Page 1 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

November 17, 2011

The Honorable Mary Landrieu

Chairman 

The Honorable Frank Lautenberg

Vice Chairman

The Honorable Dan Coats

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt

Chairman

The Honorable David E. Price

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and 

Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan

This letter formally transmits the briefing slides we provided on November 16, 2011, in 

response to a mandate in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011.1 This mandate required the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to (1) update its Fiscal Year 2010 expenditure plan on border security fencing, 

infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) for fiscal year 2011 budget authority and (2) submit 

the updated plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The plan is to 

address 10 legislative conditions in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations act and be 

reviewed by GAO.2

 

DHS submitted an updated plan to Congress on September 8, 2011.

3 As required by the 

act, we reviewed the plan. To conduct this work, we analyzed the expenditure plan and 

documents referenced within the plan, such as strategic plans and reports, and interviewed 

DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to obtain clarification on 

material contained in the expenditure plan, including certification memoranda from the DHS 

Chief Procurement, Chief Information, and Chief Human Capital Officers. 

In summary, the expenditure plan satisfied some but not all of the legislative conditions. 

Specifically, of the 10 legislative conditions, the expenditure plan satisfied 3, partially 

 

1 Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1601, 125 Stat. 38, 140. 2 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-2147 

(2009), as made applicable with modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. at 102-03, 140. 

3 For purposes of this report, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT expenditure plan.
Page 2 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan

satisfied 5, and did not satisfy 2 (see enclosure, table 1, slides 7 through 9).4 For more 

information on the legislative conditions and the results of our analyses, see enclosure, 

slides 16 through 25. Based on our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans over 5 consecutive 

years, DHS has consistently not included all required elements in the plans leading to 

partially satisfied or not satisfied legislative conditions each year. Providing an explanation 

of which elements of the legislative conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and 

why the elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress with a more 

complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs. Similarly, including an 

explanation in the certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of the 

condition were or were not certified, along with references to supporting documentation, 

would provide Congress with more clarity on how and why the BSFIT programs were or 

were not certified. Based on the results of our review, we are recommending that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that explanations 

are included for all required legislative conditions that are not fully addressed. Further, we 

are recommending that the Secretary enhance the plan by ensuring that the required 

certification memoranda include descriptions of the review processes used for the 

certifications along with references to the documentation used to make certifications for 

each relevant BSFIT-funded program. 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS provided written 

comments which are reprinted in the enclosure, appendix V. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, DHS concurred with our first recommendation to enhance the expenditure plan 

by ensuring that explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that are not 

fully addressed and stated that CBP is committed to providing complete and thorough 

information in future BSFIT expenditure plans. In addition, DHS concurred with our second 

recommendation to enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that required certification 

memoranda include descriptions of the review processes used for the certifications along 

with references to supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. In 

commenting on the draft, DHS noted that the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT expenditure plan is 

mandated to be an update to the fiscal year 2010 and earlier BSFIT expenditure plans and 

that CBP therefore omitted discussions that were addressed in the earlier plans such as 

detailed program management capabilities. We recognize that the fiscal year 2011 

expenditure plan was mandated to be an update and reviewed the plan accordingly. For 

example, in instances where changes in BSFIT programs were significant, we assessed 

whether the fiscal year 2011 plan provided current and accurate information. Specifically, 

regarding detailed program management capabilities, between the issuance of the fiscal 

year 2010 and 2011 BSFIT expenditure plans, DHS reorganized its management of the 

acquisition, deployment and integration of surveillance and detection technologies, 

dissolving the Secure Border Initiative program management office and creating the Office 

of Technology Innovation and Acquisition. We assessed whether the BSFIT plan addressed 

detailed program management capabilities of the new office, among other things. 

___________

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees. We are 

also sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

This correspondence will also be available at no charge on our web site at 

 

4 Satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein either satisfied or provided for satisfying 

each requirement of the condition or direction that we reviewed. Partially satisfied means that the plan either 

satisfied or provided for satisfying some, but not all, key aspects of the condition or direction that we reviewed. 

Not satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein did not satisfy any of the key aspects of 

the condition or direction we reviewed. 
Page 3 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan

http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key 

contributors to this report were Chris Keisling, Assistant Director; Kevin Copping, Analyst-inCharge; Sarah Arnett; Michael Sweet; Frances Cook; Celina Davidson; Rebecca Wilson; 

Richard Hung; Linda Miller; and Lara Miklozek. 

Richard M. Stana

Director, Homeland Security and Justice

Enclosure
Page 4 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

Briefing on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and 

Technology 

Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan

Prepared for the 

Subcommittees on Homeland Security, 

Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations

November 16, 2011
Page 5 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

2

Briefing Overview

• Introduction

• Objective, Scope, and Methodology

• Results in Brief

• Background

• Finding

• Legislative Conditions

• Conclusions

• Recommendations

• Agency Comments

• Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs

• Appendix II: Tactical Infrastructure Program

• Appendix III: Tactical Communications Modernization Program

• Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis

• Appendix V: Comments from DHS

• Related GAO Products 
Page 6 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

3

Introduction

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched the Secure Border Initiative 

(SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration, in November 2005. Under this initiative, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), the lead agency within DHS for border security, implemented the 

following programs:

• SBI Network (SBInet)—A mix of radars, sensors, and cameras along 53 miles of Arizona’s 376-mile border with Mexico.

• Northern Border Program—A mix of cameras, radars, and operations centers along the northern border.

• Tactical Communications (TACCOM) Modernization—Upgrade to CBP communications systems. 

• Tactical Infrastructure (TI)—Fences, roads, and lighting along the southwest border.

• In January 2011, after 5 years and a cost of nearly $1 billion, DHS ended SBInet 

because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards. 

• DHS is developing a successor plan to secure the southwest border called the 

Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology plan. The plan’s first phase is the Arizona 

Border Surveillance Technology Plan, which also includes a mix of radars, sensors, and 

cameras. The Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan is expected to cost 

approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years.
Page 7 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

4

Introduction (cont.)

• The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, required DHS to update its fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan on border security fencing, 

infrastructure, and technology for fiscal year 2011 budget authority and submit the 

updated plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.1 The plan is to address 10 legislative conditions set forth in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations act 

and be reviewed by GAO.2 DHS received approximately $573 million for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) programs for fiscal year 2011.3

• In response to similar requirements in previous appropriations acts, we issued four 

reports discussing the extent to which DHS met legislative conditions for its fiscal year 

2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 BSFIT expenditure plans.4

• In response to the above requirements, DHS submitted a plan to Congress on 

September 8, 2011, titled Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology 

(BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan.5

1 Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1601, 125 Stat. 38, 140. 2 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-47 (2009), as made applicable with modifications by 

Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. at 102-03, 140. 3 Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1610(a), 125 Stat. at 140. 4 GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan, GAO-10-877R 

(Washington D.C.: July 30, 2010); GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan, GAO-09-274R 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2009); Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional 

Oversight and DHS Accountability, GAO-08-739R (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008); and Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better 

Support Oversight and Accountability, GAO-07-309 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2007). 5 For purposes of this briefing, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT expenditure plan.
Page 8 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

5

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

• Our objective was to determine whether CBP’s BSFIT expenditure plan satisfied 10 legislative 

conditions as specified in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2011.

• To accomplish our objective, we

• analyzed the BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced within the plan, such 

as strategic plans and reports, and 

• interviewed cognizant DHS and CBP program officials in Washington, D.C., to obtain 

clarification on material contained in the BSFIT expenditure plan.

• In making our determination regarding whether the BSFIT expenditure plan satisfied each of 

the 10 legislative conditions, we limited our assessment to information in the expenditure plan 

and documents referenced in the plan because the legislative conditions specified that the 

expenditure plan was to contain the information to address them.

• Also, in making our determination regarding the extent to which the plan satisfied the 10 

legislative conditions, we examined the expenditure plan and documents referenced therein for 

the presence of the required elements. We did not assess the quality of these elements.

• We compared the results of our analysis of the 2007 through 2010 BSFIT expenditure plans 

with the results of our 2011 analysis.
Page 9 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

6

Objective, Scope, and Methodology (cont.)

• We determined that funding, staffing, and fencing mileage data provided in the plan 

were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this briefing. We based our decision on an 

assessment for each respective area by questioning cognizant DHS officials about the 

source of the data and policies and procedures to maintain the integrity of these data.

• We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through November 2011 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. 

We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our objectives.
Page 10 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

7

Results in Brief

Of the 10 legislative conditions, the BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 

therein satisfy 3, partially satisfy 5, and do not satisfy 2.6 The 10 legislative conditions and the 

level of satisfaction are summarized in Table 1.

6 Satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein either satisfied or provided for satisfying each requirement of the condition or direction 

that we reviewed. Partially satisfied means that the plan either satisfied or provided for satisfying some, but not all, key aspects of the condition or direction 

that we reviewed. Not satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein did not satisfy any of the key aspects of the condition or direction

we reviewed.

Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions

Legislative conditions Status

1. A detailed accounting of the program’s implementation to date for all investments, including technology and tactical 

infrastructure, for funding already expended relative to system capabilities or services, system performance levels, 

mission benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program management capabilities, identification of the 

maximum investment, including life-cycle costs, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and description of 

the methodology used to obtain these cost figures.a

Partially 

Satisfied

2. A description of how specific projects will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic 

Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs.b

Satisfied

3. An explicit plan of action defining how all funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with the 

planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance levels, 

mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities. 

Partially 

Satisfied

4. An identification of staffing, including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office. Satisfied
Page 11 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

8

Results in Brief (cont.)

Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions (cont.)

Legislative conditions Status

5. A description of how the plan addresses security needs at the northern border and ports of entry, including infrastructure, 

technology, design and operations requirements, specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for 

northern border activities. 

Satisfied

6. A report on budget, obligations and expenditures, activities completed, and progress made by the program in terms of 

obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United States.

Partially 

Satisfied

7. A listing of all open GAO and Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendations related to the program and the status 

of DHS actions to address the recommendations, including milestones to fully address such recommendations.

Partially 

Satisfied

8. A certification by the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) of the Department, including all supporting documents or 

memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment review processes used to obtain such certifications, 

that (a) the program has been reviewed and approved in accordance with the investment management process of the 

Department, and that the process fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and reviews established 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; (b) the plans for the 

program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices, and a description of the 

actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance, the risks associated with such actions, together with any plans 

for addressing these risks, and the status of the implementation of such actions; (c) procedures to prevent conflicts of 

interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and that the SBI Program Office has 

adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border Initiative program, and all contracts under the 

program, including the exercise of technical oversight. 

Partially 

Satisfied
Page 12 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

9

Results in Brief (cont.)

Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions (cont.)

Legislative conditions Status

9. A certification by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department, including all supporting documents and 

memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment review processes used to obtain such certifications, 

that: (a) the system architecture of the program has been determined to be sufficiently aligned with the information 

systems enterprise architecture of the Department to minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of the 

architectures that were or were not assessed in making the alignment determination, the date of the alignment 

determination, and any known areas of misalignment together with the associated risks and corrective actions to address 

any such areas; (b) the program has a risk management process that regularly and proactively identifies, evaluates, 

mitigates, and monitors risks throughout the system life-cycle and communicates high-risk conditions to CBP and DHS 

investment decision-makers, as well as a listing of all the program’s high risks and the status of efforts to address such 

risks; and (c) an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the projects funded under the

BSFIT heading. 

Not 

Satisfied

10. A certification by the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs of the Secure 

Border Initiative program are being addressed so as to ensure adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the 

Secure Border Initiative.

Not 

Satisfied

Sources: Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. at 2145-47, as made applicable with modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. 

at 102-03,140. and GAO analysis. a Since 2007, SBI programs, including tactical infrastructure, SBInet, Northern Border program and TACCOM, have been funded from the 

BSFIT account in DHS appropriations. While SBInet was cancelled in January 2011, the other SBI programs listed above in addition to the 

SBInet successor program, the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology plan, are still funded from the BSFIT account. The legislative 

conditions refer to these programs when stating “the program” or “the SBI program.”

b Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C., Dec. 1, 2006).
Page 13 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

10

Results in Brief (cont.)

• For the five legislative conditions that we determined that DHS partially satisfied, DHS 

officials told us that they did not include the required elements because of an oversight or 

because the elements were under development. An explanation was not included in the 

BSFIT expenditure plan. 

• For the two legislative conditions that we determined that DHS did not satisfy, in one case 

DHS officials told us that they did not include the required element because of an oversight 

and in the other case they did not provide supporting documentation for the certification. An 

explanation was not included in the BSFIT expenditure plan. 

• By providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative conditions were not 

included in the expenditure plan and why the elements were not included, DHS would 

provide Congress with a more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded 

programs. Moreover, for those conditions that require a certification, including an 

explanation in the certification memorandum of why elements of the condition were or were 

not certified, along with references to supporting documentation, would provide Congress 

with more information in appropriating funds to BSFIT. 

• We are recommending that the Secretary of DHS enhance the expenditure plan by 

ensuring that explanations are included for all legislative conditions that are not fully 

addressed and that required certification memoranda include descriptions of review 

processes used for the certifications along with references to supporting documentation for 

each relevant BSFIT-funded program. DHS concurred with these recommendations.
Page 14 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

11

Background: BSFIT Appropriations

Sources: CBP budget data and DHS’s annual appropriations acts.

Table 2: BSFIT Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011 (Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal year

Appropriated 

funds 

2007 1,187,565a

2008 1,302,587b

2009 845,000c

2010 800,000d

2011 573,000e

Total $4,708,152

a Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1359 (2006). BSFIT funds are no-year dollars, meaning they

do not expire at the end of a given fiscal year.

b Includes approximately $77.6 million of reprogrammed funds from other DHS accounts, plus $1.225 million appropriated through the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2047 (2007). BSFIT funds from this appropriations act are no-year dollars. c Includes $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 162, 302 (2009), which expires at 

the end of fiscal year 2010, plus $775 million appropriated through the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, 

Pub. L. No. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3655 (2008), which are no-year dollars. DHS later reprogrammed $30 million to DHS’s Office of Emergency 

Communications for an interoperable border communications technology demonstration project.

d Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145 (2009). e Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act, 2011, Pub. L. No.112-10 div. B, § 1610(a), 125 Stat. 38, 140, appropriated 

$574,173,000. An across-the-board cut to DHS appropriations of 0.2 percent reduced the BSFIT appropriation to $573 million.

• Over $4.7 billion has been appropriated for BSFIT activities from fiscal years 2007 

through 2011 (see Table 2). 
Page 15 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

12

Background: Map of 20 Border Patrol Sectors

Figure 1: U.S. Border Patrol Sectors

Source: CBP.

The Border Patrol has 20 sectors as shown below in Figure 1.
Page 16 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

13

Background: BSFIT-Funded Programs

• BSFIT-funded programs include: 

• Surveillance technology programs

• Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan—is to place border surveillance and related technologies in Arizona.

• Northern Border Program—is to provide technology deployments and demonstrations for addressing the needs and vulnerabilities of the Northern 

Border.

• Legacy Systems—provide surveillance, detection, tracking and identification capabilities.7

• Tactical infrastructure (TI) program—projects for pedestrian fencing, vehicle fencing, roads, and lighting.8

• Tactical communications (TACCOM) modernization program—systems such as mobile radios to enable communications for CBP agents and officers.9 

7 For more information on surveillance technology programs, see appendix I. 8 For more information on the tactical infrastructure program, see appendix II. 9 For more information on the tactical communication program, see appendix III.
Page 17 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

14

Background: Program Management Responsibilities 

The CBP program offices responsible for the implementation of BSFIT-funded programs are the:

• Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA). OTIA manages the Arizona 

Border Surveillance Technology Plan, the Northern Border Program, and other technology 

projects. OTIA was formed in July 2010 and took over the responsibilities of the SBI 

program office related to the acquisition, deployment and integration of surveillance and 

detection technologies.

• Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure (BPFTI) – Program Management 

Office (PMO). The BPFTI PMO is part of CBP’s Office of Administration and manages TI 

projects. 

• Office of Information and Technology (OIT) – Wireless Systems Program Office 

(WSPO). OIT-WSPO manages TACCOM Modernization. 

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for program management: $76.4 million.
Page 18 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

15

Background: Summary of GAO Products related to SBI and 

the Alternative Southwest Border Technology Plan

• We have publicly reported on the SBI program 23 times since February 2007 and have 

made 38 recommendations (see list of related GAO products at the end of this briefing). 

• Our reports and recommendations pointed to an SBInet technology program 

that was in a constant state of flux, with delays in deployment that required the 

Border Patrol to continue relying on existing technology for securing the border 

and weaknesses in testing and acquisition that have resulted in a program that 

did not produce expected results. 

• On November 4, 2011 we reported on the extent to which CBP has the information 

needed to develop and implement its Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, the 

first stage of the Alternative Southwest Border Technology Plan, and the extent to which 

CBP’s estimated life-cycle costs for the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan 

reflect best practices. The report had three recommendations related to CBP’s planning 

for its new technology approach and three recommendations related to increasing the 

reliability of cost estimation for the plan.10

10 GAO, Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and Costs Is Needed before Proceeding. GAO-12-22. (Washington, D.C.:

November 4, 2011). 
Page 19 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

16

Legislative Condition #1: Detail Program Progress to Date 

(Partially Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a detailed accounting of the program’s implementation to date 

for all investments, including technology and tactical infrastructure, for funding already 

expended relative to system capabilities or services, system performance levels, mission 

benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program management capabilities, 

identification of the maximum investment, including life-cycle costs, related to the SBI program 

or any successor program, and description of the methodology used to obtain these cost 

figures. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially satisfy

legislative condition 1. The plan provides a detailed accounting of the BSFIT funded programs’ 

implementation to date, milestones, and system capabilities and services for technology 

investments. However, the plan and documents referenced therein do not provide system 

performance levels, mission benefits or outcomes for all investments or programs, or detailed 

descriptions of program management capabilities. The plan and documents referenced therein 

do not provide cost targets, maximum investment, and the methodology for determining cost 

figures for each technology investment program. CBP officials told us that they did not include 

this information in the plan because of an oversight. Additionally, for TACCOM, CBP did not 

include a cost target because it was still under development.11

11 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 1, see appendix IV. 
Page 20 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

17

Legislative Condition #2: Describe How Activities Further 

the Objectives of SBI’s Strategic Plan (Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a description of how specific projects will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies condition 2. The expenditure plan 

provides information on how technology investments and tactical infrastructure projects 

further objectives from the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and CBP’s 

Missions, Goals, and Strategies FY 2011-2013; these objectives align with those in DHS’s 

Secure Border Strategic Plan (2006).12 The expenditure plan states that CBP has determined 

that Arizona is the highest priority security need. CBP used an operational assessment to 

determine the allocation of funds within the Tucson Sector of Arizona.13

12 The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), issued in February 2010, was required by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007. The QHSR provides a review of national security threats and outlines DHS’s strategic framework to address these threats. 

13 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 2, see appendix IV. 
Page 21 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

18

Legislative Condition #3: Describe How Funds Are Obligated 

to Meet Future Program Commitments (Partially Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include an explicit plan of action defining how all funds are to be 

obligated to meet future program commitments, with the planned expenditure of funds linked 

to the milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission 

benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially 

satisfy legislative condition 3. The BSFIT expenditure plan includes some information 

required by the condition, such as a plan defining how all funds are to be obligated for 

surveillance technology, TACCOM, and TI, and the planned expenditures needed to achieve 

TI milestones. However, the expenditure plan and documents referenced therein do not 

include a link between planned expenditures and milestones, services, system performance 

levels, mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities.CBP officials 

told us that because of an oversight they did not draft the BSFIT expenditure plan with a level 

of detail to establish such a linkage.14

14 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 3, see appendix IV. 
Page 22 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

19

Legislative Condition #4: Identify Staffing by Activity 

(Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Identify staffing, including full-time equivalents, contractors, and 

detailees, by program office.

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies the condition. The plan identifies staffing 

levels by program office for organizations that execute BSFIT funds.15

15 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 4, see appendix IV. 
Page 23 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

20

Legislative Condition #5: Describe Security Needs at the 

Northern Border and Ports of Entry (Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a description of how the plan addresses security needs at the 

northern border and ports of entry, including infrastructure, technology, design and operations 

requirements, specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for northern 

border activities. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies this condition. The plan describes how $46.5 million of appropriated funds will address the security needs at the northern border and 

POEs including infrastructure, deployment of surveillance technologies, and the northern 

border security priorities related to the missions, goals, and objectives of DHS and CBP.16

16 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 5, see appendix IV. 
Page 24 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

21

Legislative Condition #6: Report on Budget, Activities 

Completed, and Progress (Partially Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a report on budget, obligations and expenditures, the activities 

completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control 

of the entire border of the United States. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially 

satisfy this condition. The plan reports the budget, obligations, and expenditure amounts 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and discusses activities completed. However, the plan 

and documents referenced therein do not discuss the progress that the BSFIT-funded 

programs have made in terms of obtaining operational control of the U.S. border.17 CBP 

officials told us that they no longer use operational control as a measure of border security 

but instead are developing three new performance measures to measure security at the 

southwest border.18

17 CBP defined operational control as the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the ability to detect, respond, and interdict cross-border illegal activity. 

18 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 6, see appendix IV.
Page 25 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

22

Legislative Condition #7: Provide a Status of All Open GAO 

and OIG Recommendations (Partially Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a listing of all open GAO and OIG recommendations related to 

the program and the status of DHS actions to address the recommendations, including 

milestones to fully address them.

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially 

satisfy the condition because although the plan lists all six open GAO recommendations and 

two open OIG recommendations, the description of the status of DHS actions to address the 

open recommendations does not contain milestones for five of the six GAO open 

recommendations and one of the two open OIG recommendations.CBP officials told us that 

they had information available on milestones for addressing open recommendations but did 

not include this information in the BSFIT expenditure plan because of an oversight.19

19 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 7, see appendix IV. 
Page 26 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

23

Legislative Condition #8: Include Certification by the DHS 

CPO (Partially Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a certification by the CPO of the Department, including all supporting 

documents or memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment review 

processes used to obtain such certifications, that: (a) the program has been reviewed and approved 

in accordance with the investment management process of the Department, and that the process 

fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and reviews established by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; (b) the 

plans for the program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and 

practices, and a description of the actions being taken to address areas of non-compliance, the risks 

associated with such actions, together with any plans for addressing these risks, and the status of 

the implementation of such actions; and (c) procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the 

prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and that the SBI Program Office has 

adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the program, and all contracts under the 

program; including the exercise of technical oversight.

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein partially satisfy this 

condition. The DHS CPO certified that the programs met the condition’s requirements and 

referenced supporting documentation. However, the certification memorandum did not fully address 

all aspects of the condition because the assessment did not certify that the program has adequate 

staff. DHS CPO officials told us that they used the term “resources” in the certification memorandum 

to encompass both resources and program staff. However, because the memorandum did not 

specify “staff”, DHS technically did not satisfy the condition.20

20 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 8, see appendix IV. 
Page 27 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

24

Legislative Condition #9: Include Certification by the DHS 

CIO (Not Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a certification by the CIO of the Department, including all supporting 

documents and memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment review 

processes used to obtain such certification, that: (a) the system architecture of the program has been 

determined to be sufficiently aligned with the information systems enterprise architecture of the 

Department to minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of the architectures that 

were or were not assessed in making the alignment determination, the date of the alignment 

determination, and any known areas of misalignment together with the associated risks and 

corrective actions to address any such areas; (b) the program has a risk management process that 

regularly and proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and monitors risks throughout the system 

life-cycle and communicates high-risk conditions to CBP and DHS investment decision-makers, as 

well as a listing of all the program’s high risks and the status of efforts to address such risks; and (c) 

an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the projects funded 

under this heading. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein do not satisfy this 

condition. The plan includes a CIO certification memorandum; however, this certification does not 

explicitly certify the conditions required by law, including that the system architecture was sufficiently 

aligned with DHS’s architecture, that an effective risk management process is in place, and that the 

program has an independent verification and validation agent under contract. Also, the plan does not 

include or reference supporting documents or memoranda and does not contain a description of the 

investment review processes used to obtain the certification. A senior DHS CIO official told us that 

the office did not include this information in the certification memo but could not explain why this was 

not done.
Page 28 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

25

Legislative Condition #10: Include Certification by the DHS 

CHCO (Not Satisfied)

Legislative condition: Include a certification by the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) of the 

Department that the human capital needs of the SBI program are being addressed so as to 

ensure adequate staff and resources to effectively manage SBI.

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein do not satisfy

the condition. In a July 28, 2011, memorandum, the DHS CHCO declined to certify the 

BSFIT expenditure plan because the OTIA human capital plans and supporting 

documentation were unavailable during the transition from the SBI program to OTIA. Further, 

the CHCO did not address the human capital needs of the OIT WSPO and BPFTI PMO. DHS 

officials told us that they did not direct the CHCO to conduct a certification of the other two 

program offices because they focused on the legacy SBI PMO’s transition to OTIA. DHS 

officials agreed that human capital certifications in future BSFIT expenditure plans should 

address all three program management offices.21

21 For details supporting GAO’s analysis of legislative condition 10, see appendix IV. 
Page 29 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

26

Status of Legislative Conditions from 2007 through 

2011

• Our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans in fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 

have consistently shown that the plans have not satisfied all elements of the legislative 

conditions specified for each year. (See Table 3 for selected results of our reviews for 

these years.) 

• While DHS told us why certain conditions were not fully satisfied in the fiscal year 2011 

BSFIT expenditure plan—including that required elements were omitted or under 

development—these explanations were not included in the plan. Internal control standards 

for the federal government call for agencies to promptly record and clearly document 

significant events to maintain their relevance and value to decision makers in ensuring that 

their objectives are met.22

• Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative conditions were not included 

in the expenditure plan and why the elements were not included would help DHS to provide 

Congress with a more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs as well 

as reasonable assurance that CBP’s planned expenditures for its multi-billion dollar border 

security efforts are in accordance with legislative requirements. Similarly, including an 

explanation in each certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of 

the condition were or were not certified, along with references to supporting documentation, 

would provide Congress with more clarity on how and why the BSFIT programs were or 

were not certified.

22 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
Page 30 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

27

GAO Reviews of Fiscal Years 2007 - 2011 BSFIT 

Expenditure Plans

Table 3 : GAO Reviews of Fiscal Years 2007- 2011 BSFIT Expenditure Plans

Legislative Conditions FY 2007a FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

No. 1: Detailed accounting of implementation to date (including milestones and costs) Partially Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Partially 

Satisfied

No. 2: Describes how projects further the objectives of the Secure Border Initiative and 

funding is allocated according to highest priority security needs

Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

No. 3: Explicit plan of how funds obligated and how planned expenditures link to 

milestones, services, performance levels, benefits and outcomes, and program 

management capabilities 

Satisfiedb Partially 

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Partially 

Satisfied

No. 4: Identification of staffing by program office Satisfiedb Satisfied Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Satisfied

No. 5: Addresses security needs at northern border (including infrastructure, technology, 

and priorities for activities)

N/A Satisfied Partially Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

No. 6: Report on budget, obligations and expenditures and progress made to obtain 

operational control of entire U.S. border

Partially 

Satisfied

Partially 

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Partially 

Satisfied

No. 7: Listing of all open GAO and DHS OIG recommendations related to program and 

status of DHS actions to address them

N/A Satisfied Partially Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Partially 

Satisfied

No. 8: Certification by Chief Procurement Officer (DHS) Partially 

Satisfiedc

Satisfiedc Partially Satisfied Partially 

Satisfied

Partially 

Satisfied

No. 9: Certification by Chief Information Officer (DHS) Satisfiedc Partially 

Satisfiedc

Partially Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied

No. 10: Certification by Chief Human Capital Officer (DHS) N/A Satisfied Partially Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied

a Several of the legislative conditions were less detailed in fiscal year 2007 than in subsequent fiscal years, but used the same broad categories.

b In fiscal year 2007, conditions 3 and 4 were combined into one legislative condition as identifies funding and the organization staffing requirements by activity. This condition received a satisfied rating.

c Fiscal years 2007 and 2008 legislative conditions did not have a rolled-up assessment of the CPO and CIO’s certifications. In fiscal year 2007, all elements of the CPO certification were included; however, only one of three elements of the CIO legislative condition was present. GAO gave the CPO-related conditions two partially satisfied and one satisfied rating. The CIO-related condition received a satisfied rating. In fiscal year 2008, all CIO and CPO sub-criteria were present and received the same rating as is shown in this table.

Source: GAO
Page 31 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

28

Conclusions

• Based on our reviews of the current BSFIT expenditure plan and those of the previous 4 years, 

DHS has consistently not included all required elements in the plans leading to partially or not 

satisfied legislative conditions each year. While DHS told us why certain conditions were not 

fully satisfied, these reasons were not described in the plans.

• Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative conditions were not included in the 

expenditure plan and why the elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress 

with a more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs as well as the extent to 

which CBP’s planned expenditures for its multi-billion dollar border security efforts are reported in 

accordance with legislative requirements.

• Similarly, including an explanation in each certification memorandum of why all legislatively 

required elements of the condition were or were not certified, along with references to supporting 

documentation, would provide Congress with more clarity on how and why the BSFIT programs 

were or were not certified. 
Page 32 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

29

Recommendations

• To provide the Congress with the best information possible on the status and proposed 

expenditures of the programs described in any future BSFIT expenditure plan, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by 

ensuring that: 

1. explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that are not fully 

addressed; and

2. required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review processes 

used for the certifications along with references to supporting documentation for 

each relevant BSFIT-funded program.
Page 33 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS provided written comments 

which are reprinted in Appendix V. DHS concurred with our first recommendation and stated that 

CBP is committed to providing complete and thorough information in future BSFIT expenditure plans. 

DHS also concurred with our second recommendation. Further, DHS noted that the fiscal year 2011 

BSFIT expenditure plan is mandated to be an update to the fiscal year 2010 and earlier BSFIT 

expenditure plans and that CBP omitted discussions that were addressed in the earlier plans such 

as detailed program management capabilities. We recognize this point and reviewed the plan 

accordingly. For example, where changes in BSFIT programs were significant, we assessed 

whether the fiscal year 2011 plan provided current and accurate information. Specifically, regarding 

detailed program management capabilities, between the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 BSFIT 

expenditure plans, DHS reorganized its management of the acquisition, deployment, and 

integration of surveillance and detection technologies, dissolving the Secure Border Initiative 

Program management office and creating OTIA. We assessed whether the BSFIT plan addressed 

detailed program management capabilities of the new office, among other things. DHS also 

provided technical comments which we incorporated, as appropriate. 
Page 34 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

31

Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment: $185 million 

Projects:

• Agent Portable Surveillance System: portable ground-sensing radar and computer 

equipment to provide surveillance. 

• Integrated Fixed Tower: system of fixed towers, commercial sensors, and Border Patrol (BP) 

stations to provide a wide area surveillance.

• Mobile Surveillance Capabilities: suite of vehicle-mounted mobile sensory equipment to 

provide wide area surveillance. 

• Mobile Video Surveillance System: camera system mounted on a vehicle to provide 

surveillance. 

• Remote Video Surveillance System: remotely-controlled video cameras attached to towers 

or other structures for day and night surveillance. 

• Thermal Imaging Devices: device for BP agents to see clearly at an effective range in areas 

that are dimly lit or in total darkness.

• Unattended Ground Sensors and Imaging Sensors: ground detection and imaging systems 

to detect activity and transmit information.
Page 35 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

32

Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs (cont.)

Northern Border Program

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment, Operations and 

Maintenance: $46.5 million

Projects:

• Operational Integration Center: collaborative operations center for DHS, CBP, and federal, 

state, local, and Canadian partners.

• Low-Flying Aircraft Surveillance: short-range radar systems to detect low-flying aircraft.

• Aircraft Video Down Link: technology to send aircraft video imagery to BP agents on the 

ground.

• Ku Band Satellite Backhaul: technology to send aircraft video and data long distances.

• Maritime Radar: detection system for maritime traffic.

• Combined Agency Security Centers: surveillance monitoring centers that support land ports 

of entry (POE) on the northern border.23

• Border Security Deployment Project: project to deliver technologies to CASC and 

associated land POE.

• Northern Border-1: surveillance systems at Detroit, Buffalo, and Swanton Sectors, and the 

Champlain POE.

• Mobile Surveillance Capabilities: suite of vehicle-mounted mobile sensory equipment to 

provide wide area surveillance. 23 At a port of entry location, CBP officers secure the flow of people and cargo into and out of the country while facilitating legitimate travel 

and trade.
Page 36 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

33

Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs (cont.)

Legacy Surveillance Systems

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Operations and Maintenance: $61.8 million

Projects:

• Block 1 System: legacy SBInet deployment of towers with integrated day and night cameras, 

radars, unattended ground sensors and a “Common Operating Picture” that displays the 

results at a command center. Deployed to 53 miles of the Arizona border with Mexico. 

• Static Remote Video Surveillance: static cameras for day and night surveillance of fixed 

areas such as a road or tunnel. 

• Border Intrusion Surveillance System: camera system to monitor and record border 

intrusions. 

• Trailered Remote Video Surveillance: remotely-controlled cameras that are integrated on a 

mobile trailer or platform.

• Remote Video Surveillance System: remotely-controlled video cameras attached to towers 

or other structures for day and night surveillance. 

• Mobile Video Surveillance System: camera system mounted on a vehicle to provide 

surveillance. 
Page 37 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

34

Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs (cont.)

Other Technology

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment: $40.6 million

Projects:

• Open Architecture: investment to standardize interfaces for future information 

technology deployments.

• Innovative Technology Pilot Program: program to augment CBP’s selection of 

technology-based tools through testing and operational demonstrations.

• Systems Engineering/Modeling and Simulation (Technology Road Map): tool that 

will link technology capabilities to mission needs.

• Ultra Light Aircraft Detection: detection and tracking system for slow-flying aircraft.
Page 38 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

35

Appendix II: Tactical Infrastructure Program

• Since fiscal year 2006, CBP has allocated approximately $2.9 billion for TI along the 

southwest border. Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures are $25 million for TI 

deployment and $75 million for TI maintenance.

• TI includes both pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Pedestrian fencing is intended to help 

prevent people on foot from crossing the border and vehicle fencing is intended to help 

prevent vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and alien smuggling operations from crossing 

the border. 

• As of August 2011, CBP had constructed 649 miles of pedestrian and vehicle 

fencing on the 1,993-mile southwest border, covering about 33 percent of the border.
Page 39 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

36

Appendix III: Tactical Communications Modernization 

Program

• TACCOM systems such as mobile radios enable communications for CBP agents and 

officers. CBP’s fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures include $40 million on development 

and deployment of TACCOM projects and $16.4 million on TACCOM maintenance. 

Primarily funded by BSFIT in fiscal year 2011, TACCOM modernization includes the 

following projects:

• Project-25 Modernization.24

• Replacement of current voice communications infrastructure to provide 

expanded coverage and capacity, encryption to allow for secure voice 

communications, and enhanced interoperability with other federal, state, and 

local law enforcement agencies. 

• Tucson, Yuma, Rio Grande Valley, Houlton, and El Paso BP Sectors are 

receiving the Project-25 Modernization.

• Digital in Place.

• Transitions CBP analog radio equipment in the remaining 15 BP Sectors to the 

digital Project-25 interoperability standard.

• TACCOM 2

• Would enable CBP to provide voice, video, and data capabilities to end users by 

using third-party subscriber broadband wireless systems.

24 Project-25 is a suite of national standards that are intended to enable interoperability among the communications products of different vendors. 
Page 40 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

37

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1

With regard to surveillance technology investments in the Arizona Border Surveillance

Technology Plan and the Northern Border Program, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date, including completed and 

future milestones.

• Describes the system capabilities and services provided by each technology investment. 

For example, Mobile Video Surveillance Systems provides persistent video surveillance 

and situational awareness in rural, remote areas. 

• Provides mission benefits for each technology investment. For example, Low Flying 

Aircraft Surveillance provides area surveillance and situational awareness in rural, 

remote, and semi-urban areas.

• Describes the formation and organization of the OTIA Program Management Office.

• Provides system performance levels for six of the seven Arizona Border Surveillance 

Technology Plan projects and states that system performance levels are under 

development for the remaining project.

• Provides system performance levels for one of the eight Northern Border technology 

projects and states that system performance levels are under development for four of the 

Northern Border technology projects and in draft form for the other three projects.

. 
Page 41 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

38

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1 (cont.)

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:

• Do not provide outcomes for technology investments. According to OTIA officials, CBP 

is no longer measuring operational control of the border—their previous outcome 

measure. Slide 53 discusses CBP’s plans for developing a Border Condition Index as 

an outcome measure of the condition or state of the border.

Additionally, with regard to surveillance technology investments in the Arizona Border 

Surveillance Technology Plan and Northern Border program, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Provides cost targets for four of the seven Arizona Border Surveillance Technology 

plan projects—including life cycle costs.25 For the remaining three projects, the BSFIT 

expenditure plan states that life cycle cost estimates are under development or being 

revised. 

25 A life cycle cost estimate provides the total cost to the Government of acquisition and ownership of the system over its full life time. It includes the cost of development, acquisition, operations and support, and (where applicable) disposal.
Page 42 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

39

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1 (cont.)

The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein:

• Do not provide cost targets for any of the eight Northern Border program projects. The 

BSFIT expenditure plan states that cost targets are in development for two Northern 

Border projects and does not provide life cycle cost information on the remaining 6 

projects.

• Do not describe the methodology used to obtain cost figures or identify the maximum 

investment required for each technology investment with life cycle costs specified. For 

example the expenditure plan estimates Thermal Imaging Devices will cost 

approximately $10.4 million for acquisition, operation, and maintenance over 10 years, 

but does not describe the methodology used to obtain cost figures. 

• Do not detail the OTIA Program Management Office’s program management 

capabilities. For example, the expenditure plan states that the OTIA Program 

Management office oversees planning, staffing, organizing, and leading the 

management of specific acquisition programs, but the plan does not detail specific 

responsibilities regarding the projects in the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology 

plan or the projects along the northern border.
Page 43 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

40

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1 (cont.)

With regard to technology investments in TACCOM, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date with completed and future 

milestones.

• Describes the mission benefits, capabilities and services of TACCOM as providing increased secure coverage, capability, reliability, and improved interoperability to CBP law enforcement officers and agents. 

• Provides the system performance level as meeting 95 percent of coverage 

requirements in the sectors undergoing TACCOM modernization. 

• Names the program office that manages TACCOM: OIT-WSPO. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:

• Do not describe the OIT-WSPO’s program management capabilities. The plan states that OIT-WSPO manages the entire scope of the existing TACCOM program, but does not provide specific program management capabilities.

• Do not include the cost target, the maximum investment including life cycle costs, or the methodology used to obtain TACCOM cost figures. 

• Do not provide outcomes for TACCOM modernization. 
Page 44 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

41

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1 (cont.)

With regard to investments in TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date with completed and future 

milestones.

• Describes the capabilities and services provided as pedestrian fencing, vehicle 

fencing, and roads. 

• Describes the mission benefits of TI as persistent impedance of illicit cross-border 

activity and facilitating agent access to border regions.

• Provides system performance levels for TI projects including pedestrian and vehicle 

fencing as well as roads. For example, vehicle fencing should have the capability of 

disabling a 6,000 pound vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour.

• Provides a cost target, the maximum investment with life cycle costs and the 

methodology used to determine cost figures. 

• Names the program office responsible for managing TI projects—BPFTI PMO.

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:

• Do not detail the BPFTI PMO’s program management capabilities. The plan states 

that the BPFTI PMO plans, constructs, and maintains TI, but does not detail specific 

program management capabilities.

• Do not provide an outcome for TI.
Page 45 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

42

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 2

The BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Describes how each project furthers the objectives of the QHSR and CBP’s 

Missions, Goals, and Priorities FY 2011-2013. The expenditure plan does 

not reference the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan because, according to 

OTIA officials, that plan is no longer in use. However, the goals and 

objectives outlined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan align with the 

goals and objectives of the QHSR and CBP’s Missions, Goals, and 

Priorities, FY 2011-2013 (see Table 4).
Page 46 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

43

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Table 4: Comparison of Goals and Objectives in DHS Secure Border Plan, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Customs and Border 

Protection’s Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013

Secure Border Strategic Plan, 

2006

Quadrennial Homeland Security 

Review Report, 2010

CBP’s Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013 

• Goal 1: Gain Effective Control of 

the Border

• Goal 2.1: Effectively Control U.S. Air, 

Land, and Sea Borders

• Goal 1.1: Secure the Southwest Border

• Goal 1.2: Secure the Northern Border, Littoral Borders, 

and Associated Airspace

• 1.1 Develop and deploy the 

optimal mix of personnel, 

infrastructure technology, and 

response capabilities to 

identify, classify, and interdict 

cross-border violators.

• Objective: Prevent the illegal flow of 

people and goods across the U.S. air, 

land, and sea borders while expediting 

the safe flow of lawful travel and 

commerce.

• Objective 1.1.1: Reduce the illicit flows and crimes 

associated with smuggling at and between the ports of 

entry in Arizona in order to reduce criminality, illegal 

migration, and the threat of terrorism

• Objective 1.1.3: Build a mobile and flexible response 

capability to anticipate and respond to security threats

• Objective 1.2.1: Secure the northern border through 

an integrated approach to border enforcement 

• Objective 1.2.2: Secure the littorals and continental 

airspace

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 2 (cont.)
Page 47 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

44

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 2 (cont.)

Regarding the allocation of funds to the highest priority border security needs, the BSFIT

expenditure plan:

• Describes securing the southwest border, specifically reducing the illicit flows and 

crimes associated with smuggling at and between the ports of entry in Arizona, as a 

priority. 

• States that funds are allocated based on operational assessments of the threats and 

vulnerabilities to the nation’s borders. While the expenditure plan states that all 

operational assessments of BP sectors are not complete, the operational 

assessment for the Tucson sector is complete. 

• Provides a description of how TI operations and maintenance funds were allocated 

based on operational requirements. For example, the expenditure plan states that an 

analysis of operational requirements resulted in the allocation of TI funds to replace primary pedestrian fencing in Nogales, Douglas, and Naco, Arizona—considered the 

highest priority TI projects.
Page 48 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

45

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 3

The BSFIT expenditure plan describes fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures, including 

surveillance technology, TACCOM and TI. Table 5 summarizes the planned expenditure of 

fiscal year 2011 funds. 

Source: CBP. 

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Expenditures

Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Expenditures

($ in millions)

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan 185.0

Northern Border Program 46.5

TACCOM 56.4

TI 100.0

Border Surveillance Technology 68.1

Other Technology Projects 40.6

Program Management 76.4

Total 573.0
Page 49 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

46

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 3 (cont.)

With regard to technology investments for both the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology 

Plan and Northern Border program, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Describes planned expenditures for each technology investment for fiscal year 2011, 

including development and deployment and operations and maintenance. For example, 

the plan describes $5.1 million for development and deployment of Integrated Fixed 

Towers and $5 million for operations and maintenance of Combined Agency Security 

Centers along the northern border. 

• Describes milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities (e.g. contract awards and deliveries for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems), system performance levels, services, 

and mission benefits, but does not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. 

For example, Mobile Video Surveillance Systems are to detect items of interest during 

night and day operations at a range that is effective to provide a system operator with 

sufficient resolution to determine if an item of interest is human, vehicle, or animal. The 

expenditure plan does not link the cost of these system performance levels to fiscal year 

2011 planned expenditures. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein:

• Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link these to fiscal 

year 2011 planned expenditures. 
Page 50 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

47

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 3 (cont.)

With regard to technology investments in TACCOM, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Describes planned expenditures for fiscal year 2011 including development and 

deployment ($40 million) and operations and maintenance ($16.4 million). 

• Describes milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities (e.g., contract awards for commodity purchases), system performance levels for the system as a whole, services, 

and mission benefits, but did not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. 

For example, TACCOM has a target of meeting 95 percent of identified coverage 

requirements in sectors undergoing full modernization. The expenditure plan and 

documents referenced therein do not link this level of coverage to fiscal year 2011 

planned expenditures. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:

• Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link these to fiscal 

year 2011 planned expenditures.
Page 51 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

48

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 3 (cont.)

With regard to TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan:

• Provides planned expenditures for fiscal year 2011 including development and 

deployment ($25 million) and operations and maintenance ($75 million).

• Links milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities to the fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example, conducting all activities for fence replacement construction 

in Nogales, Arizona, is expected to cost $10.4 million. 

• Describes system performance levels, capabilities, services, and mission benefits, but 

does not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example, the BSFIT 

expenditure plan mentions providing for safe use and maintainability of steep grades as 

a performance requirement for roads, but does not provide the fiscal year 2011 planned 

expenditures needed to meet this level of performance. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein:

• Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures.
Page 52 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

49

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 4

The BSFIT expenditure plan identifies staffing by program office for organizations that

execute BSFIT funds. As of April 28, 2011, CBP’s program offices executing BSFIT funds

identified approved staffing at 403 employees, including government full-time equivalents,

Contractors, and detailees (see Table 6). 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Table 6: BSFIT-Funded Approved Staff as of April 28, 2011

Government 

Employees

Contract 

Employees

Detailees Total

OTIA Program Management Office 161 105 5 271

CBP Office of Administration 19 0 0 19

CBP Office of Information and Technology 7 63 0 70

BPFTI 15 26 2 43

Total 202 194 7 403
Page 53 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

50

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 5

The BSFIT expenditure plan describes how security needs are addressed at the northern 

border and ports of entry including: 

• Infrastructure. For example, procurements are under way to increase the monitoring capability for the Detroit Operational Integration Center, including a hardware and 

services acquisition for sensor infrastructure and construction of a tower site in Grosse 

Pointe, Michigan.

• Technology. For example, $5 million of fiscal year 2011 appropriated funds are planned for the procurement, deployment, and first year of operation for up to four maritime radar 

systems to the Buffalo Sector.

• Design and Operations Requirements. For example, $2.1 million of fiscal year 2011 appropriated funds for the acquisition of Mobile Surveillance Capabilities on the northern 

border is to provide Border Patrol with operational capabilities such as detection, 

identification, and tracking.

• Specific locations. For example, $5 million of fiscal year 2011 appropriated funds are planned to support operations and maintenance of rural land POE surveillance systems in 

Maine through April 2012.

• Priorities for northern border activities. Projects align to the missions, goals, and objectives under the QHSR and the CBP Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013

by providing mission benefits such as improved situational awareness, collection of 

intelligence, detection of suspicious activity, and illegal smuggling or entry.
Page 54 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

51

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

.

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 6

• The BSFIT expenditure plan reports on appropriations, obligations, and expenditures for 

fiscal years 2006 through 2011 (see Table 7).

Table 7: BSFIT Funding Summary as of June 28, 2011 ($ in millions)

Activity Funding 

Received

Obligated Unobligated Balance Expenditures

Program Management 332.2 294.8 37.3 234.4

OTIA/SBI 1,607.8 1,225.2 382.6 1,065.2

TACCOM 207.8 110.0 97.8 43.4

TI 2,652.2 2,534.8 117.4 2,260.9

BSFIT Total 4,799.9 4,164.8 635.1 3,604.0

Source: CBP data.

Note: Amounts may not add to totals because of rounding. Distributed funds do not always match appropriated funds because of the status of 

recoveries and their redistribution by CBP.
Page 55 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

52

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 6 (cont.)

• The BSFIT expenditure plan discusses completed activities, including:

• As of June 2011 CBP had completed 351 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299 

miles of vehicle fencing. 

• CBP deployed 250 Remote Video Surveillance Systems on the southwest 

border. 

• CBP deployed 38 Mobile Surveillance Systems along the southwest border. 

• The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein do not discuss the 

progress made in obtaining operational control of the border. CBP no longer uses operational control as a measure of border security. Instead, the plan measures 

progress in securing the border through output measures such as seizures and 

apprehensions.26

26 Output measures are performance measures that address the direct products and services delivered by a program, while outcome measures focus on 

the results of products and services. See GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-11-646SP (Washington, 

D.C.: May 2011). 
Page 56 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

53

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 6 (cont.)

CBP is currently developing three new performance measures to measure security at the

southwest border, including: 

• A CBP-led initiative to estimate total illegal crossings at the southwest border and the 

probability of apprehension. This measure, based on a Homeland Security Institute 

statistical model using apprehension and recidivism data, is to consider data from 

external sources, such as census data.27 CBP expects to introduce this measure in 

February 2012. 

• A CBP-led initiative to develop a “Border Condition Index” outcome measure of the 

condition or state of the border. CBP expects to introduce this measure in February 

2012. 

• A BP-led initiative to standardize and strengthen metrics that had formerly supported 

the operational control measure. As part of this effort, BP is finalizing its 2012-2016 

Border Patrol National Strategy and developing measures to support the 

implementation of this strategy. BP plans to introduce these measures in fiscal year 

2013. 

27 Established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6.U.S.C. § 192, the Homeland Security Institute is a specialized studies and analysis Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center to assist DHS in addressing homeland security issues, particularly issues requiring scientific, technical, and analytical 

expertise.
Page 57 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

54

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 7

As of September 2011, there are six open recommendations from two GAO reports for BSFIT 

funded programs.28

The expenditure plan lists all six of the open GAO recommendations.

• In September 2009, we recommended that CBP conduct a cost-effective evaluation of the 

impact of tactical infrastructure on effective control of the border. The expenditure plan 

describes CBP actions to address this recommendation with an analysis of the 

effectiveness of border fencing and provides a February 2012 completion date for this 

analysis.

• For the five recommendations we made in May 2011, the expenditure plan and documents 

referenced therein provide general information on planned CBP actions but do not provide 

milestones for addressing the recommendations. For example, we recommended that CBP 

establish procedures for coordinating with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to 

monitor the status of closeout audits related to the original SBInet program. While the 

expenditure plan notes CBP is developing an electronic database to track closeout audits, 

the plan does not provide milestones as to when the database will be operational or how 

this will ensure coordination with DCAA.

The DHS Office of Inspector General has two open recommendations related to BSFIT-funded 

programs. The expenditure plan lists both recommendations; however, the plan does not include 

milestones to address one of the two recommendations.

28 GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed, GAO-09-896 (Washington, D.C.: Sept 9, 2009) 

and GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Controls over Contractor Payments for the Technology Component Need Improvement, GAO-11-68 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011).
Page 58 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

55

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 8

On June 28, 2011, the DHS CPO certified that the BSFIT-funded programs: 

• were reviewed in accordance with the DHS Capital Planning and Investment Control process, 

which complies with the requirements set forth in the OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, as well as the 

DHS Acquisition Management Review Process. 

• have adequate processes in place to ensure compliance with federal acquisition rules, 

requirements, guidelines, and practices. 

• have established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and 

major subcontractors. 

The certification letter did not specifically certify that the BSFIT-funded programs have

adequate staff to effectively manage the programs and contracts. DHS CPO officials told us that

they used the term “resources” in the certification memorandum to encompass both resources 

and program staff. Further, CPO officials stated that they consider staffing levels to be adequate 

given the increase in the staffing level from 36 percent of authorized staffing in fiscal year 2010 to 

88 percent in fiscal year 2011. However, because the memorandum did not specify “staff”, DHS 

technically did not satisfy the condition.
Page 59 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

56

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis (cont.)

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 10

In its memorandum, the DHS CHCO recommended a provisional certification of the OTIA Human 

Capital Strategic Plan based, in part, upon the timely completion of three items: 

• OTIA Workforce Plan—estimated completion February 2012

This plan is to identify anticipated workforce needs, including goals and strategies to meet 

those needs, and performance targets that measure success in meeting those goals. 

• OTIA Human Capital Plan—estimated completion March 2012 

This plan is to outline human capital management goals, actions, timeline and

milestones, measurements, and the responsible accountability program official. According 

to DHS CHCO officials, the plan is to align to the DHS Workforce Strategy for FY2011-

FY2016.

• OTIA Human Capital Implementation Framework—estimated completion May 2012.

This document is to describe how OTIA plans to implement the Human Capital Plan

in management areas such as developing leaders and growing the workforce.

The DHS CHCO memorandum focused on OTIA human capital needs, but it did not address human 

capital needs for the other BSFIT-funded programs, including tactical infrastructure—managed by 

BPFTI PMO—or TACCOM—managed by OIT-WSPO. 
Page 60 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

57

Appendix V: Comments from DHS
Page 61 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure 

Appendix V: Comments from DHS

58
Page 62 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

59

Related GAO Products

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and Costs Is Needed

before Proceeding. GAO-12-22. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 2011.

Secure Border Initiative: Controls over Contractor Payments for the Technology Component

Need Improvement. GAO-11-68. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011.

Border Security: DHS Progress and Challenges in Securing the U.S. Southwest and Northern

Borders. GAO-11-508T. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2011.

Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Key Southwest Border

Technology Programs. GAO-11-448T. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2011.

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Strengthen Management and Oversight of Its Prime

Contractor. GAO-11-6. Washington, D.C.: October 18, 2010.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and

Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan. GAO-10-877R. Washington, D.C.: July 30,

2010.

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Follow Through on Plans to Reassess and Better

Manage Key Technology Program. GAO-10-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010.
Page 63 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

60

Related GAO Products (cont.)

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed Investment in Key

Technology Program. GAO-10-340. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010.

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Has Faced Challenges Deploying Technology and Fencing 

Along the Southwest Border. GAO-10-651T. Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2010.

Secure Border Initiative: Testing and Problem Resolution Challenges Put Delivery of 

Technology Program at Risk. GAO-10-511T. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2010.

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and Performance Limitations That 

Place Key Technology Program at Risk. GAO-10-158. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2010.

Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the Impact of Border 

Fencing Has Not Been Assessed. GAO-09-1013T. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2009.

Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the Impact of Border 

Fencing Has Not Been Assessed. GAO-09-896. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure 

Plan. GAO-09-274R. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2009. 
Page 64 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

61

Related GAO Products (cont.)

Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs. GAO-09-244R. Washington, D.C.: 

January 29, 2009.

Northern Border Security: DHS’s Report Could Better Inform Congress by Identifying Actions, 

Resources, and Time Frames Needed to Address Vulnerabilities. GAO-09-93. Washington, 

D.C.: November 25, 2008.

Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs Lack Appropriate 

Oversight. GAO-09-29. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in Delivering Key 

Technology Investment. GAO-08-1086. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in Delivering Key 

Technology Investment. GAO-08-1148T. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Deployment Challenges. GAO-08-1141T. 

Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows Improvement, but 

Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS Accountability. GAO-08-739R. 

Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008.
Page 65 GAO-12-106R Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan 

Enclosure

62

Related GAO Products (cont.)

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Oversight Needed to Improve 

Complex Service Acquisition Outcomes. GAO-08-765T. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008.

Homeland Security: DHS Has Taken Actions to Strengthen Border Security Programs and 

Operations, but Challenges Remain. GAO-08-542T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008.

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed to Improve 

Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. GAO-08-263. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying Lessons Learned to 

Future Projects. GAO-08-508T. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet Program 

Implementation. GAO-08-131T. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2007.

Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements Needed to Control 

Risks. GAO-07-504T. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2007.

Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better Support Oversight and

Accountability. GAO-07-309. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2007.

(440995)

(440995)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs