Department of Homeland Security
 

CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the 


Nation’s Border Security 


OIG-12-85 May 2012
 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

 

              

         

         

         

     

         

  

                 

   

  

                             

                      

                  

                       

                          

                    

                     

                         

                     

                        

                 

                          

                       

                       

                     

                   

             

                              

                 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

MAY 30 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR:	 Michael C. Kostelnik

Assistant Commissioner

Office of Air and Marine

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

FROM:	 Anne L. Richards

SUBJECT:	 CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Nation’s

Border Security

Attached for your action is our final report, CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in

the Nation’s Border Security. We incorporated the formal comments from the U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the final report.

The report contains four recommendations aimed at improving CBP’s use of unmanned

aircraft systems in the Nation’s border security. Your office concurred with all four

recommendations. As prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security Directive

077‐1, Follow‐Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector General Report

Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide our

office with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement,

(2) corrective action plan, and (3) target completion date for each recommendation.

Also, please include responsible parties and any other supporting documentation

necessary to inform us about the current status of the recommendation. Until your

response is received and evaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and

unresolved.

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing

copies of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post

the report on our website for public dissemination

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John E. McCoy II,

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254‐4100.

Attachment
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 


Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 


Results of Review................................................................................................................ 3 


CBP Needs To Improve Planning of Its UAS Program To Maximize Operations .... 3 

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 7 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................... 8 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................................ 11 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................... 13 


Appendix C: DHS OIG Estimated Computation of Mission Availability .............. 16
 

Appendix D: Major Contributors to This Report ................................................ 17 


Appendix E: Report Distribution ........................................................................ 18 


Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

FY fiscal year 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

NASOC National Air Security Operations Center 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OAM Office of Air and Marine 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

RSTA reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, and acquisition 

UAS unmanned aircraft system 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary 

We conducted a review of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) actions to establish 

its unmanned aircraft systems program. The purpose of the program is to provide 

reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, and acquisition capabilities across all CBP areas 

of responsibility. Our objective was to determine whether CBP has established an 

adequate operation plan to define, prioritize, and execute its unmanned aircraft 

mission. 

CBP had not adequately planned resources needed to support its current unmanned 

aircraft inventory. Although CBP developed plans to use the unmanned aircraft’s 

capabilities in its Office of Air and Marine mission, its Concept of Operations planning 

document did not adequately address processes (1) to ensure that required operational 

equipment, such as ground control stations and ground support equipment, is provided 

for each launch and recovery site; (2) for stakeholders to submit unmanned aircraft 

mission requests; (3) to determine how mission requests are prioritized; and (4) to 

obtain reimbursement for missions flown on stakeholders’ behalf. This approach places 

CBP at risk of having invested substantial resources in a program that underutilizes 

resources and limits its ability to achieve Office of Air and Marine mission goals. 

CBP needs to improve planning of its unmanned aircraft system program to address its 

level of operation, program funding, and resource requirements, along with stakeholder 

needs. We made four recommendations that will aid CBP in maximizing the use of 

unmanned aircraft. CBP management concurred with all four recommendations. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-12-85 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background 

The mission of the Office of Air and Marine (OAM) is to protect the American people and 

the Nation’s critical infrastructure through the coordinated use of integrated air and 

marine forces. Air and marine forces are used to detect, interdict, and prevent acts of 

terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband 

toward or across U.S. borders. The unmanned aircraft system (UAS) provides command, 

control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability to 

complement crewed aircraft and watercraft, and ground interdiction agents. A UAS is 

composed of a long-endurance, medium-altitude remotely piloted aircraft, ground 

control station, ground data terminal, data and voice communications, and other 

ground support equipment required to operate and maintain the system. UASs provide 

reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, and acquisition (RSTA) capabilities across all CBP 

areas of responsibility. 

CBP began UAS operations in fiscal year (FY) 2004 with a pilot study conducted by the 

Office of Border Patrol to determine the feasibility of using UASs in the southwest 

border region. The pilot study proved the UAS was successful in providing RSTA and 

actionable intelligence to Border Patrol ground agents. In addition, the study concluded 

that UASs provided unique law enforcement capabilities, such as the ability to carry a 

variety of sensors and payloads and to remain airborne for extended periods without 

the limitations imposed by requiring onboard pilots. CBP has since expanded UAS 

operations to the Caribbean, gulf, and northern border regions. 

CBP reported that, subsequent to the FY 2004 pilot, Congress appropriated approximately 

$240.6 million to establish a UAS program within CBP. CBP also reported that it has 

expended $152.3 million to purchase nine aircraft and related equipment. CBP had 

seven operational aircraft during our review. CBP received two additional aircraft in late 

2011. CBP was awaiting delivery of a tenth aircraft purchased with FY 2011 funds. Each 

aircraft system costs approximately $18 million. In June 2011, CBP had 23 pilots who 

were capable of launching and recovering unmanned aircraft. UAS missions are 

launched and recovered from National Air Security Operation Centers (NASOCs) in Sierra 

Vista, Arizona; Corpus Christi, Texas; Cocoa Beach, Florida; and Grand Forks, North 

Dakota. An unmanned aircraft mission crew generally consists of a Command Duty 

Officer, Pilot-in-Command, Sensor Operator, and one or more contract technicians. 

Figure 1 shows a Predator B aircraft with the maritime radar enhancement. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 Figure 1. Guardian, the maritime variant of the Predator B. 


 Source: CBP Sierra Vista, Arizona, NASOC 


Results of Review 

CBP Needs To Improve Planning of Its UAS Program To Maximize Operations 

CBP had not adequately planned for resources needed to support the current 

unmanned aircraft inventory. Although CBP developed plans to utilize the 

unmanned aircraft’s capabilities in its OAM mission, its Concept of Operations 

planning document did not adequately address processes (1) to ensure that 

required operational equipment, such as ground control stations and ground 

support equipment, is available for each launch and recovery site; (2) for 

stakeholders to submit unmanned aircraft mission requests; (3) to determine 

how mission requests are prioritized; and (4) to obtain reimbursement for 

missions flown on stakeholders’ behalf. This approach places CBP at risk of 

having invested substantial resources in a program that underutilizes resources 

and limits its ability to achieve OAM mission goals. 

Resource Planning 

CBP has not ensured that adequate resources are available to effectively operate 

its unmanned aircraft. CBP’s Strategic Plan requires the agency to develop and 

implement a planning framework to incorporate investment, resource, and 

program management processes to ensure that CBP can acquire and effectively 

manage its resources. The plan requires CBP to accomplish its high-priority 

missions and objectives in a way that maximizes return on investment. CBP 

procured unmanned aircraft before implementing adequate plans to do the 

following: 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-12-85
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Department of Homeland Security 

Achieve the desired level of operation;

Acquire sufficient funding to provide necessary operations, maintenance,

and equipment; and 

Coordinate and support stakeholder needs. 

UAS Level of Operation 

CBP has not achieved its scheduled nor desired levels of flight hours of its 

unmanned aircraft. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) estimates that, based 

on the contract performance specifications, seven UASs should support 10,662

flight hours per year to meet the mission availability threshold (minimum

capability) and 13,328 flight hours to meet the mission availability objective

(desired capability). However, resource shortfalls of qualified staff and

equipment coupled with restrictions imposed by the Federal Aviation

Administration, weather, host airfields, and others have resulted in CBP

scheduling just 7,336 flight hours for its seven unmanned aircraft and limited

actual flight hours to 3,909 hours. This usage represents 37 percent of the 

unmanned aircraft’s mission availability threshold and 29 percent of its mission

availability objective. Despite the current underutilization of unmanned aircraft,

CBP received two additional aircraft in late 2011 and was awaiting delivery of a 

tenth aircraft in 2012. See appendix C for mission availability threshold and

objective computations.

Funding of Operations and Maintenance

CBP reported that, since the UAS program’s inception, Congress has

appropriated a total of $12.6 million for operations and maintenance. The 

operations and maintenance funding category includes training, satellite links,

facility rental, and contractor support. CBP also reported that from FY 2006

through FY 2011, it expended $55.3 million for operations and maintenance, but 

has not made a specific operations and maintenance budget request for the UAS

program. This has resulted in a budget shortfall. According to CBP, it was

required to transfer approximately $25 million from other programs in FY 2010

to address operations and maintenance funding shortfalls. As a result of CBP’s

insufficient funding approach, future UAS missions may have to be curtailed.

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-12-85
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Department of Homeland Security 

Funding of Equipment

CBP has not adequately planned to fund unmanned aircraft-related equipment.

The procurement funding category includes aircraft and related equipment, such

as ground control stations, ground support equipment, cameras, and navigation 

systems. This approach has resulted in insufficient equipment to perform UAS

missions. For example:

Corpus Christi NASOC received a maritime version of the Predator

aircraft, which was placed in service in February 2011, but Corpus Christi

did not receive a compatible ground control station. As a result, the 

Corpus Christi NASOC was not initially able to use the system’s SeaVue 

maritime radar capability. However, Cocoa Beach NASOC transferred its

backup ground control station to Corpus Christi to facilitate mission

operations. A compatible ground control station is expected to be

delivered in May 2012. This transfer was required because Corpus Christi

was not designed for launch and recovery operations. 

On at least three occasions, NASOC Grand Forks could not conduct flight 

operations because maintenance could not be performed due to lack of

ground support equipment. One aircraft was down for 4 days in January

2011 due to lack of wing-jacks and 3 days in February due to lack of gojacks and fuselage stands. Another aircraft was down for 2 days in 

February 2011 due to lack of go-jacks and fuselage stands. Ground

support equipment must be transferred from one NASOC to another

because each NASOC does not have its own equipment.

CBP does not have an adequate number of ground control stations to

ensure safe operations. CBP’s MQ-9 Supplement to the Aviation

Operations Handbook requires a permanent ground control station and a 

mobile ground control station for the safe operation of unmanned 

aircraft. The handbook requires NASOC directors to submit written

requests for relief from any provision of the handbook to the Executive 

Director of Test, Training, Safety, and Standards. At the time of our 

fieldwork, three of four NASOCs were operating without the required 

mobile backup ground control stations. However, only one of four

NASOCs was granted a waiver to operate without this equipment.

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-12-85
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Department of Homeland Security 

Stakeholder Needs 

CBP’s planning has not adequately addressed coordination and support of 

stakeholders. Although CBP identified stakeholders and has flown missions on

their behalf, it has not implemented a formal process for stakeholders to submit 

mission requests and has not implemented a formal procedure to determine 

how mission requests are prioritized. It also does not have agreements with

exterior stakeholders for reimbursement of mission costs.

An OAM manager and stakeholders we interviewed said that CBP had flown 

missions to support the following stakeholders: 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies, including Office of

Border Patrol, United States Secret Service, Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), and Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE); 

Bureau of Land Management; 

Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

Department of Defense;

Texas Rangers;

United States Forest Service; and

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Also, OAM management and stakeholders we interviewed discussed the

following examples of missions performed by the UAS program:

Provided NOAA with videos of dams, bridges, levees, and riverbeds

where flooding occurred or was threatened; 

Provided FEMA with video/radar images of flooding; 

Provided surveillance over a suspected smuggler’s tunnel, which yielded 

information that, according to an ICE representative, would have 

required many cars and agents to obtain; 

Provided radar mapping, or overlying radar images taken a few days

apart, to show changes in location of flooding, allowing the National

Guard to deploy high-water vehicles and sandbags to where they were

most needed; 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-12-85
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Department of Homeland Security 

At the request of the State Department, participated in discussions with

another country on the use of unmanned aircraft; 

Participated in joint efforts with the U.S. Army to leverage capabilities of 

unmanned aircraft and test new technology; and 

Participated in efforts to establish a quarterly forum to share lessons

learned with the Air Force and other government agencies. 

Stakeholders we interviewed from NOAA, ICE, FEMA, and the Army National

Guard were generally satisfied with support provided by the UAS program.

However, they were unaware of a formal process to request UAS support and of

how CBP prioritizes missions. CBP included a process to satisfy requests for UAS 

support in its Concept of Operations for CBP’s Predator B Unmanned Aircraft

System, FY 2010 Report to Congress, but this process was not implemented.

Instead, tasking decisions are usually made by the Director of Air Operations at 

the NASOC with responsibility for the area of the stakeholder surveillance

requirement. Missions are requested by various means, including from

headquarters, Border Patrol agents, local law enforcement agencies, and other 

Federal agencies. We interviewed four stakeholders, three of whom

recommended a standardized process to request UAS missions. A standardized 

process would provide transparency and ensure that requests are processed in a 

timely, predictable manner. This process would allow stakeholders to better

plan their operations to meet mission needs. 

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as 

amended, provides a system by which a Presidential disaster declaration of an 

emergency triggers financial assistance through FEMA. CBP seeks reimbursement

for services provided to FEMA under this Act since Federal agencies may be 

reimbursed for expenditures from the Act’s appropriations. However, CBP does

not have agreements to obtain reimbursement for missions flown on behalf of 

other stakeholders. When appropriate and authorized by law, obtaining

reimbursement for such missions would provide additional funding needed for

staff, operations and maintenance, and essential equipment.

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and Marine: 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-12-85
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #1: 

Analyze requirements and develop plans to achieve the UAS mission availability 

objective and acquire funding to provide necessary operations, maintenance, 

and equipment. 

Recommendation #2: 

Develop and implement procedures to coordinate and support stakeholders’ 

mission requests. 

Recommendation #3: 

Establish interagency agreements with external stakeholders for reimbursement 

of expenses incurred fulfilling mission requests where authorized by law. 

Recommendation #4: 

Postpone additional UAS purchases until recommendation #1 has been 

implemented. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP submitted formal comments to our report, and a copy of its response is 

included as appendix B. CBP also provided technical comments, and we have 

made changes to the report based on those comments. Additionally, CBP 

concurred with all recommendations, and our analysis of its concurrence follows. 

Recommendation #1: Analyze requirements and develop plans to achieve the 

UAS mission availability objective and acquire funding to provide necessary 

operations, maintenance, and equipment. 

Management Response: CBP stated that it has established the Strategic Air and 

Marine Plan, which defines its planned UAS acquisition and sustainment over the 

next 5 years. This plan is based on the Concept of Operations and Operations 

Requirements Documents, which define the specific capabilities needed to 

achieve assigned homeland security missions. CBP added that funding requests 

are developed to support the UAS portion of the Strategic Air and Marine Plan; 

however, the actual funding is subject to changing Department and Agency 

criteria. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Analysis: CBP’s comments do not appear to address the recommendation, 

which will remain open and unresolved until CBP provides specific documentation 

that details how it plans to achieve the UAS mission availability objective and 

acquire funding to provide necessary operations, maintenance, and equipment. 

Recommendation #2: Develop and implement procedures to coordinate and 

support stakeholders’ mission requests. 

Management Response: CBP stated that it has implemented flexible and 

responsive procedures to coordinate and support stakeholders’ requests for 

deployment of the UAS when deemed appropriate. 

OIG Analysis: CBP comments appear to be responsive to this recommendation, 

which will remain open and unresolved until the OIG has received and evaluated 

the written procedures to coordinate and support stakeholders’ mission 

requests. 

Recommendation #3: Establish interagency agreements with external 

stakeholders for reimbursement of expenses incurred fulfilling mission requests 

where authorized by law. 

Management Response: CBP stated that efforts are under way at DHS to 

address the issue of reimbursement for expenses incurred fulfilling external UAS 

missions, and there are procedures for reimbursement for mission sets that fall 

outside the normal scope. CBP also stated that it currently establishes 

interagency agreements with government agency partners for resourcing efforts 

that fall outside the scope of normal mission sets. This typically involves using 

CBP unmanned aircraft to demonstrate new technologies, capabilities, and 

tactics. 

OIG Analysis: CBP comments appear to be responsive to the recommendation, 

which will remain open and unresolved until the OIG has received and evaluated 

the corrective action plan developed by DHS that addresses how CBP will obtain 

reimbursement for expenses incurred fulfilling mission request where authorized 

by law. 

Recommendation #4: Postpone additional UAS purchases until 

recommendation #1 has been implemented. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Response: CBP stated that it currently has no plan to expand the 

UAS fleet beyond the 10 systems already in operation or on order, unless 

directed to do so by higher authority. 

OIG Analysis: CBP comments do not fully address the intent of the 

recommendation, because it indicated there are no plans to expand the UAS 

fleet unless directed by higher authority. The recommendation will remain open 

and unresolved until the OIG has received and evaluated the corrective action 

plan related to recommendation #1. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

The DHS OIG was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107­

296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of 

audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities 

to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

Our review objective was to determine whether CBP has established an adequate 

operation plan to define, prioritize, and execute its UAS mission. To accomplish our 

objective, we reviewed CBP policies, procedures, and plans to establish the UAS 

program, including the UAS Mission Needs Statement, Operation Requirements 

Document, Acquisition Plan for the CBP Strategic Air and Marine Plan, Strategic 

Implementation Plan, and Concept of Operations. 

We conducted analysis related to planning and operation of the UAS program. We also 

observed operations at the Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, California; 

the Joint Field Command in Tucson, Arizona; and the National Air Security Operation 

Centers in Cocoa Beach, Florida, and Sierra Vista, Arizona. 

We reviewed Office of Air and Marine plans to establish performance management for 

the UAS program in the Concept of Operations for CBP’s Predator B Unmanned Aircraft 

System and Office of Air and Marine Strategic Implementation Plan. We also reviewed 

the FY 2009–2014 Strategic Plan and the framework detailed in the Summary of 

Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2010. We reviewed pertinent laws 

and regulations, including the DHS Acquisition Management Directive and best practices 

of the Project Management Institute. 

To gain an understanding of internal control that is significant within the context of the 

review objective, we interviewed representatives from OAM’s National Air Security 

Operations; Mission Support; Budget Formulation; Budget Execution; UAS Acquisitions; 

and Training, Safety and Standards. We also interviewed stakeholders from FEMA, 

NOAA, ICE, and the North Dakota Army National Guard. We reviewed funding, costs, 

and operation records, including congressional appropriations, contract actions, flight 

and maintenance logs, property records, and expenditures incurred to transfer 

equipment and crew to meet mission requirements. We observed CBP’s accounting 

system, including reports of purchase orders and funded contracts. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Council 

of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-12-85 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

! 300 Per.nsy["ania Avenue KW 

V'hshinglon, DC 20229 

u. S. CUstoms and 

Bomer Prot~ction 

April 4. 2012 

Cha rle .. K. Euwarrls 

Acting I nspector General 

Department of Homeland Security 

245 Murray Drive. SW, Building 410 

Washington, DC 20528 

Re: OIG Draft Report Entitled, "esP's Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in 

Lhe Nation's Rorder Security - For Official Use Only" OIG Project 

Number II-023-AUD-CBP (OIG- ll-{)8 8-AUD-CBP) 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. U.S. 

Customs and Horder Protection (COP) appreciates the Office of Inspector General's 

(OIG's) work in planning and conducting its review and issuing this report. 

CBP is pleased to note [he OIG's acknu\NIeJgellll::nt of its Concept of Operations 

amI uLher planning documenUslo utilize the unmanned aircratts' capabilities in its 

missions. CBr is also pleased the OIG recognized its missions rerformtxl rOT a wide 

range or stakt:holders, and included the general satisraction of these customers with the 

support provided. 

The OIG addressed four recommendations to the Assistant Commissioner, Office 

or Air and Marine.. 

Recommendation I: Analyze requirements and develop plans to Hchievt: the Unmanned 

Aircraft SYSTems (UAS) mission availabiJi ty objective and acquire funding to provide 

necessary operations, maintenance, and equipment. 

CBl~ Response: CBP conl,;urs and has plans in place that achieve the rceolJlmendatifln. 

The Strategic Air (lnd Mari ne Pial) (StAMP) clearly defines eBP's planned VAS 

acquisition and sustaimTIcnt o\'er the next five years and beyond. Th is plan is based on 

detailed operational plans, known as Concept orOpemtious (CONOPS), which arc 

craned by operat'ions personnel and arc bascd on kno ...... n and projected requirements. 

Each aircraft element of the StA}.tIP is supported by an Operations Requirements 

Document (ORD) that defines Ihe specifk I.;apabilities needed to achieve assigned 

homeland security missions. From these requirements, mission support personnel 

establish the infrastructure that will be needed 10 "llow CBP agents to accomplish their 

mission. These documents are evalualcd and revised os needed to reneet changing roles, 

resources, and missions. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-12-85 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Funding requests arc dcveloped to support tile LIAS portion of the StAMP, but the actual 

funding provided to the program is subject to changing Department and Agency criteria. 

CBP will continue to request adequate funding based on known and projt:l.;ted opt:rdliouaJ 

requirements while judiciously utilizing available resources to accomplish CBP's 

mission. 

Due Date: CBP has approved StAMP, CONOPS, and ORO documents that guide the 

funding requests that support operations, maintenance, and equipment funding requests. 

While these documents are continuously evaluated and revised to address changes in 

tlm:alS, the documents sufficiently address the current plan for the future state fo r the 

UAS Program. cap respectfully requests the OIG close Recommendation 1. 

Recomllleudation 2 : Develop and implement procedures to coordinElle WId support 

stakeholders' mission requests. 

CDP Response: CDP concurs with Recommendation 2 und continues to implement 

flexible and responsive procedures to coordinate and support stakeholders' requcsl<;, to 

include requests when the UAS is the most appropriate asset to meet these needs. 

External requests ar\! received via email to specifi c group accounts designed to eapture 

stakeholder requests. These requests are reviewed by CBP mission and intelJjgence 

planners, and contain detailed information that enables CBP 10 assess the request for 

urgem.:y, breadth, and type of info rmation required. Taking these clements into 

consideration, CBP collection planne.rs assess which resource options are most viahle to 

support stakeholder requirements based on asset capability. availability, effectiveness, 

and impact; CBP mission and intelligence planners then coordinate with the appropriate 

stakeholders and operational asset managers to schedule the operation. lnternRI 

stakeholders are also afforded a mechanism to submit requirements online via a CBP 

intranet site managed by the Offit;t: of Intelligence and Investigati .... e Liaison. Unplanned, 

time-sensitive requests may be received via phone or tactical radio. Requirements that 

cannot be sufficiently Sllpported with regionaUy deployed assets are forwarded to CBP 

Headquarters fo r prioritization and coon.linatiun aeross its national architecture. 

Feedback may be sought foUowing collection to determine whether stakeholder mission 

requirement" were satisfied. 

Due Dllte: CBP has implemented, and will continuously refine, its processes tn 

coordinate and support stakeholders' mission requests. CBP respectfully requests the 

010 close Recommendation 2. 

Rerommendation ~: E"tabl ish interagency agreements with external stakeholders for 

reimbursement of expenses incurred fulfilling mission reI.{ uests where authorized by law. 

CDP Response: CBP cnncllt"S with the intent of the recommendation, which is to 

establish an approach and procedure for reimbursement. There are already ongoing 

efforts within the Department of Homeland Security to address this issue. CBP 

establishes intetagency agreements (lAs) with government agency partners for resourcing 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-12-85 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

efforts that fall outside the scope of our normal mission sets. These typically involve 

utilizing CBP unmanned aircraft to demonstrate new technologies, capabilities, and 

tactics. In the case of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who has frequently 

requested CDr UAS support, we have established a process where we receive 

reimbursement through a Mission Assignment document. lAs are labor intensive and are 

only executed where requirt:t.l. 

H.ccommendation 4: Postpone additional UAS purchWSt:s uutil recommendation #1 has 

been implemented. 

CDP Response: In alignment with Federal Acquisition Regulations and Department 

requirements, CBP concurs that appropriate plans are necessary prior to acquisitions. Per 

the re"ponse to Recommendation 1. CBP has completed appropriate planning and 

mission definition to justify the strategic future state for the UAS Program. Changing 

threats will require that tbe planning and assessments oonUnue. CBP currently has no 

plan to expand the UAS fleet beyond the 10 systems already in operation or on order, 

unless directed to do so by higher authority. 

Due Dale: Given that CDr's position is that it has fulfilled the requirements for 

Recommendation I, CBP respectfully requests the OIG close Recommendation 4. 

General comments that relate to statements that need to be clarified prior to finalization 

of the report have been submitted under separate cover. 

We look fOlward 10 working with you on future reviews. If you have any 

Questions. please have a member of your staff contact Jennifer Topps, Audit Liaison. 

Office oflntemal Affairs at (202) 325-7713. 

\:\ 

Sincerely, 

Q:'; .. -~~e Tomsheck 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Internal Affairs 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

DHS OIG Estimated Computation of Mission Availability 

The performance specifications contract of the Predator B provides that the aircraft 

should be capable of flying 20-hour missions. According to CBP, the UAS program 

operates an estimated 238 days a year. CBP’s mission availability performance 

specifications establish the threshold (minimum) at 16 hours, 4 days per week, and the 

objective (desired) at 16 hours, 5 days per week. According to the contract, it is the 

intent of the Government to acquire UASs, equipment, and services that meet or exceed 

threshold (minimum) requirements, and where practical, the UASs and services should 

satisfy objective (desired) requirements. 

The maintenance engineer said that, on average, the Predator B requires 1 hour of 

maintenance for every flight hour. Thus, the mission availability threshold and objective 

for seven aircraft operating an estimated 238 days per year are computed as follows: 

DHS OIG Estimate of Mission Availability Threshold 

7 aircraft × 16 hours × 238 days × 80% [4 days per week] × 50% maintenance = 

10,662 hours 

DHS OIG Estimate of Mission Availability Objective 

7 aircraft × 16 hours × 238 days [5 days per week] × 50% maintenance = 13,328 hours 

For the 12 months ended June 2011, CBP scheduled 7,336 flight hours with seven 

aircraft, one of which was placed in operation February 2011. Due to weather and other 

circumstances, actual flight hours were limited to 3,909 hours. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Alexander Best, Director 

Mark Ferguson, Audit Manager 

Kathleen Hyland, Auditor 

Ignacio Yanes, Program Analyst 

Cory Upmeyer, Program Analyst 

David DeHaven, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-12-85 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and Marine 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of Internal Affairs 

Deputy Director, Office of Audit Management and Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-12-85 
 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202)254-4100, fax your request to (202)254-4305, or e-mail your request to 

our OIG Office of Public Affairs at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@dhs.gov. For 

additional information, visit our OIG website at www.oig.dhs.gov or follow us on Twitter 

@dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal 

or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland Security programs and 

operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202)254-4292 

• E-mail us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigation - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive SW, Building 410 

Washington, DC 20528 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.