Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Customs and Border Protection Award Fees 


for Enforcement Equipment Maintenance 


and Field Operations Support Contract
 

OIG-09-18 February 2009 
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

February 11, 2009 

Preface 

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. 

Our report addresses the award fees that Customs and Border Protection paid to Chenega 

Technology Services Corporation for enforcement equipment maintenance and field 

operations support. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant 

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

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is 

our hope that this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical 

operations. We express our appreciation to all those who contributed to the preparation 

of this report. 

Richard L. Skinner 


Inspector General 

Table of Contents
 

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

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

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

Cost-Plus Contract Type................................................................................................5 

Award Fees ....................................................................................................................6
 

Performance-based and Alpha Contracting Training and Experience.........................11 

Conclusions........................................................................................................................13 

Recommendations..............................................................................................................13
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................................14 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.............................................................17 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.............................................19 

Appendix C: Request from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.........................................23 

Appendix D: Award Fee Determination Process.............................................................25 

Appendix E: Schematic of Award Fee Process...............................................................26 

Appendix F: Award Fee Percentage Paid, by Performance Requirement and Period....27 

Appendix G: Cumulative Award Fees Paid, by Performance Requirement, Through 

September 2007 ...........................................................................................................29 

Appendix H: Major Contributors to This Report ............................................................34 

Appendix I: Report Distribution ....................................................................................35 

Abbreviations 

AFRB Award Fee Review Board 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Chenega Chenega Technology Services Corporation 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

QA quality assurance 

QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 
OIG 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton requested that we review the 

effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security’s award fee 

process as it relates to successful acquisition outcomes. This 

report addresses the award fees that U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection paid to Chenega Technology Services Corporation for 

enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations support. 

Our objectives were to determine whether (1) the selected contract 

type was suitable; (2) Customs and Border Protection paid award 

fees based on contractor excellence; and (3) Customs and Border 

Protection had adequate expertise to develop a performance-based 

contract with expedited negotiating procedures. Through 

September 2007, Customs and Border Protection paid the 

contractor more than $8 million in award fees. 

Cost-plus-award-fee is an improper contract type for fulfilling 

enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations support 

needs. The performance standards for earning awards fees were 

not designed to motivate excellence in acquisition outcomes, that 

is, to achieve or exceed cost, schedule, and technical performance 

objectives. Agency staff who developed, awarded, and 

implemented the contract had limited training and experience with 

expedited negotiations and performance-based contracts such as 

this one. 

Customs and Border Protection did not receive the full benefit of 

using the cost-plus-award-fee contract type and missed an 

opportunity to meet or exceed cost, schedule, and performance 

objectives for enforcement equipment maintenance and field 

operations support. To its credit, Customs and Border Protection 

has redesigned some of this contract’s award criteria so that they 

are more likely to motivate excellence. Implementing our 

recommendations will improve this and future procurements. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 1 
 

Background 

On November 26, 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 

requested that we conduct a broad review to determine the 

effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

award fee process as it relates to federal guidelines and successful 

acquisition outcomes (appendix C). Senator Clinton cited a 

number of reports about DHS awarding fee payments to 

contractors regardless of their performance. She also referred to 

our October 2007 report on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

contract award and oversight issues with the enforcement 

equipment maintenance and field operations support contract.1 As 

a follow-on to our October 2007 report, this report presents the 

results of our audit of award fees CBP paid to Chenega 

Technology Services Corporation (Chenega) under the 

enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations support 

contract. Appendix A provides the purpose, scope, and 

methodology for our audit. 

On September 11, 2003, CBP awarded Chenega a sole-source 

contract to maintain enforcement technology equipment. This 

equipment includes metal detectors, x ray machines, and explosive 

trace detectors throughout land border crossings, commercial 

airports, and seaports. CBP sought a prime integration contractor 

to replace the roughly 20 small business contractors that had been 

providing this service. Through this contract, CBP outsourced 

most of its enforcement equipment maintenance, repair, logistics 

management, property management, and field operations support 

needs. The contract also included staffing and operating a 24­

hours-per- day, 7-days-per-week operations center and training 

customs officers to operate the enforcement equipment. The 

contract was for a 1-year base period and 9 option years, with an 

estimated value of $475 million if CBP exercised all options. CBP 

negotiated this contract using alpha contracting practices, a 

framework for expediting the acquisition process in which the 

government develops the contract statement of objectives 

collaboratively with the selected vendor. 

This contract has a cost-plus-award-fee structure, which federal 

regulations define as follows: 

A cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a 

fee consisting of (1) a base amount fixed at inception 

1

 DHS OIG, Customs and Border Protection Award and Oversight of Alaska Native Corporation Contract 

for Enforcement Equipment Maintenance and Field Operations Support, OIG-08-10, October 2007. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 2 
 

of the contract and (2) an award amount that the 

contractor [might] earn in whole or in part during 

performance and that is sufficient to provide 

motivation for excellence in such areas as quality, 

timeliness, technical ingenuity, and cost-effective 

management.2 

The base amount, also known as fixed fee, is a guaranteed 3% of 

estimated contract costs. The award amount, also referred to as 

the award fee pool, is worth up to 6% of estimated contract costs. 

CBP’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is the basis 

for CBP to determine what percentage of the award fee pool the 

contractor will earn. The QASP defines what the contractor must 

do to satisfy the contract’s statement of objectives and how often 

CBP will monitor and document performance. The QASP enables 

CBP’s quality assurance manager and its contracted performance 

evaluation team to evaluate the contractor systematically. 

Appendix D depicts CBP’s performance monitoring and award fee 

determination process for this contract. 

According to the QASP, for each performance period, which lasts 

about 6 months, CBP evaluates the contractor on about 20 

performance requirements, which CBP adjusts occasionally. Each 

requirement has an associated weight that determines the 

percentage of the award fee pool available for the requirement. 

Some weights change during the life of the contract, depending on 

agency circumstances and priorities. 

For each performance period, CBP’s Award Fee Review Board 

(board) develops a fee recommendation based on the performance 

monitoring results and consideration of subjective factors that 

might have influenced the contractor’s performance. The board 

scores the contractor between 0% and 100% for each requirement 

and presents the recommendation to CBP’s Enforcement 

Technology Program director, the fee-determining official for this 

contract. Appendix E is a schematic of the award fee process, 

which includes the following example. 

For the seventh performance period (October 2006 through March 

2007), the award fee pool was more than $1.7 million. The 

performance requirement training customs officers had a weight of 

10% in this period. CBP scored the contractor’s training customs 

2

 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), § 16.405-2(a) Cost-Plus Award-Fee Contracts. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

officers performance at 100%. Consequently, CBP paid the 

contractor $176,750 as an award fee for training customs officers 

in the 7th performance period, as calculated below. 

7th Period 

Award Fee Pool 

Performance 

Requirement 

Weight Rating 

Award Fee 

Paid 

$1.7 million X 10% X 100% = $176,750 

Through September 29, 2007, CBP paid the contractor almost 

$8.1 million (88%) of the $9.2 million available in award fees 

(table 1). Appendix G lists the cumulative award dollars paid by 

performance requirement through September 2007. CBP paid 

between 79% and 94% of the maximum available award fee for 

each of the 8 performance periods. Appendix F lists percentages 

the contractor earned for each requirement in each period. 

Table 1: Award Fees Paid By Performance Period, 2003 to 2007 

Performance Period 

Award Fees 

Paid Maximum 

Available 

Paid as 

Percentage 

of Maximum 

1st Sept. 11, 2003 to Mar. 11, 2004 $ 764,724 $ 811,378 94 

2nd Mar. 12, 2004 to Sept. 10, 2004 $ 658,028 $ 811,378 81 

3rd Sept. 11, 2004 to Mar. 11, 2005 $ 749,808 $ 839,607 89 

4th Mar. 12, 2005 to Sept. 11, 2005 $ 660,701 $ 839,607 79 

5th Sept. 12, 2005 to Mar. 11, 2006 $ 946,388 $1,028,236 92 

6th Mar. 12, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2006 $1,155,630 $1,347,697 86 

7th Oct. 1, 2006 to Mar. 31, 2007 $1,646,829 $1,767,503 93 

8th Apr. 1, 2007 to Sept. 29, 2007 $1,504,244 $1,767,503 85 

TOTAL Award Fees Paid $8,086,352 $9,212,909 88 

Source: OIG analysis of agency data. 

Results of Audit 

Cost-plus-award-fee was an improper contract type for fulfilling 

CBP’s enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations 

support requirements. CBP did not conduct the cost-benefit 

analysis required before selecting this contract type. 

Also, the performance standards for earning awards fees on the 

enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations support 

contract were not designed to motivate excellence in acquisition 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 4 
 

outcomes, that is, to achieve or exceed cost, schedule, and 

technical performance objectives. About 20% of awards CBP paid 

did not relate to cost, schedule, and technical performance 

outcomes. Most of the other 80% of awards related to compliancebased standards, rather than a level of quality. In addition, the 

standards did not give an incentive for the contractor to improve 

and innovate over time. Supporting documentation for some 

awards was incomplete, missing, or insufficient to justify the 

performance score. 

Agency staff who developed, awarded, and implemented the 

contract had limited training and experience with expedited 

negotiations and performance-based contracts such as this one. 

CBP did not benefit from using the award fee contract type and 

missed an opportunity to meet or exceed cost, schedule, and 

performance objectives for enforcement equipment maintenance 

and field operations. 

Cost-Plus Contract Type 

A cost-plus-award-fee was a prohibited contract type for fulfilling 

CBP’s enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations 

support requirements.3 In addition, CBP did not conduct the 

required cost-benefit analysis before selecting the contract type. 

We do not know CBP’s rationale for selecting this contract type 

because the agency could not provide required documentation 

related to its pre-award decisions, and the individuals who made 

the decision are no longer with CBP’s contracting office. 

Federal regulations provide that agencies shall use firm-fixed-price 

contracts when requirements are well defined; goods and services 

are commercial in nature; and the procurement creates minimal 

cost, schedule, and performance risk to the government.4 Use of 

any other contract type is not permitted in such circumstances. 

Moreover, federal regulations provide in part that a cost-plusaward-fee contract is suitable when “it is neither feasible nor 

effective to devise predetermined objective incentive targets 

applicable to cost, technical performance, or schedule.”5 

A firm-fixed-price contract, rather than a cost-plus contract, is well 

suited to CBP’s enforcement equipment maintenance and field 

3

 FAR, §§12.207 Contract type (2003); 16.301-3, Limitations; and 2.101, Definitions.
 4

 FAR, §§ 12.207, Contract type (2003); 16.202-2, Application. 5

 FAR, § 16.405-2(b)(1)(i), Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 5 
 

 

operations support needs.6 The goods and services CBP procured 

in this contract are generally commercial, including maintenance, 

repair, and training. Moreover, CBP used this contract to combine 

the efforts of several previous contractors. Consequently, before 

contract award, CBP had historical data on the costs, schedules, 

and risks associated with procuring these goods and services. CBP 

could have used this information to devise objective cost, schedule, 

and performance incentive targets and, as a result, successfully use 

a firm-fixed-price contract type. 

According to federal regulations, an agency should conduct a costbenefit analysis to ensure that the benefits of a cost-plus-award-fee 

contract offset the additional oversight and management burden.7 

As appendix D demonstrates, performance monitoring and award 

fee determination can be administratively complex and detailed. 

One federal agency, in its report on cost-plus-award-fee contracts 

best practices, notes that the value added to a program by using an 

award fee-type contract must be greater than the costs to 

administer it.8

 A recent Office of Management and Budget 

memorandum reinforced this requirement by directing contracting 

officers to conduct risk and cost-benefit analyses when 

determining whether to use award fee contracts.9 Contracting 

officers should prepare the analyses in writing and obtain higher 

level approval before awarding such a contract. 

CBP could not provide documentation related to its pre-award 

decisions. Federal regulations require that contract files include 

documentation on why the agency selected the particular contract 

type.10 However, the only documentation CBP had available— 

June 17, 2004, meeting notes—indicates that the vendor (Chenega) 

suggested that the cost-plus-award-fee contract was the “right fit.” 

These notes also state that it “took time for CBP to understand and 

adopt the cost-plus-award-fee contract type,” without elaboration. 

Award Fees 

The performance standards for earning awards fees were not 

designed to motivate excellence in acquisition outcomes. About 

20% of award fees CBP paid did not relate to cost, schedule, or 

6

 FAR, §§ 12.207 Contract type (2003); 16.202-2 Application; 16.301-3, Limitations.
 7

 FAR, §16.405-2(b)(1)(iii) and (c)(2), Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts. 8

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Award Fee Contracting Guide, June 27, 2001. 9

 Office of Management and Budget, Appropriate Use of Incentive Contracts, Memorandum for Chief
 

Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives, December 4, 2007. 

10 FAR, §16.103(d), Negotiating Contract Type. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 6 
 

 

 

technical performance outcomes. In addition, the performance 

standards for most of the other 80% of awards were compliance 

based, rather than based on a level of quality. The standards did 

not give an incentive for the contractor to improve and innovate 

over time. In addition, supporting documentation for some awards 

was incomplete, missing, or insufficient to justify the performance 

score. 

Cost, Schedule, and Technical Performance 

About $1.6 million (20%) of the award fees CBP paid did not 

relate to measures of acquisition outcomes, shown as “Other” in 

Table 2. For example, the contractor earned award fees for 

responding to government requests for ad hoc reports, which CBP 

scored for completeness, timeliness, and accuracy. About $6.4 

million (80%) of the $8.1 million in award fees related to cost, 

schedule, and technical performance outcomes, including 

$3.9 million (48.3%) for requirements related to technical 

performance. Almost $2.0 million (about 25%) of award fees CBP 

paid related to schedule outcomes, and $516,521 (about 6.4%) 

related to cost. 

Table 2: Award Fees Related to Acquisition Outcomes 

Outcome 

Award Fees Paid 

Dollars Percentage of 

Total 

Technical Performance 3,905,998 48.3 

Schedule 1,985,835 24.6 

Cost 516,521 6.4 

Technical Performance and Schedule 79,109 1.0 

Other 1,598,946 19.8 

CBP Rounding Error (58) 

TOTAL 8,086,351 100.0 

Source: OIG analysis of agency data. 

Compliance-Based Standards 

The bases for most awards—the performance standards— 

measured compliance, rather than a level of excellence. That is, 

the contractor either complied or did not comply with a 

performance standard. Linking award fees to a level of quality 

would meet more closely the regulatory intent that award fees 

should motivate excellence. The evaluations CBP conducted 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 7 
according to the QASP were insufficient to assess excellence 

(appendix G). 

For example, CBP paid the contractor $687,535 in award fees 

(8.5% of award fees paid through September 2007) for providing 

monthly contract performance ($351,953) and logistics 

performance ($335,582) reports. Specifically, the contractor 

reported monthly to CBP on the average cost for providing training 

and preventative and corrective maintenance applicable to 

specified types of equipment. The contractor also compared the 

current month’s performance to that of previous months in the 

performance period. If CBP determined that the reports were 

timely and 99% error free, the contractor earned a high score and 

most or all of this requirement’s award fee. 

For another performance requirement, inspecting newly procured 

hand-held enforcement technology equipment, CBP paid the 

contractor $375,089 in award fees (4.6% of award fees paid 

through September 2007). To earn high scores, the contractor 

documented its inspection of 100% of the previous month’s new 

handheld enforcement equipment. 

Other examples of the compliance orientation of the performance 

standards include CBP’s paying the contractor $568,107 in award 

fees (7.0% of award fees paid through September 2007) for 

responding to government requests for ad hoc reports. CBP also 

paid the contractor $470,840 (5.8% of award fees paid through 

September 2007) for reporting on discussions of day-to-day 

management functions and the status of accomplishing contract 

requirements. 

The one partial exception to the compliance orientation was the 

performance standard for customer wait time improvement, a 

component of the customer wait time performance requirement. 

This standard requires the contractor to demonstrate a qualitative 

improvement in order to earn an award fee. CBP paid $236,101 

(2.9% of award fees paid through September 2007) to the 

contractor for reducing wait times 5% in each performance period. 

The award fees generally did not give the contractor an incentive 

to improve and innovate over time. Some performance standards 

did not challenge the contractor, and the contractor consistently 

received the highest possible scores for compliance. According to 

the best practices report, the government may unilaterally revise its 

contractor evaluation plan as priorities change and may adjust 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 8 
 

 

 

evaluation weights to redirect contractor emphasis to areas needing 

improvement.11 

For this contract, CBP gave the contractor an outstanding score 

(between 95% and 100%) on approximately one-fourth of the 

performance requirements in almost all rating periods 

(appendix F). On 3 of 22 performance requirements (inspection of 

newly procured hand-held enforcement technology, inspection of 

repaired hand-held enforcement technology, and customer wait 

time improvement), the contractor achieved outstanding scores in 

all periods rated. For another two performance requirements, the 

contractor received the highest scores in 5 of 7 periods for training 

instructor evaluations, and 6 of 7 periods for ISO12 

implementation. In the most recent 4 performance periods, the 

contractor scored less than 50% on 1 out of 75 scores. 

As of December 1, 2007, CBP began implementing a significantly 

revised QASP. The first performance period under the new QASP 

concluded on March 30, 2008. As of May 2008, CBP had not 

completed the award fee determination for this performance 

period. The new QASP includes performance standards and 

evaluation criteria for 7 of 19 requirements that CBP believes will 

measure whether the contractor exceeded compliance-level 

performance. CBP removed from the new version some of the 

examples cited above that were not designed to motivate 

excellence. However, the new QASP retains some compliancebased standards. CBP should continue improving the QASP until 

all standards are designed to motivate excellence in acquisition 

outcomes. 

Award Fee Justification and Documentation 

CBP did not justify paying some award fees to its contractor. 

Some documentation did not demonstrate that the contractor met 

the performance standard; other documentation was incomplete or 

missing. 

In each performance period, CBP took an award action for each of 

the performance requirements, leading to 154 award actions for the 

first 8 performance periods. Our sample for detailed review 

consisted of the 12 actions worth more than $100,000 each.13 

11 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Award Fee Contracting Guide, June 27, 2001. 12 International Standards Organization standards for good business practices.
 13 After we completed our fieldwork, CBP awarded the contractor an additional four actions worth more 

than $100,000 each. We did not include these in our sample. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 9 
These sample actions, about 8% of all award actions, total almost 

$1.6 million and represent about 19% of the award fees CBP paid 

the contractor through September 2007. 

CBP’s internal audit documentation was complete for 9 of the 12 

actions in our sample (Table 3). Documentation consisted of 

CBP’s audit evaluation forms and the supporting documentation 

for each month of the rating period. This documentation 

adequately justified seven actions based on the standards in place 

at the time. 

Table 3: Justification for Sample Award Actions 

Documentation 

Sample Award Actions 

Number Dollars Percentage 

of Dollars 

Complete and Justifies Award 7 929,126 60.0 

Complete but Does Not Justify Award 2 281,033 18.0 

Incomplete 1 111,589 7.0 

Not Available 2 237,328 15.0 

TOTAL Sample 12 1,559,076 100.0 

Source: OIG analysis of agency data. 

The documentation for two actions does not justify CBP’s awards. 

First, the customer wait time rating was inflated. Evaluators 

credited the contractor for timely responses on some equipment 

maintenance requests but did not reduce the contractor’s 

performance rating for untimely responses on similar requests. 

Second, CBP paid 89% of the fees available for the managerial 

functions requirement, although the performance monitors reported 

that the contractor provided the required reports either late or not at 

all. CBP’s board did not document any additional details to 

indicate that the contractor performed satisfactorily on this 

requirement. 

We could not determine whether 3 of the 12 actions in our sample 

worth more than $348,000 (22%) were justified. Documentation 

for 3 months of activity was missing for the relocated equipment 

action. The oldest two actions in our sample had no supporting 

documentation. Because CBP could not provide us with 

supporting documentation, we do not know whether the award fees 

paid were justified. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 10 
Performance-based and Alpha Contracting Training and 

Experience 

Staff who developed the contract had limited training and 

experience with alpha contracting and performance-based 

contracts, some CBP officials told us. Consequently, the effort had 

higher acquisition risk than necessary, and the acquisition was less 

likely to meet or exceed cost, schedule, and performance 

objectives and provide the best value to the government. 

CBP used alpha contracting practices to award the cost-plusaward-fee contract. These practices emphasize concurrent 

processing and a close relationship between the government and 

the vendor. The contractor benefits significantly from reduced 

proposal preparation costs. Because alpha contracting is a 

negotiation, the government needs experienced staff to protect the 

public interest during the process. 

CBP’s lack of experience in this area raises concerns as to whether 

the agency had adequate control of the alpha contracting 

proceedings. Meeting notes from June 17, 2004, indicate that the 

vendor (Chenega) suggested the alpha contracting. According to 

one CBP official involved in this contract award process, none of 

the government negotiators had specialized alpha contracting 

training or experience before this procurement. This official did 

not know whether CBP documented the alpha contracting sessions. 

Instead of using a detailed statement of work or performance work 

statement, CBP awarded this contract with a statement of 

objectives: “ . . . the [contractor] shall be responsible for 

[1] enforcement technology that is mission capable and available 

to the CBP officers, and [2] training competent, confident, and 

effective equipment operators throughout the lifetime of the 

enforcement equipment.” This lack of detail might have 

contributed to the QASP deficiencies we identified in providing 

the basis for award fees that motivate excellent contractor 

performance. CBP’s July 30, 2004, risk analysis of the contract 

noted that the lack of a statement of work “casts an appearance of a 

significant lack of accountability for [Chenega] expenditures.” 

Performance-based contracting is more complex than traditional 

procurement approaches. Successful performance-based 

contracting requires more effort and smarter processes to 

administer and oversee. “Developing an approach to measuring 

and managing performance is a complex process . . . as important 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 11 
 

as developing the Statement of Work or the Statement of 

Objectives,” according to federal interagency guidance.14 

The CBP official responsible for developing performance 

standards for this contract took one general performance-based 

contracting course and received no training specific to managing 

cost-plus-award-fee contracts. She told us that she gained much of 

her experience through on-the-job training and that lack of time 

was the main reason she had no additional training. This official 

was the only individual in the program office who had received 

performance-based contracting training. 

According to the Office of Management and Budget, “Effective 

training is crucial to the successful implementation of 

[performance-based contracting] . . . Agency acquisition workforce 

policy should include these [performance-based contracting] 

training requirements at the appropriate level for all members of 

the acquisition workforce.”15 In addition, according to interagency 

guidance, performance-based contracting teams “Are not a 

‘training ground.’ They’re a field of operation for . . . people who 

are among the best in their fields and have a grounding in, or have 

been trained[,] in acquisition.”16 

Performance evaluators for this contract told us that they needed 

more training, in part to eliminate the contractor personnel’s 

perception that the evaluators were not familiar enough with the 

equipment subject to evaluation. One performance evaluator told 

us, “It is usually expected that new evaluators have already had 

training regarding quality assurance; however, this is usually not 

the case.” 

Choosing a performance-based contract negotiated through alpha 

contracting significantly increased CBP’s acquisition risk 

compared to a traditional contract structure and award process. 

CBP should develop policies and procedures that specify 

circumstances that warrant alpha contracting. If CBP wants to use 

alpha contracting again, it should increase the level of specialized 

training for its staff. As noted above, performance-based 

contracting also requires training. 

14 Interagency Guidance Document, Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition, 

http://acquisition.gov/comp/seven_steps/index.html. 

15 Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum from Paul Dennett, Administrator, Office of Federal
 

Procurement Policy, to Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives, May 22, 2007. 16 Interagency Guidance Document, Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition, 

http://acquisition.gov/comp/seven_steps/index.html.
 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 12 
Conclusions 

Fixed-priced contracts generally provide the lowest cost risk to the 

government. Because CBP, with untrained and inexperienced 

staff, chose to negotiate a cost-plus-award-fee contract with alpha 

contracting, it increased the level of risk and reduced the likelihood 

that the procurement would provide the best value. Moreover, 

basing award fees on standards with a compliance, rather than 

quality, orientation meant that CBP did not receive the full benefit 

of using a cost-plus-award-fee contract. CBP implementation of 

our recommendations will increase the likelihood that it will 

improve the cost-effectiveness of this and future procurements. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Commissioner: 

Recommendation #1: Determine whether exercising option years 

on the current cost-plus-award-fee contract will provide the best 

value for enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations 

support, and if not, develop and implement a new acquisition 

strategy to procure these services. 

Recommendation #2: Revise the QASP for this contract 

to ensure that award fees are designed to motivate 

excellence in acquisition outcomes. 

Recommendation #3: Establish and implement policies and 

procedures that specify the appropriate circumstances for 

a) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts and ensure that 

performance requirements motivate excellence 

and successful acquisition outcomes. 

b) Alpha contracting and ensure that staff 

adequately document related discussions, 

negotiations, and outcomes. 

Recommendation #4: Develop internal controls to ensure that 

official contract files contain adequate documentation by 

performance requirement to justify award fees paid. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 13 
Recommendation #5: Provide additional training to employees 

responsible for conducting quality assurance activities on the 

enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations support 

contract. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The CBP Director, Office of Policy and Planning, provided written 

comments on our draft report. In general, CBP concurred with 

four of the recommendations and partially concurred with 

recommendation #3. In addition, CBP provided technical 

comments on some areas in the report. We reviewed the technical 

comments and incorporated the changes into the final report, as 

appropriate. 

CBP concurred with recommendation #1, to determine whether 

exercising option years on the current contract will provide the best 

value. CBP completed a best-value analysis, dated July 15, 2008, 

which showed that Chenega was providing the best value for 

enforcement equipment maintenance and field operations support. 

CBP made its final determination to continue with the current 

contractor on August 19, 2008, based on this analysis. CBP’s July 

2008 analysis did not include an evaluation of the contract type: 

cost-plus-award-fee versus other contract types. CBP disagreed 

that the cost-plus-award fee was an improper contract type. CBP 

provided an explanation where a fixed price contract would not 

address CBP responsibilities. However, this explanation does not 

justify CBP’s use of a prohibited contract type. We believe CBP 

should perform a complete analysis, including a legal review, to 

determine the proper contract type. We consider this 

recommendation to be unresolved and request CBP provide 

additional information. 

CBP concurred with recommendation #2, to revise the QASP to 

make sure that award fees are designed to motivate excellence in 

acquisition outcomes. CBP commented that it has worked to 

improve the metrics and surveillance measures in the QASP and is 

revising the plan to include performance-based metrics, designed 

to continuously improve performance throughout the life of the 

contract. CBP’s target date for completion of the revised plan is 

March 31, 2009. We consider this recommendation resolved, but 

it will remain open until CBP provides us documentation on the 

revised QASP. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 14 
CBP partially concurred with recommendation #3, to 

establish and implement policies and procedures that 

specify the appropriate circumstances for using cost-plusaward-fee contracts and alpha contracting. In its response 

to recommendation #3a, CBP refers to its continuing 

reliance on current laws and procedure, specifically, 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 16.405-2, Cost-PlusAward Fee Contracts, and Homeland Acquisition Manual 

3016.4, Types of Contracts, as its justification for not 

establishing internal policies. While we agree that any 

organization within DHS should rely on these documents to 

support contract decisions, our recommendation was 

designed to go beyond the current prescribed regulatory 

requirements to more specific local guidance. 

CBP concurred with recommendation #3b, stating that it 

would establish standard operating procedures to address 

using alpha contracting and formally documenting related 

discussions, negotiations, and outcomes. CBP’s target date 

for completing the standards is March 31, 2009. This 

recommendation will remain open until CBP provides us 

with standard operating procedures that specify the 

appropriate circumstances for using cost-plus contracts, 

performance requirements, and alpha contracting. 

CBP concurred with recommendation #4, to develop internal 

controls to make sure official contract files contain adequate 

documentation to support the award fees paid for each 

performance requirement. CBP stated that its Enforcement 

Technology Office added an additional review of the Award Fee 

Review Board decisions and quality assurance documentation to 

justify and support award fees it paid. CBP stated that it would 

incorporate these changes into its standing operating procedures by 

December 31, 2008. We consider this recommendation resolved 

but open until CBP provides us with documentation that supports 

the implementation of these additional internal controls. 

CBP concurred with recommendation #5, to provide additional 

training to its employees responsible for conducting quality 

assurance activities on the enforcement equipment maintenance 

and field operations support contract. CBP noted that many of the 

Office of Information Technology managers, including four 

current managers, are now project management certified. CBP 

provided documentation that showed enforcement technology 

personnel had completed a course on managing performance-based 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 15 
service awards. Additional classes in quality assurance and 

performance metrics will be scheduled for employees, and CBP is 

researching the availability of technical training on equipment 

inventory management for its quality assurance personnel. We 

believe these steps satisfy the intent of the recommendation, which 

we consider resolved and closed. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 16 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our objectives were to determine whether (1) the selected contract 

type was suitable; (2) Customs and Border Protection paid award 

fees based on contractor excellence; and (3) Customs and Border 

Protection had adequate expertise to develop a performance-based 

contract with expedited negotiating procedures. 

This audit was limited in scope to address Senator Clinton’s 

concerns specific to CBP’s contract with Chenega. We conducted 

audit fieldwork at CBP’s Procurement Directorate in Washington, 

DC, and the office of the contracting officer’s technical 

representative in Lorton, VA. 

To determine whether CBP implemented effective processes and 

mechanisms to administer these award fees, we reviewed 

applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. We 

interviewed personnel at CBP’s Enforcement Technology Program 

center in Lorton, VA. Interviewees included those responsible for 

the administration of this contract and those who conduct field 

audits to evaluate the contractor’s performance. We reviewed 

CBP’s policies and procedures regarding the award fee 

determination process. 

In addition, we reviewed the Inspector General’s prior audit report 

on CBP’s award and oversight of the enforcement equipment 

maintenance and field operations support contract, and other 

reports related to award fees. 

We used the following criteria: 

•	 Public Law 110-28, Section 3502, May 25, 2007 

•	 Federal Acquisition Regulation Definitions of Words and 

Terms (Part 2); Special Requirements for the Acquisition of 

Commercial Items (Part 12); and Types of Contracts (Part 16) 

•	 Office of Management and Budget Memorandum: Appropriate 

Use of Incentive Contracts, December 4, 2007 

•	 Contract TC-03-036 / HSBP1004C00193 

•	 Homeland Security Acquisition Regulations and Manual 

•	 Other federal best practices, including those of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Air Force. 

To determine whether CBP conducted effective oversight of the 

contractor’s performance, we analyzed 12 of the 154 transactions 

linked to performance requirements individually valued at more 

than $100,000. The fees awarded in these 12 transactions 

represent more than 19% of the total award fees paid for 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 17 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

performance through September 2007. We did not review the four 

transactions valued at more than $100,000 for contractor 

performance between April and September 2007, because CBP did 

not finalize the award fee determination for this performance 

period until after we completed our audit fieldwork. 

We conducted this performance audit between January and 

February 2008 under the authority of 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 on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 18 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 19 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 20 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 21 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 22 
Appendix C 

Request from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 23 
Appendix C 

Request from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (continued) 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 24 
Quality assurance (QA) manager and 

performance monitors perform monthly audits 

using Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. 

QA manager analyzes inputs from audits. 

QA manager computes semiannual numeric rating 

and provides numeric rating to performance 

coordinator. 

Performance coordinator uses the rating table to 

determine the award fee percentage. 

Each Award Fee Review Board (AFRB) voting 

member reviews the numeric rating and either 

concurs or nonconcurs with the recommended 

award fee percentage. 

AFRB chairperson reviews recommendation and 

arrives at a resolution. 

AFRB chairperson prepares cover letter for award 

fee recommendation to award fee determining 

official. 

Award fee determining official makes final fee 

determination and notifies contracting officer. 

Contracting officer prepares award fee 

determining official’s letter to contractor and 

modifies contract. 

Appendix D 

Award Fee Determination Process 

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 25 
Appendix E 

Schematic of Award Fee Process Source: OIG analysis 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 26 
Appendix F 

Award Fee Percentage Paid, by Performance Requirement and Period 

± Performance Requirement 

Award Fees Paid 

Percentage by Performance Period * 

8th

 7

th

 6

th

 5

th

 4

th

 3

rd

 2

1 Preventative Maintenance 75.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 

2 Corrective Maintenance 100.0 100.0 85.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 3 Inspection of Newly Procured Hand-Held Enforcement Technology 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

4 Inspection of Repaired Hand-Held Enforcement Technology 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

5a Customer Wait Time 85.0 100.0 100.0 85.0 79.8 50.0 

5b Customer Wait Time Improvement 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ** 100.0 

6 Enforcement Technology Changes and Modifications n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 75.0 

7 Enforcement Technology Equipment Relocation 75.0 75.0 92.0 100.0 88.2 100.0 

8 Operations Center Status Boards 60.0 92.3 25.0 100.0 100.0 90.3 

9 Operations Center Response 97.6 97.1 97.0 100.0 96.4 94.1 

10 Training Customs Officers 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.5 

11 Training Instructor Evaluation 99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 Training Student Documentation 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 --0-- n.a. 

13 Training Certificates n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 100.0 100.0 

14 Management of Subcontractors n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 85.0 

15 Background Investigation Paperwork n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 92.7 

16 Logistics Performance Reports 90.0 100.0 100.0 89.0 29.9 100.0 

17 Contract Performance Reports 85.0 94.0 100.0 100.0 78.6 100.0 

18 Invoices 87.0 94.0 55.0 100.0 66.7 84.6 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 27 
Appendix F 

Award Fee Percentage Paid, by Performance Requirement and Period 

± Performance Requirement 

Award Fees Paid 

Percentage by Performance Period * 

8th

 7

th

 6

th

 5

th

 4

th

 3

rd

 2

19 Managerial Functions n.a. 89.0 62.0 92.0 87.5 75.0 

20 Ad Hoc and Monthly Reports 50.0 100.0 86.0 100.0 36.8 54.6 

21 Quality 75.0 100.0 69.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

22 ISO Implementation 100.0 100.0 79.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

23 Response to Training Requests n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

24 Central Training Materials Library n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

± Audit table from quality assurance surveillance plan. 

* 8th Period: Apr. 1, 2007 to Sept. 29, 2007 3rd Period: Sept. 11, 2004 to Mar. 11, 2005 

7

th Period: Oct. 1, 2006 to Mar. 31, 2007 2nd Period: Mar. 12, 2004 to Sept. 10, 2004 

6

th Period: Mar. 12, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2006 

5

th Period: Sept. 12, 2005 to Mar. 11, 2006 CBP did not use the requirements in this table for the 1st performance period, which was a transi

4

th Period: Mar. 12, 2005 to Sept. 11, 2005 contractors to the current contractor. 

** Combined with customer wait time. 

n.a.	 CBP determined that this requirement would not be evaluated for this period. 

Source: OIG analysis of agency data. 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 28 
Appendix G 

Cumulative Award Fees Paid, by Performance Requirement, Through September 2007 

Performance 

Requirement Standard Measure Category * D

Training Customs Officers 

Not less than 85% of students in each class answer correctly 80% of the instructor’s questions. 

Standardized written questions administered periodically during the training session. 

Technical 

Performance 7

Ad Hoc and Monthly Reports 

Ad hoc reports as requested by the government are provided timely, accurately, and completely. 

Unscheduled reports will be provided, as required. Other 5

Enforcement Technology Equipment Relocation 

(a) Disassembled and ready for transport within 3 workdays of work start. (b) Transported anywhere within the continental United States, excluding Alaska, in not more than 15 workdays. (c) Assembled, tested, and ready for service at receiving site in not more than 3 workdays after equipment reassembly starts. 

For standards (a) and (b), database review, as needed. For standard (c), customer surveys and field technician report reviews. 

Schedule 5

Customer Wait Time Not longer than times specified in the contract. Improvements meet or exceed expectations. Hourly baseline established for each evaluation period Schedule 4Managerial Functions At least 95% of program cost, schedule, and performance objectives are achieved. 

Monthly meetings are held to brief costs, schedule, quality and performance, personnel, customer satisfaction, risk management and mitigation, and issues and resolution. 

Technical 

Performance 4

Invoices Reasonable, accurate, complete, and allocable invoices are submitted twice monthly. 

Monthly and random audits. Monthly audits of cost to repair, cost per hour for preventative maintenance, and technical training cost per hour for subcontractors involved in nonintrusive inspection equipment. 

Cost 4

Corrective Maintenance In accordance with equipment manufacturers’ maintenance requirements. Database reviews. Customer surveys after maintenance performed. Technical Performance 3

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 29 
Appendix G 

Cumulative Award Fees Paid, by Performance Requirement, Through September 2007 

Performance 

Requirement Standard Measure Category * D

Inspection of Repaired Hand-Held Enforcement Technology Equipment 

100% inspection. Monthly reports. Technical Performance 3

Inspection of Newly Procured Hand-Held Enforcement Technology Equipment 

100% inspection. Quality assurance manager conducts periodic walk-throughs. Technical Performance 3

Contract Performance Reports 

Contractor establishes contract performance figures, collects and analyzes the data, and reports results comparing current month with prior months. Each report is accurately prepared and presented monthly and not less than 99% error free. 

Monthly review of records and reports. Other 3

Logistics Performance Reports 

Contractor establishes logistics performance figures, analyzes the data, and reports results. Reports are not less than 99% error free. 

Monthly reviews of job code numbers on work breakdown schedule. Other 3

Preventative Maintenance 

In accordance with equipment manufacturers’ maintenance requirements. 

Database reviews. Customer surveys after maintenance performed. Schedule 3

ISO Implementation Schedule is maintained. Contractor status reports. Technical Performance 2Training Instructor Evaluation 

Contracting officer’s technical representative receives not more than two valid complaints concerning quality of contractor and subcontractor’s instruction, during two or more classes, during a 1-month period. 

Audits and reviews of student evaluation sheets. 

Technical 

Performance 2

Customer Wait Time Improvement Meets or exceeds expectations. 

More than 5% = 100%; 4– 4.99% = 90%; 3–3.99% = 80%; 2–2.99% = 70%; 1–1.99% = 60%; less than 1% = 40% 

Technical 

Performance 2

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 30 
Appendix G 

Cumulative Award Fees Paid, by Performance Requirement, Through September 2007 

Performance 

Requirement Standard Measure Category * D

Operations Center Response 

(a) Not less than 95% of incoming telephone calls are answered by a service desk person. (b) 100% of incoming voicemail messages are answered within 24 hours of receipt. (c) 100% of service action status is called back to the customer. 

For standards (a) and (c), monthly reviews of telephone call and service action records. For standard (b), monthly reviews of telephone calls. 

Technical 

Performance 2

Quality 

Contractor works with the government quality assurance manager to ensure that quality is addressed and monitored. 

Periodic contractor meetings with the government. 

Technical 

Performance 2

Operations Center Status Boards 

Equipment not “fully” operational is displayed on a status board until repaired. Monthly checks of status board accuracy. Schedule 1

Training Student Documentation 

Student sign-in sheets are delivered to registrar not more than 10 workdays after class completion or not later than last workday of the month in which training was completed, whichever occurs first. 

Review of student sign-in sheets records and database entries. Other 1

Contractor Action Plan and Transition Plan ** 

Detailed action plan is provided within 30 days of contract award. Contractor completes transition within 4 months after contract award. Develops a plan to improve management and maintenance of the high-technology enforcement equipment. 

Monthly progress review with contractor management team. Schedule 1

Management Reviews ** Program requirements are understood and met through establishment of a program office. Monthly management reviews. Monthly cost, schedule, and status reviews are initiated. Quarterly progress reviews. Schedule 1Management of Subcontractors 

Subcontractors work efficiently and effectively according to contractor-established maintenance, training, and logistics standards, as appropriate. 

Monitoring of subcontractor performance, such as customer satisfaction, contractorprovided records, phone interviews, site visits, and invoices. 

Technical 

Performance 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 31 
Appendix G 

Cumulative Award Fees Paid, by Performance Requirement, Through September 2007 

Performance 

Requirement Standard Measure Category * D

Cost Control ** 

Contractor develops a cost structure for developing and operating the prime integration contract; uses the most cost-effective means to operate the prime integration contract; and maintains cost records for verification. Actual costs do not exceed 10% of planned costs in the first contract period. 

Verify costs by audit. Quarterly spot audits. Cost 

Financial Reports ** Contractor develops a financial reporting system that complies with standard accounting principles. Financial reports approved and implemented. Technical Performance Monthly Status Review Followups (Timely Corrective and Preventative Action) ** 

Corrective action to overcome noted deficiencies in achieving program objectives is initiated. At least 90% of previous quarter’s corrective actions are initiated by start of following quarter. 

Followup reviews. Assessments of other program aspects to ensure that additional problems have not been created. 

Technical 

Performance 

Enforcement Technology Equipment Changes and Modifications 

All Technology Support Branch-authorized changes and modifications are incorporated as specified. Monthly reviews of database. Other 

Takeover of Maintenance Contracts ** 

Contractor completes transition and takes full responsibility for National Technical Service Center and Field Technicians Maintenance within designated months after contract award. Develops plan to improve management and maintenance of the hightechnology enforcement equipment. 

Timely takeover of all current maintenance contracts. Progress review with the contractor management team. 

Schedule 

Monthly Training Progress ** 

Contractor completes transition within 4 months after contract award. Develops action plan to improve training of equipment operators. 

Progress monitored every month. Progress review with the contractor management team. 

Schedule 

Training Certificates 

Provided within 1 month of completion to the Customs Management Center for students who completed training courses. 

Audits of the training database. Other 

Inventory Process Progress ** 

Within 6 months of contract award, contractor develops an efficient way of tracking the equipment inventory. 

Quarterly spot checks of the ongoing inventory reveal no errors. Schedule 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 32 
Appendix G 

Cumulative Award Fees Paid, by Performance Requirement, Through September 2007 

Performance 

Requirement Standard Measure Category * D

Response to Training Requests *** 

Training coordinators respond to training requests within 2 workdays. 

Audits of training request records and contacts with ports. 

Schedule, 

Technical 

Performance 

Central Training Materials Library *** 

Established and maintained and includes hard and soft copies of documentation, videos, and training aides. 

Audits comparing lists of what should be available to actual. Other 

Contract Assumption Plan ** 

Contractor initiates discussions with equipment manufacturers to ensure uninterrupted service coverage for equipment. 

Contractor’s Contract Assumption Plan is established and approved. Other 

Background Investigation Paperwork 

Contractor submits paperwork for new employees within 10 workdays of employment. Not more than two submissions returned for corrections during a 60­day period. 

Audits of security paperwork submissions. Schedule 

Contractor Follows up, Actions Complete ** 

Ongoing program activities are monitored to assess 

status and results of tasks in terms of desired characteristics and metrics. 

Followup monthly reviews. 

Schedule, 

Technical 

Performance 

Service Delivery Measurement Approved ** 

Comply with the ISO 9000 requirements. Service delivery quality measurement plan is approved. Technical Performance 

1% for Merit in Rating Period Six Total 8,0Rounding Adjustment 

TOTAL Award Fees Paid Through September 2007 8,0

* OIG determination.
 ** Applicable to first 6 months only.
 *** Applicable during second rating period only.
 n.a. Not applicable. Source: OIG analysis of CBP provided data.
 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 33 
Appendix H 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Rosalyn G. Millman, Director 

Frank Parrott, Audit Manager 

Michael A. Talevi, Auditor-in-Charge 

Emily Pedersen, Program Analyst 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 34 
Appendix I 

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 Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 

Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection 

Audit Liaison, Customs and Border Protection 

Chief Procurement Officer, DHS 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

CBP Award Fees for Enforcement Equipment 

Maintenance and Field Operations Support Contract 

Page 35 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4199, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

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

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

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

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

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