) as operational requirements, to include:
• ~14 miles of new border wall system in San Diego Sector ($251M) • ~14 miles of replacement fence in San Diego Sector ($102M) • ~28 miles of new levee wall system in Rio Grande Valley Sector ($498) • ~6 miles of new border wall system in Rio Grande Valley Sector ($146M)
The costs above are estimates that will be refined as projects are further defined and designs are developed. This funding will allow CBP to fund design, real estate planning, environmental planning and acquisition, construction and construction oversight for a new border wall system to include fence replacement in San Diego, as well as a new border wall system and levee wall system in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The anticipated investment allows CBP to swiftly respond to Administration priorities and USBP operational requirements.
BACKGROUND
Detailed requirements for the border wall, including priority locations and preferred features, are currently under development by CBP. Concurrently, CBP is reaching out to industry to seek proposals for Border Wall prototypes that will help the agency select the appropriate design, materials, and technologies for further border wall construction. These proposals and the subsequent prototypes will allow CBP to estimate the overall cost to construct, maintain and repair the border wall. This standard will continue to inform CBP’s wall estimates and will account for Administration priorities, USBP operational requirements, cost effectiveness, constructability, and durability. The identified locations are based off of operational need and site accessibility.

DHS- 32

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 41 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Key Milestone Events: Wall Activities
The $999 million investment includes the construction of a Border Wall and levee wall system in areas identified by USBP as operational requirements, to include but not limited to, San Diego and the RGV Sector area of responsibility in Texas, respectively.
FY 2017 Q3 CBP anticipates: • Finalizing all Interagency Agreements to providing funding to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pending available funding. • Finalizing the first draft of the environmental impact. • Working with USBP to identify initial border wall segment requirements in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
FY 2017 Q4 CBP anticipates: • Identifying impacted landowners (assuming no significant title search delays). • Developing initial project scope, cost estimates, and schedule. • Releasing Requests for Proposals. • Awarding Multiple Award Task Order Contract pending available funding.
SW Border Surveillance
Investment Description
CBP requests $200 million in 5-year funding to support southwest border surveillance technology. The $200 million requested will enable USBP to purchase approximately 18 Integrated Fixed Towers (IFT), 18 relocatable towers, 19 Mobile Video Surveillance Systems (MVSS) units and 58 MVSS camera upgrades. Other funding will be used to close future sustainment gaps in Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), MVS, and mobile surveillance requirements. Based on the current threat matrix, the Office of Border Patrol has determined that the priority sectors to receive these capabilities are Rio Grande Valley (RGV), Laredo (LRT), and El Paso (EPT) .

DHS- 33

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 42 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

JUSTIFICATION
Funding is requested to accelerate deployments of fixed and mobile surveillance technologies to high-risk locations along the southwest border. These investments will help the Border Patrol deter, deny, identify, track, and resolve illegal activity along the border to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism. Specific locations will be determined by operational requirements and capability gap analyses conduced by the USBP.
The IFT system will assist USBP agents in detecting, tracking, identifying, and classifying items of interest along our Nation’s borders through a series of fixed surveillance towers and equipment that display information on IFT workstations housed in a command and control center.
RVSS is a fixed technology that provides persistent wide-area surveillance for the visual detection, identification, classification, and tracking of Items of Interest (IoI) along the border. The RVSS unit configuration varies depending on the operational needs and the geographical area where the RVSS is located. RVSS units are typically deployed in areas of activity with dense vegetation, or urban areas where IoIs can quickly vanish. The RVSS unit has a sensor suite with a set of short-, medium-, or long-range electro-optical and infrared cameras (daytime/nighttime cameras), which are remotely operated from a Command and Control (C2) facility. The sensor suite may contain an infrared illuminator, directional spotlights, and a public address system to broadcast verbal commands and warnings. These systems contribute to improved situational awareness, increased agent safety, and rapid response.
MVSS technology enables the visual detection, identification, classification, and tracking of IoIs in both urban and remote areas along the border. They are mobile systems that cover areas that are not covered by fixed surveillance technology deployments. These systems contribute to improved situational awareness, rapid response, and agent safety. The High Definition (HD) camera upgrade will improve the Border Patrol operator’s ability to classify IoIs (i.e. long arms, bundles, and group size) which will result in greater agent safety and improved response time by Border Patrol agents.
Key Milestone Events
MVSS: • Achieve Acquisition Decision Event (ADE) – 2 (DHS Approval for production of MVSS units) • Begin contracting actions necessary to acquire MVSS capabilities; • Execute contract delivery order for 19 MVSS units and 58 HD Camera Upgrades; • Begin delivery of 19 MVSS units and 58 HD Camera Upgrades; and • Complete deployment of 19 MVSS units and 58 HD camera upgrades.

DHS- 34

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 43 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

IFT • • • • • •

Begin contracting actions necessary to acquire IFT capabilities; Validate Southwest Border Plan sites and priorities with USBP; Complete environmental and real-estate actions for sites and roads; Execute contract award after funding is received; Construction to begin within 6-8 months of contract award; and Sites operational beginning 10 months after start of construction.

There are several major assumptions that support these IFT milestones: • IFT Program is adequately staffed to support accelerated/concurrent deployments of 18 sites within two AoR’s; • All sites are validated and approved by USBP leadership; • Contract award through “other than full and open competition” (FAR method); • Contract award may occur prior to roads and sites being prepared for construction; and • Maximize environmental waivers and unilateral condemnation.

Re-locatable Tower (RVSS) Key Milestones: • Begin contracting actions necessary to acquire RVSS capabilities; • RVSS Re-locatable Approval – Milestone 1 (USBP HQ decision to utilize Re-locatable Towers based on results); from Relocatable tower pilot projects. • Obligate funding for Re-locatable Towers and modular Command and Control Centers – 0 to 3 months from approval; • Identify Deployment AOR & Confirm the Laydown in coordination with USBP – 3 months from approval; • Obtain Environmental Clearances – 6 months from approval; • Radio Frequency Authentication (RFA) – 6 months from approval; • Obtain Real Estate Licenses – 9 months from approval; • Delivery of Re-locatable Towers and modular Command and Control Centers – 12 months from approval; • Technology Deployment – 18 months from Approval; • System Acceptance Testing – 21 months from Approval; and • System Acceptance – 24 months from Approval.

There are several major assumptions which support these Re-locatable (RVSS) milestones: • The results of the RVSS Re-Locatable Towers Pilot Project indicate no major impact to system performance (tower stability,

DHS- 35

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 44 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

height limited to 80 ft., and modular C2) compared to use of Fixed towers; • A sole source justification is approved for using the current technology contractor; • The tower sites are previously disturbed areas not requiring environmental assessments; and • Real Estate license agreements can be secured.
Tactical Infrastructure Investment
Investment Description
CBP anticipates investing approximately $179 million for road construction and other tactical infrastructure (TI). $55M is required for the completion of the RGV gates project. The remaining $124M will be used to construct new road requirements to provide USBP enhanced access for enforcement in high priority locations across the Southwest border.
BACKGROUND
Historically, CBP’s budget has not included capital investment funding to meet U.S. Border Patrol’s new road construction requirements and other new critical TI needs. CBP has not had the capital investment funds to acquire the real estate and build gates for the RGV fence gate openings. The gate openings cannot be closed until CBP acquires real estate access from the land owners who have property behind the gates. Currently, CBP’s TI budget only supports up to $49M in maintenance and repair requirements through the Comprehensive Tactical Infrastructure & Maintenance and Repair (CTIMR) program. Through the CTIMR program, contractors perform routine and urgent work such as infrastructure preventative maintenance, fence, gate and grate repairs, roadway maintenance (blading, grading, drainage, structure clearing and silt removal, culvert replacement), vegetation control, and debris removal.
JUSTIFICATION
Efforts included in this budget request support the President’s Executive Order to secure the Nation’s border. Funding will be used to construct new roads, secure critical access points with gates and obtain real estate license agreements in the U.S. Border Patrol’s highest priority area.
On average, CBP spends approximately $49 million annually to maintain and repair its tactical infrastructure portfolio; however, this does not cover the entire requirement.An additional $179 million is requested for new road construction and other tactical infrastructure needs. USBP continuously identifies new road construction requirements that are necessary to patrol and access the border to execute maintenance and repair needs. Approximately $122 million of the funds requested will address operational

DHS- 36

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 45 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

requirements for road construction across the southwest border in order to provide better, safer, and more efficient border access for the Border Patrol. Of the funds requested, $57 million will allow CBP to acquire land necessary to install gates that complete an unfinished Pedestrian Fence 225 (PF225) project in the Rio Grande Valley. During PF 225, CBP constructed approximately 55 miles of pedestrian fence in the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector. To ensure no obstruction of the flood plain in that area, fencing was constructed north of the physical border, in some cases up to a mile. This required CBP to construct gates to allow both USBP and private land owners access to land south of the fence. Approximately half of the required gates have already been completed. However, the remaining 35 gaps in the fence cannot be gated until such time as CBP receives the funds required to address the real estate requirements associated with this project.
Key Milestone Events • $122M for new road construction o FY 2017 Q3 - Confirm USBP's prioritized new road construction requirements o FY 2017 Q4 - Obligate funding to USACE by the end of FY 2017 • $57M for gates (other TI) o FY 2017 Q3 - Begin working with USACE to conduct title research for the RGV Gates Construction project in preparation for real estate acquisition and gate construction o FY 2017 Q4 - Obligate funding to USACE by the end of FY 2017 for construction activities

DHS- 37

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 46 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Operations and Support Budget Amendment Funding Request
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 38

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 47 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Operations and Support Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 39

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 48 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Operations and Support Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 40

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 49 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mission Support – O&S
ICE requests $65.8 million for 50 Full-Time Positions (FTPs) and 63 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) (13 FTE in FY 2017 and 50 FTE in FY 2018) to begin developing a robust internal structure for the Office of Human Capital (OHC) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that will support hiring the 10,000 law enforcement officers (LEO) and additional support personnel required to implement the Executive Orders. ICE requests that these funds be appropriated with a period of availability through September 30, 2018.
Pay: $8.696 million
ICE will hire 50 positions, of which 37 are Human Resource (HR) Specialists in OHC and 13 are for OPR’s Personnel Security Unit (PSU). The requested positions will be hired during the last quarter of FY 2017 and fully annualized in FY 2018.
According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the recommended ratio of HR Specialists to agency employees within the federal government is 1:100. The 37 HR specialists requested in FY 2017 will provide ICE the administrative support for hiring its new personnel at this ratio, allowing OHC to meet the demands of the hiring surge. The HR specialists will be located at the Dallas and Laguna Niguel Service Centers, which are responsible for all administrative functions related to ICE LEO and support staff hiring.
OPR is the critical next step in the hiring process after an applicant is selected for employment. OPR PSU conducts and adjudicates suitability background investigations of contractor, law enforcement, and support personnel at ICE. The requested 13 PSU positions will allow OPR to promptly clear employees to support the EO hiring surge.
Non-Pay: $57.128 million
During the remainder of FY 2017 and throughout FY 2018, OHC will increase its recruitment efforts by implementing a comprehensive “One Stop” hiring program, which will allow ICE to interview and begin pre-employment clearance to potential employees over multiple intensive three-day events. The “One Stop” events streamline the hiring process and reduce the time to hire law enforcement officers and support personnel. Starting these “One Stop” programs in FY 2017 is expected to generate a significant pool of applicants for ICE to hire and on-board beginning in FY 2018 as part of EO implementation.
Both OHC and OPR intend to dedicate a significant portion of the requested resources on temporary contractor support to meet the

DHS- 41

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 50 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

initial demands of the hiring and background investigations for 10,000 law enforcement officers and associated support staff. The contract resources will allow ICE to complete timely hiring and on-boarding of all new employees.
Finally, ICE’s request includes $2 million to modernize its human capital information technology system to meet the demands of a modern workforce and manage a large increase in applications and personnel. In October 2016, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released audit findings noting that ICE lacks a comprehensive automated system to efficiently process and track law enforcement applicants. To address the OIG recommendation, ICE will acquire and implement an end-to-end hiring solution that will track applicants through the entire hiring process. Investment in a new human capital system will significantly increase efficiencies in the hiring process, eliminate the need for the six different systems currently in place, and allow OHC to produce real-time reports.

DHS- 42

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 51 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mission Support – O&S Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 43

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 52 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mission Support – O&S Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 44

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 53 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations – O&S

ICE requests $15.136 million for 47 FTP and 59 FTE (12 FTE in FY 2017 and 47 FTE in FY 2018) to hire Intelligence Research Specialists (IRS), which annualize in FY 2018 to support HSI investigations of cases involving terrorism, illicit smuggling and contraband, child exploitation, and human trafficking in line with the priorities established by the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (EO13767). ICE requests that these funds be appropriated with a period of availability through September 30, 2018.
Pay: $8.602 million
The requested 47 IRS positions will be hired during the last quarter of FY 2017. Statistics has identified that investigations that utilize IRSs are more successful than investigations that do not. Counterpart agencies, such as DEA and FBI, have placed a greater emphasis on the use of intelligence analysts as a force multiplier. For example, the DEA has an intelligence analyst to Agent ratio of 1:1 and the FBI has an intelligence analyst to Agent of 1:6. The current ICE ratio is 1:12. Hiring the requested IRS positions will allow ICE to build to its eventual goal of reaching a 1:9 ratio.
As HSI strives to dismantle human smuggling organizations, it will deploy more intelligence analysts to support the work of agents in the field, particularly those surging to the Northern Triangle. ICE plans to increase its investigative hours dedicated to immigrationrelated crime by 20%. The 47 FTP will increase the number of investigations that receive Intelligence support. ICE will hire to regions that have most opportunity to benefit from additional IRS support.
Non-Pay: $6.534 million
The requested non-pay funding of $6.5 million are the general expenditures associated with on-boarding and annualizing 47 IRSs. These include training, furniture, and equipment.

DHS- 45

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 54 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations – O&S Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 46

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 55 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations – O&S Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 47

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 56 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations – O&S

ICE requests $1.16 billion, 0 FTP, and 0 FTEs for average daily population (ADP) detention needs in response to an increase in FY 2017 migrant apprehensions, and for an anticipated increase in apprehensions and detentions that will result from ICE implementation of the Administration’s immigration-related Executive Orders. Included in this request is funding to increase the number of detention beds and associate removals, and expand the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) and 287(g) programs. ICE requests that these funds be appropriated with a period of availability through September 30, 2018.
Pay: $0
All costs associated with the request for the Enforcement and Removal Operations PPA are non-pay.
Non-Pay: $1.16 billion
Custody Operations - $994.913 million
• ICE requests $788.8 million to support an estimated FY 2017 ADP of 42,514 (including 40,014 adults at an average daily bed rate of $132.54 and 2,500 families at an average daily bed rate of $319.37) stemming from increased migrant flow experienced in the first half of FY 2017. As of March 4, 2017, ICE ADP was 41,005 (39,007 adults and 1,998 families).
• ICE requests an additional $206.1 million to begin implementation of the Executive Orders’ directive to detain all apprehended immigration violators from both the border and the interior. ICE estimates that this represents an additional ADP of 805 adults in FY 2017 (reaching 45,700 beds on September 30, 2017) and 3,220 adults in FY 2018. The resulting total ADP for FY 2017 will be 43,319 (40,819 adult and 2,500 family) while the FY 2018 ADP will be 54,599 (52,099 adult and 2,500 family) when combined with increases requested in the FY2018 Budget. The current ADP projection is attributed to increased interior enforcement efforts (Criminal Alien Program, Fugitive Operations, and the expanded 287(g) program), and an increase to the average length of stay (ALOS).
 Since their issuance, the Executive Orders have led to increases in arrests (up 50%), charging document issuance (up 40%), and detainers (up 80%). ICE assumes that these upward trends will continue as the Executive Orders continue to be implemented.
 Forty-seven percent of ICE’s ADP is generated from interior enforcement efforts, while fifty-three percent is generated from border enforcement. The ALOS for those apprehended at the southwest is 27.4 days and 51.5 days for those

DHS- 48

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 57 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

arrested during interior enforcement operations.
• There are multiple factors that will contribute to an increased ADP in FY 2017 and FY 2018.
 Prior years of the Secure Communities initiative provided record numbers of removals. It is expected that the reinstitution of this initiative outlined in the EO will result in significant increases to interior apprehensions and removals.
 In just the first six weeks since the issuance of the Executive Orders, the number of beds used to house aliens stemming from interior enforcement efforts has increased by over 2,000, representing a 12% increase and offsetting the decrease in the number of beds used by CBP for border enforcement.
 Approximately 30,000 fugitive alien records will be re-enrolled in National Crime Information Center database that previously fell outside of ICE’s priorities.
 CBP is about to enter the historical high season in which border apprehensions increase significantly due to illegal aliens crossing the border to obtain agricultural and seasonal jobs. Border apprehensions are expected to account for X of the 43,319 average daily population in 2017.
 287g participation is slated to increase by 70% with the signing of at least 26 new agreements, many in locations with high foreign-national populations. Not only will this increase arrests from the program itself, there will be a significant number of Deportation Officers who previously worked Criminal Alien Program in these jurisdictions will be redeployed to other interior enforcement efforts.
Transportation and Removal Program (TRP) - $98.946 million
• TRP requires $98.9 million for transportation costs associated with the currently projected 54,599 ADP by FY 2018. The additional funding will support over 71,000 additional removals. The consistent increase in ADP requires an increase in resource support for TRP due to additional ground transportation movements across the network, final orders of removal by Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), expedited removal orders, and voluntary returns.
Alternatives to Detention - $57.392 million
• Because of the rise in migrant flow, ATD will need supplemental funding to sustain the additional participants who will be monitored on ATD. The requested $57.4 million allows ATD’s average daily participant level to reach 79,000 in FY 2017, which is 26,000 above initial estimates at the beginning of the fiscal year. As of March 6, 2017 the average FYTD participant count for ATD was 69,691.

DHS- 49

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 58 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

287(g) Expansion - $5.0 million
• The Executive Orders direct the expansion of the 287(g) program. Currently there are eight pending applications for local law
enforcement agencies (LEA) to join the 287(g) program, and there are another eleven LEAs that have expressed interest in completing an application. ICE requests $5 million for costs associated with oversight and compliance monitoring, IT infrastructure, and training. ICE plans to train approximately 98 additional state and local officers in FY 2017.

DHS- 50

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 59 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations – O&S
Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

DHS- 51

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 60 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Operations and Support
Budget Amendment Funding Request
Dollars in Thousands

Organization Name
Operations and Support Mission Support Law Enforcement Training

POA
2017/2018 2017/2018

Pos. 120 6 114

FY 2017

Amendment Request

FTE

Amount

114 $

25,000

5$

710

109 $

24,290

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) has identified requirements necessary to meet the anticipated surge in training resulting from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hiring associated with the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. To meet the intents of these Executive Orders, CBP will hire 5,000 Border Patrol Agents and ICE will hire 10,000 Immigration Officers. All of these new hires will require basic training at FLETC in either FLETC basic training programs or programs ICE and CBP conduct at FLETC training locations.

Based on information received from ICE and CBP, FLETC has developed cost estimates to meet the training needs associated with the hiring goals of the Executive Orders. These estimates include training costs, support staff costs, Instructor Training Program costs, PCS costs, information technology costs, and training support costs, and represent FLETC’s requirements regarding how to most efficiently and effectively execute a training surge.

To meet the requirements of the Executive Orders, FLETC must hire and train a sufficient amount of instructors in FY2017 to ensure an initial cadre of trained and certified instructors are on-board and ready to accommodate the surge. FLETC requests $25M to obtain necessary staffing, equipment and services. The hiring and training of 120 positions (114 FTE – 15 FTE in FY 2017 and 99 FTE in FY 2018), to include instructors ($13.9M), additional Instructor Training Program instructors ($1.7M) and support staff ($0.7M) is sufficient to start the additional training that will be necessary. Additional requirements, such as a non-emergency vehicle operating range at Artesia ($1M), IT equipment and services ($6.7M), PCS ($0.3M) as well as increased training support costs ($0.7M) are requested. FLETC requires funding in FY 2017 to hire instructors. These instructors will begin training Border Patrol Agents and ICE officers on October 1, 2017.

DHS- 52

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 61 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Operation and Support Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

NARRATIVE EXPLANATION– PAY COST DRIVERS: Increased throughput of Border Patrol Agents and Immigration Officers drives pay costs. FLETC requires Law Enforcement Instructors as part of the Instructor Training Program (“train the trainer”) and Support Staff to prepare Law Enforcement Instructors to train the increased number of Border Patrol Agents and Immigration Officers. Pay cost drivers include salaries, benefits and PCS costs associated with hiring 120 positions, as follows:
• 12 Law Enforcement Instructors (Instructor Training Program) • 6 Support Staff • 102 Law Enforcement Instructors
DHS- 53

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 62 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Operations and Support Non Pay by Object Class
Dollars in Thousands

NARRATIVE EXPLANATION– NON-PAY COST DRIVERS:

Non-Pay cost drivers include a non-emergency vehicle operating range at FLETC’s Artesia campus ($1M), additional information technology equipment and services associated with the increase in staff, additional facilities, and increased training requirements. Increased training support services, such as transportation, uniforms, and practical exercise equipment are additionally requested.
• Service Contracts – The increase in goods and services contracts of $6.5M is attributed to increased services needed to accommodate the training surge associated with the President’s Executive Orders. The FY 2017 request support contracts consists of services such as:

o IT Services o Transportation

$6.0M $0.1M

DHS- 54

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 63 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

o Practical Exercise Equipment $0.1M

o Janitorial

$0.3M

• Supplies and Equipment – The increase in supplies and equipment of $1.1M is attributed to increased equipment needs associated with the President’s Executive Orders. The FY 2017 request consists of:

o IT Equipment/Supplies o Practical Exercise Equipment o Uniforms

$0.8M $0.1M $0.2M

DHS- 55

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 64 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Procurement, Construction, and Improvements
Budget Amendment Funding Request
Dollars in Thousands

Organization Name
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Construction and Facility Improvements

POA
$ 2017/2021 $

FY 2017 Amendment Request
Amount 63,000 63,000

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) has identified requirements necessary to meet the anticipated surge in training resulting from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hiring associated with the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. To meet the intents of these Executive Orders, CBP will hire 5,000 Border Patrol Agents and ICE will hire 10,000 Immigration Officers. All of these new hires will require basic training at FLETC in either FLETC basic training programs or programs ICE and CBP conduct at FLETC training locations.

Based on information received from ICE and CBP, FLETC has identified facility requirements and developed cost estimates to meet the training needs associated with the hiring goals of the Executive Orders. These estimates include modular dormitories, modular classrooms, modular offices, and improvements to the existing water/sewer system, and represent FLETC’s preliminary requirements to begin the anticipated training surge.

DHS- 56

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 65 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

Non Pay by Object Class

Dollars in Thousands

FY 2017

FY 2017

FY 2018-2021

Non-Pay Object Classes

Amendment Request

Estimated First Year
Funds

Estimated Out Year
Funds

32.0 Land and Structures

$

63,000 $

60,900 $

2,100

Total - Non Pay Object Classes

$

63,000 $

60,900 $

2,100

Executive Order Training Surge Initiative Description

This project initiates the necessary capacity build out to execute the training required by the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and the Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.
Justification
FLETC is currently operating at historically high training levels, which leaves little to no excess capacity. Accordingly, FLETC’s current operational capacity is insufficient to accommodate the training surge required to meet the requirements of the President’s Executive Orders. FLETC has identified a need for additional facilities, and will construct temporary / modular training and administrative venues that will efficiently ensure capacity to deliver high quality training.
To meet the requirements of the Executive Orders, FLETC must increase capacity in several areas, including training facilities, housing, and office space. In order to begin execution of the training surge in FY 2018, a portion of these facilities must be in place and operational. To meet this need, FLETC requests $63M in PC&I funding to build/place 3 modular dormitories ($48.7M), modular classrooms ($10.2M), and modular office space ($2M), as well as make necessary upgrades/repairs to the existing water/sewer system ($2.1M) at FLETC’s Glynco campus, which is anticipated to be spent in FY 2018. The modular dormitories, classrooms, and office space have a useful life span of approximately 15 years.

DHS- 57

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 66 of 187

Congressional Justification (Amendment)

Department of Homeland Security

Key Milestone Events
• Modular Classrooms and Offices
Milestone #1: Funding allocation by May 1, 2017. Milestone #2: Contract award by September 11, 2017. Milestone #3: Design, shipping and assembly of modular units from September 12, 2017 to January 22, 2018. Milestone #4: Completed and usable facilities (classrooms and office spaces) by February 1, 2018.
• Modular Dormitories
Milestone #1: Funding allocation by May 1, 2017. Milestone #2: Contract award by September 26, 2017. Milestone #3: Construction of dormitories from September 27, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Milestone #4: Completed and usable facilities (dormitories) by May 31, 2018.

• Water/Sewer System Enhancements
Milestone #1: Utility contract in place by October 1, 2017. Milestone #2: Funding allocation by January 1, 2018. Milestone #3: Contract award by April 1, 2018. Milestone #4: Completed and usable facilities (lift stations) by June 1, 2018.

DHS- 58

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 67 of 187
Exhibit B

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 68 of 187 \

(fD0
~"- ______. / /
DIVISION /:~ DEP~~~NT OF HO~~-SE~URrrY- --<=-(,k

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

appr~~ri~[~ j., The following is an explanation of Division which makes

Department ofHomeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2017. Funding provided in this Act not

only sustains existing programs that protect the nation from all manner of threats, it ensures

DHS's ability to improve preparedness at the federal, state, and locallevels, to prevent and

respond to terrorist attacks, and to hire, train, and equip DHS frontline forces protecting the

home land.

Unless otherwise noted, references to the House and Senate reports are to House Report

114-668 and Senate Report 114-264, respectively. The language and allocations contained in the

House and Senate reports carry the same weight as language included in this explanatory

statement unless specifically addressed to the contrary in the bill or this explanatory

statement. While this explanatory statement repeats sorne language from the House or Senate

reports for emphasis, it does not negate the language contained in those reports unless expressly

stated. When this explanatory statement refers to the Committees or the Committees on

Appropriations, these references are to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland

Security and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

This explanatory statement refers to certain laws and organizations as follows: the

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of2007, Public Law 110-53, is

referenced as the 9/11 Act; the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

Act, Public Law 93-288, is referenced as the Stafford Act; the Department ofHomeland Security

is referenced as DHS or the Department; the Government Accountability Office is referenced as

GAO; and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is referenced

as OIG. In addition, "full-time equivalents" are referred to as FTE; "full-time positions" are

referred to as FTP; "Information Technology" is referred to as IT; the DHS "Working Capital

Fund" is referred to as WCF; "program, project, and activity" is referred to as PPA; and any

reference to "the Secretary" should be interpreted to mean the Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security.

On March 16,2017, the requested an additional $J..bill

President ioJfu;DH

delivered ~udget ~~-~nt !O tll~_Çongr_~~~-th_ill._.-€~W1

s to strengthen border security and enhance

t'

0

0

)1

C()f)

enforcement of immigration laws. Appropriations related to that request are included in title VI

of this division.

1

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 69 of 187

Changes to the Structure of the Bill and Report

Since DHS was established in 2002, the 22 agencies that were consolidated into a single

department have formulated and executed their respective budgets using their legacy

appropriation account structures and budgeting practices. Within months of being confirmed,

then-Secretary Jeh Johnson announced a Unity of Effort campaign with the goal ofmaturing

DHS into an organization that functions in a more integrated and joint fashion. A strategie

imperative of that campaign was to develop and institutionalize standard planning, budgeting,

acquisition, and resourcing processes that every component would be required to follow.

The Department's more than 70 disparate accounts were contributing to a lack of

transparency and comparability among components and programs-t-and were adding unnecessary [./'-..

complexity to spending prioritization. To address these issues, the Department recommended

)

that the existing account structure be simplified into four common account categories under

which programs and activities could be funded consistently across departmental components

based on common assumptions and definitions. The categories are: Operations and Support;

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements; Research and Development; and Federal

Assistance. In fiscal year 2016, Congress supported the concept of common appropriations

accounts for every component and authorized DHS to propose the fiscal year 2017 DHS budget

in a structure that incorporated these four account types.

In accordance with this authority, DHS proposed the fiscal year 2017 budget request in a

common format for every organization except the Coast Guard, which requires additional time to

coordinate the change as it also transitions to a new financial management system. The

appropriations account and PPA structure reflected in this Act is the culmination of that two year

effort.

In addition to incorporating the new standard structure, the fiscal year 201 7 Department

of Homeland Security Appropriations bill has been re-written, updated, and streamlined. The

bill continues to be divided into titles, the first four of which contain appropriations. Each

appropriations paragraph begins with a lump sum appropriation, followed by any necessary

carve-outs of amounts for specifie activities or for multi-year availability, and concludes with

spending limitations, when needed. Administrative provisions specifie to a single component are

included at the end of its respective title, while general provisions that pertain to multiple

components are located in title V. This explanatory statement is organized in the same manner.

Every appropriating paragraph has been scrutinized and drafted to follow the Comptroller

General's Federal Princip/es ofAppropriations Law and adheres to a core principal that the

purpose of a lump sum appropriation is determined in the context ofthe agency's enabling and

authorizing legislation. As such, appropriations paragraphs do not enumerate every statute that

authorizes DHS to act, in order for funding to be available for those purposes.

Likewise, the appropriating paragraphs do not need, nor is it possible, to explicitly

enumerate every item or activity for which the appropriation is available. Accordingly,

previously enumerated activities that are considered to be part of a component's necessary

2

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 70 of 187

expenses are no longer expressly included. Further, the format of the bill has been restructured to rnove those provisions not organic to the appropriation of funds into administrative or general provisions. Certain language from prior Acts that directed policies or practices was eliminated if its appearance in statute is no longer required, although directives related to such policies or practices are in sorne cases continued through language in this statement or in the Bouse or Senate reports.
DHS provided assistance in identifying instances where specificity in appropriations paragraphs was required for funds to be used for certain purposes. As presented, the bill reflects that careful consideration. With regard to expired authorizations, the bill provides explicit extensions where so intended.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives Office

The fiscal year 2017 bud et re uest ro osed the consolidation of the Office ofHealth

Affairs

, the Domestic Nuclear Detection OfficefBNDO}', the Office ofBombing

Prevention, and selected activities of the Science and Technology Directorate, into a new

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives GftïeeÎ(CBRNE) Office. As this

proposed CBRNE consolidation was not authorized by Congress, the amounts appropriated for

these activities for fiscal year 2017 are provided to the component for which the funds were

appropriated in prior years. The amounts requested for CBRNE are displayed in the table at the

end of this statement.

Classified Programs

Recommended adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a classified annex to this explanatory statement.

3

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 71 of 187

TITLE I-DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, INTELLIGENCE, AND OVERSIGHT

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$137,034,000 is provided for Operations and Support, including not more than $40,000 for official reception and representation (ORR) expenses. A decrease of $5,000 is assessed to the Secretary's ORR funds due to the assumption of$880,000,000 in unauthorized fee revenue in the fiscal year 2017 budget request that artificially reduced the amount of net discretionary appropriations required to fully fund the Transportation Security Administration. DHS should be prepared for additional decrements to ORR funds and other headquarters activities in the future should future requests include similar proposais.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Budget Estimate Final Bill

Operations and Support

Office of the Secretary

$22,287,000 $18,632,000

Office of Policy

37,049,000 37,461,000

Office of Public Affairs

5,384,000 5,000,000

Office of Legislative Affairs

5,287,000 5,080,000

Office of Partnership and Engagement

11,692,000 15,206,000

Office of General Counsel

19,298,000 19,298,000

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

21,403,000 22,571,000

Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services

Ombudsman

------------~ ------·--- ·-·------····-----6,200,00~---~-?·935,0_~-~-e.....

Privacy Officer

7,851,000 7,851,000

Subtotal, Operations and Support

$136,451,000 $137,034,000

Total, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

$136,451,000 $137,034,000

Office of the Secretary

A total of$18,632,000 is provided for the Office ofthe Secretary. Instead ofincluding funds for the Office of Community Partnerships within this amount, as proposed by the Senate,

4

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 72 of 187
funds for that program are included in the Office of Partnership and Engagement PPA, as proposed by the House.
In lieu of direction provided in the House and Senate reports regarding activities of the Joint Requirements Council (JRC), the Department shall provide status updates on these activities to the Committees on a monthly basis. Specifically, the updates shall include a list of the requirements documents that have been validated as well as those that remain in the analysis phase at the DHS JRC level. Validated documents shall be made available to the Committees upon request.
The Secretary is directed to convene a Public Complaint and Feedback System working group, as described in the House Report, and to provide briefings to the Committees within 90 days and 270 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the group's progress and findings.
Office of Policy
A total of$37,461,000 is provided for the Office ofPolicy. Section 107 of the Act withholds $2,000,000 from the Office of the Secretary until two long-standing required reports are provided to the Congress. First, as described in the Senate report, DHS is legally obliged to submit an annual report estimating the U.S. population of nonimmigrant aliens who have overstayed their visas. The Department submitted such a report for fiscal year 2015, but has not yet submitted a report for fiscal year 2016. DHS is expected to improve upon the scope of the data provided in the fiscal year 2015 report in its forthcoming report. Second, under the headings "Border Security Metrics" and "Public Reporting of Operational Statistics," the Senate report outlines congressional and public interest in border security metrics and immigration operations data. Recently issued executive orders also require public reporting of such data, which the Department has begun to post. For years, Congress has directed DHS to develop border security metrics that quantify the operational impact of border security investments. Though progress has been made, DHS has still failed to produce these metrics. The Department shall brief the Committees within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on its plan to develop and publish the metrics described in the Senate report. As directed in the Senate report, $600,000 above the request shall support qualified data analysts in the Office of Immigration Statistics. In addition to the House directive to provide a comprehensive review of the number and locations of all DHS personnel deployed overseas, the Office of Policy shall identify where redundant staff are located and explain why they are required. As directed in the Senate report, the Department shall report on the deployment and usage of International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) catchers and related technologies within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act.
5

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 73 of 187 Office of Partnership and Engagement
A total of$15,206,000 is provided for the Office ofPartnership and Engagement, which includes $3,514,000 for the Office ofCommunity Partnerships.
A total of$819,000 is provided for the Blue Campaign, as requested. DHS is directed to fully account for and provide justification material for this program in future budget requests.
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
A total of$22,571,000 is provided for the Office.e~Z~~;~;:-~~-Civil Liberties.
As directed in the House Report, the increase of$1,168,000 above the President's request supports enhancements to programs in the Compliance Branch.
6

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 74 of 187

MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$597,817,000 is provided for Operations and Support ofthe Management Directorate. Of this amount, not more than $2,000 is available for official reception and representation expenses. Within the total, $194,092,000 is available until September 30,2018, to include $4,800,000 for St. Elizabeths, $186,361,000 for the Chieflnformation Officer (CIO), and $2,931,000 for headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management Office of the ChiefReadiness Support Officer Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Office of the Chief Security Officer Office ofthe ChiefProcurement Officer Office of the Chief Financial Officer Office of the Chief Information Officer Subtotal, Operations and Support

Budget Estimate
$3,758,000 128,177,000 36,446,000 61,723,000 101,450,000 100,041,000 296,176,000 $727,771,000

Final Bill
$3,564,000 54,275,000 39,026,000 63,102,000 98,076,000 53,700,000 286,074,000 $597,817,000

Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for Management

A total of$3,564,000 is provided for the Immediate Office ofthe Under Secretary for Management, reflecting a reduction to the request of $194,000 based on updated hiring projections. The requirement from prior years to submit a Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report with future budget requests and quarterly updates is discontinued.

Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer

A total of$54,275,000 is provided for the Office of the ChiefReadiness Support Officer, to include $26,180,000 for St. Elizabeths headquarters operations and a reduction of $500,000 from the request based on updated hiring projections.
In addition to the funding provided under this heading for St. Elizabeths, $13,253,000 is provided in title V of this Act for tenant designs for a new FEMA headquarters and remaining elements of the Center Building Complex.

7

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 75 of 187
For several years, CBP's Air and Marine Operations has been refining a flight hour model similar to that of the Coast Guard to track costs and link them to mission requirements. The Department is directed to review the model to ensure consistency across both CBP and the Coast Guard, and to brief the Committees on a quarterly basis until flight hour costs are captured completely and accurately across the Department's air fleet.
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer
A total of$39,026,000 is provided for the Office of the ChiefHuman Capital Officer. A reduction of$240,000 is assessed based on an updated hiring projection, and an increase of $2,820,000 is provided to transition the Cyber Student Volunteer Program into a DHS Cybersecurity Intemship Program.
As directed in the Senate and House reports, DHS is directed to continue working with every component to develop metrics on hiring, attrition, the processes used to bring staff on board, and a hiring corrective action plan. DHS shall briefthe Committees not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on its strategy to decrease the number of days it takes to hire new employees. As part of this briefing, DHS shall provide quarterly hiring metrics by component and detail its progress toward monthly metrics reporting. Further, the briefing shall address progress made to establish reciprocity with other agencies on polygraph examinations and security clearances. CBP shall continue monthly reporting of hiring gains and attrition losses.
Office of the Chief Security Officer
A total of $63,102,000 is provided for the Office of the Chief Security Officer, to include an increase of$1,379,000 for recurring security needs at the Nebraska Avenue Complex.
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer
A total of$98,076,000 is made available for the Office of the ChiefProcurement Officer, to include a reduction of $3,347,000 based on an updated hiring projection.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
A total of$53,700,000 is provided for the Office of the ChiefFinancial Officer (OCFO). DHS is directed to retain its Appropriations Liaison Office as part of OCFO.
8

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 76 of 187
The Department shall continue submitting obligation plans to the Committees on a quarterly basis, with the first plan due within 45 days of enactment of this Act. These plans shaH be consistent with direction provided in the explanatory statement accompanying Public Law 114-113, which required comparisons of planned and actual obligations, by PPA, of all salaries and benefits funding.
At congressional direction, DHS plans to improve the clarity and completeness of budget justification materials, particularly for procurement accounts. Clarity and completeness is equally important for Operations and Support accounts, given the size of many of these appropriations and the flexibility DHS currently has to move funds among PPAs. Therefore, in future budget justification materials, DHS is directed to include a breakout of each account by cost driver, including cost drivers for any proposed programmatic changes. Additionally, the materials must clearly justify any changes in cost driver assumptions from the prior fiscal year to the budget year.
Funding provided in this Act shall be obligated in accordance with Section 2.0 of Chapter 2 of the Department of Homeland Security Financial Management Policy Manual, dated October 1, 2016, entitled "DHS Appropriations Structure." The Department is directed to notify the Committees regarding any substantive revisions to this manual.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
A total of$286,074,000 is provided for the Office ofthe Chieflnformation Officer, to inelude reductions of $8,002,000 based on an updated hiring projection and $2,100,000 to Legacy Information Technology Services.
PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A total of$18,839,000 is provided for the Management Directorate for procurement, construction, and improvements.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
A total of $2,500,000 is provided for the Management Directorate for research and development.
9

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 77 of 187
INTELLIGENCE, ANALYSIS, AND OPERATIONS COORDINATION
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$263,551,000 is provided for Intelligence, Analysis, and Operations Coordination, ofwhich $106,115,000 is available until September 30, 2018.
Within the amount, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) is directed to implement the Document and Media Exploitation program and to build an Analytic Innovation Cell. Both programs will provide actionable intelligence to DHS's front line, enabling capabilities ranging from the identification of fraudulent passports to the exploitation of information that disrupts transnational criminal organizations. I&A is commended for prioritizing its budget requirements to support DHS's operational components.
As directed by the Senate, I&A is directed to assess the level of effort it provides to support the Department's critical border security mission.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$175,000,000 is provided for the Office oflnspector General (OIG). The agreement does not include a proposed $24,000,000 transfer to the OIG from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster ReliefFund (DRF). Instead, the OIG is directed to allocate not less than $20,856,000 to disaster-related investigations and audits. Additionally, the recommendation includes a decrease of$3,000,000 from the request based on updated hiring projections.
10

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 78 of 187

TITLE !-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

Section 101. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued requiring the Secretary to submit the Future Years Homeland Security Program at the time ofthe President's budget proposai for fiscal year 2018.

Section 102. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified requiring the Chief Financial Officer to submit monthly budget execution and staffing reports within 30 days after the last day of each month.

Section 103. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued requiring the

Inspector General to review grants and contracts awarded by means other than full and open

competition and report the results to the Committees

~

Section 104. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued directing the Secretary to require contracts providing award fees to link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.

Section 105. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued requiring the Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury, to notify the Committees of any proposed transfers from the Department ofTreasury Forfeiture Fund to any agency at DHS. No funds may be obligated prior to such notification.

Section 106. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued related to the official travel costs ofthe Department's Secretary and Deputy Secretary.

Section 107. A provision proposed by the Senate is continued and modified requiring the Secretary to submit a report on visa overstay data and to post border security metrics on the Department' s website. The House proposed no similar provision.

Section 108. A new provision is included requiring the Secretary to certify whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is administering and executing its Enforcement and Removal Operations activities consistent with available budgetary authority.

11

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 79 of 187

TITLE II-SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

A total of$10,900,636,000 is provided for Operations and Support, ofwhiclf

e..

$681,441 ,500 is made available for two years to provide flexibility in the year of execution. The

total includes increases of $3,000,000 for the Border Security Deployment Program; $4,000,000

for small unmanned aerial systems (UAS); and $15,000,000 for UAS fleet upgrades. Reductions

to the request include: $236,430,000 due to the deniai of the requested transfer of the Office of

Biometrie Identity Management (OBIM) into CBP; and to support a realistic number ofFTE,

$200,633,000 from pay and benefits and $10,000,000 for non-pay and benefit funding.

The bill reduces funding for staffing by $200,633,000 based on technical assistance

provided by CBP in March of2017 indicating it would hire 3,000 fewer sta:ffthan originally

projected. Analysis of this revised hiring projection, however, indicates a further problem with

CBP's funding estimates for personnel, because a reduction of 3,000 personnel should translate

into savings of at least $450,000,000. CBP is directed to provide greater details underlying its

personnel costs and FTE model in the fiscal year 2018 request, and to revise its hiring

projections at least quarterly to ensure the Committees have timely, accurate projections while

formulating the funding levels for CBP's fiscal year 2018 appropriations.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Border Security Operations U.S. Border Patrol Operations Assets and Support Office of Training and Development Subtotal, Border Security Operations

Budget Estimate

Final Bill

$3,760,054,000 492,508,000 56,819,000
$4,309,381,000

$3,681,084,000
486,508,000 54,221,000
{1t 1-4,221,813,000

Trade and Travel Operations Office of Field Operations Domestic Operations International Operations Targeting Operations

2,886,008,000 126,225,000 131,941,000

2, 734,840,000 131,425,000 149,773,000

12

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 80 of 187

Assets and Support Office of Trade Office of Training and Development
Subtotal, Trade and Travel Operations
Integrated Operations Air and Marine Operations Operations Assets and Support Air and Marine Operations Center Office of International Affairs Office of Intelligence Office of Training and Development Operations Support Subtotal, Integrated Operations
Mission Support Enterprise Services (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) Office of Professional Responsibility Executive Leadership and Oversight Subtotal, Mission Support
Total, Operations and Support (by Discretionary Appropriation) (by Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

1,001,815,000 196,997,000 49,929,000
$4,392,915,000

832,367,000 192,330,000 50,354,000
[$ 4,091,089,000
1'

301,908,000 484,704,000
37,133,000 35,018,000 66,566,000
5,807,000 93,080,000 $1,024,216,000

266,764,000 507' 704,000
45,138,000 36,513,000 58,492,000
5,807,000 93,259,000
[$ 11,013,677,000

1,336,054,000 (3,274,000) 180,583,000 97,809,000
$1,614,446,000

1,312,986,000 (3,274,000) 167,163,000 93,908,000
-{4t ~ 1,574,057,000

$11,340,958,000 (11,337,684,000)
(3,274,000)

~,900,636,000 -{~
(1 0,897,362,000) (3,274,000)

Border Security Operations

. . r:, Although the agreement does not include a provision from prior years mandating a
workforce floor for Border Patrol Agents (BPA), CBP is directed to continue working to ?~v;-e~lo_rP ~
a fully justified workforce staffing model that will provide validated requirements for ali ~, i·

borders and to brief the Committees on its progress in this regard not later than 30 days after the

-

date of enactment of this Act.

Prior to completion of a BPA workforce staffing model, CBP is directed to maintain a

minimum staffing presence of2,212 agents along the northem border, and is expected to increase

that number as warranted by ongoing assessments of risk.

13

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 81 of 187

Within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP shall briefthe Committees on actions taken to track the costs and measure the effectiveness of consequence delivery systems. In addition, CBP and the Science and Technology Directorate shalljointly briefthe Committees on requirements and a concept of operations for small UAS, as directed in the House report.

Trade and Travel Operations

As directed in the House report, CBP shall provide a detailed expenditure plan for

biometrie exit activities within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act. To the extent

practicable, the plan should outline how innovative technology and effective collaboration with

airports and airlines will minimize the need for additional CBP staffing.

Within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP shall provide an updated

resource allocation model for the Office of Field Operations detailing specifie staffing, overtime,

hours of operation, and funding for and implementation of planned enforcement initiatives,

delineated by field office.

As directed in the House and Senate reports, CBP shall provide a multi-year investment

plan for Non-Intrusive Inspection equipment with the fiscal year 2019 budget.

CBP recently implemented its Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) before securing

authority from Congress to impose fees that would cover its costs. As a result, U.S. taxpayers
re. are left to foot a bill of$27,800,000 for activities that are more appropriately bo~by visitors to

the United States who use the system. The Committees caution that providing appropriated

L

resources for a program benefitting a selected group oftravelers is not sustainable. CBP shall

provide monthly updates on its efforts to secure statutory authority for fee collections.

Integrated Operations

An increase of$15,000,000 above the request is provided to upgrade the UAS fleet to a single configuration. CBP is directed to use any contract savings associated with the UAS reconfiguration to implement high-priority improvements to UAS operations. CBP is also directed to utilize any contract savings from other programs for the deployment, operation, and maintenance of modem DoD-Reuse aerostats to help modernize and enhance surveillance capability, including increased maritime domain awareness of the littoral borders and the integration of data from deployed aerostats into the Air and Marine Operations Center network for analysis and information sharing. An increase of $8,000,000 above the request is provided for facilities improvements, buildout, and other enhancements necessary to ensure continuity of UAS training programs.

14

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 82 of 187

Mission Support

In the fiscal year 2018 request, CBP is directed to detail all of the costs associated with operating Enterprise Services, including all staffing and administrative support, planned contract awards, and efficiencies realized by establishing this new organizational unit.
CBP is directed to provide quarterly briefings on progress in implementing each ofthe 39 recommendations made by the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel, as detailed in the Senate report, and on the status of implementing other recommendations on the use of force and employee misconduct, as described in the House report.
CBP continues to struggle in hiring and retaining funded levels of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers, particularly at remote locations along the northem and southem borders. CBP is directed to work with the Office of Personnel Management as necessary to identify and utilize incentives to improve retention in hard to filllocations and to evaluate the potential impact of offering additional career path enhancements to personnel who choose those locations. CBP is encouraged to work with community, local, and tribal colleges to assist with recruitment efforts. In addition, CBP should continue collaborating with DOD, as required by the Border Jobs for Veterans Act (Public Law 114--68), to facilitate the recruitment of personnel exiting the military.
Within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP shall brief the Committees on a comprehensive recruitment and retention strategy, including an assessment of options to address agency human capital requirements. In addition, CBP is directed to include the most critical components of this strategy in the~20 18 budget request, and to continue providing monthly data to the Committees on frontline staffing levels.
CBP continues performing capabilities gap (C-GAP) analyses, and more than one year a:fter inquiries on how the analyses fit together, has not articulated how CBP leadership will use the reviews to improve CBP and DHS-wide collaboration and coordination. Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP shall brief the Committees on coordination and results of the requirements analysis process, as detailed in the Senate report.
CBP's finalization of the Single Window streamlined certain manual and automated processes, but more work remains to ensure that industry and Partner Govemment Agencies communicate efficiently and effectively. Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, CBP shall brief the Committees on the prioritization of development efforts, as weil as estimated timelines and costs for refining the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). CBP is directed to ensure that the rescission of prior year funding fer JC.ghncluded in this Act does not impact the development or operation and maintenance of ACE.

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

A total of$273,617,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements.

The bill includes increases of$15,941,000 for an additional multii?le enforcement aircraft,

[-

$31 ,500,000 for additionallight enforcement helicopters, and $43,459,000, as requested, for

15

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 83 of 187

continued deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers, including replacement of SBinet Block 1. The bill also includes the following reductions to the request: $11,000,000 from Non-Intrusive Inspection equipment due to planned carryover offunds into fiscal year 2018; $19,000,000 associated with a proposed construction project for which insufficient funds were requested; and $56,507,000 due to the deniai ofthe request to transfer OBIM from NPPD to CBP.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Border Security Assets and Infrastructure Trade and Travel Assets and Infrastructure Integrated Operations Assets and Infrastructure Airframes and Sensors Construction and Facility Improvements Mission Support Assets and Infrastructure Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$45,942,000 130,349,000

$45,942,000 60,842,000

68,617,000 39,775,000 38,707,000

116,058,000 20,775,000 30,000,000

$323,390,000 $273,617,000

16

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 84 of 187
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of $6,168,532,000 is provided for Operations and Support. ICE is directed to brief the Committees on its obligation plan for the use of these funds, as specified under title I of this statement.
ICE continues to struggle with financial management across the agency. The underlying problems stem, in large part, from the limited authority and organizational placement of the ICE ChiefFinancial Officer (CFO) position, which is subordinated to the Executive Associate Directors of the operational units- Homeland Security Investigations and ERO.
The Director ofiCE hasan inherent fiduciary responsibility to ensure that funding provided by taxpayers to the agency is executed in the most efficient and effective manner possible. As the senior resource manager, the CFO has a vital role as a neutra! advisor to the Director on financial management issues. Unless the CFO reports directly to the Director, that individual is not positioned to provide the Director with unfiltered financial information, provide advance warning of concems, or recommend resource-conscious alternatives. In essence, this lack of information denies the Director full knowledge of resource issues and the ability to make sound decisions based on ali relevant information. The Director ofiCE is strongly urged to elevate the position of CFO within the organization and to expand the CFO's responsibilities to include agency-wide resource management activities and funds control.
Financial management weaknesses have been a particular problem within ERO, as discussed below under the Custody Operations heading. The lack of fiscal discipline and cavalier management of funding for detention operations, evidenced by inaccurate budget formulation and uneven execution, seems to be the result of a perception that ERO is funded by an indefinite appropriation. This belief is incorrect. ICE has a duty and responsibility to the Department, the Congress, and to taxpayers to be forthright in the identification of its requirements and the proper execution of its funding. It must manage-to-budget and cannot operate under the false perception that Congress will provide a bailout if financial controls fail or are simply ignored.
To begin to address these concems, a provision in this Act requires the Secretary or the DHS CFO to certify to the Committees on a monthly basis whether ERO is operating consistently with the annual funding levels provided in this Act. The first certification will occur not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Another obstacle to sound financial management at ICE has been its approach to paying for service-wide costs (SWC), such as rent, overtime, utilities, and security. Instead ofbudgeting transparent!y for these costs, ICE has historically relied on post-enactment assessments against the appropriations of agency components and programs to support them. Burying SWC in mission budgets makes oversight by ICE leadership and Congress significantly more difficult, leading to unchecked cost growth. In Custody Operations, for instance, SWC funding within the
17

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 85 of 187

bed rate grew by 40 percent between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 20 16; it is estimated to increase by another 33 percent in fiscal year 2017.
OMB Circular A-76 sets a standard of 12 percent as the estimated federal agency overhead factor. Given that ICE also budgets for these types of costs in its Mission Support PPA, it is likely that the agency's overhead total significantly exceeds the OMB standard. For the fiscal year 2018 budget, ICE is directed to provide separate budget estimates and detailed justifications for SWC in appropriate Mission Support sub-PPAs or through one or more new SWCPPAs.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Homeland Security Investigations Domestic Investigations International Investigations Intelligence Subtotal, Homeland Security Investigations

Budget Estimate
$1,892,183,000 146,751,000 81,996,000
$2,120,930,000

Final Bill
$1,834,017,000 159,035,000 80,141,000
$2,073,193,000

Enforcement and Removal Operations Custody Operations Fugitive Operations Criminal Alien Program Alternatives to Detention Transportation and Removal Program

$2,178,963,000 133,133,000 347,455,000 125,966,000 322,694,000

$2,557,542,000 151,795,000 312,350,000 125,883,000 324,236,000

Subtotal, Enforcement and Removal Operations Mission Support Office of Principal Legal Advisor Subtotal, Operations and Support

$3,108,211,000 $364,489,000 $268,393,000
$5,862,023,000

$3,471,806,000 $364,533,000 $259,000,000
$6,168,532,000

18

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 86 of 187

Homeland Security Investigations

Domestic Investigations. A total of $1 ,834,017,000 is provided for Domestic

Investigations to support activities outlined in the House and Senate reports. ICE is directed to

maintain increased levels of effort for ail high-priority mission areas, including overstay

enforcement and efforts to combat human trafficking and child exploitation, as detailed in the

statement accompanying Public Law 114-113.

Not less than $305,000 is to promote public awareness of the child pomography tip line

and for activities to counter child exploitation, and not less than $15,770,000 is for investigations

of forced labor law violations, to include forced child labor. ICE is directed to submit an annual

report on expenditures and performance metrics associated with forced labor law enforcement

activities.

Of the total amount provided, $10,000,000 is for continuing expanded overstay

enforcement investigations and investigative support. ICE is èxpected to target such investigations on individuals who pose a risk to the public, and shall brief the Committees on the proposed use of these funds and on its overall overstay enforcement efforts, including it:support

ô

ofDepartment-wide activities as described in Senate Report 114-264, within 60 days of

-fV\e_ f

enactment of this Act.

d:rk 0 1

In addition, not less than $10,000,000 is for expanding investigations into severe forms of

human trafficking and against suspected human traffickers.

Within the total for Domestic Investigations, $5,000,000 is provided above the request to

fully fund ICE's implementation oflntemational Megan's Law, including the Angel Watch

Center. In addition, $3,000,000 above the request is provided for enhancements at the Child

Exploitation Investigations Uni~t the Cyber Crimes Center, including $2,000,000 for the Child

Victim Identification Section and $1,000,000 for CEIU operations.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was launched in 2002

to mitigate critical vulnerabilities exploited by the 9/11 hijackers. ICE is urged to make use of

the full $171,000,000 in anticipated fee revenue for SEVIS, $26,000,000 more than the estimate

included in the budget request, to expedite system development and dedicate additional

investigative hours to ensuring that students who fail to comply with the terms of their visas face

appropriate consequences.

International Investigations. A total of$159,035,000 is provided for International

Investigations, including $18,000,000 above the request for the Visa Security Program to

annualize the costs of the previously funded program expansion and for expansion to additional

high priority locations. ICE is directed to use the risk-based methodologies and enforcement

metrics outlined in the Senate report to continue to plan and budget for Visa Security Program

expansion to at least two high-threat locations per year in future budget requests. Efforts to

combat the smuggling and trafficking of children from Central America shall be continued in

fiscal year 2017 at not less than the fiscal year 2016 level.

19

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 87 of 187

ICE shaH allocate not less than $5,300,000 for war crime investigations, including but not limited to training, transportation, and hiring additional personnel at the OPLA Human Rights Law Section and the HSI Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit.

Enforcement and Removal Operations

A total of$3,471,806,000 is provided for Enforcement and Removal Operations.

ICE's sex offender notifications are not consistently reaching the appropriate law

enforcement agencies, despite prior direction from the Senate to remediate this problem. The

agreement includes an additional $2,000,000 to enhance and augment current efforts to apprise

local law enforcement agencies of offender releases. This funding shall be used for contracts

with entities to notify the appropriate local law enforcement agencies in real,Âime based on an

address given by offenders upon their release from ICE. Notifications should include specifie

crime code information so that they can be properly handled and received by the assigned

personnel within the local law enforcement agencies.

Custody Operations. A total of$2,557,542,000 is provided for Custody Operations, an

increase of$378,579,000 over the requested amount. This additional funding reflects the surge

in the number of aliens placed into removal proceedings and detention a:fter crossing our

southem border during the first quarter of fiscal year 201 7.

Even without the increased flow of aliens into the country, ICE's fiscal year 2017 budget

request negligently and knowingly used a flawed projection of the Average Daily Population

(ADP) based on a seasonally low data point, despite knowing full well that historical trends

supported a higher annual detention bed requirement. Further, the daily bed rate used to calculate

the funding requirement for family detention was almost half of the actual rate because ICE

assumed substantial but unrealistic savings that were not based on a validated cost estimation

methodology.

For the past severa! years, the agency's forecast for the required number of detention

beds and its cost estimates have resulted in budget requests that missed the mark by wide

p (

C().J) margins. In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, ICE reprogrammed a combined total of$83.millioJout

l

J

000 00 >

0

ofCustody Operations because of a lower than planned ADP, only to reprogram $127-m:illion e ~into Custody Operations in fiscal year 2016 because the estimated number ofbeds needed

1Daù

and the average daily cost used in the budget request were grossly insufficient.

Accurately formulating the budget request for detention beds depends on two key

variables- the cost per bed and the number ofbeds needed, as determined by the ADP. While

ICE has the tools to develop reliable and detailed cost estimates for detention beds, it does not

consistently use those tools in the formulation of the budget request. Even with more accurate

estimates ofbed rates, however, ICE simply has no model for estimating ADP. While there are

factors beyond ICE's control that affect the size of the ADP in detention, such as the number of

apprehensions by CBP, a model better informed by historical averages and seasonal trends would

be a more prudent approach for forecasting the number of beds needed in the next fiscal year.

20

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 88 of 187

It is apparent that additional oversight and audit work in this area is needed. Therefore,

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to review ICE's current methodologies

for determining detention resource requirements, including its approach to estimating the ADP

requirement; evaluate ICE's efforts to improve the accuracy ofits cost estimates and projections;

and report to the Committees within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act on GAO's

conclusions, including any appropriate recommendations.

To ensure costs are estimated using sound methodology, in the fiscal year 2018
r·· Congressional Budget Justification, ICE shall fully detail the methodology used to determine the o;,çeo... bed rate, including the bed model output costs assumed for each ~and facility type. All · -e.J.. te.r""'bi,\j changes in the various cost categories must be fully explained, rather than generally justified as

an increase in the bed rate. The inclusion of indirect, service-wide costs into the calculation for

beds obscures the actual cost for detention beds and allows ICE to increase overhead costs

without identifying the true nature of the increase. Therefore, ICE shall no longer include

indirect costs in the calculation for detention beds.

ICE must also improve its contracting process for detention beds. The agency has

approximately 400 contracts with more than 200 detention facilities, each having varying

services, costs, terms, and conditions. While contracts for detention beds are negotiated by the

Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ), the Field Offices notify OAQ when more beds are

needed and are responsible for reviewing vendor invoices for accuracy before submitting them

for payment. However, there is neither a standard template for contracts nor a consistent method

--l'th for Field Offices to validate invoices. ICE is directed to brief the Committees on actions it has

1 te

taken to improve this process not later than 30 days after)...enactment of this Act.

L ;j a

Also within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, ICE

shall provide an update on its oversight of adult and family detention facilities. These updates

shall include information on the number of detention facility inspections conducted, detailed

results of the inspections, and the estimated costs of such reviews. Additionally, updates on

family facilities are to incorporate recommendations for improvements made by the Advisory

Committee on Family Residential Centers or as a result ofiCE's community liaison office.

Within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, ICE shall report on its progress in

implementing the 2011 Prisee:'Based National Detention Standards, iiicluding the 2016 ievlSlons,

and requirements related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, as detailed in the House report.

Fugitive Operations. A total of $151,795,000 is provided for Fugitive Operations. ICE

is directed to continue support for Mobile Criminal Alien Teams and to target individuals who

pose a threat to the public, as described in the Senate report.

Criminal Alien Program. A total of$312,350,000 is provided for the Criminal Alien

Program, including support for 287(g) memoranda of agreement and $34,500,000 for resources and full-time law enforcement personnel at the Law Enforcement Support Cente . As discussed

(LES-C)

in the Senate report, ICE shall avoid duplicating LESC activities in other parts of the country.

While ICE has expanded its enforcement priorities, it is expected that the agency will continue to

21

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 89 of 187

emphasize the apprehension and removal of individuals posing the greatest threat to the safety

and security of communities.

Section 10 of Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior ofthe
/f('J United States, directed the Secretary t~ te.~inate t~e Priority Enf~~(;_€?~€?11! Pr~wam (PEP) and -~---·
reinstate the Secure CommunitiesYfogram. The essential distinction between the two programs ~

is the manner in which ICE seeks the transfer of individuals into its custody from local law

enforcement agencies (LEA). Under Secure Communities, ICE issues detainers to LEAs,

requesting that they maintain custody of individuals identified by ICE as enforcement priorities

for up to 48 hours beyond the time the individuals would otherwise be released. Under PEP, ICE

primarily issued requests that law enforcement agencies notify ICE prior to when such

individuals would normally be released, although detainers were still issued under sorne

circumstances.

In 2016, ICE reported that PEP's notification alternative was effective in eliciting

cooperation from mostjurisdictions that, by 2015, had stopped honoring ICE detainers. Before

Secure Communities was replaced by PEP, 377 jurisdictions refused to comply with sorne or ali

ICE detainers. By the end of2016, 280 ofthose jurisdictions (74 percent) had reestablished sorne

level of cooperation with ICE by responding to requests for notification, honoring detainers, or

both, including 21 out of the largest 25 suchjurisdictions. ICE should ensure that the

reinstatement of the Secure Communities program does not undermine the progress it made

through PEP in 2015 and 2016. Specifically, ICE should continue to work with LEAs that are

willing to notify ICE prior to releasing individuals who are enforcement priorities. To the extent

that notifications from LEAs have not always provided ICE with enough advance warning to

take custody of criminal aliens, ICE should continue working with LEAs to ensure that

notifications are made in a more timely fashion.

Within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter, ICE shall

provide a report to the Committees on the number of detention requests issued and actual

custody transfers to ICE by state and local law enforcement jurisdiction, criminal category,

immigration status, gender, country of citizenship, and enforcement priority. ln addition, the

report shall detail the same information for criminal aliens released by non-participating

jurisdictions, and should describe ICE's efforts to solicit the cooperation of suchjurisdictions.

"1lts Gemmitt~~s l:lBèsfSofft.ftti tftat ICE is actively planning to expand participation in the

287(g) program to severa! jurisdictions. Astate or local law enforcement entity selected for the

program receives specialized training in immigration law and other topics at the Federal Law

-"'

Enforcement Training Cente and enters into a joint Memorandum of Agreement'fMOA}lwith

ICE in order to receive delegate authority to enforce immigration laws within their

jurisdictions. Upon arrest of a suspect, the local law enforcement partner enters identifying

information into both criminal and immigration databases during booking. Historically, this

approach, used in penitentiaries, jails, or other dentition facilities, has proven effective in

identifying and removing criminal aliens while reducing allegations of racial profiling more

common in the task force model. The specifie funding level provided for the program has been

22

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 90 of 187

eliminated from the bill, as the level was outdated and did not reflect the current, let alone the proposed, level ofresources dedicated to this program. ICE is directed to briefthe Committees on proposed expansion and metrics used to evaluate participation within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act.
Alternatives to Detention. A total of$125,883,000 is provided for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program. ICE shall prioritize ATD participation for vulnerable populations, including families, as appropriate.
Transportation and Removal Program. A total of $324,236,000 is provided for the Transportation and Removal Program, an increase of$1,542,000 above the amount requested.
Mission Support
A total of $364,533,000 is provided for Mission Support. Within the total, $82,000,000 is for the Office of Professional Responsibility and $6,000,000 is provided to develop and execute a comprehensive plan for immigration data improvement, as detailed in the Senate report. To ensure high-level engagement in support ofthis critical endeavor, the Act withholds $25,000,000 from obligation under ICE's Operations and Support account until the Director submits a comprehensive plan to the Committees.
PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A total of$29,800,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. Within the total, $16,000,000 is for TECS Modemization, a funding level in line with projected fiscal year 2017 obligations. ICE is directed to briefthe Committees on the development of this system as specified in the Committee reports.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Operational Communications/Information Technology Construction and Facility Improvements Mission Support Assets and Infrastructure Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

Budget Estimate
$21,000,000 7,000,000
22,230,000
$50,230,000

Final Bill $16,000,000
13,800,000 $29,800,000

23

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 91 of 187

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$7,105,047,000 is provided for Operations and Support, an amount that is partially offset by $2,130,000,000 in estimated aviation security fee collections that are credited to this appropriation, as authorized, resulting in a net appropriation of$4,975,047,000. In addition, a mandatory appropriation totaling $250,000,000 is available through the Aviation Security Capital Fund.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Aviation Screening Operations Screening Workforce Screening Partnership Program Screener Personnel, Compensation, and Benefits Screener Training and Other Airport Management Canines Screening Technology Maintenance Secure Flight Subtotal, Aviation Screening Operations

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$170,382,000 $177,982,000 3,045,941,000 3,221,124,000

235,668,000 239,119,000

572,564,000 131,391,000

572,967,000 153,969,000

284,834,000 101,721,000

284,834,000 101,721,000

$4,542,501,000 $4,751,716,000

Other Operations and Enforcement Inflight Security Federal Air Marshals Federal Flight Deck Officer and Crew Training Aviation Regulation Air Cargo Intelligence and TSOC Surface Programs Vetting Programs Subtotal, Other Operations and Enforcement

$815,313,000 $802,953,000

19,773,000

22,273,000

218,296,000 218,296,000

95,692,000

94,682,000

83,520,000

80,820,000

122,716,000 122,716,000

65,751,000

65,751,000

$1,421,061,000 $1,407,491,000

Mission Support

$951,375,000 $945,840,000
24

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 92 of 187

Subtotal, Operations and Support (gross) Subtotal, Operations and Support (net)

$6,914,937,000 $7,105,047,000 $3,904,937,000 $4,975,047,000

Aviation Screening Operations

A total of$4,751,716,000 is provided for Aviation Screening Operations. In fiscal year 2016, the air travel industry experienced significant growth, resulting in passenger volume at TSA checkpoints that exceeded the capacity supported by the agency's budgeted resources. In response, Congress swiftly approved three requests to reprogram and transfer funds to address immediate staffing needs and other urgent operational requirements to reduce wait times and increase security at TSA checkpoints, including the hiring of additional Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and the procurement of critical screening equipment and canines. The total provided for fiscal year 2017 reflects increases to annualize the costs of these actions and address the continued growth in passenger volume, including: $136,592,000 for an additional1,396 FTE; $38,591,000 for additional overtime and other unanticipated screener costs; $3,451,000 for training for TSOs; $22,528,000 to annualize the cost of 50 additional canine teams and associated requirements; and $4,443,000 for support costs associated with the hiring of new TSOs and canine teams. An increase of$7,600,000 is also provided to fully fund fiscal year 2017 requirements for the Screening Partnership Program. The total also reflects decreases to the request totaling $6,040,000 due to projected under execution of proposed FTE in non-screener programs. As directed in the House and Senate reports, TSA shall brief the Committees not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act on a comprehensive assessment of operational requirements to improve the security and efficiency of passenger and baggage screening, including long-term efforts and contingency plans to predict and respond to changing passenger volumes without compromising security. TSA is directed to brief the Committees on its canine requirements and future plans for expanding the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. TSA shall consider passenger volume and risk assessments when determining the deployment of the 50 new canine teams and the re-deployment of existing teams. In lieu of the funding and direction in the House and Senate reports, the bill includes $3,400,000 to establish a program whereby third parties can perform air cargo screening services using canines. TSA shall work with the air cargo industry and canine providers, as well as any relevant law enforcement organizations to identify initial locations for implementing the program. Based on lessons leamed at the initial sites, TSA shall work with stakeholders to outline minimum criteria for future entrance to the program. The criteria should consider the potential benefits ofusing third-party canine teams in the air cargo environment. Further, in assessing the right model for canine team certification, TSA shall ensure that costs to taxpayers are minimized and that scalability to meet industry demand is maximized. TSA is directed to

25

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 93 of 187
brief the Committees not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on a timeline for implementation of the program.
Sufficient funds are included to support TSA's training activities at the Glynco Campus of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, which now provides a basic training program for ali new screeners. Before TSA moves forward with permanent investments in the campus related to this training, it must develop a business case to justify the cost of such training, including metrics related to increased TSO performance, improved morale, and better managed attrition. Further, TSA must assess the appropriate timing in a screener's onboarding process for such basic training to occur. TSA shall briefthe Committees within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the business case.
In lieu of the direction in the Senate report, TSA shall implementa pilot program for airports that procure, install, and operate exit lane breach control (ELBC) systems on a nonreimbursable basis that, for the duration of the pilot, reallocates any resulting FTE savings to address screening capacity challenges at the same airport where the exit lane pilot is being conducted. The reallocated personnel shall be in addition to existing screening staff assigned to the airport checkpoint prior to the deployment ofELBC technology. The procurement ofELBC systems shall be consistent with TSA's Airport Exit Lane toolbox and exit lane security guidelines, including technologies in use at airports today.
Other Operations and Enforcement
A total of$1,407,491,000 is provided for Other Operations and Enforcement. Within the total are decreases totaling $21,130,000 due to projected under execution ofproposed FTE. Also within the total is an increase of $2,500,000 for the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) and Flight Crew Training Program, including $2,000,000 to ensure training slots are available to interested pilots and $500,000 to conduct an analysis of training facility requirements for the FFDO Program.
TSA has convened appropriate stakeholders to initiate a national partnership framework for public area security in airports. This effort is overdue, given long-acknowledged threats and tragic incidents in the U.S. and around the globe, and stakeholders should be commended for their active participation. TSA shall briefthe Committees within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act on its progress in establishing principles and developing the framework.
Mission Support
A total of $945,840,000 is provided for Mission Support, which accounts for the annualized support costs associated with the hiring and training of additional TSOs and canine teams, as weil as the projected under execution ofproposed FTE and other administrative savings.
26

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 94 of 187

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

A total of$206,093,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements (PC&I).
Under the new DHS appropriations structure, ali components are expected to use common, standardized appropriations and PPAs to fund activities and other spending items that are based on a consistent definition. As defined in the DHS Financial Policy Manual, the PC&I appropriation is intended to fund the "costs associated with buying, building, or improving end items- tools, assets, systems, and facilities- prior to sustainment." However, TSA's proposed fiscal year 2017 PC&I budget included numerous spending items that are not appropriately funded within this appropriation. TSA is directed to adhere to the guidance in the DHS Financial Policy Manual in its fiscal year 2018 budget request.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Aviation Screening Infrastructure Checkpoint Support Checked Baggage Infrastructure for Other Operations Air Cargo Surface Programs Vetting Programs Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$111,079,000 59,331,000

$111,079,000 59,331,000

14,383,000 15,000,000 6,300,000
$206,093,000

14,383,000 15,000,000 6,300,000
$206,093,000

Aviation Screening Infrastructure

A total of $170,410,000 is provided for Aviation Screening Infrastructure. TSA is directed to brief the Committees not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the progress ofthe Innovation Task Force and the status of any pilot programs.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A total of$5,000,000 is provided for Research and Development.

27

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 95 of 187

COASTÜUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

A total of$7,079,628,000 is provided for Operating Expenses, including $502,692,000

for defense activities, of which $162,692,000 is designated for overseas contingency operations

(OCO) and the global war on terrorism (GWOT), which may be allocated without regard to

section 503 in title V of this Act.

Included in the total is $4,490,000 to increase the staffing of the Coast Guard's Cyber

Command and to establish a Cyber Protection Team to enhance the Coast Guard's cyber

capabilities. Not later than 90 days a:fter the date of enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard shall

briefthe Committees on plans, includingjunding strategy, fo..:_improving the c:>::bersec?fÏty

posture of the Coast Guard and balancing requirements of operating within the ".mil" domain

while adhering to DHS cyber directives.

The Coast Guard is directed to submit to the Committees a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2018 through 2022 by June 30,2017.
The Coast Guard is directed to move quickly in approving additional-tr1N-P1~ work with the Environmental Protection Agency to reexamine whether the most probable number method can be used as an alternative for testing the effectiveness of treatment systems. The Coast Guard is further directed to briefthe Committees on the status ofits BWMS testing

bQ \lo,d
wo.+ef
rttOiîqjeme(\+
<>A\Jerns
(~WMS)

efforts as set forth in the House report.

e__

Within the amount a ro riated for 0 erating Expenses, a total of$6,000,000/is
included to initiate fishing safety grant programs, as authorized by the Coast Guard · .. • ·· ·-~

Authorization Act of2010. This amount is offset by savings derived from lower than expected

fuel costs.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit

to the Committees a report on the Coast Guard's plans to ensure long-term search and rescue

coverage for the Arctic. This report shall also address the Coast Guard's capability for

conducting response missions throughout the Western Alaska Captain of the Port Zone,

including the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. The report shall provide details on pollution

response equipment; spill response organizations; spill prevention and mitigation methods; and

response partnerships with federal, state, and local entities.

Within the total for Operating Expenses, an additional $4,750,000 is provided for the

procurement of small response boats in fiscal year 201 7. This amount is offset by savings

derived from lower than expected fuel costs. In addition, long-standing language is included in

the bill authorizing the use of up to $31,000,000 from the Operating Expenses appropriation for

certain small boat purchases and repairs.

Within the amount appropriated for Operating Expenses, $5,000,000 is included for the

National Coast Guard Museum, subject to the limitations specified in 98(b) oftitle 14, United

States Code.

28

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 96 of 187

The Coast Guard Yard, located at Curtis Bay, Maryland, directly supports fleet readiness and has been a vital part ofthe Coast Guard's readiness and infrastructure for more than 100 years. Sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to maintain this capability.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operating Expenses Military Pay and Allowances
Civilian Pay and Benefits Training and Recruiting Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance Centrally Managed Accounts Intermediate and Depot Level Maintenance Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
Subtotal, Operating Expenses (Defense, less OCO)

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$3,597,319,000 $3,544,111,000

817,324,000 198,605,000

808,969,000 196,346,000

996,204,000 995,519,000

329,099,000 328,746,000

1,048,264,000 1,043,245,000

162,692,000 $6,986,815,000 $7,079,628,000
(340,000,000) (340,000,000)

Military Pay and Allowances. A total of$3,544,111,000 is provided for Military Pay and Allowances. The funded level reflects $53,208,000 in savings resulting from a more realistic recruiting and retention level for the fiscal year.
Civilian Pay and Benefits. A total of$808,969,000 is provided for Civilian Pay and Benefits, including $8,355,000 in adjustments reflecting a more realistic hiring and attrition level for the fiscal year. The total includes $788,000 for additional personnel needed to implement the Blended Retirement System.
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism Funding. Funding for Coast Guard OCO/GWOT activities is provided directly through the Operating Expenses appropriation instead ofthrough the Navy's Operation and Maintenance account. The Coast Guard is directed to briefthe Committees not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act on any changes expected in the funding requirement for OCO/GWOT activities during fiscal year 2017. Further, the Coast Guard is directed to include details of its current and future support to Central Command in the classified annex of the fiscal year 2018 budget request.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION
A total of$13,315,000 is provided for Environmental Compliance and Restoration.

29

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 97 of 187

RESERVE TRAINING
A total of$112,302,000 is provided for Reserve Training.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

A total of$1,370,007,000 is provided for Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements Vessels Survey and Design - Vesse! and Boats In-Service Vessel Sustainment National Security Cutter Offshore Patrol Cutter Fast Response Cutter Cutter Boats Polar lee Breaking Vessel Subtotal, Vessels

Budget Estimate

Final Bill

$6,500,000 79,000,000 127,000,000 100,000,000 240,000,000
4,000,000 147,600,000 $704,100,000

$9,500,000 94,000,000 255,400,000 75,000,000 325,000,000
4,000,000 25,000,000 $787,900,000

Aire raft HC-144 Conversion/Sustainment HC-271 Conversion/Sustainment HC-130J Acquisition/Conversion/Sustainment HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects Subtotal, Aircraft

25,500,000 130,000,000 20,800,000 25,000,000 $201,300,000

25,500,000 130,000,000 111,800,000 40,000,000 $307,300,000

Other Acquisition Programs

Other Equipment and Systems

8,055,000

8,055,000

Program Oversight and Management

20,000,000

20,000,000

C4ISR

24,300,000

24,300,000

CG- Logistics Information Management System (CG-LIMS)

7,000,000

7,000,000

--------------------------

Subtotal, Other Acquisition Programs

$59,355,000

$59,355,000

30

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 98 of 187

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation: Major Construction; Housing; ATON; and Survey & Design Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure Minor Shore Subtotal, Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation
Personnel and Related Support Costs
Subtotal, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

18,100,000 28,000,000
5,000,000 $51' 100,000
$120,933,000

44,519,000 50,000,000
5,000,000 $99,519,000
$115,933,000

$1 '136,788,000 $1,370,007,000

Vessels

Survey and Design- Vessels and Boats. A total of$9,500,000 is provided in support of

[Cf)

survey and design, including $2,000,000 for initial survey and design work associated with

_..-

acquisition of icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes~s detailed in the Senate eport~j

$1,000,000 for the Inland River Tender fleet.

· --L)

National Security Cutter. A total of $255,400,000 is provided for the National Security

Cutter (NSC) program. The total includes $95,000,000 for procurement of long lead time

materials associated with a tenth National Security Cutter, and $3,400,000 for post-delivery

activities for the ninth NSC. In addition, $30,000,000 is included to support a necessary

Structural Enhancement Dry-dock Availability (SEDA) for the second NSC.

Offshore Patrol Cutter. The policy requiring the Coast Guard to obtain appropriations

for the total acquisition cost of a vessel, including long lead time materials, production costs, and

post-production costs, before a production contract can be awarded has the potential to create

shipbuilding inefficiencies, force delays in the obligation of production funds, and require post-

production funds far in advance of when they will be used. The Office of Management and

Budget is expected to give the Coast Guard the flexibility to acquire vessels, including the

Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC), in the most efficient manner within the guidelines of strict

governance measures.

Fast Response Cutter. A total of$325,000,000 is provided for the Fast Response Cutter

program for the acquisition of six cutters.

Polar lee Breaker. To support the procurement of a heavy ice breaker, $25,000,000 is

provided for a new joint acquisition strategy developed by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy

through a Polar lee Breaking Vessel Integrated Program Office (IPO). These funds are in

addition to $30,000,000 already reprogrammed to this effort in fiscal year 2017. Under the new

strategy, the IPO will obtain detailed industry feedback through trade-off analyses to further

31

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 99 of 187

refine and validate operational requirements. A report on polar icebreaker requirements, preferred design, overall acquisition strategy, and a breakout of funds necessary to support the acquisition shall be submitted to the Committees not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Aircraft

HC-130J Aircraft. An additional $90,000,000 above the request is provided for one fully-missionized HC-130J aircraft.

Shore Facilities

Within the AC&I total, $44,519,000 is for construction of shore facilities, including $10,000,000 for addressing needs on the Unfunded Priorities List and $15,005,000 to begin repairs on facilities damaged by Hurricane Matthew.
The Senate report encouraged the Coast Guard to explore the use of water purification systems free ofbromine. Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the Coast Guard shall briefthe Committees on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of adopting this new type of system.
Major Acquisition Systems Irifi-astructure. A total of $50,000,000 is provided..ftlr Mttjer e....
__.) A:eEtttisitieH s,~tem Infutstftlsi\:lfe, including $22,000,000 to support the Coast Guard's plan to homeport OPCs in the arctic region to replace aging assets.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Evaluatio{~ ~-(IR~~) A total of $36,319,000 is provided for Research, Development, Test, and

The Coast Guard is directed to examine the feasibility, costs, and benefits of conducting

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions in transit zones using long range/ultra-

& long endurance, land based, unmanned aerial systems. Within the total provided for RDT&E,
$18,00?,0?0 is inclu~ed for the Coast Guar~, in collab.oration with ~~toms tmti B~rtler ~··C~

Protectrot\ ftftti tfte geteBee & Teeffitelegy dueeigrat/,'"to perform an analysts of alternatives

~ &T

(AoA) on available systems and mission equipment packages before conducting a proof of

.~

concept demonstration of selected systems. The Coast Guard shall briefthe Committees on its

plans for conducting the AoA and proof of concept within 180 days after the date of enactment

of this Act. Further, the Coast Guard, along with CBP and S&T, shall briefthe Committees on

the results of the demonstration within 90 days following its completion.

32

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 100 of 187

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$1,821,451,000 is provided for Operations and Support, including the following increases above the request: $13,000,000 for additional overtime pay; $28,500,000 for additional agent relocation costs; $8,000,000 for retention efforts; an additional $9,000,000 for the electronic crimes special agent training program; and $6,000,000 for missing and exploited children investigations. The recommendation includes a decrease to the President's budget request of $21,044,000 to fund a realistic and achievable number of FTE. Within the total, $42,966,000 is available until September 30, 2018, to include $6,000,000 for investigations related to missing and exploited children; $5,557,000 for the James J. Rowley Training Center; $8,909,000 for Operational Mission Support; $18,000,000 for protective travel; and $4,500,000 for National Special Security Events (NSSE).
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Budget Estimate

Operations and Support Protective Operations Protection ofPersons and Facilities Protective Countermeasures Protective Intelligence Presidential Campaigns and National Special Security Events Subtotal, Protective Operations

$586,988,000 58,193,000 40,732,000
48,634,000 $734,547,000

Final Bill
$599,759,000 58,193,000 44,490,000 51' 734,000
$754,176,000

Field Operations Domestic and International Field Operations Support for Missing and Exploited Children Investigations Support for Computer Forensics Training
Subtotal, Field Operations
Basic and In-Service Training and Professional Development Mission Support

761,427,000 763,271,000

4,869,000 $766,296,000

6,000,000 13,869,000 $783,140,000

59,575,000 217,574,000

59,507,000 224,628,000

33

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 101 of 187

Subtotal, Operations and Support

$1,777,992,000 $1,821,451,000

The recommendation includes $13,000,000 to implement new overtime payment

authority for agents and officers authorized by Public Law 114-31. Due to the heavy demands of

!:~~~:g~e~it~:n~~s7o;ë:~~ ~~;~~~::ty:;;~~~~;ea:~~;;~~R!1;!~~~:~~:â~~;~~! ~Cf~~~

previous legislative cap on overtime pay. This additional funding supports compensation for overtime, combined with basic pay, up to the annual rate ofbasic pay for level II of the

t.ecYe t lefVl·œ

Executive Schedule. Increases to the request are also included to fully support permanent change of station

(- ~)
--·

requirements and for necessary retention initiatives. The USSS is directed to fully budget for ali

known requirements in future years for these efforts. Congress should not be forced to fund

known requirements purposely omitted from the budget request.

The agreement includes $13,869,000 to enhance current USSS investigative initiatives,

including the Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program and Electronic Crimes Task Force

missions, and basic and advanced computer forensics training. The Secret Service shall provide

periodic briefings to the Committees on the status of investigations and ensure that the associated

funding and personnel resources continue to be identified in future budgets.

The bill sustains the fiscal year 2016 funding level of$2,366,000 for forensic and

investigative support related to missing and exploited children and $6,000,000 for grants related

to investigations of missing and exploited children.

In addition, the bill continues to provide $4,500,000, as requested, to defray costs specifie

to Secret Service execution of its statutory responsibilities to direct the planning and

coordination ofNSSEs. A general provision in the Act prohibits the use of funds to reimburse

any federal department or agency for its participation in an NSSE. The Secret Service is directed

to provide periodic updates to the Committees on NSSEs planned for fiscal year 2017 prior to

and following each event.

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A total of $90,627,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and lmprovement~ [ ""including reductions of $10,000,000 from protection infrastructure and $10,000,000 from · '-----1_..) investments in Information Integration and Technology Transformation programs due to carryover of prior year funds.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

34

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 102 of 187

Procurement, Construction, and lmprovements Protection Assets and Infrastructure Operational Communications/Information Technology Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and lmprovements

Budget Estimate
$47,737,000 62,890,000
$110,627,000

Final Bill
$37,737,000 52,890,000
$90,627,000

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A total of $2,500,000 is provided for Research and Development, as requested.

35

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 103 of 187
TITLE II-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Section 201. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified regarding overtime compensation.
Section 202. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified allowing CBP to sustain or increase operations in Puerto Rico with appropriated funds.
Section 203. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the transfer of aircraft and related equipment out of CBP unless certain conditions are met.
Section 204. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued regarding the availability of COBRA fee revenue.
Section 205. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified allowing CBP access to certain reimbursements for preclearance activities.
Section 206. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued regarding the importation of prescription drugs by an individual for persona! use.
Section 207. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified regarding waivers of the Jones Act.
Section 208. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the collection of new land border fees or the study of the imposition of such fees.
Section 20 A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued allowing the Secretary to reprogram and transfer funds within and into "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement- Operations and Support'' to ensure the detention of aliens prioritized for removal.
Section 210. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use of funds provided under the heading "U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementOperations and Support" for the 287(g) program if the terms of the agreement governing the delegation of authority have been materially violated.
Section 211. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use offunds provided under the heading "U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementOperations and Support" to contract for detention services if the facility receives less than "adequate" ratings in two consecutive performance evaluations.
36

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 104 of 187

Section 212. A provision proposed by the Senate is included requiring the Secretary to submit a plan for immigration data improvement not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The House proposed no similar provision.

Section 213. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued clarifying that certain elected and appointed officiais are not exempt from federal passenger and baggage screemng.

Section 214. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that directs TSA to deploy explosives detection systems based on risk and other factors.

Section 215. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued authorizing TSA to use funds from the Aviation Security Capital Fund for the procurement and installation of explosives detection systems or for other purposes authorized by law.

Section 216. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that requires TSA to submit a report on TSA passenger and baggage screening.

Section 217. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use offunds in abrogation ofthe statutory requirement for TSA to monitor certain airport exit points.

Section 218. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued under the heading "Coast Guard - Operating Expenses" prohibiting funds made available by this Act for recreational vessel expenses, except to the extent fees are collected from owners of yachts and credited to this appropriation.

Section 219. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified

allowing up to $10,000,000 to be reprogrammed to or from "Coast Guard - Operating Ex~[i N.

~ Military Pay and Allowance%,_

~"· "u~.--.....,. --··~··~--""------(]-pPA

_ _ _._.,......____.

-::=:'"'

Section 220. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting

---

funds from being used to reduce the Coast Guard's Operations Systems Center mission or its

government-employed or contract staff.

Section 221. A provision proposed by the Senate is continued prohibiting funds to be used to conduct or implement the results of a competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 with respect to the Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center. The House proposed no similar provision.

37

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 105 of 187

Section 222. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the Secretary from reducing operations within the Coast Guard's Civil Engineering Program except as specifically authorized by a statute enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 223. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued related to the allocation offunds for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism.

Section 224. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued allowing the Secret Service to obligate funds in anticipation of reimbursement for personnel receiving training.

Section 225. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting funds made available to the Secret Service for the protection of the head of a federal agency other than the Secretary of Homeland Security, except where the Director has entered into an agreement for such protection services.

Section 226. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued limiting the opening of domestic and international field offices by the Secret Service.

Section 227. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified allowing the reprogramming of funds within "United States Secret Service - Operations and Support".

Section 228. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified

allowing for funds made available for

perations and Support)o be available for travel

of employees on protective missions without regard to the limitations on suc expen Itures.

.....
((=Unt'teo}, s ~fo.l-e
§eu-et
~eMc.t..G

38

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 106 of 187

TITLE III- PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$1,372,268,000 is provided for Operations and Support ofthe National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), including $235,429,000 for the Office of Biometrie Identity Management (OBIM). Based on under-execution offunding for personnel, the Act reduces the request by $37,781,890 and 386 FTE. To help address the need to retain and hire personnel with the requisite cybersecurity skills, however, the total includes ali funding requested for special cyber pay and bonuses.
Lfi V~ In lieu ofthe briefing required in Senate Report 114-264 NPPD is directed to includ~
with the fiscal year 2018 budget request a -year plan to ensure appropriate office space for headquarters, regional, and field staff. The plan shall ensure headquarters staff is appropriately consolidated and whenever possible regional offices are collocated with other components to maximize mission collaboration.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, NPPD shall provide a report to the Committees describing the definition and process used to categorize each amount in the NPPD PPAs as either defense or non-defense.
In lieu of the requirement in the Senate report regarding strategie documentation for proposed increases for Protective Security Advisors or Cyber Security Advisors, NPPD shall include detailed justifications in the budget request.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Cybersecurity Cyber Readiness and Response NCCIC Operations (CERT) NCCIC Planning and Exercises (CERT) Cyber Infrastructure Resilience Cybersecurity Advisors Enhanced Cybersecurity Services Cybersecurity Education and Awareness

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$116,168,000 (94,134,000)
92,683,000 ( 65, 788,000)

$108,402,000 (86,368,000)
88,502,000 (61,607,000)

13,535,000 16,830,000 7,886-,000

12,970,000 16,950,000 14,133,000

39

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 107 of 187

Federal Cybersecurity Federal Network Resilience Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation National Cybersecurity Protection System Subtotal, Cybersecurity
Infrastructure Protection Infrastructure Capacity Building Sector Risk Management Protective Security Advisors Bombing Prevention Infrastructure Information and Sensitive Data Protection Infrastructure Security Compliance Subtotal, Infrastructure Protection
Emergency Communications Emergency Communications Preparedness Priority Telecommunications Services GETS/WPS/SRAS/TSP Next Generation Networks Priority Services Subtotal, Emergency Communications
Integrated Operations Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center (NISAC) Infrastructure Analysis Critical Infrastructure Situational Awareness Stakeholder Engagement and Requirements Strategy, Policy, and Plans Subtotal, Integrated Operations
Office of Biometrie Identity Management Identity and Screening Program Operations IDENT/Homeland Advanced Recognition
40

37,005,000 8,878,000
389,355,000 $682,340,000

35,013,000 7,565,000
385,879,000 $669,414,000

41,611,000 39,490,000

42,396,000 39,723,000 15,070,000

19,889,000 76,876,000 $177,866,000

19,546,000 69,557,000 $186,292,000

43,260,000

44,097,000

55,406,000 1,966,000
$100,632,000

55,730,000 2,214,000
$102,041,000

12,993,000 24,443,000 16,344,000 43,150,000 14,707,000 $111,637,000

18,650,000 23,230,000 16,176,000 41,959,000
9,669,000 $109,684,000

71,954,000 163,475,000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 108 of 187

Technology Subtotal, Office of Biometrie Identity Management
Mission Support Defense

$235,429,000

$75,027,000 (23,390,000)

$69,408,000 (21,516,000)

Subtotal, Operations and Support

$1,147,502,000 $1,372,268,000

Cybersecurity

A total of$669,414,000 is provided for Cybersecurity, including $9,500,000 for the

Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) to support its updated

requirement for fiscal year 2017, and $12,970,000 for Cyber Security Advisors. The National

Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) is funded at $196,904,000,

including $147,975,000 for Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT).

Within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act, NPPD shaH briefthe Committees

on the types of assistance, including technical and formai ongoing engagement, available to state

and local governments, including law enforcement agencies, to protect their networks. The

Department shall also work to include state and local law enforcement agencies in the National

Cybersecurity Review, and shall continue raising awareness among these agencies on the need to

strengthen their own cyber-defenses and on the resources available for such purposes.

Cybersecurity Education and Awareness. The bill includes a total of $14,133,000 for

cybersecurity education, ofwhich $13,698,000 is provided through the C ber Infrastruct~~"'--~ Resilience PPA and $435,000 is provided througl(Mission Support. Ally future proposed L+n~

funding reductions to cybersecurity education will not be considered unless t e uectorate

provides a clear plan for how the funded activities would be fully realigned within other agencies

p~
~~-

in a manFneedretrhaaltCsyubstearisnescuthreityo.bjle'c:thiev-e-sCeormfntihtitsecc~rictiocnatlinefufeorttu. be sappùïtivc elNPP

'

----..,--E......

efforts to

cvM

S

find common strategies and security solutions across the federal government for cybersecurity,

nwe

such as Einstein and Continu· Diagnostics and MitigatiOn. Funds appropriated to DHS,

however, should supplement but not supplant appropriations of other federal departments and

agencies. NPPD is directed to develop a strategie plan, in conjunction with OMB and partner

departments and agencies, for securing civilian federal networks. The plan shaH include an

effective cost model whereby departments and agencies assume responsibility for the costs of

their own systems while also using NPPD subject matter expertise and bulk-buying capabilities

when it enhances security and is cost effective. NPPD shaH provide the strategie plan to the

Committees not later than 250 days after the date of enactment of this Act, including a proposed

41

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 109 of 187

govemance structure, roles and responsibilities of departments and agencies, responsibilities inherent to NPPD, and a model for ensuring a long-term and sound financing structure for federal cybersecurity needs.

Infrastructure Protection

A total of $186,292,000 is provided for Infrastructure Protection, including the requested level offunding for the National Infrastructure Coordination Center and $39,723,000 for Protective Security Advisors. Reductions to the request reflect adjustments to hiring projections.

Emergency Communications

A total of $102,041 ,000 is provided for Emergency Communications, including $2,000,000 to continue projects supporting the development of the National Emergency Communications Plan.

Integrated Operations

---·----······-·{~

A total of$109,684,000 is provided for Integrated Operationskfwhich $1,679,000 is for )

Stakeholder Engagement and Requirements to continue the Software Assurance Program.

Office of Biometrie Identity Management

A total of$235,429,000 is provided for OBIM, $11,600,000 below the amount

requested due to delays in the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology (HART) program

and $8,000,000 in contract savings. Although the fiscal year 2017 request proposed the transfer

.:e fs of o.BIM fr'to N:PD t~~CBP, int~heA~:sefunnced of aiuMthothrrizinghgleNgPisplaDtion directing such a. . . ----··

--rs rea1tgnmeljonnm ees- con mu~o

08

ou

~·· ·

Until the Secretary or his designee briefs the Com"ruitt~as specified in section 301 of

this Act, on how OBIM is addressing stakeholder concems regarding requirements and priorities,

$20,000,000 is withheld from obligation.

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE

A total of $1,451,078,000 is made available for the Federal Protective Service (FPS), as requested. This funding is generated by collections of security fees from federal agencies based on security services provided by FPS. The Secretary and the Director ofOMB shall certify in writing to the Committees, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that FPS operations will be fully funded in fiscal year 2017 through the collection of security fees. Should

42

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 110 of 187

sufficient revenue not be collected to fully fund operations, an expenditure plan is required describing how security risks will be adequately addressed. In lieu of direction in the Senate bill regarding a strategie human capital plan, the Director ofFPS shall provide a semi-annual briefing to the Committees detailing the alignment of staffing resources with mission requirements based on a current threat assessment.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Federal Protective Service FPS Operations Operating Expenses Countermeasures Protective Security Officers Technical Countermeasures Subtotal, Federal Protective Service (gross) Offsetting Collections Subtotal, Federal Protective Service (net)

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$368,892,000 $368,892,000

1,059,825,000 1,059,825,000

22,361,000

22,361,000

$1,451,078,000 $1,451,078,000

-1,451,078,000 -1,451,078,000

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A total of $440,035,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. Within the total is $52,800,000 for OBIM's continued HART acquisition, which reflects savings realized by not transferring the program to CBP. As noted above, the Act includes a withholding of funds under Operations and Support until OBIM provides a plan to accelerate the multi-modal biometrie capabilities of HART Increment 2.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Cybersecurity Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation National Cybersecurity Protection System Subtotal, Cybersecurity

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$266,971,000 81,771,000
$348,742,000

$217,409,000 81,771,000
$299,180,000

Emergency Communications
43

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 111 of 187

Next Generation Networks Priority Services Subtotal, Emergency Communications
Biometrie Identity Management IDENT/Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology Subtotal, Biometrie Identity Management
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

88,055,000 $88,055,000

88,055,000 $88,055,000

52,800,000 $52,800,000
$436,797,000 $440,035,000

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
A total of$6,469,000 is provided for Research and Development. Of the amount provided for Infrastructure Protection, $2,000,000 is designated for the Technology Development and Deployment Program to define agency needs, identify requirements for community level critical infrastructure protection and resilience, and rapidly develop, test, and transition to use technologies that address these needs and requirements.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Research and Development Cybersecurity Infrastructure Protection Subtotal, Research and Development

Budget Estimate Final Bill

$2,030,000 2,439,000
$4,469,000

$2,030,000 4,439,000
$6,469,000

44

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 112 of 187

ÜFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$123,548,000 is provided for Operations and Support. The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Chemical and Biological Readiness Health and Medical Readiness Integrated Operations Mission Support Subtotal, Operations and Support

Budget Estimate Final Bill
$82,689,000 4,352,000 11,809,000
24,698,000 $123,548,000

Chemical and Biological Readiness

A total of$82,689,000 is provided for the Chemical and Biological Readiness PPA, which fully funds operations of the current BioWatch program. The bill includes a provision withholding $2,000,000 from OHA Mission Support until OHA, in conjunction with the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and other components as appropriate, submits a strategie plan to the Committees. This plan shall include: a plan to advance early detection of a bioterrorism event; details on the responsibilities ofOHA, S&T, and other departmental components as appropriate for implementing such strategy; details on coordination with other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, which have made investments in bioterrorism detection research; specifie timelines and benchmarks; an expenditure plan for fiscal year 2017 BioWatch funds; and cost estimates for the next generation ofbiosurveillance tools. The bill also permits the transfer ofup to $2,000,000 from OHA to S&T for activities related to implementation of this plan.

Integrated Operations

A total of$11,809,000 is provided for Integrated Operations. The amount includes an increase of $2,500,000 above the request to support the operationalization of successful pilot programs of the National Biosurveillance Integration Center, promising new pilots, or other high priority or emerging requirements.

45

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 113 of 187

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$1,048,551,000 is provided for Operations and Support. This amount reflects reductions to the request totaling $5,144,000 due to projected under execution ofproposed FTE.
The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Regional Operations Mitigation Preparedness and Protection Response and Recovery Response (Urban Search and Rescue) Recovery Mission Support Subtotal, Operations and Support (Defense)

Budget Estimate

Final Bill

$157,134,000 24,887,000 146,356,000

$157,134,000 28,213,000 146,356,000

178,500,000 (27,513,000)
58,687,000 472,916,000 $1,038,480,000 (46,788,000)

187,806,000 (38,280,000)
56,126,000 472,916,000 $1,048,551,000 (46,788,000)

Mitigation
A total of$28,213,000 is provided for Mitigation. Within the total, not less than $8,500,000 is for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and not less than $9,100,000 is for the National Dam Safety Program, maintaining both programs at fiscal year 2016 funding levels.
Preparedness and Protection
A total of$146,356,000 is provided for Preparedness and Protection. Within the total, not less than $2,000,000 is for the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.

Response and Recovery
A total of$243,932,000 is provided for Response and Recovery. Within the total, $38,280,000 is for the Urban Search and Rescue Response System (USAR), which maintains the fiscal year 2016 funding level to support 28 USAR Task Forces and includes a one-time increase of$3,100,000 to ensure teams are uniformly equipped.
46

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 114 of 187

In lieu of additional funding recommended in Senate Report 114-264, FEMA shall brief the Committees on efforts to build upon the findings of the 2011 Mid-Atlantic Supply Chain Resiliency Study by developing innovative and efficient ways to use the national supply chain for post-disaster delivery of commodities, including future budgetary needs to implement such a strate gy.
Mission Support
A total of$472,916,000 is provided for Mission Support, including $3,460,000 for the Office ofNational Capital Region Coordination.

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A total of$35,273,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Operational Communications/Information Technology Construction and Facility Improvements Mission Support, Assets, and Infrastructure Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements (Defense)

Budget Estimate
$2,800,000 21,050,000 11,423,000
$35,273,000 (15,500,000)

Final Bill
$2,800,000 21,050,000 11,423,000
$35,273,000 (15,500,000)

Construction and Facility Improvements
A total of$21,050,000 is provided for Construction and Facility Improvements, including $15,500,000 for the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center.
FEMA shall provide an updated capital infrastructure investment plan for fiscal years 2017 through 2021, consistent with the direction in House Report 114-215.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
A total of$2,983,458,000 is provided for Federal Assistance.

47

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 115 of 187

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Federal Assistance Grants State Homeland Security Grant Program (Operation Stonegarden) Urban Area Security Initiative (Nonprofit Security) Public Transportation Security Assistance (Amtrak Security) (Over-the-Road Bus Security) Port Security Grants Countering Violent Extremism Regional Competitive Grant Program Assistance to Firefighter Grants Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants Emergency Management Performance Grants Predisaster Mitigation Fund Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program (RiskMAP) Emergency Food and Shelter Subtotal, Grants

Budget Estimate
$200,000,000
330,000,000
85,000,000 (1 0,000,000)
93,000,000 49,000,000 100,000,000 335,000,000
335,000,000 350,000,000
54,485,000
177,531,000 100,000,000 $2,209,016,000

Education, Training, and Exercises Center for Domestic Preparedness Center for Homeland Defense and Security Emergency Management Institute U.S. Fire Administration National Domestic Preparedness Consortium Continuing Training Grants National Exercise Program Subtotal, Education, Training, and Exercises

63,939,000 18,000,000 19,643,000 40,812,000 36,000,000
19,911,000
$198,305,000

Final Bill
$467,000,000 (55,000,000) 605,000,000 (25,000,000) 100,000,000 ( 10,000,000)
(2,000,000) 100,000,000
345,000,000
345,000,000 350,000,000 100,000,000
177,531,000 120,000,000 $2,709,531,000
63,939,000 18,000,000 20,569,000 42,500,000 101,000,000 8,000,000 19,919,000
$273,927,000

48

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 116 of 187

Subtotal, Federal Assistance

$2,407,321,000

$2,983,458,000

Grants

A total of$2,709,531,000 is provided for Grants. FEMA grantees shaH continue to

provide reports on their use of funds, as determined necessary by the Secretary.

FEMA preparedness grants are primarily designed to build core capabilities to address

terrorist attacks. Because the threat environment has become more dynamic, however, it has

created a tension between sustaining current capabilities and addressing changes in the threat

landscape. The FEMA risk formula, which determines the distribution of homeland security

preparedness grants, should evolve with the changing threat environment while also maintaining

capabilities for traditional and known threats. While FEMA updates data points for

incorporation, and considers comments from grantees on how the risk formula might be

improved, it is not clear that there is a comprehensive process for re-evaluating the risk formula

as part of the larger strategie context. FEMA is directed to brief the Committees not later than

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on how developing and maintaining core

capabilities addresses current and emerging threats; how FEMA adjusts the risk formula and

training needs for emerging threats; and on innovative ways to increase responsiveness of the

annual grant allocation process to address current threats.

_--------e._

Urban Area ecurity Initiative. Consistent with the 9/11 Act, FEMA shall conduct risk

assessments for the 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas prior to making UASI grant

awards. It is expected that UASI funding will be limited to urban areas representing up to 85

percent of the cumulative national terrorism risk to urban areas and that resources will continue

to be allocated in proportion to risk.

Countering Violent Extremism. The fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act

provided $50,000,000, available until September 30, 2017, for emergent threats from violent

extremism and from complex, coordinated terrorist attacks, like the 2015 incident in Paris,

France. Of this total, $10,000,000 was dedicated specifically for countering violent extremism

(CVE) to explore ways to prevent radicalization and deter recruitment of vulnerable people who

could be inspired to commit acts of terror. Although grant awards were announced in

accordance with congressional intent on January 13, 2017, Congress has learned the grants have

so far been withheld from obligation. The Department is reminded of the requirements set forth

in the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). If the Administration is withholding this budget

authority from obligation-temporarily or permanently-it is required under the ICA to send a

"special message" to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States that specifies

why the funds are being withheld from obligation. Importantly, funds cannot be deferred for

policy reasons. Given the current impasse and the currently available funds, no additional funds

are provided for CVE grants in this Act. The Secretary is directed to fulfill congressional intent

by releasing the fiscal year 2016 funding without delay.

49

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 117 of 187

Flood Hazard Mapping and RiskAnalysis. A total of$177,531,000 is provided for Flood

Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis. FEMA shall ensure data collection and modeling processes

are transparent from beginning to end and involve the active participation of local jurisdictions to

ensure maps accurately reflect local conditions and minimize costs to local communities.

Emergency Food and Shelter Program. A total of$120,000,000 is provided for the

Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP). Once again, the budget request included a

provision allowing the FEMA Administrator to transfer EFSP to the Department ofHousing and

Urban Development (HUD). While this proposai may have merit, Congress and other

stakeholders have not been properly consulted in developing support for such a transfer. If

future budget requests again propose moving EFSP to HUD, they should do so directly within

the HUD including

budget, including the previously obligated

justification amounts and

for moving recoveries;

tahefipvr~o.g,rafmea;ra-psltarnatfo~r~f;utnidosoktrfa~n~stfehre,··~-={G

program within HUD; a timeline for an interagency agreement effecting the transfer; and a

description of efforts to consult with the EFSP National Board on the proposed move.

Education, Training, and Exercises

A total of $273,927,000 is provided for Education, Training, and Exercises. Within the total, $8,000,000 is for Continuing Training, including $3,500,000 for rural first responder training.
A total of $44,000,000 is provided for the United States Fire Administration, including $42,500,000 under this heading and $1,500,000 under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements appropriation. Funding described in the Senate report for facilities at the Center for Domestic Preparedness is also included as part of the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements appropriation.

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

A total of$7,328,515,000 is provided for the Disaster ReliefFund (DRF), .as requeiiiià; ofwhich $6,713,000,000 is designated as being for disaster relief for major disasters pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. In lieu oftransferring funding from the DRF to the OIG for audits of disaster-related grant awards, as proposed in the budget and directed in prior appropriations Acts, funding for DRF audits is provided directly to the OIG for better congressional oversight.
As directed in Senate Report 114-264, FEMA shall provide a report, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, outlining specifie actions and timeframes for state and local governments to better share information about fiscal preparation for disaster costs.

50

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 118 of 187
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND
A total of$181,799,000 is provided for the National Flood Insurance Fund.
51

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 119 of 187
TITLE III-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Section 301. A new provision proposed by the House is included restricting obligations until a briefing and plan for modemizing the biometrie identity management system is submitted The Senate proposed no similar provision.
Section 302. A new provision is included requiring the submission of a report on biodetection capabilities.
Section 303. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified limiting expenses for administration of grants.
Section 304. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued specifying timeframes for certain grant applications and awards.
Section 305. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that requires five day advance notification for certain grant awards under "FEMA-Federal Assistance".
Section 306. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that addresses the availability of certain grant funds for the installation of communications towers.
Section 307. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that authorizes the use of funds for certain purposes pertaining to FEMA training facilities. Funding used for such purpose shall only come from funds specifically appropriated to the facility for which the property is acquired.
Section 308. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified allowing reimbursements for the costs of providing humanitarian relief to unaccompanied alien children, and for public safety in support of a state declaration of emergency, to be an eligible use for certain Homeland Security grants.
Section 309. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that requires the submission of the monthly DRF report.
Section 31 O. A new provision proposed by the Senate is included transferring unobligated balances from the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program to the Disaster Relief Fund.
Section 311. A new provision proposed by the Senate is included related to earthen levees. The House proposed no similar provision.
52

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 120 of 187 Section 312. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued providing for
the receipt and expenditure of fees collected for the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program, as authorized by Public Law 105-276.
53

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 121 of 187
TITLE IV-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
BNfFED S'H\TB-8 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$103,912,000 is provided in discretionary appropriations for E-Verify. DHS is continuing to evaluate tools to analyze relevant social media in vetting for certain types of immigration benefits. It is crucial that DHS efficiently, effectively, and appropriately examine all relevant social media data sources from both conventional networks and the "dark web," with special emphasis on those networks used outside the U.S. where most of the postings are in languages other than English. In addition, DHS must maintain persistent access to these sources throughout the adjudication process. Until DHS is able to incorporate social media more comprehensively into its vetting processes, USCIS is directed to work with the Department of State to ensure appropriate social media vetting for the highest risk persons seeking admission into the United States or seeking benefits while in the United States.
PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A total of$15,227,000 is provided in discretionary appropriations for E-Verify.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
In lieu of a discretionary appropriation for the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, and consistent with prior years, an administrative provision is included at the end of title IV to permit USCIS to obligate not more than $10,000,000 from user fee revenue to support grants to benefit individuals who are lawfully admitted into the United States. In addition to the fee revenue made available for this purpose, the Department has the authority to accept private donations that will support activities that promote citizenship and integration. To facilitate the acceptance and use of such donations by USCIS, the bill establishes a Treasury account for that purpose.
54

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 122 of 187

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTERS

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

A total of$242,518,000 is provided for Operations and Support, including $50,748,000,

made available for two years, for materials and support costs related to Federal law enforcement

basic training and $27,553,000, made available for three years, for minor alterations and

maintenance of facilities. FLETC shall provide to the Committees quarter!y plans for the

obligation of funds, as specified in the explanatory statement accompanying Public Law 114-

113, and include a review ofFLETC's hiring campaigns and attrition levels.

FLETC shall detail in its annual budget submission how data supports its core business

decision-making processes, including its facility utilization processes, and shall provide semiannual updates on this ongoing initiative, beginning within the first 90 days ofth~enactment of

this Act.

-

Tlie Direetgr oJFLETC is encour;~ed to support continued testing and evaluation ofboth

prototype and proven active shooter response technologies and to share its findings with its

partner organizations.

55

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 123 of 187

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY .tt:---·-""~·----..,
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of $311,122,000 is provided for Operations and Support. The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support Laboratory Facilities Acquisition and Operations Analysis Mission Support Subtotal, Operations and Support

Budget Estimate Final Bill
$133,942,000 $133,942,000 48,392,000 48,392,000 127,904,000 128,788,000
$310,23 8,000 $311,122,000

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
A total of $470,624,000 is provided for Research and Development. The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Research and Development Research, Development, and Innovation University Programs Subtotal, Research and Development

Budget Estimate Final Bill
$417,420,000 $430,124,000 31,085,000 40,500,000
$448,505,000 $470,624,000

Research, Development, and Innovation

A total of$430,124,000 is provided for Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I).

In lieu of the $12,000,000 transfer from BioWatch propos=~~~te. the b!!L~~

$2,000,000 to be transferred from OHA to ~.;r,e

. &Tfé-'or the advancement

of next generation biosurveillance tools. In addition, $3,900,000 is included for S&T RD&I to

~

56

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 124 of 187
initiate long-term research in leap-ahead technologies that can be applied across more varied operational biosurveillance environments. This work includes .the establishment of key performance parameters for biodetection, while leveraging the bioterrorism research investments of other federal agencies, most notably the Department of Defense.
S&T is directed to briefthe Committees on the proposed allocation ofRD&I funds by not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
In lieu of the direction in the Senate report, S&T is directed to brief the Committees not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act on how extemal peer review is incorporated into its current processes.
As directed in the House report, DHS shall issue a Management Directive formalizing the Integrated Product Team construct to ensure continued progress towards institutionalizing repeatable processes within S&T.
S&T has formalized relationshi s with academie artners on aRmav..nsà aeriftl S)Stetn ~UA research, testing, and development, as directed in the Senate report. S&T is directedto
expeditiously execute agreements for activities necessary to mature and institutionalize DHS's efficient, effective use ofUAS.
As directed in the Senate report, S&T shall update the Committees on the outcome of the feasibility study for installing grid reliability technology not later than 30 days after its completion. In the event of a favorable outcome from the study, S&T is encouraged to continue development of the Resilient Electric Grid in partnership with the relevant utility companies.
University Programs A total of $40,500,000 is provided for University Programs. S&T shall prioritize collaborations with qualified research universities to support critical research topics in priority areas, including border security, cybersecurity, and first responder technology.
57

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 125 of 187

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION ÜFFICE

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
A total of$50,042,000 is provided for Operations and Support, which includes a reduction of $500,000 due to personnel vacancies.

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

A total of$101,053,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and lmprovements,

ofwhich $53,709,000 is for Large Scale Detection Systems and $47,344,000 is for Human Portable RadiationJP-.~asfSystems. The reduction below tiie request reflects $1,300,000 m

unobligated carryover balances that should be used to support planned Human Portable

:· .'". --·-------. Radiatio~stem procurements in ~~~~-:~~~:?1 ~-----

... ___ ~--""·-..,..,.,·~- ,...

,...,.......,. ·~· ...----·-· _,

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A total of$155,061,000 is provided for Research and Development.

The amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Research and Development Architecture Planning and Analysis Transformational Research and Development Detection Capability Development Detection Capability Assessments Nuclear Forensics Subtotal, Research and Development

Budget Estimate Final Bill
$15,072,000 62,028,000 19,851,000 39,272,000 18,838,000
$155,061,000

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
A total of$46,328,000 is provided for Federal Assistance. lncluding the funds provided within the Operations and Support appropriation, the bill provides a total of $22,000,000 for Securing the Cities.

58

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 126 of 187

TITLE IV-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS ACT
Section 401. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued allowing USCIS to acquire, operate, equip, and dispose of up to five vehicles under certain scenarios.
Section 402. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting USCIS from granting immigration benefits unless the results of background checks are completed prior to the granting of the benefit and the results do not preclude the granting of the bene fit.

Section 404. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified making immigration examination fee collections explicitly available for immigrant integration grants, not to exceed $10,000,000, in fiscal year 2017, and allowing for related donations.

! : 'i j 1
)<'S( / , , ,

Section 405. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued authorizing the Director of FLETC to distribute funds for incurred training accreditation.

Section 406. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued directing the Director of FLETC to ensure FLETC training facilities are operated at capacity throughout the fiscal year.

Section 407. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued directing the FLETC Accreditation Board to lead the Federal law enforcement training accreditation process to measure and assess federal law enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors.

e G Section 408. A new provision proposed by the House i~Jl1odi~~~.~~?li.s~in~1~..--.----e._.C
"Federal Law Enforcement Training CenterfProcurement, Construction, and Improvements" appropriation, and allowing for the acceptance of transfers from government agencies into this appropriation. The Senate proposed no similar provision.

Section 409. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued classifying FLETC instructor staff as inherently governmental for certain considerations.

59

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 127 of 187

TITLE V- GENERAL PROVISIONS • • . -'2..
(INCLUDINGfEsêlSsÏÜNs~~~§.J:E~F F~~~]_·~---0~ llf'tj)

Section 501. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued directing that

·~

no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation beyond the current year unless

expressly provided.

Section 502. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued providing authority to merge unexpended balances of prior appropriations with new appropriation accounts, to be used for the sarne purpose, subject to reprograrnrning guidelines.

Section 503. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified limiting reprograrnrning authority for funds within an appropriation and providing limited authority for transfers between appropriations. The Department must notify the Cornrnittees on Appropriations prior to each reprograrnrning offunds that would reduce prograrns, projects, activities, or personnel by more than ten percent. Notifications are also required for each · reprograrnrning of funds that would increase a program, project, or activity by more than $5,000,000 or ten percent, whichever is less. The Department must submit these notifications to the Cornrnittees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance of any such reprograrnrning.
For transfers, accounts may not be reduced by more than five percent or increased by more than ten percent. The Cornrnittees on Appropriations must be notified 30 days in advance of any transfer.
Transfer authority is provided to give the Department flexibility in responding to emerging requirements and significant changes in circurnstances, but is not primarily intended to facilitate the implementation of new prograrns, projects, or activities that were not proposed in a formai budget submission. To avoid violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Secretary shall ensure that any transfer of funds is carried out in compliance with the limitations and requirements of section 503(b). In particular, the Secretary should ensure that any such transfers adhere to the opinion of the Comptroller General's decision in the Matter of John D. Webster, Director, Financial Services, Library ofCongress, dated November 7, 1997, with regard to the definition of an appropriation subject to transfer limitations.
For purposes ofreprograrnrning notifications, "prograrn, project, or activity" is defined as an arnount identified in the detailed funding table located at the end of this statement or an arnount directed for a specifie purpose in this statement.
Also for purposes of reprograrnrning notifications, the creation of a new program, project, or activity is defined as any significant new activity that has not been explicitly justified to the Congress in budget justification material and for which funds have not been appropriated by the Congress. For further guidance when deterrnining which movements offunds are subject to
asecctitvioitny"50a3s,dtehteaiDleedpianrttmàieGntAisOre'smÀin(djejd";t;o;;f;o;;l;l;o;wjr~G;"A,;O;~'*süsdeedfiinn·itïiohnèFoefd"~p;r~oTg&r"adrnge, tprPorj~eccets, so.r ..e_
Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the Department shall submit to the
60

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 128 of 187

Committees a table delineating PPAs subject to section 503 notification requirements, as defined

in this paragraph.

Ali agencies funded by the Department ofHomeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017,

must comply with these reprograrnming requirements. In addition, the Department shall submit

requests on a timely basis and provide complete explanations of the proposed reallocations,

including detailed justifications for the increases and offsets, and any specifie impact the

proposed changes would have on the budget request for the following fiscal year and future-year

appropriations requirements. Each notification submitted to the Committees should include a

detailed table showing the proposed revisions to funding and FTE - at the account, program,

project, and activity level-for the current fiscal year, along with any funding and FTE impacts

on the budget year.

The Department shall manage its PPAs within the levels appropriated, and should only

submit reprograrnming or transfer notifications in cases of unforeseeable and compelling

circumstances that could not have been predicted when formulating the budget request for the

current fiscal year. When the Department submits a reprograrnming or transfer notification and

does not receive identical responses from the House and Senate Committees, it is expected to

reconcile the differences before proceeding.

The Department is not to submit a reprograrnming or transfer notification after June 30

except in extraordinary circumstances that imminently threaten the safety ofhuman life or the

protection of property. If an above-threshold reprograrnming or a transfer is needed after June

30, the notice should contain sufficient documentation asto why it meets this statutory

exception.

The section 503(a)(5) limitation on reprograrnming funds for the purpose ofreorganizing

components is not intended to apply to routine or small reallocations of personnel or funetions

within components. Instead, this language is directed at larger reorganizations of the

Department, to include the allocation or reallocation of functions across components and the
pesutrasbulaisnhtmtoefnict,ticoonn-s8o7lirdoaftliloïnè,"'aHltoermateiloann,dors~d-ics~crointyti-nÀuctatoiro'2noo((Jo2~.ganÂi-z-a~g~(t)i1f)i_c&a.tYinointus.n.d.aeur1thh.iQsrized

fL/'~ {':'

subsection is not required for a change of homeport for USCG vessels.

Deobligated funds are also subject to the reprograrnming and transfer limitations and

requirements set forth in this section.

Section 503(e) authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to $20,000,000 to address

immigration emergencies after notifying the Committees of such transfer at least five days in

ad vance.

Section 504. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department to make payment to the Working Capital Fund (WCF), except for activities and amounts allowed in the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request. Funds provided to the WCF are available until expended. The Department can only charge components for direct usage of the WCF and these funds may be

61

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 129 of 187
used only for the purposes consistent with the contributing component. Any funds paid in advance or for reimbursement must reflect the full cost of each service. The Department shall submit a notification prior to adding a new activity to the fund or eliminating an existing activity from the fund. For activities added to the fund, such notifications shall detail the source of funds by PPA. In addition, the Department shall submit quarterly WCF execution reports to the Committees that include activity-level detail.
Section 505. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified providing that not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances from prior year appropriations for each Operations and Support appropriation, the Coast Guard's Operating Expenses appropriation, and amounts for salaries and expenses in the Coast Guard's Reserve Training and Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements accounts, shall remain available through fiscal year 2018, subject to section 503 reprogramming requirements.
Section 506. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued that deems intelligence activities to be specifically authorized during fiscal year 2017 until the enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for fiscal year 2017.
Section 507. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued requiring notification to the Committees at least three days before DHS executes or announces grant allocations; grant awards; contract awards, including contracts covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation; other transaction agreements; letters of intent; a task or delivery order on multiple award contracts totaling $1 ,000,000 or more; a task or delivery order greater than $10,000,000 from multi-year funds; or sole-source grant awards. Notifications shall include a description of projects or activities to be funded and their location, including city, county, and state.
Section 508. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting ail agencies from purchasing, constructing, or leasing additional facilities for Federal law enforcement training without advance notification to the Committees.
Section 509. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use of funds for any construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for which a prospectus, ifrequired under chapter 33 oftitle 40, United States Code, has not been approved.
Section 510. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified that includes and consolidates by reference prior-year statutory provisions related to a contracting officer' s technical representative training; sensitive security information; and the use of funds in conformance with section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
62

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 130 of 187
Section 511. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use of funds in contravention of the Buy American Act.
Section 512. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued regarding the oath ofallegiance required by section 337 ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 513. A provision proposed by the House is continued prohibiting funds for the Principal Federal Official during a Stafford Act declared disaster or emergency, with certain exceptions. The Senate proposed no similar provision.
Section 514. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified extending other transactional authority for DHS through fiscal year 2017.
Section 515. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting funds for planning, testing, piloting, or developing a national identification card.
Section 516. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued directing that any official required by this Act to report or certify to the Committees on Appropriations may not delegate such authority unless expressly authorized to do so in this Act.
Section 517. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into or within the United States.
Section 518. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting funds in this Act to be used for first-class travel.
Section 519. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use offunds to employ illegal workers as described in Section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 520. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act to pay for award or incentive fees for contractors with below satisfactory performance or performance that fails to meet the basic requirements of the contract.
Section 521. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued requiring that any new processes developed to screen aviation passengers and crews for transportation or national security consider privacy and civilliberties, consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
63

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 131 of 187
Section 522. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting the use of funds to enter into a federal contract unless the contract meets requirements of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 or chapter 137 oftitle 10 U.S.C., and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless the contract is otherwise authorized by statute without regard to this section.
Section 523. A provision proposed by the House and the Senate is included and modified providing a total of$13,253,000 for DHS headquarters consolidation activities at St. Elizabeths.
Section 524. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is included and modified providing $41,215,000 for financial systems modemization activities, which the Secretary may transfer between appropriations for the same purpose after notifying the Committees 15 days in advance. Funding is available for two years.
Section 525. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued requiring DHS computer systems to block electronic access to pomography, except for law enforcement purposes.
Section 526. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued regarding the transfer offirearms by Federal law enforcement personnel.
Section 527. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued regarding funding restrictions and reporting requirements related to conferences occurring outside of the United States.
Section 528. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued prohibiting funds to reimburse any federal department or agency for its participation in a National Special Security Event.
Section 529. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified requiring a notification, includingjustification materials, prior to implementing any structural pay reform that affects more than 100 full time positions or costs more than $5,000,000.
Section 530. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued and modified directing the Department to post on a public website reports required by the Committees on Appropriations unless public posting compromises homeland or national security or contains proprietary information.
Section 531. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is continued related to the Arms Trade Treaty.
64

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 132 of 187

Section 532. A provision proposed by the Senate is continued and modified requiring submission of offsets should the fiscal year 2018 budget request assume revenue not enacted into law at the time of the budget submission. The House proposed no similar provision.

Section 533. A provision proposed by the House is included authorizing minor procurement, construction, and improvements under Operations and Support appropriations, as specified. The Senate proposed no similar provision.

Section 534. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is included and modified rescinding unobligated balances from specified programs.

Section 535. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is included and modified rescinding unobligated balances made available to the Department when it was created in 2003.

Section 536. A provision JWQflSSeà ~y the Il8'1:tse ttnd Benate is mel'tt'deti and modified

e_(is,
l_SOfl hh\Jt.d

rescinding lapsed balances made available pursuant to section 505 of this Act.

Section 537. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is included and modified rescinding specified funds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.

Section 538. A provision proposed by the House and Senate is included and modified rescinding unobligated balances from FEMA DRF.

Section 539. A new provision is included extending the authorization ofUSCIS' EVerify Program until September 30, 2017.

Section 540. A new provision is included extending the non-minister religious worker immigrant visa authorization until September 30, 2017.

Section 541. A new provision is included extending until September 30, 2017, the authority to waive the two-year home-country physical presence requirement for foreign doctors with expiring J-1 visas who apply to remain in the United States and commit to working in medically underserved areas.

Section 542. A new provision is included extending the Regional Center program within the "EB-5'' immigrant investor program authorization until September 30, 2017.

Section 543. A provision proposed by the House is continued and modified amending 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)(A), related to H-2B visas. The Senate proposed no similar provision.

65

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 133 of 187 Section 544. A new provision is included providing an additional $41,000,000 to
reimburse extraordinary law enforcement personnel costs for proteqtion activities directly and demonstrably associated with a residence of the President that is designated for protection. Although the federal government does not otherwise reimburse costs of state or local law enforcement for activities in support of the United States Secret Service protection mission, these funds are being provided in recognition of the extraordinary costs borne by a small number ofjurisdictions in which a residence of the President is located. The funding may not be used to supplant state or local funds for personnel costs that would otherwise have been expended by a jurisdiction, and shall not be available to reimburse the cost of equipment.
66

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 134 of 187

TITLE VI-DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY- ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

A total of$1,520,242,000 is provided for enhanced border security, including $1,140,121,000 in this title and $380,121,000 in title II ofthis Act. As directed in title I ofthis Act, DHS shall provide obligation plans to the Committees for these funds not later than 45 days a:fter the date of enactment of this Act.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
An additional appropriation of$274,813,000 is provided for Operations and Support. The Anti-Border Corruption Act (ABCA) of2010 requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to administer polygraph examinations to alllaw enforcement applicants prior to their hiring. As an alternative to its current polygraph exam, the Law Enforcement Preemployment Test (LEPET), CBP is considering adopting a shorter, alternative test, the Test for Espionage, Sabotage, and Corruption (TES-C). As a precursor to adopting any alternative to the LEPET, CBP is directed to first carry out a trial implementation ofthe alternative standard for a subset of Border Patrol applicants for no longer than a six month period. After completing the trial, CBP shall submit a detailed report to the Committees on Appropriations ofthe Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House ofRepresentatives describing the trial and its results, including the rationale for considering an alternate standard; changes in hiring efficiencies; comparisons between the results ofthe LEPET and the alternative standard; an analysis of risks that would be associated with adopting the alternative standard and planned efforts to mitigate such risk; and the costs of implementation.

The additional amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Final Bill

Operations and Support

Border Security Operations

U.S. Border Patrol

Operations United States Border Patrol Relocations Surge Operations

$25,000,000 8,920,000

Subtotal, Operations

33,920,000

Assets and Support

67

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 135 of 187

Border Technology - Tactical Communications
Border Road Maintenance- 758 miles Facilities Maintenance Backlog Surge Operations Subtotal, Assets and Support Subtotal, Border Security Operations
Trade and Travel Operations Office of Field Operations Targeting Operations Border Technology- CBP National Targeting Center Enhancements Surge Operations Subtotal, Targeting Operations
Assets and Support Owned Facilities Maintenance Backlog Border Technology- Port ofEntry Technology Enhancements Surge Operations
Subtotal, Assets and Support Subtotal, Trade and Travel Operations
Integrated Operations Air and Marine Operations Assets and Support Border Technology- Tethered Aerostat Radar System Subtotal, Assets and Support
Subtotal, Integrated Operations
Mission Support Enterprise Services Expand Human Resource Management (HRM) Capacity Additional HRM and Internai Affairs Staffing Border Technology - Office of Infrastructure and Technology Surge Operations
68

20,000,000 22,400,000 30,000,000 12,310,000 84,710,000 118,630,000
10,000,000 14,460,000 24,460,000
17,500,000 39,804,000 12,310,000 69,614,000 94,074,000
18,143,000~0,Ser--t 18 143 000 llfîe.
' ' 18,143,000
21,129,000 10,910,000 3,368,000
198,000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 136 of 187

Subtotal, Enterprise Services
Office of Professional Responsibility Polygraph Examiner Retention Additional HRM and Internai Affairs Staffing
Subtotal, Office of Professional Responsibility
Subtotal, Mission Support Subtotal, Operations and Support

35,605,000
4,271,000 4,090,000 8,361,000 43,966,000 $274,813,000

PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

An additional appropriation of $497,400,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements.
The additional amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Final Bill

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

Border Security Assets and Infrastructure

Replacement of primary pedestrian fencing in

high priority areas - 20 miles

$146,000,000

Replacement of vehicle fencing with primary

pedestrian fencing in high priority areas -

20 miles

146,000,000

Gates for existing barriers- 35 gates

49,200,000

Roads -New Road Construction- 26 miles

77,400,000

Border Technology - 18 Remote Video

- Surveillance Systems, Rio Grande Valley
(RGV) and Laredo (LRT) Sector..t-~---------­ Border Technology- 19 Mobile Video

37,000,000

&

Surveillance Systems (MVSS) in LRT and

Del Rio Sectors

11,500,000

Border Technology- Additional RVSS and

MVSS inRGV

20,000,000

Subtotal, Border Security Assets and Infrastructure

487,100,000

Trade and Travel Assets and Infrastructure Border Technology- Port ofEntry Technology
69

10,300,000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 137 of 187

Subtotal, Trade and Travel Assets and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

10,300,000 $497,400,000

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

An additional appropriation of $236,908,000 is provided in this title for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). This amount augments the $380,121,000 above the fiscal year 2017 budget request for custody operations and transportation provided in title II for ERO. The total

ERO increase of$617,029,000 supports custody and related transportation requirements, along with an increase in the average daily number of participants in the Alternatives to Detention pro gram.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shall refrain from entering into new contracts or other agreements, or changing or significantly modifying existing contracts or other

agreements, to detain individuals unless such contracts or agreements meet or exceed the

Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 2011, as revised in 2016 and which were in effect on January 1, 2017, unless the Secretary submits a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives at least 30 days in advance justifying the rationale for requiring changed standards.

Within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, ICE shall report on its progress in implementing the 2011 PBNDS and requirements related to Public Law 108-79 (PREA). This report shall include a list of detention facilities delineated by the detention standards with which they are obligated to comply; a plan and schedule for bringing into compliance each facility that

is not currently obligated to comply with PBNDS 2011 and PREA requirements; and estimated costs for fiscal year 2017 and future years for bringing all such facilities into compliance. If ICE does not plan to bring certain facilities or categories of facilities into compliance with PBNDS 2011, the plan shall include the rationale for such decision.
The additional amount provided for this appropriation by PPA is as follows:

Operations and Support
Enforcement & Removal Operations Custody Operations
Alternatives to Detention Transportation & Removal Program Subtotal, Enforcement & RemoYal ~--~-·--··

Final Bill

$147,870,000

57,392,000

pe ·,,s --==~:;;::;;;3~~1:,6;;4;6:,=0:0:0----e_

~ -

.·ra.rJ 1._:('

236,908,000 -::.-

Subtotal, Operations & Support

$236,908,000

70

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 138 of 187
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
An additional appropriation of$58,012,000 is provided for Operations and Support, of which $24,000,000 is for the settlement of Moore vs. Napolitano and $34,012,000 is for increased physical presidential and other security requirements.
PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
An additional appropriation of $72,988,000 is provided for Procurement, Construction, and Improvements, of which $22,988,000 is for increased facilities security requirements and $50,000,000 is for the installation of new White House Crown Ferree segments.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS ACT Section 601. A provision is included directing that funds made available in this title are additional to amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for DHS for fiscal year 2017.

\

lnSerr
'tlo.

-11w_:Jj

71

Divison F - DepaCrtmaensteof4H:o1m7ela-ncd vS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3p-pKroApriWationsDAoct,cu20m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 139 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

TITLE I - DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS,
INTELLIGENCE, & INSIGHT

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

Operations and Support Office of the Secretary. Office of Po 1 i cy ........ . Office of Pub1i c Affairs ........ .. Office of Legislative Affairs .. Office of Partnershi p and Engagement. Office of Genera1 Counse1 ........... . Office for Ci vil Ri ghts and Ci vil Li bert i es ... Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman ..... Privacy Office .....
Subtotal , Operations and Support .....

18,967 39,077
5,472 5,363 13,074 19,472 21 ,800
6,272 7,969
--------------
137,466

22,287 37,049
5,384 5,287 11,692 19,298 21,403
6,200 7,851
--------------
136,451

18,632 37,461
5,000 5,080 15,206 19,298 22,571
5,935 7,851
--------------
137,034

Tot a 1 , Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ...... .

-------------- -------------- --------------

137,466

136,451

137,034

-335 -1,616
-472 -283 +2, 132 -174 +771

-3,655
+412
-384
-207
+3,514
---
+1 '168

-337

-265

-118
-------------- --------------

-432

+583

-------------- --------------

-432

+583

Divison F - DepCartmaesnteof4H:1om7el-acndvS-e0c5ur2ity73Ap-pKroAprWiationsDAoctc, u20m17ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 140 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

-

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

--

-

-

--

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

-

--

Enacted
--------

--

-

---

-

Request
---------

-

--

-

---

-

--B--i 1-1-

---

-

--

-

---vs-

--E-n-a-c-te-d--

-

--

-

-v-s

-

-R-e-q-u-e-s-t -

Management Di rectorate

Operations and Support Immediate Offi ce of the Under Secretary for Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Office of the Chief Readi ness Support Offi cer. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer. Office of the Chief Security Officer .... . Office of the Chief Procurement Officer .... . Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Office of the Chief Information Officer ...
Subtotal, Operations and Support .....
Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Construction and Faci 1i ty Improvements ... Mission Support Assets and Infrastructure.
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements . ........... .
Research and Deve 1opment.
Subtotal , Research and Deve1opment.

3,393

3, 758

3,564

31 ,691

128,177

54' 275

29,697

36,446

39,026

69,120

61,723

63,102

60,630

101,450

98' 076

56,420

100,041

53,700

291 '800

296,176

286,074

-------------- -------------- --------------

542,751

727' 771

597' 817

125,950

---

17,955

18,839

18,839

-------------- -------------- --------------

17,955

144,789

18,839

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

+171

-194

+22,584

-73,902

+9,329

+2' 580

-6,018

+1,379

+37 ,446

-3,374

-2,720

-46,341

-5,726

-10,102

-------------- --------------

+55,066

-129,954

---

-125,950

+884

-------------- --------------

+884

-125,950

Total, Management Directorate ..

563,206

875,060

619,156

+55,950

-255,904

Divison F - DepaCrtmaesnteof4H:o1m7el-ancdvS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3p-pKroApriWationsDAoctc, u20m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 141 of 187
(Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intelligence, Anal ys i s, and Operations Coordination

Operations and Support ... Subtotal, Operations and Support.

264,714 264,714

265,719 265,719

263,551 263,551

-1 '163 -1 '163

-2,168 -2,168

Total, Intelligence, Analysis, and Operations Coordination ........................ .
Office of Inspector General
Operations and Support ...
Subtotal, Operations and Support .. (Transfer from Di sas ter Relief Fu nd) ....... Total, Office of Inspector General. (By trans fer) .............. .
Gross Budget Authority, Office of Inspector General ............................. .
Total , Ti tl e I, Departmental Management, Operations, Intelligence, and Oversi ght. (Discretionary Funding). By trans fer ..... .

264,714

265,719

263' 551

137,488
137,488 (24,000) 137,488 (24,000)

157,144
157,144 (24,000) 157,144 (24,000)

175' 000 175,000 175,000

(161 ,488)

(181 '144)

(175,000)

============== ============== ==============

1,102,874
( 1 ' 102' 874) 24,000

1,434,374 (1 ,434,374)
24,000

1 '194, 741 (1 '194, 741)

-1 '163

-2,168

+37,512
+37,512 (-24,000) +37' 512 (-24,000)
(+13,512)

+17,856
+17,856 ( -24' 000) +17' 856 (-24,000)
( -6, 144)

+91 ,867 (+91,867)
-24,000

-239' 633 ( -239,633)
-24,000

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0ur5it2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 142 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11 vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

TITLE II - SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Operations and Support Border Securi ty Operati ons U.S. Border Patrol Operati ons. (UAC Contingency Fund). As sets and Support. Office of Training and Oevel opme nt.
Subtotal, Border and Security Operations ....

3,632,456
---
515,513
54,937 --------------
4,202,906

3, 760,054 (13,000) 492,508 56,819
--------------
4, 309,381

3,681,084
---
486,508
54,221
--------------
4,221,813

Trade and Travel Operations Office of Field Operations Domesti c Operations .......... . International Operations .... . Targeti ng Operations ......... . Assets and Support ................ . Office of Trade ..................... . Office of Training and Oevel opme nt .......... .
Subtota1 , Trade and Trave1 Operations.

2,695,679

2,886,008

2,734,840

125,867

126,225

131 ,425

89,909

131,941

149,773

828,255

1,001,815

832,367

213,844

196,997

192,330

38,258

49,929

50,354

-------------- -------------- --------------

3,991,812

4,392,915

4,091,089

+48,628
---

-78,970 ( -13,000)

-29' 005

-6,000

-716

-2,598

-------------- --------------

+18,907

-87,568

+39, 161 +5,558
+59,864 +4, 112 -21,514
+12,096
+99,277

-151 '168 +5,200
+17' 832 -169,448
-4,667 +425
-301 '826

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcSve-c0ur5it2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 143 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Integrated Operations Air and Marine Operations Operations. . .. ........ . As sets and Support. . . ... . Air and Mari ne Operations Center ...... ..
Office of International Affairs .... . Office of In te 11 i gence. . . . . . ... . Office of Training and Deve 1opme nt. Operations Support ...
Subtotal, Integrated Operations.

288,434

301 '908

266,764

507,545

484,704

507,704

25,487

37,133

45,138

32,579

35,018

36,513

62,566

66,566

58,492

---

5,807

5,807

65,796

93,080

93,259

-------------- -------------- --------------

982,407

1,024,216

1,013,677

-21,670

-35,144

+159

+23,000

+19,651

+8' 005

+3,934

+1 ,495

-4,074

-8,074

+5,807

---

+27,463

+179

-------------- --------------

+31,270

-10,539

Missi on Support Enterprise Services .......... . (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fu nd) ... . Of fi ce of Professi anal Responsi bil ity ... . Executive Leadership and Oversight ......... .
Subtotal, Mission Support ...
Subtota1 , Operations and Support .....

1,251,565

1 '336' 054

1,312,986

(3,274)

(3,274)

(3,274)

159,560

180,583

167' 163

86,255

97,809

93,908

-------------- -------------- --------------

1 ,497' 380

1,614,446

1 '574' 057

-------------- -------------- --------------

10' 674 '505

11,340,958

10' 900' 636

+61 ,421
---

-23,068
---

+7,603

-13,420

+7 ,653

-3,901

-------------- --------------

+76,677

-40' 389

-------------- --------------

+226, 131

-440' 322

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0ur5it2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 144 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Border Security As sets and Infrastructure .. Trade and Travel As sets and Infrastructure. Integrated Operations As sets and Infrastructure Ai rframes and Sen sors . .................... . Operational Communications/Information Technology. Construction and Facility Improvements ... . Missi on Support As sets and Infrastructure ..... .
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements ......... , , , ,
CBP Services at User Fee Facilities (Small Airport) (Permanent Indefi nite Di sc ret i onary) . . ....... .
Fee Funded Programs Immigration Inspection User Fee. Immigration En forcement Fi nes . ... Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) ~e ................ ,,,,,,,, ... ,,,,,,,,,,, Land Border Inspection Fee .. COBRA Passenger Inspection Fee. APHIS Inspection Fee .......... .

76,421 116,553
B0,900 7,000
62,870 30,000
373,744
9,097
(652,699) (633)
(57,332) (34,724) (506,877) (515,810)

45,942 130,349
68,617
39' 775 38,707
323,390
9,415
(677,894) (860)
(58,301) (46, 517) (523, 737) (534,515)

45,942 60,842 116,058
20,775 30,000
273,617
9,415
(677' 894) (860)
(58,301) (46,517) (523, 737) (534,515)

-30,479 -55,711 +35, 158
-7,000 -42,095
-100,127
+318
(+25, 195) (+227) (+969)
(+11 '793) (+16,860) (+18,705)

-69,507 +47,441 -19,000
-8,707
-49' 773

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1el7an-dcSve-c0ur5ity27Ap3p-roKprAiaWtions ADcto, c20u1m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 145 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gl oba 1 Entry Fee ...

..... ..... ,, ....

Puerto Ri co Trust Fu nd ............ ······' .....

Virgin Island Fee .................... ,,, ... ' ,,,.

Customs Uncl ai med Goods. '''' ........ '··········

Subtotal, Fee Funded Programs ........... ,,,,.

(91 '789) (99,058) (11 ,867)
(5,992)
--------------
1 '976' 781

(96, 297)
(99,551)
(11 '176) (5,992)
--------------
2,054,840

(96,297) (99,551)
(11 '176) (5,992)
--------------
2,054,840

(+4,508) (+493)
( -691)
---------------- --------------
+78,059

Administrative Provisions Co 1ombi a Free Trade Act Co 11 ect ions.

..... .....

220,000

220,000

231 ,000

Rei mbursabl e Pre clearance . . ..... .... ' ......

14,000

39,000

39,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

Subtotal , Ad mi nst rat ive Provisions (Gross) ....

234,000

259,000

270,000

Rei mbursabl e

Precl earance

(Offsett i ng

Collections)

-14,000
--------------

-31,000
--------------

-39' 000
--------------

Subtotal, Adminstrative Provisions (Net) ...

220,000

228,000

231,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

Total, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ....

(Discretionary Funding) .................

(Non-Defense) ...

'' ·········· .......... '

(Di sc ret i onary Appropria ti on) ...........

11,277,346 (11 ,277,346)
( 11 ' 277 ' 346) (11 ,291 ,346)

11 '901 '763 (11 ,901 ,763) (11 ,901 '763)
( 11 ' 932' 763)

11,414,668 (11 ,414,668) (11 ,414,668) (11 ,453,668)

(Offsetting Collection) ............

(-14,000)

( -31 ,000)

( -39 '000)

Fee Funded Programs ...........................

1 '976' 781

2,054,840

2' 054' 840

+11 ,000

+11 ,000

+25,000
-------------- --------------

+36,000

+11 ,000

-25,000

-8,000

-------------- --------------

+11,000

+3,000

-------------- --------------

+137,322

-487,095

(+137,322)

( -487' 095)

(+137,322)

( -487 ,095)

(+162,322)

(-479,095)

(-25,000)

( -8,000)

+78,059

Gross Budget Authority, U S. Customs and Border Protection ... .............. ,,,,,,' ,,,,,'

13,268,127

13,987,603

13,508,508

+240, 381

-479,095

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1el7an-dcSve-c0ur5ity27Ap3p-rKopAriaWtions ADcto, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 146 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U. s. Immi grat ion and Customs En forcement
Operations and Support Homeland Security Investigations Oomestic Investigations .... .......... . International Investigations .. Intelligence.... . ........... .
Subtotal, Homeland Security Investigations ..
Enforcement and Removal Operations Custody Operations ............ . Fugitive Operations .. Criminal Ali en Program ................... . Alternatives to Detention .. Transportation and Removal Program. ( UAC Conti ngency Fu nd) ............. .
Subtota l , En forcement and Remova l Operations

1 '761 '829 139,771 79,768
1,981,368
2,316,744 156,572 317' 177 114,275 313,174
3,217' 942

1 '892, 183 146,751 81,996
2, 120,930
2, 178,963 133,133 347,455 125,966 322,694 (7,000)
3,108,211

1,834,017 159,035 80,141
2, 073,193
2,557,542 151 '795 312' 350 125,883 324,236
3,471,806

+72, 188 +19,264
+373
+91,825
+240,798 -4,777 -4,827
+11,608 +11,062
+253,864

-58,166 +12,284
-1,855
-47,737
+378' 579 +18,662 -35,105 -83 +1,542 ( -7 ,000)
+363' 595

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Home1and Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 147 of 187

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bi 11

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bi 11

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission Support ....... . Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ..... .
Subtotal, Operations and Support ..

339,B37

364,489

364,533

239,894

268,393

259,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

5, 779,041

5,862,023

6,168,532

+24,696

+44

+19, 106

-9,393

-------------- --------------

+389' 491

+306,509

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Operation al Communications 1Information Technol ogy .. Construction and Facility Improvements ........ . Mission Support Assets and Infrastructure .... .
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements ....

44,000

21,000

16,000

---

7,000

---

9,000

22,230

13,800

-------------- -------------- --------------

53,000

50,230

29,800

-28,000

-5,000

---

-7,000

+4,800

-8,430

-------------- --------------

-23,200

-20,430

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0u5rit2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 148 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11

Enacted

Request

Bi 11

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Funded Programs

Immi grat ion Inspection User Fee ...................

(135,000)

( 135, 000)

( 135' 000)

Breached Bond 1Detention Fu nd. '''' ...............

(42,000)

(42' 000)

(55,000)

Student Exchange and Vis itor Fee .....

'''''

(145,000)

( 145' 000)

(171 ,000)

-------------- -------------- --------------

Subtotal, Fee Funded Programs ......

''''''

322,000

322,000

361 '000

Tot a1 , U. s. Immi grat ion and Customs Enforcement.

(Di scret i onary Fundi ng) .................
(Non- Defense) .. '' '' ,, .... ...............

(Di scretonary Appropriation) ..............

Fee Funded Programs ..... .......

..... '

--------------
5' 832 '041 (5,832,041) (5,832,041) (5,832,041)
322,000

--------------
5,912,253 (5,912,253) (5,912,253}
(5 '912,253) 322,000

--------------
6,198,332
(6' 198' 332) ( 6 ' 198' 332) (6' 198' 332)
361 ,000

(+13,000)

(+13,000)

(+26,000)

(+26,000)

-------------- --------------

+39,000

+39,000

-------------- --------------

+366, 291

+286,079

(+366,291}

(+286,079)

(+366,291)

( +286' 079)

(+366,291)

(+286,079)

+39,000

+39,0DO

Gross Budget Authority, US. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. ''' ..... ...... ........

6, 154,041

6,234,253

6,559,332

+405 ,291

+325' 079

Di vi son F - Case Department of 4Ha:m1el7an-dcvSe-c0ur5it2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 149 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bi 11

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transportation Sec uri ty Administration

Operations and Support Avi at ion Screeni ng Operations Screeni ng Workforce Screeni ng Partnershi p Program ... Screener Personne1 , Compensation, and Benefi ts. Screener Training and Other ..... . Ai rport Management. . ....... . Ca ni nes. . . . . . . ....... . Screeni ng Techno1ogy Maintenance ..... Secure Fl ight.
Subtota 1 , Avi at ion Screeni ng Operations ..

166,928

170,382

177,982

2,973,839

3, 045,941

3,221 '124

239,025

235,668

239,119

571,916

572' 564

572,967

121 '709

131,391

153,969

284,284

284,834

284,834

105,651

101 '721

101 ,721

-------------- -------------- --------------

4' 463' 352

4,542,501

4,751,716

+11,054

+7,600

+247,285

+175, 183

+94

+3,451

+1 ,051

+403

+32,260

+22,578

+550

-3,930
-------------- --------------

+288' 364

+209,215

Other Operations and Enforcement
Infl i ght Security Federal Air Marshals. Federal Fl i ght Deck Offi cer and Crew Training ...

805,076 20' 758

815,313 19,773

802 '953 22,273

-2,123 +1 ,515

-12,360 +2' 500

Oivison F - Case Oepartment of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcSve-c0ur5it2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 150 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aviation Regulation .. Air Cargo .................

..... .....

.......'·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.

215,636 93,659

218,296 95,692

218,296 94,682

Intelligence and TSOC. . . ...... ....... ..... .....

77,986

83,520

80,820

Surface Vett i ng

programs ........ '······ Programs. ' ...........

..........''

·..·.·.·.···

110,798

122,716

122,716

74,939

65,751

65,751

-------------- -------------- --------------

Subtota1 , Other Operations and Enforcement ..

1,398,852

1,421,061

1 ,407' 491

Missi on Support.

''' , .......... '' , ....

Subtotal, Operations and Support (Gross).

924,015

951,375

945,840

-------------- -------------- --------------

6,786,219

6,914,937

7' 1os' 047

+2,660

+1 ,023

-1,010

+2,834

-2,700

+11 ,918

-9,188
-------------- --------------

+8,639

-13,570

+21,825

-5,535

-------------- --------------

+318,828

+190,110

Aviation Passenger Security Fees (offsetting
collections). '' ··············· .............
Passenger Security Fee Increase (offsetting collections) (legislative proposal) ...........

-2,130,000
---

-2,130,000 -460,000

-2,130,000
---

Avi a ti on Security Infrastructure Fee collections) (legislative proposal).

(

offset
' .....

t

i.n.g.

.

.

----------------

-420,000
--------------

----------------

Subtota1 , Operations and Support (Net) ......

4,656,219

3' 904,937

4,975,047

---

+460,000

---

+420,000

-------------- --------------

+318,828

+1,070,110

Divison F - Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Department of Homeland Security Appropriations DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 151 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11

Enacted

Request

Bi 11

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Avi at ion Screeni ng Infrastructure Checkpoint Support .... . Checked Baggage .......... . Infrastructure for Other Operations Air Cargo... .. ..... Surface Programs .. Vett i ng Programs. .. .......... ..
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... .
Research and Deve 1opment ..
Subtota 1 , Research and Deve 1opment ...... .

107,198 60' 574

111,079 59,331

111 ,079 59,331

14,007

14,383

14,383

13,845

15,000

15,000

4,100

6,300

6,300

-------------- -------------- --------------

199,724

206,093

206,093

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

+3,881 -1,243
+376 +1 '155 +2,200
+6,369

Divison F - DepCartmaesnteof4H:1om7el-acndvS-e0c5ur2ity73Ap-pKroAprWiationsDAoctc, u20m17ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 152 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

FY 2016 Enacted
--------

--

---

--

FY 2017 Request
--------

--

--

--

--

--

Final
-B--i-ll--

--

--

--

--

Final Bi
-v-s - -E-n-a-c-t

11
e-d---

--

Final Bill
--v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Fee Funded Programs TWIC Fee ....... . Hazardous Ma teri al s Endorsement Fee. General Aviation at DCA Fee ...... . Commercial Aviation and Airports Fee. Other Security Threat Assessments Fee ........ . Air Cargo/Certified Cargo Screeni ng Program Fee. TSA PreCheck Fee ........... . Ali en Flight School Fee .... .
Subtotal, Fee Funded Programs ....
Aviation Security Capital Fund (Mandatory).

(82,267)

(88,314)

(88,314)

(21 ,083)

(21 ,083)

(21 ,083)

(400)

(400)

(400)

(6,500)

(6,500)

(6,500)

(50)

(50)

(50)

(3,500)

(3,500)

(3,500)

(80, 153)

(80, 153)

(80, 153)

(5,200)

(5,200)

(5,200)

-------------- -------------- --------------

(199, 153)

(205, 200)

(205,200)

(250,000)

(250,000)

(250,000)

(+6,047) (+6,047)

-------------- -------------- --------------

Total, Transportation Security Administration. (Di sc ret i onary Fun ding) ...................... . (Di sc ret i onary Appropria ti ons) .. .

4' 860' 943 (4,860,943)
(6' 990, 943)

4,116,030 (4,116,030) (7, 126,030)

5, 186,140
(5' 186' 140) (7,316,140)

(Offsetting Collections) ................ . (Offsetting Collections) (Legislative

( -2,130, 000) ( -2,130, 000) ( -2, 130,000)

Proposais) .......................... . Aviation Security Capital Fund (mandatory) ... . Fee Funded Programs ....................... . Gross Budget Authority, Transportation Security

250,000 199,153

( -880' 000) 250,000 205,200

250,000 205,200

Administration ...

7,440,096

7,581,230

7,771,340

+325, 197 (+325, 197) (+325, 197)

+1 ,070,110 (+1 ,070, 110)
(+190, 110)

+6,047 +331,244

(+880,000) +190, 110

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 153 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Coast Guard

Ope rat i ng Expanses Mil itary Pa y and All owances .. . Ci vil i an Pa y and Benefits ... . Training and Recruiting. Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance. Centrally Managed Accounts. Intermedi ate and Depot Level Maintenance .. Overseas Conti ngency Operations/Global War on Terrori sm (Defense) ................ .

Subtotal, Operating Expanses ..

(Defense). . . . . .

. ....... .

(Overseas Contingency Operations/Global

War on Terrori sm) ..

(Other Defense) ...... .

3' 488' 617 792,229 206,498
1 '027 '780 329,906
1,056,458

3' 597' 319 817' 324 198,605 996,204 329,099
1,048,264

3,544,111 808,969 196,346 995,519 328,746
1 '043' 245

160,002

---

162,692

-------------- -------------- --------------

7,061,490

6,986,815

7,079,628

(500,002)

(340,000)

(502,692)

( 160' 002) (340,000)

---
(340' 000)

( 162' 692) (340,000)

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ....... . Reserve Training . ....... .

13,221 110,614

13,315 112,302

13,315 112,302

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements Vessel s Survey and Design-Vessel and Boats .. . In-Service Vessel Sustainment ................. . National Security Cutter. Offshore Patrol Cutter. Fast Response Cutter.

15,000 68,000 743,400 89,000 340,000

6,500 79,000 127,000 100,000 240,000

9,500 94,000 255,400 75,000 325,000

+55,494 +16,740 -10,152 -32,261
-1 '160 -13,213

-53,208 -8,355 -2,259 -685 -353 -5,019

+2,690

+162,692

-------------- --------------

+18, 138

+92,813

(+2,690)

(+162' 692)

(+2,690)

(+162,692)

+94 +1,688

-5,500 +26,000 -488' 000 -14,000 -15,000

+3,000 +15,000 +128,400 -25,000 +85,000

Divison F - Case Department of4H:o1me7la-ncd vS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3p-pKropAriWations DAcot,c2u0m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 154 of 187
(Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Cutter Boats ....... . Polar lee Breaking Vessel.
Subtota l , Vesse l s.
Ai reraft HG -144 Convers on/ Sustai nment ........... . HC-27J Convers on/Sustai nment ........... . HC-130J Acquis tion/Conversion/Sustainment. HH-65 Conversi on/Sustai nment Projects ....
Subtota l , Ai rcraft.
Other Ac qui si ti on Programs Other Equi pme nt and Systems. Program Oversi ght and Management ........ . ~IM ................................... . CG-Logistics Information Management System (CG-LIMS) ......... .
Subtotal, Other Acquisition Programs.

3,000

4,000

4,000

6,000

147,600

25,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

1,264,400

704,100

787' 900

3,000

25,500

25,500

102,000

130,000

130,000

150,000

20,800

111,800

40,000

25,000

40,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

295,000

201 '300

307,300

20,000 36,600

8,055 20,000 24,300

8,055 20,000 24,300

8,500

7,000

7,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

65,100

59,355

59,355

+1,000

+19,000

-122' 600

-------------- --------------

-476,500

+83,800

+22,500

+28,000

-38,200

+91 '000

---

+15,000

-------------- --------------

+12,300

+106,000

+8,055
---
-12,300
-1 ,500
-------------- --------------
-5,745

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0u5rit2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 155 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation Major Construction; Housing; ATON; and Survey and Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure ... . Mi nor Shore. . ...... .
Subtotal, Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation .....
Mi 1 itary Ho us i ng ........ . Personnel and Rel ated Support Costs ..
Subtotal, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements . ........... .

124' 600

18,100

44,519

52,000

28,000

50,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

181,600

51' 100

99,519

21 ,000

---

---

118,069

120,933

115,933

-------------- -------------- --------------

1 ,945,169

1 '136, 788

1,370,007

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...

18,019

18,319

36,319

-80,081 -2,000

+26,419 +22,000

-------------- --------------

-82,081

+48,419

-21,000

-2,136

-5,000

-------------- --------------

-575,162

+233,219

+18,300

+18' 000

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1el7an-dcSve-c0ur5ity27Ap3p-rKopAriaWtions ADcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 156 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health Ca re Fu nd Contri bu ti on (Permanent Inde fi ni te

Discretionary).

'' ··············· ...... .....

169,306

176,000

176,000

Mandatory Re ti red Pay (Mandatory) .....

..... ..... .....

1,604,000

1,666,940

1,666,940

-------------- -------------- --------------

Subtotal, Mandatory.

' ..... '' ·····' .....

1,604,000

1,666,940

1,666,940

-------------- -------------- --------------

Total , Coast Gua rd .. . ,,. ' ..... ' .... ,,,,.

(Di sc ret i onary Fun (Non- Defense) ... (Defense) ......

di.n.g.).

........................................... . . .......... .........

10,921,819 (9,317 ,819) (8,817,817)
(500,002)

10,110,479 (8,443,539) (8' 103, 539)
(340,000)

10,454,511 (8,787,571) (8,284,879)
( 502' 692)

(Overseas Conti ngency Operations /Global War on Terrori sm ) ......................
(Other Defense) .. . ...... '' ........... ( Mandatory Fun ding) ........... ...... ' ..... '

(160,002) (340,000) (1,604,000)

---
(340,000)
(1 ,666,940)

(162,692) (340,000) (1 ,666,940)

+6,694

+62,940
-------------- --------------
+62,940

-------------- --------------

-467,308

+344,032

( -530, 248)

(+344,032)

(-532,938)

(+181 ,340)

(+2,690)

(+162,692)

(+2,690)
---
( +62' 940)

(+162,692)

United States Secret Servi ce

Operations and Support

Protective Operations

Protection of Persans and Faci i ti es . ...........
Protect ive Countermeasures . ......... ............

Protect ive I nte 11 i gence.

....... ········

509,825 55,000 38,700

586,988 58,193 40,732

599,759 58,193 44,490

P

residentiel Campaigns Security Events ....

and
. . ..

.

N a t i o n.a.l. . .S p e.c.i a.l. . . . . . . .

149,487
--------------

48,634
--------------

51' 734
--------------

Subtotal, Protective Operations ............

753,012

734,547

754,176

+89, 934 +3, 193 +5,790

+12,771
---
+3, 758

-97,753

+3, 100

-------------- --------------

+1 '164

+19,629

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 157 of 187

-----

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-------

-

-

FY 2016 Enacted
-----------

-

-

-

-

FY 2017 Request
---------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Final
---B--i-ll-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Final Bill
----v-s -E--n-a-c-te-d--

Final Bill
-----v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Field Operations Domestic and International Field Operations .. Support for Mi ssing and Ex pl oited Chi l dren Investigations .................... . Support for Computer Forensics Training ..
Subtotal , Field Operations ..

792,348

761 '427

763,271

8,366

---

6,000

12,784

4,869

13,869

-------------- -------------- --------------

813,498

766,296

783,140

Basic and In -Servi ce Training and Professi anal Deve l opme nt ....... .
Mission Support ................... .
Subtotal, Operations and Support.

59,709

59,575

59' 507

243,694

217,574

224,628

-------------- -------------- --------------

1 '869' 913

1 '777' 992

1,821,451

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements

Protection Assets and Infrastructure ..... Operation al Communications 1Information Techno l ogy. Construction and Facility Improvements ...

11,000 34,332 18,050

47,737 62,890

37,737 52,890

Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and

-------------- -------------- --------------

Improvements ...

63,382

110,627

90,627

-29,077 -2,366 +1 ,085
-30' 358
-202 -19,066 -48,462
+26,737 +18,558 -18,050
+27,245

+1,844 +6' 000 +9,000 +16,844
-68 +7,054 +43,459
-10,000 -10,000
-20' 000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 158 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11 vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Research and Deve 1op ment ............ . Subtotal, Research and Oevel opment.

250

2,500

2,500

250

2,500

2,500

+2,250 +2' 250

Total, United States Secret Servi ce .......... .

1,933,545

1,891 '119

1,914,578

-18,967

+23,459

Total, Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations ........... .

34,825,694

33,931,644

35,168,229

(Discretionary Funding) ..

(Non-Defense) ..... .

(Di sc ret i onary Appropriation) ..... .

(Offsetting Collections)..

. ... .

( Offsett i ng Collections) ( Legi sl at ive

Proposal s) ......................... .

(Defense). . . . . . . . . . .

. ................... .

(Overseas Conti ngency Operations 1Global War

on Terrori sm) ... .

(Other Defense) .......... .

(Mandatory Fundi ng) ............... .

Avi at ion Securi ty Ca pi ta 1 Fu nd ( Mandatory) .

Fee Funded Programs.

(33,221,694) (32,721 ,692) (34,865,692) ( -2,144' 000)

(32,264,704)
( 31 ' 924' 704) (34,965,704) (-2,161,000)

(33,501,289)
(32' 998' 597) (35 ' 167' 597) (-2,169,000)

(500,002)

( -880' 000) (340,000)

(502,692)

(160,002)

---

( 162' 692)

(340' 000)

(340' 000)

(340' 000)

(1 ,604,000)

( 1 '666' 940)

(1,666,940)

250,000

250,000

250,000

2,497,934

2,582,040

2,621,040

============== ============== ==============

+342,535
(+279,595) (+276,905) (+301,905)
(-25,000)
(+2,690)
(+2,690)
---
(+62,940)
+123,106

+1 ,236,585 (+1,236,585) (+1,073,893)
(+201 ,893) ( -8,000)
(+880,000) ( +162' 692) (+162,692)
+39,000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 159 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Title III - PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

Nation al Protection and Programs Di rectorate

Operations and Support Cybersecuri ty Cyber Readi ness and Response NCCIC Operations ............... . (GERT) ................... . NCCIC Planning and Exercises. (GERT).. . ................ . Cyber Infrastructure Resilience Cybersecurity Ad vi sors . . . . . . . Enhanced Cybersecurity Servi ces .... Cybersecurity Education and Awareness ... Federal Cybersecuri ty Federal Network Resilience. Conti nuous Diagnostics and Mit i gati on. National Cybersecurity Protection System ..
Subtotal, Cybersecurity.

87,491 (64, 119) 64,942 (48,590)

116,168 (94, 134) 92,683 (65,788)

108,402 (86,368) 88,502 (61,607)

8,243 16,597 17,350

13,535 16,830
7,886

12,970 16,950 14,133

28,186

37,005

35,013

5,149

8,878

7,565

367,948

389,355

385,879

-------------- -------------- --------------

595,906

682,340

669,414

+20,911 (+22,249) +23, 560 (+13,017)

-7,766
( -7' 766) -4,181
( -4,181)

+4,727 +353
-3,217

-565 +120 +6,247

+6,827

-1,992

+2,416

-1,313

+17 ,931

-3,476

-------------- --------------

+73' 508

-12,926

Divison F - DepaCrtmaesnteof4H:1om7el-ancdvS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3p-pKroAprWiationsDAoctc, u20m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 160 of 187
(Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

--

---

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

---

---

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

---

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

---

---

Enacted
----------

---

---

Request
---------

-

---

---

---

Bill
------

-

---

---

--v-s

--E-n-a-c-te-d--

-

---

-v-s -

-R-e-q-u-e-s-t -

Infrastructure Protection Infrastructure Capacity Building Sector Ri sk Management ...... . Protective Security Advisors. Bombi ng Prevention . ...... . Infrastructure Information and Sensitive Data Protection ................... . Infrastructure Security Compl i ance ...
Subtotal, Infrastructure Protection ..... .
Emergency Communications Emergency Communications Preparedness.
Priority Telecommunications Service GETS/WPS/SRAS/TSP .............. . Next Generation Networks Priority Services.
Subtotal , Emergency Communications ....

42,227 36,294 14,206

41,611 39,490
---

42,396 39,723 15,070

23,119

19,889

19,546

76,609

76,876

69,557

-------------- -------------- --------------

192,455

177,866

186,292

44,306

43,260

44,097

55' 173

55,406

55,730

1,824

1,966

2,214

-------------- -------------- --------------

101,303

100,632

102,041

+169 +3,429
+864

+785 +233 +15,070

-3,573

-343

-7,052

-7,319

-------------- --------------

-6,163

+8,426

-209

+837

+557

+324

+390

+248

-------------- --------------

+738

+1,409

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 161 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Integrated Operations Cyber and Infrastructure Anal ysis National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center (NI SAC) ........................ . Infrastructure Analysis......... . .... . Critical Infrastructure Situational Awareness. (Defense) . . . ....................... . Stakeholder Engagement and Requi rements .. (Defense) ................... . Strategy, Policy and Plans .. (Defense) ......... . Subtotal, Integrated Operations.
Office of Biometrie Identity Management ldentity and Screening Program Operations .. !DENT 1Home 1and Advanced Recognition Tech no 1ogy.
Subtotal, Office of Biometrie Identity Management ............... .
Missi on Support ................ . (Defense) .....
Subtotal , Operations and Support.

18,650 21,605 13,702 (12,082) 46,603 (42,843) 13,759 (9,619) 114,319

12,993 24,443 16,344 (14, 724) 43,150 (38,830) 14,707 (10,207) 111,637

18,650 23,230 16,176 (14,720) 41,959 (37,763)
9,669 (6,382) 109,684

69,828

---

71,954

145,425

---

163,475

-------------- -------------- --------------

215,253

---

235,429

76,727

75,027

69,408

(22,695)

(23,390)

(21 ,516)

-------------- -------------- --------------

1,295,963

1 '147 ,502

1 ,372,268

---
+1,625 +2,474 (+2,638) -4,644 (-5,080) -4,090 ( -3,237) -4,635

+5 '657 -1,213
-.168 (-4)
-1 '191 ( -1 ,067)
-5,038 ( -3,825)
-1 ,953

+2, 126

+71 ,954

+18,050

+163,475

-------------- --------------

+20, 176

+235,429

-7,319

-5,619

( -1 '179)

( -1 ,874)

-------------- --------------

+76,305

+224,766

Divison F - Case Department of 4H:o1me7la-ndcvSe-c0u5rit2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot,c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 162 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bill

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Protecti ve Servi ce FPS Operations Ope rat i ng Ex penses ............ . Countermeasures Protective Security Officers. Technical Countermeasures . ..
Subtotal, Federal Protective Service (Gross).

336,458

368,892

368,892

1,079,534

1,059,825

1,059,825

27' 457

22,361

22,361

-------------- -------------- --------------

1,443,449

1 '451 ,078

1 '451 ,078

Offsetting Collections .. Subtotal, Federal Protective Service (Net) ..

-1,443,449

-1,451,078

-1,451,078

-------------- -------------- --------------

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Cybersecuri ty Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation .... National Cybersecurity Protection System.

97,435 91,738

266' 971 81 '771

217,409 81 '771

Subtotal , Cybersecurity.

189,173

348,742

299' 180

+32,434
-19,709 -5,096
+7,629
-7,629

+119,974 -9,967
+110,007

-49,562 -49,562

Emergency Communications Next Generation Networks Pri ority Servi ces ..... .
Subtotal, Emergency Communications .....

78,550 78,550

88,055 88,055

88,055 88,055

+9,505 +9,505

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0u5rit2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 163 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

Enacted

Request

Bi 11

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biometrie Identity Management !DENT /Hamel and Advanced Recognition Technol ogy.
Subtotal, Biometrie Identity Management.

65,800 65,800

52,800 52,800

-13,000 -13,000

+52,800 +52,800

Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements.

333,523

436,797

440,035

Research and Deve 1opment Cybersecurity. . ............. . Infrastructure Protection ..
Subtotal, Research and Development ...

Total, National Protection and Programs

Di rectorate ............... .

(Di sc ret i onary Fun ding) ..... .

(Non- Defense) . .

. ..... .

(Discret i onary Appropriati ons) ...

( Offsett i ng Co 11 ecti ons) . . . . .

(Defense). . . . . . . . .............. .

2,030

2,030

2,030

4,089

2,439

4,439

-------------- -------------- --------------

6,119

4,469

6,469

-------------- -------------- --------------

1,635,605 (1,635,605)
(344,605)
( 1 ' 788 ' 054) ( -1 ,443,449)
(1 ,291 ,000)

1,588,768 (1 ,588,768)
(62' 077) (1 ,513, 155)
( -1 '451 '078) ( 1 ' 526' 691 )

1,818,772 (1 ,818,772)
(345,060) (1 '796, 138) (-1 ,451 ,078) (1 ,473, 712)

Gross Budget Authori ty, Nation al Protection and Programs Di rectorate . .

3' 079' 054

3' 039' 846

3,269,850

+106,512

+3,238

+350

+2 '000

-------------- --------------

+350

+2,000

-------------- --------------

+183, 167 (+183' 167)
(+455) (+8,084) (-7 ,629) (+182,712)

+230,004
(+230' 004)
( +2B2' 983) (+282,983)
---
(-52, 979)

+190,796

+230,004

Divison F - Case Department of 4H:o1me7la-ndcvS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot,c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 164 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Office of Health Affairs
Operations and Support Chemical and Biological Readiness ..... He al th and Medical Readi ness. Integrated Operations .. Mission Support ..... .
Subtotal, Operations and Support . . . . . . .
Total, Office of Health Affairs.
Federa 1 Emergency Management Agency
Operations and Support Regional Operations ........... . Mitigation .................... . Preparedness and Protection ... . Response and Recovery Response .................. . (Urban Search and Rescue) ..... Recovery ........ . Missi on Support ..... .
Subtotal, Operations and Support ....... . (Defense) ...

82,902 4,495
10,962 27,010
125,369
125,369

82,689 4,352
11,809 24,698
123,548
123,548

-213 -143 +847 -2,312
-1,821
-1 ,821

+82,689 +4,352
+11,809 +24,698
+123,548
+123,548

151 ,460
27' 957 149,281

157,134 24,887
146,356

157' 134 28,213
146,356

172,624

178,500

187,806

(35, 180)

(27, 153)

(38,280)

49,763

58,687

56,126

367,869

472,916

472,916

-------------- -------------- --------------

918,954

1 '038, 480

1 '048' 551

(46,500)

(46, 788)

(46,788)

+5' 674 +256
-2,925

+3,326

+15, 182

+9,306

(+3, 100)

(+11 '127)

+6,363

-2,561

+105,047

-------------- --------------

+129,597

+10,071

(+288)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 165 of 187

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11

-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

Enacted
-------------

-

-

Request
-----------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bi 11
------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--vs---E-n-a-c-te-d--

-

-

---v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Operational Communications/Information Technology. Construction and Fa cil ity Improvements ...... . Missi on Support, As sets, and Infrastructure ..

2,800 29,000 11,500

2,800 21,050 11,423

2,800 21 ,050 11,423

-7,950 -77

Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements ............ . (Defense).
Federal Assistance Grants State Hom el and Security Grant Program ..... (Operation Stonegarden) ..... Urban Area Security Initiative. (Nonprofit Securi ty) ........ . Public Transportation Securi ty As si stance. (Amtrak Security) .................... . (Over-the-Road Bus Security). Port Securi ty Grants ......... . Counteri ng Vi o1ent Ext remi sm .. . Regional Competitive Grant Program. Assistance to Fi re fi ghter Grants. Staffi ng for Adequate Fi re and Emergency Res panse (SAFER) Grants ........... . Emergency Management Performance Grants ..... Nation a1 Predi sas ter Mit i ga ti on Fu nd.

43,300 (27,500)
467,000 (55,000) 600,000 (20,000) 100,000 (10,000)
100,000
345,000
345,000 350,000 100,000

35,273 (15,500)
200,000
330,000
85,000 (10,000)
93,000 49,000 100,000 335,000
335,000 350,000
54,485

35,273 (15,500)
467,000 (55,000) 605,000 (25' 000) 100,000 (10,000)
(2,000) 100,000
345,000
345,000 350,000 100,000

-8,027 (-12,000)

+5,000 (+5,000)
(+2,000)

+267' 000 (+55,000) +275,000 (+25,000) +15,000
(+2,000) +7,000 -49,000 -100' 000 +10,000
+10,000
+45,515

Di vi son F - DepaCrtmaesnteof4H:1am7el -ancdvS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3p-pKroAprWiationsDAoctc, u20m17ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 166 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

-

-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Enacted
---------

--

--

--

Request
--------

--

--

--

--

--

--B-i-ll--

---

--

--

--v-s -

-E-n-a-c-t-e

d--

--

--

-v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Flood Hazard Mappi ng and Ri sk Anal ysis Program Emergency Food and Shelter ....

190,000 120,000

177,531 100,000

177,531 120,000

Subtotal , Grants ...

2,717' 000

2,209,016

2,709,531

Education, Training, and Exercises

Center for Domesti c Preparedness .....

64,991

63,939

63,939

Center for Homeland Defense and Security.

18,000

18,000

18,000

Emergency Management Institute ......... .

20,569

19,643

20,569

U.S. Fi re Administration ............... .

42' 500

40,812

42,500

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ..

98,000

36,000

101,000

Conti nui ng Training Grants ... .

11,521

---

8,000

National Exerci se Program ..... .

19,919

19,911

19,919

-------------- -------------- --------------

Subtotal , Education, Training, and Exerci ses

275,500

198,305

273,927

Subtotal, Federal As si stance . . . . . . . . . .

-------------- -------------- --------------

2,992,500

2, 407' 321

2,983,458

Di saster Relief Fu nd Base Disaster Relief.

661 '740

639,515

615,515

-12,469 -7,469 -1,052
+3,000 -3,521 -1 ,573 -9,042 -46,225

+20' 000 +500, 515
+926 +1,688 +65' 000 +8,000
+8 +75,622
+576' 137
-24' 000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 167 of 187

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Enacted
----------

--

--

--

Request
--------

--

--

--

--

--

Bill
------

--

--

--

--

-v-s

--E-n-a-c-te-d-

--

--

--v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Di saster Re 1 i ef Category ....... .
Subtotal, Disaster Relief Fund (Gross) .. (transfer to Office of Inspector General).
Subtotal, Disaster Relief Fund (Net).
Na ti on al Flood Insu rance Fu nd Fl oodp 1ain Management and Mappi ng .. Mission Support .....
Subtotal, National Flood Insurance Fund ..

6,712,953

6, 709,000

6,713,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

7,374,693

7' 348,515

7,328,515

(-24,000)

( -24, 000)

-------------- -------------- --------------

7,350,693

7,324,515

7,328,515

158,192

168,363

168,363

23,006

13,436

13,436

-------------- -------------- --------------

181 '198

181 '799

181,799

+47 -46,178 (+24,000) -22' 178
+10, 171 -9,570 +601

+4' 000
-20,000 (+24,000)
+4,000

Offsett i ng Fee Collections.

-181 '198

-181 '799

-181 '799

-601

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 168 of 187

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

--

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

--

-

-

--

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

---

-

--

-

---

Enacted
--------

--

-

---

-

Request
---------

-

--

-

---

-

Bill
------

-

--

-

---

-

--vs-

--E-n-a-c-te-d--

-

-

--

-v-s -

-R-e-q-u-e-s-t

-

Administrative Provisions
Radio 1agi cal Emergency Preparedness Program.

-305

-265

-265

+40

Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency .. (Di sc ret i onary Fun ding) ................ . (Non-Defense) ................. . (Di sc ret i anar y Appropriations) . (Offsetting Collections) ..... (Disaster Relief Category). (Defense) .. Trans fer Out.

-------------- -------------- --------------

11 ,329,142

10,B29,324

11,395,532

( 11 ' 329' 142) ( 10' 829' 324) (11 ,395,532)

( 11 '255' 142) (10,767,036) (11 ,333,244)

(4,723,387)

(4,239,835)

(4,802,043)

( -181 '198)

( -181 '799)

( -181 ,799)

(6,712,953)

(6' 709, 000)

(6,713,000)

(74,000)

(62,288)

(62,288)

-24,000

-24,000

---

-------------- --------------

+66,390

+566' 208

(+66,390)

( +566' 208)

( +78' 102)

(+566,208)

(+78,656) ( -601)

(+562,208)
---

(+47) ( -11 '712)

(+4,000)
---

+24,000

+24,000

Gross Budget Authori ty, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

11,486,340

10' 987' 123

11,577,331

============== ============== ==============

+90' 991

+590, 208

============== ==============

Total, Title III, Protection, Preparedness, Res panse, and Recovery ...... . (Discretionary Funding) ..... . (Non-Defense) ............. .
(Discretionary Appropriations) ........ . (Offsetting Collections) ..... . (Di sas ter Relief Category). (Defense) ....... . Trans fer out . ..... .

13,090,116

12' 418' 092

13,337,852

(13,090, 116) (12,418,092) (13,337,852)

(11 '725, 116) (10,829, 113) ( 11 ' 801 ' 852)

(6,636,810)

(5,752,990)

(6,721,729)

( -1 '624' 647) ( -1 ' 632' 877) (-1 ,632,877)

(6,712,953)

(6,709,000)

(6, 713,000)

(1,365,000)

(1 ,588,979)

(1,536,000)

-24,000

-24' 000

---

============== ============== ==============

+247,736

+919,760

(+247,736)

(+919,760)

(+76,736)

( +972' 739)

(+84,919)

(+968, 739)

( -8,230)

---

(+47)

(+4' 000)

(+171 ,000)

(-52, 979)

+24,000

+24,000

============== ==============

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Di vi son F - Department of Hamel and Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 169 of 187

TITLE IV - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND SERVICES
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Operations and Support Empl oyment Status Veri fi cati on ....
Subtotal, Operations and Support. Procurement, Construction, and Improvements.
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements . ..
Federal Assistance ...................... .
Subtotal , Federal As si stance.

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

104,560 104,560
15,111
15,111

103,912 103,912
15,227
15,227 10,000 10,000

103,912 103,912
15,227
15,227

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

-648 -648 +116
+116

-10,000 -10,000

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 170 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Fee Funded Programs Immi gr at ion Ex ami nations Fee Account Adjudication Services District Operations ............... . (Immigrant Integration Grants) ............ . Service Center Operations ................ . Asyl um, Refugee, and International Operations. Records Operations .......................... . Premium Processing (Including Transformation).
Subtotal, Adjudication Services.
Information and Customer Services Operati ng Ex penses ..
Administration Operati ng Ex penses.
Systemati c A1i en Verification for Ent it 1ements (SAVE) ........... .
Subtotal, Immigration Examinations Fee Account. . .................. .

(1 ,615,409)

(1,607,655)

(1 ,675,716)

(10,000)

---

(10,000)

(669,891)

(1,001,363)

(609,367)

(259,042)

(274,437)

(358,474)

(124, 177)

(124,671)

(133,509)

(226,380)

(226,380)

(573,976)

-------------- -------------- --------------

(2,894,899)

(3,234,506)

(3,351 ,042)

(124,041)

(138,915)

(103,625)

(384,585)

(418,639)

(509,420)

(27,021)

(37,071)

(34,410)

-------------- -------------- --------------

(3,430,546)

(3,829,131)

(3,998,497)

(+60,307)
---

(+68,061) (+10,000)

( -60' 524)

(-391 ,996)

(+99,432)

(+84,037)

(+9,332)

(+8,838)

(+347,596)

(+347,596)

-------------- --------------

(+456, 143)

(+116,536)

( -20,416)

( -35' 290)

(+124,835)

(+90,781)

(+7,389)

(-2,661)

-------------- --------------

(+567,951)

(+169,366)

Divison F - Case Department of4H:o1m7ela-ncdvS-e0c5ur2ity7A3p-pKroApriWationsDAoctc, u20m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 171 of 187
(Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

Enacted
-------------

-

-

Request
----------

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bi 11
-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

vs
------

Enacted
------------

-v-s

-

-R-e-q-u-e-s-t -

H1-B Non-Immigrant Petititioner Account Adjudication Services Service Center Operations.

(15,000)

(15,000)

(15,000)

Subtotal, H-1B Non-Immigrant Petitioner Account ................ .

(15,000)

(15,000)

(15,000)

Fraud Prevention and Detection Account Adj udi cati on Servi ces District Operations. Service Center Operations. Asyl um and Refugee Operati ng Expanses ..
Subtota 1 , Fraud Prevention and Detection Account.
Subtotal, Fee Funded Programs.

(29,523)

(29, 523)

(26, 789)

(15, 169)

(15, 169)

(19,631)

(308)

(308)

(308)

-------------- -------------- --------------

(45,000)

( 45' 000)

(46, 728)

-------------- -------------- --------------

(3,490,546)

(3, 889,131)

(4,060,225)

(-2,734) (+4,462)

( -2, 734) (+4,462)

-------------- --------------

(+1 '728)

(+1 '728)

-------------- --------------

(+569,679)

(+171 ,094)

Divison F - Case Department of 4H:o1me7la-ndcvS-ec0u5rit2y7A3pp-rKopAriWations DAcot,c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 172 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Ad mi ni strati ve Provisions H28 returni ng worker ... Immigration Authorization Extensions ......... . U-Visa Immigration Proposal ........... .
Subtotal, Administrative Provisions...........

1,000 1,000
--------------
2,000

---
3,000
--------------
3 , ( 100

1,000 1,000
--------------
2,000

-------------- -------------- --------------

Tota 1 , United States Ci ti zenshi p and lm mi gr at ion

Services.

. ........... .

121,671

132,139

121 '139

(Di sc ret i onary Fun ding) ... .

(121 ,671)

(132, 139)

(121 '139)

Fee Funded Programs ....... .

3,490,546

3,669,131

4,060,225

Gross Budget Authority, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ....

3,612,217

4,021,270

4,161,364

+1 ,000 +1 ,000 -3,000

-532 ( -532) +569,679
+569, 147

-11,000 (-11 ,000) +171,094
+160' 094

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 173 of 187

---

-

--

-

---

---

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

---

-

--

-

--

-

---

---

---

-

--

-

---

---

---

-

--

FY 2016 Enacted
----------

-

--

-

FY 2017 Request
---------

-

--

-

---

---

Final
-B--i-ll--

-

---

---

Final Bill
--v-s--E-n-a-c-te-d---

---

Final Bill
-v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Federa 1 Law Enforcement Training Canters

Operations and Support Law En forcement Training . ..... . Missi on Support ............. .
Subtotal, Operations and Support .....

216' 963

213,804

213,804

28,075

28,714

28,714

-------------- -------------- --------------

245,038

242,518

242,518

-------------- -------------- --------------

Total , Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.

245,038

242,518

242,518

Sei en ce and Tech no 1ogy Di rectorate

-3,159 +639
-2,520
-2,520

Operations and Support Laboratory Facilities .. Acquisition and Operations Anal ysi s. Missi on Support ....... .
Subotal, Operations and Support ..... .

125,412

133' 942

133' 942

47' 103

48,392

48,392

131,530

127,904

128,788

-------------- -------------- --------------

304,045

310,238

311 '122

+8,530

+1 ,289

-2,742

+884

-------------- --------------

+7' 077

+884

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 174 of 187

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bi 11

Enacted

Request

Bi 11

vs Enacted

vs Request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Laboratory Facilities ..................... .
Subtotal , Procurement, Construction, and Improvements .....

8,319

---

---

-------------- -------------- --------------

8,319

---

---

-8,319
-------------- --------------
-8,319

Research and Deve 1opment Research, Development, and Innovation. University Programs ....

434,850

417,420

430,124

39,724

31,085

40,500

-------------- -------------- --------------

-4,726

+12, 704

+776

+9,415

-------------- --------------

Subotal, Research and Oevel opme nt ............ .

474' 574

448,505

470,624

-3,950

+22, 119

Total, Science and Technology ..... .
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Operations and Support
Mission Support.
Subtotal, Operati ons and Support ............ .

786,938
51,545 51,545

758,743

781 '746
50,042 50,042

-5,192

+23,003

-1,503 -1,503

+50,042 +50,042

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 175 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Large Scale Detection Systems ....... . Hum an Port ab 1e Rad 1Nu cl ear Detection Systems ...
Subotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements . ................. .
Research and Deve 1opment Architecture Planning and Analysis ......... . Transformation a1 Research and Deve 1opme nt. Detection Capabil ity Deve 1opment. Detection Capability Assessments. Nuclear Forensics ......... .... .
Subtotal, Research and Development.
Federal Assistance Federal, State, Local, Territorial, and Tribal Support ................................ . Securing the Cities ..................... .
Subtotal, Federal Assistance.

36,527 51' 762
88,289
15,758 64,684 21,029 39,503 19,031 160,005
26,168 21 '113 47,281

53,709 47,344
101,053
15,072 62,028 19,851 39,272 18,838 155,061
25,193 21 '135 46,328

+17' 182 -4,418
+12,764
-686 -2,656 -1 '178
-231 -193 -4,944
-975 +22 -953

+53,709 +47,344
+101,053
+15,072 +62,028 +19,851 +39,272 +18,838 +155,061
+25' 193 +21 '135 +46,328

Total, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office ....... .

347' 120

352,484

+5,364

+352 ,484

Divison F - DepCartmaesnteof4H:1om7el-acndvS-e0c5ur2ity73Ap-pKroAprWiationsDAoctc, u20m17ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 176 of 187 (Amounts in thousands}

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bi 11

---

-

-

-----

-

-

-

-----

-

-

-----

-

-

-----

-

-

-----

-

-

-

-----

-

-

-----

-

-

-----

Enacted
--------

-

-

-----

Request
--------

-

-----

-

-

-

Bi 11
------

-

-----

-

-

- -v-s - -E-n-a-c-te-d- - -

-

-

--v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives Office

Operations & Support Chemical, Biological, and Emerging Infectious Di seases Capa bi li ty Chemical and Biological Capability .. Health and Emerging Infectious Diseases. I ntegrated Operations ................. .
Subtotal, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives Office.
Rad/Nuclear Detection, Forensics, and Prevention Capabil ity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... .
Management &Administration ............. .
Subtotal, Operations and Support .....
Procurement, Const ruet ion, and Improvements Rad/Nuclear Detection Equipment Acquisition ..... .
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements . ..................... .

94,862 9,951
13,107
117,920
20,552 41,561 180' 033
103,860
103,860

-94,862 -9,951
-13,107
-117,920
-20,552 -41,561 -180,033
-103,860
-103,860

Divison F - DepaCrtmaenst eof4H:o1m7ela-ncd vS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3p-pKropAriWationsDAcot,cu20m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 177 of 187
(Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bi 11

Final Bi 11

---

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enacted
-----------

-

-

Request
------------------

-

-

-

-

-

Bill
--------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-vs---E-n-a-c-te-d--

-

----v-s-

-R-e-q-u-e-s-t -

Research and Deve 1opment Rad/ Nue 1ear Detection, Forensi cs, and Prevention Capabi 1ity
Transformationa1 Research and Deve1opment ... Detection Capa bi 1i ty Deve 1op ment .... . Detection Capability Assessments .... . Nuclear Forensics.

64,771 21,536 44,722 20,576

-64,771 -21,536 -44,722 -20,576

Subtota 1 , Rad 1Nuc1 ear Detection, Forensi cs, and Prevention Capabil ity ................ .

151,605

-151 ,605

Subtota 1 , Re se arch and Deve 1opment.

151,605

-151,605

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0ur5it2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 178 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Federal Assistance

Rad/ Nu cl ear Detection, Forensi cs, and Prevention

Capabil ity. . . . . . . . . .

. ........ .

Bombi ng Prevention (Defense Fun ct ion) .

Subtotal, Rad/Nuclear Detection, Forensics, and Prevention Capabil ity ....

Subtotal, Federal Assistance ..

51,684 14,263
65' 947
65,947

-51 ,884 -14,263
-65,947
-65,947

Total, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nue 1ear, and Exp1os ives Office ............ . (Discretionary Funding) ......... . (Non- Defense) ................ . (Defense) ...... .

501 '445 (501 ,445)
(487' 182) (14,263)

-501,445 (-501 ,445)
( -487' 182) (-14,263)

Total, Title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Servi ces ...... . (Oiscretionary Funding) ..... . (Non-Defense) ............ . (Defense) ....... . Fee Funded Programs.

1,500,767 ( 1 ' 500' 767) ( 1 ' 500 ' 767)
3,490,546

1 '634' 845 (1,634,845) (1,620,582)
(14,263) 3, 889,131

1,497,887 (1 ,497,887) (1 ,497,887)
4,060,225

-2,880 ( -2,880) ( -2,880)
+569,679

-136,958 ( -136, 958) (-122,695)
(-14,263) +171 '094

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 179 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

TITLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS
DHS HQ Consolidation Project. Financial Systems Modernization ......... . OCIO Cyber Securi ty Fu nd ............... . OCIO Unobl i gated Balances (Res ci sson) ........ . Emergent Threats ............................ . FEMA Di sas ter As si stance Di reet Loan Program Ace ou nt
(P.L. 109-88) (FY05) (Rescission) ... Analysis and Operations (Rescission) .. CBP Automation Modernization (Rescission) ... . CBP Air and Marine Operations (Rescission) .... .. CBP, BSFIT (P.L. 114-4) (Rescission) ............ . CBP, BSFIT (Prior Year Balances) (Rescission) .. . CBP Construction and Facilities Management
(Rescission) ............................... . !CE Salaries and Expanses (P.L. 114-4) (FY 15)
(Rescission) ............................... . !CE Salaries and Expanses (P.L. 114-113)(FY16)
(Res ci ss ion) ........... . !CE Construction (Rescission). TSA Aviation Security (P.L. 114-113) (FY16)
(Res ci ss ion) ............................ . TSA Surface Transportation Security (P. L. 114-113)
(FY16) (Rescission)......... .. . .. . ........... . TSA Intelligence and Vetting (P.L. 114-113) (FY16)
(Rescission) ...

215,679 52' 977
100,000 ---
50,000
-27,338 -4,188 -7,000
---
-21 ,856
-4,500

---------
-95' 000
---------
---

13,253 41,215
---
-3,000
---
-95' 000
---
-31 ,293 -21,450
---
-21 '150
-20,690
-13,500
-45' 000 -2,900
-104,650
-2,582
-9,930

-202 '426 -11 '762
-100,000 -3,000
-50' 000
-67,662 +4, 188 -24,293 -21,450
+21 ,856 -21 '150
-16,190
-13,500
-45,000 -2,900
-104' 650
-2,582
-9,930

+13,253 +41,215
---
-3,000
-31 ,293 -21 ,450
---
-21 '150 -20' 690 -13,500 -45' 000
-2,900 -104,650
-2,582 -9,930

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 180 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

TSA Transportation Security Support (P.L. 114-113) ( FY16) (Res ci ss ion) ............................ .
TSA Aviation Security (P.L. 114-4) (FY15) (Rescission) TSA Surface Transportation Security (P. L. 114-4)
(FY15) (Rescission) ............................. . Coast Guard AC&I (P.L. 112-74) (FY12) (Rescission). Coast Guard AC&I (P.L. 113-6) (FY13) (Rescission). Coast Guard AC&I (P.L. 113-76) (FY14) (Rescission). Coast Guard AC&I (P.L. 114-4) (FY15) (Rescission) .. Coast Guard AC&I (P.L. 114-113) (FY16) (Rescission) .. . FEMA Predisaster Mitigation (Rescission) ............ . FEMA State and Local Programs (70X0560) (Rescission) .. S&T RDA&O (PL113-6) (FY13) (Rescission) .... . S&T RDA&O (PL113-76) (FY14) (Rescission) .. . S&T RDA&O (PL114-4) (FY15) (Rescission) .. S&T RDA&O (PL114-113) (FY16) (Rescission) .. Legacy Funds (Rescission). . ............ . DHS Lapsed Balances (Rescission) .......... . Treasury Asset Forfaiture Fund (Rescission) ..

-158,414
-14,000 -5,800
-16,445
-13,758
-393 -8,500 -1 '107
-1 ,006 -23,968 -176,000

-2,518
-4,200 -19,300 -16,500 -31 ,000
-11 ,071
-977 -5,000 -1 ,523 -1 ,841 -42,343 -187,000

-2,518 +158,414
+14,000 +5,800 -4,200 -2,855 -16,500 -31,000
+13, 758 -11,071
+393 +7,523 -3,893 -1,523
-835 -18,375 -11,000

-2,518
-4,200 -19,300 -16,500 -31,000
-11,071
-977 -5,000 -1,523 -1,841 -42,343 -187,000

Di vi son F - Case Department of4H:1am7el -ancdvS-e0c5ur2ity7A3p-pKroAprWiationsDAoctc, u20m17ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 181 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Enacted
--------

--

--

--

Request
----------

--

--

--

--

--B--i-ll-

--

--

--

--

--v-s-

-E-n-a-c-t-e

d--

--

--

-v-s--R-e-q-u-e-s-t-

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) (Rescission). Presidential Residence Protection Assistance.

-1,021,879

-325,000

-789,248

---

---

41,000

============== ============== ==============

Total, Title V, General Provisions ..... .

-1,087,496

-420' 000

-1 '388, 198

(Discretionary Funding) ...... . (Rescissions/Cancellations) ..

(418,656)

---

(95,468)

( -1,506, 152)
==============

( -420' 000)
==============

===(-=1==,4==8=3=,6=6==6=)

Grand Total, Titles I-V ..... . (Discretionary Funding) ....... . (Non- Defense) ............. . (Discret i onary Appropria ti ons) .. . (Offsetting Collections) ........ . (Offsetting Collections) (Legislative

49,431,955 (47,827,955) (45,962,953) (44,524,799) ( -3,768, 647)

48,998,955 (47,332,015) ( 45' 388 ,773) (43' 773, 650) (-3,793,877)

49,810,511 (48, 143,571)
( 46' 104' 879) (44' 677' 422) (-3,801 ,877)

Proposals) ....................... .

(Disaster Relief Category) .............. .

(Res ci ss ions) .

(Defense) .

. ...... .

(Overseas Contingency on Operations/Global

(6 ,712' 953) ( -1 '506' 152)
(1,865,002)

( -880' 000) (6, 709,000)
( -420, 000) (1 ,943,242)

---
(6,713,000)
( -1 ' 483' 666) (2,038,692)

War on Terra ri sm). . .... (Other Defense) . (Mandatory Fundi ng) ............... .

(160' 002)

---

( 162' 692)

(1,705,000)

(1 ,943,242)

(1,876,000)

(1,604,000)

(1 ,666,940)

(1,666,940)

============:= ============== ==============

+232, 631

-464' 248

+41,000
==============

+41 '000
==============

-300' 702

-968,198

( -323, 188)

(+95,468)

(+22,486) (-1 ,063,666)
============== ==============

+378,556 (+315,616) (+141 '926) (+152,623)
(-33,230)
---
(+47) (+22,486) (+173,690)

+811 '556 (+811 ,556) (+716,106) (+903, 772)
( -8,000)
(+880' 000) ( +4' 000)
( -1 ' 063 ' 666) (+95,450)

(+2,690)

(+162,692)

(+171 '000)

( -67' 242)

( +62' 940)

---

============== ==============

Divison F - Case Department of4H:o1m7ela-ncd vS-e0c5ur2ity7A3p-pKroApriWationsDAoct,cu20m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 182 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016

FY 2017

Final

Final Bill

Final Bill

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

-----

-

-

-

-

-

-

------

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enacted
--------

-

-

-

Request
------------

-----

-

-

-

-

-

Bill
-------

-

-

-

-

-

-

vs Enacted
-----------

------v-s

-

-R-e-q-u-e-s-t -

TITLE VI - ADOITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

SECURITY ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

Operations and Support Office of Pol icy (budget amendment) ..... .
Subtotal, Operations and Support.

11,304 11,304

-11,304 -11,304

Total, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management ...... .
U. S. Customs and Border Protection
Operations and Support Border Security Operations U. s. Border Patrol Operations (budget amendment). . ........ . Assets and Support (budget amendment).
Subtotal, Border Security Operations.

11,304

-11,304

53,920 89,575
143,495

33,920 84,710
118,630

+33,920 +84, 710
+118,630

-20' 000 -4,865
-24,865

Divison F - Case Department of 4Ho:m1e7lan-dcvSe-c0u5rit2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot, c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 183 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Trade and Travel Operations Of fi ce of Fie 1d Operations Domestic Operations (budget amendment). Assets and Support (budget amendment) ..
Subtotal, Trade and Travel Operations ....

28,798

24,460

30,492

69,614

-------------- -------------- --------------

59,290

94 '074

Integrated Operations Air and Marine Operations Assets and Support (budget amendment) ..
Operations Support (budget amendment).
Subtota 1 , Integrated Operations.

43,284 6,000

18,143
---

-------------- -------------- --------------

49,284

18,143

Missi on Support

Enterprise Services (budget amendment).........

Office of Professional Responsibility (budget

amendment) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

Executive Leadership and Oversight (budget

amendment)..

..................... .....

---

45,859

35,605

---

8, 361

8, 361

---

2,112

Subtotal , Missi on Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

---

56,332

43,966

Subtotal, Operations and Support...........

---

308,401

274,813

+24,460

-4,338

+69,614

+39' 122

-------------- --------------

+94,074

+34,784

+18, 143

-25,141

---

-6,000

-------------- --------------

+18, 143

-31 '141

+35,605 +8,361
+43,966

-10,254
-2,112 -12,366

+274,813

-33,588

Di vi son F - De Case partment of 4H:a1me7l a-ncd vS-e0cu5ri 2ty7A3pp-KropAriaWtions DAcot,c2u0m17 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 184 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Border Security Assets and Infrastructure (budget amendment) ............................ . Trade and Travel As sets and Infrastructure ...

1,355,083

487' 100 10,300

Subtotal , Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. .
Total, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Discretionary Funding) ............. .

1,355,083

497,400

-------------- -------------- --------------

1 '663, 484

772,213

(1 ,663,484)

(772,213)

U. s. Immi gr at ion and Customs Enforcement

Operations and Support Home land Security Investigations (budget amendment). Enforcement and Removal Operations Custody Operations (budget amendment) ......... . Cri mi na 1 A1i en Program (budget amendment) .. . Alternatives to Detention (budget amendment) . Transportation and Removal Program (budget amendment) ........ .
Subtotal, Enforcement and Removal Operations

--------------

15,136
994,914 5,000
57,392
98,946
--------------
1,156,252

---
147,870
---
57,392
31,646
--------------
236,908

+487' 100 +10,300

-867,983 +10,300

+497 ,400

-857,683

-------------- --------------

+772,213

-891 ,271

(+772,213)

( -891,271)

---

-15,136

+147,870
---
+57,392

-847,044 -5,000

+31,646

-67,300

-------------- --------------

+236,908

-919' 344

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-7 Divison F - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Amounts in thousands)

Filed 12/12/17

Page 185 of 187

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bi 11 vs Request

Mission Support (budget amendment) .. Subtotal, Operations and Support .....
Total, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Discretionary Funding) ......... . United States Secret Servi ce
Operations and Support Protective Operations Protection of Persans and Facilities. Subtota 1 , Protect ive Operations. Field Operations Domestic and International Field Operations. Subtotal, Field Operations. Mission Support .............. . Subtota 1 , Operations and Support.

65,824 1,237,212
1,237,212 (1 ,237,212)

236,908
236,908 (236,908)

+236' 908

-65,824 -1,000,304

+236,908

-1,000,304

(+236,908) (-1,000,304)

28,228 28,228
4,875 4,875 24,909 58,012

+28,228 +28,228
+4,875 +4,875 +24,909 +58,012

+28,228 +28,228
+4,875 +4,875 +24,909 +58' 012

Divison F - Case Oepartment of 4H:o1me7la-ndcvS-e0cu5ri2ty7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot,c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 186 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bill

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Protection Assets and Infrastructure ..... Operational Communications/Information Technology. Construction and Facility Improvements ...
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements ............ .

16,103 6,885
50,000
72,988

+16, 103 +6,885
+50,000
+72,988

+16, 103 +6,885
+50,000
+72,988

Total , United States Secret Servi ce ....

131,000

+131,000

+131,000

Federa 1 Law Enforcement Training Canters
Operations and Support Law Enforcement Training (budget amendment). Missi on Support (budget amendment) ...
Subtota 1 , Operations and Support ..... .

24,291 709
25,000

-24,291 -709
-25,000

Divison F - Case Department of 4H:o1me7la-ndcvSe-c0u5rit2y 7A3pp-rKopAriaWtions DAcot,c2u01m7 ent 22-7 Filed 12/12/17 Page 187 of 187 (Amounts in thousands)

FY 2016 Enacted

FY 2017 Request

Final Bi 11

Final Bill vs Enacted

Final Bill vs Request

Procurement, Construction, and Improvements Construction and Facility Improvements (budget amendment) ....
Subtotal, Procurement, Construction, and Improvements. . . . . . ......... .

63,000 63,000

-63,000 -63,000

Total, Federal Law Enforcement Training Canters.

88,000

-88,000

Total, Title VI, Additional Appropriations...

---

3,000,000

1,140,121

+1,140,121

-1,859,879

Grand Total, Titles I-VI .. (Discretionary Funding) .....

49,431,955 (47,827,955)

51,998,955 (50,332,015)

50' 950' 632 (49,283,692)

Note: The FY 2017 Request column reflects the budget submitted on February 9, 2016, as amended.

+1,518,677

-1,048,323

(+1,455,737) (-1 ,048,323)

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit H

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 3
David Abell <david.abell@sierraclub.org>

CBP-2017-054695 - Narrow the Scope
CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov <CBPFOIA@cbp.dhs.gov> To: "david.abell@sierraclub.org" <david.abell@sierraclub.org>

Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:47 PM

After careful review of your FOIA request, CBP-2017-054695, we have determined that your request is too broad in scope or did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking. FOIA is not a search mechanism. Records must be described in reasonably sufficient detail to enable government employees who are familiar with the subject area to locate records without placing an unreasonable burden upon the agency. For this reason, §5.3(b) of the DHS regulations, 6 C.F.R. Part 5, require that you describe the records you are seeking with as much information as possible to ensure that our search can locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, a request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the event that would have created the record, a date range for the request, and subject matter of the records. The FOIA does not require an agency to create new records, answer questions posed by requesters, or attempt to interpret a request that does not identify specific records.
Please narrow the scope of your request, a search for records responsive to your request in it's present state could potentially return a massive amount of documents which would create an reasonable burden on the agency. Additionally, please provide a time frame for items 4 through 8 of your request.
This is not a denial of your request for records. Please log into your FOIA online account at https://foiaonline. regulations.gov, to narrow the scope of your request and provide the additional information. Your request will be put in a hold status until the required information is provided.
You may contact a FOIA Public Liaison by sending an email via your FOIAonline account or call 202-325-0150. Please notate file number CBP-2017-054695 on any future correspondence to CBP related to this request. Additionally, you have a right to right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) which mediates disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If you are requesting access to your own records (which is considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under the Privacy Act of 1974. You may contact OGIS as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.

CBP-2017-054695 - Narrow the Scope.pdf 3K

Case 4:17-cv-05273-KAW Document 22-8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 3
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20229
David Abell Sierra Club, Environmental Law Program 2101 Webster St. Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612
August 30, 2017
Dear David Abell,
After careful review of your FOIA request, CBP-2017-054695, we have determined that your request is too broad in scope or did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking. FOIA is not a search mechanism. Records must be described in reasonably sufficient detail to enable government employees who are familiar with the subject area to locate records without placing an unreasonable burden upon the agency. For this reason, §5.3(b) of the DHS regulations, 6 C.F.R. Part 5, require that you describe the records you are seeking with as much information as possible to ensure that our search can locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, a request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the event that would have created the record, a date range for the request, and subject matter of the records. The FOIA does not require an agency to create new records, answer questions posed by requesters, or attempt to interpret a request that does not identify specific records.
Please narrow the scope of your request, a search for records responsive to your request in it's present state could potentially return a massive amount of documents which would create an reasonable burden on the agency. Additionally, please provide a time frame for items 4 through 8 of your request.
This is not a denial of your request for records. Please log into your FOIA online account at https://foiaonline.regulations.gov, to narrow the scope of your request and provide the additional information. Your request will be put in a hold status until the required information is provided.
You may contact a FOIA Public Liaison by sending an email via your FOIAonline account or call 202-3250150. Please notate file number CBP-2017-054695 on any future correspondence to CBP related to this request. Additionally, you have a right to right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) which mediates disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If you are requesting access to your own records (which is considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under the Privacy Act of 1974. You may contact OGIS as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi RoadOGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.
Sincerely,
Jodi Drengson U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 
 A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009 - Michael Baker & Associates
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
FY17, P2 465132, ATS: SWF-17-0799 Date: 17 May 2017
1.0 General
This Statement of Work (SOW) sets forth the performance requirements for the ArchitectEngineer (A-E) services required for the full design of floodwall, fence, roads, drainage and lights at Rio Grande Valley (RGV) and San Diego Sectors. The A-E shall furnish all labor, management, investigations, studies, travel, facilities, supplies, equipment, and materials to perform the required services. The A-E is responsible for determining what disciplines and skill sets are required for accomplishing the work under this SOW and form a team accordingly. The A-E shall accomplish the required services and furnish to the Government reports and other data together with supporting material developed during the period of service as set forth herein. During the execution of work, the A-E shall provide adequate supervision and quality control to assure the accuracy, quality, timeliness, and completeness of the work. There is a Base Bid and four Options. The Base Bid is for the full design of the floodwall and features 2.93 miles, including a Programmatic Value Engineering (VE) Study of 32.8 miles, a Drainage Study of 32.8 miles identified in Appendix A, a Geotechnical Analysis & Reports of 32.8 miles identified in Appendix A, Topographic Survey & Mapping of 32.8 miles identified in Appendix A, and an Independent Technical Review of five D-B RFPs developed by others. Option 1is for the development of four D-B RFPs in California, New Mexico and Texas. Option 2 is for the revision of the Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Standard Design Toolkit. Option 3 is for the development of a D-B RFP for Rio Grande Valley, TX. Option 4 is for Construction Phase Services.
1.1 Objective The Government plans to construct new and modifying existing flood risk management features that are interconnected and necessary to exclude flood waters from the floodplain while providing border security along the Southern Border.
1.2 Period of Performance
The period of performance for the base bid is 365 calendar days from Task Order award date. The period to exercise the Options 1, 2 & 3 will be 180 calendar days from award of the task order. The period to execute Option 4 will be 120 days from the completion of the base bid. The period of performance for each option exercised will be as follows:
Option 1: 114 Days from award of Option 1 Option 2: 180 Days from award of Option 2 Option 3: 92 Days from award of Option 3 Option 4: 365 Days from award of Option 4
1.3 Project Location
1

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
and sumps) for construction. This Task Order will include preparation of 100% Design Documents resulting in a complete and usable project. All work shall conform to the CBP design criteria.
The A-E Contractor will coordinate these items with the CESWF Project Design Team, CBP personnel, and local utility providers. Overall guidance is provided by the CBP and TI Design Guides. See the CESWF AEIM for design deliverable requirements.
The Geotechnical Investigation and design requirements will be provided by the A-E.
The Topographic Survey will be provided by the A-E.
The Value Engineering Study will be provided by the A-E using a third-party firm.
The Construction Cost Estimate/Current Working Estimate will be provided by the A-E. One construction contract will be prepared for this project.
A pre-proposal conference to finalize the project scope of work and aid in the preparation of the AE proposal is recommended. Labor and travel costs are not reimbursed by the Government.
Separate A-E fee proposals are required for each funded project. Fees must be clearly delineated between design and non-design.
2.1.1 Base Product Scope
The A-E shall develop design documents for construction for 2.93 miles of floodwall (also referenced as “levee wall”) along with supportive components (i.e., Fiber Optic Distributed Sensing, all-weather road(s), surveillance system, lighting, communications towers, the 150’ swath) comprising an enforcement system is critical to RGV Sector’s ability to prevent illegal entries (whether people, narcotics, etc.) and to achieve operational control of the border commensurate with Executive Order 13767. This will be at Weslaco Station’s Zone 11. The project alignment map can be found in Appendix 01 and will be on the south toe of the U.S. IBWC levee along the Maintenance Road.
The enforcement zone will be comprised of an engineered system of critical enforcement components that include the wall, lights, video surveillance system, Fiber Optic Distributed Sensing, vegetation control and an all-weather road (to facilitate proactive and concentrated patrol efforts). This system of capabilities will be arranged within a ~150’-wide footprint as measured from the southern toe of the levee to ~150’ south of that point. The ~150’-wide swath of realestate will run concurrently with and parallel to the wall throughout the project area. The resulting enforcement zone will facilitate the establishment of a preventative operational profile; which, in turn, creates and conveys to the adversary an immediate certainty of detection and apprehension for any attempted breach.
Submittals will include survey and drainage features. The A-E will need to assess conditions of existing drainage and water crossings. In addition, the A-E shall define performance requirements
4

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
for construction to include but not limited to, welding, length, condition, wall thickness. The requirements will ensure the fence is not structurally compromised when it is being transitioned from a horizontal position to the final vertical placement. The A-E must incorporate design review comments from USACE, CBP, USBP, and International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC).
The project will be awarded as a Design-Bid-Build construction project under an existing unrestricted horizontal MATOC at USACE. The design and completed construction must be approved and certified by FEMA according to their standards for flood protection. FEMA coordination will be an independent approval from IBWC, but will have similar effort to the IBWC approval. This will be a separate hydraulic model than the IBWC model.
The A-E will define top elevation for the fence at each water crossing, so that the top of the fence can be viewed from the video surveillance systems.
The design is required to include Remote Video Surveillance Towers (RVSS) towers every 2.0 miles (2 towers for the design). A map of the proposed alignment is included in Appendix A. Mile 0 to 2.93 starts on west end of RGV-010 and moves east.
Floodwall (i.e. Levee Wall): The wall will be a concrete wall to the design height of the existing earthen levee crest will include a design for 18 ft. tall bollards installed in the top of the levee wall. The floodwall’s alignment should be integrated into the existing levee embankment’s cross section. The existing levees are not certified by FEMA. The A-E will work with IBWC and FEMA to obtain FEMA certification and/or to ensure that the levee/wall meets all design criteria for FEMA certification. For FEMA certification, any deficient areas along the existing levee embankment will need to be repaired in conjunction of floodwall construction since the wall and adjoining levee acts as one structure. The levee floodwall will include automated vehicle gates for access south of the levee wall. The number, size and location of the gates will be determined during the design phase. Floodwalls and associated components shall be design for hydraulic loading, seepage, and slope stability.
Fiber Optic Distributed Sensing: A fiber optics cable associated with the Fiber Optic Distributed Sensing (FODS) system will be installed in the enforcement zone. Its connection with the required electronics to make it operational will be subject of a future project. Any work included in this SOW shall anticipate and facilitate that future connection.
The design will include in-placing fiber optic cable for the entire length of the project, 18” - 24” deep, in proximity and parallel to the fence. The cable shall be in conduit and embedded in concrete at all water crossings. The design shall include drawings detailing how this work will be accomplished. The A/E shall design to prevent washouts and include any additional design elements required for other structures.
Lighting:
5

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Enforcement zone LED lighting will be installed as part of this project. Ideally the light fixtures will be mounted on poles located within the approximate center of the enforcement zone but compliance with floodplain restrictions may dictate that they be mounted on the levee wall or bollards. The lights will be designed and constructed in accordance with the lighting design standards developed and confirmed as part of the San Luis lighting retrofit project recently completed in Yuma, AZ. The lights will be made fully functional as part of the construction project, to include the supply of power to the site if not available. The lights shall illuminate the entire enforcement zone and the southern face of the levee wall with the intent of minimizing any dead zones to the extent feasible.

All Weather Road:

An all-weather aggregate patrol road (type FC-2) will be constructed on the south side and parallel to the levee wall and within the 150 ft enforcement zone and floodplain. The specific location of the road within the enforcement zone will be determined during the design phase of the project. Vegetation removal within the enforcement zone will be included with this task and be covered under an environmental waiver provided by the Government. The floodwall and its earthen embankment crest shall be designed to accommodate vehicle loading. IBWC & USBP shall provide traffic loading conditions.

Value Engineering: The primary objective for the Value Engineering Contractor (VEC) is to conduct a VE Studies focused on the review of the latest design packages to ensure requirements and technical parameters are clearly defined. In addition, the VEC shall evaluate available project information to enhance the value of the project through the identification of appropriate cost saving measures, including life cycle cost savings, and added value improvements without sacrificing project requirements.

Construction Project Phasing: Due to funding constraints, the Construction Documents will be developed to include a base bid and five options for construction. The Construction Base Bid and Options will be developed as follows:

Construction CLIN Schedule Base Bid Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Option 5
TOTAL Miles

Length in Miles 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.13
0.3
2.93

2.1.2 Base Project Scope

6

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
2.1.2.1 This Scope of Work includes all work necessary for the A-E firm to prepare 100% Design documents denoting a complete and usable facility.
a. Design Quality Control Plan b. Reviews and Conferences c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports d. Design Charrette e. Drainage Study f. Parametric Design (35%) Data. g. Preliminary Design (65%) Data h. Advance Final Design (95%) Data i. Corrected Final Design (100%) Data j. Planimetric, Topographic Survey for the entire 32.8 miles k. Geotechnical Investigation: Subsurface Investigation Borings, In-Situ and Laboratory Testing, and Geotechnical Report for the entire 32.8 miles l. Structural Analysis m. Cost Estimates n. Value Engineering Study for the entire 32.8 miles o. Independent Technical Reviews p. Design Requirements/Disciplines
(1) Site
(2) Landscaping, Fencing
(3) Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting
(4) Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(5) Site Utilities
(6) Structural
7

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
(7) Electrical
(8) CCTV, Intrusion Detection
(9) Lightning Protection, Grounding
(10) Bidder Inquiries
(11) Amendments
2.2 Base Bid Construction Cost Limitation.
Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) $45,000,000 (Maximum available construction contract amount).
The CCL includes all costs of the construction contract (base bid and bid options). It excludes construction contingencies and supervision, inspection, and overhead. The A-E shall keep the facilities within limitations of scope and funding as set herein and above.
Bid Options. The A-E shall prepare design documents clearly delineating Government identified bid options to allow for flexibility in addressing availability of funds. The Government has some limited authority to request authority to award bid options above the CCL provided funding is available. However, the base bid must result in a complete and useable facility and be within the CCL.
The statutory limitation for basic A-E design services is 6% of the Construction Cost Limitation. Non-design services are not subject to this limitation. As such, the proposal will be evaluated per requirements of the Brooks Act and Public Law 92 582.
3.0 Base Bid Services
3.1 Quality Control Plan
The minimum requirements for the quality control plan (QCP) are given in ER 1110-1-12, Quality Management, and the project SOW. The QCP is the A-E firm’s management plan(s) for execution of the contract. The QCP describes the way in which the A-E will produce the deliverables, the steps that will be taken to control quality, and an assigned point-of-contact within the A-E firm’s organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the QCP. The QCP, modified to include any changes to the contract that occur, will be attached as an appendix to the design analysis.
3.2 Base Bid A-E Services (See CESWD-AEIM for full descriptive requirements.)
a. Design Quality Control Plan (See Section 3.1)
b. Reviews and Conferences (See Section 5.2)
8

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports (See Section 3.3.1)
d. Design Charrette - The A-E shall conduct a Design Charrette to determine the customer’s functional requirements, budget and schedule. The Charrette Meeting shall include, but not be limited to, gathering and developing requirements concerning User activities, number of personnel, operations requirements, security, Due Diligence studies, and general site requirements. Key discussion items shall include project/design alternatives, key ‘show stoppers’, and team buy-in for final design requirements. By the end of the Charrette, the A-E shall develop conceptual site plans, and management out-brief. Final deliverables for the Charrette include meeting minutes, site plans and utility plans.
e. Drainage Study - Provide a drainage Study for the area identified in Appendix A to address the impacts of the proposed projects to the existing floodplains and design of drainage crossings due to the proposed improvements. The levee wall/fence shall be protected from erosion due to stormwater run-off and allow the conveyance of stormwater runoff across the site.
The Contractor shall prepare a programmatic drainage report for the impacts of the 32.8 miles of new levee wall in RGV as well as a project specific report for RGV-010 identified in Section 2.1.1 and meet with the appropriate USIBWC personnel to discuss this project and gain a clear understanding of the approval requirements for the design. The Contractor shall coordinate with the USIBWC and respond to any comments or questions. Additionally, the Contractor shall coordinate with the local officials and entities on the design and RFP package. USIBWC shall lead and be responsible for the coordination with the Mexican Section of USIBWC. The Contractor shall complete a Draft Drainage Report and submit this document with the 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% construction drawings.
The programmatic drainage report will outline all hydrologic and hydraulic assumptions, drainage criteria, data, calculations, modeling, results and design recommendations. All drainage analyses and design for this program shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Homeland Security’s Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Design Standards (DHS, 2012). General drainage design criteria shall be used for sizing erosion protection and conveyance measures along with treaty requirements from the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) as discussed in the TI design standards.
The contractor shall be responsible for gathering all geospatial and hydrologic data necessary for the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. This data shall include the seamless 30-meter elevation datasets, current aerial imagery, and the new survey data being collected for the project. The U.S. - Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI) created a seamless 30-meter elevation dataset for both sides of the border. The 30 meter 1 arc second USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) was harmonized with the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 30 meter Continuo de Elevaciones Mexicano (CEM) to create a seamless elevation model for the U.S.-Mexico
9

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Border region. In addition the USGS applied the NED filtering and smoothing algorithms to INEGI′s CEM to improve the dataset. Other geospatial data to be collected may include cities, urban areas, roads, watersheds, streams and rivers, and land cover. Most of the required geospatial data, including the seamless 30-meter elevation data, is available for download from the U.S. - Mexico BEHI website (BEHI, 2015).
The Contractor shall address the following requirements for the programmatic drainage report and the RGV-010 project hydrologic analyses:
Provide final drainage basin delineation maps showing all basins and sub-basins associated with the limits of construction. The contractor shall determine all locations where existing intermittent streams, rivers, or drainage paths cross the proposed project whose drainage areas are distinguishable in the 30-meter elevation data. For each drainage crossing location, the contractor shall delineate the contributing drainage area using seamless 30 m U.S. NED and Mexico CEM elevation data. For each drainage crossing location, peak discharges shall be calculated for the watershed runoff hydrographs resulting from the 25-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr storm events. The methodology for calculating hydrologic flows at the project drainage crossings shall use the following three methods as minimum design standards:
a) For watersheds less than 1 square mile, the rational method can be used. This method is not applicable to larger drainage areas.
b) For watersheds between 1 square mile and 10 square miles, the Natural Resources Conservation Service method shall be used.
c) For watersheds larger than 10 square miles, the regression equations for the area shall be used. These equations are provided by the U. S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) GLSNet software.
More detailed rainfall-runoff modeling in HEC-HMS may be substituted for any of the above minimum design methods. Since all of the above methods carry a great degree of uncertainty, the contractor shall calculate the 25-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr peak discharges with two or more of the four methods listed above and then adopt the maximum value for design. This approach is intended to improve the long term reliability of the drainage design.
USIBWC is responsible for ensuring that improvements on the U.S. side of the international land border with Mexico comply with treaty provisions as they relate to cross-border drainage. Impact to water surface elevation between the pre and post construction conditions due to any new TI, including border and access roads, being built along the land border between the U.S. and Mexico shall not exceed 6 inches in rural areas and 3 inches in urban areas using the 100-year storm event as required by USIBWC.
To verify the impacts are within the above mentioned limits, hydraulic models shall be developed. The models shall be developed with HEC-RAS software using the 100-yr discharges calculated in the hydrologic analyses of this scope. Existing conditions and proposed conditions models shall be developed at each applicable drainage crossing, and
10

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
the difference in water surface elevations shall be compared. The existing conditions cross sections shall be cut from the project survey data in the immediate area of the proposed project and from the 30-meter elevation data outside of the survey area. The proposed condition models shall demonstrate that the impacts of proposed structures to be built within the floodplains of these drainage paths will not exceed the rise in water surface elevation limits stated above. New construction or improvements more than 60 feet north of the border do not need to comply with the drainage treaty provisions mentioned above.
The Contractor shall address the following requirements for hydraulic analyses:
Determine local drainage runoff and/or sheet flow conditions as they cross the fence alignment. Provide the final hydraulic calculations identifying the final discharge velocity and rise in water surface elevation associated with the selected fence type at each identified wash crossing. Maximum acceptable rise in water surface elevation shall be 6-inches at rural locations and 3-inches at urban locations along the International Boundary. Provide final calculations showing depth of scour and/or long term degradation. Provide details for protection against scour and/or long term degradation. Provide details for culvert and/or low water crossings at each wash crossing which satisfies rise in water surface elevations stated above. Provide hydrologic/hydraulic design and details showing that any/all cut and/or fill operations conducted within the project site do not adversely affect the natural drainage patterns across the site and satisfies the rise in water surface elevation stated above. Provide hydraulic design and details for any other site drainage improvements required due to construction of the all-weather road. Conduct hydraulic analysis using HEC-RAS modeling.
Based on the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed for the programmatic drainage report and in accordance with the TI design standards, the contractor shall make project design recommendations related to drainage conveyance through the fence, low water crossings, culverts, drainage gates and erosion control. The recommended types and sizes of these drainage features shall be specified in the final drainage report.
A drainage report will be prepared by the Contractor summarizing all hydrologic and hydraulic assumptions, drainage criteria, data, calculations, modeling, results and design recommendations. The report shall include maps of the locations of the identified drainage crossings and their contributing drainage areas. It shall specify the hydrologic method used at each location and include a summary of the calculations and assumptions used to calculate frequency peak discharges. The report shall also include maps of the hydraulic model cross sections and stream centerlines, summaries of the data and parameters, and assumptions used in the hydraulic models, and tabular summaries of the calculated water surface elevations for existing and proposed conditions. Drainage design recommendations, including types and sizes of drainage features, shall also be included in the report. In addition to the report, the contractor shall provide the government with a
11

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
digital copy of all models, hydrologic calculations, and all geospatial data collected or developed as part of this scope.
The Contractor shall deliver the draft drainage report, models, hydrologic calculations, and geospatial data to the USACE Program Manager (PgM) for review and comments. One round of responses to USACE comments shall be prepared by the Contractor for USACE review and concurrence. The Contractor shall be available via telephone to respond to any comments or questions regarding these documents and if required shall prepare a review comment resolution matrix (RCRM) documenting all review comments and corresponding resolution. The contractor shall prepare a draft final (90% design level) drainage report following USACE concurrence to the Contractor’s response to comments. The Contractor shall deliver the draft final drainage report to the USACE Program Manager (PgM) for review and comments. One round of responses to USACE comments shall be prepared by the Contractor for USACE review and concurrence. The Contractor shall be available via telephone to respond to any comments or questions regarding these documents and if required shall a RCRM documenting all review comments and corresponding resolution. The Contractor shall prepare the final report (100% design level) following USACE concurrence to the Contractor’s response to comments. The final report shall incorporate the resolved USACE comments and Contractor’s response to comments, and be delivered in hard copy and electronic format.
Drainage Report References:
1. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection, Tactical Infrastructure Design Standards, April 2012.
2. U.S. – Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI), http://borderhealth.cr.usgs.gov/datalayers.html, accessed May 2015.
f. Geotechnical Investigation for all 32.8 Miles - Provide services as set forth in the attached exhibit. The A-E shall conduct drilling operations, conduct limited on-site testing and deliver samples/boring logs to the testing facility. This study will provide site characteristics required to support the foundation design proposal. The A-E shall develop a sealed Geotechnical Report for the following project locations. The A/E shall coordinate with the USACE Levee Safety Officer, or designee, to meet USACE, IBWC & FEMA requirements prior to drilling into any levee.
12

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Table for Geotechnical Investigation Zones
g. Planimetric, Topographic Surveys for all 32.8 Miles - A new topographic survey will need to be accomplished to supplant and update previously captured topographic information. This will ensure accuracy of the design for improvements and the drainage analysis. It is the contractor’s responsibility to verify any existing data that is provided. This topographic survey effort should be done at the scale required for the proposed design improvements and drainage analysis (i.e. 1”=30’ with 1’contours, etc). The survey data required for this project is not limited to the 150-foot wide project area, additional topographic information will be required for the drainage study, utility connection points, property boundaries, existing drainage features, etc. This documentation will need to be packaged by the following project locations:
Table for Geotechnical Investigation Zones
Additional information is in the attached exhibit.
13

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
h. Utility Connection Points - Perform the necessary analysis to identify the characteristics of all required existing utilities. Determine connection points and new infrastructure requirements to service the project.
i. Structural Analysis – Provide a structural analysis as required to support this SOW.
j. Geotechnical Design Requirements – The A-E shall complete the design as denoted in the Geotechnical Investigation.
k. Construction Cost Estimates - A Parametric (PACES) estimate is required for the Parametric Design (35%) Documents. A MII Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimate is required for the 65%, 95% and 100% Design Data submittals. The requirements of this Task Order override and replace the requirements listed in the AEIM.
l. Value Engineering Study - Provide services as set forth in the attached exhibit.
m. Design Analysis (DA) - Prepare a DA in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers Southwest Division Architectural (CESWD) and Engineering Instructions Manual (AEIM), user interviews, functional analysis, and cost analyses. Key requirements may include: DQCP, Project Description, Site Analysis, Site/Grading/Utilities Plans, Utility Connection Points, Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Drainage System, , Life Safety Analysis, Government Furnished Equipment, Required Permits, Design Selection Criteria, Design Assumptions, Major (Discipline Specific) System Requirements (Pavement Sections, Foundation Type, Electrical Distribution Equipment Criteria, Communication Requirements, Sprinkler/Fire Alarm System Criteria), Design/Load Calculations, Economic Analyses, Non-formalized Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Permitting Requirements, Outline Specifications, Materials, Methods of Construction, O&M Provisions, Construction Schedule/Phasing, and Current Working Estimate. The design analysis shall contain seepage and slope stability analysis in accordance to USACE Engineer Manual design criterial.
n. Cost and Scope Limitations - The A-E shall ensure the guidance outlined in the RFP requires the Offerors to provide a usable facility within the limitations of estimated construction contract price and scope. If at any time, the A-E finds that the estimated construction cost and scope of the project is likely to exceed the budget, the A-E shall report this fact to the Contracting Officer Representative. He shall also submit recommendations (associated costs) for reducing the project cost and/or scope to within the established limits.
o. Parametric Design (35%) Data - The A-E shall submit the design data as denoted in the AEIM. This submittal typically consists of a parametric construction cost estimate, Design Analysis, conceptual drawings (or graphic brochure-type presentation) with essential engineering criteria required to complete the project design, and an index of USGS guide specifications. It will allow the Owner to understand the functional and technical approach so they can determine if the proposed design meets their functional/operational requirements. Immediately following submittal of the draft Conceptual Design Data, the A-E shall conduct a Value Engineering Study with an independent review team.
14

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
p. Preliminary Design (65%) Data - The A-E shall submit the design data as denoted in the AEIM and following the Government’s review of the previous package. This submittal typically consists of a Design Analysis, CADD working drawings, calculations, marked-up USGS guide specifications, working specifications, MII construction cost estimate and color boards. The Working Cost Estimate shall capture all updates since the issuance of the parametric cost estimate.
q. Advance Final Design (95%) Data - The A-E shall submit the design data as denoted in the AEIM and following the Government’s review of the previous package. The CADD drawings and specifications are complete and ready for advertising except for incorporation of final comments. Edited guide specifications with a bid schedule are required along with the Design Analysis and color boards. A Working Cost Estimate (MII) capturing all updates shall be submitted. The documents shall have been given an Independent Technical Review by the A-E per the DQCP.
r. Corrected Final Design (100%) Data - The A-E shall submit the design data as denoted in the AEIM following the Government’s Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, and Sustainability (BCOES) Review of the previous package. The A-E shall perform a compliance check to ensure all review comments have been incorporated prior to submission of the corrected Final Design. A final Working Cost Estimate (MII) capturing all corrections/amendments shall be submitted. Final USGS guide specifications are required.
s. Landscaping, Fencing – Specify accepted plants for low maintenance and minimal irrigation.
t. Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting - .
u. Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan – Shall be based on the Proposed Site Plan. Must be coordinated with Installation personnel to define local requirements.
v. Site Utilities - Following verification of existing utilities, new infrastructure requirements and points of connection to service the project must be determined by the A-E. Domestic Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Natural Gas lines must be sized to handle project loads and then terminate into existing mains. Electrical conductors shall be sized to handle project loads and then terminated into required electrical transmission equipment. Privatized utility requirements will be denoted.
w. Structural – Based on specific wind, snow, hydraulic and seismic loading.
x. Electrical - Coordinate design of the primary electrical distribution with the local utility provider, Installation personnel and the CESWF Project Design Team. Identify who and how power will be provided to the facility transformer primary and secondary sides.
y. CCTV, Intrusion Detection – Based on specific project requirements.
z. Lightning Protection, Grounding – Based on specific project requirements.
15

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
aa. Bidder Inquiries / Amendments - The A-E will respond to Bidder Inquiries via the ProjNet (Dr. Checks) system and provide updated Design Documents. The Government will issue the actual amendment. Contractor response shall be provided to the Contracting Officer no later than two calendar days following receipt of the inquiry.
bb. Current Working Estimate - The current U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ MicroComputer Aided Cost Estimating System MII (pronounced “M2”) Version 4.0 Build III or most recent release, and compatible databases are required for all construction cost estimates produced under this Task Order. Contact CESWF-EC-AC Section Chief for information pertaining to obtaining the software. Each submittal must include an MII estimate based upon the current stage of design. The software database now requires purchase (with the costs subject to change), but current cost is approximately $1,000. This purchase is not made nor controlled through CESWF-EC-AC. The current version of the software program will be provided to the A-E under contract who must then follow the prescribed licensing procedure to make use of the software for the term of this contract. Any other use of the software and the database can be utilized per the terms of the licensing agreement with the manufacturer. That licensing agreement is not under the control of CESWF-EC-AC. A PDF file of the project estimate must be submitted with the reports file. Hard copy requirements are denoted elsewhere. The estimate will not be complete until the bid opening estimate or final proposal estimate which includes all amendments and the completed bid or CLIN schedule in its final advertised format have been submitted to CESWF prior to the construction contractors’ final proposal or bid deadline date shown in the solicitation or SF30. All pricing information included with any database or other source can and should be adapted, modified, changed, increased, or decreased as deemed necessary by the estimator to prepare an estimate representative of the project. The information contained in any database or any other cost information provided by the Fort Worth District office, CESWF-EC-AC, or obtained from other sources is not intended to represent fixed prices for ordering supplies, equipment, material, labor, nor any other construction component in the Government estimate. The estimator's professional judgment and decisions should be the definitive factor in determining fair and reasonable costs calculated for submittals and reviews. In MII, when submitting estimates for Military Projects, the Corps' current 20 system Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) will be used to structure the estimate (or PCCost 3086/1391 format when requested) unless CESWF-EC-AC determines that WBS is not applicable. For Civil Works Projects, the current Code of Accounts structure will be used unless the project is of a nature that does not warrant any of these estimate structures but that variance must be requested and then authorized by CESWF-EC-AC. Excel based estimates or other software forms of estimating are not acceptable unless the A-E has been approved by CESWF-EC-AC to provide back-up data or lower level costs in those formats. Final roll-up and mark-ups of those estimates will be entered in MII software for submittals though by utilizing the structure required by CESWF-EC-AC. The A-E shall be aware of and take precautionary measures as necessary to maintain the confidential nature of all cost estimates prepared under this Task Order. All estimate submittals shall be prepared in accordance with USACE instructions, regulations, and manuals for cost estimates as contained in EI 01D010, ER 1110-2-1302, and TM 5-800-4 and in compliance with EFARS 36.2. Costs will be developed using the latest standards and resources as applicable and including but not limited to the Tri-Services Estimating System,
16

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
TRACES, MII, the MII Cost Book databases, commercial cost book databases, PAX newsletters 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, Davis-Bacon wage rates utilized as minimum values, commercially available reports, data, and local site specific or otherwise available sources of material, supplies, equipment, labor and other data. Compilation of the Current Working Estimate will incorporate the preceding sources and references utilizing the most recent available software as stated and/or other TRACES software which may include MII, MCACES, PACES, PCCost, risk analysis programs, or any of the other approved systems available to TRACES users. Any applicable software and databases which normally are distributed without cost by CESWF-EC-AC will be made available to the A-E by CESWF-ECAC under the Task Order. Certain software programs and databases as described above and which also include PACES and RACER but are not limited to these mentioned herein may require purchase by the A-E and cannot be provided without cost to the A-E by CESWF-ECAC. Construction cost estimates for planning and budgeting purposes and for projects at 0 15% stages may be submitted by utilizing parametric software such as PACES and then summarizing the costs in the PCCost software if CESWF-EC-AC deems this acceptable. Also for any planning and budgeting purposes, PCCost software may be used to generate costs by utilizing the category codes and area cost factors in the PCCost database (which also includes Area Cost Factor data and adjustments). Updates to the database are available from CESWFEC-AC. Electronic copies of all cost estimates in their native formats must be submitted along with any txt, pdf, doc, and rtf type report files generated to produce the hard copies.
cc. Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit - A Pre-proposal Conference and Installation Site Visit shall be conducted for potential Offerors after the RFP is advertised. The A-E Project Manager shall be required to make a presentation of the general RFP development concept and project features at the beginning of the review conference. The A-E shall prepare the agenda and organize the conference so that all technical and functional issues can be addressed within the scheduled duration of the conference. The presentation is intended to provide the conference members with a clear understanding of the facility and how it functions. It can be expected that the participants can range up to a large group (up to 50 persons). The COE will chair the Conference and respond to offerors concerns at the conference. This is planned as a one-day meeting requiring travel the previous day and returning the day of the conference. The A-E shall provide detailed meeting minutes.
dd. Independent Technical Reviews – The A-E shall perform five Independent Technical Reviews (ITR) in support of the Border Wall Program. These will be reviewed by a Sr. Civil Engineer and a Principal. The intent is to review the Draft D-B RFP and Final D-B RFP Submittals developed by others. The reviews will be conducted concurrent to the Government two-week review period, there will be a one-day teleconference to discuss unresolved comments and will also include a one-week back-check period.
ee. CADD Final Deliverable - All drawing shall be eTransmitted in order to get all of the associated files (i.e. fonts, plot setting, xref’s, images etc.) in a Zip file.
3.3 Administrative Tasks
17

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
3.3.1 Confirmation Notices
The A-E firm shall provide a record of all conferences, meeting, discussions, verbal directions, telephone conversations, etc., the A-E firm and/or their subcontractor(s) on matters related to this Task Order. The A-E firm shall identify all participating personnel, subjects discussed, and conclusions reached. The A-E firm shall title these records Confirmation Notices and shall number them sequentially. The A-E shall forward each Confirmation Notice via email to the Government POC within three working days. Communication via email is acceptable for minor, day-to-day correspondence.
3.3.2 Periodic Status Reports
The A-E firm shall provide a monthly status report to the Government POC. The report shall include: Current Status, Action Item List, and discussion of major issues.
4.0 Base Bid Schedule and Deliverables

4.1 Schedule
4.1.1 The Table below shows the schedule of services and deliverables covered in this task order. The A-E Contractor shall submit a schedule showing dates for all key submittals.

Base Bid Schedule of Services and Deliverables

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Design Quality Control Plan Design Charrette Parametric Design (35%) Data Submittal Draft Drainage Study Submittal Draft Planimetric, Topographic Survey Submittal Government review of Parametric Design (35%) Data VE Study Conference
Draft Geotechnical Report
Draft Topo Survey
Preliminary Design (65%) Data Submittal Draft Programmatic VE Study Submittal

DUE DATE
Within 7-days of T.O. Award.
Within 14-days of T.O. Award.
Within 30-days of T.O. Award.
Same day as the 35% Submittal
Within 30-days of T.O. Award.
Estimated 14-days after 35% Design Submittal. Estimated 21-days after 35% Design Submittal. First three miles for the D-B-B Portion within 45 days of T.O. Award, all other area within 120days of T.O. Award First three miles for the D-B-B Portion within 45 days of T.O. Award, all other area within 120days of T.O. Award
Within 61-days of T.O. Award.
Same day as the 65% Submittal

18

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Interim Drainage Study Submittal Final Planimetric, Topographic Survey Submittal Government review of Parametric Design (65%) Data and VE Study Final Programmatic VE Study Submittal
Final Geotechnical Report
Final Topo Survey
Advance Final Design (95%) Data Submittal Final Drainage Study Submittal Government review of Parametric Design (95%) Data Corrected Final Design (100%) Data Submittal Corrected Final Design Drainage Study Dr. Check Bidder Inquiries
Construction RFP Amendment(s)
Construction Contract Award CD Draft Independent Technical Review of five D-B RFPs (Requirements in 3.2.ee.) Final Independent Technical Review of five D-B RFPs (Requirements in 3.2.ee.) Administrative Tasks
Confirmation Notices (Email only – Numbered) Monthly Status Report (pdf attachment via email)

DUE DATE Same day as the 65% Submittal
Within 61-days of T.O. Award. Estimated 14-days after 65% Design Submittal.
Within 75-days of T.O. Award.
First three miles for the D-B-B Portion within 75 days of T.O. Award, all other area within 210days of T.O. Award First three miles for the D-B-B Portion within 75 days of T.O. Award, all other area within 210days of T.O. Award Within 91-days of T.O. Award.
Same day as the 95% Submittal Estimated 14-days after 95% Design Submittal. September 22, 2017.
Same day as the 100% Submittal Within 2-days of posting in Dr. Checks Within 3-days of notification of need for Amendment. Within 7-days of Construction Contract. Award. Within 270-days of Task Order Award Within 365-days of Task Order Award
Within 3-days. Within 5-days from end of month

4.1.1 The days listed above are calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. The Government must receive the deliverable by the start of the next business day. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the Government expects receipt by the start of the next business day. The A-E Contractor should assume 14-days for receipt of Government comments for review of major submittals. On-site review conferences or conference calls can be scheduled no sooner than 7-days following receipt of the submittal.

19

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
4.1.2 The Government may accept submittals prior to the due date provided they are complete and have received a quality control check. The Government will not accept partially complete submittals early or otherwise.

4.2 Deliverables

4.2.1 The table below shows the list of deliverables and their required distribution.

Deliverable Distribution Schedule

Deliverables Electronic Copies Only (Native and/or .pdf formats) Design Quality Control Plan Minutes, Confirmation Notices, Status Reports Design Analysis Design Data/CADD Drawings, (35%, 65%, 95%, 100%) Specifications (35%, 65%, 95%) Specifications (100%) Value Engineering Report Cost Estimates in native format and PDF Bid Schedules Contract Award Documents Drainage Study Draft and Final Topo Survey Draft and Final

Number of Copies AB C D E F

11

111 111

111 111

111 111

111 111

111 111

111 111

11 1

1

11 1

1

111 111

111 11

111 111

Hard Copies (8” x 11 ½”) Due Diligence Reports Design Analysis Specifications (35%, 65%, 95%) Specifications (100%) Value Engineering Report Bid Schedules Contract Award Documents Drainage Study Draft and Final Topo Survey Draft and Final

111 221

Full Size Drawings

Drawings (100% Design)

2

4.2.2 The table below lists the Points of Contact that correspond to the letters (A, B, C, etc.) in deliverable distribution schedule above.

Address List

20

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
a. CESWF Design Manager (Address Stated Above)
b. CESWF COR (Address Stated Above)
c. CESWF PM (Steve Dill) 819 Taylor Street, CESWF-ECSO-T, Fort Worth TX, 76102
d. CBP Office, (Address Stated Above)
e. BPFTI PMO, Scott Recinos, 7940 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102
f. CESWG Area Office (Name provided after award), 252 Industrial Dr # A, Port Isabel, TX 78578
4.2.3 The A-E form shall coordinate submittal distribution with the POCs. The original transmittal letter will be addressed to the POC and will note that by information copy of that transmittal, appropriate review agencies are being provided copies of the work products and are requested to provide comments electronically to the POCs and to the A-E firm by the due date. The original transmittal letter and all copies will include a schedule showing data distribution.
5.0 Base Bid Reviews and Conferences
5.1 Quality Assurance Reviews
5.1.1 Formal Reviews
5.1.1.1 The Government will perform a formal Quality Assurance (QA) check on the following:
a. The POC will be responsible for providing the comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding to, and incorporating (if appropriate), all comments from reviewers into the deliverables.
b. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” and provide the comment submitter with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall also be prepared to discuss the position with the reviewer.
c. CESWF uses USACE’s web-based Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks) at www.projnet.org as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The A-E shall use this system. The Government will set up DrChecks for this project.
d. The QA team may not record all QA comments in DrChecks. They may provide comments on other media. If such is the case, the POC will be responsible for providing those comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding (and incorporating, if appropriate) into the final products.
21

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
5.1.2 Casual Reviews
The A-E firm is responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements in this task order. The Government will examine all deliverables submitted by the A-E firm. If the Government finds deficiencies, the A-E firm shall amend and resubmit as necessary.
5.2 Conferences
The conferences scheduled for this task order are listed in the table below. Any additional conferences requiring travel shall be authorized by a Task Order Modification. Expenses will be reimbursed as denoted in the IDIQ Contract and must be based on current Joint Travel Regulations. Airline ticket cost shall be based on a minimum 7-day advance purchase.
Additional A-E discipline team members will be made available to support the on-site meetings via conference call. Limited participation is required. If required to meet expedited schedules, the A-E shall be prepared to accommodate over-the shoulder review comments.
Scheduled Conferences

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Kick-Off Meeting

Fort Worth District Office

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical Engineers

Project Site Visit

Weslaco

1 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical Engineers.

Design Charrette

RGV Sector

(w/In-Brief; Out-Brief)

HQ

1 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical
Engineers and Cost Estimator.

22

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Value Engineering Workshop

Fort Worth District Office

5 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical
Engineers and Cost Estimator and Independent Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical
Engineers and Cost Estimator and Value Engineering Coordinator.

Parametric Design (35%) Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

3 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical
Engineers and Cost Estimator.

Preliminary Design (65%) Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

3 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical Engineers and Cost Estimator.

Final Design (95%) Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical Engineers and Cost Estimator.

Corrected Final Design (100%) Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Days

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical Engineers and Cost Estimator.

Construction PreProposal Conference

Weslaco Station, RGV

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Civil, Structural, Electrical, Geotechnical Engineers.

6.0 Base Bid Technical Criteria, Standards/Specifications, General Requirements and Government Furnished Information (Use Latest Editions Unless Otherwise Noted)
The A-E or Designer of Record shall use the following standards as applicable for this project.

23

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
a. Per DoD Directive Number 4270.5 dated 12 February 2005 paragraph 4.7, the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) shall be used to the greatest extent possible by all DoD Components for planning, design, and construction (restoration and modernization) of facilities, regardless of funding source, except for those facilities constructed by the National Guard on real estate neither owned by the United States nor under long-term lease to the United States, constructed by a State under Chapters 169 and 1803 of Title 10, US Code, and where title to the facility shall not be in the United States.
b. UFC 1-200-01: General Building Requirements.
c. International Building Code (IBC).
d. NFPA Life Safety Codes 13, 90A, 101.
e. ANSI/IEEE C2-2002, National Safety Electric Code.
f. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Architectural and Engineering Instructions (AEI), (http://www.hnc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Engineering/TECHINFO.aspx )
g. US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Architectural and Engineering Instructions Manual (CESWD-AEIM) available at: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/portals/16/docs/ec/swd_aeim_2003.pdf
h. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design criteria available at: http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerManuals.aspx
i. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Technical Instructions, TI 800-01, 20 July 1998 available at http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COETI/ARCHIVES/ti800_01.pdf
j. Contract Administration Branch guidelines set forth at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_7151-7.pdf
k. Selection of Methods for the Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling of Demolition Waste.
l. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
m. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
n. CBP Design Guide
o. DHS Tactical Infrastructure Standard Design Toolkit, 2012
24

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
p. Due to the project requirements, this project shall meet USACE flood risk management design standards utilizing Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) and, defined as a Flood Wall, thus utilizing Retaining and Flood Walls (EM 1110-2-2502), Slope Stability (EM 1110-2-1902), Strength Design of Concrete Hydraulic Structures (EM 1110-2-2104).
The design of the project shall also meet the USACE hydrologic criteria for levees and floodwalls, as defined in Chapter 7 of Hydrologic Engineering Requirements for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1419), and the performance of the project in terms of flood protection and FEMA certification shall be evaluated according to USACE’s risk and uncertainty standards as defined in Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1619).
q. Government Reviews (Dr. Checks) - CESWF uses USACE’s web-based comment tracking system, Dr. Checks (located at www.projnet.org), as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The Government’s review will consist primarily of quality assurance (QA) checks and is typically completed in two weeks. It will concentrate on the design’s functional aspects with limited technical review. The Government will prepare written comments for evaluation and response by the A-E after each major submittal. The A-E shall annotate and respond to the review comments in the development of data for the next design level. Responses such as “A-E requires additional information.” or “A-E does not understand.” are unacceptable. Annotations shall address specific corrective actions required. The A-E shall enter responses in advance of review conferences. Final annotation shall be completed within seven days of the conference. Hard copy distribution of final annotated comments is not required except that they shall be included by the A-E in the Design Analysis. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” And provide the commentator with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall coordinate with the Government Project Manager to ensure the Government has set up rights for each pertinent member of the A-E team that needs to evaluate and respond to comments.
r. Construction Specifications - The A-E firm shall prepare all construction contract specifications with the following minimum sections: Signature Sheet with the A-E firm’s seal, Table of Contents, Bid Schedule, ENG Form 4288, “Submittal Register”, All Division 02 through 48 technical specifications applicable to this project, List(s) of GovernmentFurnished, Contractor-Installed property, and any attachments the A-E firm determines are necessary to successfully construct this project.
The Government will prepare all Division 00 and Division 01 Specifications listed below and the A-E will assemble the final bid documents.
Additional Government Furnished Specification Sections
25

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

DIVISION 00

SWF Contracting

01 00 00.00 44

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

01 30 10.00 44 01 31 19.00 44

PARTNERING PROJECT MEETINGS

SWF Specs Section

01 32 01.00 10

PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 35 26

GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 45 00.00 10

QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 00.10 10 QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM (QCS)

01 58 00

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 78 00

CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

Follow the guidance in the AEIM to prepare the specifications. One exception is the 2003 version of the AEIM refers to the old Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 16-Division system. The A-E shall use the SpecsIntact software and the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) version (Latest Edition) of the SpecsIntact Guide Specifications in Master Format which is consistent with the 44-division format. In addition to guide specifications which must be downloaded from the internet, the A-E must determine if there are Fort Worth District (CESWF) guide specifications and Fort Worth District Supplements which must be considered. The CESWF guide specifications generally cover products and construction topics or processes that are not covered by the UFGS guide specifications. A few

26

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
cover topics that are covered by the CEGS. For these guides, it is preferred that the FW guides be used as the FW guides contain requirements and procedures tailored to local conditions. The CESWF Supplements to UFGS Guide specifications are local requirements mandated by the Southwestern Division or requested by the Army posts or Air Force bases that the District serves. These requirements must be inserted into the appropriate UFGS guide specification as applicable to the project.
ENG Form 4288 “Submittal Register.” The ENG Form 4288 document identifies and classifies all items the construction contractor must submit to the Government to assure compliance with the contract specifications. These items include: SD-01 Preconstruction Submittals, SD-02 Shop Drawings, SD-03 Product Data, SD-04 Samples, SD-05 Design Data, SD-06 Test Reports, SD-07 Certificates, SD-08 Manufacturer’s Instructions, SD-09 Manufacturer’s Field Reports, SD-10 Operation and Maintenance Data, and SD-11 Closeout Submittals.
The A-E firm shall identify all required submittals and classify those submittals as Government Approved (GA) or For Information Only (FIO) in the appropriate specification sections and use the SpecsIntact software to generate the submittal register. The A-E firm shall verify the data in the submittal register so generated matches what the design team identifies in the specifications.
The A-E firm shall ensure that the Specifications are free of errors by using the “Process and Print/Publish” function in SpecsIntact. This function uses the tagging and edit features of the software to compile the completed contract specifications. It also provides a report listing technical errors in the files themselves (the feature will not catch improper engineering). The A-E firm shall use the report to correct any errors prior to submitting to the Government.
The A-E firm shall prepare the construction specifications utilizing the latest versions of the: SpecsIntact Software, United Facilities Guide Specifications, CESWF Guide Specifications and Supplements, and Guides and help manuals for above.
These are all available free of charge at the following web site: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php The A-E firm shall not recycle specifications as they may be out of date.
CADD Standards. The A-E shall comply with A/E/C CADD Standards https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/default.aspx?p=a&t=1&i=7 Fort Worth District Sheet/Title Block file can be found at: https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/doccenter.aspx?ID=0
All CADD drawing model file elements shall be produced full scale in CADD and named in compliance to A/E/C Standard.
SYMBOLOGY: All CADD element symbologies including level, weight, style, and color shall be compliant to A/E/C Standard.
27

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
The A-E is responsible for ensuring that resulting plots from pdf files are essentially identical to plots from the parent SpecsIntact and CADD files.
s. Civil / GIS CADD GIS Requirements CADD and Electronic (paperless) Bid Process. CADD Standards. The A-E shall comply with A/E/C CADD Standards https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/default.aspx?p=a&t=1&i=7 Fort Worth District Sheet/Title Block file can be found at: https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/DocCenter.aspx?ID=0
CADD. Critical to the design process is use of Computer-Aided Drafting and Design (CADD). The Government plans to solicit bids for construction of the project via an electronic format without providing printed plans and specifications to perspective bidders. All work to be accomplished, e.g., design work, surveying work, drawings, and details to be provided under this Task Order shall be accomplished and developed using computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) software and procedures conforming to criteria set forth elsewhere. All CADD final design deliverables shall be delivered in AutoCAD File format, version 2016 or newer.
All CADD drawing model file elements shall be produced full scale in CADD and named in compliance to A/E/C Standard.
SYMBOLOGY: All CADD element symbologies including level, weight, style, and color shall be compliant to A/E/C Standard.
Electronic Files/Paperless Solicitation. Electronic files provided to bidders shall be produced by the A-E as described herein and provided to potential bidders by the Government, via a Government Web site.
CAD files shall be converted to Adobe Acrobat "pdf" files by the A-E, which will require the A-E to purchase computer software for this purpose if they do not currently have this capability or alternately satisfy this requirement through a subcontractor (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html). These files will be readable utilizing the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The A-E is responsible for ensuring that resulting prints from pdf files are essentially identical to prints from the parent SpecsIntact and CADD files.
t. Amendments to Bid Documents - During the time that this project is advertised for construction contract bids, it may be necessary for the A-E to provide revisions to the advertised plans and specifications. Drawing revisions shall be provided as reissued or additional drawings. Reissued or additional drawings shall be incorporated into the bid documents, in the form of amendments. All amendments shall be incorporated into project specifications and drawings in accordance with the SWD Architect-Engineer Instructional Manual (AEIM), Chapter VIII. All plan sheets revised to incorporate amendments, along with
28

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
the CADD and PDF files shall be provided as specified or referenced herein. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, drawing revisions may be provided in narrative form and sketches. Amendments within the project's scope, including design errors, omissions and conflicts will be done promptly, to prevent or minimize slipping of the proposal due date, with no increase in the A-E Task Order price. In most instances, the final amendment must be available to bidders ten days before the due date for technical and price proposals.
u. Construction Contract Plans and Specifications (Contract CD) - After award of the construction contract, the A-E shall incorporate any write-in amendments, put the construction contract number on the drawings, re-generate pdf files and replot a set of drawings on bond (vellums are no longer required) printed from the pdf files. The A-E shall provide two CD's each containing the modified CADD and .pdf drawing files. The Government will incorporate any write-in amendments to the specifications.
Data Standards - Spatial Data Standard for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment (SDSFIE) current release shall be followed for Geospatial database structure and attributes to allow for data integration. CADD data shall be documented according to the current release of the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC)/CADD standards. All GIS and CADD data will be documented in accordance with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata.
Coordinate System Projection and Datum - All GIS data shall use the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15 North projection, World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) datum, and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) using metric as the working units to ensure data alignment and accuracy.
CADD data shall be geo-referenced in the State Plane Coordinate System 1983, using the North American 1983 Geodetic Datum with Survey Feet as the working units. The projection, datum and coordinate system must be defined and then documented in the metadata for both CADD and GIS and provided whenever the data is distributed.
Deliverables - The CADD documents shall be in compliance with the A/E/C CADD Standards release 3. The A-E shall use the supplied Corps of Engineers title blocks and borders on all drawings with the appropriate firm name included within the title block area.
GIS deliverables shall be delivered in current GeoMedia file format or an ArcView shape file.
6.1 Proprietary Specifications and Requirements.
The A-E firm shall avoid specifying proprietary materials, equipment, systems, or other features of the work unless the A-E firm can demonstrate the use of such proprietary requirements will be advantageous to the Government (e.g. fire alarm transmitters and locksets that must be compatible with other products at the facility). The Government is prohibited from specifying proprietary requirements except in unusual circumstances which requires documentation and approval by the Contracting Agency Head or higher authority. If the A-E firm can show that a proprietary material
29

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
could be more advantageous to the Government, provide a description that includes the brand name and a general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the item.
6.2 Office Documents.
6.2.1 The table below lists the software products the Government uses for work products produced through general-purpose office software (e.g. VE Study, Design Analysis, Etc.):
Government Software Packages

File Type

Software

Publisher

Portable Document Format (*.pdf)

Acrobat

Adobe

Hypertext transfer protocol (http)

Internet Explorer

Microsoft

Word Processing (*.docx)

WORD

Microsoft

Spreadsheets (*.xlsx)

EXCEL

Microsoft

Slideshow presentations (*.pptx)

POWERPOINT

Microsoft

eMail client (*.msg)

OUTLOOK

Microsoft

6.2.2 The A-E firm shall ensure the documents they produce and submit to the Government are compatible with these software packages. The A-E firm shall be responsible for any file translation necessary to permit Government reading of documentation. The A-E firm shall consult with the Government on the use of software not on this list to ensure the Government can read the files the A-E firm will submit.
6.2.3 The A-E firm shall consider readability and reproducibility in the preparation of documents. This includes (but is not limited to) font sizes, organization and layout of documents, paper sizes, and use of color documentation. Not all stakeholders on this project have access to high-end reproduction equipment.

30

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
6.3 Units of Measure.
The A-E shall verify use of U.S. Customary, International, or other units in all work products.
6.4 Government Furnished Information and Materials
The table below lists the Government Furnished information and materials included in this task order. Contact the POC if more data is necessary for preparation of fee proposal or execution of the task order.
Government Furnished Materials

No Item .

Source

Cost engineering database tables and

See also

1 software. Purchase or license may be http://media.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/EC/

required at cost to the A-E firm.

eca/CostSpec.asp

2

7.0 Option 1 D-B RFP 4 Packages
Project Description
7.1 Overview
The A-E Contractor will develop four design-build (D-B) RFPs for the replacement of Primary Boder Fence. D-B RFP 1 is for the replacement of 14 miles of Border Infrastructure System (BIS) primary fence in San Diego Sector, CA. D-B RFP 2 is for the replacement of 2 miles of primary fence in Tecate, CA. D-B RFP 3 is for the replacement of vehicle fence with primary fence for 20 miles between Santa Theresa Port of Entry and Columbus, NM. D-B RFP 4 is for the replacement of 4.16 miles of primary fence in El Paso, TX.
The A-E Contractor will coordinate these items with the CESWF Project Design Team, CBP personnel, and local utility providers. Overall guidance is provided by the CBP & TI Design Guides. See the CESWF AEIM for design deliverable requirements. The programmatic VE Study developed in the Base Bid will be applied to these RFPs.

31

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
The Construction Cost Estimate/Current Working Estimate will be provided by the A-E. A preproposal conference to finalize the project scope of work and aid in the preparation of the A-E proposal is recommended. Labor and travel costs are not reimbursed by the Government.
7.1.1 Product Scope
The Government requires the development of four D-B RFPs. The work includes:
a. SDC BIS – The A/E shall develop a Design-Build (DB) RFP to demolish and construct 14 miles of replacement primary fence and 35% design, in accordance with the SWD AEIM, for the San Diego Sector.
b. SDC Tecate – The A/E shall develop a Design-Build (DB) RFP to demolish and construct 2 miles of replacement primary fence and 35% design, in accordance with the SWD AEIM, for the San Diego Sector.
c. ELP 1 – The A/E shall develop a Design-Build (DB) RFP to demolish and construct 4.16 miles of replacement primary fence and 35% design, in accordance with the SWD AEIM, for the El Paso Sector.
d. ELP 2 – The A/E shall develop a Design-Build (DB) RFP to demolish vehicle fence and construct 20 miles of replacement primary fence and 35% design, in accordance with the SWD AEIM, for the El Paso Sector.
7.1.2 Project Scope
7.1.2.1 This Scope of Work includes all work necessary for the A-E firm to prepare four D-B RFPs, denoting complete and usable projects.
a. Design Quality Control Plan
b. Reviews and Conferences
c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports
d. Drainage Study
e. Planimetric, Topographic Survey
f. Geotechnical Investigation: Subsurface Investigation Borings, In-Situ and Laboratory Testing, and Geotechnical Report
g. Design Charrette
h. Draft D-B RFP
32

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
i. Final D-B RFP
j. Corrected Final D-B RFP
k. Structural Analysis
l. Cost Estimates
(1) Site
(2) Landscaping, Fencing
(3) Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting
(4) Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(5) Site Utilities
(6) Structural
(7) Electrical
(8) Lightning Protection, Grounding
m. Amendments
7.2 Construction Cost Limitation.
Develop Design-Build RFPs based on the results from the Base Bid Design Charrette. There is no CCL. The A-E is to develop the scope and cost estimate. All services associated with a Study, Project Definition Report or Design-Build RFP are considered non-design and are not subject to the 6% of Construction Cost Limitation statutory limit.
8.0 Option 1 Services
8.1 Quality Control Plan
The minimum requirements for the quality control plan (QCP) are given in ER 1110-1-12, Quality Management, and the project SOW. The QCP is the A-E firm’s management plan(s) for execution of the contract. The QCP describes the way in which the A-E will produce the deliverables, the steps that will be taken to control quality, and an assigned point-of-contact within the A-E firm’s organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the QCP. The QCP, modified to include any changes to the contract that occur, will be attached as an appendix to the design analysis.
8.2 A-E Services (See CESWD-AEIM for full descriptive requirements.)
33

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
a. Design Quality Control Plan (See Section 3.1)
b. Reviews and Conferences (See Section 5.2)
c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports (See Section 3.3.1)
d. Design Charrette - The A-E shall conduct a Design Charrette to determine the customer’s functional requirements. The Charrette Meeting shall include, but not be limited to, gathering and developing requirements concerning User activities, number of personnel, operations requirements, equipment requirements, utilities, security, Due Diligence studies, and general site requirements. Key discussion items shall include project/design alternatives, key ‘show stoppers’, and team buy-in for final design requirements. Minimum full time attendees include the Project Manager and Civil Engineer, By the end of the Charrette, the A-E shall develop conceptual site plans, and management out-brief. Final deliverables for the Charrette include meeting minutes, site plans, utility plans, and ENG Form 3086 Government estimate.
e. Drainage Study - Provide a drainage Study (separate from the Base Bid Drainage Study) for all of the areas identified in Appendix B to address the impacts of the proposed projects to the existing floodplains and design of drainage crossings due to the proposed improvements. The levee wall/fence shall be protected from erosion due to stormwater run-off and allow the conveyance of stormwater runoff across the site.
The Contractor shall prepare a programmatic drainage report for the impacts of the areas identified in Appendix B and meet with the appropriate USIBWC personnel to discuss this project and gain a clear understanding of the approval requirements for the design. The Contractor shall coordinate with the USIBWC and respond to any comments or questions. Additionally, the Contractor shall coordinate with the local officials and entities on the design and RFP package. USIBWC shall lead and be responsible for the coordination with the Mexican Section of USIBWC. The Contractor shall complete a Draft Drainage Report and submit this document with the RFP Submittals.
The programmatic drainage report will outline all hydrologic and hydraulic assumptions, drainage criteria, data, calculations, modeling, results and design recommendations. All drainage analyses and design for this program shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Homeland Security’s Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Design Standards (DHS, 2012). General drainage design criteria shall be used for sizing erosion protection and conveyance measures along with treaty requirements from the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) as discussed in the TI design standards.
The contractor shall be responsible for gathering all geospatial and hydrologic data necessary for the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. This data shall include the seamless 30-meter elevation datasets, current aerial imagery, and the new survey data being collected for the project. The U.S. - Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI) created a seamless 30-meter elevation dataset for both sides of the border. The 30 meter 1 arc second USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) was harmonized with the
34

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 30 meter Continuo de Elevaciones Mexicano (CEM) to create a seamless elevation model for the U.S.-Mexico Border region. In addition the USGS applied the NED filtering and smoothing algorithms to INEGI′s CEM to improve the dataset. Other geospatial data to be collected may include cities, urban areas, roads, watersheds, streams and rivers, and land cover. Most of the required geospatial data, including the seamless 30-meter elevation data, is available for download from the U.S. - Mexico BEHI website (BEHI, 2015).
The Contractor shall address the following requirements for hydrologic analyses:
Provide final drainage basin delineation maps showing all basins and sub-basins associated with the limits of construction. The contractor shall determine all locations where existing intermittent streams, rivers, or drainage paths cross the proposed project whose drainage areas are distinguishable in the 30-meter elevation data. For each drainage crossing location, the contractor shall delineate the contributing drainage area using seamless 30 m U.S. NED and Mexico CEM elevation data. For each drainage crossing location, peak discharges shall be calculated for the watershed runoff hydrographs resulting from the 25-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr storm events. The methodology for calculating hydrologic flows at the project drainage crossings shall use the following three methods as minimum design standards:
a) For watersheds less than 1 square mile, the rational method can be used. This method is not applicable to larger drainage areas.
b) For watersheds between 1 square mile and 10 square miles, the Natural Resources Conservation Service method shall be used.
c) For watersheds larger than 10 square miles, the regression equations for the area shall be used. These equations are provided by the U. S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) GLSNet software.
More detailed rainfall-runoff modeling in HEC-HMS may be substituted for any of the above minimum design methods. Since all of the above methods carry a great degree of uncertainty, the contractor shall calculate the 25-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr peak discharges with two or more of the four methods listed above and then adopt the maximum value for design. This approach is intended to improve the long term reliability of the drainage design.
USIBWC is responsible for ensuring that improvements on the U.S. side of the international land border with Mexico comply with treaty provisions as they relate to cross-border drainage. Impact to water surface elevation between the pre and post construction conditions due to any new TI, including border and access roads, being built along the land border between the U.S. and Mexico shall not exceed 6 inches in rural areas and 3 inches in urban areas using the 100-year storm event as required by USIBWC.
To verify the impacts are within the above mentioned limits, hydraulic models shall be developed. The models shall be developed with HEC-RAS software using the 100-yr discharges calculated in the hydrologic analyses of this scope. Existing conditions and
35

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
proposed conditions models shall be developed at each applicable drainage crossing, and the difference in water surface elevations shall be compared. The existing conditions cross sections shall be cut from the project survey data in the immediate area of the proposed project and from the 30-meter elevation data outside of the survey area. The proposed condition models shall demonstrate that the impacts of proposed structures to be built within the floodplains of these drainage paths will not exceed the rise in water surface elevation limits stated above. New construction or improvements more than 60 feet north of the border do not need to comply with the drainage treaty provisions mentioned above.
The Contractor shall address the following requirements for hydraulic analyses:
Determine local drainage runoff and/or sheet flow conditions as they cross the fence alignment. Provide the final hydraulic calculations identifying the final discharge velocity and rise in water surface elevation associated with the selected fence type at each identified wash crossing. Maximum acceptable rise in water surface elevation shall be 6-inches at rural locations and 3-inches at urban locations along the International Boundary. Provide final calculations showing depth of scour and/or long term degradation. Provide details for protection against scour and/or long term degradation. Provide details for culvert and/or low water crossings at each wash crossing which satisfies rise in water surface elevations stated above. Provide hydrologic/hydraulic design and details showing that any/all cut and/or fill operations conducted within the project site do not adversely affect the natural drainage patterns across the site and satisfies the rise in water surface elevation stated above. Provide hydraulic design and details for any other site drainage improvements required due to construction of the all-weather road. Conduct hydraulic analysis using HEC-RAS modeling.
Based on the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed for the programmatic drainage report and in accordance with the TI design standards, the contractor shall make project design recommendations related to drainage conveyance through the fence, low water crossings, culverts, drainage gates and erosion control. The recommended types and sizes of these drainage features shall be specified in the final drainage report.
A drainage report will be prepared by the Contractor summarizing all hydrologic and hydraulic assumptions, drainage criteria, data, calculations, modeling, results and design recommendations. The report shall include maps of the locations of the identified drainage crossings and their contributing drainage areas. It shall specify the hydrologic method used at each location and include a summary of the calculations and assumptions used to calculate frequency peak discharges. The report shall also include maps of the hydraulic model cross sections and stream centerlines, summaries of the data and parameters, and assumptions used in the hydraulic models, and tabular summaries of the calculated water surface elevations for existing and proposed conditions. Drainage design recommendations, including types and sizes of drainage features, shall also be included in the report. In addition to the report, the contractor shall provide the government with a
36

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
digital copy of all models, hydrologic calculations, and all geospatial data collected or developed as part of this scope.
The Contractor shall deliver the draft drainage report, models, hydrologic calculations, and geospatial data to the USACE Program Manager (PgM) for review and comments. One round of responses to USACE comments shall be prepared by the Contractor for USACE review and concurrence. The Contractor shall be available via telephone to respond to any comments or questions regarding these documents and if required shall prepare a review comment resolution matrix (RCRM) documenting all review comments and corresponding resolution. The contractor shall prepare a draft final (90% design level) drainage report following USACE concurrence to the Contractor’s response to comments. The Contractor shall deliver the draft final drainage report to the USACE Program Manager (PgM) for review and comments. One round of responses to USACE comments shall be prepared by the Contractor for USACE review and concurrence. The Contractor shall be available via telephone to respond to any comments or questions regarding these documents and if required shall a RCRM documenting all review comments and corresponding resolution. The Contractor shall prepare the final report (100% design level) following USACE concurrence to the Contractor’s response to comments. The final report shall incorporate the resolved USACE comments and Contractor’s response to comments, and be delivered in hard copy and electronic format.
Drainage Report References:
1. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection, Tactical Infrastructure Design Standards, April 2012. 2. U.S. – Mexico Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI), http://borderhealth.cr.usgs.gov/datalayers.html, accessed May 2015.
f. Geotechnical Investigation - Provide services as set forth in the attached exhibit. The A-E shall conduct drilling operations, conduct limited on-site testing and deliver samples/boring logs to the testing facility. This study will provide site characteristics required to support the foundation design proposal. The A-E shall develop a sealed Geotechnical Report for all of the project locations in Appendix B. The A/E shall coordinate with the USACE Levee Safety Officer, or designee, to meet USACE, IBWC & FEMA requirements prior to drilling into any levee.
g. Planimetric, Topographic Surveys - A new topographic survey will need to be accomplished to supplant and update previously captured topographic information. This will ensure accuracy of the design for improvements and the drainage analysis. It is the contractor’s responsibility to verify any existing data that is provided. This topographic survey effort should be done at the scale required for the proposed design improvements and drainage analysis (i.e. 1”=30’ with 1’contours, etc). The survey data required for this project is not limited to the 150-foot wide project area, additional topographic information will be required for the drainage study, utility connection points, property boundaries, existing drainage
37

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
features, etc. Surveys will be conducted for all of the locations in Appendix B. Additional information is in the attached exhibit.
h. Utility Connection Points - Perform the necessary analysis to identify the characteristics of all required existing utilities. Determine connection points and new infrastructure requirements to service the project.
i. Structural Analysis – Provide a structural analysis as required to support this SOW.
j. Geotechnical Design Requirements – The A-E shall complete the design as denoted in the Geotechnical Investigation.
k. Construction Cost Estimates - A Parametric (PACES) estimate is required for the Project Definition Report, Parametric Design (35%) Documents or Draft D-B RFP. A MII MicroComputer Aided Cost Estimate is required for the Final and Corrected Final D-B RFP, as well as, the 65%, 95% and 100% Design Data submittals. The requirements of this Task Order override and replace the requirements listed in the AEIM.
l. Design-Build Request for Proposal (Draft, Final, Corrected Final) - The A-E shall provide all needed information for the project based upon information gathered at the predesign meeting and the Parametric Design (15%) submittals. Design documents used for advertising shall not be sealed by the A-E. Fully developed site plans showing parking, roadways, pedestrian pathways, building footprints, utility connections, etc. are not required. Only conceptual (35%) plans are required. RFP Preparation and Source Selection - Complete the project through the 35% design. The AE shall prepare technical sections of a design-build package for the facility and associated utilities as indicated in the project description. The A-E shall prepare the list of technical specifications, technical evaluation criteria, special phasing requirements (as determined), and reference drawings for the RFP. Immediately following the RFP Review conference the A-E will attend a VE workshop per the above requirements. The Government will prepare all Division 00 and 01 specifications unless otherwise noted.
RFP Content, Organization and Important Criteria - The RFP is to be prepared to meet all requirements for a Task Order Design-Build solicitation. Compliance with the Fort Worth District guidance for preparing documents for solicitation and construction award is required. Include with the Draft and Final RFP, an estimate of the construction time in calendar days to complete the project. The A-E shall incorporate phasing or sequencing requirements based upon user needs and/or design considerations. Derivation of the construction period shall be provided in accordance with SWD AEIM. The A-E shall include necessary information in the RFP to guide the Offerors regarding any phasing requirements for construction of the facility. Construction Cost Limitations (CCL) - The estimated construction cost of this project is based upon anticipated funding as stated in this Statement of Work. Each project must be designed to provide a usable facility within the designated limitations of estimated construction contract price and scope. If additive, optional or deductive bid items must be included in the Bid Schedule for cost limitations, the A-E shall properly delineate these items in the drawings and specifications without additional compensation. Modification to plans, specifications, and the
38

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
construction cost estimate to reflect optional, deductive or additive bid items is included as part of this Contract as necessary to remain within funds available.
m. Cost and Scope Limitations - The A-E shall ensure the guidance outlined in the RFP requires the Offerors to provide a usable facility within the limitations of estimated construction contract price and scope. If at any time, the A-E finds that the estimated construction cost and scope of the project is likely to exceed the budget, the A-E shall report this fact to the Contracting Officer Representative. He shall also submit recommendations (associated costs) for reducing the project cost and/or scope to within the established limits.
n. Landscaping, Fencing – Specify Installation accepted plants for low maintenance and minimal irrigation.
o. Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting - .
p. Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan – Shall be based on the Proposed Site Plan. Must be coordinated with Installation personnel to define local requirements.
q. Site Utilities - Following verification of existing utilities, new infrastructure requirements and points of connection to service the project must be determined by the A-E. Domestic Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Natural Gas lines must be sized to handle project loads and then terminate into existing mains. Electrical conductors shall be sized to handle project loads and then terminated into required electrical transmission equipment. Privatized utility requirements will be denoted.
r. Structural – Based on Installation specific wind, snow, and seismic loading.
s. Electrical - Coordinate design of the primary electrical distribution with the local utility provider, Installation personnel and the CESWF Project Design Team. Identify who and how power will be provided to the facility transformer primary and secondary sides.
t. Telephones, Computers, CCTV, Intrusion Detection, Mass Notification - .
u. Lightning Protection, Grounding -
v. Bidder Inquiries / Amendments - The A-E will respond to Bidder Inquiries via the ProjNet (Dr. Checks) system and provide updated Design Documents. The Government will issue the actual amendment.
w. Current Working Estimate - The current U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ MicroComputer Aided Cost Estimating System MII (pronounced “M2”) Version 4.0 Build III or most recent release, and compatible databases are required for all construction cost estimates produced under this Task Order. Contact CESWF-EC-AC Section Chief for information pertaining to obtaining the software. Each submittal must include an MII estimate based upon the current stage of design. The software database now requires purchase (with the costs subject to change), but current cost is approximately $1,000. This purchase is not made nor
39

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
controlled through CESWF-EC-AC. The current version of the software program will be provided to the A-E under contract who must then follow the prescribed licensing procedure to make use of the software for the term of this contract. Any other use of the software and the database can be utilized per the terms of the licensing agreement with the manufacturer. That licensing agreement is not under the control of CESWF-EC-AC. A PDF file of the project estimate must be submitted with the reports file. Hard copy requirements are denoted elsewhere. The estimate will not be complete until the bid opening estimate or final proposal estimate which includes all amendments and the completed bid or CLIN schedule in its final advertised format have been submitted to CESWF prior to the construction contractors’ final proposal or bid deadline date shown in the solicitation or SF30. All pricing information included with any database or other source can and should be adapted, modified, changed, increased, or decreased as deemed necessary by the estimator to prepare an estimate representative of the project. The information contained in any database or any other cost information provided by the Fort Worth District office, CESWF-EC-AC, or obtained from other sources is not intended to represent fixed prices for ordering supplies, equipment, material, labor, nor any other construction component in the Government estimate. The estimator's professional judgment and decisions should be the definitive factor in determining fair and reasonable costs calculated for submittals and reviews. In MII, when submitting estimates for Military Projects, the Corps' current 20 system Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) will be used to structure the estimate (or PCCost 3086/1391 format when requested) unless CESWF-EC-AC determines that WBS is not applicable. For Civil Works Projects, the current Code of Accounts structure will be used unless the project is of a nature that does not warrant any of these estimate structures but that variance must be requested and then authorized by CESWF-EC-AC. Excel based estimates or other software forms of estimating are not acceptable unless the A-E has been approved by CESWF-EC-AC to provide back-up data or lower level costs in those formats. Final roll-up and mark-ups of those estimates will be entered in MII software for submittals though by utilizing the structure required by CESWF-EC-AC. The A-E shall be aware of and take precautionary measures as necessary to maintain the confidential nature of all cost estimates prepared under this Task Order. All estimate submittals shall be prepared in accordance with USACE instructions, regulations, and manuals for cost estimates as contained in EI 01D010, ER 1110-2-1302, and TM 5-800-4 and in compliance with EFARS 36.2. Costs will be developed using the latest standards and resources as applicable and including but not limited to the Tri-Services Estimating System, TRACES, MII, the MII Cost Book databases, commercial cost book databases, PAX newsletters 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, Davis-Bacon wage rates utilized as minimum values, commercially available reports, data, and local site specific or otherwise available sources of material, supplies, equipment, labor and other data. Compilation of the Current Working Estimate will incorporate the preceding sources and references utilizing the most recent available software as stated and/or other TRACES software which may include MII, MCACES, PACES, PCCost, risk analysis programs, or any of the other approved systems available to TRACES users. Any applicable software and databases which normally are distributed without cost by CESWF-EC-AC will be made available to the A-E by CESWF-ECAC under the Task Order. Certain software programs and databases as described above and which also include PACES and RACER but are not limited to these mentioned herein may require purchase by the A-E and cannot be provided without cost to the A-E by CESWF-EC-
40

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
AC. Construction cost estimates for planning and budgeting purposes and for projects at 0 15% stages may be submitted by utilizing parametric software such as PACES and then summarizing the costs in the PCCost software if CESWF-EC-AC deems this acceptable. Also for any planning and budgeting purposes, PCCost software may be used to generate costs by utilizing the category codes and area cost factors in the PCCost database (which also includes Area Cost Factor data and adjustments). Updates to the database are available from CESWFEC-AC. Electronic copies of all cost estimates in their native formats must be submitted along with any txt, pdf, doc, and rtf type report files generated to produce the hard copies.
x. Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit - A Pre-proposal Conference and Installation Site Visit shall be conducted for potential Offerors after the RFP is advertised. The A-E Project Manager shall be required to make a presentation of the general RFP development concept and project features at the beginning of the review conference. The A-E shall prepare the agenda and organize the conference so that all technical and functional issues can be addressed within the scheduled duration of the conference. The presentation is intended to provide the conference members with a clear understanding of the facility and how it functions. It can be expected that the participants can range up to a large group (up to 50 persons). The COE will chair the Conference and respond to offerors concerns at the conference. This is planned as a one-day meeting requiring travel the previous day and returning the day of the conference. The A-E shall provide detailed meeting minutes.
8.3 Administrative Tasks
8.3.1 Confirmation Notices
The A-E firm shall provide a record of all conferences, meeting, discussions, verbal directions, telephone conversations, etc., the A-E firm and/or their subcontractor(s) on matters related to this Task Order. The A-E firm shall identify all participating personnel, subjects discussed, and conclusions reached. The A-E firm shall title these records Confirmation Notices and shall number them sequentially. The A-E shall forward each Confirmation Notice via email to the Government POC within three working days. Communication via email is acceptable for minor, day-to-day correspondence.
8.3.2 Periodic Status Reports
The A-E firm shall provide a monthly status report to the Government POC. The report shall include: Current Status, Action Item List, and discussion of major issues.
9.0 Option 1 Schedule and Deliverables
9.1 Schedule
9.1.1 The Table below shows the schedule of services and deliverables covered in this task order. The A-E Contractor shall submit a schedule showing dates for all key submittals.
41

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Option 1 Schedule of Services and Deliverables

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Design Quality Control Plan Charrette
Draft Drainage Studies

DUE DATE Within 7-days of T.O. Award. Within 14-days of T.O. Award.
Within 30-days of T.O. Award.

Draft Planimetric, Topographic Surveys

Within 30-days of T.O. Award.

Draft Geotech Reports

Within 30-days of T.O. Award.

Four Draft D-B RFP Submittal
Government review of Draft D-B RFP Four Final D-B RFP Submittal Government review of Final D-B RFP Corrected Final D-B RFP Submittal Dr. Check Bidder Inquiries
Construction RFP Amendment(s)
Construction Contract Award CD Administrative Tasks
Confirmation Notices (Email only – Numbered) Monthly Status Report (pdf attachment via email)

Within 30-days of T.O. Award.
Estimated 14-days after Draft Submittal. Within 60-days of T.O. Award. Estimated 14-days after Final Submittal. August 31, 2017 Within 2-days of posting in Dr. Checks Within 3-days of notification of need for Amendment. Within 5-days of Construction Contract. Award.
Within 3-days. Within 5-days from end of month

9.1.1 The days listed above are calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. The Government must receive the deliverable by the start of the next business day. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the Government expects receipt by the start of the next business day. The A-E Contractor should assume 14-days for receipt of Government comments for review of major submittals. On-site review conferences or conference calls can be scheduled no sooner than 7-days following receipt of the submittal.
9.1.2 The Government may accept submittals prior to the due date provided they are complete and have received a quality control check. The Government will not accept partially complete submittals early or otherwise.
42

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
10.1 Quality Assurance Reviews
10.1.1 Formal Reviews
10.1.1.1 The Government will perform a formal Quality Assurance (QA) check on the following:
e. The POC will be responsible for providing the comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding to, and incorporating (if appropriate), all comments from reviewers into the deliverables.
f. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” and provide the comment submitter with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall also be prepared to discuss the position with the reviewer.
g. CESWF uses USACE’s web-based Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks) at www.projnet.org as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The A-E shall use this system. The Government will set up DrChecks for this project.
h. The QA team may not record all QA comments in DrChecks. They may provide comments on other media. If such is the case, the POC will be responsible for providing those comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding (and incorporating, if appropriate) into the final products.
10.1.2 Casual Reviews
The A-E firm is responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements in this task order. The Government will examine all deliverables submitted by the A-E firm. If the Government finds deficiencies, the A-E firm shall amend and resubmit as necessary.
10.2 Conferences
The conferences scheduled for this task order are listed in the table below. Any additional conferences requiring travel shall be authorized by a Task Order Modification. Expenses will be reimbursed as denoted in the IDIQ Contract and must be based on current Joint Travel Regulations. Airline ticket cost shall be based on a minimum 7-day advance purchase.
Additional A-E discipline team members will be made available to support the on-site meetings via conference call. Limited participation is required. If required to meet expedited schedules, the A-E shall be prepared to accommodate over-the shoulder review comments.
Scheduled Conferences
44

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Design Charrette (w/In-Brief; Out-Brief)

Fort Worth

5 Days

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

(4) Draft RFP Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

4 Days

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

(4) Final RFP Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

4 Days

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

(4) Corrected Final RFP Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

4 Days

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

Construction PreProposal Conference

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil.

11.0 Option 1 Technical Criteria, Standards/Specifications, General Requirements and Government Furnished Information (Use Latest Editions Unless Otherwise Noted)
The A-E or Designer of Record shall use the following standards as applicable for this project.
a. Per DoD Directive Number 4270.5 dated 12 February 2005 paragraph 4.7, the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) shall be used to the greatest extent possible by all DoD Components for planning, design, and construction (restoration and modernization) of facilities, regardless of funding source, except for those facilities constructed by the National Guard on real estate neither owned by the United States nor under long-term lease to the United States, constructed by a State under Chapters 169 and 1803 of Title 10, US Code, and where title to the facility shall not be in the United States.
b. UFC 1-200-01: General Building Requirements.

45

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
c. International Building Code (IBC).
d. NFPA Life Safety Codes 13, 90A, 101.
e. ANSI/IEEE C2-2002, National Safety Electric Code.
f. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Architectural and Engineering Instructions (AEI), (http://www.hnc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Engineering/TECHINFO.aspx )
g. US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Architectural and Engineering Instructions Manual (CESWD-AEIM) available at: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/portals/16/docs/ec/swd_aeim_2003.pdf
h. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design criteria available at: http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerManuals.aspx
i. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Technical Instructions, TI 800-01, 20 July 1998 available at http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COETI/ARCHIVES/ti800_01.pdf
j. Contract Administration Branch guidelines set forth at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_7151-7.pdf
k. Selection of Methods for the Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling of Demolition Waste.
l. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
m. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
n. CBP Design Guide
o. DHS Tactical Infrastructure Standard Design Toolkit, 2012
p. Due to the project requirements, this project shall meet USACE flood risk management design standards utilizing Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) and, defined as a Flood Wall, thus utilizing Retaining and Flood Walls (EM 1110-2-2502), Slope Stability (EM 1110-2-1902), Strength Design of Concrete Hydraulic Structures (EM 1110-2-2104).
The design of the project shall also meet the USACE hydrologic criteria for levees and floodwalls, as defined in Chapter 7 of Hydrologic Engineering Requirements for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1419), and the performance of the project in terms of flood protection and FEMA certification shall be evaluated according to USACE’s risk and
46

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
uncertainty standards as defined in Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1619).
q. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
r. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
s. Government Reviews (Dr. Checks) - CESWF uses USACE’s web-based comment tracking system, Dr. Checks (located at www.projnet.org), as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The Government’s review will consist primarily of quality assurance (QA) checks and is typically completed in two weeks. It will concentrate on the design’s functional aspects with limited technical review. The Government will prepare written comments for evaluation and response by the A-E after each major submittal. The A-E shall annotate and respond to the review comments in the development of data for the next design level. Responses such as “A-E requires additional information.” or “A-E does not understand.” are unacceptable. Annotations shall address specific corrective actions required. The A-E shall enter responses in advance of review conferences. Final annotation shall be completed within seven days of the conference. Hard copy distribution of final annotated comments is not required except that they shall be included by the A-E in the Design Analysis. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” And provide the commentator with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall coordinate with the Government Project Manager to ensure the Government has set up rights for each pertinent member of the A-E team that needs to evaluate and respond to comments.
t. Specifications -
The A-E will prepare all Division 01 Specifications and assemble the final Request for Proposal.
Civil / GIS CADD GIS Requirements CADD and Electronic (paperless) Bid Process. CADD Standards. The A-E shall comply with A/E/C CADD Standards https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/default.aspx?p=a&t=1&i=7
Fort Worth District Sheet/Title Block file can be found at: https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/DocCenter.aspx?ID=0
CADD. Critical to the design process is use of Computer-Aided Drafting and Design (CADD). The Government plans to solicit bids for construction of the project via an electronic format without providing printed plans and specifications to perspective bidders. All work to
47

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
be accomplished, e.g., design work, surveying work, drawings, and details to be provided under this Task Order shall be accomplished and developed using computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) software and procedures conforming to criteria set forth elsewhere. All CADD final design deliverables shall be delivered in AutoCAD File format, version 2016 or newer.
All CADD drawing model file elements shall be produced full scale in CADD and named in compliance to A/E/C Standard.
SYMBOLOGY: All CADD element symbologies including level, weight, style, and color shall be compliant to A/E/C Standard.
Electronic Files/Paperless Solicitation. Electronic files provided to bidders shall be produced by the A-E as described herein and provided to potential bidders by the Government, via a Government Web site.
CAD files shall be converted to Adobe Acrobat "pdf" files by the A-E, which will require the A-E to purchase computer software for this purpose if they do not currently have this capability or alternately satisfy this requirement through a subcontractor (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html). These files will be readable utilizing the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The A-E is responsible for ensuring that resulting prints from pdf files are essentially identical to prints from the parent SpecsIntact and CADD files.
u. Amendments to Bid Documents - During the time that this project is advertised for construction contract bids, it may be necessary for the A-E to provide revisions to the advertised plans and specifications. Drawing revisions shall be provided as reissued or additional drawings. Reissued or additional drawings shall be incorporated into the bid documents, in the form of amendments. All amendments shall be incorporated into project specifications and drawings in accordance with the SWD Architect-Engineer Instructional Manual (AEIM), Chapter VIII. All plan sheets revised to incorporate amendments, along with the CADD and PDF files shall be provided as specified or referenced herein. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, drawing revisions may be provided in narrative form and sketches. Amendments within the project's scope, including design errors, omissions and conflicts will be done promptly, to prevent or minimize slipping of the proposal due date, with no increase in the A-E Task Order price. In most instances, the final amendment must be available to bidders ten days before the due date for technical and price proposals.
11.1 Proprietary Specifications and Requirements.
The A-E firm shall avoid specifying proprietary materials, equipment, systems, or other features of the work unless the A-E firm can demonstrate the use of such proprietary requirements will be advantageous to the Government (e.g. fire alarm transmitters and locksets that must be compatible with other products at the facility). The Government is prohibited from specifying proprietary
48

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
requirements except in unusual circumstances which requires documentation and approval by the Contracting Agency Head or higher authority. If the A-E firm can show that a proprietary material could be more advantageous to the Government, provide a description that includes the brand name and a general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the item.
11.2 Office Documents.
11.2.1 The table below lists the software products the Government uses for work products produced through general-purpose office software (e.g. VE Study, Design Analysis, Etc.):
Government Software Packages

File Type

Software

Publisher

Portable Document Format (*.pdf)

Acrobat

Adobe

Hypertext transfer protocol (http)

Internet Explorer

Microsoft

Word Processing (*.docx)

WORD

Microsoft

Spreadsheets (*.xlsx)

EXCEL

Microsoft

Slideshow presentations (*.pptx)

POWERPOINT

Microsoft

eMail client (*.msg)

OUTLOOK

Microsoft

11.2.2 The A-E firm shall ensure the documents they produce and submit to the Government are compatible with these software packages. The A-E firm shall be responsible for any file translation necessary to permit Government reading of documentation. The A-E firm shall consult with the Government on the use of software not on this list to ensure the Government can read the files the A-E firm will submit.
11.2.3 The A-E firm shall consider readability and reproducibility in the preparation of documents. This includes (but is not limited to) font sizes, organization and layout of documents,

49

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
paper sizes, and use of color documentation. Not all stakeholders on this project have access to high-end reproduction equipment.
11.3 Units of Measure.
The A-E shall verify use of U.S. Customary, International, or other units in all work products.
11.4 Government Furnished Information and Materials
The table below lists the Government Furnished information and materials included in this task order. Contact the POC if more data is necessary for preparation of fee proposal or execution of the task order.
Government Furnished Materials

No Item .

Source

Cost engineering database tables and

See also

1 software. Purchase or license may be http://media.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/EC/

required at cost to the A-E firm.

eca/CostSpec.asp

2

Div 00

SWF Contracting

12. Option 2 Update to the Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Standard Design Toolkit
Project Description
12.1 Overview
The objective is to update the TI Standard Design Toolkit with levee wall and freestanding wall standard designs to be used throughout the program.
12.1.1 Product Scope
The Government requires the TI Standard Design Toolkit to be updated to include levee wall and freestanding wall designs so that they can be used throughout the program as standard designs.
12.1.2 Project Scope
50

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
12.1.2.1 This Scope of Work includes all work necessary for the A-E firm to update the TI Standard Design Toolkit.
n. Design Quality Control Plan
o. Reviews and Conferences
p. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports
q. TI Standard Design Toolkit Update Document
r. Cost Estimates
(1) Site
(2) Landscaping, Fencing
(3) Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting
(4) Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(5) Site Utilities
(6) Structural
12.2 Option 2 Construction Cost Limitation.
All services associated with a Study, Project Definition Report or Design-Build RFP are considered non-design and are not subject to the 6% of Construction Cost Limitation statutory limit.
13.0 Option 2 Services
13.1 Quality Control Plan
The minimum requirements for the quality control plan (QCP) are given in ER 1110-1-12, Quality Management, and the project SOW. The QCP is the A-E firm’s management plan(s) for execution of the contract. The QCP describes the way in which the A-E will produce the deliverables, the steps that will be taken to control quality, and an assigned point-of-contact within the A-E firm’s organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the QCP. The QCP, modified to include any changes to the contract that occur, will be attached as an appendix to the design analysis.
13.2 A-E Services (See CESWD-AEIM for full descriptive requirements.)
a. Design Quality Control Plan (See Section 3.1)
51

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
b. Reviews and Conferences (See Section 5.2)
c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports (See Section 3.3.1)
d. TI Standard Design Toolkit Update Document –
1. Wall Types
The Contractor shall compile and consolidate freestanding and levee floodwall requirements of the Border Patrol-HQ. The Contractor will review the following wall types (reference 3a):
• W-1 • W-2 • LW-1 • LW-2
The Contractor will review available Designs, As-Built Drawings, field inspections, and interviews to update wall types above. The Contractor shall look for design improvements, anti-scale & anti-perch requirements, and make recommendations for areas of value engineering. The details shall include up to two typical foundation types recommended based upon the geotechnical report and engineering analysis. One set of assumed soil parameters will be used. The Contractor will evaluate material coating possibilities that are applicable border wide and in each Sector, analyze the life cycle benefits, provide life cycle cost analysis, and provide any treatment recommendations, if any, to the Government for inclusion in the notes. An interim design comment and review teleconference meeting will be held for this task. A Bill of Materials (BOM) will be provided for each wall/fence type. This will be used for Maintenance & Repair Planning. The Contractor will document the process and reviews required for levee wall construction.
1. Standard Light Details
The Contractor will compile and consolidate security lighting requirements of the Border Patrol –HQ for the 4 types of wall added as well as the 150’ enforcement zone. The Contractor will develop standard lighting details that will at a minimum include: pole height & cross-section, power requirements and light assembly details. Standard lighting details could be difference when enforcement zone is in the floodplain. The Contractor will provide photometric data showing area illuminated and lighting level provided per single pole/fixture combination. Coordination is required to determine if USFWS illumination criteria for the levee wall lighting system will be required to be included as a design consideration to minimize impacts to the wildlife corridor. A Bill of Materials (BOM) will be provided for standard lights, this will be used for Maintenance & Repair Planning. An interim design comment & review telecom meeting will be held for this task. The Contractor will provide standard design & construction specifications related to this task in standard USACE specification format.
52

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
LEED Considerations - The Contractor will analyze LEED design criteria and evaluate implementation possibilities. The Contractor will investigate the potential for solar power, LED lamps, and other LEED recommended equipment or practices. The Contractor will provide matrices of recommended LEED items, LEED points, impacts to requirements, and a cost benefit analysis.
2. Road Standards
The Contractor will review road requirements of Border Patrol-HQ for in the floodplain and on top of the crest of the levee. The Contractor will review available As-Built Drawings, field inspection analysis, and interviews to determine if any additional standards are required to be created or revised to accommodate those 2 locations. The current TI Standard Design Toolkit road types are below. The Contractor will update standard road details & cross-sections for each road type as required. The following will be standard road types:
 TI Construction, Maintenance & Repair Road  All-Weather Patrol Road  Paved Patrol Road  Articulated Concrete Mat Low Water Crossing  Cast in Place Low Water Crossings The Contractor will consider life cycle costs when developing the standard road designs. The designs shall include consideration & notes for the following:  Recommended maximum vehicle characteristics to include maintenance &
construction equipment, such as gross weight, speed of vehicles, etc,  Road Width & Turn Outs for Border Patrol & Construction equipment along with
shoulders.  Traffic Volume  Cross Slopes for all road types  Site adapt options (e.g. for steep slopes add cement stabilization to all-weather
road)  Switchback requirements  Typical signage (Task 6.9)  Guardrail & other safety requirements (Task 6.10)
The Contractor will create Standard Road Specifications & Design Analysis to reflect the road types under this task. On the embankment side of the access road, access ramps to drive from the levee toe, on the embankment, and to the top of the embankment. IBWC and CBP will provide operational requirements for levee access ramps to the south side of the fence/floodwall. A Bill of Materials (BOM) will be provided for each road type, this will be used for Maintenance & Repair Planning. An interim design comment & review telecom meeting will be held for each road type in this task. Meetings can be consolidated if multiple products are available for review.
3. Gates
53

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
The Contractor shall develop standard designs for vehicle, pedestrian and drainage gates for the 4 wall types added herein. The Contractor shall compile and review gate requirements for vehicle, pedestrian and drainage gates for levee and freestanding wall types. The Contractor will review available As-Built Drawings, field inspection analysis, and interviews to develop & update the TI Standard Design Toolkit. Government will furnish RGV Phase 1 Gates Standard Design – Design Analysis Report for consideration in developing standard gate designs.
An interim design comment & review telecom meeting will be held for this task. Sliding gate standards shall be developed through performance specifications which will include motorization & power requirements. Non-sliding gate standards shall be developed through details and specifications.
e. Current Working Estimate – PACES Estimates will be provided for each TI Standard Design Toolkit element added as part of the Standard Design
13.3 Administrative Tasks
13.3.1 Confirmation Notices
The A-E firm shall provide a record of all conferences, meeting, discussions, verbal directions, telephone conversations, etc., the A-E firm and/or their subcontractor(s) on matters related to this Task Order. The A-E firm shall identify all participating personnel, subjects discussed, and conclusions reached. The A-E firm shall title these records Confirmation Notices and shall number them sequentially. The A-E shall forward each Confirmation Notice via email to the Government POC within three working days. Communication via email is acceptable for minor, day-to-day correspondence.
13.3.2 Periodic Status Reports
The A-E firm shall provide a monthly status report to the Government POC. The report shall include: Current Status, Action Item List, and discussion of major issues.
14.0 Option 2 Schedule and Deliverables
14.1 Schedule
14.1.1 The Table below shows the schedule of services and deliverables covered in this task order. The A-E Contractor shall submit a schedule showing dates for all key submittals.
Option 2 Schedule of Services and Deliverables
54

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Design Quality Control Plan Kick-off meeting

DUE DATE Within 7-days of T.O. Award. Within 14-days of T.O. Award.

Draft TI Standard Toolkit Document and PACES Estimate
Government review of Draft submittals

Within 120 days of Option Award
Estimated 14-days after Draft Submittal.

Final TI Standard Toolkit Document and PACES Estimate
Government review of Final submittals

Within 150 days of Option Award
Estimated 14-days after Draft Submittal.

Corrected Final TI Standard Toolkit Document and PACES Estimate
Administrative Tasks Confirmation Notices (Email only – Numbered) Monthly Status Report (pdf attachment via email)

Within 180 days of Option Award
Within 3-days. Within 5-days from end of month

14.1.1 The days listed above are calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. The Government must receive the deliverable by the start of the next business day. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the Government expects receipt by the start of the next business day. The A-E Contractor should assume 14-days for receipt of Government comments for review of major submittals. On-site review conferences or conference calls can be scheduled no sooner than 7-days following receipt of the submittal.

14.1.2 The Government may accept submittals prior to the due date provided they are complete and have received a quality control check. The Government will not accept partially complete submittals early or otherwise.

14.2 Deliverables

14.2.1 The table below shows the list of deliverables and their required distribution.

Deliverable Distribution Schedule

Deliverables Electronic Copies Only (Native and/or .pdf formats) Quality Control Plan Minutes, Confirmation Notices, Status Reports TI Design Standard Toolkit Document (Draft and Final) PACES Cost Estimate (Draft & Final & Corrected Final)

Number of Copies AB C D E
11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1

55

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
14.2.2 The table below lists the Points of Contact that correspond to the letters (A, B, C, etc.) in deliverable distribution schedule above.
Address List
a. CESWF Design Manager (Address Stated Above)
b. CESWF COR (Address Stated Above)
c. CESWF PM (Steve Dill) 819 Taylor Street, CESWF-ECSO-T, Fort Worth TX, 76102
d. CBP Office, (Address Stated Above)
e. BPFTI PMO, Scott Recinos, 7940 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102
14.2.3 The A-E form shall coordinate submittal distribution with the POCs. The original transmittal letter will be addressed to the POC and will note that by information copy of that transmittal, appropriate review agencies are being provided copies of the work products and are requested to provide comments electronically to the POCs and to the A-E firm by the due date. The original transmittal letter and all copies will include a schedule showing data distribution.
15.0 Option 2 Reviews and Conferences
15.1 Quality Assurance Reviews
15.1.1 Formal Reviews
15.1.1.1 The Government will perform a formal Quality Assurance (QA) check on the following:
a. The POC will be responsible for providing the comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding to, and incorporating (if appropriate), all comments from reviewers into the deliverables.
b. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” and provide the comment submitter with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall also be prepared to discuss the position with the reviewer.
c. CESWF uses USACE’s web-based Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks) at www.projnet.org as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The A-E shall use this system. The Government will set up DrChecks for this project.
d. The QA team may not record all QA comments in DrChecks. They may provide comments on other media. If such is the case, the POC will be responsible for providing those
56

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding (and incorporating, if appropriate) into the final products.
15.1.2 Casual Reviews
The A-E firm is responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements in this task order. The Government will examine all deliverables submitted by the A-E firm. If the Government finds deficiencies, the A-E firm shall amend and resubmit as necessary.
15.2 Conferences
The conferences scheduled for this task order are listed in the table below. Any additional conferences requiring travel shall be authorized by a Task Order Modification. Expenses will be reimbursed as denoted in the IDIQ Contract and must be based on current Joint Travel Regulations. Airline ticket cost shall be based on a minimum 7-day advance purchase.
Additional A-E discipline team members will be made available to support the on-site meetings via conference call. Limited participation is required. If required to meet expedited schedules, the A-E shall be prepared to accommodate over-the shoulder review comments.
Scheduled Conferences

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Kick-Off Meeting

Fort Worth

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

Draft Toolkit Review

Teleconferenc e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

Final Toolkit Review

Teleconferenc e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

16.0 Option 2 Technical Criteria, Standards/Specifications, General Requirements and Government Furnished Information (Use Latest Editions Unless Otherwise Noted)
The A-E or Designer of Record shall use the following standards as applicable for this project.

57

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
a. Per DoD Directive Number 4270.5 dated 12 February 2005 paragraph 4.7, the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) shall be used to the greatest extent possible by all DoD Components for planning, design, and construction (restoration and modernization) of facilities, regardless of funding source, except for those facilities constructed by the National Guard on real estate neither owned by the United States nor under long-term lease to the United States, constructed by a State under Chapters 169 and 1803 of Title 10, US Code, and where title to the facility shall not be in the United States.
b. UFC 1-200-01: General Building Requirements.
c. International Building Code (IBC).
d. NFPA Life Safety Codes 13, 90A, 101.
e. ANSI/IEEE C2-2002, National Safety Electric Code.
f. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Architectural and Engineering Instructions (AEI), (http://www.hnc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Engineering/TECHINFO.aspx )
g. US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Architectural and Engineering Instructions Manual (CESWD-AEIM) available at: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/portals/16/docs/ec/swd_aeim_2003.pdf
h. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design criteria available at: http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerManuals.aspx
i. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Technical Instructions, TI 800-01, 20 July 1998 available at http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COETI/ARCHIVES/ti800_01.pdf
j. Contract Administration Branch guidelines set forth at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_7151-7.pdf
k. Selection of Methods for the Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling of Demolition Waste.
l. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
m. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
n. CBP Design Guide
o. DHS Tactical Infrastructure Standard Design Toolkit, 2012
58

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
p. Due to the project requirements, this project shall meet USACE flood risk management design standards utilizing Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) and, defined as a Flood Wall, thus utilizing Retaining and Flood Walls (EM 1110-2-2502), Slope Stability (EM 1110-2-1902), Strength Design of Concrete Hydraulic Structures (EM 1110-2-2104).
The design of the project shall also meet the USACE hydrologic criteria for levees and floodwalls, as defined in Chapter 7 of Hydrologic Engineering Requirements for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1419), and the performance of the project in terms of flood protection and FEMA certification shall be evaluated according to USACE’s risk and uncertainty standards as defined in Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1619).
q. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
r. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
s. Government Reviews (Dr. Checks) - CESWF uses USACE’s web-based comment tracking system, Dr. Checks (located at www.projnet.org), as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The Government’s review will consist primarily of quality assurance (QA) checks and is typically completed in two weeks. It will concentrate on the design’s functional aspects with limited technical review. The Government will prepare written comments for evaluation and response by the A-E after each major submittal. The A-E shall annotate and respond to the review comments in the development of data for the next design level. Responses such as “A-E requires additional information.” or “A-E does not understand.” are unacceptable. Annotations shall address specific corrective actions required. The A-E shall enter responses in advance of review conferences. Final annotation shall be completed within seven days of the conference. Hard copy distribution of final annotated comments is not required except that they shall be included by the A-E in the Design Analysis. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” And provide the commentator with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall coordinate with the Government Project Manager to ensure the Government has set up rights for each pertinent member of the A-E team that needs to evaluate and respond to comments.
16.1 Proprietary Specifications and Requirements.
The A-E firm shall avoid specifying proprietary materials, equipment, systems, or other features of the work unless the A-E firm can demonstrate the use of such proprietary requirements will be advantageous to the Government (e.g. fire alarm transmitters and locksets that must be compatible with other products at the facility). The Government is prohibited from specifying proprietary requirements except in unusual circumstances which requires documentation and approval by the
59

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Contracting Agency Head or higher authority. If the A-E firm can show that a proprietary material could be more advantageous to the Government, provide a description that includes the brand name and a general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the item.
16.2 Office Documents.
16.2.1 The table below lists the software products the Government uses for work products produced through general-purpose office software (e.g. VE Study, Design Analysis, Etc.):
Government Software Packages

File Type

Software

Publisher

Portable Document Format (*.pdf)

Acrobat

Adobe

Hypertext transfer protocol (http)

Internet Explorer

Microsoft

Word Processing (*.docx)

WORD

Microsoft

Spreadsheets (*.xlsx)

EXCEL

Microsoft

Slideshow presentations (*.pptx)

POWERPOINT

Microsoft

eMail client (*.msg)

OUTLOOK

Microsoft

16.2.2 The A-E firm shall ensure the documents they produce and submit to the Government are compatible with these software packages. The A-E firm shall be responsible for any file translation necessary to permit Government reading of documentation. The A-E firm shall consult with the Government on the use of software not on this list to ensure the Government can read the files the A-E firm will submit.
16.2.3 The A-E firm shall consider readability and reproducibility in the preparation of documents. This includes (but is not limited to) font sizes, organization and layout of documents, paper sizes, and use of color documentation. Not all stakeholders on this project have access to high-end reproduction equipment.

60

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
16.3 Units of Measure.
The A-E shall verify use of U.S. Customary, International, or other units in all work products.
16.4 Government Furnished Information and Materials
The table below lists the Government Furnished information and materials included in this task order. Contact the POC if more data is necessary for preparation of fee proposal or execution of the task order.
Government Furnished Materials

No Item .

Source

Cost engineering database tables and

See also

1 software. Purchase or license may be http://media.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/EC/

required at cost to the A-E firm.

eca/CostSpec.asp

17.0 Option 3 D-B RFP for RGV (7.9 Miles)
Project Description
17.1 Overview
The project is approximately 7.9 miles of levee wall construction in Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Zone 11, Zone 12, & Zone 13. The project alignment will be on the south toe of the north U.S. IBWC levee along Maintenance Road. This 7.9 miles is within the 32.8 miles in the base bid that the survey, GeoTech and drainage study were completed on.
Table of Zones for D-B RFP

61

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
The project is to be a design build construction project under the utilizing a single phase RFP. The design and completed construction must be approved and certified for the FEMA national database for flood protection.

This Scope of Work includes all work necessary for the A-E firm to prepare a D-B RFP denoting a complete and usable project.

The Value Engineering Study from the Base bid will be used for Option 3.

The Construction Cost Estimate/Current Working Estimate will be provided by the A-E. A preproposal conference to finalize the project scope of work and aid in the preparation of the A-E proposal is recommended. Labor and travel costs are not reimbursed by the Government.

17.1.1 Product Scope

The Government requires the development of one D-B RFP. Due to the project funding, the D-B RFP will need to be developed with a Base Bid and Three Options, totaling 7.9 miles as follows:

RGV Pgk 2
BASE RFP (D-B) BASE RFP (D-B) OPTION 1 (D-B) OPTION 2 (D-B) OPTION 3 (D-B)
TOTAL

PROJECT LENGTH (MILES)
1.1 2.1 2.4 0.4
1.9
7.9

17.1.2 Project Scope
17.1.2.1 This Scope of Work includes all work necessary for the A-E firm to prepare a D-B RFP, denoting a complete and usable project.
s. Design Quality Control Plan t. Reviews and Conferences u. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports v. Drainage Study (Use Drainage Study the Base Bid) w. Planimetric, Topographic Survey (Use Survey from the Base Bid) x. Geotechnical Investigation: Subsurface Investigation Borings, In-Situ and Laboratory Testing, and Geotechnical Report (Use Geotechnical Report from the Base Bid)

62

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
y. Design Charrette
z. Draft D-B RFP
aa. Final D-B RFP
bb. Corrected Final D-B RFP
cc. Structural Analysis
dd. Cost Estimates
(1) Site
(2) Landscaping, Fencing
(3) Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting
(4) Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(5) Site Utilities
(6) Structural
(7) Electrical
(8) Lightning Protection, Grounding
ee. Amendments
17.2 Construction Cost Limitation.
All services associated with a Study, Project Definition Report or Design-Build RFP are considered non-design and are not subject to the 6% of Construction Cost Limitation statutory limit.
18.0 Option 3 Services
18.1 Quality Control Plan
The minimum requirements for the quality control plan (QCP) are given in ER 1110-1-12, Quality Management, and the project SOW. The QCP is the A-E firm’s management plan(s) for execution of the contract. The QCP describes the way in which the A-E will produce the deliverables, the steps that will be taken to control quality, and an assigned point-of-contact within the A-E firm’s organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the QCP. The QCP, modified to include any changes to the contract that occur, will be attached as an appendix to the design analysis.
63

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
18.2 A-E Services (See CESWD-AEIM for full descriptive requirements.)
a. Design Quality Control Plan (See Section 3.1)
b. Reviews and Conferences (See Section 5.2)
c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports (See Section 3.3.1)
d. Design Charrette - The A-E shall conduct a Design Charrette to determine the customer’s functional requirements. The Charrette Meeting shall include, but not be limited to, gathering and developing requirements concerning User activities, number of personnel, operations requirements, equipment requirements, utilities, security, Due Diligence studies, and general site requirements. Key discussion items shall include project/design alternatives, key ‘show stoppers’, and team buy-in for final design requirements. Minimum full time attendees include the Project Manager and Civil Engineer. By the end of the Charrette, the A-E shall develop conceptual site plans, and management out-brief. Final deliverables for the Charrette include meeting minutes, site plans, utility plans, and ENG Form 3086 Government estimate.
h. Drainage Study - The Contractor shall review the programmatic drainage report that was prepared in the Base Bid and package the report in the D/B RFP.
i. Geotechnical Investigation - The Contractor shall review the Geotechnical report that was prepared in the Base Bid and package the report in the D/B RFP.
j. Planimetric, Topographic Surveys - The Contractor shall review the Survey that was prepared in the Base Bid and package the report in the D/B RFP.
k. Utility Connection Points - Perform the necessary analysis to identify the characteristics of all required existing utilities. Determine connection points and new infrastructure requirements to service the project.
l. Structural Analysis – Provide a structural analysis as required to support this SOW.
m. Geotechnical Design Requirements – The A-E shall complete the design as denoted in the Geotechnical Investigation from the Base Bid.
n. Construction Cost Estimates - A Parametric (PACES) estimate is required for the Project Definition Report, Parametric Design (35%) Documents or Draft D-B RFP. A MII MicroComputer Aided Cost Estimate is required for the Final and Corrected Final D-B RFP, as well as, the 65%, 95% and 100% Design Data submittals. The requirements of this Task Order override and replace the requirements listed in the AEIM.
o. Design-Build Request for Proposal (Draft, Final, Corrected Final) - The A-E shall provide all needed information for the project based upon information gathered at the predesign meeting and the Parametric Design (15%) submittals. Design documents used for advertising shall not be sealed by the A-E. Fully developed site plans showing parking, roadways, pedestrian pathways, building footprints, utility connections, etc. are not required.
64

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Only conceptual (35%) plans are required. RFP Preparation and Source Selection - Complete the project through the 35% design. The AE shall prepare technical sections of a design-build package for the facility and associated utilities as indicated in the project description. The A-E shall prepare the list of technical specifications, technical evaluation criteria, special phasing requirements (as determined), and reference drawings for the RFP. Immediately following the RFP Review conference the A-E will attend a VE workshop per the above requirements. The Government will prepare all Division 00 and 01 specifications unless otherwise noted.
RFP Content, Organization and Important Criteria - The RFP is to be prepared to meet all requirements for a Task Order Design-Build solicitation. Compliance with the Fort Worth District guidance for preparing documents for solicitation and construction award is required. Include with the Draft and Final RFP, an estimate of the construction time in calendar days to complete the project. The A-E shall incorporate phasing or sequencing requirements based upon user needs and/or design considerations. Derivation of the construction period shall be provided in accordance with SWD AEIM. The A-E shall include necessary information in the RFP to guide the Offerors regarding any phasing requirements for construction of the facility. Construction Cost Limitations (CCL) - The estimated construction cost of this project is based upon anticipated funding as stated in this Statement of Work. Each project must be designed to provide a usable facility within the designated limitations of estimated construction contract price and scope. If additive, optional or deductive bid items must be included in the Bid Schedule for cost limitations, the A-E shall properly delineate these items in the drawings and specifications without additional compensation. Modification to plans, specifications, and the construction cost estimate to reflect optional, deductive or additive bid items is included as part of this Contract as necessary to remain within funds available.
p. Cost and Scope Limitations - The A-E shall ensure the guidance outlined in the RFP requires the Offerors to provide a usable facility within the limitations of estimated construction contract price and scope. If at any time, the A-E finds that the estimated construction cost and scope of the project is likely to exceed the budget, the A-E shall report this fact to the Contracting Officer Representative. He shall also submit recommendations (associated costs) for reducing the project cost and/or scope to within the established limits.
q. Landscaping, Fencing – Specify Installation accepted plants for low maintenance and minimal irrigation.
r. Parking, Roadways, Exterior Lighting - .
s. Storm Drainage, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan – Shall be based on the Proposed Site Plan. Must be coordinated with Installation personnel to define local requirements.
t. Site Utilities - Following verification of existing utilities, new infrastructure requirements and points of connection to service the project must be determined by the A-E. Domestic Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Natural Gas lines must be sized to handle project loads and then terminate into existing mains. Electrical conductors shall be sized to handle project loads and
65

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
then terminated into required electrical transmission equipment. Privatized utility requirements will be denoted.
u. Structural – Based on Installation specific wind, snow, and seismic loading.
v. Electrical - Coordinate design of the primary electrical distribution with the local utility provider, Installation personnel and the CESWF Project Design Team. Identify who and how power will be provided to the facility transformer primary and secondary sides.
w. Telephones, Computers, CCTV, Intrusion Detection, Mass Notification - .
x. Lightning Protection, Grounding -
y. Bidder Inquiries / Amendments - The A-E will respond to Bidder Inquiries via the ProjNet (Dr. Checks) system and provide updated Design Documents. The Government will issue the actual amendment.
z. Current Working Estimate - The current U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ MicroComputer Aided Cost Estimating System MII (pronounced “M2”) Version 4.0 Build III or most recent release, and compatible databases are required for all construction cost estimates produced under this Task Order. Contact CESWF-EC-AC Section Chief for information pertaining to obtaining the software. Each submittal must include an MII estimate based upon the current stage of design. The software database now requires purchase (with the costs subject to change), but current cost is approximately $1,000. This purchase is not made nor controlled through CESWF-EC-AC. The current version of the software program will be provided to the A-E under contract who must then follow the prescribed licensing procedure to make use of the software for the term of this contract. Any other use of the software and the database can be utilized per the terms of the licensing agreement with the manufacturer. That licensing agreement is not under the control of CESWF-EC-AC. A PDF file of the project estimate must be submitted with the reports file. Hard copy requirements are denoted elsewhere. The estimate will not be complete until the bid opening estimate or final proposal estimate which includes all amendments and the completed bid or CLIN schedule in its final advertised format have been submitted to CESWF prior to the construction contractors’ final proposal or bid deadline date shown in the solicitation or SF30. All pricing information included with any database or other source can and should be adapted, modified, changed, increased, or decreased as deemed necessary by the estimator to prepare an estimate representative of the project. The information contained in any database or any other cost information provided by the Fort Worth District office, CESWF-EC-AC, or obtained from other sources is not intended to represent fixed prices for ordering supplies, equipment, material, labor, nor any other construction component in the Government estimate. The estimator's professional judgment and decisions should be the definitive factor in determining fair and reasonable costs calculated for submittals and reviews. In MII, when submitting estimates for Military Projects, the Corps' current 20 system Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) will be used to structure the estimate (or PCCost 3086/1391 format when requested) unless CESWF-EC-AC determines that WBS is not applicable. For Civil Works Projects, the current Code of Accounts structure will be used unless the project is of a nature that does not
66

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
warrant any of these estimate structures but that variance must be requested and then authorized by CESWF-EC-AC. Excel based estimates or other software forms of estimating are not acceptable unless the A-E has been approved by CESWF-EC-AC to provide back-up data or lower level costs in those formats. Final roll-up and mark-ups of those estimates will be entered in MII software for submittals though by utilizing the structure required by CESWF-EC-AC. The A-E shall be aware of and take precautionary measures as necessary to maintain the confidential nature of all cost estimates prepared under this Task Order. All estimate submittals shall be prepared in accordance with USACE instructions, regulations, and manuals for cost estimates as contained in EI 01D010, ER 1110-2-1302, and TM 5-800-4 and in compliance with EFARS 36.2. Costs will be developed using the latest standards and resources as applicable and including but not limited to the Tri-Services Estimating System, TRACES, MII, the MII Cost Book databases, commercial cost book databases, PAX newsletters 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, Davis-Bacon wage rates utilized as minimum values, commercially available reports, data, and local site specific or otherwise available sources of material, supplies, equipment, labor and other data. Compilation of the Current Working Estimate will incorporate the preceding sources and references utilizing the most recent available software as stated and/or other TRACES software which may include MII, MCACES, PACES, PCCost, risk analysis programs, or any of the other approved systems available to TRACES users. Any applicable software and databases which normally are distributed without cost by CESWF-EC-AC will be made available to the A-E by CESWF-ECAC under the Task Order. Certain software programs and databases as described above and which also include PACES and RACER but are not limited to these mentioned herein may require purchase by the A-E and cannot be provided without cost to the A-E by CESWF-ECAC. Construction cost estimates for planning and budgeting purposes and for projects at 0 15% stages may be submitted by utilizing parametric software such as PACES and then summarizing the costs in the PCCost software if CESWF-EC-AC deems this acceptable. Also for any planning and budgeting purposes, PCCost software may be used to generate costs by utilizing the category codes and area cost factors in the PCCost database (which also includes Area Cost Factor data and adjustments). Updates to the database are available from CESWFEC-AC. Electronic copies of all cost estimates in their native formats must be submitted along with any txt, pdf, doc, and rtf type report files generated to produce the hard copies.
aa. Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit - A Pre-proposal Conference and Installation Site Visit shall be conducted for potential Offerors after the RFP is advertised. The A-E Project Manager shall be required to make a presentation of the general RFP development concept and project features at the beginning of the review conference. The A-E shall prepare the agenda and organize the conference so that all technical and functional issues can be addressed within the scheduled duration of the conference. The presentation is intended to provide the conference members with a clear understanding of the facility and how it functions. It can be expected that the participants can range up to a large group (up to 50 persons). The COE will chair the Conference and respond to offerors concerns at the conference. This is planned as a one-day meeting requiring travel the previous day and returning the day of the conference. The A-E shall provide detailed meeting minutes.
18.3 Administrative Tasks
67

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
18.3.1 Confirmation Notices
The A-E firm shall provide a record of all conferences, meeting, discussions, verbal directions, telephone conversations, etc., the A-E firm and/or their subcontractor(s) on matters related to this Task Order. The A-E firm shall identify all participating personnel, subjects discussed, and conclusions reached. The A-E firm shall title these records Confirmation Notices and shall number them sequentially. The A-E shall forward each Confirmation Notice via email to the Government POC within three working days. Communication via email is acceptable for minor, day-to-day correspondence.
18.3.2 Periodic Status Reports
The A-E firm shall provide a monthly status report to the Government POC. The report shall include: Current Status, Action Item List, and discussion of major issues.
19.0 Option 3 Schedule and Deliverables

19.1 Schedule
19.1.1 The Table below shows the schedule of services and deliverables covered in this task order. The A-E Contractor shall submit a schedule showing dates for all key submittals.

Option 3 Schedule of Services and Deliverables

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Design Quality Control Plan Charrette

DUE DATE Within 7-days of T.O. Award. Within 14-days of T.O. Award.

Draft Planimetric, Topographic Surveys

Within 30-days of T.O. Award.

Draft D-B RFP Submittal
Government review of Draft D-B RFP
Final D-B RFP Submittal
Government review of Final D-B RFP Corrected Final D-B RFP Submittal Dr. Check Bidder Inquiries

Within 30-days of T.O. Award.
Estimated 14-days after Draft Submittal.
Within 60-days of T.O. Award.
Estimated 14-days after Final Submittal. August 31, 2017 Within 2-days of posting in Dr. Checks

68

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Construction RFP Amendment(s)
Construction Contract Award CD Administrative Tasks
Confirmation Notices (Email only – Numbered) Monthly Status Report (pdf attachment via email)

DUE DATE Within 3-days of notification of need for Amendment. Within 5-days of Construction Contract. Award.
Within 3-days. Within 5-days from end of month

19.1.1 The days listed above are calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. The Government must receive the deliverable by the start of the next business day. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the Government expects receipt by the start of the next business day. The A-E Contractor should assume 14-days for receipt of Government comments for review of major submittals. On-site review conferences or conference calls can be scheduled no sooner than 7-days following receipt of the submittal.

19.1.2 The Government may accept submittals prior to the due date provided they are complete and have received a quality control check. The Government will not accept partially complete submittals early or otherwise.

19.2 Deliverables

19.2.1 The table below shows the list of deliverables and their required distribution.

Deliverable Distribution Schedule

Deliverables Electronic Copies Only (Native and/or .pdf formats) Design Quality Control Plan Minutes, Confirmation Notices, Status Reports D-B RFPs (Draft, Final, Corrected Final) Topo Survey (Draft & Final) Cost Estimate (Draft & Final) Bid Schedules Contract Award Documents

Number of Copies AB C D E F

111 111

111 111

111 111

111 111

111

1

111

1

111 111

19.2.2 The table below lists the Points of Contact that correspond to the letters (A, B, C, etc.) in deliverable distribution schedule above.

Address List

a. CESWF Design Manager (Address Stated Above)

69

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
b. CESWF COR (Address Stated Above)
c. CESWF PM (Steve Dill) 819 Taylor Street, CESWF-ECSO-T, Fort Worth TX, 76102
d. CBP Office, (Address Stated Above)
e. BPFTI PMO, Scott Recinos, 7940 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102
f. CESWG Area Office (Name provided after award), 252 Industrial Dr # A, Port Isabel, TX 78578
19.2.3 The A-E form shall coordinate submittal distribution with the POCs. The original transmittal letter will be addressed to the POC and will note that by information copy of that transmittal, appropriate review agencies are being provided copies of the work products and are requested to provide comments electronically to the POCs and to the A-E firm by the due date. The original transmittal letter and all copies will include a schedule showing data distribution.
20.0 Option 3 Reviews and Conferences
20.1 Quality Assurance Reviews
20.1.1 Formal Reviews
20.1.1.1 The Government will perform a formal Quality Assurance (QA) check on the following:
e. The POC will be responsible for providing the comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding to, and incorporating (if appropriate), all comments from reviewers into the deliverables.
f. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” and provide the comment submitter with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall also be prepared to discuss the position with the reviewer.
g. CESWF uses USACE’s web-based Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks) at www.projnet.org as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The A-E shall use this system. The Government will set up DrChecks for this project.
h. The QA team may not record all QA comments in DrChecks. They may provide comments on other media. If such is the case, the POC will be responsible for providing those comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding (and incorporating, if appropriate) into the final products.
20.1.2 Casual Reviews
70

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
The A-E firm is responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements in this task order. The Government will examine all deliverables submitted by the A-E firm. If the Government finds deficiencies, the A-E firm shall amend and resubmit as necessary.
20.2 Conferences
The conferences scheduled for this task order are listed in the table below. Any additional conferences requiring travel shall be authorized by a Task Order Modification. Expenses will be reimbursed as denoted in the IDIQ Contract and must be based on current Joint Travel Regulations. Airline ticket cost shall be based on a minimum 7-day advance purchase.
Additional A-E discipline team members will be made available to support the on-site meetings via conference call. Limited participation is required. If required to meet expedited schedules, the A-E shall be prepared to accommodate over-the shoulder review comments.
Scheduled Conferences

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Design Charrette (w/In-Brief; Out-Brief)

Fort Worth

2 Days

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

Draft RFP Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

Final RFP Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

Corrected Final RFP Review

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil and Cost Estimator.

71

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Construction PreProposal Conference

Video Teleconferenc
e

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Structural, Civil.

21.0 Option 3 Technical Criteria, Standards/Specifications, General Requirements and Government Furnished Information (Use Latest Editions Unless Otherwise Noted)
The A-E or Designer of Record shall use the following standards as applicable for this project.
a. Per DoD Directive Number 4270.5 dated 12 February 2005 paragraph 4.7, the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) shall be used to the greatest extent possible by all DoD Components for planning, design, and construction (restoration and modernization) of facilities, regardless of funding source, except for those facilities constructed by the National Guard on real estate neither owned by the United States nor under long-term lease to the United States, constructed by a State under Chapters 169 and 1803 of Title 10, US Code, and where title to the facility shall not be in the United States.
b. UFC 1-200-01: General Building Requirements.
c. International Building Code (IBC).
d. NFPA Life Safety Codes 13, 90A, 101.
e. ANSI/IEEE C2-2002, National Safety Electric Code.
f. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Architectural and Engineering Instructions (AEI), (http://www.hnc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Engineering/TECHINFO.aspx )
g. US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Architectural and Engineering Instructions Manual (CESWD-AEIM) available at: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/portals/16/docs/ec/swd_aeim_2003.pdf
h. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design criteria available at: http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerManuals.aspx
i. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Technical Instructions, TI 800-01, 20 July 1998 available at http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COETI/ARCHIVES/ti800_01.pdf

72

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
j. Contract Administration Branch guidelines set forth at http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_7151-7.pdf
k. Selection of Methods for the Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling of Demolition Waste.
l. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
m. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
n. CBP Design Guide
o. DHS Tactical Infrastructure Standard Design Toolkit, 2012
p. Due to the project requirements, this project shall meet USACE flood risk management design standards utilizing Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) and, defined as a Flood Wall, thus utilizing Retaining and Flood Walls (EM 1110-2-2502), Slope Stability (EM 1110-2-1902), Strength Design of Concrete Hydraulic Structures (EM 1110-2-2104).
The design of the project shall also meet the USACE hydrologic criteria for levees and floodwalls, as defined in Chapter 7 of Hydrologic Engineering Requirements for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1419), and the performance of the project in terms of flood protection and FEMA certification shall be evaluated according to USACE’s risk and uncertainty standards as defined in Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (EM 1110-2-1619).
q. Requirements to collect Geographic Information System (GIS) Data associated with construction projects.
r. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
s. Government Reviews (Dr. Checks) - CESWF uses USACE’s web-based comment tracking system, Dr. Checks (located at www.projnet.org), as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The Government’s review will consist primarily of quality assurance (QA) checks and is typically completed in two weeks. It will concentrate on the design’s functional aspects with limited technical review. The Government will prepare written comments for evaluation and response by the A-E after each major submittal. The A-E shall annotate and respond to the review comments in the development of data for the next design level. Responses such as “A-E requires additional information.” or “A-E does not understand.” are unacceptable. Annotations shall address specific corrective actions required. The A-E shall enter responses in advance of review conferences. Final annotation shall be completed within seven days of the conference. Hard copy distribution of final annotated
73

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
comments is not required except that they shall be included by the A-E in the Design Analysis. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” And provide the commentator with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall coordinate with the Government Project Manager to ensure the Government has set up rights for each pertinent member of the A-E team that needs to evaluate and respond to comments.
t. Specifications -
The A-E will prepare all Division 01 Specifications and assemble the final Request for Proposal.
Civil / GIS CADD GIS Requirements CADD and Electronic (paperless) Bid Process. CADD Standards. The A-E shall comply with A/E/C CADD Standards https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/default.aspx?p=a&t=1&i=7
Fort Worth District Sheet/Title Block file can be found at: https://cadbimcenter.erdc.dren.mil/DocCenter.aspx?ID=0
CADD. Critical to the design process is use of Computer-Aided Drafting and Design (CADD). The Government plans to solicit bids for construction of the project via an electronic format without providing printed plans and specifications to perspective bidders. All work to be accomplished, e.g., design work, surveying work, drawings, and details to be provided under this Task Order shall be accomplished and developed using computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) software and procedures conforming to criteria set forth elsewhere. All CADD final design deliverables shall be delivered in AutoCAD File format, version 2016 or newer.
All CADD drawing model file elements shall be produced full scale in CADD and named in compliance to A/E/C Standard.
SYMBOLOGY: All CADD element symbologies including level, weight, style, and color shall be compliant to A/E/C Standard.
Electronic Files/Paperless Solicitation. Electronic files provided to bidders shall be produced by the A-E as described herein and provided to potential bidders by the Government, via a Government Web site.
CAD files shall be converted to Adobe Acrobat "pdf" files by the A-E, which will require the A-E to purchase computer software for this purpose if they do not currently have this capability or alternately satisfy this requirement through a subcontractor (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html). These files will be readable utilizing
74

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The A-E is responsible for ensuring that resulting prints from pdf files are essentially identical to prints from the parent SpecsIntact and CADD files.
u. Amendments to Bid Documents - During the time that this project is advertised for construction contract bids, it may be necessary for the A-E to provide revisions to the advertised plans and specifications. Drawing revisions shall be provided as reissued or additional drawings. Reissued or additional drawings shall be incorporated into the bid documents, in the form of amendments. All amendments shall be incorporated into project specifications and drawings in accordance with the SWD Architect-Engineer Instructional Manual (AEIM), Chapter VIII. All plan sheets revised to incorporate amendments, along with the CADD and PDF files shall be provided as specified or referenced herein. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, drawing revisions may be provided in narrative form and sketches. Amendments within the project's scope, including design errors, omissions and conflicts will be done promptly, to prevent or minimize slipping of the proposal due date, with no increase in the A-E Task Order price. In most instances, the final amendment must be available to bidders ten days before the due date for technical and price proposals.
21.1 Proprietary Specifications and Requirements.
The A-E firm shall avoid specifying proprietary materials, equipment, systems, or other features of the work unless the A-E firm can demonstrate the use of such proprietary requirements will be advantageous to the Government (e.g. fire alarm transmitters and locksets that must be compatible with other products at the facility). The Government is prohibited from specifying proprietary requirements except in unusual circumstances which requires documentation and approval by the Contracting Agency Head or higher authority. If the A-E firm can show that a proprietary material could be more advantageous to the Government, provide a description that includes the brand name and a general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the item.
21.2 Office Documents.
21.2.1 The table below lists the software products the Government uses for work products produced through general-purpose office software (e.g. VE Study, Design Analysis, Etc.):
Government Software Packages

File Type

Software

Publisher

Portable Document Format (*.pdf)

Acrobat

Adobe

75

File Type

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

Software

Publisher

Hypertext transfer protocol (http)

Internet Explorer

Microsoft

Word Processing (*.docx)

WORD

Microsoft

Spreadsheets (*.xlsx)

EXCEL

Microsoft

Slideshow presentations (*.pptx)

POWERPOINT

Microsoft

eMail client (*.msg)

OUTLOOK

Microsoft

21.2.2 The A-E firm shall ensure the documents they produce and submit to the Government are compatible with these software packages. The A-E firm shall be responsible for any file translation necessary to permit Government reading of documentation. The A-E firm shall consult with the Government on the use of software not on this list to ensure the Government can read the files the A-E firm will submit.
21.2.3 The A-E firm shall consider readability and reproducibility in the preparation of documents. This includes (but is not limited to) font sizes, organization and layout of documents, paper sizes, and use of color documentation. Not all stakeholders on this project have access to high-end reproduction equipment.
21.3 Units of Measure.
The A-E shall verify use of U.S. Customary, International, or other units in all work products.
21.4 Government Furnished Information and Materials
The table below lists the Government Furnished information and materials included in this task order. Contact the POC if more data is necessary for preparation of fee proposal or execution of the task order.
Government Furnished Materials

76

No Item .

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Source

Cost engineering database tables and

See also

1 software. Purchase or license may be http://media.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/EC/

required at cost to the A-E firm.

eca/CostSpec.asp

2

Div 00

SWF Contracting

22. Option 4 Construction Phase Services in Support of the Base Bid D-B-B Project for 2.93 Miles
Project Description 22.1 Overview The objective is to provide Construction Phase Services to the Government in support of the full design completed in the Base Bid. 22.1.1 Product Scope The Government requires Construction Phase Services in support of the Base Bid. 22.1.2 Project Scope 22.1.2.1 This Scope of Work includes all work necessary for the A-E firm to provide Construction phase Services.
a. Quality Control Plan b. Reviews and Conferences c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports d. Monthly Report on Construction Status 22.2 Option 4 Construction Cost Limitation.
77

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
All services associated with a Study, Project Definition Report or Design-Build RFP are considered non-design and are not subject to the 6% of Construction Cost Limitation statutory limit.
23.0 Option 4 Services
23.1 Quality Control Plan
The minimum requirements for the quality control plan (QCP) are given in ER 1110-1-12, Quality Management, and the project SOW. The QCP is the A-E firm’s management plan(s) for execution of the contract. The QCP describes the way in which the A-E will produce the deliverables, the steps that will be taken to control quality, and an assigned point-of-contact within the A-E firm’s organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the QCP. The QCP, modified to include any changes to the contract that occur, will be attached as an appendix to the design analysis.
23.2 A-E Services (See CESWD-AEIM for full descriptive requirements.)
a. Design Quality Control Plan (See Section 3.1)
b. Reviews and Conferences (See Section 5.2)
c. Confirmation Notices, Status Reports (See Section 3.3.1)
d. Construction Phase Services –
The Contractor shall provide support to the Contracting Officer during the construction of RGV010. The Contractor shall allow for a total of 320 hours during construction to assist with issues such as construction inspection, shop drawing reviews, vendor proposal reviews, construction value engineering change proposal reviews, response to information requests, design modification, factory testing observations and construction site visits. Contractor response to RFIs shall be provided to the Contracting Officer expeditiously, but no later than two calendar days following receipt of the inquiry. As part of this task and included in the 320 hours the Contractor shall plan to attend one, 1-day Pre-Construction Meeting with the PM, Civil and Geotechnical Engineer and conduct one construction surveillance trip for five days with the PM, Civil and Geotechnical Engineer. Contractor’s participation in the site visit(s) shall be coordinated by the USACE Project manager.
23.3 Administrative Tasks
23.3.1 Confirmation Notices
The A-E firm shall provide a record of all conferences, meeting, discussions, verbal directions, telephone conversations, etc., the A-E firm and/or their subcontractor(s) on matters related to this Task Order. The A-E firm shall identify all participating personnel, subjects discussed, and conclusions reached. The A-E firm shall title these records Confirmation Notices and shall number them sequentially. The A-E shall forward each Confirmation Notice via email to the
78

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Government POC within three working days. Communication via email is acceptable for minor, day-to-day correspondence.

23.3.2 Periodic Status Reports
The A-E firm shall provide a monthly status report to the Government POC. The report shall include: Current Status, Action Item List, and discussion of major issues.

24.0 Option 4 Schedule and Deliverables 24.1 Schedule

24.1.1 The Table below shows the schedule of services and deliverables covered in this task order. The A-E Contractor shall submit a schedule showing dates for all key submittals.
Option 4 Schedule of Services and Deliverables

KEY SERVICE OR DELIVERABLE Quality Control Plan
Monthly Construction Report (pdf via email) Administrative Tasks
Confirmation Notices (Email only – Numbered)

DUE DATE Within 7-days of T.O. Award. Within 5-days from end of month
Within 3-days.

24.1.1 The days listed above are calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. The Government must receive the deliverable by the start of the next business day. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the Government expects receipt by the start of the next business day. The A-E Contractor should assume 14-days for receipt of Government comments for review of major submittals. On-site review conferences or conference calls can be scheduled no sooner than 7-days following receipt of the submittal.

24.1.2 The Government may accept submittals prior to the due date provided they are complete and have received a quality control check. The Government will not accept partially complete submittals early or otherwise.
24.2 Deliverables
24.2.1 The table below shows the list of deliverables and their required distribution.

Deliverable Distribution Schedule

Deliverables Electronic Copies Only (Native and/or .pdf formats) Quality Control Plan

Number of Copies AB C D E
11 1 1 1

79

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

Deliverables Minutes, Confirmation Notices, Status Reports

Number of Copies AB C D E 11 1 1 1

24.2.2 The table below lists the Points of Contact that correspond to the letters (A, B, C, etc.) in deliverable distribution schedule above.

Address List

a. CESWF Design Manager (Address Stated Above)

b. CESWF COR (Address Stated Above)

c. CESWF PM (Steve Dill) 819 Taylor Street, CESWF-ECSO-T, Fort Worth TX, 76102 d. CBP Office, (Address Stated Above)

e. BPFTI PMO, Scott Recinos, 7940 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102

24.2.3 The A-E form shall coordinate submittal distribution with the POCs. The original transmittal letter will be addressed to the POC and will note that by information copy of that transmittal, appropriate review agencies are being provided copies of the work products and are requested to provide comments electronically to the POCs and to the A-E firm by the due date. The original transmittal letter and all copies will include a schedule showing data distribution.

25.0 Option 4 Reviews and Conferences

25.1 Quality Assurance Reviews

25.1.1 Formal Reviews

25.1.1.1 The Government will perform a formal Quality Assurance (QA) check on the following:

i. The POC will be responsible for providing the comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding to, and incorporating (if appropriate), all comments from reviewers into the deliverables.

j. The A-E maintains professional responsibility and liability for the deliverables. If, in the A-E’s professional opinion, a QA comment either does not apply or the A-E disagrees with it, then the A-E shall not incorporate that comment into the deliverables. The A-E shall respond to the comment “Do not concur.” and provide the comment submitter with an explanation of the disagreement. The A-E shall also be prepared to discuss the position with the reviewer.

80

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
k. CESWF uses USACE’s web-based Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks) at www.projnet.org as the primary means for recording and tracking resolution of QA comments. The A-E shall use this system. The Government will set up DrChecks for this project.
l. The QA team may not record all QA comments in DrChecks. They may provide comments on other media. If such is the case, the POC will be responsible for providing those comments to the A-E and the A-E shall be responsible for responding (and incorporating, if appropriate) into the final products.
25.1.2 Casual Reviews
The A-E firm is responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements in this task order. The Government will examine all deliverables submitted by the A-E firm. If the Government finds deficiencies, the A-E firm shall amend and resubmit as necessary.
25.2 Conferences
The conferences scheduled for this task order are listed in the table below. Any additional conferences requiring travel shall be authorized by a Task Order Modification. Expenses will be reimbursed as denoted in the IDIQ Contract and must be based on current Joint Travel Regulations. Airline ticket cost shall be based on a minimum 7-day advance purchase.
Additional A-E discipline team members will be made available to support the on-site meetings via conference call. Limited participation is required. If required to meet expedited schedules, the A-E shall be prepared to accommodate over-the shoulder review comments.
Scheduled Conferences

Scheduled Conferences Location

Duratio n

A-E Firm’s Role

Pre-Construction Meeting

On-site

1 Day

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Civil

Construction Surveillance

On-site

5 Days

Req’d: PM, Geotech, Civil

26.0 Option 4 Technical Criteria, Standards/Specifications, General Requirements and Government Furnished Information (Use Latest Editions Unless Otherwise Noted)
The A-E or Designer of Record shall use the following standards as applicable for this project.
81

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
a. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
b. CBP Design Guide
c. DHS Tactical Infrastructure Standard Design Toolkit, 2012
d. All applicable Federal, State and industry standards, including those not referenced constitute design criteria for this project.
26.1 Proprietary Specifications and Requirements.
The A-E firm shall avoid specifying proprietary materials, equipment, systems, or other features of the work unless the A-E firm can demonstrate the use of such proprietary requirements will be advantageous to the Government (e.g. fire alarm transmitters and locksets that must be compatible with other products at the facility). The Government is prohibited from specifying proprietary requirements except in unusual circumstances which requires documentation and approval by the Contracting Agency Head or higher authority. If the A-E firm can show that a proprietary material could be more advantageous to the Government, provide a description that includes the brand name and a general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the item.
26.2 Office Documents.
26.2.1 The table below lists the software products the Government uses for work products produced through general-purpose office software (e.g. VE Study, Design Analysis, Etc.):
Government Software Packages

File Type

Software

Publisher

Portable Document Format (*.pdf)

Acrobat

Adobe

Hypertext transfer protocol (http)

Internet Explorer

Microsoft

Word Processing (*.docx)

WORD

Microsoft

Spreadsheets (*.xlsx)

EXCEL

Microsoft

82

File Type

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego

Software

Publisher

Slideshow presentations (*.pptx)

POWERPOINT

Microsoft

eMail client (*.msg)

OUTLOOK

Microsoft

26.2.2 The A-E firm shall ensure the documents they produce and submit to the Government are compatible with these software packages. The A-E firm shall be responsible for any file translation necessary to permit Government reading of documentation. The A-E firm shall consult with the Government on the use of software not on this list to ensure the Government can read the files the A-E firm will submit.
26.2.3 The A-E firm shall consider readability and reproducibility in the preparation of documents. This includes (but is not limited to) font sizes, organization and layout of documents, paper sizes, and use of color documentation. Not all stakeholders on this project have access to high-end reproduction equipment.
26.3 Units of Measure.
The A-E shall verify use of U.S. Customary, International, or other units in all work products.
26.4 Government Furnished Information and Materials
The table below lists the Government Furnished information and materials included in this task order. Contact the POC if more data is necessary for preparation of fee proposal or execution of the task order.
Government Furnished Materials

No Item .

Source

1

N/A

27.0 Administrative Instructions
83

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
27.1 The A-E firm’s primary point of contact with the Government is the POC. The A-E firm may communicate with other members of the project delivery team (PDT) as necessary to facilitate project delivery. The A-E shall ensure that the POC is included in all such communications – especially when such communications could potentially lead to a modification to this task order.
27.2 The A-E firm may always contact the COR, the KO, or the contract specialist assigned by the KO at any time about any issues involving this task order. See subsection “Work Authorization” below.
28.0 General Provisions
28.1 Ownership
28.1.1. The Government, for itself and such others as it deems appropriate, will have unlimited rights under this Task Order to all information and materials developed under this Task Order and furnished to the Government and documentation thereof, reports, and listings, and all other items pertaining to the work and services pursuant to this agreement including any copyright. Unlimited rights under this Task Order are rights to use, duplicate, or disclose text, data, drawings, and information, in whole or in part in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever without compensation to or approval from the A-E firm.
28.1.2. The Government will have the right to inspect the work and will have access to and the right to make copies of the above-mentioned items. All text, digital files, data, and other products generated under this Task Order shall become the property of the Government.
28.2 Project Location Considerations
The A-E firm shall become acquainted with all available site related information to properly estimate the difficulty and/or cost of successfully executing the work under this task order.
28.3 Work Authorization
The A-E firm shall not accept instructions issued by any person employed by the Government or otherwise, that may affect the terms and conditions of the Task Order substantially, other than the Contracting Officer, or the COR acting within the limits of their authority. Any work done by the A-E firm without being properly directed to do so will be done at the A-E firm’s own risk. Furthermore, the Government will not take beneficial use of any work outside this scope of work without properly modifying the task order.
28.4 Subcontractors
The A-E firm shall insert all appropriate provisions in all Subcontracts relating to this Task Order and shall ensure fulfillment of all contractual provisions by subcontractors. If at any time during the process of this Task Order, the Contracting Officer determines that any subcontractor is
84

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
unsatisfactory or is not performing in accordance with the Task Order, the Government will inform the A-E firm in writing accordingly and the A-E firm shall take immediate steps to obtain acceptable performance or terminate the subcontract. Subletting by subcontractors is subject to the same requirements. The A-E firm shall not construe anything in this Task Order to create any contractual relation between any subcontractor and the Government. The A-E firm’s change of subcontractors must be done in accordance with the contract clause, FAR 52.244-4.
28.5 Confidentiality
28.5.1 The A-E firm shall protect the confidentiality of all work accomplished under this SOW. If approached by the media or others not directly involved with the project, the A-E firm shall refer them to the COR for response.
28.5.2 Quantity surveys and construction cost estimates shall remain the sole property of the Government, and shall not be made available to others for any purpose. The release of information concerning quantities and costs to prospective bidders is prohibited. The A-E firm shall be aware of and take such precautionary measures as necessary to maintain the confidential nature of all estimates prepared under this Task Order.
28.6 Inspection and Acceptance
During the progress of work, all work and all the A-E firm’s or subcontractor's plant and equipment engaged in the work shall be subject to, and available for, inspection by the COR during normal office hours.
28.7 Inspection of Delivered Work
As soon as practicable after delivery of work in any installment, the Government will spot check for serious errors or an undue number of minor errors indicating mistakes or carelessness on the part of the A-E firm. The COR may forego a thorough inspection and return the entire submittal for rechecking and correction by the A-E firm.
28.8 Preliminary and Final Acceptance
Preliminary acceptance of work delivered at any stage may be the basis for estimating partial payments for completed work but shall not be construed as final acceptance. Preliminary acceptance of work delivered in any stage may be accepted; however, if proven by subsequent inspection to not be acceptable the stage shall be corrected by the A-E firm. Final acceptance of the work will not be made until all work under the Task Order has been delivered and found to be acceptable. Acceptance does not relieve the A-E firm of liability (See FAR52.236-23).
28.9 Deficiencies
85

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
The A-E firm shall correct the deficiencies and resubmit the documents or files in the quantities originally required and within a reasonable time as specified by the Contracting Officer. The A-E firm shall bear the cost of correcting and re-submitting deficient work.
28.10 Certification of Computer Media
The A-E firm shall scan all electronic deliverables for known viruses utilizing current virus detection software that is updated weekly for new virus profiles. Transmittal letters transferring files to the Government shall certify if this has or has not been accomplished.
28.11 Progress Payments
8.11.1 The A-E firm shall submit monthly invoices no later than the 15th of each month. The AE firm shall give the status of the project expressed as a percentage basis for each Task Order work item and accounting work item (See Contract Financial Data for accounting code breakout) of the total amount of work completed. The invoice shall be applicable to only this Task Order.
8.11.2 The A-E firm shall prepare and submit their progress estimates and payment requests electronically on a signed ENG Form 93. The A-E firm shall transmit their invoice to the A-E Invoice mailbox at AE.invoice.SWF@usace.army.mil, as well as, the day-to-day contact (typically the Design Manager or Project Manager). The A-E firm shall include the following data in their invoice transmittal:
a. Contract and Task Order numbers,
b. Name of the A-E firm,
c. Name of the USACE POC and COR, and
d. The signed ENG Form 93.
28.12 Verification of Government Furnished Information
Upon initial delivery of the Task Order and all Government furnished data, the A-E firm shall inspect them and inform the COR if information is missing, no later than seven days after receipt. The A-E firm will thoroughly review the Government furnished data, conference minutes and other communications concerning the project which has transpired prior to the contract date. Should the A-E firm find any conflict between the Government supplied data and applicable codes, Government regulations, above referenced minutes and communications, or if the cost estimate is determined to be in error such that it appears that the construction cost will exceed funds available, the A-E firm shall inform the Government, in writing, within five days of the discovery.
28.13 Architect-Engineer Request for Information (A-E RFI)
86

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
When the A-E firm needs additional, or a clarification of, information from the Government to facilitate the services required by this Task Order, the A-E firm shall submit an A-E RFI requesting the needed information. The A-E firm shall use a separate A-E RFI for each unrelated request. Even though the information is requested by other documentation or methods such as, Confirmation notices, letters, memorandums, design analysis, annotated review comments, telephone conversations, conferences, meetings, discussions, oral conversations, etc., the A-E firm shall document the requested information on an A-E RFI. These requests, entitled “A-E Request for Information” shall be numbered sequentially and shall fully explain the requested information and all ancillary information needed. The A-E firm shall forward each A-E RFI to the POC as soon as the need for information is determined.
29.14 Security Requirements
Do to project site restrictions/ operations, all contract personnel must be vetted (background checks) and cleared prior to site access. Final site access approval will be determined via U.S. Department of Homeland Security vetting process. Any person not cleared for site access will not be allowed on site for any reason. All vetting decisions are FINAL. The following information shall be provided to U.S. Department of Homeland Security for vetting purposes (Note: this is a U.S. Department of Homeland Security facility and uses different vetting requirements outside of U.S. Department of Defense):
 FULL NAME  DATE OF BIRTH  LAST FOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER  HOME ADDRESS  DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER AND STATE OF ISSUE  GENDER  PLACE OF BIRTH (IF NOT UNITED STATES)
29.14.1 On-Site Security
The contractor will be responsible for providing security for the contractor’s personnel when onsite as the project location is within close proximity to an international border. The Government will not provide security services.
87

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Geotechnical Investigation Requirements Exhibit
Applicable to the Base Bid and Option 1
A.1 Description of Work and Service Required
The A-E shall perform site reconnaissance, geotechnical investigations (field and laboratory) in accordance to EM 1110-1-1804 and document findings in the geotechnical engineering report. All work shall be done under the direction and supervision of a Professional Engineer, licensed in the applicable state. All geologic investigation shall be done under the direction and supervision of a Professional Geologist, licensed in the applicable state.
A.2 Site Access Coordination
The A-E shall comply with all landowner requirements regarding access and coordination. In addition, the A-E is expected to use engineering best practices and comply with the environmental, cultural resource restrictions, and will provide the USACE a minimum of two week notice before accessing the site to establish the site access.
A.3 Site Reconnaissance
The A-E shall conduct site reconnaissance of the required areas. General geologic observations shall be noted and photographs documenting the site and geologic conditions shall be taken in the proposed areas of investigation. The site reconnaissance shall identify the location of potential subsurface exploration locations. The A-E shall mark proposed subsurface exploration locations in-field, notify underground service alert (USA), and coordinate any additional permits required by the applicable State. The A-E shall be responsible for all costs encountered for acquiring appropriate permits. The A-E shall prepare a trip report and photo-log in order to document existing site and geologic conditions as part of exploration plan submittal.
A.4 Review of Existing Data and Exploration Plan
The A-E shall review and compile relevant geologic/geotechnical information from existing geotechnical studies, published USGS and the applicable state Geological Survey maps, topographic maps, USDA soil maps, flood maps, groundwater databases, aerial photos, etc. onto regional scaled maps. The A-E shall provide a preliminary summary of existing subsurface conditions, as part of the exploration plan submittal, indicating the road alignment with recommendations for subsurface exploration (borings, test pits, or other). The Exploration Plan shall indicate the location and proposed depth for each exploration point, the type and approximate depth of samples to be collected, and the tentative geotechnical laboratory tests to be conducted. Note that preliminary site visit by CBP personnel and soil survey map review by USACE suggests gravelly sandy loam soils and shallow groundwater with surface water.
88

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
A.5 Field Investigation
The A-E shall conduct geologic mapping of the site to define the surficial units in the general vicinity of the proposed river crossing. The A-E shall conduct subsurface field investigations along the proposed alignment of the river crossing. The field investigations shall be performed using methods (soil borings, test pits, or other) best suited to the site conditions and complexity of the proposed design. It is anticipated the field investigation shall consist of, but not be limited to three exploration borings using rotary wash drilling methods or other method suitable for shallow groundwater conditions. Standard penetration tests (ASTM D 1586) shall be conducted and relatively undisturbed samples collected (Shelby tube, Modified California, or similar sampling method) at intervals not exceeding 5-feet and at every change of material to at least 20 feet total depth. Test holes shall be backfilled with cuttings. A Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist, registered in the applicable state shall be present at all times during the field investigations and responsible for characterizing the subsurface condition in accordance with latest ASTM standards.
The A-E shall provide all water necessary for drilling. Groundwater elevations shall be determined at the time of drilling either by bailing the borings or installing temporary standpipe piezometers. Any temporary standpipe piezometers shall be properly abandoned prior to the end of the design phase of the project.
If bedrock is encountered in explorations at the proposed alignment of the river crossing, the distribution of rock types, geologic structure and rock discontinuities (type, spacing, orientation and characteristics) shall be documented in field notes, photographs, geologic maps and geologic cross sections. Field notes shall be presented at scales appropriate for engineering evaluation.
Test holes for the wall foundation design shall each be drilled to a minimum depth of 40.0 feet below existing grade or top of rock, whichever occurs first. The maximum spacing of test holes for the 2.93 miles that is part of the full design in the base bid shall be every 1000 ft. as measured along the wall alignment. The maximum spacing of test holes for the remainder of the 32.8 miles of the base bid and when required in an option shall be every one (1) mile as measured along the wall alignment. Test holes drilled for the patrol road pavement design shall each be drilled to a minimum depth of 10.0 feet below existing grade and shall also be performed at a maximum spacing of every one (1) mile along the patrol road alignment.
Tests on disturbed specimens of overburden soils shall include classification (ASTM D 2488), moisture content (ASTM D 2216), grain size analysis (ASTM D 422), and Atterberg limits (ASTM D 4318). Undisturbed (shelby tube) specimens of the overburden soils shall also be collected using a shelby tube sampler; tests on undisturbed specimens of the overburden soil shall include the tests listed for disturbed specimens, as well as controlled expansion-consolidation testing (ASTM D 2435 and ASTM D 4546 (Method C)), density (Corps of Engineers Engineer Manual (EM) 1110-2-1906, Appendix II, Par. 4, Displacement Method), and strength testing (ASTM D 2850). If coring is performed in the bedrock, core specimens of at least 3.5-inch diameter of the bedrock shall be collected and subjected to testing to include moisture content (ASTM D 2216), density (Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-1906, Appendix II, Par. 4, Displacement
89

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Method), and strength (ASTM D 2464). All geotechnical testing of soil and rock specimens shall be performed at a testing laboratory that possesses a current validation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Geotechnical and Structures Lab (GSL). The contractor shall furnish to the Government a copy of the current ERDC validation memorandum as a condition of approval to use the lab for project laboratory testing services.
A.6 Laboratory Investigation
Laboratory tests shall be performed on soil and/or bedrock samples retrieved during the field exploration program in accordance to latest ASTM standards. The tests shall be conducted at an USACE-accredited laboratory. The purpose of the laboratory testing is to assess the physical and engineering properties of the soil and/or bedrock samples collected in the field. It is anticipated that the laboratory testing program shall include, but not be limited to: 1) determination of moisture content and dry unit weight of undisturbed samples, 2) modified Proctor testing (determination of maximum density/optimum moisture), 3) soil gradation testing, 4) determination of plasticity index, 5) direct shear testing, 6) consolidation and hydroconsolidation testing, 7) determination of expansion indices, 8) determination of R-values or CBR values, and 9) evaluation of corrosivity (resistivity, sulfate and chloride content). If during the course of the investigation, the A-E determines that additional laboratory testing is required to adequately characterize the site conditions, the A-E shall propose a schedule and cost of additional testing for USACE approval.
Soil samples shall remain the property of the Government and be stored and available for Government personnel to view for 90 days after samples are taken. A-E shall notify the Government 14 days prior to when the 90 days have elapsed, and make the samples available to the government at its behest. If the Government does not choose to pick up the samples, then the samples shall become property of the A-E and shall be disposed of properly.
A.7 Geotechnical Report
The A-E shall prepare a draft report, summarizing the geotechnical investigations, engineering analyses, and recommendations as part of the 65% Design submittal. All test results shall be reported in a format and detail consistent with the relevant standard. At a minimum, the report shall include the following:
1. A project description and general site geology and soil conditions; 2. A list of previous reports, geologic references, soil surveys, and other data sources
reviewed and a summary of the data obtained from those sources; 3. A description of field and laboratory work performed; 4. A description of the proposed river crossing, culverts, and related improvements; 5. A Geologic Map covering the entire area of work, that includes the locations of subsurface
exploration and geologic conditions encountered. 6. Geologic Cross Sections showing the surface and subsurface distribution of soil and/or
rock materials at the project site. At least one cross section shall be drawn along the proposed culvert alignment;
90

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
7. Logs of the borings and/or test pits completed. Logs shall be in the format provided by the USACE;
8. Results of laboratory tests on soil and/or rock samples presented graphically, in table format, or on the boring logs (as appropriate);
9. Results of corrosivity tests (for site soils to corrode steel, or to adversely react with concrete).
10. A summary of subsurface conditions encountered along the proposed river crossing alignment, including a discussion of existing groundwater conditions as appropriate;
11. A summary of seismic site conditions, including discussion of liquefaction potential along with any necessary seismic design recommendations;
12. A discussion of potential geologic/geotechnical impacts/constraints that includes an evaluation of allowable bearing capacity, settlement, differential settlement, hydroconsolidation, and erosion and scour of fill soils;
13. Evaluation of groundwater conditions and recommendations for construction dewatering: 14. An evaluation of difficult ground conditions such as soft/loose materials and/or caliche and
a discussion of suggested remedial measures; 15. Geotechnical recommendations for culvert design at river crossings and mitigation of
potentially adverse geologic and geotechnical conditions; 16. Pavement design recommendations based on ground conditions and estimated traffic
loads/frequencies provided by the government; 17. General grading recommendations, including recommendations for temporary stability of
excavations, site preparation, and soil compaction; 18. Geotechnical recommendations for the development of project specifications.
The completed geotechnical engineering report shall be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed in the applicable state after the draft report is reviewed and accepted by the USACE. The geotechnical report shall be part of the completed preliminary design (65%) submittal review process. If modifications to the geotechnical engineering report become necessary, the final geotechnical report can be resubmitted for approval as part of 95% and 100% Design Data submittal.
The following criteria shall apply to the development of the project foundation and pavement design recommendations:
TM 5-818-1 – Soils and Geology Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Structures (Except Hydraulic Structures)
TM 5-818-7 – Foundations in Expansive Soils
UFC 3-250-01FA – Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas
UFC 3-250-09FA – Aggregate Surfaced Roads and Airfield Areas
TM 5-822-2 – General Provisions and Geometric Design For Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas
91

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Texas Department of Transportation - Standard Specifications For Construction of Highways, Streets and Bridges UFGS Guide Specifications will be used for Construction A.8 Reviews and Submittals The A-E shall submit three (3) hard copies and a file in PDF format of each submittal. A review conference (teleconference) may be held to resolve comments. The A-E may be required to submit response to written review comments to the Contracting Officer. The A-E shall forward via overnight delivery the documentation specified to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District 819 Taylor St, ATTN: CESWF-ECSO Fort Worth, TX 76102 A.9 Other Considerations The A-E shall use licensed subcontractors as needed for subsurface explorations. The geotechnical laboratory shall be certified by the USACE. The A-E shall provide to the USACE Project Manager a statement of qualifications for the laboratory and each proposed subcontractor for Government approval at least one week prior to initiating the proposed tasks. All data, reports, and materials relative to this Scope of Work are the property of the Government and will not be released by the A-E, subcontractors, or employees on temporary duty without written approval of the Project Manager. The A-E shall support development of the project plans and specifications and review each to ensure compliance with the geotechnical recommendations prior to submittal to the USACE.
92

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Topographic Survey Requirements Exhibit
Applicable to the Base Bid and Option 1
The survey will be accomplished using aerial and/or ground survey methods. Existing easements associated with the property shall also be identified. Up to two benchmarks shall be set to assist staking during construction.
The unit of measure shall be International Feet. All dimensions on the exhibits and records of shall be displayed as ground distances, or appropriate conversion procedures are to be displayed in the event the data is displayed as grid distance; the digital files will be in the true grid system.
All work shall be done in accordance with engineering criteria and project maps that will be furnished to the Surveyor-Engineer, procedures outlined in the Scope of Work and in accordance with the laws of the applicable State.
a. The Surveyor-Engineer shall prepare mapping at a scale of one inch equals fifty feet (1"=50') with a one foot (1.0') contour interval for the area depicted in project maps. The mapping shall extend 100' north and 100' south at each street intersection.
b. The surveyor shall set ground control points for mapping tied to COE and NGS control in the project area. COE project control can be found on the USMART Database. These monuments shall be used as primary project control.
c. Prepare Mapping to meet ASPRS Class 1 Standards and National Map Accuracy Standards at a mapping scale of one inch equals fifty (1"=50'), with a one foot (1.0') contour interval.
(1) Mapping and labeling shall show culture including buildings, bridges, fences, walls, trees, cactus, shrubbery, labeled streets and access roads (including curb, gutters, and sidewalks), dirt roads, cattle guards, railroads, paths, courses and ways of travel, bodies of water, surface evidence of utilities and extensive areas of vegetation. Mapping and labeling shall include all other standard map features.
(2) Locate adjoining fence lines and note changes in ownership and/or materials along the existing fence lines.
(3) Locate all surface evidence of utilities. Using this information, georeference the utility drawings provided by the COE.
d. The Surveyor-Engineer shall perform a boundary survey for the properties that adjoin the project.
(4) Establish the property lines of all adjoining properties.
93

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
(5) Locate all easements within project area.
(6) Establish project Right of Way from provided files.
(7) Final signed and stamped Record of Survey shall be delivered.
(8) Boundary and easement information shall be included in the topographic drawings.
e. Each digital file shall immediately reference to another, in its proper orientation (if there is more than one file).
f. The mapping shall be drafted in CAD per the National CAD Standards.
g. The completed planimetric CAD files as well as the contours and DTM should be threedimensional. All files shall be fully operational and compatible with the Corps of Engineers systems. All drawings for the Corps shall be stored on external hard drive, or DVD depending on size. Each drawing shall have a separate file name and be stored individually on the disk(s). All files should include the sheet layout, title block and legend.
The Surveyor-Engineer shall prepare final digital survey material in accordance with the applicable criteria and standards publications and manuals listed herein. They are hereby made a part of this Scope of Work and may be supplemented with detailed instructions, which shall be issued by the Contracting Officer during the progress of the work. The Surveyor-Engineer shall be responsible for notifying the Contracting Officer of any missing criteria needed for his work.
h. The deliverables part of this task will consist of the following information:
The deliverables will include metadata compliant with the FGDC metadata standard for each data set that is part of the report or that was used in making the report. The FGDC metadata standard is described in documents listed on this page -http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html -- under "CSDGM Version 2 - FGDC-STD-0011998."
The survey mapping deliverables to the design team will be provided in electronic format. The formats will consist of: Word, ASCII, Microstation CADD, InRoads DTM, MrSid, and TIFF.
i. The final submittal should consist of five sets of the following digital files:
1. Microstation V8i DGN and Inroads DTM files with contours generated from the DTM.
2. ArcGIS File Geodatabase (the geodatabase shall not be password protected). All elements shall have the coordinate system defined. Each separable element will be stored in the
94

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
geodatabase as a separate dataset. The geodatabase shall contain the following elements (at a minimum):
a) Topographic features (bench marks, control points, mass points, breaklines, etc)
b) Common geographic features.
c) Structures, buildings, etc.
d) Roads, streets, access roads, dirt roads, railroads, etc.
3. ArcGIS TIN.
4. Drawings in PDF format of topographic and boundary survey.
5. Record of survey in CAD and PDF format.
6. Inroads Breakline (BRK) file.
7. Inroads ASCII export format mass point’s file with a data header containing the following information, at a minimum.
*Project = *Date = *Surveyor = *Area = *Survey Type = *Unit of measure = *Vertical = *Horizontal = *Data Format=
8. U-SMART control point description forms for the project control points.
9. Project control map with graphical location and positional information.
10. Positional information in excel (xls) format.
11. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Report and metadata file.
12. Photo’s of all control points.
e) All CD’s, data files and drawings should be labeled with a header or title block showing, at a minimum, the following project info:
95

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
*Project = *Date = *Surveyor = *Area = *Survey Type = *Unit of measure = *Vertical = *Horizontal = The AE shall name and assign a responsible Engineer/Surveyor as Project Manager. He/she shall maintain a project file to contain all correspondence and criteria pertinent to this project and shall provide the Contracting Officer with the name of the individual responsible for preparation and coordination of the project Record of Survey. b. During the progress of the work, the AE shall confer with the Project Manager, Fort Worth District, as required, to assure approval of the completed work. c. The Project Manager from the Fort Worth District, as appropriate, shall visit the SurveyorEngineer’s office at any time during the progress of the work to examine the progress of the work and to resolve any questions the AE may have concerning the preparation of the Record of Survey. Technical specialists shall support the Project Manager as necessary to provide guidance and to assure an adequate submittal.
96

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Programmatic Value Engineering Study Requirements Exhibit Applicable to the Base Bid
This TO will include preparation of an independent Programmatic VE Study Report to include recommended edits. All work shall conform to the UFC and Army design criteria. The A-E will perform a Programmatic VE Study for all task order tasks. Travel for site visits and workshops may be combined for options but Base projects must be started upon award. USACE will provide the AE sufficient notice of option award and when the anticipated Draft RFP or 30% documents are completed.
This Contract will include preparation of Value Engineering Report to include recommended edits. All work shall conform to the UFC and Army design criteria.
The A-E Contractor will coordinate these items with the CESWF Project Design Team, Installation personnel, and local utility providers. Overall guidance is provided by the site specific Installation Design Guide. See the CESWF AEIM for additional design deliverable requirements.
The Construction Cost Estimate/Current Working Estimate will be validated by the A-E.
Tasks and Deliverables for the VE Study shall consist of:
1. VE Study Logistics Coordination
The VEC shall coordinate with the Design Manager (DM) and VEO Representative to discuss the project, agenda, roles and responsibilities. The DM will provide the latest Draft RFP package and pertinent project information which will contribute to the success of this effort. The VEC shall provide a list of all VE team members with contact information, including name, e-mail, work/cell numbers.
2. VE Study Review and Baseline Cost Estimate
The VEC shall evaluate the Draft RFP package, the Statement of Project Intent and Current Working Estimate to identify potential funding shortfalls and any other issues prior to the VE Study during the Information and Function Analysis. Cost estimates are to be in the MII format.
3. Conduct VE Study and Produce Draft VE Report
(1) The VEC shall conduct each Value Engineering Study consistent with the following six phases sequentially conducted and developed by S.A.V.E. International: Information phase, Function Analysis (including FAST Diagram) phase, Creative phase, Evaluation phase, Development phase and the Presentation phase. This is later referred to as I.F.C.E.D.P. The VEC shall produce a Draft VE Study information with the following content (at a minimum):
97

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
(2) Value Matrix comprised of;
(a) Baseline Concept and VE Strategies
(3) VE Alternative proposal write-ups and recommendations for each award type by discipline; and
(4) Appendix of all background documents.
(5) Note: Executive Summary shall be two pages or less.
(6) Document the accepted and rejected evaluated proposed alternatives and confirm the results with the Government.
4. Produce Final VE Report
The VEC shall produce a Final VE Report, including the PDT recommended edits:

FINAL VE REPORT

1) Cover (P2 Number, Project Number, Official Project Title)

7) VE Study Statistics

2) Table of Contents

8) Design Comments

3) Location Map And Project Site Plan 9) Cost Estimate & Comments

4) Executive Summary

10) Attendance Roster

5) Summary of VE Proposal Cost Savings & Implementation Sheets

98

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
11) Workshop Agenda (Draft & Final)

6) Project Analysis (I.F.C.E.D.P)

12) Presentation

The workshop results shall include a differentiation of the Quantitative & Qualitative Alternative proposals developed as “VE Study Statistics”. This is information shall correlate to project linear costs estimate in the following format;
(1) Total Alternatives: (a) Number of Alternatives Developed (b) Number of Accepted Alternatives (c) Total Number of Implemented Alternatives
(2) Quantitative Alternatives (a) Number of Quantitative Alternative (b) Number of Accepted Alternatives
(3) Qualitative Alternatives (a) Number of Qualitative Alternative (b) Number of Accepted Alternatives
(4) Cost Avoidance (Gross) (a) Potential /Projected Cost Avoidance (Gross) (b) Accepted Cost Avoidance
(5) Life Cycle Cost (a) Maximum Life Cycle Cost (b) Accepted Life Cycle Cost
(6) VE Activity Contract Number: (7) A-E Contract Award Amount:

99

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Appendix A – Base Bid
Base Bid Zone Map
Base Bid Zone Map
100

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Base Bid Zone Map
Base Bid Zone Map
101

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Base Bid Zone Map
Base Bid Zone Map
102

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Base Bid Zone Map
Base Bid Zone Map
103

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Appendix B
SDC BIS Primary Fence Replacement Map (~14 miles)
Option 1 Zone Map
Option 1 Zone Map
104

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Option 1 Zone Map
SDC Tecate Primary Fence Replacement Map (~2 miles)
Option 1 Zone Map
105

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Option 1 Zone Map
ELP “Tortilla Curtain” Primary Fence Replacement Map (~4.16 miles)
Option 1 Zone Map
106

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
ELP Vehicle Fence to Primary Fence Replacement Map (~20 miles)
Option 1 Zone Map
Option 1 Zone Map
107

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Option 1 Zone Map
Option 1 Zone Map
108

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
Appendix C
RGV-001 & RGV-006 Map
RGV-012 MAP
Option 3 Zone Map
Option 3 Zone Map
109

A-E TASK ORDER - STATEMENT OF WORK
Task Order under Contract No. W9126G-15-D-0009
Architect and Engineer Services for the Design of Floodwall, Fence, Roads, Drainage, & Lights at Rio Grande Valley & San Diego
RGV-014 MAP
Option 3 Zone Map
110

ATS SWG-17-0103 SWG-17-0104 SWG-17-0105 SWG-17-0106 SWG-17-0107 SWG-17-0108 SWG-17-0109 SWG-17-0110 SWG-17-0111 SWG-17-0112 SWG-17-0113 SWG-17-0114 SWG-17-0115 SWG-17-0116

Official Project Name RGV-010 BW Pilot Project Border Barrier System RGV-010 San Diego 14 miles Primary Replacement D-B Tecate 2 miles Primary Replacement D-B El Paso 20 miles VF-PF Replacement D-B El Paso 4.16 miles Primary Replacement D-B RGV 7.9 miles 'Project 2' New Barrier D-B RGV 10.8 miles 'Project 3' New Barrier D-B RGV 11.2 mi 'Project 4' New Barrier D-B San Diego 14 miles Secondary Barrier D-B RGV 16 mi 'West' New Barrier D-B RGV 16 miles 'East' New Barrier D-B RFP for 18-feet Border Barrier Projects WEST RFP for 18-feet Border Barrier Projects EAST

ATS Customer Comments AE Design task Order for development of 100% RFP to Michael Baker. D-B-B contract utilizing unrestricted SWD horizontal MATOC. RTA Sep 2017 San Diego 14 mi Primary Replacement D-B $101M Pre-Qual. Tecate 2 miles Primary Replacement D-B. $15M HUB Zone MATOC Seed Project. El Paso 20 miles VF-PF Replacement D-B. $150M Pre-Qualified List. El Paso 4.16 miles Primary Replacement D-B $25M 8(a) MATOC Seed Project. RGV 7.9 miles 'Project 2' New Barrier D-B $120M Pre-Qualified List. RGV 10.8 miles 'Project 3' New Barrier D-B $165M Pre-Qualified List. RGV 11.2 miles 'Project 4' New Barrier D-B $175M Pre-Qualified List. San Diego 14 miles Secondary Barrier D-B $250M Pre-Qualified List. Pr RGV 16 miles 'West' New Barrier D-B $240M Pre-Qualified List. Pr RGV 16 miles 'East' New Barrier D-B $240M Pre-Qualified List. AE task order to develop conceptual design and RFP for 18-foot Border Barrier Projects UR AE TO to develop conceptual design and RFP for 18-feet Border Barrier Projects EAST

Estimated Cost

4000000 45000000 101000000 15000000 150000000 25000000 120000000 165000000 175000000 250000000 240000000 240000000 20000000 20000000

Galveston District Southern Area Office
Rio Grande Valley Border Wall Resident Office
Staffing: Resident Engineer – GS-14 Assistant Resident Engineer – GS-13 Office Engineer - GS-12 / GPC Approving Official Office Engineer - GS-12 / GPC Approving Official – Alternate Safety Officer – GS-12 Admin Assistant – GS-05-07 GPC holder 7ea Project Engineers – GS-12 14ea QA reps – GS 09-11
Facilities: Resident Office should be located in the McAllen/Pharr area in close proximity of the I-2(US 83) and I-69C(US281) interchange to allow for ready access to the two main RGV corridors. Resident Office should be fully furnished and consist of 13 offices (10’X10”min) for engineers and admin; space for 14 (8X8) cubicles for QA reps; 14X20 conference room with conference table for 14 chairs and 70” smart tv. Bathroom facilities shall consist of two toilets and two urinals for the men’s room and two toilets for the women’s bathroom. The leased facility shall include all utilities as well as Spectrum Business internet connectivity. Facility shall be hard wired with CAT 6 cabling/router internet and VOIP phone connectivity. Facility shall also be provided with wireless connection capability. Additional Resources Required: Personnel assigned to the RGV Border Wall Resident Office will need to be provided with a government lap top, smart phone/w email, desk phones, 27” monitors. Field personnel will need to be provided with rental vehicles such as small SUVs or pick-up trucks GSA or Commercial Rentals.

Personnel Assignments: The chart below shows the current projects being contemplated for construction:
Note – RGV-010 is not listed in the table above but is included in the grouping below.
Based on Geographic Area and project length, the following personnel on duty assignments (PODs) are proposed assuming all the above projects are under construction concurrently: POD1 RGV-002 – This project will probably consist of legacy PFF225 fence projects O-1, O-2 and O-3 which are in Los Ebanos, Rio Grande City and Roma TX. This project will require 1 Project Engineer and 2 QA reps. POD2 RGV-003 and RGV-004 are believed to be in the McAllen/Mission area and combined total 7.18 miles. 1 Project Engineer and 2 QA reps. POD3 RGV-005, RGV-001, and RGV-006 are shown to be in the McAllen area. The combined total miles are 5.77 miles. 1 Project Engineer and 2 QAs. POD4 RGV-007. RGV-008 and RGV-009 are believed to be located south of Pharr and accessible via hwy 281. The mileage total is 5.39 miles. 1 Project Engineer and 2 QAs.

POD5
RGV-010 is located south of the town of Alamo and can accessed via FM907. It has a total of 2.93 miles and is expected to be the first project to go to construction. RGV-011 is right next to it and consists of 2.44 miles. Assuming it goes to construction during or soon after RGV-010 is concluded, it can be administered by the same staff – 1 Project Engineer and 1 QA.
POD6
RGV-012 and RGV are believed to be next to one another and South of Donna accessed via FM493. The total miles are 3.10. 1 Project Engineer and 1 QA
POD7
RGV-014 and RGV-015 are believed to be at the eastern most reach of the Weslaco Station area of responsibility which is near the town of Progresso TX and accessed via FM 1015. The total miles are 2.28. 1 Project Engineer and 1 QA

Project Management Plan
Organization: SWF Program : IIS Project Title : Border Barrier System, RGV-01 PMP Status: ACTIVE Project/P2 No. : 465841 Location: Alamo, Texas
PM Name: Villagomez, Rick Date: 06/29/2017 Revision: 0 Revision Date: Program Type: IIS Funding Type: IIS Risk Level: NYA Scope Summary: Construction of 2.93 miles of levee wall with a 150-ft enforcement zone in Alamo, Texas

Date: 25 May 2017

Page 1 of 9

PMP Acceptance Sheet
Approve Endorse
Attached Documents
6.0 Schedule Milestones 465841 RGV01 Schedule.pdf
9.0 Risk Analysis RGV-01 PRD Risk Register 5-15-17.pdf

1.0 General Scope
Project Scope (Services to be provided by USACE): The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth District is providing design and construction support to Customs and Border Protections (CBP) Border Patrol and Air and Marine (BPAM) Program Management Office (PMO) relative to their Tactical Infrastructure (TI) (e.g. levee wall, fence, roads, lights, drainage, and miscellaneous appurtenances) on the Southern international border including the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).
BPAM PMO will fund the design and construction of the project and provide overall project management on behalf of CBP. In addition, BPFTI will coordinate the necessary NEPA-related approvals. USACE will execute the design and construction of the project and assist BPFTI with the necessary real estate actions.
The project provides for the construction of 2.93 miles of tactical infrastructure and technology consisting of a reinforced concrete levee wall to the height of the existing levee with 18-ft tall steel bollards installed on the top of the wall with automated vehicle gates for access to the south of the levee wall, an 150 foot enforcement zone including vegetation removal, detection techology, enforcement zone lighting, video surveillance and an all-weather patrol road parallel to the levee wall. The area outside of the road will be re-vegetated as deemed appropriate by environmental and USBP.
Levee Wall: The levee wall will be a concrete wall to the height of the levee crest with 18 ft. tall bollards installed in the top of the levee wall. The existing levees are certified by FEMA from a flood protection perspective so we will need to ensure the design and completed construction is re-certifiable, which we will likely be responsible for obtaining (IBWC will have final say). Levee safety reviews and an ITR will be conducted by USACE. The levee wall will include automated vehicle gates for access south of the levee wall.
Gates: The automated vehicle gates will be metal with a minimum height of 18 feet and minimum width of 20 feet. The vehicle gates will be motorized overhead sliding gates with an enclosed drive and operator system that is operated by radio frequency activation and by pressing the appropriate pushbutton(s) on a control console/key pad with emergency manual operations capabilities. There are six potential openings along the levee wall that may require gating. Five openings would require vehicle gates and one opening would require a pedestrian gate. The actual number, location and type of the gates will be determined during the design phase.
Underground Sensor Detection System: An underground sensor detection system will be installed in the enforcement zone. Its connection to the required electronics to make it operational will be the subject of a future project executed by USBP PMOD.
Lighting: Enforcement zone LED lighting will be installed as part of this project. Ideally the light fixtures will be mounted on poles located within the approximate center of the enforcement zone but compliance with floodplain restrictions may dictate that they be mounted on the levee wall or bollards. The lights will be designed and constructed in accordance with the lighting design standards developed and confirmed as part of the San Luis lighting retrofit project recently completed in Yuma, AZ. The lights will be made fully functional as part of this project. The PMO will work with the appropriate stakeholders to develop solutions to avoid excess lighting beyond the enforcement zone.
All Weather Road:

1.0 General Scope
An all-weather aggregate patrol road (type FC-2) will be constructed on the south side and parallel to the levee wall and within the 150 ft enforcement zone. The specific location of the road witin the enforcement zone will be determined during the design phase of the project.
Vegetation Clearing: All vegetation in the 150 ft. enforcement zone will be cleared.
Cameras: The camera surveillance system will ensure visibility of the enforcement zone and southern approach. View shed analysis will be completed by USBP and provided to BPAM. Analysis will be required to ensure loss of power and visibility does not occur in the instance of a flood. All technology will be provided by USBP, infrastructure will be constructed and funded by BPAM.
The enforcement system is critical to RGV Sector’s ability to prevent illegal entries (whether people, narcotics, etc.) and to achieve operational control of the border commensurate with Executive Order 13767. The project is located within Weslaco Station Zone 11 in Alamo, Texas. The project alignment will be along the south toe of the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) levee along the maintenance road, see attached project map.
The project will be a design bid build construction project under an existing unrestricted horizontal MATOC at USACE. USACE, CBP, USBP, and IBWC technical reviews will happen concurrently.
Key Product Deliverables: The key deliverables are the 100% design of the enforcement system by an AE firm and the construction of the enforcement system.
Customer Requirements: The Border Patrol requires an enforcement system that meets its operational requirements. Reliance on the most current CBP Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Design Standards will ensure that Border Patrols requirements are met.
Project Goals: This project involves the design and construction of a reinforced concrete levee wall to the height of the existing IBWC levee with 18-foot tall steel bollards installed in the top of the wall and automated vehicle gates for access south of the levee wall, an 150 foot enforcement zone including vegetation removal detection technology, enforcement zone lighting, video surveillance and an all-weather patrol road parallel to the levee wall. The area outside of the road will be re-vegetated as deemed appropriate by environmental and USBP.
Description of Special Requirements or Circumstances: IBWC: The U.S. IBWC must review and concur with the design and completed construction of the levee wall.
FEMA: The design and completed construction must be approved and certified by FEMA according to their standards for flood protection. FEMA coordination will be an independent approval from IBWC, but will have similar effort to the IBWC approval. This will be a separate hydraulic model than the IBWC model.

1.0 General Scope
Real Estate: NEPA:

Project Requirements Document Drafted PMP Approved Design Receipt of AE money - complete AE SOW/QASP/FOS - complete AE IGE - complete AE Requirement Advertised - complete AE Proposal Received - complete AE Task Order Award – complete Construction Pre-Solicitation Notice Final Docs from AE firm OC review of IFB Advertise Bid Opening Pre-Award Activities Congressional Notification Construction Funds Received IFB Award Bonds Received Pre-Con 1st NTP (base 2.6 miles) 2nd NTP (option 0.3 miles) Construction Complete
5.0 Funding / Resources
5.1 Funding Requirements - Performance Measurements
Customer Requirements about Requesting/Receiving Funds: Funds will be requested via the DHS change management process in the FITT system.
Customer Reporting Requirements: Customer reporting requirements are still under development. It is anticipated that the P2 project has
been set up in a manner so as to allow easy automated reporting. This assumption is based upon historical knowledge of DHS reporting requirements and understanding of the current political climate associated with border rence construciton.
Available Budget: AE funding and associated USACE labor in the amount of $1M is available. Construction funding will become availabe between 8/1 and 9/30 and will expire on 9/30/15. Construction management funding will become available between 8/1 and 9/30 and will be available for
use in FY16. Fiscal Year Funding Limitations:
Construction funds will expire on 9/30/15
Page 7 of 9

Construction Cost Limitation: Not applicable.

Resource Estimates per WBS Task:

Project Managment $200K

Real Estate

$20K

Environmental

$20K

Design

$1.2M

Construction

$11.75M

Construction Oversight $600K

5.2 Cost Sharing Agreement

6.0 Schedule

P2 Schedule Attached.
DOCUMENTS 1. West_of_San_Luis_POE 050515_pg01.pdf
7.0 Project Quality Control Plan and Objectives
7.1 Customer Objectives and Project Objectives
This project involves the removal and replacement of an estimated 1.8 miles of existing primary pedestrian fence (PF) along the International Border adjacent to the city of San Luis Arizona. The replacement PF will be comprised of bollard style fence with plate (type P-3), will be 18 ft (typical) in height and shall include gates at each of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) boundary monuments.
7.2 Quality Management Plan
AE Contract Quality Management Plan: A QASP has been prepared and the COR will provide appropriate oversite.
Construction Contract Quality Management Plan: The Construction contractor will submit a QC plan and the USACE construction management team will provide appropriate oversite.
8.0 Acquisition Strategy
Contracts to be Used: AE Contract: W9126G-15-D-0009, Baker Construction Contract: U n r e s t r i c t e d H o r i z o n t a l M A T O C
Capacity Required: AE Contract: $4M Construction Contract: $45M

Expected Award Date: AE Contract: 5/28 Construciton Contract: 9/21
Capacity Reservation Status: AE Contract: Will reserve on 5/22 when available in IDIQ database Construciton Contract: NA
ATS Number(s): AE Contract: 15-1311 Construciton Contract: TBD
Deputy for Small Business Approval: AE Contract: Verbal recieved, SF2579 to follow Construciton Contract: Not yet recieved.
9.0 Risk Analysis
Risk Register Attached.
DOCUMENTS
10.0 Safety and Occupational Health Plan
Safety and Health Related Hazards: Safety will be a large issue during construction as the project is located in a dangerous area of the US -
Mexico border. The construction contractor will be required to have an evacuation and rally plan in addition to all of the normal safe and health plans.
Control Measures: The construction contractor, border patrol, and USACE will coordinate on an as needed basis to ensure
that the construction contractor is not on the border during high risk periods.
11.0 Change Management
Changes will be processed via the DHS change management process in FITT.
12.0 Communications
12.1 Internal Communications
Communication Methods and Frequency for Customer and Team The USACE and DHS have a daily 7:30 am phone call to discuss this project and email throughout the
day as necessary.
Customer Requirements for Status Reporting Reporting requirements are still being identified but P2 is being set up to facilitate the reporting that is
anticipated to be required.
Documentation of Project Records

Project records will be maintained in the DHS FITT system.
12.2 External Communications
External communications will be coordinated with DHS and USACE PAO.
12.3 Customer/Partner Communications
Communication Methods and Frequency for Customer and Team The USACE and DHS have a daily 7:30 am phone call to discuss this project and email throughout the
day as necessary.
13.0 Value Management Plan
Value Management Plan: The VE will occur concurrent with the 30% design review Expected Cost $5K Workshop Date TBD
14.0 Close Out
Project Closeout plan: 1. USACE will complete project, fiscal, and contractual closeout in a timely manner. 2. USACE will turn the asset over to DHS at project completion. 3. DHS will add this asset to its books at the time of project completion.
15.0 Environmental
NEPA: Environmental waiver expected to be signed by 30 October 2017
16.0 Geospatial Data Management Plan
The AE contractor will provide any GIS data that is needed for this project.

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * M3 - SWG (GALVESTON DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * Rio Grande Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * 466412
Title * * RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B PM POC Name * * Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

RGV Project 3, 10.8 miles of new barrier design build contract to be awarded to one of the firms on the Pre-Qualified list for the Border wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=478&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B...
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $165,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=478&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=478&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 1:54:05 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 2:33:14 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=478&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=478&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 3 - 10.8 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=478&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * M3 - SWG (GALVESTON DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * Rio Grande Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * 466413
Title * * RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B PM POC Name * * Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

RGV Project 4, 11.2 miles of new barrier design build contract to be awarded to one of the firms on the Pre-Qualified list for the Border Wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=479&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B...
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $175,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=479&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=479&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 2:00:27 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 2:31:51 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=479&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=479&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 4 - 11.2 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=479&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * M3 - SWG (GALVESTON DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * Rio Grande Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * TBD
Title * * RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B PM POC Name * * Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

RGV 16 miles 'East' New Barrier Design-Build contract to be awarded to one of the firms on the Pre-Qualified list for the Border Wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=482&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $240,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=482&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=482&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 3:28:42 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 3:28:44 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=482&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=482&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'East' New Barrier D-B

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=482&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Station Location
Rio Grande City McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco

Length miles
3.68 1.71 5.47 1.91 3.06 0.83 0.69 2.46 2.24 2.93 2.44 1.10 2.09 0.37 1.91

TABLE 1 - RGV 30 Mile Base Segments

Degrees, Decimal Minutes

Designation

Lat Start

Long Start

Lat End

RGV-002

No Levee

26 24.6401 99 2.7303 26 23.6660

RGV-003

No Levee

26 14.5298 98 33.9847 26 14.8876

RGV-004

Levee

26 11.5040 98 24.4147 26 10.0852

RGV-005

Levee

26 10.0852 98 20.0486 26 8.6279

RGV-001 RGV-006

Levee Levee

26 8.1047 26 8.3693

98 17.8761 26 8.7860 98 15.4527 26 7.7140

RGV-007

Levee

26 5.4125 98 14.9486 26 5.5285

RGV-008

Levee

26 5.5285 98 14.3767 26 5.1538

RGV-009 RGV-010

Levee Levee

26 5.1538 26 4.9637

98 12.1118 26 4.9643 98 10.1358 26 4.6190

RGV-011

Levee

26 4.6190 98 7.4607 26 4.3681

RGV-012

Levee

26 4.4031 98 4.5601 26 4.0241

RGV-013 RGV-014

Levee Levee

26 4.5967 26 3.8031

98 1.2895 26 4.5669 97 57.1439 26 3.7792

RGV-015

Levee

26 3.9722 97 54.8093 26 4.2851

Not on levee. Currently not on drilling schedule, no access to sites. Base 2.93 mile segment. RGV-010. Option 3 - 7.8 miles. Segments RGV-011 to RGV-015.

Long End 98 59.9170 98 33.2186 98 20.0486 98 19.3290 98 15.3030 98 15.7023 98 14.3767 98 12.1118 98 10.1359 98 7.4607 98 5.2852 98 4.0976 97 59.4293 97 56.7999
97 53.4912

Total Base 2.93 miles BFlaosoed2w9a.l8l 7 miles
Option 3 - 7.9 miles
Base 29.87- Floodwall Base 29.87 - Fence off
Total Fence on Levee

Miles 32.9 Total project miles

2.93 100 % design

29.96 Drilling and lab only

7.91

Preliminary analysis and design based on Base 29.87 mile Drilling

24.57 5.39
27.50

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * M3 - SWG (GALVESTON DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * Rio Grande Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * TBD
Title * * RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B PM POC Name * * Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

RGV 16 miles 'West' New Barrier D-B contract to be awarded to one of the firms on the Pre-Qualified list for the Border Wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=481&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $240,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=481&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=481&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 3:04:55 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 3:04:56 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=481&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=481&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV 16 Miles 'West' New Barrier D-B

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=481&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

To: "ZALESAK, Michael R CIV USARMY CESWD (US)" ,"Sterling, Michael C CIV USARMY CESWD (US)" CC: "Fink, Steven J CIV USARMY USACE (US)" ,"Giacomozzi, Brian T CIV (US)" ,"Brasher, Brian S CIV USARMY CESWF (US)" Subject: Border Fence Discussions
Z/Doc
Participated in border fence discussion on IBWC levees today. Brian Giacomozzi requested the call with Eric Halpin to get further guidance on procedures to follow on design/construction of the T wall and bollard fence on top. Some recommendations made:
1- Follow Corps tech design standards 2-Inspect and Screen impacted IBWC levees as part of inspection initiative of all "outlier" levees. I believe our regional team is ready to go 3-RMC and others to send Brian G some guidance on interim protection measures to have in place once the front side of the levee is peeled back prior to T wall installation. 4-I sent SWF latest I had from FEMA Region 6 on certification status of the impacted levees. SWF , FEMA, and IBWC to meet next week to discuss further 5-Eric advised not to deliver "certification/accreditation" as part of construction but we should be able to rebuild to original design which may get them their 6-Fence will be 18 ft high above wall, embedded 4 ft in wall, consists of 6 by 6 square pipe with 4 inch gaps 7- Steve Fink had asked me whether this project may be a good one for next Levee Safety Newsletter. Seemed to be hesitancy in group about messaging this potentially politically sensitive project
Copying both Brian's in case I missed anything
Paul

CBP SWBBS RGV-010

Activity ID

Activity Name

465841 CBP SWBBS RGV-010

465841.01000 Project Management

PM1050

Project Management

PM1000

Start PMP

PM1020

Draft PMP

PM1030

Process PMP for Approval

PM1040

Approve PMP

PCO1000

Fiscal Closeout

465841.01000.01 Planning Phase

PLAN1000

Planning Funds Received

PLAN1010

Kick-off Meeting

PLAN1020

PRD Complete

465841.90000 Environmental

ENV1010 ENV1000 ENV1005 ENV1015 ENV1020 ENV1030

ESPs - BPA Award Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV Waiver Complete ESPs - BPA Award Milestone ESP Contract ESP Complete

465841.95000 Real Estate

465841.95000.03 Real Estate - 2.6 Miles on Federal Land

RE1020

RE Certification for 2.6 Miles on Federal Land

465841.95000.04 Real Estate - 0.3 Mile Option

RE1100

Obtain Voluntary Rights of Entry

RE1120

Title Work

RE1110

Condemn ROEs

RE1130

Legal Description

RE1140

Valuation

RE1150

Negotation

RE1160

Possession through Condemnation

RE1170

RE Certification Required

465841.40000 Design & Procurement

AE-S1060

SWF SOW Prep

AE-S1070

MVK SOW Prep

AE-S1080

SWG SOW Prep

AE-S1075

MVP SOW Prep (H&H)

PROC1000

RGV-010 SWBBS

AE-S1150

CBP RGV-010 Design Contract (Base)

465841.40000.01 A/E Solicitation & Award

AE-S1090

A/E SOW Complete

AE-S1100

A/E RFP Complete

AE-S1110

A/E Proposal Preparation

AE-S1120

Pre-Award Activities

AE-S1125

CBP Congressional Notification

AE-S1130

ROE-S Required

AE-S1140

Award

465841.40000.02 Design

DES1110

Charrette at Installation

DES1120

Design Charrette Complete

DES1130

NTP Design Acknowledged

DES1160

Geotechnical Survey

DES1170

Topographic Survey

DES1220

35% Design Start (milestone)

DES1210

35% Design Submittal

DES1230

35% Submittal Review

DES1235

BCOES 35% Submittal Review

DES1240

35% Review Conference

DES1250

35% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

Actual Work Remaining Work

Critical Remaining Work Milestone

Activity Type

Activity Status

Level of Effort Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone

In Progress Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent

Completed Completed In Progress

Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone

In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Finish Milestone Not Started

Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone

In Progress In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort Task Dependent Task Dependent

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Not Started

Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone

Completed Completed Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone

Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Start

Finish

10-Apr-17 A 03-Jul-19

10-Apr-17 A 03-Jul-19

10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 26-May-17 01-Aug-17
10-Apr-17 A
10-Apr-17 A 11-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A

03-Jul-19
31-Jul-17 21-Aug-17 22-Aug-17 03-Jul-19 02-Jun-17 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 02-Jun-17 14-Dec-17

10-Apr-17 A 26-May-17
17-Aug-17 10-Apr-17 A

16-Aug-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 16-Aug-17 14-Dec-17 14-Dec-17 21-Dec-17

26-Jun-17
10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 14-Jun-17 14-Jun-17 17-Jul-17 18-Sep-17 19-Oct-17
14-Apr-17 A

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 21-Dec-17 13-Jun-17 15-Sep-17 15-Aug-17 15-Sep-17 18-Oct-17 18-Oct-17 21-Dec-17 21-Dec-17 05-Nov-18

14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 20-Apr-17 A 26-May-17 01-May-17 A 28-Aug-17 17-Jun-17 16-Jun-18 14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 20-Apr-17 A 21-Apr-17 A 12-May-17 A 13-May-17 A 24-May-17 A 26-May-17 07-Jun-17 08-Jun-17 16-Jun-17
13-Jun-17 16-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 04-May-18 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 21-Jun-17 21-Jun-17 23-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 07-Sep-17 24-Aug-17 07-Sep-17 08-Sep-17 08-Sep-17 08-Sep-17

Project Approval Layout

30-May-17 08:15

Original Remaining M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

FM

A

M

J

JA

Duration Duration 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 11

590.0d 528.0d

03-Jul-19,

590.0d 528.0d

03-Jul-19,

528.0d 0.0d
45.0d 15.0d
0.0d 0.0d 6.0d 0.0d 1.0d 5.0d 173.0d

528.0d

0.0d rt PMP

45.0d

Draft PMP

15.0d

Process PMP for Approval

0.0d

Approve PMP

0.0d

5.0d

02-Jun-17, 465841.01000.01 Planning Phase

0.0d nning Funds Received

0.0d k-off Meeting

5.0d

PRD Complete

139.0d

14-Dec-17, 465841.90000 Environmental

Project Ma Fiscal Clos

97.0d 30.0d
0.0d 0.0d 120.0d 0.0d 178.0d

83.0d 30.0d
0.0d 0.0d 120.0d 0.0d 144.0d

ESPs - BPA Award Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV Waiver Complete
ESPs - BPA Award Milestone ESP Contract ESP Complete 21-Dec-17, 465841.95000 Real Estate

0.0d 0.0d 178.0d 22.0d 88.0d 44.0d 66.0d 66.0d 22.0d 44.0d 0.0d 393.0d

0.0d 0.0d 144.0d 12.0d 78.0d 44.0d 66.0d 66.0d 22.0d 44.0d 0.0d 363.0d

26-Jun-17, 465841.95000.03 Real Estate - 2.6 Miles on Federal Land RE Certification for 2.6 Miles on Federal Land
21-Dec-17, 465841.95000.04 Real Estate - 0.3 Mile Option Obtain Voluntary Rights of Entry
Title Work Condemn ROEs
Legal Description Valuation Negotation Possession through Condemnation RE Certification Required

05-Nov-18, 465841.40000 Design & Procurement

13.0d 13.0d 13.0d
1.0d 65.0d 365.0d 45.0d
5.0d 3.0d 5.0d 8.0d 7.0d 0.0d 0.0d 221.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 1.0d 1.0d 0.0d 45.0d 10.0d 10.0d 1.0d 0.0d

15.0d

SWF SOW Prep

15.0d

MVK SOW Prep

15.0d

SWG SOW Prep

0.0d

MVP SOW Prep (H&H)

65.0d

RGV-010 SWBBS

365.0d

15.0d

16-Jun-17, 465841.40000.01 A/E Solicitation & Award

0.0dA/E SOW Complete

0.0d A/E RFP Complete

0.0d

A/E Proposal Preparation

8.0d

Pre-Award Activities

7.0d

CBP Congressional Notification

0.0d

ROE-S Required

0.0d

Award

221.0d

1.0d

Charrette at Installation

0.0d

Design Charrette Complete

0.0d

NTP Design Acknowledged

1.0d

Geotechnical Survey

1.0d

Topographic Survey

0.0d

35% Design Start (milestone)

45.0d

35% Design Submittal

10.0d

35% Submittal Review

10.0d

BCOES 35% Submittal Review

1.0d

35% Review Conference

0.0d

35% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

CBP RGV-010 Design Contract (Base) 04-May-18, 465841.40000.02 Design

Summary

Page 1 of 3

TASK filter: All Activities

© Oracle Corporation

Activity ID

Activity Name

465841 CBP SWBBS RGV-010

465841.01000 Project Management

PM1050

Project Management

PM1000

Start PMP

PM1020

Draft PMP

PM1030

Process PMP for Approval

PM1040

Approve PMP

PCO1000

Fiscal Closeout

465841.01000.01 Planning Phase

PLAN1000

Planning Funds Received

PLAN1010

Kick-off Meeting

PLAN1020

PRD Complete

465841.90000 Environmental

ENV1010

ESPs - BPA Award

ENV1000

Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV

ENV1005

Waiver Complete

ENV1015

ESPs - BPA Award Milestone

ENV1020

ESP Contract

ENV1030

ESP Complete

465841.95000 Real Estate

465841.95000.03 Real Estate - 2.6 Miles on Federal Land

RE1020

RE Certification for 2.6 Miles on Federal Land

465841.95000.04 Real Estate - 0.3 Mile Option

RE1100

Obtain Voluntary Rights of Entry

RE1120

Title Work

RE1110

Condemn ROEs

RE1130

Legal Description

RE1140

Valuation

RE1150

Negotation

RE1160

Possession through Condemnation

RE1170

RE Certification Required

465841.40000 Design & Procurement

AE-S1060

SWF SOW Prep

AE-S1070

MVK SOW Prep

AE-S1080

SWG SOW Prep

AE-S1075

MVP SOW Prep (H&H)

PROC1000

RGV-010 SWBBS

AE-S1150

CBP RGV-010 Design Contract (Base)

465841.40000.01 A/E Solicitation & Award

AE-S1090

A/E SOW Complete

AE-S1100

A/E RFP Complete

AE-S1110

A/E Proposal Preparation

AE-S1120

Pre-Award Activities

AE-S1125

CBP Congressional Notification

AE-S1130

ROE-S Required

AE-S1140

Award

465841.40000.02 Design

DES1110

Charrette at Installation

DES1120

Design Charrette Complete

DES1130

NTP Design Acknowledged

DES1160

Geotechnical Survey

DES1170

Topographic Survey

DES1220

35% Design Start (milestone)

DES1210

35% Design Submittal

DES1230

35% Submittal Review

DES1235

BCOES 35% Submittal Review

DES1240

35% Review Conference

DES1250

35% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

DES1270

65% Design Start (milestone)

DES1260

65% Design Submittal

DES1280

65% Submittal Review

DES1640

BCOES 65% Submittal Review

DES1290

65% Review Conference

DES1300

65% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

DES1320

95% Design Start (milestone)

DES1310

95% Design Submittal

DES1330

95% Submittal Review

DES1650

BCOES 95% Submittal Review

DES1340

95% Review Conference

DES1350

95% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

DES1360

100% Design Submittal Start

DES1370

100% Design Submittal Review

DES1361

Submit Final RFP

DES1390

100% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

DES1660

BCOES Review/Certification

DES1400

BCOES Analysis Complete

465841.40000.03 Construction Procurement: Unrestricted MATOC

465841.40000.03.01 Pre-Solicitation Phase

PROC1090

ATS Request

PROC1520

PDT Acquisition Strategy Meetings

PROC1003

Acquisition Strategy Meetings Complete

PROC1060

Issues Sources Sought

PROC1080

Sources Sought/Analysis

PROC1010

Market Research/DSBS Analysis

PROC1145

COR Nomination (if required, see guide)

PROC1014

DD2579 SB Coordination Record

PROC1020

Informal Acquisition Plan

PROC1015

Prepare DIV 00 / DIV 01 Specs

PROC1018

HQ SCA Review/Approve J&A's (if required, see guide)

PROC1005

Prepare Draft Evaluation Criteria and Draft Source Selec

PROC1055

Review Draft Evaluation Criteria and Draft Source Selec

PROC1019

J&A's Approved

PROC1560

Finalize Evaluation Criteria and Source Selection Plan (

PROC1610

Prepare Final Solicitation Document

PROC2060

Prepare Synopsis (Pre-Solicitation Notice)

PROC2070

Synopsis Period in FedBizOps

PROC2080

Issue Synopsis in FedBizOpps

PROC1530

OC Review

PROC1540

Compliance Review (if required, see guide)

PROC1550

Solicitation Review Board (SRB Peer Review) (if required

PROC1580

SRB Peer Review Complete (if required, see guide)

PROC1570

RTA

465841.40000.03.02 Solicitation Phase

PROC1180

Solicitation Period in FedBizOpps

PROC1170

Advertise

PROC1190

Conduct Pre-Proposal Conference (If desired)

PROC1600

Site Visits

PROC1200

Proposals Received

465841.40000.03.04 Evaluation Phase

PROC1350

CT Reviews Proposals for Compliance with RFP

PROC1360

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) In-Brief / Eval

PROC1370

Preliminary SSEB Report from Chairperson

PROC1400

Discussions (if required by KO)

PROC1405

Competitive Range Determination by KO

PROC1430

Competitive Range Determination OC Approval

PROC1410

Final Proposal Revisions Submission (if required)

PROC1420

SSEB Evaluation of Revised Proposals (if required)

PROC1440

Final SSEB Report from Chairperson

PROC1445

SSAC (if required, see guide)

PROC1446

SSAC Report (if required, see guide)

PROC1450

Prepare Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD)

PROC1500

OC Review Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD

PROC1590

Approve Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) b

465841.40000.03.05 Award Phase

PROC2040

Provide Certified Purchase Request & Commitment (PR&

PROC2050

CPARS Form

PROC2030

COR Appointment (if required, see guide)

PROC1460

Preparation of Award Documents

PROC1465

OC Review

PROC1470

Contract Compliance Review

PROC1480

Contract Review Board (CRB Peer Review) (if required,

PROC1487

Issue Small Business Advance Award Notification

PROC1490

Congressional Notification

PROC1510

Contract Award

465841.60000 Construction

465841.60000.01 DBB Features of Contract

CONS1010

Contract Award

CONS1020

Bonding and Submittals

CONS1030

Pre-Con/NTP

CONS1040

Construction NTP Acknowledged

CONS1060

Contract

CONS1070

Supervision & Administration

CONS1050 CONS1080 CONS1120 CONS1090 CONS1100 CONS1110 CONS1130

Construction Start Date Commissioning Start Construction Completion Beneficial Occupancy Date Physical Closeout Contractor Final Payment Product/Service Delivered

Activity Type

Activity Status

Level of Effort Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone
Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent
Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone
Finish Milestone
Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone
Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort Task Dependent Task Dependent
Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone

In Progress Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Completed Completed In Progress
In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Not Started
In Progress In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Not Started
Completed Completed Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Start
10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A
26-May-17 1-Aug-17
10-Apr-17 A
10-Apr-17 A 11-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A
26-May-17
17-Aug-17
10-Apr-17 A 26-Jun-17
10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A
14-Jun-17 14-Jun-17 17-Jul-17 18-Sep-17 19-Oct-17
14-Apr-17 A 14-Apr-17 A 14-Apr-17 A 14-Apr-17 A 20-Apr-17 A 01-May-17 A
17-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 14-Apr-17 A 21-Apr-17 A 13-May-17 A
26-May-17 8-Jun-17

Finish
3-Jul-19 3-Jul-19 3-Jul-19
31-Jul-17 21-Aug-17 22-Aug-17
3-Jul-19 2-Jun-17 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 2-Jun-17 14-Dec-17 16-Aug-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 16-Aug-17 14-Dec-17 14-Dec-17 21-Dec-17 26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 21-Dec-17 13-Jun-17 15-Sep-17 15-Aug-17 15-Sep-17 18-Oct-17 18-Oct-17 21-Dec-17 21-Dec-17 5-Nov-18 16-Jun-17 16-Jun-17 16-Jun-17 26-May-17 28-Aug-17 16-Jun-18 16-Jun-17 20-Apr-17 A 12-May-17 A 24-May-17 A 7-Jun-17 16-Jun-17 13-Jun-17 16-Jun-17

Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Start Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone
Finish Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent

Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17
20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 21-Jun-17 21-Jun-17 24-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 8-Sep-17
9-Sep-17 11-Sep-17 15-Nov-17 15-Nov-17 30-Nov-17
1-Dec-17 3-Jan-18 9-Mar-18 9-Mar-18 23-Mar-18
24-Mar-18 26-Mar-18
16-Apr-18
8-Sep-17 8-Sep-17
11-Sep-17
20-Sep-17 2-Nov-17
18-Dec-17 26-Dec-17 26-Dec-17 26-Dec-17
3-Jan-18 10-Jan-18
17-Jan-18 24-Jan-18

4-May-18 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17
23-Aug-17 7-Sep-17 7-Sep-17 8-Sep-17 8-Sep-17
14-Nov-17 29-Nov-17 29-Nov-17 30-Nov-17 30-Nov-17
8-Mar-18 22-Mar-18 22-Mar-18 23-Mar-18 23-Mar-18
13-Apr-18 13-Apr-18 15-Apr-18 4-May-18 4-May-18 5-Nov-18 4-May-18 8-Sep-17 19-Sep-17 19-Sep-17 19-Sep-17 1-Nov-17 15-Dec-17 14-Nov-17 22-Dec-17
2-Jan-18 2-Jan-18 16-Jan-18 9-Jan-18 10-Jan-18 16-Jan-18 23-Jan-18 30-Jan-18

Task Dependent Task Dependent Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone
Task Dependent Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone
Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent
Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone
Finish Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent
Level of Effort

Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

24-Jan-18 25-Jan-18 25-Jan-18 31-Jan-18 31-Jan-18 9-Feb-18
4-May-18 4-May-18
16-May-18 16-May-18
4-Jun-18 4-Jun-18 11-Jun-18 25-Jun-18 2-Jul-18 11-Jul-18 16-Jul-18
19-Jul-18 24-Jul-18 31-Jul-18
3-Aug-18 10-Aug-18 15-Aug-18 17-Aug-18
20-Aug-18 22-Aug-18 23-Aug-18
7-Sep-18 12-Sep-18 12-Sep-18 25-Oct-18
1-Nov-18
5-Nov-18 5-Nov-18
6-Nov-18
26-Nov-18 26-Nov-18

24-Jan-18 8-Feb-18
2-Feb-18 8-Feb-18 23-Mar-18 23-Mar-18 4-May-18 2-Jun-18 2-Jun-18 4-May-18 16-May-18 16-May-18 2-Jun-18 17-Aug-18 8-Jun-18 22-Jun-18 29-Jun-18 10-Jul-18 13-Jul-18 18-Jul-18 18-Jul-18 23-Jul-18 30-Jul-18 2-Aug-18 2-Aug-18 9-Aug-18 14-Aug-18 17-Aug-18 5-Nov-18 17-Aug-18 21-Aug-18 22-Aug-18 6-Sep-18 11-Sep-18 14-Sep-18 24-Oct-18 31-Oct-18 5-Nov-18 5-Nov-18 3-Jul-19 3-Jul-19 5-Nov-18 25-Nov-18 25-Nov-18 25-Nov-18 23-Jun-19 3-Jul-19

Start Milestone Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Finish Milestone

Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

26-Nov-18

25-Apr-19 23-Jun-19 24-Jun-19
3-Jul-19 3-Jul-19 3-Jul-19

Original Remaining Remaining Total

Duration Duration

Cost

590.0d

528.0d

$546,252.23

590.0d

528.0d

$0.00

528.0d

528.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

45.0d

45.0d

$0.00

15.0d

15.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

6.0d

5.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

1.0d

0.0d

$0.00

5.0d

5.0d

$0.00

173.0d

139.0d

$0.00

97.0d

83.0d

$0.00

30.0d

30.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

120.0d

120.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

178.0d

144.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

178.0d

144.0d

$0.00

22.0d

12.0d

$0.00

88.0d

78.0d

$0.00

44.0d

44.0d

$0.00

66.0d

66.0d

$0.00

66.0d

66.0d

$0.00

22.0d

22.0d

$0.00

44.0d

44.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

393.0d

363.0d

$546,252.23

13.0d

15.0d

$21,252.23

13.0d

15.0d

$1,000.00

13.0d

15.0d

$1,500.00

1.0d

0.0d

$2,500.00

65.0d

65.0d

$20,000.00

365.0d

365.0d

$500,000.00

45.0d

15.0d

$0.00

5.0d

0.0d

$0.00

3.0d

0.0d

$0.00

5.0d

0.0d

$0.00

8.0d

8.0d

$0.00

7.0d

7.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

0.0d

0.0d

$0.00

Actual Total Cost
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

At Completion Total Cost
$546,252.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$546,252.23 $21,252.23 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $20,000.00
$500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

221.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 1.0d 1.0d 0.0d
45.0d 10.0d 10.0d
1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 45.0d 10.0d 10.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 45.0d 10.0d 10.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 15.0d 0.0d 0.0d 15.0d 0.0d 290.0d 163.0d 0.0d 7.0d 0.0d 0.0d 30.0d 30.0d 0.0d 5.0d 5.0d 5.0d 14.0d 5.0d 1.0d 0.0d 5.0d 5.0d

221.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 1.0d 1.0d 0.0d
45.0d 10.0d 10.0d
1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 45.0d 10.0d 10.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 45.0d 10.0d 10.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 15.0d 0.0d 0.0d 15.0d 0.0d 290.0d 163.0d 0.0d 7.0d 0.0d 0.0d 30.0d 30.0d 0.0d 5.0d 5.0d 5.0d 14.0d 5.0d 1.0d 0.0d 5.0d 5.0d

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

1.0d 15.0d
0.0d 3.0d 7.0d 30.0d 0.0d 0.0d 20.0d 30.0d 0.0d 0.0d 1.0d 0.0d 54.0d 5.0d 10.0d 5.0d 6.0d 3.0d 3.0d 0.0d 3.0d 5.0d 3.0d 0.0d 5.0d 3.0d 3.0d 54.0d 0.0d 2.0d 1.0d 10.0d 3.0d 3.0d 30.0d 5.0d 3.0d 0.0d 240.0d 240.0d 0.0d 20.0d 0.0d 0.0d 210.0d 220.0d

1.0d 15.0d
0.0d 3.0d 7.0d 30.0d 0.0d 0.0d 20.0d 30.0d 0.0d 0.0d 1.0d 0.0d 54.0d 5.0d 10.0d 5.0d 6.0d 3.0d 3.0d 0.0d 3.0d 5.0d 3.0d 0.0d 5.0d 3.0d 3.0d 54.0d 0.0d 2.0d 1.0d 10.0d 3.0d 3.0d 30.0d 5.0d 3.0d 0.0d 240.0d 240.0d 0.0d 20.0d 0.0d 0.0d 210.0d 220.0d

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d

0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d 0.0d

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RMS Interface

Milestone Construction

Milestone - Civil Works

CW030
CW040 CW470

CW801

RMS_M_CONTRACT_AWARD
RMS_M_NTP_ACKNOWLEDG RMS_A_CONTRACT RMS_L_SNA

CC800 CC810

RMS_M_CONS_COMPLETE RMS_M_BEN_OCC_DATE RMS_M_CONS_COMP_PHYS RMS_M_CONS_COMP_FISC

CC815 CC845 CC820 CC850 CC840 CC880

Milestone Military

M0 Milestone Local

M2 Milestone Construction

FM&E Number

ML065 ML060
ML110
ML140
ML150 ML100 ML160 ML190
SWD-CT0010

ML220 ML180 ML230 ML240
SWD-CT03

Column1

Column2

Activity ID

Activity name

Project: 465841 CBP SWBBS RGV-010

WBS: 465841.40000 Design & Procurement

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1000 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWF)

DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity) DES1001 (New Activity)

Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG) Design Support (SWG)

WBS: 465841.01000 Project Management

PM1050

Project Management (SWG)

PM1050

Project Management (SWG)

PM1050

Project Management (SWG)

PM1050

Project Management (SWG)

PM1051 PM1051

Project Management (SWF) Project Management (SWF)

WBS: 465841.60000.01 DBB Features of Contract

CONS1070

Supervision & Administration

CONS1070

Supervision & Administration

CONS1070

Supervision & Administration

CONS1070

Supervision & Administration

Column3 Cost Account
096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999
096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999
096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999
096 3122 999 096 3122 999
096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999 096 3122 999

Column4 Role ID

Column5 Resource ID Name

M2L1720 M2L1770 M2L1830 M2 M2 M2 M2
M3L1000 M3L1100 M3L1120 M3L1160 M3L1300 M3L1320 M3L1322 M3L1000
M3H0000 M3H0100 M3H0200 M3H0000
M260300 M260000

M2L1720.CESWF-EC-DC - CIVIL SECTION M2L1770.CESWF-EC-DS - STRUCTURAL SECTION M2L1830.CESWF-EC-AC - COST ENGINEERING/SPECS SECTION H&H SME Regional Levee Safety Program Manager Scheduler Program Analyst
Subtotal Design Support M2 (SWF) E&C Engr Br Geotech & Structures Section Dam and Levee Safety Section Constr Br Southern Area Office RGV Office TRAVEL
Subtotal Design Support M3 (SWG)
M3H0000.CESWG-PM - PROGRAMS & PROJECT MGMT M3H0100.CESWG-PM-G - PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT BRANCH M3H0200.CESWG-PM-J - PROJECT MANAGEMENT BRANCH TRAVEL
Subtotal PM M3 (SWG) M260300.TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BRANCH TRAVEL
Subtotal PM M2 (SWF)

M3L1300 M3L1320
M3L1322 M3L1300

Constr Br Southern Area Office RGV Office

Column6 Budget
$24,000.00 $14,500.00
$5,000.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00
$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $82,500.00 $12,000.00 $11,500.00 $45,000.00 $35,000.00 $15,000.00 $12,000.00 $33,000.00 $10,000.00 $173,500.00
$15,000.00 $8,000.00
$285,000.00 $18,000.00
$326,000.00 $162,000.00 $36,000.00
$198,000.00

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * M3 - SWG (GALVESTON DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * Rio Grande Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * 465841
Title * * RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier PM POC Name * * Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

DBB contract utilizing the Unrestricted SWD Horizontal MATOC for the Border Wall program

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=485&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $45,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * No
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=485&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=485&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 3:56:34 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 4:00:37 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=485&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=485&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 1 - 2.9 Miles New Barrier

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=485&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

# Activity ID

Activity Name

1

466411 CBP SWBBS RGV-02

2

466411.01000 Project Management

3

PM1000

Start PMP

4

PM1020

Draft PMP

5

PM1050

Project Management (SWG)

6

PM1055

Project Management (SWF)

7

PM1030

Process PMP for Approval

8

PM1040

Approve PMP

9

PCO1000 Fiscal Closeout

10

466411.01000.01 Planning Phase

11

PLAN1020 Process PRD

12

PLAN1030 PRD Complete

13

466411.95000 Environmental

14

ENV1023 Obtain CATEX Required for Geotech

15

ENV1000 Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV

16

ENV1010 ESPs - Task Order Award

17

ENV1025 CATEX Required for Geotech

18

ENV1015 ESPs - Task Order Award Milestone

19

ENV1005 Waiver Complete

20

ENV1020 ESP Contract

21

ENV1030 ESP Complete

22

ENV1040 Environmental Monitors Required

23

466411.90000 Real Estate

24

466411.90000.1 Communications Outreach

25

RE1000

Initiate State and Local Govt Engagement

26

RE1005

Dress Rehearsal for Land Owner Meeting

27

RE1010

Land Owner Meetings (Cameron County)

28

RE1020

Land Owner Meetings (Hidalgo County)

29

466411.90000.2 Real Estate Clearance

30

RE1241

Title Abstraction

31

RE1230

Obtain Voluntary ROE-S

32

RE1250

Condemn ROE-S

33

RE1260

Legal Description/Survey

34

RE3331

Decision Point 1 (Survey)

35

RE1270

Valuation

36

RE1280

Negotiation

37

RE1242

Title Policies (Preliminary & Final)

38

RE3333

Decision Point 2 (Pre-Final RFP)

39

RE1300

Condemnation

40

RE1290

Closing

41

RE3335

Decision Point 3 (Advertise)

42

RE3345

Decision Point 4 (Award) for Base Contract)

43

RE1310

Possession via Court

44

RE1330

RE Certification Required (For Base Contract)

45

RE3355

Decision Point 5 (NTP for Base Contract)

46

RE1340

RE Certification Required (For Options)

47

RE3366

Decision Point 6 (Exercise Options)

48

466411.91000 Strategic Communications

49

SC1020

Initiate State and Local Govt Engagement

Start

Finish

01-Jun-17 A 01-Jun-17 A 19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17 02-Aug-17
01-Jun-17 A 01-Jun-17 A
21-Jun-17 A 21-Jun-17 A 03-Jul-17 A 19-Jul-17*
21-Oct-17
19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17* 22-Aug-17* 23-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17* 25-Aug-17 08-Sep-17 07-Nov-17
25-Jan-18 08-May-18 25-May-18
08-Jun-18 25-Jun-18
14-Aug-18
19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17*

08-Sep-19
08-Sep-19
01-Aug-17 06-Sep-19 06-Sep-19 14-Aug-17 14-Aug-17 08-Sep-19 04-Aug-17 04-Aug-17 04-Aug-17
30-Jul-18
04-Aug-17 07-Oct-17 04-Sep-17 04-Aug-17 04-Sep-17 07-Oct-17 20-Jul-18 20-Jul-18 30-Jul-18
13-Feb-19
24-Aug-17 25-Jul-17 22-Aug-17 23-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 13-Feb-19 24-May-18 10-Nov-17 28-Dec-17 08-May-18 28-Dec-17 24-Jul-18 21-Sep-18 13-Feb-19 07-Jun-18 08-Jan-19 23-Nov-18 10-Jul-18 09-Aug-18 13-Feb-19 13-Sep-18 13-Sep-18 13-Feb-19 13-Feb-19
31-May-19
25-Jul-17

Remaining Predecessors Duration
537d
537d
0d 10d PM1000 537d PM1000 537d PM1000
9d PM1020 0d PM1030 0d CONS1080, PM1050, PM105 13d 13d 0d PLAN1020
258d
13d 81d 48d
0d ENV1023 0d ENV1010 0d ENV1000 273d ENV1015 0d ENV1020 0d CONS1020
394d
27d 5d 1d 1d RE1005 1d RE1010
394d 214d
54d RE1020 76d RE1230 125d RE1250
0d RE1230, RE1250 126d RE1260, RE1260
96d RE1270, RE1270 180d RE1241
0d RE1280 146d RE1280 105d RE1280
0d RE1280 0d RE1280 125d RE1300, RE1242, RE1300, R 0d RE1310 0d RE1330 0d RE1310 0d RE1340
469d
5d

Calendar 2017

2018

2019

J J A SOND J FMAMJ J A SOND J FMAMJ J A SO

7 - Day Workweek

Start PMP

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Draft PMP

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Pro

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Pro

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Process PMP for Approval

7 - Day Workweek

Approve PMP

7 - Day Workweek

Fis

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Process PRD

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

PRD Complete

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Obtain CATEX Required for Geotech Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV
ESPs - Task Order Award CATEX Required for Geotech
ESPs - Task Order Award Milestone Waiver Complete ESP Contract ESP Complete Environmental Monitors Required
Initiate State and Local Govt Engagement Dress Rehearsal for Land Owner Meeting Land Owner Meetings (Cameron County) Land Owner Meetings (Hidalgo County)
Title Abstraction Obtain Voluntary ROE-S
Condemn ROE-S Legal Description/Survey
Decision Point 1 (Survey) Valuation Negotiation Title Policies (Prelim
Decision Point 2 (Pre-Final RFP) Condemnation
Closing Decision Point 3 (Advertise)
Decision Point 4 (Award) for Base C Possession via Cou
RE Certification Required (For B Decision Point 5 (NTP for Base C
RE Certification Req Decision Point 6 (Ex
Initiate State and Local Govt Engagement

# Activity ID

Activity Name

50

SC1030

Dress Rehearsal for Land Owner Meeting

51

SC1040

Land Owner Meetings (Cameron County)

52

SC1050

Land Owner Meetings (Hidalgo County)

53

SC1060

Pre-Mob Stakeholder Engagement

54

SC1070

Stakeholder Engagement During Construction

55

466411.40000 Design Build/RFP & Procurement

56

466411.40000.01 AE Procurement

57

DES1530 AE Contract/Task Order Award

58

DES1570 A-E Task Order - W9126G17F0015

59

466411.40000.02 Design

60

AE-C0990 Kickoff Meeting

61

AE-C1057 Pre-Qualification List Approved (Tied to P20 in Pre-Qual Schedule)

62

AE-C0992 Design Start

63

AE-C1073 Survey/Mapping

64

AE-C1075 Topographic Survey

65

AE-C0995 Scoping Charrette

66

AE-C1000 Draft RFP Prep

67

AE-C1070 30% Design (DBB Features)

68

AE-C1010 Draft Submittal Review

69

AE-C1080 30% Design (DBB Features) Review

70

AE-C1015 Draft RFP Submittal Approved

71

AE-C1020 Final RFP Prep

72

AE-C1090 90% Design (DBB Features)

73

AE-C1030 Final Submittal Review

74

AE-C1110 90% Design (DBB Features) Review

75

AE-C1040 Corrected Final RFP Prep

76

AE-C1120 100% Design (DBB Features)

77

AE-C1050 Final RFP Review

78

AE-C1130 100% Design (DBB Features) Review

79

AE-C1058 Decision Point on Buy American Act

80

AE-C1060 RTA

81

466411.40000.03 Construction Procurement: Pre-Qual List

82

466411.40000.03.01 Pre-Solicitation Phase

83

PROC1030 Prepare DIV 00 Specs 35%

84

PROC1057 Prepare DIV 00 Specs 95%

85

PROC1010 ART Request

86

PROC1020 Prepare Draft Evaluation Criteria and Draft Source Selection Plan (SSP)

87

PROC1040 Review Draft Evaluation Criteria and Draft Source Selection Plan (SSP)

88

PROC1050 Finalize Evaluation Criteria and Source Selection Plan (SSP)

89

PROC1480 Prepare DIV 00 Specs 100%

90

PROC1070 COR Nomination (if required, see guide)

91

PROC1060 AE Prepares Final Solicitation Document

92

PROC1080 OC Review

93

PROC1090 Contract Compliance Review

94

PROC1095 SRB Comment/Review/Resolutions

95

PROC1100 RTA (Should be tied to RE DP 2, Currently tied to RE DP 1)

96

466411.40000.03.02 DB Solicitation & SSEB

97

DB-S1000 Solicitation Reviews

98

DB-S1015 Advertise (Tied to RE DP 1)

99

DB-S1020 Advertisement Period

100

DB-S1025 Proposals Received

Start
22-Aug-17* 23-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 29-Jun-18 14-Sep-18 14-Jun-17 A 14-Jun-17 A
14-Jun-17 A 26-Jun-17 A 26-Jun-17 A
19-Sep-17* 19-Sep-17 19-Sep-17 26-Sep-17 26-Sep-17 26-Sep-17 23-Oct-17 23-Oct-17
01-Nov-17 01-Nov-17 04-Dec-17 04-Dec-17 13-Dec-17 13-Dec-17 10-Jan-18 10-Jan-18
19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17 19-Jul-17 10-Oct-17
01-Nov-17 17-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 13-Dec-17
18-Jan-18 23-Jan-18 26-Jan-18
09-Feb-18 09-Feb-18 22-Mar-18 22-Mar-18

Finish
22-Aug-17 23-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 06-Jul-18 31-May-19
28-Jun-18
28-Jun-18 14-Jun-17 A 28-Jun-18 17-Jan-18 26-Jun-17 A 15-Aug-17*
02-Oct-17 08-Oct-17 26-Sep-17 21-Oct-17 21-Oct-17 31-Oct-17 31-Oct-17 31-Oct-17 03-Dec-17 03-Dec-17 12-Dec-17 12-Dec-17 09-Jan-18 09-Jan-18 17-Jan-18 17-Jan-18 17-Jan-18 17-Jan-18 28-Jun-18 08-Feb-18 25-Jul-17 13-Oct-17 31-Oct-17 16-Nov-17 22-Nov-17 28-Nov-17 18-Dec-17 08-Jan-18 17-Jan-18 22-Jan-18 25-Jan-18 08-Feb-18 08-Feb-18 07-May-18 15-Feb-18
20-Apr-18 20-Apr-18

Remaining Predecessors Duration
1d 1d SC1030 1d SC1040 5d CONS1000 178d CONS1040
238d
238d 0d
238d DES1530 105d
0d DES1530 0d 0d 14d AE-C0990, AE-C0992 20d AE-C0990, AE-C0992 0d AE-C0990, AE-C0992 26d AE-C0990, PROC1030, AE-C 26d AE-C0990, AE-C0995 7d AE-C1000 7d AE-C1070 0d AE-C1010 33d AE-C1010, AE-C1073, AE-C 33d AE-C1080, AE-C1075 7d AE-C1020 7d AE-C1090 28d AE-C1030, PROC1480 28d AE-C1110 5d AE-C1040 5d AE-C1120 0d AE-C1050 0d AE-C1130, AE-C1058, AE-C 238d 140d 5d AE-C0990 4d AE-C1075 0d AE-C1015 11d PROC1030, PROC1010 4d PROC1020 3d PROC1040 4d PROC1057, AE-C1030 0d PROC1010 0d PROC1050, AE-C1060 3d PROC1050, PROC1060 3d PROC1080 10d PROC1090 0d PROC1080, PROC1090, AE 61d 5d PROC1100 0d RE3331 30d DB-S1015 0d DB-S1020

Calendar 2017

2018

2019

J J A SOND J FMAMJ J A SOND J FMAMJ J A SO

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Dress Rehearsal for Land Owner Meeting

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Land Owner Meetings (Cameron County)

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Land Owner Meetings (Hidalgo County)

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Pre-Mob Stakeholder Engagement

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Stakeholde

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

AE Contract/Task Order Award A-E Task Order - W9126G17F0015

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek

Kickoff Meeting Pre-Qualification List Approved (Tied to P20 in Pre-Qual Schedu Design Start Survey/Mapping Topographic Survey Scoping Charrette Draft RFP Prep 30% Design (DBB Features) Draft Submittal Review 30% Design (DBB Features) Review Draft RFP Submittal Approved Final RFP Prep 90% Design (DBB Features) Final Submittal Review 90% Design (DBB Features) Review Corrected Final RFP Prep 100% Design (DBB Features) Final RFP Review 100% Design (DBB Features) Review Decision Point on Buy American Act RTA

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)
7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Prepare DIV 00 Specs 35% Prepare DIV 00 Specs 95% ART Request Prepare Draft Evaluation Criteria and Draft Source Select Review Draft Evaluation Criteria and Draft Source Select Finalize Evaluation Criteria and Source Selection Plan (S Prepare DIV 00 Specs 100% COR Nomination (if required, see guide) AE Prepares Final Solicitation Document OC Review Contract Compliance Review SRB Comment/Review/Resolutions RTA (Should be tied to RE DP 2, Currently tied to
Solicitation Reviews Advertise (Tied to RE DP 1) Advertisement Period Proposals Received

# Activity ID

Activity Name

101

DB-S1030 Technical SSEB

102

DB-S1040 Cost SSEB

103

DB-S1050 Prepare Initial SSEB Board Reports

104

DB-S1080 Prepare Final SSEB Report based on discussions/final revised proposals

105

466411.40000.03.03 Award Prep & Award

106

AP1000 SSAC Report

107

AP1010 SWF CT/Legal Review

108

AP1020 Resolve Comments/Finalize Documents

109

AP1030 Complete Contract Package (Upload to PCF, etc.)

110

AP1040 PARC Pre-Award Peer Review

111

AP1050 PARC Peer Review Comment Resolution Meeting and Revise Documents

112

AP1060 Receive PARC Concurrence to Award/Congressional Notification

113

AP1070 Award C-Type Contract

114

466411.60000 Construction

115

466411.60000.01 DBB Features of Contract

116

CONS1000 Contract Award (Should be tied to RE DP 4, Currently tied to DP 2)

117

CONS1010 Bonding and Submittals

118

CONS1020 Construction NTP Acknowledged

119

CONS1030 Pre-Con/NTP (Tied to RE DP 5)

120

CONS1040 Construction Start Date

121

CONS1050 Contract

122

CONS1060 Construction Completion

123

CONS1070 Physical Closeout

124

CONS1080 Contractor Final Payment

125

466411.60000.02 DB Features of Contract

126

DES1000 Design Kick-Off

127

DES1010 60% Design

128

DES1020 60% Submittal Review

129

DES1030 90% Design

130

DES1040 90% Submittal Review

131

DES1050 100% Design

132

DES1060 100% Backcheck

133

CON1000 Design Acceptance/Pre-Con

134

CON1010 Mobilization

135

CON1020 Construction Start

136

CON1100 Construction Duration

137

CON1105 Exercise Options DP

138

CON1110 Construction Completion

Start
23-Apr-18 23-Apr-18 01-May-18 04-May-18 08-May-18 08-May-18 17-May-18 24-May-18 30-May-18 05-Jun-18 19-Jun-18 22-Jun-18
28-Jun-18 28-Jun-18
29-Jun-18
14-Sep-18 14-Sep-18
29-Jun-18 29-Jun-18 07-Jul-18 01-Aug-18 10-Aug-18 27-Aug-18 06-Sep-18 17-Sep-18 24-Sep-18 25-Sep-18 05-Oct-18 05-Oct-18

Finish
30-Apr-18 30-Apr-18 03-May-18 07-May-18 28-Jun-18 16-May-18 23-May-18 29-May-18 04-Jun-18 18-Jun-18 21-Jun-18 28-Jun-18 28-Jun-18
08-Sep-19
08-Sep-19 28-Jun-18 28-Jul-18 28-Jul-18 13-Sep-18
10-Jul-19 10-Jul-19 09-Aug-19 08-Sep-19 01-Jun-19 06-Jul-18 31-Jul-18 09-Aug-18 24-Aug-18 05-Sep-18 15-Sep-18 21-Sep-18 24-Sep-18 04-Oct-18
01-Jun-19 13-Feb-19 01-Jun-19

Remaining Predecessors Duration
6d DB-S1020 6d DB-S1020 3d DB-S1040, DB-S1030 2d DB-S1050 37d 7d DB-S1080 5d AP1000 3d AP1010 4d AP1020 10d AP1030 3d AP1040 5d AP1050 0d AP1060
299d
437d 0d DES1570, AP1070, RE3333
30d CONS1000 0d CONS1010 0d CONS1010, SC1060, RE334 0d CONS1030
300d CONS1040 0d CONS1050 0d CONS1060 0d CONS1070, CONS1050
231d 8d CONS1000
25d DES1000 7d DES1010
15d DES1020 7d DES1030
10d DES1040 5d DES1050 1d DES1060
10d CON1000 0d CON1010
240d CON1020, SC1070 0d CONS1000, RE3366 0d CON1100

Calendar 2017

2018

2019

J J A SOND J FMAMJ J A SOND J FMAMJ J A SO

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Technical SSEB

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Cost SSEB

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Prepare Initial SSEB Board Reports

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Prepare Final SSEB Report based on discu

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

SSAC Report

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

SWF CT/Legal Review

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Resolve Comments/Finalize Documents

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Complete Contract Package (Upload to P

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

PARC Pre-Award Peer Review

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

PARC Peer Review Comment Resolutio

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Receive PARC Concurrence to Award/C

5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays)

Award C-Type Contract

7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek
7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 7 - Day Workweek 5 - Day Workweek (w/ Holidays) 7 - Day Workweek

Contract Award (Should be tied to RE Bonding and Submittals Construction NTP Acknowledged Pre-Con/NTP (Tied to RE DP 5) Construction Start Date Contrac Constru Phys Co
Design Kick-Off 60% Design 60% Submittal Review 90% Design 90% Submittal Review 100% Design 100% Backcheck Design Acceptance/Pre-Con Mobilization Construction Start Constructi Exercise Options DP Constructi

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * M3 - SWG (GALVESTON DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * Rio Grande Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * 466411
Title * * RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B PM POC Name * * Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

RGV Project 2, 7.9 Miles of new barrier design build contract to be awarded to one of the firms on the Pre-Qualified list for the Border Wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=477&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B...
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $120,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=477&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=477&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 1:45:42 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 2:34:55 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=477&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=477&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - RGV Project 2 - 7.9 Miles New Barrier D-B...

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=477&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

CBP SWBBS RGV-010

Activity ID

Activity Name

465841 CBP SWBBS RGV-010

465841.01000 Project Management

PM1050

Project Management

PM1000

Start PMP

PM1020

Draft PMP

PM1030

Process PMP for Approval

PM1040

Approve PMP

PCO1000

Fiscal Closeout

465841.01000.01 Planning Phase

PLAN1000

Planning Funds Received

PLAN1010

Kick-off Meeting

PLAN1020

PRD Complete

465841.90000 Environmental

ENV1010 ENV1000 ENV1005 ENV1015 ENV1020 ENV1030

ESPs - BPA Award Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV Waiver Complete ESPs - BPA Award Milestone ESP Contract ESP Complete

465841.95000 Real Estate

465841.95000.03 Real Estate - 2.6 Miles on Federal Land

RE1020

RE Certification for 2.6 Miles on Federal Land

465841.95000.04 Real Estate - 0.3 Mile Option

RE1100

Obtain Voluntary Rights of Entry

RE1120

Title Work

RE1110

Condemn ROEs

RE1130

Legal Description

RE1140

Valuation

RE1150

Negotation

RE1160

Possession through Condemnation

RE1170

RE Certification Required

465841.40000 Design & Procurement

AE-S1060

SWF SOW Prep

AE-S1070

MVK SOW Prep

AE-S1080

SWG SOW Prep

AE-S1075

MVP SOW Prep (H&H)

PROC1000

RGV-010 SWBBS

AE-S1150

CBP RGV-010 Design Contract (Base)

465841.40000.01 A/E Solicitation & Award

AE-S1090

A/E SOW Complete

AE-S1100

A/E RFP Complete

AE-S1110

A/E Proposal Preparation

AE-S1120

Pre-Award Activities

AE-S1125

CBP Congressional Notification

AE-S1130

ROE-S Required

AE-S1140

Award

465841.40000.02 Design

DES1110

Charrette at Installation

DES1120

Design Charrette Complete

DES1130

NTP Design Acknowledged

DES1160

Geotechnical Survey

DES1170

Topographic Survey

DES1220

35% Design Start (milestone)

DES1210

35% Design Submittal

DES1230

35% Submittal Review

DES1235

BCOES 35% Submittal Review

DES1240

35% Review Conference

DES1250

35% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

Actual Work Remaining Work

Critical Remaining Work Milestone

Activity Type

Activity Status

Level of Effort Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone

In Progress Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent

Completed Completed In Progress

Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Finish Milestone

In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Finish Milestone Not Started

Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone

In Progress In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort Level of Effort Task Dependent Task Dependent

In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Not Started

Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone

Completed Completed Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Task Dependent Finish Milestone Finish Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Start Milestone Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Task Dependent Finish Milestone

Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started

Start

Finish

10-Apr-17 A 03-Jul-19

10-Apr-17 A 03-Jul-19

10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 26-May-17 01-Aug-17
10-Apr-17 A
10-Apr-17 A 11-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A

03-Jul-19
31-Jul-17 21-Aug-17 22-Aug-17 03-Jul-19 02-Jun-17 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 02-Jun-17 14-Dec-17

10-Apr-17 A 26-May-17
17-Aug-17 10-Apr-17 A

16-Aug-17 24-Jun-17 24-Jun-17 16-Aug-17 14-Dec-17 14-Dec-17 21-Dec-17

26-Jun-17
10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 10-Apr-17 A 14-Jun-17 14-Jun-17 17-Jul-17 18-Sep-17 19-Oct-17
14-Apr-17 A

26-Jun-17 26-Jun-17 21-Dec-17 13-Jun-17 15-Sep-17 15-Aug-17 15-Sep-17 18-Oct-17 18-Oct-17 21-Dec-17 21-Dec-17 05-Nov-18

14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 20-Apr-17 A 26-May-17 01-May-17 A 28-Aug-17 17-Jun-17 16-Jun-18 14-Apr-17 A 16-Jun-17 14-Apr-17 A 20-Apr-17 A 21-Apr-17 A 12-May-17 A 13-May-17 A 24-May-17 A 26-May-17 07-Jun-17 08-Jun-17 16-Jun-17
13-Jun-17 16-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 04-May-18 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 19-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 20-Jun-17 21-Jun-17 21-Jun-17 23-Aug-17 24-Aug-17 07-Sep-17 24-Aug-17 07-Sep-17 08-Sep-17 08-Sep-17 08-Sep-17

Project Approval Layout

30-May-17 08:15

Original Remaining M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

FM

A

M

J

JA

Duration Duration 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 11

590.0d 528.0d

03-Jul-19,

590.0d 528.0d

03-Jul-19,

528.0d 0.0d
45.0d 15.0d
0.0d 0.0d 6.0d 0.0d 1.0d 5.0d 173.0d

528.0d

0.0d rt PMP

45.0d

Draft PMP

15.0d

Process PMP for Approval

0.0d

Approve PMP

0.0d

5.0d

02-Jun-17, 465841.01000.01 Planning Phase

0.0d nning Funds Received

0.0d k-off Meeting

5.0d

PRD Complete

139.0d

14-Dec-17, 465841.90000 Environmental

Project Ma Fiscal Clos

97.0d 30.0d
0.0d 0.0d 120.0d 0.0d 178.0d

83.0d 30.0d
0.0d 0.0d 120.0d 0.0d 144.0d

ESPs - BPA Award Waiver (DOJ, Secretary signature) - All RGV Waiver Complete
ESPs - BPA Award Milestone ESP Contract ESP Complete 21-Dec-17, 465841.95000 Real Estate

0.0d 0.0d 178.0d 22.0d 88.0d 44.0d 66.0d 66.0d 22.0d 44.0d 0.0d 393.0d

0.0d 0.0d 144.0d 12.0d 78.0d 44.0d 66.0d 66.0d 22.0d 44.0d 0.0d 363.0d

26-Jun-17, 465841.95000.03 Real Estate - 2.6 Miles on Federal Land RE Certification for 2.6 Miles on Federal Land
21-Dec-17, 465841.95000.04 Real Estate - 0.3 Mile Option Obtain Voluntary Rights of Entry
Title Work Condemn ROEs
Legal Description Valuation Negotation Possession through Condemnation RE Certification Required

05-Nov-18, 465841.40000 Design & Procurement

13.0d 13.0d 13.0d
1.0d 65.0d 365.0d 45.0d
5.0d 3.0d 5.0d 8.0d 7.0d 0.0d 0.0d 221.0d 1.0d 0.0d 0.0d 1.0d 1.0d 0.0d 45.0d 10.0d 10.0d 1.0d 0.0d

15.0d

SWF SOW Prep

15.0d

MVK SOW Prep

15.0d

SWG SOW Prep

0.0d

MVP SOW Prep (H&H)

65.0d

RGV-010 SWBBS

365.0d

15.0d

16-Jun-17, 465841.40000.01 A/E Solicitation & Award

0.0dA/E SOW Complete

0.0d A/E RFP Complete

0.0d

A/E Proposal Preparation

8.0d

Pre-Award Activities

7.0d

CBP Congressional Notification

0.0d

ROE-S Required

0.0d

Award

221.0d

1.0d

Charrette at Installation

0.0d

Design Charrette Complete

0.0d

NTP Design Acknowledged

1.0d

Geotechnical Survey

1.0d

Topographic Survey

0.0d

35% Design Start (milestone)

45.0d

35% Design Submittal

10.0d

35% Submittal Review

10.0d

BCOES 35% Submittal Review

1.0d

35% Review Conference

0.0d

35% Design Submittal Reviewed and Approved

CBP RGV-010 Design Contract (Base) 04-May-18, 465841.40000.02 Design

Summary

Page 1 of 3

TASK filter: All Activities

© Oracle Corporation

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * L4 - SPA (ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * El Paso Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * TBD
Title * * El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B PM POC Name * * Gronewold, Bernadette L CIV USARMY CESPA (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

El Paso 20 miles Vehicle Fence-Pedestrian Fence Replacement Design-Build contract to be awarded to one of the firms on the Pre-Qualified list for the Border Wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=475&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $150,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

8(a)

8aS

HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

 None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=475&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=475&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 1:08:36 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 3:16:17 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=475&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=475&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 20 Miles VF-PF Replacement D-B

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=475&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B...

Page 1 of 6

Issuing District * * M2 - SWF Requesting Office * CESWF-ECSO District Where Work Located * * L4 - SPA (ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT) Project Location (State) * * TX - Texas Location (Installation/Lake/City) * El Paso Other Location (Not In Lists)
Project Type * * IIS P2 Project Number or N/A * * TBD
Title * * El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B PM POC Name * * Gronewold, Bernadette L CIV USARMY CESPA (US) Alternate PM POC

Category * * Construction

Sub Category * * General

Contract Action Description *

El Paso 4.16 miles primary fence replacement design build seed project for the 8(a) MATOC for the Border Wall program.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=476&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B...
PM Remarks for CT Assignment Contracting Officer Linda Eadie Fiscal Year Action * * FY2017 Funds Expire * * No
Initial Est Award Amount * * $25,000,000.00 Subjective to Availability of Funds * * Yes
Priority * * 3 - Current FY Regular Program Sole Source * * No Sole Source Justification NA

Page 2 of 6

Vendor Name * * NA

Sustainable * * Yes Appl Clauses for Sustainable Acq

Set Aside * *

 8(a) 8aS HZC

P2 Contract Activity/Work Item * TBD

CT Labor Charge Code * * 012345 CT Labor Code Amount * * $20,000.00

HZS HBMI SB

SVC

EDWOSB

SVS

None

WO

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=476&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B...

Page 3 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=476&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B...

Page 4 of 6

Close
Content Type: Item Created at 5/31/2017 1:17:59 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US) Last modified at 5/31/2017 3:08:16 PM by Villagomez, Enrique Jr CIV USARMY CESWG (US)

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=476&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B...

Page 5 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=476&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

Acquisition Request Tracker Library - El Paso 4.16 Miles Primary Replacement D-B...

Page 6 of 6

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/SWD/pdt/ART/Lists/art/DispForm.aspx?ID=476&Source=https%3A%2F... 5/31/2017

information available from this website and therefore assumes neither legal liability nor responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, technical/ scientific quality or usefulness of said documents or information

LevEeeCSWOall OBovrdeerr vIniferawstructure
PMO
For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA For Planning Purposes Only
Bob Hardbarger 28 April 2017

US Army Corps of Engineers
BUILDING STRONG®

Agenda
▪ Program Highlights ▪ Border Infrastructure PMO ▪ RGV Requirements ▪ Pilot Project ▪ Execution Strategy

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Program
Highlights
▪ New PMO assigned to SWD

▪ Leverages existing relationships with CBP

▪ Utilizes familiar tools and processes used by ECSO
► FITT ► AIS
▪ Administration Priority

▪ Operational Priority

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Border Infrastructure PMO
Insert Org Chart

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Prog PA ($M) Miles

RGV Requirements Border Infrastructure Program
Data Date: 24 April 2014
RGV Bar Chart

RGV+ 1,100 55

RE

PRD Proj/Acq Planning ACQ

Design

Construction C

lose

RGV4 140 17 RGV3 105 10

RE

PRD Proj/Acq Planning

RE PRD Proj/Acq Planning ACQ

ACQ Design

Design

Construction C

los

e

Construction C

lose

RGV2 55

4 RE PRD Proj/Acq Planning ACQ

Design

Construction C

lose

RGV1 40

3 Proj/Acq Planning ACQ Construction 1 mil

Construct 2 Miles

Clos

e

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

FY17

FY18

FY19

FY20

Station

Zone Project Miles

Rio Grande City 1/2 RGV-002 3.68

• RGV is Border Patrol priority

McAllen McAllen

6 RGV-003 1.71 8 RGV-004 5.47

• IBWC Levees • Floodplain challenges

McAllen McAllen McAllen Weslaco

9 RGV-005 1.91 9 RGV-001 3.06 9 RGV-006 0.83 10 RGV-007 0.69

RGV 1-4

Weslaco

10 RGV-008 2.46

Weslaco

11 RGV-009 2.24

Weslaco

11 RGV-010 2.93

Weslaco

11 RGV-011 2.44

Weslaco

12 RGV-012 1.01

Weslaco
For Official Use Only – Weslaco

12 RGV-013 13 RGV-014

For Planning PuWrepsolascoes Only 13 RGV-015

Do not releaTsoetaul nder

2.09

0.37

B1U.9I1LDING
32.8

STRONG®

RGV Requirements
Levee Wall Concept
▪ Flood Wall same height as levee ▪ 18’ Bollard Fence on top ▪ USACE Design Standards ▪ FEMA Certification
18’

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

RGV Requirements

Enforcement Zone
• 150’ De-veg and grading • FODS • Lighting • Cameras • Patrol Road (FC-2)

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Pilot Project

RGV-010 2.93
For Official UsemOinly – Do not release under FOIA
For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Pilot Project
▪ Award in SEP; Construction Start in OCT ▪ AE Task Order (existing IDIQ capacity):
► New Design Standard ► D-B RFP with first mile 100% designed
▪ D-B Contract (existing UR Horizontal MATOC capacity)
► Early construction start ► Concurrent design ► Construction Complete SEP ‘18

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Pilot Project

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Pilot Project
BUILDING STRONG®

Execution Strategy
▪ Centralized PgM; De-centralized Project Execution ▪ PMO Efforts:
► PgM ► Contracting – AE and D-B ► E&C – Technical Support ► RE ► Schedulers, PAs
▪ SWG Support:
► PM ► E&C:
• Technical Lead (Levee Safety Officer) • BCOES • Submittal Reviews • Contract Administration (appointed by SWF PCO) • Construction Management

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Path Forward
▪ PDT Assignments ▪ Battle Rhythm ▪ Scope/Schedule/Budget Baselines

For Official Use Only – Do not release under FOIA

For Planning Purposes Only

BUILDING STRONG®

Copy 1 of 1 Unit: CESWD / CESPD Loc: Dallas, TX / San Francisco, CA
DTG: 6 June 2017

OPERATIONS ORDER: TF Southwest Border 17-XX (Operation Southwest Border)
Annex R – Strategic Communications
1. Background
Executive Order 13767 Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, signed 25 January 2017 Trump, calls to immediately plan, design and construct a physical wall along the southern border, using appropriate materials and technology to most effectively achieve complete operational control. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requested USACE to assist in the planning, design, and construction of border infrastructure to support CBP in its mission to achieve operational control of the border. This interagency support mission has been accepted by Headquarters USACE and may require support from across the USACE enterprise. The USACE Program Management Office (PMO) Border Infrastructure is located in Fort Worth District, but is a direct report to the Commander, Southwestern Division.
2. Reference
a. Department of Defense Principles of Information – 9 Nov 2001
b. AR 360-1, Army Public Affairs Program
3. Purpose
The purpose of the Strategic Communication Plan is to define communication roles and responsibilities of USACE Commands and Offices, communication protocols and frequency required to deliver all requirements in support of the mission.
4. Project Communications Partners
a. USACE – PMO Border Infrastructure and USACE public affairs offices located at: HQ-USACE, SWD, South Pacific Division (SPD), SWF, Galveston District (SWG), Los Angeles District (SPL), Albuquerque District (SPA) and Sacramento District (SPK).
b. CBP – PMO Border Patrol Air & Marine and CBP Office of Public Affairs
c. Other cooperating Federal agency public affairs offices – Department of Justice, U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S Forest Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5. Communication Management
a. Two-way communication and transparency is a cornerstone to success and customer satisfaction. PMO Border Infrastructure is responsible for creating standard operating procedures for communication and a joint communication plan with PMO BPAM.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

1 2 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

b. External communications responsibilities. As the lead agency, CBP is the public voice of this important national security mission and will take the public communications lead. PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will take the external public communications lead role within USACE. Working with the PMO BPAM, PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will be a public voice whenever USACE has a unique operational lead in a program task. These unique responsibilities are outlined in Appendices 1 to 4 below.
c. Outreach communication to stakeholders outside the program. The PMO BPAM and its Outreach & Communications IPT will be responsible for coordinating this effort with PMO Border Infrastructure’s support.
d. USACE communications pathways. Both vertical and horizontal communication is to be encouraged. Vertical communication originating at PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs is through SWD Public Affairs Office (PAO) for all significant actions. SWD PAO is responsible for the communications pathway both to SPD PAO and to HQUSACE PAO. Horizontal communication will flow from PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs to HQUSACE, SWD, SPD, SWF, SWG, SPL, SPA and SPK. Interagency horizontal public affairs communications will flow between PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs and PMO BPAM Communications Team.
e. Unitary voice. PMO Border Infrastructure and PMO BPAM will work together to ensure that all mission messaging is timely, accurate, consistent, uses the same terminology and works in partnership to respond to all media queries. Communications products, such as Public Affairs Guidance, will be jointly prepared as part of the media planning in advance of all major milestones.
f. Message discipline. All USACE staff and contractors should be kept informed of the overall mission. Where possible, the “Corps story” should also be told. At the same time, no employee or contractor should talk to the public or media about the mission. In the field, only the CBP Office of Public Affairs or a Border Patrol agent can speak about the mission to the public or media. Media questions can also be referred to the PMO Border Infrastructure public affairs.
6. Communications awareness
a. Intense media scrutiny. This is a controversial project generating great public interest. This is also a fast-paced program where unexpected developments can be expected. These communications challenges will be met promptly and communicated up and down the USACE organizational chain and shared with our CBP partners immediately. There is no such thing as too much communication. You cannot partner halfway.
b. Safety. Hazards in the border construction zone are a real concern. This may arise from intruders/illegal entrants/smugglers but also from protests. Some protests could target USACE offices distant from the border, particularly those associated with Command, control, and support of this mission. Social media can mobilize opposition protests on short notice and intensify opposition. Security requires rapid communications in the field and up the chain of supervision.
c. Personal conduct. USACE employees need to be mindful to protect the image of the Army and to demand professional conduct from ourselves and others. It is a 24/7 concern.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

2 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

d. Risk Communications. Even though CBP provides the public voice for this mission, USACE leaders and key individuals that can be expected to come into contact with the public incidentally while performing work related to this mission should be aware of risk communications and public participation principles.
7. Key Messages
Durable base messaging for use in public contacts. USACE employees and contractors do not speak for the program – CBP does – but the following is suitable in explaining the program and our supporting role whenever asked.
(1) Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, calls for the immediate planning, design and construction of a physical wall along the southern border, using appropriate materials and technology, to achieve complete operational control of the border. CBP’s strategy to operationally control the border includes three components: adequate law enforcement personnel, technology and tactical infrastructure. These three measures together deter, detect, and apprehend unauthorized aliens. Tactical infrastructure includes walls, fencing, roads, lights and cameras.
(2) The USACE has a 20-year history of providing interagency support to Customs and Border Protection, and its predecessor agencies, in executing its border security mission.
(3) CBP is currently defining the requirements for additional tactical infrastructure required to comply with Executive Order 13767 and appropriations by Congress. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is prepared to perform planning, design, engineering, real estate acquisition, contract acquisition, and construction as requested by Customs and Border Protection.

Appendix 1: Real Estate Communications Plan
To provide communications guidelines and reporting paths for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees and private contractors engaged in real estate activities in support of the Border Infrastructure Program.
General Background
Ref: Key Messages / Durable Base Messaging for use in public contracts in Annex R above.
The Border Infrastructure Program is controversial and has drawn public opposition. Because of the especially sensitive nature of real estate work, all USACE employees and contractors must understand and adopt communications restrictions. All USACE employees and their representatives must conduct themselves in the field in a way that preserves and enhances the Army’s reputation with the public. Any activities that may lead to real estate acquisition may be strongly opposed by landowners who do not want to sell and do not want government representatives on their land. The government may have to utilize eminent domain to acquire some tracts. Litigation can be expected.
Adhering to the guidelines and restrictions below will help ensure project success.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

3 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

Fundamental Communications Principles: RESTRICTIONS
 Officials of the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol, are the sole “face and spokespersons” for the Border Infrastructure Program.
 Do not talk to the media, period. Refer all media queries to DHS/CBP/Border Patrol officials as indicated below.
 Never offer opinions about the Border Infrastructure Program to anybody.  In the course of your work in the field, discuss your activities only with those with whom
you must work. Do not volunteer additional information about the program.

Fundamental Communications Principles: WHAT YOU CAN SAY
If you are asked about the program, you may use the following statement.
“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is executing this important national security project for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security along the international border at the direction of the Administration and as funded by Congress. DHS officials within U.S. Customs and Border Protection are the sole spokespersons for this program.”
All USACE employees and contractors in the field should carry a “business card” that includes the statement above and provides referral information to others who are authorized to speak.
Communications pathways
PMO BPAM has the lead in outreach communication planning for every major real estate action. PMO Border Infrastructure Real Estate and Public Affairs have a supporting role.
CBP Office of Public Affairs has the public communications lead and full release authority on the real estate effort. Any exceptions will be agreed to in collaboration between the PMO Border Infrastructure and PMO BPAM communications teams.
CBP Office of Public Affairs and Department of Justice Public Affairs will have the lead on all media queries regarding eminent domain, land acquisition and litigation over real estate in this Border Infrastructure Program.
BPAM PMO, Border Patrol and PMO Border Infrastructure Real Estate will collaborate on joint landholder outreach actions, either in one-on-one or larger town hall-style landowner information meetings for this program. Border Infrastructure Public Affairs has a supporting role and help CBP Office of Public Affairs for their media guidance planning. Separate joint CBP/USACE Public Affairs Guidance will be provided prior to engagement with landholders based on the nature of the real estate interest being acquired for the project and the forum in which the landholder will be contacted.
PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs is responsible for providing timely advance notice for all major real estate actions to USACE Headquarters as well as border program Division and District Public Affairs Offices (SWD, SPD, SPK, SPL, SPA, SWF and SWG).
***
Examples of public interaction: Q&A

DRAFT

USE ONLY

4 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

Q1: If a member of the media approaches you with questions about the Border Infrastructure Program, what do you say?
A1: USACE and contractor personnel should never speak to the media on behalf of the program, or provide information or opinions. Refer all inquiries to any Customs and Border Protection officer of Border Patrol agent. If none are present, here are alternatives you can provide, have them contact CBPmediarelations@DHS.gov, or 202-344-1780.
Q2: If a private individual approaches you with questions about the Border Infrastructure Program, what do you say?
A2: You are not a spokesman for the program, but you can provide very general information about the overall Border Infrastructure Program outlined in the short, approved statement above. If the individual is necessary to the performance of your task, you can also talk about your specific task. FOR ALL OTHER QUESTIONS, refer the individual to a Customs and Border Protection officer of Border Patrol agent. If none are present, refer them to www.cbp.gov, 877-227-5511.
Q3: If an individual asks you what you are doing in the courthouse today, what do you say?
A3: “I am doing real estate title reviews for a government client.” If asked further the contractor or USACE personnel may also disclose that they are working for or on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix 2: Acquisition Communications Plan
To inform external stakeholders and the general public with appropriate information regarding how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is using its contracting authority to support Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection mission goals for Executive Order 13767 of 25 Jan 2017: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.
General Background
Ref: Key Messages / Durable Base Messaging for use in public contracts in Annex R above.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers utilizes a wide variety of tools including military and civilian personnel and private contractors. The Army supports vigorous competition to ensure value for the government. Competition is further heightened by providing opportunities to small business to develop and join the broad base of suppliers that strengthen our nation’s economic development. The Army is committed to using small businesses and often leads the federal government in total contract dollars awarded to them each year.
Communications pathways
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security are the leads on all media inquiries about the border infrastructure program. However, certain tasks, such as acquisition, may be delegated within narrow lanes for PMO Border Infrastructure Public affairs to answer. All overall mission questions, including specifics of where and when border infrastructure will be built, remains with CBP Public Affairs. These lanes will be clearly delineated in advance in full collaboration with PMO BPAM.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

5 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will have the lead in generating, communicating and executing public affairs actions. For the most critical actions, that pathway is through Southwestern Division Public Affairs Office (PAO), which is responsible for SPL and HQUSACE PAO as appropriate. Horizontal communication will flow from PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs to HQ-USACE, SWD, SPD, SWF, SWG, SPL, SPA and SPK. Interagency horizontal public affairs communications will flow between PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs and PMO BPAM Communications Team.
Communications Action Milestones
Step-by-step communications actions. USACE acquisition actions may generate media queries.
1. Advance preparation: a. 10 days before any action, notify PMO BPAM Communications Team and coordinate. b. 10 days before, PMO BPAM and PMO Border Infrastructure Communications Teams should delineate clear USACE and CBP Public Affairs lanes for the announcement. These must be clearly understood and with a unity of messaging. c. 10 days before announcement, PMO Border Infrastructure public affairs specialist begins working with PMO Border Infrastructure team members to prepare a Public Affairs Guidance (PAG) sheet. This PAG will guide both CBP and USACE communications. It should explain the action. It should emphasize key messages. It should provide a Q&A to address expected questions. This guidance should be shared with SWD PAO Chief. The PAO Chief will share with SPD and HQUSACE PAOs as appropriate. d. PMO Border Infrastructure should consider whether any particular announcement is appropriate as a short news release. This can be an opportunity to tell the Corps story and should only be done in full collaboration with PMO BPAM and written well in advance. e. At least two working days in advance, provide PMO BPAM with a copy of the draft announcement text and Public Affairs Guidance sheet. [Contract awards text will be left incomplete without names and dollar amount.] PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will notify all PAO chiefs in SWD, SPD, SPK, SPL, SPA, SWF and SWG that the announcement is imminent. Provide PAOs guidance by including CBP media contact information and/or PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs contact information.
2. Announcement day: a. Notify BPAM Communications Team and all PAOs in HQUSACE, SWD, SPD, SPK, SPL, SPA, SWF and SWG the announcement has been made with any additional details as appropriate (such as details of a contract award). b. Include the announcement with regular internal communications with USACE staff. c. Other internal USACE communication: Command and Program / Project Management notifications will be performed by the PMO Border Infrastructure d. Post a news release, if one has been authorized.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

6 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

Appendix 3: Construction Communications Plan
To provide communications guidelines and reporting paths for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees and private contractors engaged in construction and construction-related field activities in support of the Border Infrastructure Program.
General Background
Ref: Key Messages / Durable Base Messaging for use in public contracts in Annex R above.
The Border Infrastructure Program is controversial and has drawn public opposition. Because construction and pre-construction activities take place in public view, all USACE employees and contractors must understand and adopt communications restrictions. All USACE employees and their representatives must conduct themselves in the field in a way that preserves and enhances the Army’s reputation with the public.
Construction can include a wide variety of actions including border wall, levee walls, border fence, Border Patrol roads, border access roads, border lights, border gates, border drainage, enforcement zones and other repairs and alterations. Construction-related activities can also include such field work as surveys, geotech drilling, mapping and best practices/environmental monitoring.
Construction activities may occur in close proximity to private property boundaries that may not always be accurate or may not be acknowledged as accurate by landowners in the immediate vicinity of the activity site.
Adhering to the guidelines and restrictions below will help ensure project success.
Fundamental Communications Principles: RESTRICTIONS
 Officials of the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol, are the sole “face and spokespersons” for the Border Infrastructure Program.
 Do not talk to the media, period. Refer all media queries to DHS/CBP/Border Patrol officials as indicated below.
 Never offer opinions about the Border Infrastructure Program to anybody.  In the course of your work in the field, discuss your activities only with those with whom
you must work. Do not volunteer additional information about the program.
Fundamental Communications Principles: WHAT YOU CAN SAY
If you are asked about the program, you may use the following statement.
“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is executing this important national security project for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security along the international border at the direction of the Administration and as funded by Congress. DHS officials within U.S. Customs and Border Protection are the sole spokespersons for this program.”
All USACE employees and contractors in the field should carry a “business card” that includes the statement above and provides referral information to others who are authorized to speak.
Communications pathways

DRAFT

USE ONLY

7 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

PMO BPAM has the lead in outreach communication planning for most construction milestones. PMO Border Infrastructure including Public Affairs will have a supporting role.
CBP Office of Public Affairs has the public communications lead and full release authority on the construction mission and many of its supporting components. Any exceptions will be agreed to in collaboration between the PMO Border Infrastructure and PMO BPAM communications teams.
PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs is responsible for providing timely advance notice for all major construction and construction-related actions to USACE Headquarters as well as border program Division and District Public Affairs Offices (SWD, SPD, SPK, SPL, SPA, SWF and SWG).
Great care in the field needs to be taken to handle any questions raised by private landowners where these construction activities take place. Those queries should be referred to immediately to appropriate members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversight team including the area engineer, resident engineer, contracting officer’s representative, subject matter expert or other USACE on-site construction supervisor, in addition to the supporting team of construction contractors, architect/engineers and other service contractors.
Communications Actions
The two PMO Communication Teams will initiate planning for every major USACE construction/construction-related (field) action at least 10 days in advance. At this early stage, PMO Border Infrastructure and PMO BPAM will decide which agency is the communications lead.
The communications teams from the two partnering PMOs will jointly prepare communications products, such as Public Affairs Guidance, as part of the planning process before every major construction-related milestone.
***
Examples of public interaction: Q&A
Q1: If a member of the media approaches me with questions about the Border Infrastructure Program, what do you say?
A1: USACE and contractor personnel should never speak to the media on behalf of the program, or provide information or opinions. Refer all inquiries to any Customs and Border Protection officer of Border Patrol agent. If none are present, here are alternatives you can provide, have them contact CBPmediarelations@DHS.gov, or 202-344-1780.
Q2: If a private individual approaches me with questions about the Border Infrastructure Program, what do you say?
A2: You are not a spokesman for the program, but you can provide very general information about the overall Border Infrastructure Program outlined in the short, approved statement above. If the individual is necessary to the performance of your task, you can also talk about your specific task. FOR ALL OTHER QUESTIONS, refer the individual to a Customs and Border Protection officer of Border Patrol agent. If none are present, refer them to www.cbp.gov, 877-227-5511.
Q3: If an individual asks you what you are doing at the field construction site today, what do you say?

DRAFT

USE ONLY

8 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

A3: “I am working in the field on a government project.” If asked further, the contractor or USACE personnel may also disclose that they are working for or on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Appendix 4: Public Affairs Communications Protocol
To inform external stakeholders and the general public with appropriate information and transparency regarding how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supports Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection mission goals for Executive Order 13767 of 25 Jan 2017: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security are the leads on all media inquiries about the border infrastructure program. However, certain tasks, such as acquisition, real estate and construction, may be delegated within narrow lanes for PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs to answer. All overall mission questions, including specifics of where and when border infrastructure will be built, remains with CBP Office of Public Affairs (OPA). These lanes will be clearly delineated in advance in full collaboration with both PMO Border Patrol and Air and Marine (BPAM) and CBP OPA.
General Background:
Ref: Key Messages / Durable Base Messaging for use in public contracts in Annex R above.
Communications pathways:
a. PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will have the USACE lead in handling any public or media queries on the border infrastructure program.
b. It will also communicate directly and often with the PMO BPAM and CBP Office of Public Affairs (OPA). PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will also report on a weekly basis its media contacts to SWD Public Affairs Office (PAO) or report immediately if it is a significant issue. SWD PAO is responsible for communications to SPL PAO and HQ-USACE PAO.
c. PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will also be provided regular access to information streams such as regular PMO Border Infrastructure/PMO BPAM telecoms, access to FITT and to any other database important to be responsive to routine interagency PMO requests and to media queries.
d. PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs will support internal efforts to educate all USACE employees and contractors to never to speak to the public or media about the Border Infrastructure Program. They should refer any public or media queries in the field to any Border Patrol Agent, CBP Officer or the CBP Office of Public Affairs. They may also refer any query to PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs.
e. Media queries received by any district or division PAO should either be referred to CBP Office of Public Affairs or to PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs.
Media query handling step by step
1. Upon receipt of a media query, PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs finds out what the reporter seeks. In most cases, the reporter will be referred to CBP OPA at CBPMediaRelations@cbp.dhs.gov. Most questions should not be answered by USACE.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

9 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

2. Immediately send a summary of the query to the PMO BPAM Communications Team and to the individual CBP OPA representative assigned as liaison to this team for communications awareness.
3. Report the query to SWD PAO (immediately, if it is particularly important; or later as part of routine weekly reporting of media contacts). As needed, share the summary with PMO Border Infrastructure if there is a need for communications awareness.
4. If the query fits into the narrow lane to be answered by USACE, share any verbal response in a summary shared after the fact to PMO BPAM Communications Team and CBP OPA liaison. If it is a written response, share it in advance with these interagency counterparts and SWD PAO to ensure common messaging, consistency and accuracy.
5. Communicate consistently as appropriate with PMO Border Infrastructure or PMO BPAM. The two PMOs should never be surprised.
Special case queries
In some cases, the CBP OPA may reach back to PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs for assistance. This may require gathering information to feed to CBP OPA for release. Or it may be collaboratively agreed that PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs be the release authority for the information. If it is the latter, share the intended response in advance with the PMO Border Infrastructure, SWD PAO, PMO BPAM Communications Team and CBP OPA liaison to ensure common messaging, consistency and accuracy.
Any requests for speakers at public events/meetings should be referred to PMO BPAM.
FOIA assistance
PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs may be called upon by any USACE Office of Counsel to act as a liaison to help gather necessary responses or assist in finding requested information.
When possible, PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs should share new USACE FOIA requests with appropriate PMO BPAM contacts. Our interagency front-line counterparts appreciate this communications awareness.
FOIA requests to CBP/DHS, many of which can be from the media, may require assistance from PMO Border Infrastructure Public Affairs. Common messaging and facts for public release is enhanced when communications sharing is proactive by PMO BPAM and PMO Border Infrastructure Communications Teams.

DRAFT

USE ONLY

10 6 June 2017

FOR OFFICIAL

Real Estate Notes
Few tracts, unimproved land. Condemned along river during PF225, proposed is outside that alignment. Will likely have to acquire from wall
to river.
Wester portion is unimproved land, Eastern end cuts through improved tracts. Some acreage covered by PF225 condemnation actions, no possession of tracts. Steep bluff.
Many improved tracts, steep cliff, some overlap with PF225 condemnation actions, no possession
Many improved tracts, steep cliff, some overlap with PF225 condemnation actions, no possession
Few tracts. Some overlay with PF225, unimproved land. In floodplain
60' swath condemned for PF225, have possession of most swath tracts. Will require adjustment if 150' enforcement zone is required, will have to
push for possession of access. May have to re-file on staging area that expired. Deep in floodplain
60' swath condemned for PF225, have possession of most swath tracts. Will require adjustment if 150' enforcement zone is required, will have to
push for possession of access. May have to re-file on staging area that expired. Deep in floodplain
12+ tracts, including State of Texas and NGOs. Most land unimproved or farmland. There are structures on the wet side of levee. Eastern .05 mile has direct impact to structures (homes/buildings) and access to improved tracts on the river, endpoint should be shifted west, adjacent segment (RGV-005) should absorb adjustment
Nice RV park, many retirees live there permanently. Western half of segment will impacts upward of 100 homeowners. East half is F&W property, suggest breaking portion into it's own project, if so it would be
categorized least challenging
West 1.4 miles 'easy', few tracts, unimproved and/or farm land. Middle/East end of project complex, new Hwy design changes existing
levee alignment.
few tracts, unimproved and farmland. Hwy project could complicate Northern .05 mile of project., otherwise this segment would qualify as
least challenging
only one tract but the levee acts as dam/embankment for local water supply.
over 2 dozen tracts abut southside of levee. Many homes within 150', also have some deeper toward river.
over 2 dozen tracts abut southside of levee. Many homes within 150', also have some deeper toward river. Church and cemetery directly
impacted by enforcement zone. May be possible to build 1 mile without major impact (Phar Inter Bridge to Doffin Rd)
2.6 miles on F&W, eastern .3 mile one private owner (same owner has .8 mile on RGV-011)

Dozen tracts adjacent to levee (many under same ownership), mostly unimproved and farm land. Some improvements within enforcement zone toward middle of segment (appear to be barns from aerial ,need to ground truth). Homes and sand pit south of the levee & enforcement
zone on east end, will have to provide access or buyout/relocate
less than 3 tracts if you stop segment short of bridge, F&W has large tract. Improvements near bridge where levee peters out, assume no wall
in that location.
half dozen tract adjacent to levee, unimproved & farmland.
Dozen tracts adjacent to levee (many under same ownership), mostly unimproved and farm land. Swampy area in middle of segment abuts
levee.
4 tracts, all in same ownership (B &P Bridge). Challenge comes with fitting wall into existing bridge improvements.
Dozen tracts, 5 ownerships. Farm land, project will impact irrigation canal and lake intake/outlet works

Execution_

Phase

Sector

FY17

RGV

Fence_ID RGV1-02

Project_ID RGV-002

Group 3

FY17

RGV

RGV1-03

RGV-002

3

FY17

RGV

RGV2-01

RGV-002

3

FY17

RGV

RGV2-02

RGV-002

3

FY17

RGV

RGV2-03

RGV-002

3

FY17

RGV

RGV6-02

RGV-003

3

FY17

RGV

RGV6-03

RGV-003

3

FY17

RGV

RGV8-01

RGV-004

3

FY17

RGV

RGV9-01

RGV-005

4

FY17

RGV

RGV9-05

RGV-001

4

FY17

RGV

RGV9-03b

RGV-006

4

FY17

RGV

RGV10-01

RGV-007

4

FY17

RGV

RGV10-02

RGV-008

4

FY17

RGV

RGV11-01

RGV-009

4

FY17

RGV

RGV11-02a

RGV-010

1

FY17

RGV

RGV11-02b

RGV-011

2

FY17

RGV

RGV11-03

RGV-012

2

FY17

RGV

RGV12-01

RGV-012

2

FY17

RGV

RGV12-02

RGV-013

2

FY17

RGV

RGV13-01

RGV-014

2

FY17

RGV

RGV13-02

RGV-015

2

Fence_Program PF Primary
PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary

Descriptio Real Estate Prelim

Length_Miles n

Assessment

1.07097269

O-1

Challenging

0.53726088

O-1

0.64571417

O-1

0.12585485

O-1

1.28647572

O-1

0.2607274

O-3

Most Challenging
Most Challenging Most Challenging Least Challenging
Least Challenging

PF Primary

1.44769016

O-3

Least Challenging

PF Primary

5.46771932

Challenging

PF Primary
PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary

1.91247337
3.05814489 0.8311097 0.69005037 2.45775268 2.23564526 2.93081802

Most Challenging
Challenging Challenging Most Challenging Most Challenging Most Challenging Least Challenging

PF Primary

2.43704001

PF Primary PF Primary PF Primary
PF Primary PF Primary

0.56173262 0.4531135 2.09173204
0.37474392 1.90903501

Challenging
Least Challenging Least Challenging Least Challenging
Challenging Challenging

sort Program 1 PF Primary 4 PF Replacement

Sector FY17 FY18 Unbuildable Unconstrained

RGV

32.8 47.4

0.5

44.9

RGV

1.0

Execution_PSector

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

Fence_ID RGV1-01 RGV2-04 RGV3-01 RGV3-02 RGV4-01 RGV4-02 RGV4-03 RGV4-04 RGV5-01

Project_ID

Fence_Prog Length_MileLat_Start PF Primary 15.48966 26.410668 PF Primary 2.5852704 26.394724 PF Primary 9.2551247 26.399141 PF Primary 2.3625654 26.371646 PF Primary 1.4601658 26.37428 PF Primary 0.2343015 26.358296 PF Primary 3.1801876 26.356659 PF Primary 4.8881741 26.291002 PF Primary 7.9139303 26.259041

Long_Start Lat_End Long_End DescriptionComments State

-99.04551 26.545824 -99.17112

PV Capable TX

-98.99853 26.399141 -98.95945

PV Capable TX

-98.95945 26.356943 -98.89574

PV Capable TX

-98.84818 26.37428 -98.81249 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.81249 26.360514 -98.79571 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.79024 26.357382 -98.78667 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.7868 26.331922 -98.7575 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.69867 26.331922 -98.7575

PV Capable TX

-98.58586 26.290997 -98.69866

PV Capable TX

Station RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC

Execution_PSector UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV

Fence_ID Project_ID Fence_Prog Length_MileLat_Start Long_Start

RGV13-03

PF Primary 2.1872848 26.071419 -97.89152

RGV14-01

PF Primary 2.5975415 26.083693 -97.86171

RGV14-02

PF Primary 0.0592871 26.055118 -97.85173

RGV14-03

PF Primary 0.666865 26.062545 -97.82103

RGV14-04

PF Primary 0.8341735 26.058204 -97.81299

RGV14-05

PF Primary 2.2855376 26.065073 -97.80598

RGV14-06

PF Primary 0.6524218 26.049258 -97.76259

RGV15-01

PF Primary 0.3967066 26.047062 -97.7537

RGV15-02

PF Primary 0.161821 26.036738 -97.73696

RGV15-03

PF Primary 1.2764468 26.040825 -97.68865

RGV16-01

PF Primary 0.5373204 26.006103 -97.6176

RGV16-02

PF Primary 2.2618311 26.006103 -97.6176

RGV17-01

PF Primary 1.5955415 25.983703 -97.61008

RGV17-02

PF Primary 0.7163122 25.956274 -97.57161

RGV18-02

PF Primary 0.7988749 25.920396 -97.52851

RGV18-03

PF Primary 1.3353701 25.910512 -97.53304

RGV19-02

PF Primary 0.2345073 25.894174 -97.50399

RGV19-04

PF Primary 0.2645341 25.898616 -97.49687

RGV19-05

PF Replace 0.5938092 25.891725 -97.4904

RGV19-06

PF Primary 0.068084 25.891737 -97.49043

RGV19-07

PF Primary 0.0593466 25.891868 -97.48992

RGV19-08

PF Replace 0.3733493 25.89185 -97.48992

RGV20-01

PF Primary 0.370895 25.887615 -97.47652

RGV21-01

PF Primary 16.935723 25.91391 -97.37306

RGV6-01

PF Primary 1.9295492 26.259043 -98.58584

RGV6-04

PF Primary 4.8647221 26.248127 -98.55364

RGV7-01

PF Primary 1.8336889 26.232353 -98.48259

Lat_End Long_End Description Comments State

26.083691 -97.86171

PV Capable TX

26.055118 -97.85173

PV Capable TX

26.055258 -97.85082

PV Capable TX

26.058204 -97.81299

PV Capable TX

26.065073 -97.80598

PV Capable TX

26.049092 -97.77565

PV Capable TX

26.047062 -97.7537

PV Capable TX

26.042953 -97.75673

PV Capable TX

26.035825 -97.7346

PV Capable TX

26.038939 -97.67211

PV Capable TX

26.007226 -97.62533

PV Capable TX

25.983703 -97.61008

PV Capable TX

25.968098 -97.60002

PV Capable TX

25.949807 -97.56392

PV Capable TX

25.910545 -97.53308

PV Capable TX

25.895948 -97.52225

PV Capable TX

25.892092 -97.5058

PV Capable TX

25.895401 -97.49542

PV Capable TX

25.895401 -97.49542

PV Capable TX

25.892655 -97.49002

PV Capable TX

25.892687 -97.48962

PV Capable TX

25.890371 -97.48429

PV Capable TX

25.88968 -97.47114

PV Capable TX

25.960676 -97.13476

PV Capable TX

26.242163 -98.56641

PV Capable TX

26.232355 -98.48259

PV Capable TX

26.231775 -98.45377

PV Capable TX

Station WSL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP FTB FTB MCS MCS MCS

Execution_PSector

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY17

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

FY18

RGV

UnbuildableRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

UnconstrainRGV

Fence_ID Project_ID RGV10-01 RGV-007 RGV10-02 RGV-008 RGV1-02 RGV-002 RGV1-03 RGV-002 RGV11-01 RGV-009 RGV11-02a RGV-010 RGV11-02b RGV-011 RGV11-03 RGV-012 RGV12-01 RGV-012 RGV12-02 RGV-013 RGV13-01 RGV-014 RGV13-02 RGV-015 RGV2-01 RGV-002 RGV2-02 RGV-002 RGV2-03 RGV-002 RGV6-02 RGV-003 RGV6-03 RGV-003 RGV8-01 RGV-004 RGV9-01 RGV-005 RGV9-03b RGV-006 RGV9-05 RGV-001 RGV1-01 RGV2-04 RGV3-01 RGV3-02 RGV4-01 RGV4-02 RGV4-03 RGV4-04 RGV5-01 RGV9-03a RGV13-03 RGV14-01 RGV14-02 RGV14-03 RGV14-04 RGV14-05 RGV14-06 RGV15-01 RGV15-02 RGV15-03 RGV16-01 RGV16-02 RGV17-01 RGV17-02 RGV18-02

Fence_Prog Length_MileLat_Start PF Primary 0.6900504 26.090208 PF Primary 2.4577527 26.092142 PF Primary 1.0709727 26.410668 PF Primary 0.5372609 26.414809 PF Primary 2.2356453 26.085897 PF Primary 2.930818 26.082729 PF Primary 2.43704 26.076984 PF Primary 0.5617326 26.073385 PF Primary 0.4531135 26.065941 PF Primary 2.091732 26.076612 PF Primary 0.3747439 26.063385 PF Primary 1.909035 26.066203 PF Primary 0.6457142 26.410777 PF Primary 0.1258549 26.403239 PF Primary 1.2864757 26.401248 PF Primary 0.2607274 26.242163 PF Primary 1.4476902 26.239591 PF Primary 5.4677193 26.191734 PF Primary 1.9124734 26.168086 PF Primary 0.8311097 26.139488 PF Primary 3.0581449 26.135078 PF Primary 15.48966 26.410668 PF Primary 2.5852704 26.394724 PF Primary 9.2551247 26.399141 PF Primary 2.3625654 26.371646 PF Primary 1.4601658 26.37428 PF Primary 0.2343015 26.358296 PF Primary 3.1801876 26.356659 PF Primary 4.8881741 26.291002 PF Primary 7.9139303 26.259041 PF Primary 0.535317 26.146434 PF Primary 2.1872848 26.071419 PF Primary 2.5975415 26.083693 PF Primary 0.0592871 26.055118 PF Primary 0.666865 26.062545 PF Primary 0.8341735 26.058204 PF Primary 2.2855376 26.065073 PF Primary 0.6524218 26.049258 PF Primary 0.3967066 26.047062 PF Primary 0.161821 26.036738 PF Primary 1.2764468 26.040825 PF Primary 0.5373204 26.006103 PF Primary 2.2618311 26.006103 PF Primary 1.5955415 25.983703 PF Primary 0.7163122 25.956274 PF Primary 0.7988749 25.920396

UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV UnconstrainRGV

RGV18-03 RGV19-02 RGV19-04 RGV19-05 RGV19-06 RGV19-07 RGV19-08 RGV20-01 RGV21-01 RGV6-01 RGV6-04 RGV7-01

PF Primary 1.3353701 25.910512 PF Primary 0.2345073 25.894174 PF Primary 0.2645341 25.898616 PF Replace 0.5938092 25.891725 PF Primary 0.068084 25.891737 PF Primary 0.0593466 25.891868 PF Replace 0.3733493 25.89185 PF Primary 0.370895 25.887615 PF Primary 16.935723 25.91391 PF Primary 1.9295492 26.259043 PF Primary 4.8647221 26.248127 PF Primary 1.8336889 26.232353

Long_Start Lat_End Long_End DescriptionComments State

-98.24914 26.092142 -98.23961

PV Capable TX

-98.23961 26.085897 -98.20186

PV Capable TX

-99.04551 26.414252 -99.03319 O-1

PV Capable TX

-99.03165 26.410777 -99.02457 O-1

PV Capable TX

-98.20186 26.082739 -98.16893

PV Capable TX

-98.16893 26.076984 -98.12435

PV Capable TX

-98.12435 26.072802 -98.08809

PV Capable TX

-98.076 26.065941 -98.07458

PV Capable TX

-98.07458 26.067068 -98.06829

TX

-98.02149 26.076115 -97.99049

PV Capable TX

-97.9524 26.062986 -97.94667

PV Capable TX

-97.91349 26.071419 -97.89152

PV Capable TX

-99.02457 26.404467 -99.01807 O-1

PV Capable TX

-99.01665 26.401478 -99.01633 O-1

PV Capable TX

-99.01622 26.394433 -98.99862 O-1

PV Capable TX

-98.56641 26.23992 -98.56394 O-3

PV Capable TX

-98.56379 26.248127 -98.55364 O-3

PV Capable TX

-98.40691 26.168086 -98.33414

PV Capable TX

-98.33414 26.143798 -98.32215

PV Capable TX

-98.25755 26.128566 -98.2617

PV Capable TX

-98.29793 26.146434 -98.25505

TX

-99.04551 26.545824 -99.17112

PV Capable TX

-98.99853 26.399141 -98.95945

PV Capable TX

-98.95945 26.356943 -98.89574

PV Capable TX

-98.84818 26.37428 -98.81249 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.81249 26.360514 -98.79571 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.79024 26.357382 -98.78667 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.7868 26.331922 -98.7575 O-2

PV Capable TX

-98.69867 26.331922 -98.7575

PV Capable TX

-98.58586 26.290997 -98.69866

PV Capable TX

-98.25505 26.139488 -98.25755

PV Capable TX

-97.89152 26.083691 -97.86171

PV Capable TX

-97.86171 26.055118 -97.85173

PV Capable TX

-97.85173 26.055258 -97.85082

PV Capable TX

-97.82103 26.058204 -97.81299

PV Capable TX

-97.81299 26.065073 -97.80598

PV Capable TX

-97.80598 26.049092 -97.77565

PV Capable TX

-97.76259 26.047062 -97.7537

PV Capable TX

-97.7537 26.042953 -97.75673

PV Capable TX

-97.73696 26.035825 -97.7346

PV Capable TX

-97.68865 26.038939 -97.67211

PV Capable TX

-97.6176 26.007226 -97.62533

PV Capable TX

-97.6176 25.983703 -97.61008

PV Capable TX

-97.61008 25.968098 -97.60002

PV Capable TX

-97.57161 25.949807 -97.56392

PV Capable TX

-97.52851 25.910545 -97.53308

PV Capable TX

Station WSL WSL RGC RGC WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL RGC RGC RGC MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC RGC MCS WSL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL HRL BRP BRP BRP

-97.53304 25.895948 -97.52225 -97.50399 25.892092 -97.5058 -97.49687 25.895401 -97.49542 -97.4904 25.895401 -97.49542 -97.49043 25.892655 -97.49002 -97.48992 25.892687 -97.48962 -97.48992 25.890371 -97.48429 -97.47652 25.88968 -97.47114 -97.37306 25.960676 -97.13476 -98.58584 26.242163 -98.56641 -98.55364 26.232355 -98.48259 -98.48259 26.231775 -98.45377

PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX PV Capable TX

BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP BRP FTB FTB MCS MCS MCS