Department of Homeland Security
 

DHS’ H 60 Helicopter Programs 

OIG-13-89 REVISED May 2013
 
OFFICE O.' INSPEcrOR GENERAL 

of Humeland Security 

May 23, 2013
 

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable Ra nd R. Be<1rs 

Acting Deputy Secretary 

partment 01\ 1~meland Security 

FROM: Yarl ~Ju.-- Chief Operating Officer 

SUBJECT: DHS' H-60 Helicopll!r proqrams (OIG·13-89) 

Attached for yoor inlormation Is our revised final report DHS' H·60 Helicopter P,ogrOffls. 

The original report contained an incorrect organilational process name .lind acronym; 

however, based on new evidence provided from DHS' Office of PfOIram Accountability 

ao ... d Risk Management, we have changed the organizational process naome and acronym 

in the report from Investment Review Board (IRS) to Acquisition Review Soard (ARB). 

The report contains four recommendations aimed at improving DHS' H-60 heli copter 

programs. Your office concurred with 3 ofthe 4 recommendations. Based on 

Information prOVided in your responses to the draft report, we conside r 

recommendations 1, 2, and 4 resolved and open. Once your office hn fully 

Implemented t he recommendations, please ~bmit formal dO!ieout ietlt''lla us within 

30 days so that we may cklse the recommendations The memoramlum should be 

accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective ;l(tlons and of the 

disposition of any monetary aomounts. Recommendation 3 is uOiesolved and open. As 

prescribed by the Department of Homeland 5e<:urlty Directive 0 77-1)1, Follow-Up and 

ResolutIons for Office of Inspettor Generaol Report Recommendations, within 90 days of 

the date of hi~ memorandum, please provide our office with a written respo ... se that 

includes yo ur (1) agreement or dis;!greement, (2) cOfrective ;l(tion pl.ln, and (3) urget 

completion date for recommendation 3. AI§o, please indude responsible rti es and 

any other upporting documentation necessary to inform us about the curre ... t status of 

the recommendation. Until your response is rece ived and evaluated, recomm endation 

3 will be considered open ~nd unresolved. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General AU, we .lire providing 

copies 01 our report to appropriate congre~s onal committees with oversight and 

appropriation respon!.ibillry over the Department of Homeland Security. We WIll POit 

the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please 0:.;11 me with any questions, or 'fOur staff may conliltt Anne L Richards, As~ t 

Inspector General for Audits, ilt (202) 254-4100. 

Attachment 
 

 

Table of Contents 

 


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


 


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


 


Results of Audit................................................................................................................... 4 


 


DHS Governance and Oversight.............................................................................. 4 


 


Ownership and Management of H-60 Helicopters................................................. 8 


 


Recommendations ................................................................................................ 12 


 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis .......................................................... 13 


Appendixes 

 


Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ........................................... 15 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .............................. 17 


Appendix C: Location Map for CBP and USCG H-60 Helicopters ...................... 20 


Appendix D: Conversion Comparison of CBP and USCG H-60 Helicopters ....... 21 


Appendix E: CBP H-60 Conversion Process ....................................................... 25 


Appendix F: Major Contributors to This Report ............................................... 26 


Appendix G: Report Distribution ....................................................................... 27 


 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Abbreviations 

ADM Acquisition Decision Memorandum 

AGB Aviation Governance Board 

AMC Acquisition Management Council 

ARB Acquisition Review Board 

Army United States Army 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FY fiscal year 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

IAA Inter-Agency Agreement 

OCPO Office of the Chief Procurement Officer 

OCRSO Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PA&E Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation 

PARM Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management 

StAMP Strategic Air and Marine Plan 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USM Under Secretary for Management 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 62 H-60 helicopters operated by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), both 

of which are converting the helicopters to add about 15 years of operational life. These 

conversions include repairing the airframes as well as installing updated equipment. We 

performed this audit to determine whether DHS, CBP, and the USCG have efficiently 

acquired, converted, and modified these helicopters. 

DHS established processes and procedures to govern its aviation assets and provide 

acquisition oversight. However, these efforts did not fully coordinate the acquisition, 

conversion, and modification of DHS aviation assets, and did not control acquisition 

costs, schedules, or performance. Department-level governance of aviation assets has 

been sporadic, and acquisition oversight in some components has been ineffective. 

The USCG properly managed its H-60 helicopter program, but CBP did not. Most of the 

CBP H-60s were on loan from the United States Army (Army), and CBP had an InterAgency Agreement with the Army to complete all the conversions and modifications. 

CBP did not properly manage or oversee its H-60 program, which affected the costeffectiveness and timely delivery of converted and modified H-60 helicopters. Between 

September 2008 and July 2012, the Army converted and modified two CBP H-60s at an 

average cost of $22.3 million each, and each conversion was completed in about 1,300 

days. OIG estimates that each future CBP conversion will cost approximately $18.3 

million and will take about 620 days to complete. Between January 2007 and July 2012, 

the USCG converted 27 of its H-60s, and the last 7 USCG conversions cost approximately 

$5.3 million each and took an average of 301 days to complete. 

As a result, the Department and CBP increased costs and experienced delays in 

converting and modifying CBP’s H-60 fleet. These delays have already limited CBP’s 

operation of its H-60s, and CBP anticipates that it may not be able to fly up to nine of its 

H-60s beginning in 2014. However, if DHS directs CBP and the USCG to complete the 

remaining 11 CBP H-60 conversions and modifications at the USCG Aviation Logistics 

Center, DHS could save about $126 million and have CBP H-60s able to fly 7 years 

sooner than anticipated. We made four recommendations that, when implemented, 

should improve the Department’s management and oversight of its aviation assets, as 

well as CBP’s aviation acquisitions and its H-60 program. DHS concurred with three of 

the four recommendations. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background

On February 7, 2012, the DHS Secretary announced an Efficiency Review Initiative, 

which prioritized department-wide, cross-component aviation coordination and 

collaboration. On February 15, 2012, the Secretary testified to Congress that the fiscal 

year (FY) 2013 DHS budget proposal highlighted the need to increase the effectiveness 

of departmental aviation assets. These actions marked a renewed effort by DHS to 

examine leveraging joint requirements for CBP and USCG aviation assets. 

DHS currently has 62 H-60 helicopters: 20 at CBP and 42 at the USCG. See appendix C 

for CBP and USCG H-60 locations. Both components fly twin engine H-60s manufactured 

by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) that can travel similar distances carrying 

similar weight. Both components are converting their H-60 helicopters to add about 15 

years to their operational life. These conversions include repairing the airframes and 

installing updated equipment. To date, the two components have not coordinated 

these H-60 conversions. 

DHS Acquisition Oversight 

DHS has issued policies and procedures and established various entities to oversee its 

components’ acquisitions. In January 2010, the DHS Under Secretary for Management 

issued Acquisition Management Directive 102-01 (MD 102-01) to provide an overall 

policy and structure for acquisition management in the Department. The Department’s 

Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management is responsible for overseeing all 

of DHS’ major acquisitions. Within this office, the Acquisition Review Board (ARB) acts 

across components to determine whether acquisitions have met specific requirements 

at key phases throughout the acquisition process. DHS also established a Joint 

Requirements Council to review high-dollar acquisitions and make recommendations to 

the ARB on cross-cutting savings opportunities. Additionally, DHS established an 

Aviation Management Council, reporting to the Joint Requirements Council, which 

reviewed and coordinated departmental aviation operational policy and procedures, 

generated requirements, and managed joint aviation assets. 

In 2007, CBP’s Office of Air and Marine submitted its congressionally mandated 

acquisition plan, the CBP Air and Marine National Strategic Plan 2007–2012, which 

outlined how its aviation assets and acquisitions would support its mission. The plan 

envisioned operating a fleet of 38 new and converted medium-lift helicopters by 2012. 

In 2012, CBP revised the plan to show that 20 helicopters would be operating by 2025. 

CBP approved its plan for acquiring the helicopters on February 7, 2008, and submitted 

the plan to DHS’ Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO). According to a 

March 3, 2008, memorandum from OCPO to CBP, the acquisition plan included 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

substantive issues that needed to be addressed. Although aware of these concerns, 

3 days after receiving the OCPO’s memo, CBP officials continued with the acquisition, 

signing an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) with the Army. 

DHS H-60s

CBP operates various aircraft, including 20 H-60 helicopters, of which 16 are on loan 

from the Army and 4 are new helicopters that CBP purchased from Sikorsky through the 

Army. CBP entered into an IAA with 

Figure 1. CBP H-60 Lima the Army to convert and modify the 

16 H-60s (from the Alpha to the 

Lima version) on loan from the 

Army, and also to purchase and 

modify the 4 new H-60s (Mike 

version). The first 2 of the 16 H-60 

Alphas were converted at Sikorsky’s 

facilities at Chase Field; the third H60 was inducted for conversion at 

the Army’s Corpus Christi Army 

Depot. The two converted CBP H60 Limas were then flown to the Army’s Prototype Integration Facility in Huntsville, 

Alabama, to be modified with CBP mission-specific equipment. 

Source: CBP
 

The USCG also operates H-60s to fulfill its 

missions, primarily for law enforcement and 

search and rescue missions. The USCG owns 

all 42 of its H-60s. It has converted 27 H-60 

Juliet versions to Tangos at its Aviation 

Logistics Center in Elizabeth City, North 

Carolina, and it plans to convert the remaining 

15 H-60 Juliets by FY 2014. Table 1 below 

contains information about CBP and USCG’s 

H-60 fleets as of July 2, 2012. See appendix D 

for a detailed comparison of CBP and USCG 

H-60 helicopters. 

Figure 2. USCG H-60 Tango 

Source: USCG
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 1. CBP and USCG H-60 Fleets as of July 2, 2012 

DHS H-60s CBP – 20 total USCG – 42 total 

Ownership 4 Mikes (M) owned by CBP 

16 Alphas (A) on loan from Army 

42 H-60s owned by the 

USCG (15 Juliets to be 

converted and 27 Tangos 

completed) 

Conversion 16 Alphas (A) to be converted to 

Limas (L) 

42 Juliets (J) to be converted 

to Tangos (T) 

Status 

M – 4 new in CBP inventory 

A – 11 in operation 

A/L – 3 in conversion 

L – 2 in operation 

J – 8 in operation 

J/T – 7 in conversion 

T – 27 in operation 

Source: DHS OIG 

Results of Audit 

The USCG properly managed its H-60 helicopter program, but the Department and CBP 

did not effectively oversee or manage the acquisition, conversion, and modification of 

CBP’s H-60 helicopters. Although DHS established processes and entities, including the 

ARB and the Acquisition Management Council (AMC), to govern its aviation assets and 

manage CBP’s acquisition of the H-60s, its efforts did not ensure proper coordination of 

aviation assets or effective acquisition oversight. Most of CBP’s H-60s were on loan 

from the Army. Because CBP relied primarily on the Army to complete the helicopter 

conversions and modifications, it did not properly oversee the program and manage 

these activities, which affected the cost and delivery of the helicopters. As a result, the 

Department and CBP increased costs and experienced delays in converting and 

modifying CBP’s H-60 fleet. These delays have limited CBP’s operation of its H-60s, and 

CBP anticipates removing nine H-60s from operations beginning in FY 2014. 

DHS Governance and Oversight 

DHS established processes and procedures to govern its aviation assets and 

provide acquisition oversight. However, these efforts did not fully coordinate 

the acquisition, conversion, and modification of DHS aviation assets, and did not 

control acquisition costs, schedules, or performance. Department governance of 

aviation assets has been sporadic, and acquisition oversight in some components 

has been ineffective. As a result, DHS has not implemented a comprehensive 

aviation strategy and did not properly oversee CBP’s acquisition of the H-60s. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

DHS Governance of Aviation Assets 

DHS has no formal structure to govern the Department’s aviation assets and no 

specific senior official to provide expert independent guidance on aviation issues 

to DHS senior management. Over the past 9 years, DHS issued policies and 

established various entities to oversee its aviation assets and operations, but it 

did not sustain these efforts. 

Since 2003, senior managers realized the need for a high-level structure to 

integrate the Department’s components and help link cross-component aviation 

missions and capabilities. Over time, this oversight structure included 

Department-level management, with an Aviation Management Council started in 

2005. Oversight was inconsistent, and the Aviation Management Council 

stopped meeting in 2007. 

In 2009, Department-level oversight of DHS’ aviation assets resumed. The 

purpose of DHS’ Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) is to ensure 

that components’ operational plans align with the Department’s needs and 

resources. A PA&E-led Aviation Issue Team reviewed potentially colocating 

component aviation facilities, finding commonality in component aviation assets, 

and combining component aviation-related information technology systems. In 

a June 2011 briefing, PA&E discussed re-establishing an aviation management 

entity chaired by a DHS representative from within the Under Secretary of 

Management’s (USM) directorate. The USM recommended that the Deputy 

Secretary officially re-establish the AMC to lead DHS’ efforts to strategically align 

aviation assets across the Department’s components to improve effectiveness, 

efficiency, and interoperability. 

In 2011, the Deputy Secretary established an Aviation Working Group chaired by 

the Deputy Secretary, which included the USM as well as senior CBP and USCG 

officials, but the group did not have a charter, defined roles and responsibilities, 

or an independent aviation expert. The group collected data on CBP and USCG 

missions, aircraft inventories, flight hours, and aviation resources. It also 

reviewed components’ funding plans and opportunities for joint acquisitions 

beginning in FY 2019, and it considered an organizational structure for a 

department-wide aviation office. However, according to senior PA&E officials, 

without a dedicated, independent aviation expert to lead an authoritative, 

decision-making entity, the Department was relying on unverified, componentprovided information to make aviation-related decisions. Appointing an aviation 

manager whose sole responsibility is to manage DHS oversight of its aviation 

programs would increase the probability that the newly established Aviation 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Council could act as an informed coordinator and overseer of the 

Department’s aviation assets. 

DHS Oversight of CBP’s H-60 Acquisition Program 

DHS did not properly oversee CBP’s acquisition of its H-60s. CBP did not take 

into account DHS OCPO guidance on its H-60 acquisition plan. In addition, the 

DHS Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) did not 

conduct a complete review of CBP’s H-60 program because the Department did 

not ensure that CBP followed departmental acquisition guidance and properly 

participated in the ARB process or coordinated with the ARB. 

In 2008, the OCPO reviewed CBP’s H-60 acquisition plan and expressed its 

concerns in a memorandum to CBP. According to the OCPO, CBP should have 

had two separate H-60 plans: one to convert H-60 Alphas to Limas, and a second 

one to purchase the new H-60 Mike helicopters. In addition, according to the 

OCPO, both plans should independently go through the acquisition review 

process, which includes ARB review. The OCPO was also concerned that CBP— 

•	 Had not clearly defined the period of performance for the acquisition; 

•	 Did not have a complete life cycle cost estimate; 

•	 Had not completed a cost-benefit analysis to compare upgrading its 

existing fleet to purchasing new helicopters; and 

•	 Had not used various contracting best practices. 

Although they were aware of these concerns, CBP officials continued with the 

acquisition, signing an IAA with the Army 3 days after receiving the OCPO memo. 

In July 2012, a PARM official confirmed the need to divide CBP’s Strategic Air and 

Marine Plan (StAMP) into separate programs so the Department would have 

greater visibility into the numerous acquisition programs and projects included 

in the plan. 

According to a PARM official, CBP officials did not consider StAMP to be subject 

to the acquisition review process because the plan existed before the current 

acquisition review process was established. However, according to DHS 

acquisition policy, MD 102-01 applies to all existing acquisition programs “to the 

maximum extent possible.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 	 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Further, CBP actually acquired three of its four new H-60 Mike helicopters in the 

fall of 2011, and in a September 2011 StAMP briefing, CBP acknowledged that 

the conversion and modification of its 16 H-60 Alphas to Limas was still in the 

acquisition phase. Therefore, CBP’s StAMP acquisition programs were subject to 

the acquisition review process, and CBP’s H-60 acquisition, conversion, and 

modification programs should have participated more transparently in the ARB 

process. 

In a March 11, 2010, Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), the ARB 

concluded that CBP and the USCG were both pursuing H-60 conversions, and 

that it was important to understand whether the USCG H-60 conversion 

programs were compatible with CBP's prospective conversions and modifications. 

The ARB directed the USCG to collaborate with CBP and report on possible 

helicopter program synergies and present a joint review within 75 days. 

The USCG hosted CBP officials at its Aviation Logistics Center, but both USCG and 

CBP officials said that a senior CBP executive canceled any reciprocal visits by 

USCG officials to CBP sites and instructed CBP H-60 program personnel not to 

have any further contact with USCG H-60 officials. Without CBP’s cooperation, 

the USCG was unable to complete the joint review. PARM did not provide any 

further official direction on the incomplete review to the components, and the 

ARB did not determine why the joint review was not presented within the 75 days. 

In a June 17, 2011, ADM, the ARB directed CBP to prepare for a program review. 

The ARB intended for CBP to document its acquisition program baselines, as well 

as present program acquisition documentation, to comply with MD 102-01. CBP 

provided its response to the June 17, 2011, ADM on September 23, 2011, and 

the official ARB review was cancelled. 

As a result, PARM sent a draft ADM to CBP that “found the StAMP program to be 

non-compliant” for the following reasons: 

•	 CBP’s “inability to submit an acquisition program baseline for approval”; 

•	 CBP’s “failure to submit other acquisition documentation in accordance 

with MD 102-01 for review and adjudication”; and 

•	 CBP’s “inability to provide authoritative life cycle costs with supporting 

documentation for review and adjudication.” 

PARM did not issue a final signed ADM and acknowledged the limited 

effectiveness of providing a draft ADM to CBP. If PARM had issued a signed ADM 

documenting CBP’s noncompliance, CBP would have been required to respond 

with an action plan addressing the identified issues. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 	 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

DHS did not effectively govern its aviation assets and did not oversee all its 

aviation acquisitions. The Department could better govern its aviation assets 

under a formal entity led by a senior-level DHS employee with appropriate 

authority. In addition, CBP’s H-60 programs remain subject to review and should 

participate in the ARB process. 

Ownership and Management of H-60 Helicopters 

Although the USCG properly managed its H-60 helicopter program, DHS and CBP 

did not effectively oversee or manage the acquisition, conversion, and 

modification of CBP’s H-60 helicopters. Because of the current loan agreement 

with the Army, as well as CBP’s need for more effective program management, 

CBP H-60 conversions and modifications have cost more and taken longer than 

necessary. As a result, CBP anticipates removing nine H-60s from operations 

beginning in FY 2014. 

Army Ownership of CBP H-60s

CBP spent millions of dollars to convert and modify H-60 helicopters that it did 

not own and may have to return to the Army at any time. According to a 

March 3, 2008, memo from the DHS OCPO to CBP regarding the CBP helicopter 

program: 

The UH-60A's [H-60 Alphas] have been “on loan” from the US Army to 

CBP Air and Marine since 1983. Procuring a conversion on assets 

“borrowed” from another agency is a major concern. We understand 

CBP Air and Marine will secure a change in the ownership status of the 

aircraft before DHS invests in their conversion to UH-60L's [H-60 Limas]. 

CBP did not adequately respond to the OCPO’s concerns, and instead signed an 

IAA with the Army 3 days later to convert and modify all the loaned H-60 Alphas, 

without taking ownership. 

CBP officials believed that the H-60 loan agreement required the Army to 

convert and modify the CBP H-60s. However, the loan agreement: 

...authorizes [CBP] to install and remove mission equipment without 

requesting approval from [the Army]. [CBP] assumes responsibility for 

configuration control and evaluation of the equipment to ensure 

airworthiness. This authorization is limited to mission equipment only; all 

other configuration changes will go through normal channels. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Based on the loan agreement, the Army is not required to complete the 

conversion and modification work, only to authorize it. CBP officials also said 

that only the Army could complete and issue an Air Worthiness Release, which 

specifies the conditions under which the CBP H-60s can be safely converted, 

modified, and flown. (See appendix E for details on the conversion process.) 

USCG H-60s are also certified safe for flight upon completion. When questioned 

about having the USCG complete the CBP conversions and modifications, a 

senior CBP executive said that, if directed, CBP would move the program to the 

USCG. 

In its Review of CBP Acquisition Plan for Medium Lift Helicopters (March 2008),

CBP acknowledged that in November 1999 the Army had requested that the 16 

H-60 Alphas be returned or that it be compensated for them. In 2010, a CBP 

manager requested ownership of the H-60s, sending a letter directly to the 

Secretary of Defense. However, the Army denied the request, stating that it was 

not removing H-60s from its inventory at that time. In March 2012, the Army 

released a plan to decommission and remove hundreds of H-60s from its 

inventory beginning in FY 2014. This plan gives DHS the opportunity to again 

request the transfer of ownership of the 16 loaned H-60s from the Army to CBP. 

If CBP owned its H-60s, DHS could properly oversee and better manage the cost, 

schedule, and performance for the acquisition, conversion, and modification of 

CBP H-60s. 

CBP’s H-60 Program Management 

CBP did not effectively oversee its H-60 acquisition and conversion program with 

the Army. CBP officials delegated overall program management authority to the 

Army and did not request, obtain, or verify detailed financial or program 

documentation. 

According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR § 4.801), agencies are 

required to maintain contract files that constitute a complete history of the 

transaction. DHS policy further requires components to perform indepth 

reviews of all invoices and vouchers to ensure costs are allowable. The 

contracting documents and agreements between CBP and the Army described 

the detailed cost information that Army was to provide to CBP for the CBP H-60 

acquisitions, conversions, and modifications. 

CBP officials received high-level cost information, which did not include the 

detail necessary to oversee the CBP H-60 programs adequately. For example, 

the Army conducted approximately 15,000 tests on the CBP H-60 components, 

but CBP could not identify completed tests or their corresponding costs. During 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

our review, Army officials said that they did maintain detailed records of the 

costs associated with CBP’s H-60 programs. Although we asked CBP officials to 

request and obtain detailed, authorized financial records from the Army, CBP 

officials did not obtain this information for our review. 

For each CBP H-60 helicopter, we obtained high-level financial data from three 

sources, but each source listed a different total cost for each helicopter. For 

example, documentation related to one CBP helicopter conversion showed the 

following total costs: 

•	 $20.9 million on the first DD-1149 Requisition and Invoice/Shipping 

Document from the Army;1 

•	 $22.4 million on a CBP Monthly Report prepared by the Army; and 

•	 $21.4 million based on invoices submitted to CBP’s National Finance 

Center. 

CBP could not explain the discrepancies among the three sources of cost 

information. Because of this incomplete documentation and oversight, CBP 

program managers could not identify how much the agency actually paid the 

Army for individual tests, materials, and labor and services provided for CBP 

H-60 acquisition, conversion, and modification. 

Comparison of CBP and USCG H-60 Conversion and Modification Programs 

CBP H-60 conversions and modifications cost more and took longer than CBP 

originally planned; they also cost more and took longer than similar USCG H-60 

conversions and modifications. If DHS directed CBP and USCG to complete the 

remaining 11 CBP H-60 conversions and modifications at the USCG Aviation 

Logistics Center, DHS could save about $126 million and have CBP H-60s able to 

fly 7 years sooner than planned. 

In 4 years, the Army converted two of CBP’s H-60s at a total cost of approximately 

$44.5 million. In 5 years, the USCG converted 27 of its H-60s at a total cost of 

approximately $181.8 million. The USCG also efficiently planned and 

implemented conversions to limit the time that its H-60s were unavailable for 

operations. CBP currently plans to complete its remaining 11 H-60 conversions 

by 2025; the USCG plans to complete its remaining 15 H-60 conversions by 2014. 

1 When CBP takes possession of the H-60, the Army provides a DD-1149 document showing the high-level 

costs. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 	 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

CBP’s first two conversions took 1,317 days and 1,325 days, respectively, at two 

different locations. The Army sent the CBP H-60 Alphas to the Army’s Corpus 

Christi Army Depot or to Sikorsky’s Chase Field in Texas for conversion to H-60 

Limas. The converted H-60 Limas were then flown to the Army’s Prototype 

Integration Facility in Huntsville, Alabama, to add CBP-requested mission 

equipment. Based on the Army’s estimates, each future CBP conversion and 

modification will take approximately 620 days to complete. 

In contrast, the USCG converted its first 11 H-60s in a total of 1,307 days at the 

USCG’s Aviation Logistics Center in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The USCG’s 

last seven conversions averaged 301 days per helicopter. 

The first CBP H-60 Alpha-to-Lima conversion and modification cost an estimated 

$24.6 million. Its second conversion and modification cost an estimated 

$19.9 million. OIG estimates that conversions will cost about $18.3 million per 

helicopter, totaling approximately $202 million for the remaining 11 CBP H-60s. 

CBP’s projected costs for its future conversions increase with each conversion. 

The first USCG H-60 Juliet-to-Tango conversion and modification cost 

$7.3 million, and the USCG averaged $5.3 million each for its last seven H-60 

conversions. The USCG will convert its remaining 15 H-60s for approximately 

$79.5 million. By continuously improving its processes, the USCG has regularly 

reduced costs and production times. 

Operationally, in FY 2011 the USCG H-60s flew an average of 54.5 hours per 

month; CBP H-60s flew an average of 15.4 hours per month. The USCG foresees 

its H-60 flight hours remaining steady; CBP has proposed reducing flight hours. 

Table 2 compares conversion costs and schedules, as well as flight hours for CBP 

and USCG H-60s. 

Table 2. Comparison of CBP and USCG H-60 Conversions

DHS H-60s CBP USCG 

Estimated Cost $18.3 million $5.3 million 

Estimated Schedule 620 days 301 days 

Actual FY 2011 Flight Hours 15.4 hours/month 54.5 hours/month 

Source: DHS OIG
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The USCG Aviation Logistics Center has the experience and expertise to convert 

and modify CBP H-60s based on its prior work on different versions of non-USCG 

H-60s. The Aviation Logistics Center is ISO 9001- and ISO 14001-certified and, 

since 2001, has completed maintenance on more than 30 United States Air Force 

H-60 helicopters. The USCG also rebuilt a crash-damaged United States Navy H60, converting it to a USCG H-60 Tango, and built a USCG H-60 Tango from 

damaged and spare parts from both United States Navy and Army H-60 

helicopters. 

Based on our analysis, the USCG Aviation Logistics Center is capable of efficiently 

and economically completing the CBP H-60 conversions and modifications. DHS 

can significantly reduce costs and increase efficiencies within its aviation programs 

by directing CBP to take ownership of its aviation assets, and by directing the 

USCG Aviation Logistics Center to complete CBP’s H-60 program. As a result, 

DHS will save about $126 million and shorten CBPs projected completion 

schedule by about 7 years, allowing CBP to have its conversion program 

completed in FY 2018 rather than 2025. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Deputy Secretary: 

Recommendation #1:

Establish and charter a formal department-level Aviation Management Council 

to provide governance and oversight of departmental aviation assets, which 

includes a senior-level position with direct authority and accountability over all 

Department of Homeland Security aviation programs. 

Recommendation #2: 

Direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to apply all the requirements of the 

Acquisition Life Cycle Framework established through Management Directive 

102-01 to each individual program or project within its Strategic Air and Marine 

Plan. 

Recommendation #3:

Initiate discussions to obtain departmental ownership of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection H-60 helicopters from the United States Army. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #4: 

Direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the United States Coast Guard to 

complete the remaining U.S. Customs and Border Protection H-60 conversions 

and modifications at the United States Coast Guard Aviation Logistics Center. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Comments to Recommendation #1

DHS Concurred: According to DHS, the Deputy Secretary has approved a 

proposal from the Management Directorate’s Office of the Chief Readiness 

Support Officer (OCRSO) to establish an Aviation Governance Board (AGB). The 

AGB will be chaired and staffed by the OCRSO and will be responsible for 

providing coordinated oversight and management of DHS aviation programs. 

DHS notes that the OCRSO has begun to identify key aviation stakeholders in 

DHS to staff the AGB, and that it anticipates a first meeting by August 30, 2013. 

According to DHS, the AGB’s first task will be to develop a formal charter, 

estimated to be completed by December 31, 2013. 

OIG Analysis: This recommendation is resolved but will remain open until the 

OCRSO has fully established and staffed the AGB and developed its formal 

charter, and the AGB is providing coordinated oversight and management of DHS 

aviation programs. At that time, OIG will evaluate whether AGB’s authorities, 

funding, and staffing were appropriately identified and implemented, and that it 

is providing sufficient authority and accountability over all DHS aviation programs. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #2

DHS Concurred: According to DHS, the Chief Acquisition Officer directed that 

CBP submit StAMP to PARM. PARM will oversee StAMP in accordance with MD 

102-01. Existing projects that are in the acquisition life cycle prior to Acquisition 

Decision Event 3 (full production) and any new acquisition programs or projects 

currently part of StAMP will be required to progress through the acquisition life 

cycle in accordance with MD 102-01. The DHS Acquisition Review Board will 

conduct Acquisition Decision Events as those programs and projects progress 

through the acquisition life cycle. 

OIG Comments: This recommendation is resolved but will remain open until OIG 

receives and evaluates CBP’s acquisition and management action plan to break 

out StAMP’s individual projects to provide better acquisition management, 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

oversight, and transparency. Also, PARM must demonstrate that it is properly 

overseeing and monitoring CBP Office of Air and Marine’s individual projects in 

an effort to properly enforce MD 102-01’s acquisition life cycle management 

processes. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #3

DHS Concurred: DHS confirmed that in 2010, a CBP program manager sent a 

letter to the Secretary of the Department of Defense requesting ownership of 

the loaned helicopters, and that the Army responded to that request noting that 

it was currently short of UH-60 Blackhawks. 

OIG Comments: This recommendation remains unresolved and open. As noted 

in this report, OIG was aware of the 2010 CBP program manager’s request. We 

recommended that a senior-level DHS official now request acquiring ownership 

of the H-60s, based on the Army’s current plans to reduce its fleet by more than 

600 H-60s over the next 10 years, beginning in 2014. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #4

DHS Did Not Concur: However, according to DHS, the OCRSO will facilitate a 

cost-benefit analysis with CBP and the USCG to determine whether cost 

efficiencies can be realized by completing the remaining CBP H-60 conversions 

and modifications at the USCG Aviation Logistics Center. Upon its completion, 

targeted for September 30, 2013, DHS will make a recommendation based on 

the analysis. 

OIG Analysis: This recommendation is resolved but will remain open. The DHS 

OCRSO’s proposed cost-benefit analysis is the first step in meeting the intent of 

the recommendation. This is the type of action that PARM directed CBP and the 

USCG to do more than 3 years ago, and it follows the Secretary’s initiatives to 

increase the effectiveness of departmental aviation assets. Upon its completion, 

OIG requests a final copy of the OCRSO’s cost-benefit analysis with supporting 

documentation, along with the Department’s final recommendation. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector 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 audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

We performed an audit to determine whether DHS and its components have developed 

efficiencies for the acquisition, conversion, and modification of CBP and USCG H-60 

helicopters. During this audit, we published the letter report OIG-12-104, CBP 

Acquisition of Aviation Management Tracking System. We reviewed Federal regulations, 

departmental guidance, and agency internal control procedures and requirements for 

acquisition programs. We reviewed ARB files based on MD 102-01 documentation 

requirements for CBP and USCG H-60 programs, as well as CBP and USCG contracting 

officer and contracting officer’s technical representative H-60 program files. We 

reviewed Army-provided documents outlining various costs for the CBP H-60 program 

and compared those costs with data from the CBP National Finance Center. 

We interviewed various officials at DHS PARM and PA&E in Washington, DC, as well as 

component acquisition officials and program managers at CBP and USCG Headquarters. 

We conducted field work at the U.S. Army’s Corpus Christi Army Depot in Corpus Christi, 

Texas; the Army’s Prototype Integration Facility at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, 

Alabama; and the CBP Air and Marine Branches at the Naval Air Station North Island in 

San Diego, California, and Homestead Air Reserve Base in Homestead, Florida. We 

visited CBP’s Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, California. We also 

conducted fieldwork at the USCG Aviation Logistics Center and Air Station Elizabeth City 

in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as well as at USCG Air Station San Diego and USCG Joint 

Harbor Operations Center – Sector San Diego. 

We conducted this performance audit between January and September 2012 pursuant 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally accepted 

government auditing standards, except that we identified an impairment of our 

independence in appearance. During this audit, it came to our attention that a family 

member of a senior OIG official was employed by an entity associated with the audit. To 

resolve this issue, we employed safeguards to protect the work from the threat to our 

independence in appearance. Our safeguards included extra steps to validate all 

evidence obtained and avoiding any interactions involving a conflict of interest. In our 

opinion, the safeguards provided sufficient controls to ensure that the impairment to 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

our independence in appearance did not affect the findings and conclusions developed 

during this audit. 

GAGAS requires 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 obtained an understanding of the internal controls that were 

significant within the context of our audit objective. We evaluated the design and 

operating effectiveness of these internal controls to determine the reliability of 

information used in performing these significant controls. We applied accepted cost 

estimating methods to determine total estimated future cost savings. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based upon our audit objectives, and that the impairment to our independence in 

appearance did not affect this evidence or any findings and conclusions. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-89 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

u.s. Otp.rlm\,:l\t of Ilomtiud Srcurlt) 

\\'.lhrngtOIl, DC 20518 

"iQ. Homeland ~ Security 

April 25, 2013 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Carhon I. Mann 

ChicfOpcmting Officer 

Office of the Inspector General 

FROM: Ji~ Director 

H. crumpacke;\.· 

~ 

~ ~ 

Departmental GAO-OIO Liaison Officc 

SUBJECT: DHS' H-60 Helicopter Programs (Project No. 12-I02-AUD-CBP) 

Thank you for the opportunity 10 review and comment on this draft report. We apprcciale the 

Offiee of Inspector Oeneml's (OIO's) work in planning and conducting its review and issuing 

this report. 

We are pleased to note that OIG concluded the U.S. Coast Guards (USCG) has prop<."r1y 

managed its H-60 helicopter program. However, the report includes many references that do nOI 

adcqualcly capture the differences in scope orlhe U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CSP's) 

Office of Air and Marine (OAM) and USCG H-60 Helicopter Programs. For example, the OIG 

report compares Ihe USCG corrosion control I and avionics upgrade effort to the CBPIU.S. Anny 

(Anny) recapitalization program? The Department maintains that the CBP H-60 rccapitalil'.ation 

and the USCO H-60 upgrade efforts arc not similar and not comparable in scope, including 

difference in asset configuralions, air worthiness requirements and certifications, levels of 

required maintenance, and non-recurring engineering costs. 

The aud it report also does not provide infonnotion on potential COSI and schedule savings of 

relinquishing the USCG H-60 helicopters versus pursuing an acquisition progmm for the 

HH-60J. In addition, the repon does not discuss the USCG MH-60T program in the 

appropriate level of detail. Spedfically. the MH-60T program is being executed in four 

acquisition phases, but it is not clear whether the $5.3 million the OIG reported is for one or all 

four phases or any combination thereof. The OIO's conclusions lack a business case analysis 

that is necessary to detennine whether USCG has Ihe capacity to suppon CBP's 

recapitalization. 

tnle USCG program focu.."CS on corrosion control due 10 the O\'eIW8ter environment in whic.h they are used. 

1'be Ann)"s recapilnlizalion program docs not focus on cotTO$ion prc\'cnlion and control. This program ~uirC$ a 

10lal overhaul of varying components including upgrades 10 airframes. propulsion syslems. and cockpil components. 

II aL'IO includes upgrades 10 digilized naviglilion and revised rolor and drivcshafi assentblies. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-13-89 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

The report contained four recommendations, of which the Department concurs with three and 

noneoneurs with onc. Specifically, OIG rccommended that the Deputy Secretary: 

Recommendation I: Establish and charter a fonnal department-level Aviation 

Management Council to provide governance and ove~ight of departmentul aviation 

assets, which includes a senior-level position with direct authority and accountability 

over all Department of Homeland Security aviation programs. 

Res ponse: Concur. The DHS Deputy Secretary upproved a proposal from the Management 

Directorate (MOMT) Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer (OCR SO) to establish an 

Aviation Governance Board (AGB). The AGB will be chaired and staffed by the OCRSO, and 

will be responsible for providing coordinated oversight and management of DHS aviation 

programs. TIle OCRSO has begun to identify key aviation stakeholders in DHS to staff the 

AGB, and anticipates the first meeting by August 30, 2013. The first task of the AGB will be to 

develop a fonnal charter. Estimated Completion Date (ECD): December 31,2013. 

Recommendation 2: Direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to apply all the 

requirements of the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework established through 

Management Directive 102-01 to each individual program or projecl within its Strategic 

Air and Marine Plan. 

Response: Concur. The DHS Chief Acquisition Officer direcled that CBP submit the Strategic 

Air and Marine Program (STAMP) to the MGMT Office of Program Accountability and Risk 

Management (PARM). PARM will oversee STAMP in accordance with Management Dir< .. 'Ctive 

(MD) 102-01. Existing projects that arc in the acqUisItion hlecyc1c prior to Acquisition Dccision 

Event 3 (full production) and any new acquisition programs or projccts currently part of STAMP 

will be required to progress through the acquisition lifecycle in accordance with MD 102-01. The 

DHS Acquisition Review Board will conduct Acquisition Decision Events as those 

programs/projccts progress through the acquisition lifccyc1e. These reviews will be ongoing. 

We request Ihalthis recommendation be considered resolved and closed. 

Recommendation 3: Initiate discussions to obtain departmental ownership ofCBP's 

11-60 helicopters from the United States Anny. 

Response: Concur. CBP OAM has already been in discussions with the Anny to obtain 

Department ownership of' Ihe 11-60 helicopters. In a Ictter 10 the Dcpartment ofOefcnsc, CBP 

requested ownership of the loaned helicoplers), 111e Anny responded 10 Ihe request by stating 

thnt thc Anny was currently shon H-60 Blackhawks, and the Secretary of Defense had not 

delcnnincd Ihal thc aircraft werc excess". The Anny did not foresee any change to the loan 

arrangement or commitment. Copies of both letters were previously provided to OIG. We 

requcstlhatlhis rccommendation be considered resolved and closed. 

1 Charles C. Bourqunrdez. Jr .. CDI'. 10 The UOllQrable Roben M. Oates. Secretary ofDefo:nsc. Washington. DC. 

I February 2010 . 

• Jeffre)' J. SchIOCN;er. tl-lajorGenernl. United State..; Ann),. to Charles C. BourqUtlrdez. Jr., Washington. DC. 

2] March 20 I O. 

2 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-13-89 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Recommcndlltion 4: Direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the United States 

Coast Guard to complete the remaining U .. Customs and Border Protection H·60 

conversions and modifications al lhc United States Coast Guard Aviation Logistics 

Center. 

Response: Non-concur. The OIG report compared two vastly different conversion programs at 

USCG and CBP reached a conclusion on various cost efficiencies, which we do not believe is 

fully supported with the evidence of the report. The programs are not comparable as they 

involve different aircrafts and the activities pcrfomlcd for the actual conversions vary greatly. 

Specifically, the USCG program is a corrosion inspection and mitigation and cockpit upgrade 

program, and the CBP program is an airframe depon overhaul with a cockpit upgrade and CBP 

missionization. The programs have different scopes as defined by their different statements of 

work. It is not at all clear if transferring the UH-60 recapitalization to USCG is in fact more cost 

effective. 

The OHS MGMT OCRSO will facil itate a cost-benefit analysis with USCG and CBP to 

detennine whether cost efficiencies can be realized by completing the remaining CBP H-60 

conversions and modifications at the USCG Aviation Logistics Center. Once the scope of work 

has been agreed upon, USCG and CBP would each provide a business case for completing the 

remaining CBP H-60 conversion. The analysis will look at issues such as the specifics for the 

activities of the conversion, supply chain synchronilation, timing and sequencing of work. The 

results will be evaluated and compared to DIG's findings, taking into consideration asset 

ownership, for an overall cost-benefit. Upon completion, OCRSO will make a recommendation 

on the basis of the analysis. DHS will consider the results and take the most eost-efTcctive 

approach. ECO: September 30,2013. 

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

were previously submitted under separate cover. Please feci free to contact me if you have any 

questions. We look forward to working with you in the fi.nure. 

3 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Location Map for CBP and USCG H-60 Helicopters 

Source: OIG 


www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Conversion Comparison of CBP and USCG H-60 Helicopters 

Source: OIG, based on CBP and USCG testimony and documentation 

USCG H-60J-Ts CBP H-60A-Ls
 

Source: USCG 

In the USCG, aircraft capabilities were 

developed to primarily meet Search and 

Rescue, Enforcement of Laws and Treaties and 

Marine Environmental Protection, and Military 

Readiness missions. The H-60 is the USCG’s 

medium-range rescue aircraft used for distant 

or medium-lift missions. The USCG’s target for 

aircraft availability is 71 percent. Additionally, 

air stations ensure that a crew and aircraft are 

ready to respond to alerts within 30 minutes 

from time of notice. 

Characteristics 

Power Plant 

Twin Engine General Electric T700-GE401C, turbo shaft 

Performance 

Max Speed: 180 knots 

Service Ceiling: 18,000 ft. 

Range: 700 nautical miles 

Weight 

Empty: 15,000 lbs 

Gross Weight: 21,884 lbs 

Armament 

Single M240 machine gun 

.50 caliber rifle 

Dimensions 

Rotor Diameter: 53 ft., 8 in. 

Length: 64 ft., 10 in. 

Source: CBP 

The mission of the CBP’s Office of Air and 

Marine is to protect the American people and 

the Nation’s critical infrastructure through 

the coordinated use of integrated air and 

marine forces 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. In support of 

CBP’s mission, the H-60 serves as a utility 

tactical transport helicopter. 

Characteristics 

Power Plant 

Twin Engine General Electric T700-GE701C, front drive, turbo shaft 

Performance 

Max Speed: 150 knots 

Service Ceiling: 20,000 ft. 

Range: 600 nautical miles 

Weight 

Approximate Empty: 13,371 lbs 

Gross Weight: 22,000 lbs 

Armament 

.50 caliber rifle 

Dimensions 

Rotor Diameter: 53 ft., 8 in. 

Approximate Length: 64 ft., 10 in. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Cockpit Comparisons

USCG H-60J (Juliet) CBP H-60A (Alpha) 

Analog Cockpit Analog Cockpit 

Source: USCG 

USCG H-60T (Tango)

 Digital Cockpit 

 Digital auto pilot with coupled hover 

Source: OIG 

CBP H-60L (Lima) 

Analog Cockpit 

Source: USCG
 

Source: CBP
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Upgrades

The USCG and CBP are both converting H-60 helicopters to provide about 15 additional years 

of operational life. These conversions include repairing the airframes and installing updated 

equipment. Upgrades include the following: 

USCG

Cockpit and Cabin Displays 

Five new multifunction display screens. The 

multifunctional displays include digital radar 

display, traffic collision avoidance system, 

traditional display of primary flight 

instruments on the pilots’ flight display, radar 

altimeter, verbal low altitude, and improved 

Search and Rescue hoist camera images. 

Infrared Detection and Identification Systems 

Electro-Optical/Infrared Sensor System 

consisting of five units: turret sensor unit, 

control electronics unit, cabin Display Unit, 

pilot control unit, and joystick control unit. 

The turret sensor unit houses the sensor suite 

and optional payloads. 

Video Recording Systems

Helicopter Airborne Video System provides a 

high-resolution camera system. The camera 

system is designed to capture cabin, hoist, and 

rescue swimmer activities. A Helicopter 

Integrated Data Storage digitally records and 

replays a wide variety of information. 

CBP

Cockpit and Cabin Displays 

Two Garmin communication and navigation 

systems (providing two VHF radios and 

navigation suite), a weather system display, 

and digital moving maps. 

Infrared Detection and Identification Systems 

Forward-Looking Infrared Star Safire High 

Definition Mission Sensor designed to 

provide infrared detection, recognition, and 

identification in support of intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance, search and 

rescue, maritime patrol, border patrol, and 

force protection. 

Video Recording Systems

Avalex AVR 8245 Digital Video Recorder 

records mission sensor videos to various 

recording media and/or allow for playback of 

the recorded video in the aircraft or for post 

mission analysis. A Broadcast Microwave 

Services Digital Downlink provides the ability 

to feed live or recorded mission sensor video 

to a compatible ground station. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

USCG Searchlights CBP Searchlights 

Source: USCG 

Trakkabeam A800 is designed for airborne and 

other applications, is mounted on an 

integrated motorized platform, is capable of 

being used with thermal and video cameras, 

and a moving map. 

USCG Hoist 

Source: CBP 

Trakkabeam A800 is intended to provide 

illumination of targets of interest. The 

searchlight has an infrared band pass filter 

for operations. The beam width can be 

varied from narrow to flood. The search light 

can be controlled from the cockpit or from 

the cabin using the hand control unit. 

CBP Hoist

Source: USCG 

Lucas Aerospace Cargo Systems Hoist was 

integrated into the H-60 airframe per USCG’s 

purchase request. 

Source: CBP 

Breeze Eastern Electric Hoist and External 

Stores Support System Mount. Added on the 

side of H-60. Can be added and removed 

according to mission. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E

CBP H-60 Conversion Process 

Source: OIG, based on Corpus Christie Army Depot’s Process Workflow 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix F 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Linda Howard, Director 

Andrew Smith, Audit Manager 

Christopher Byerly, Audit Lead 

Polin Cohanne, Senior Program Analyst 

Douglas Bozeman, Program Analyst 

Douglas Campbell, Program Analyst 

Shanelle Jones-Quintanilla, Program Analyst 

Kelly Herberger, Communications Analyst 

Katrina Bynes, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-89 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Under Secretary for Management 

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 

Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard 

USCG Audit Liaison 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

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 27 OIG-13-89 
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your 

request to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

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

at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any 

other kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov 

and click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and 

submit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission 

through our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and 

reviewed by DHS OIG. 

Should you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing 

to: DHS Office of Inspector General, Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline, 245 

Murray Drive, SW, Building 410/Mail Stop 2600, Washington, DC, 20528; or you may 

call 1 (800) 323-8603; or fax it directly to us at (202) 254-4297. 

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