Department of Homeland Security



Obligation of American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act Funds by the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection for 

Land Ports of Entry 

OIG-12-72 April 2012
 


American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
 

 


 


 

Office of Inspector General

u.s. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Homeland
 Security
 

APR 06 2012

Preface

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (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 audits, inspections, and

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities for programs, grants, and

projects administered by the Department under the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).

This report presents information on Recovery Act funds obligated by U.S. Customs and

Border Protection to administer and monitor land ports of entry and on the overall status

of project funds. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant

agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents.

We express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this

report.

Anne L. Richards

Assistant Inspector General for Audits
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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


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


Results of Review ............................................................................................................... 4



Obligations for Project Administration, Monitoring, and Information Technology .....4
 


Program Monitoring.......................................................................................................4
 


Status of Projects and Funds ..........................................................................................5
 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.........................................................7
 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .........................................9
 


Appendix C: Projects, Funds Obligated, and Forecasted Completion Dates, as of 
 

October 4, 2011....................................................................................11
 


Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report ........................................................12
 


Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................13
 


Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 


DHS Department of Homeland Security
 


GSA General Services Administration
 


OIG Office of Inspector General
 


PMRS Program Management and Reporting System
 


USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
 

 

OIG



Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as 

amended, included $420 million for management and construction 

of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-owned land ports of 

entry. In a prior audit, we looked at the use of funds for 

construction of the ports. Our objectives in this review were to (1) 

determine whether funds obligated for project administration and 

monitoring were for purposes authorized by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; (2) determine whether 

CBP, the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers established adequate oversight and monitoring 

processes and procedures over the construction and alteration 

projects; and (3) identify the status of the obligations and projects 

as of October 4, 2011. 

This review focused on $71.6 million that CBP obligated for 

internal project management and support, information technology, 

and assistance from the General Services Administration and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

We determined that funds obligated by CBP for project 

administration and monitoring and for information technology 

were for purposes authorized by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. Also, we concluded that CBP, the 

General Services Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers established adequate oversight and monitoring processes 

and procedures over the construction and alteration projects. As of 

October 4, 2011, CBP reported obligations of $375,453,047, and 

an unobligated balance of its American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 appropriation of $44,546,953. CBP indicated that it 

would return $35,881,420 of unobligated funds to the U.S. 

Treasury, and that it would retain $8,665,533 for reconstruction 

projects if needed. This report does not present any 

recommendations. 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 1 

 

Background 

A land port of entry (port) is a facility that provides controlled 

entry to and exit from the United States for people and materials. 

It consists of land, buildings, roadways, and parking lots. 

Currently, there are 167 ports: 122 on the northern U.S.-Canadian 

border and 45 on the southern U.S.-Mexican border. CBP owns 41 

of these ports: 37 on the northern border and 4 on the southern 

border. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act), as amended, was enacted on February 17, 2009. The 

Recovery Act appropriated $420 million “solely for planning, 

management, design, alteration, and construction of [CBP] owned 

land border ports of entry.” Among the Recovery Act’s stated 

purposes are the creation and preservation of jobs, promotion of 

economic recovery, and investment in infrastructure. Regarding 

infrastructure development, the Recovery Act required federal 

agencies to give preference to activities that “can be started and 

completed expeditiously, including a goal of using at least 50 

percent of the funds for activities that can be initiated not later than 

120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.” 

The Recovery Act also required that CBP obligate the funds by 

September 30, 2010, and that the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) submit to the Committees on 

Appropriations for the Senate and House of Representatives a plan 

for the expenditure of the funds. Guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (M-09-15, Updated Implementing 

Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) 

required the submission of final program-specific Recovery Act 

plans by May 15, 2009. 

In its May 15, 2009, program-specific spending plan, CBP said 

that it would use $374 million to construct new facilities at 23 

existing CBP-owned ports and $25 million to repair and alter a 

minimum of 10 additional ports. The plan also included 

$21 million for a Program Management and Reporting System 

(PMRS) to aid in managing the construction projects. On April 12, 

2010, CBP submitted a revised plan that estimated about $389 

million for design, construction, contingency, program support, 

and project build-out for 33 new ports. Funding for the 10 

additional construction projects became available when CBP 

learned that the costs of the initial 23 port projects were lower than 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 

Page 2 
estimated. The revised plan also included funds for the PMRS and 

for repairs and alterations. 

This review primarily focused on the approximately $71.6 million 

that CBP obligated for administering and monitoring project 

construction and for information technology. Funds obligated for 

construction of the ports were not reviewed because the 

construction program was covered in our August 26, 2011, audit of 

CBP’s use of funds for construction of ports. 

On October 22, 2009, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued 

Review of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Expenditure 

Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(OIG 10-05). The purpose of that review was to determine 

whether CBP developed practical and comprehensive plans related 

to the construction of CBP-owned ports. The report concluded that 

CBP generally developed practical, thorough, and comprehensive 

expenditure plans for these activities. 

On August 26, 2011, OIG issued a report on the Use of American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry (OIG 

11-97). That report focused on CBP’s use of funds and approach 

to altering and constructing ports on the northern border. The 

report concluded that CBP generally developed reasonable plans 

for spending Recovery Act funds under the constraints of the 

Recovery Act. The plans provided for completing actions 

necessary to meet the environmental, historic, and cultural 

preservation requirements; acquiring land; designing projects; 

obligating internal funds and awarding contracts; and building at 

multiple locations throughout the United States. The report also 

said that features in standard port designs contributed to CBP 

building ports that are larger than necessary to meet operational 

requirements, that CBP did not fully support the basis for its 

decision regarding the port size required at different locations, and 

that CBP is building three new ports and repairing one port at 

locations that its field offices recommended be closed. 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 3 

Results of Review 

The funds that CBP obligated for project administration and monitoring and for 

information technology were for purposes authorized by the Recovery Act. Also, 

CBP, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) established adequate oversight and monitoring processes and 

procedures for the construction and alteration projects. As of October 4, 2011, 

CBP reported obligations of $375,453,047 and an unobligated balance of its 

Recovery Act appropriation of $44,546,953 (see appendix C). 

Obligations for Project Administration, Monitoring, and 

Information Technology 

Obligations for project administration and monitoring included funds set 

aside for CBP internal management and contracts that CBP awarded for 

project management support and information technology systems and 

equipment. Based on our review of supporting information, we concluded 

that the obligations were for the Port Modernization Program and 

obligated for authorized purposes, as summarized in table 1: 

Table 1. Obligations for Administration, Monitoring, and 

Information Technology, as of October 4, 2011 

Description Obligations 

CBP payroll ($3,389,062) and travel ($249,162) for staff 

performing project-related duties $3,638,224 

CBP construction management of eight projects and 

contracts for financial reporting and acquisition support 13,194,746 

Interagency agreements with GSA ($17,175,204) for 

managing 9 projects and with USACE ($15,414,271) for 

managing 16 projects and assisting with land acquisition 32,589,475 

PMRS for comprehensive real property planning and needs 

analysis, including support of port construction projects 19,751,482 

Other information technology purchase infrastructure needs 

at the ports, such as data equipment and telephone systems 2,419,262 

Total $71,593,189 

Program Monitoring 

CBP established adequate oversight and monitoring processes and 

procedures for construction projects managed by CBP (8 projects), GSA 

(9 projects), and USACE (16 projects). In determining the level of 

management support needed, CBP used other government agencies such 

as GSA as guides and also reviewed industry benchmarks. GSA and 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 

Page 4 
USACE used their own frameworks to determine the level of oversight 

and monitoring support needed. 

CBP, GSA, and USACE use a consistent management approach in which 

they follow a project management plan to execute each construction 

project. These plans outline the responsibilities of the project managers 

and construction managers regarding project oversight. The project 

manager performs general oversight duties including occasional site visits, 

while the construction manager provides day-to-day management of the 

projects. CBP also prepares biweekly Program Management Review 

Reports that provide a summary dashboard that includes information 

regarding the status, risks, and delays of the port construction projects. 

These reports include information regarding all port construction projects, 

whether they are managed by GSA, USACE, or CBP. Program 

management support contractors also submit monthly status reports to 

CBP regarding work performed, as well as any concerns or issues. 

Status of Projects and Funds 

All planned construction and repair projects are underway except for 

construction projects at Morses Line, Vermont, and Whitetail, Montana. 

CBP classified the port for closure at Morses Line after inquiries from 

Senator Leahy1 and at Whitetail after Canada closed its port on the other 

side of the border. In addition, CBP suspended construction at 

Churubusco, New York, after Canada said that it was going to close its 

counter port, but later decided to continue construction and operate 

Churubusco as a one-way port. On average, progress toward completion 

of the 31 construction projects is currently on time with the scheduled 

completion dates. 

CBP obligated $375,453,047 for the port modernization program by 

September 30, 2010. This consists of $282,859,860 for building 33 new 

ports, including land acquisition support, firing range remediation support, 

and repairs and alterations to 8 ports. The obligations also consist of 

1 On May 23, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy requested that Secretary Napolitano close the port at Morses 

Line because it is “not a critical link in the chain of our nation’s security or commerce” and because it 

“threatens a multi-generational operational dairy farm....” In a June 24, 2010, response to the Senator, 

Secretary Napolitano said that the Department decided to begin the process of closing Morses Line “based 

on internal analyses and significant consultation with the local community and congressional 

delegation....” In an April 28, 2011, letter to the Commissioner of CBP, Senator Leahy wrote, “I favor 

maintaining a port at Morses Line that meets the national security needs of the 21st Century. However, I 

understand that the security deficiencies of the existing facility require [DHS] to increase the footprint of 

the port, alter traffic flow around the building, and modernize the security capabilities. While I remain 

concerned about efforts to condemn private farmland for the development of a new facility, I hope the 

community and DHS might find a suitable alternative for improving this port facility.” 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 

Page 5 
 

$71,593,189 for administration and monitoring construction and alteration 

projects. Finally, in July 2010, the Chairmen of the House and Senate 

Appropriation subcommittees on Homeland Security agreed to CBP’s 

request to reprogram the remaining $21 million. CBP reprogrammed the 

funding to the projects listed in table 2. 

Table 2. Projects Approved for Reprogrammed Funds 

Project Description Amount 

Laredo Lincoln II Juarez Port Alterations to Port $ 1,008,075 

Laredo II Lincoln Juarez Bus Alterations to Port 4,000,781 

Laredo I Convent Alterations to Port 2,491,144 

Nogales West – Mariposa Alterations to Port 10,500,000 

Antelope Wells, NM Build Forward Operating Base 3,000,000 

Total $ 21,000,000 

CBP had not obligated $44,546,953 of Recovery Act fund appropriations 

by the end of the statutory period of availability on September 30, 2010. 

According to CBP, it plans to set aside $8,665,533 of the expired funds as 

additional funding for adjustments to the current reconstruction projects if 

needed, and will return the remaining balance of $35,881,420 to the U.S. 

Treasury. Appendix C lists the financial status and completion dates of 

the projects. 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our objectives were to (1) determine whether funds obligated for 

project administration and monitoring were for purposes authorized 

by the Recovery Act; (2) determine whether CBP, GSA, and 

USACE established adequate oversight and monitoring processes 

and procedures over the construction and alteration projects; and 

(3) identify the status of the obligations and projects as of
 

October 4, 2011. 

To meet our objectives, we— 

Examined the Recovery Act; Department of Homeland 

Security Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-83 (October 28, 

2009); and applicable plans, policies, procedures, and internal 

directives that CBP uses to administer and monitor the 

construction of land ports of entry. 

Interviewed project management and contracting officials 

regarding port activities. 

Reviewed documents supporting payroll and travel obligations. 

Analyzed contracts and modifications and statements of work 

related to information technology purchases totaling $2,419,262. 

Interviewed CBP, GSA, and USACE officials responsible for 

planning and managing the construction or alteration of port 

projects, reviewed interagency agreements, and evaluated port 

project supervision activities to evaluate project oversight. 

Reviewed financial and construction status reports that CBP 

submitted to DHS. 

Visited the project management office for PMRS in 

Indianapolis, Indiana, to obtain and assess information 

regarding the history, status, and functionality of the system. 

We conducted this audit from February through October 2011 in 

Washington, DC, pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to 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 

upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 

Page 7 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 8 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

1300 Pcn h•m• ~'en e !>:\\' 

W•shmg•on DC 20229 

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

February 29, 2012 

Charles K. Edwards 

Acting Inspector General 

Department of Homeland ecurity 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 4 10 

Washington, DC 20528 

Re: OIG Draft Report Entitled, "Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act Funds by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry" 

{OIG-1 1-088-AUD-CBP) 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

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

U.S. Customs and Border Protection {CBP) appreciates the Office of Inspector General"s 

{OIG's) work in planning and conducting its review and issuing this report. Our agency is 

pleased that the O!G found that funds obligated by CBP for administering land ports of entry 

(LPOEs) were for authorized purposes and that its process for monitoring projects was 

adequate. 

As part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's {DH 's) overall American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) progran1, CBP's LPOE Program Management Office 

(PMO), consisting of. and receiving support from, a diverse group of facilities, procurement. 

operations and service provider professionals. closely monitors the allocation of resources and 

progress of ARRA-funded land port projects from inception to completion. CBP's disciplined 

governance framework put in place to oversee the obligation of ARRA funds, also included 

regular leadership reviews at CBP and DHS Headquarters to monitor the cost and schedule 

associated with the LPOE efforts. The PMO ensured that the funds allocated to CBP for land 

port modernization effectively fulfilled the purpose and the goals of ARRA: stimulating the 

economy by hiring American companies and creating American jobs to strengthen the 

infrastructure of America. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. We 

note that the report docs not contain any recommendations for CBP. CBP has no technical or 

sensitivity comments. 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 9 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

2 

We look forwa rd to working with you on future reviews. lf you have any questions, 

please have a member of your staff contact Patty Quintana, Audit Liaison, Office of Internal 

Affairs at (202) 344-1038. 

Si:e:://1 ~ 

Fo;_: 

James F. Tomshcck 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Internal Affairs 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Projects, Funds Obligated, and Forecasted Completion Dates as of October 4, 2011 

Projects Obligation Completion Date 

New Construction 

Amistad Dam, TX $ 8,299,887 June 30, 2012 

Antelope Wells, NM 10,563,749 December 5, 2011 

Antler, ND 7,688,366 August 29, 2011 

Boundary, WA 13,887,938 May 12, 2012 

Bridgewater, ME 7,791,789 August 7, 2012 

Cannons Corner, NY 8,002,388 May 25, 2012 

Carbury, ND 7,569,446 July 18, 2011 

Churubusco, NY 8,377,447 January 27, 2012 

Del Bonita, MT 6,521,436 June 1, 2012 

Easton, ME 6,349,620 July 16, 2012 

Forest City, ME 6,541,156 June 30, 2012 

Frontier, WA 15,088,278 August 31, 2011 

Hamlin, ME 10,031,012 May 11, 2012 

Hannah, ND 6,724,778 June 30, 2012 

Hansboro, ND 8,010,855 September 26, 2011 

Los Ebanos, TX 8,378,612 August 17, 2012 

Maida, ND 8,412,132 December 13, 2011 

Morgan, MT 8,851,052 October 11, 2011 

Morses Line, VT 171,149 Identified for closure 

Neche, ND 8,413,015 September 15, 2011 

Nighthawk, WA 8,141,846 January 12, 2012 

Noonan, ND 9,482,578 August 15, 2011 

Pinecreek, MN 6,102,225 June 30, 2012 

Pinnacle Road, VT 7,804,604 October 28, 2011 

Pittsburg, NH 8,413,306 December 8, 2011 

Sarles, ND 6,299,172 June 30, 2012 

Scobey, MT 8,113,052 October 11, 2011 

Sherwood, ND 7,403,694 June 3, 2011 

Walhalla, ND 7,846,962 September 16, 2011 

Westhope, ND 7,599,787 June 3, 2011 

Whitetail, MT 8,564,368 Identified for closure 

Whitlash, MT 6,455,915 June 30, 2012 

Wild Horse, MT 9,224,158 September 28, 2011 

Subtotal $267,125,772 a 

Land Acquisition and Support 4,361,428 

Firing Range Rem. and Support 269,686 

Repairs and Alterations 11,102,974 

Subtotal 282,859,860 a 

Administration and Monitoring 

CBP Payroll and Travel 3,638,224 

CBP Internal Support 13,194,746 

GSA and USACE Support 32,589,475 

PMRS 19,751,482 

Other Information Technology 2,419,260 

Subtotal 71,593,187 

Reprogrammed Funds 21,000,000 a 

Subtotal 375,453,047 

Unobligated Appropriation 44,546,953 

Total $420,000,000 

a Unaudited, information is as reported by CBP to DHS. 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry
 


Page 11
 

Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Roger LaRouche, Director 

William Gillies, Audit Manager 

Kendra Loper, Auditor 

Katrina Reuben-Bynes, Independent Referencer 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry 


Page 12 

Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

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 

Under Secretary for Management 

DHS Component Liaison, CBP 

Recovery Act Coordinator 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Obligation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Land Ports of Entry
 


Page 13
 

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.