Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

CBP's Construction of Border Patrol 


Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles
 

OIG-09-91 July 2009 
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

 July 14, 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. 

This report covers the strengths and weaknesses of Customs and Border Protection’s 

program to construct Border Patrol facilities and acquire vehicles. It is based on 

interviews with employees and officials of Customs and Border Protection, 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. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

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

Richard L. Skinner 


Inspector General 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 


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

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

Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................3


 Planning Process Not Adequate for Facilities ................................................................4 


Recommendations...........................................................................................................5


 Management Comments and OIG Analysis ...................................................................5 


Oversight of Facilities Projects ......................................................................................6 


Recommendations.........................................................................................................10


 Management Comments and OIG Analysis .................................................................11 


Acquiring Sufficient Vehicles.......................................................................................12 


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


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


Appendices

 Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology..........................................................14 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..........................................16 


Appendix C: CBP Facility Centers ..............................................................................21


 Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report...........................................................22 


Appendix E: Report Distribution..................................................................................23 


Abbreviations 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 


DHS Department of Homeland Security 


ECSO Engineering and Construction Support Office 


GSA General Services Administration 


OBP Office of Border Patrol 


OIG Office of Inspector General 


SAP Systems, Applications, and Products 

SBInet Secure Border Initiative net 


USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 


CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 
OIG
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The objectives of our review were to determine whether Customs and 

Border Protection (1) planned for and provided effective oversight of 

Border Patrol facilities construction on the southwest border and (2) 

procured a sufficient number of vehicles to accommodate the increase in 

Border Patrol agents. Since July 2006, Border Patrol has added 6,000 

agents and plans to add 2,000 agents during 2009, bringing the total to 

20,000 agents. 

Customs and Border Protection’s planning and oversight of design and 

construction of its Border Patrol facilities needs improvement. Current 

planning is based on an out-of-date facilities design guide that does not 

include all current requirements or provide accurate construction cost 

estimates. Customs and Border Protection also needs uniform policies and 

procedures and a comprehensive information system to oversee 

construction projects. 

Customs and Border Protection did not complete 56 (77%) of the 73 rapid 

response facilities projects it planned to complete in 2008. These projects 

include new facilities, modifications to existing facilities, and temporary 

solutions to accommodate new agents and shifting agent deployments. 

Customs and Border Protection has initiated several actions to improve its 

facilities construction planning and oversight, including updating its 

design guide, developing a new project management tracking system, and 

improving and updating the space planning and cost estimation tool. 

Customs and Border Protection has not replaced Border Patrol vehicles at 

the required 20% annual rate and does not have a centralized information 

system to monitor vehicle availability. 

This report originally contained seven recommendations to Customs and 

Border Protection to enhance the planning and control of facilities projects 

and improve overall management over vehicles. We have since deleted 

recommendation 5 given its inconsistency with the department’s emerging 

plans to develop and implement an enterprise-wide project tracking 

system. Customs and Border Protection concurred with five 

recommendations and partially concurred with one recommendation, 

number 6, which remains unresolved. We have incorporated Customs and 

Border Protection’s response to our recommendations in Appendix B. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

1
 
Background 

The United States Border Patrol’s priority mission is to detect and 

interdict terrorists and weapons of terror while accomplishing traditional 

missions such as detecting, apprehending, and deterring smugglers of 

humans, drugs, and contraband. In May 2006, the President called for 

comprehensive immigration reform that included strengthening control of 

the country’s borders by adding 6,000 new agents to the Border Patrol by 

the end of December 2008, resulting in 18,000 agents on board. The 

President’s FY 2009 budget requested funding for approximately 20,000 

Border Patrol agents. 

Facilities supporting Border Patrol agents in the field include buildings 

and other structures at Border Patrol sector headquarters, stations, 

checkpoints, and remote forward operating bases. In 2008, the Border 

Patrol’s permanent facilities included 143 stations and 20 sector 

headquarters buildings. By 2015, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

plans to complete 29 new Border Patrol stations, 1 new sector 

headquarters building, 5 vehicle maintenance buildings, and 7 checkpoint 

projects for a total estimated cost of $1.1 billion. 

In FY 2007, CBP began constructing 73 Rapid Response Projects to build 

facilities to support the increase in Border Patrol agents. These projects 

include new facilities, modifications to existing facilities and temporary 

solutions to provide additional space until more permanent facilities are 

constructed. Border Patrol’s facilities construction budget for FY 2008 

totaled $170,026,000, including $69,400,000 for Rapid Response Projects. 

The CBP Office of Finance administers the Border Patrol facilities 

construction program, overseeing strategic planning, programming, 

budgeting, and construction execution. Within the Finance Office, three 

Facility Centers located in Dallas, Texas; Indianapolis, Indiana; and 

Laguna Niguel, California; execute the construction projects. Facility 

Center project managers oversee facilities design and contract preparation. 

The CBP project managers carry out their oversight responsibilities 

through site visits, project delivery team meetings, review of progress and 

financial reports, and review and approval of potential contract 

modifications. (Appendix C provides additional details on Facility Center 

responsibilities.) 

CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol Facilities Design Guide (Design Guide) 

provides criteria and concepts for planning and designing Border Patrol 

facilities. The guide covers general architectural designs, defines needed 

structures and systems, and provides specific technical criteria on building 

materials and systems. All entities involved in planning and designing 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

2
 
 

Border Patrol facilities, including architects, engineers, the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the General Services 

Administration (GSA), are to use the guide. 

In planning and designing construction projects, the Facility Centers 

receive input from Border Patrol sector field offices on operational needs 

for their facilities. In addition, the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) at CBP 

headquarters provides operational requirements and determines mission 

needs. OBP personnel participate in design reviews and develop spending 

plans based on operational priorities, the conditions of existing facilities, 

and the schedule for deploying agents to facilities. 

USACE and GSA provide services to CBP in constructing Border Patrol 

facilities, including Rapid Response Projects. USACE provides 

engineering, design, design review, project management, construction 

management, procurement, real estate acquisition, environmental 

protection, and other related services. USACE contracts with firms to 

perform these services and oversees their work. While USACE facilitates 

the construction of facilities projects that CBP will own, GSA facilitates 

many of CBP’s leasing projects. USACE and GSA are required to submit 

monthly status reports to CBP on each project, including updates on 

project status, milestones accomplished, and costs from initiation through 

completion. 

Results of Audit 

CBP has not adequately planned or provided sufficient oversight of the 

design and construction of its Border Patrol facilities because of the 

absence of (1) a current Design Guide, (2) an effective tool for estimating 

project costs, (3) uniform policies and procedures for CBP project 

managers’ oversight of USACE in constructing facilities, and (4) a 

comprehensive information system 1

 for efficient project management at 

its Facility Centers. These weaknesses increase the risks of project cost 

overruns, construction delays, and quality issues. Timely resolution of 

these issues is important, since CBP plans to complete 29 new Border 

Patrol stations, 1 new sector headquarters building, 5 sector vehicle 

maintenance buildings, and 7 checkpoint projects by 2015. 

In addition, CBP did not complete 56 (77%) of the 73 Rapid Response 

Projects originally planned for completion by December 31, 2008. CBP 

has since completed seven projects and operationally resolved another 

four. Thus, 45 projects remain to be completed with eight of these 

projects scheduled for completion after 2009. 

1

 Customs and Border Protection refers to an automated information system as a “tool” when it is not part of its 

enterprise architecture system. We use the generic term “system” rather than “tool” in this report. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

3
 
CBP has not replaced Border Patrol vehicles at the recommended annual 

rate and lacks an adequate centralized vehicle management information 

system to ensure that sufficient vehicles are available for Border Patrol 

agents. 

During our review, CBP initiated steps for facilities planning and 

oversight to update its Design Guide, add a tool to improve cost estimates, 

and develop a new project management system. CBP also plans to deploy 

a new vehicle management information system for Border Patrol by the 

end of FY 2009. 

Planning Process Not Adequate for Facilities 

Design Guide Is Outdated 

CBP’s Design Guide provides direction during the planning and design 

phases of a project and is intended to reduce the amount of effort and time 

required to develop facilities projects. The Design Guide for developing 

facilities was last updated in 2003 and does not reflect recent technology 

and other new requirements such as the SBInet technology. For example, 

a nearly completed design for construction of the Lordsburg, New Mexico 

station was retracted and revised to add 3,000 square feet to address 

SBInet requirements. Another example was the need to add a new radio 

tower to the design of the new Fort Hancock, Texas facility. 2 This 

entailed drafting a new scope of work and additional funding to complete 

the added scope. Introducing changes after the designs are “complete” or 

once the project is in construction can increase the time and cost to 

complete the project. 

During our review, CBP’s Office of Finance – Facilities Management and 

Engineering began taking steps to update the guide to support faster 

development of new facilities, more functional designs, and more accurate 

reflection of the Border Patrol’s needs. 

Cost Estimates Are Not Reliable 

CBP’s project cost estimates are understated. CBP derives its estimates 

from entering data such as the number of agents, type of facility, and 

functions performed at the facility into an estimating program. The 

program then computes the total square footage needed for the facility and 

estimates the project cost per square foot. According to CBP officials, this 

tool results in an unrealistically low estimate because new requirements, 

including SBI and environmental requirements, have not been added to the 

tool. The per-square foot cost data is also out-of-date and the tool does 

2

 The Lordsburg, New Mexico and Fort Hancock facilities were not part of the rapid response program. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

4
 
not provide accurate inflationary adjustments for future costs. Recently, 

national construction costs had increased by 11% due to rising fuel and 

materials costs in the year from the initial cost estimate to contract award. 

Understated cost estimates may also reduce any allowance for changes as 

projects progress and may adversely impact timeliness as well as the 

number of planned projects that can be completed. According to CBP 

officials, they have initiated an update to enhance the cost estimation tool 

that includes new requirements, regional costing, and improved 

inflationary adjustments. CBP also initiated additional training for the staff 

to provide better construction cost estimates and initiated an Earned Value 

Management System to better control and estimate project costs, schedule, 

and performance. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection: 

Recommendation #1: Update the Design Guide to include any new 

requirements and establish a requirement to regularly update the guide. 

Recommendation #2: Complete development of a more reliable costestimating tool for facilities construction projects. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP provided written comments on our draft report. Below is a summary 

of CBP’s written response to the report’s first two recommendations and 

our analysis. A copy of CBP’s response and a summary of its plans and 

progress for addressing the recommendations are included in Appendix B. 

CBP’s Comments to Recommendation # 1: 

CBP concurred with the recommendation to update and establish a 

requirement to regularly update the Design Guide (currently referred to as 

the Facilities Design Standard). CBP started updating the Facilities 

Design Standard prior to the release of our draft report. The new Facilities 

Design Standard is in the final stages of review and CBP expects to 

release it by July 31, 2009. 

OIG Analysis: We consider CBP’s comments responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open pending full implementation 

of an updated Facilities Design Standard and establishment of a 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

5
 
requirement to regularly update it. CBP’s response did not address how 

often the Facility Design Standard would be updated. 

CBP’s Comments to Recommendation #2: 

CBP concurred with the recommendation to complete development of a 

more reliable cost-estimating tool for facilities construction projects as 

part of the Facilities Design Standard. CBP was working on an improved 

cost-estimating tool prior to the issuance of our draft report. CBP is 

currently testing and performing training on this tool and expects to 

release it by July 31, 2009. 

OIG Analysis: We consider CBP’s comments responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open pending full implementation 

of a new cost-estimating tool that provides reliable construction cost 

estimates for facilities. 

Oversight of Facilities Projects 

More Effective Project Oversight Needed 

CBP’s standard operating procedures for facility construction oversight do 

not specify the frequency and scope of review and inspection for CBP 

project manager visits to construction sites to ensure USACE and GSA 

properly perform construction and project management. According to 

CBP officials, their project managers should provide routine oversight 

through monthly site visits; however, these visits are not always 

performed which increases the risk of construction problems. 

For example, as shown in Figure 1, construction beams or windows were 

not properly placed on the outside structure of one building, resulting in 

beams running through the window opening. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

6
 
Figure 1. Example of an Improperly Placed Construction Beam 

In another instance, as documented in the two photos below, carport roofs 

were built too low for Border Patrol vehicles to fit under them. 

Figure 2. Examples of Carport Roofs Built Too Low for Border 

Patrol Vehicles 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

7
 
Air-cooling units installed in two other buildings located in the desert shut 

off during periods when outside temperatures rose above 110°F, and had to 

be reset continually. At other buildings, evaporative cooling units caused 

excessive humidity that resulted in mold and rusting of equipment and tools 

in these buildings. 

Project managers at the Laguna Niguel and Dallas Facilities Centers 

provide different amounts and types of oversight. Project managers at 

Laguna Niguel may conduct on-site construction visits once a month or 

every other month. Project managers at the Dallas Facilities Center visit 

construction sites at least once a month. Lack of consistent monthly site 

visits by the Laguna Niguel project managers appears to be a contributing 

factor to deficiencies in construction quality identified by the Border 

Patrol. 

Rapid Response Projects Not Completed as Scheduled 

Border Patrol agents are deployed based on operational needs, which can 

change as the amount, type, and location of activity on the border changes. 

CBP responds to shifting agent deployments with Rapid Response 

Projects to expedite the availability of facilities for Border Patrol. 

CBP scheduled 73 Rapid Response Projects for completion by the end of 

2008 to accommodate the 6,000 new agents and to address existing facility 

gaps for currently deployed agents. To meet the challenge of these 

projects, CBP established an Integrated Projects Team to monitor the 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

8
 
 

 

scheduling and execution of the Rapid Response Projects. Due to project 

delays, CBP completed only nine projects in 2008 and adjusted the 

completion schedule for 56 projects beyond December 2008. CBP also 

canceled or resolved the operational need for eight other projects. Table 1 

shows the status and schedule of the 73 Rapid Response Projects as of 

December 2008. 

Table 1. Status of Rapid Response Projects as of December 2008 

Number 

of Rapid 

Response 

Projects 

Projects canceled 

or operationally 

resolved 

Projects 

completed by 

12/31/08 

Projects scheduled 

for completion 

beyond 12/31/08 

73 8 9 56 

CBP informed us that as of March 2009, it had completed an additional 

seven projects and would use alternate solutions, such as leasing, for 

another four. Thus, 45 projects remain to be completed with eight of these 

projects scheduled for completion after 2009. 

When Rapid Response Projects are not completed on time, the Border 

Patrol lacks space needed to accommodate its agents. Construction delays 

could also result in increased costs for labor and materials 

In general, environmental impact, scope changes, site identification, and 

cost issues were responsible for the project delays. For example, two of 

the southwest border projects were delayed for environmental reasons. In 

one case, a World War II munitions bunker and underground piping, was 

discovered during the environmental review, which delayed site 

acquisition and resulted in CBP selecting another site for the project. In 

the other, an environmentally protected plant was found on the site. Both 

delays might have been avoided if an environmental expert had been on 

the site identification team and had visited the sites. A CBP official told 

us that CPB is starting to do this. 

Two other projects were delayed due to scope change. In one case, the 

Border Patrol requires an additional 22,000 square feet of space to meet its 

operational needs; however, it had originally requested only 6,000 square 

feet. In the other case, two modular units were originally planned but the 

project was changed to one large modular unit. 

Two additional projects were delayed for site-specific reasons. In these 

two cases, the only site CBP located was one where Border Patrol will be 

co-located with another entity, resulting in delays due to security reviews 

and approvals. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

9
 
CBP advised us, they had performed a “lessons learned” workshop on 

Border Patrol Rapid Response Projects, in January 2009. The workshop 

participants discussed lessons learned and identified recommendations in 

the areas of project planning, requirements definition, project 

management, external provider coordination, change management, and 

communication and reporting. The workshop resulted in 

recommendations concerning environmental site assessments, scope 

changes, site identification, and cost estimation. 

Inefficient Information Monitoring Database 

Currently, CBP facility project managers must enter data for their 

construction projects into two separate information systems: a USACE 

system, Engineering and Construction Support Office (ECSO), and CBP’s 

Systems, Applications, and Products (SAP). ECSO is used to track project 

progress and SAP is used for project generation, funding assignment and 

obligation, and reporting. Neither system provides all the information CBP 

needs to efficiently monitor USACE’s management of the projects. 

In addition, some data are entered in both systems. For example, project 

managers enter data on the obligation of project funds into both ECSO and 

SAP. Further, project managers stated that SAP is not user-friendly, 

mostly because various cost modules are not linked and it is timeconsuming to update information. 

CBP project managers stated that it would be more efficient if they could 

enter all project-related information into a single system. During our 

review, CBP officials told us that they had contracted with a firm to 

develop a comprehensive project management system. However, the 

department plans to develop and implement a single, enterprise-wide 

project tracking system for use by all components. CBP would benefit 

from providing input to, and planning to use the projected DHS-wide 

system to meet its project tracking needs. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection: 

Recommendation #3: Establish specific policies and procedures on the 

required frequency and scope of review and inspection work to be 

conducted by CBP project managers during construction site visits. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

10
 
Recommendation #4: Implement the recommendations from the “lessons 

learned” workshop to improve the planning and execution of Border Patrol 

Rapid Response Projects. 

Recommendation #5: Deleted. (See last paragraph of this page) 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP’s Comments to Recommendation #3 

CBP concurred with the recommendation to establish specific policies and 

procedures regarding the required frequency and scope of review and 

inspection work that CBP project managers should perform during 

construction site visits. CBP initiated action to develop these policies and 

procedures prior to the issuance of our draft report. CBP is restructuring 

its Facilities Management and Engineering office to provide improved 

project oversight. The Border Patrol facilities program office is 

establishing review criteria for each project to ensure sufficient project site 

visits are conducted. CBP expects to implement the new policy and 

procedures by October 31, 2009. 

OIG Analysis: We consider CBP’s comments responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open pending full implementation 

of specific policies and procedures regarding the required frequency and 

scope of review and inspection work that CBP project managers should 

perform during construction site visits. 

CBP’s Comments to Recommendation #4 

CBP concurred with the recommendation to implement the 

recommendations from the “lessons learned” workshop to improve the 

planning and execution of Border Patrol Rapid Response Projects. CBP 

expects full implementation by October 31, 2010. 

OIG Analysis: We consider CBP’s comments responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open pending full implementation 

of the “lessons learned” workshop. 

A draft version of this report included a fifth recommendation that CBP 

institute a comprehensive project tracking system for managing its 

facilities projects. We deleted this recommendation given the department’s 

plans to develop and implement a single, DHS-wide project tracking 

system for use by all components. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

11
 
Acquiring Sufficient Vehicles 

CBP has not replaced Border Patrol vehicles at the required 20% annual 

rate, and CBP does not have up-to-date and accurate information to 

determine the condition and availability of the approximately 12,000 

vehicles in its fleet. 

Border Patrol uses a ratio of two vehicles for every three agents. Border 

Patrol officials reported that during FY 2008, they purchased 4,245 

vehicles and used approximately 1,400 of these vehicles to replace 14% of 

the existing fleet. However, the 14% vehicle replacement rate is 

significantly below the rate in CBP’s Fleet Management Plan. This plan 

requires replacing vehicles on a 5-year (20% per year) cycle. Border 

Patrol records show that in October 2007, 33% of the fleet (3,280 

vehicles) was more than 5 years old. According to Border Patrol officials, 

the retention of an aging fleet results in more frequent, extensive, and 

costly repairs. It also results in more out-of-service vehicles and reduced 

vehicle availability, which may hinder Border Patrol mission performance. 

The Border Patrol does not have a program-wide vehicle management 

information system, which makes it difficult to determine the number of 

vehicles available and in service, needing or undergoing maintenance, or 

out of service. The existing fleet inventory tracking system has limited 

capability. For example, the system is unable to track maintenance 

schedules or parts inventories. The Border Patrol is deploying a new 

vehicle management information system in several sectors, which may 

resolve these issues and improve the tracking of the fleet inventory and 

maintenance. Border Patrol plans to complete program-wide deployment 

of this system by the end of FY 2009. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection: 

Recommendation #6: Adhere to the requirement in its fleet management 

plan to replace 20% of Border Patrol vehicles yearly. 

Recommendation #7: Ensure that a Border Patrol vehicle management 

information system is implemented for all sectors by the close of FY 2009. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

12
 
CBP’s Comments to Recommendation #6 

CBP partially concurred with our recommendation to adhere to its 20% 

replacement rate for CBP vehicles. CBP proposes that using an analysis 

of fleet data to forecast the replacement rate within the constraints of 

funding and vehicle purchase limits would be more advantageous for 

Border Patrol and other vehicle programs in CBP. CBP reported it has 

been aggressively replacing Border Patrol vehicles, resulting in a reduced 

percentage of vehicles exceeding the General Services Administration 

minimum age from 36% in 2006, to 33% in 2009. Further, CBP reported 

it substantially reduced the number of inoperable vehicles to 126 in 2009, 

and that it plans to replace all vehicles identified as inoperable at the end 

of FY 2008 with current funding. 

OIG analysis: We consider this recommendation to be open and 

unresolved. Although CBP has reported progress in reducing the number 

of inoperable vehicles and aggressively replacing vehicles, 33% of its fleet 

still exceeds General Services Administration’s minimum age criteria. As 

a result, we suggest that CBP follow its own Fleet Management Plan, 

which requires replacing vehicles on a 5-year (20% per year) cycle. If this 

schedule is no longer optimal, CBP should revise its Fleet Management 

Plan to include an updated vehicle replacement schedule and the reasons 

why such a revision is necessary. 

CBP’s Comments to Recommendation #7 

CBP concurred with our recommendation to implement a vehicle 

management information system for all sectors and provided a due date of 

December 31, 2009 for full implementation. Currently, CBP has 

successfully deployed this vehicle management information system in the 

San Diego and Tucson Sectors. CBP is deploying this system in 

controlled stages to allow for improvements and modifications. 

OIG analysis: We consider CBP’s comments responsive to this 

recommendation, which is resolved and open pending full implementation 

of a vehicle management information system for all sectors. Although we 

originally recommended that a system be in place by the end of FY 2009, 

CBP’s basis for implementing this system by December 31, 2009, appears 

reasonable. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

13
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The objectives of our review were to determine whether CBP (1) planned 

for and provided effective oversight of Border Patrol facilities 

construction on the southwest border (2) procured a sufficient number of 

vehicles to accommodate the increases in the number of Border Patrol 

agents. 

We conducted our audit in phases, resulting in three periods of review. 

The Border Patrol permanent facilities review covered October 2006 

through June 2008, and the Rapid Response Projects for facilities review 

covered October 2005 through March 2009. The Border Patrol vehicles 

review covered FY 2004 through March 2006, and was updated through 

September 2008. 

We toured and physically observed Border Patrol facilities either in place 

or under construction at five Border Patrol sectors along the southwest 

border. The sectors visited were El Centro, California; Yuma and Tucson, 

Arizona; and El Paso and Laredo, Texas. We also conducted audit 

fieldwork at CBP headquarters in Washington, DC; Facility Centers in 

Laguna Niguel, California, and Dallas, Texas; and selected field sites at 

CBP Border Patrol sector headquarters and station offices. We included 

sectors and field office sites that had facilities recently constructed or 

under construction. 

We reviewed a sample of facilities under construction within each of the 

sectors we visited. We reviewed planning documents and learned about 

construction progress and activities. We interviewed Border Patrol agents 

and staff about their views and concerns regarding facilities construction 

to determine whether their operational needs were being satisfied. 

At the Facility Centers in Laguna Niguel and Dallas, we reviewed facilities 

plans and schedules and interviewed center directors and project managers. 

We discussed construction quality, omissions, and change orders. We also 

discussed whether construction projects are on schedule and within budget, 

and whether the completed projects will provide sufficient space for the 

increased number of agents expected by the end of December 2008. 

Through interviews and a review of project managers’ monitoring reports, 

we evaluated the adequacy of CBP’s system for monitoring facilities design 

and construction activities being conducted under contracts with USACE 

and GSA. 

We interviewed officials at CBP headquarters to discuss issues arising 

from our fieldwork at the sectors and facility centers. We also reviewed 

pertinent records and documents to compare the status of the facilities 

construction with estimated completion dates. 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

14
 
During our review of CBP’s Rapid Response Projects, we visited CBP 

headquarters in Washington, DC, and interviewed officials from the 

Border Patrol’s Office of Finance Asset Management. We analyzed the 

Integrated Project Team’s Solutions Tracker spreadsheet, as well as 

updates through July 2008. We also reviewed internal and external 

Integrated Project Team meeting minutes through July 2008. 

During our review of Border Patrol vehicles, we visited CBP headquarters 

in Washington, DC; four Border Patrol sectors in Tucson, Arizona; 

McAllen, Texas; Blaine, Washington; and Tonawanda, New York; and 15 

stations within the sectors reviewed. We also reviewed the 2008 Report to 

Congress and CBP Fleet Management Plan, as well as several vehicle 

maintenance documents. We also interviewed additional CBP officials and 

analyzed the FY 2007 vehicle inventory. 

We performed the audit according to generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan, evaluate internal 

controls and assess risk, 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’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

15
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

16 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

17 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

18 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

19 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

20 
Appendix C 

CBP Facility Centers 

CBP has facility centers in Laguna Niguel, California; Dallas, Texas; and 

Indianapolis, Indiana, to service both the northern and southern border 

areas. Each facility center executes leasing, construction, and repair and 

alteration projects in its area of responsibility. 

Each facility center has a Construction Branch, responsible for acquisition 

of CBP-owned facilities, including land acquisition, execution of 

environmental requirements, design, construction, furniture procurement, 

and moving coordination. The Construction Branch serves as Contracting 

Officer’s Technical Representative and coordinates with service providers, 

including USACE and GSA. 

Each facility center also has a Leasing Branch, responsible for lease 

acquisitions, repairs, and alterations. The Leasing Branch conducts 

market surveys, facilities design, construction, furniture procurement, and 

move coordination. The Leasing Branch also serves as Contracting 

Officer’s Technical Representative and coordinates with service providers, 

including GSA and USACE. 

The following are areas of responsibility for the southern Border Patrol 

sectors: 

Laguna Niguel Facilities Center Dallas Facilities Center 

San Diego Sector El Paso Sector 

El Centro Sector Marfa Sector 

Yuma Sector Del Rio Sector 

Tucson Sector Laredo Sector 

Rio Grande Valley Sector 

New Orleans Sector 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

21 
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Phillip Maulden, Division Director 

Sam Bellino, Project Leader 

Aldon Hedman, Auditor-in-Charge 

Jose Benitez-Rexach, Senior Auditor 

Kathleen Hyland, Senior Auditor 

Maryann Pereira, Senior Auditor 

Falon Newman-Duckworth, Program Analyst 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

22
 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Acting General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Acting Commissioner 

CBP Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

CBP’s Construction of Border Patrol Facilities and Acquisition of Vehicles 

23 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or 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.