Border Security: DHS Surveillance Technology Unmanned Aerial Systems and Other Assets
Released: 2016-05-24T00:00:00

Letter

CBP Has Made Progress in Implementing the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, but Could Take Additional Actions to Strengthen Management of the Plan

CBP Has Initiated or Completed Deployment of Technologies under the Plan and Has Taken Actions to Update Program Schedules and Cost Estimates

In March 2014 and April 2015, we reported that CBP had made progress in deploying programs under the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, but that CBP could take additional action to strengthen its management of the Plan and the Plan’s programs. As of May 2016, CBP has initiated or completed deployment of technology to Arizona for each of the programs under the Plan. Additionally, as discussed further below, CBP has reported taking steps to update program schedules and life- cycle cost estimates for the three highest-cost programs under the Plan. For example, in May 2016, CBP provided us with complete schedules for two of the programs, and we will be reviewing them to determine the extent to which they address our recommendation.

In March 2014, we found that CBP had a schedule for deployment of each of the Plan’s seven programs, and that four of the programs would not meet their originally planned completion dates. We also found that some of the programs had experienced delays relative to their baseline schedules, as of March 2013. Further, in our March 2016 assessment of DHS’s major acquisitions programs, we reported on the status of the Plan’s Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) program, noting that from March 2012 to January 2016, the program’s initial and full operational capability dates had slipped. Specifically, we reported that the initial operational capability date had slipped from the end of September 2013 to the end of September 2015, and the full operational capability to the end of September 2020. We also reported that this slippage in initial operational capability dates had contributed to slippage in the IFT’s full operational capability—primarily as a result of funding shortfalls––and that the IFT program continued to face significant funding shortfalls from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2020.

Despite these delays, as of May 2016 CBP reported that it has initiated or completed deployment of technology to Arizona for each of the three highest-cost programs under the plan—IFT, the Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS), and the Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC). Specifically, CBP officials stated that MSC deployments in Arizona are complete and that in April 2016, requirements to transition sustainment from the contractor to CBP had been finalized. CBP also reported that the RVSS system has been deployed, and testing on these systems is ongoing in four out of five stations. Further, CBP reported it had initiated deployment of the IFT systems and as of May 2016 has deployed 7 out of 53 IFTs in one area of responsibility. CBP conditionally accepted the system in March 2016 and is working to deploy the remaining IFT unit systems to other areas in the Tucson sector.

With regard to schedules, we previously reported that CBP had at least partially met the four characteristics of reliable schedules for the IFT and RVSS schedules and partially or minimally met the four characteristics for the MSC schedule. Scheduling best practices are summarized into four characteristics of reliable schedules—comprehensive, well constructed, credible, and controlled (i.e., schedules are periodically updated and progress is monitored). We assessed CBP’s schedules as of March 2013 for the three highest-cost programs and reported in March 2014 that schedules for two of the programs at least partially met each characteristic (i.e., satisfied about half of the criterion), and the schedule for the other program at least minimally met each characteristic (i.e., satisfied a small portion of the criterion). For example, the schedule for the IFT program partially met the characteristic of being credible in that CBP had performed a schedule risk analysis for the program, but the risk analysis did not include the risks most likely to delay the project or how much contingency reserve was needed. For the MSC program, the schedule minimally met the characteristic of being controlled in that it did not have valid baseline dates for activities or milestones by which CBP could track progress. We recommended that CBP ensure that scheduling best practices are applied to the IFT, RVSS, and MSC schedules. DHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that CBP planned to ensure that scheduling best practices would be applied, as outlined in our schedule assessment guide, when updating the three programs’ schedules. In May 2016, CBP provided us with complete schedules for the IFT and RVSS programs, and we will be reviewing them to determine the extent to which they address our recommendation.

In March 2014, we also found that CBP had not developed an Integrated Master Schedule for the Plan in accordance with best practices. Rather, CBP had used separate schedules for each program to manage implementation of the Plan, as CBP officials stated that the Plan contains individual acquisition programs rather than integrated programs. However, collectively these programs are intended to provide CBP with a combination of surveillance capabilities to be used along the Arizona border with Mexico, and resources are shared among the programs. According to scheduling best practices, an Integrated Master Schedule is a critical management tool for complex systems that involve a number of different projects, such as the Plan, to allow managers to monitor all work activities, how long activities will take, and how the activities are related to one another. We concluded that developing and maintaining an Integrated Master Schedule for the Plan could help provide CBP a comprehensive view of the Plan and help CBP better understand how schedule changes in each individual program could affect implementation of the overall plan.

We recommended that CBP develop an Integrated Master Schedule for the Plan. CBP did not concur with this recommendation and maintained that an Integrated Master Schedule for the Plan in one file undermines the DHS-approved implementation strategy for the individual programs making up the Plan, and that the implementation of this recommendation would essentially create a large, aggregated program, and effectively create an aggregated “system of systems.” DHS further stated that a key element of the Plan has been the disaggregation of technology procurements. However, as we noted in the 2014 report, collectively these programs are intended to provide CBP with a combination of surveillance capabilities to be used along the Arizona border with Mexico. Moreover, while the programs themselves may be independent of one another, the Plan’s resources are being shared among the programs. We continue to believe that developing an Integrated Master Schedule for the Plan is needed. Developing and maintaining an integrated master schedule for the Plan could allow CBP insight into current or programmed allocation of resources for all programs as opposed to attempting to resolve any resource constraints for each program individually.

In addition, in March 2014, we reported that the life-cycle cost estimates for the Plan reflected some, but not all, best practices. Cost-estimating best practices are summarized into four characteristics—well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. Our analysis of CBP’s estimate for the Plan and estimates completed at the time of our review for the two highest-cost programs—the IFT and RVSS programs— showed that these estimates at least partially met three of these characteristics: well documented, comprehensive, and accurate. In terms of being credible, these estimates had not been verified with independent cost estimates in accordance with best practices. We concluded that ensuring that scheduling best practices were applied to the programs’ schedules and verifying life-cycle cost estimates with independent estimates could help better ensure the reliability of the schedules and estimates, and we recommended that CBP verify the life-cycle cost estimates for the IFT and RVSS programs with independent cost estimates and reconcile any differences. DHS concurred with this recommendation, but stated then that it did not believe that there would be a benefit in expending funds to obtain independent cost estimates and that if the costs realized to date continued to hold, there may be no requirement or value added in conducting full-blown updates with independent cost estimates.

We recognize the need to balance the cost and time to verify the life-cycle cost estimates with the benefits to be gained from verification with independent cost estimates. CBP officials stated that in fiscal year 2016, DHS’s Cost Analysis Division would begin piloting DHS’s independent cost estimate capability on the RVSS program. According to CBP officials, this pilot is an opportunity to assist DHS in developing its independent cost estimate capability and that CBP selected the RVSS program for the pilot because the program is at a point in its planning and execution process where it can benefit most from having an independent cost estimate performed as these technologies are being deployed along the southwest border, beyond Arizona. CBP officials stated that details for an estimated independent cost estimate schedule and analysis plan for the RVSS program have not been finalized. CBP plans to provide an update on the schedule and analysis plan as additional details become available, and provide information on the final reconciliation of the independent cost estimate and the RVSS program cost estimate once the pilot has been completed at the end of fiscal year 2017. Further, CBP officials have not detailed similar plans for the IFT. We continue to believe that independently verifying the life-cycle cost estimates for the IFT and RVSS programs and reconciling any differences, consistent with best practices, could help CBP better ensure the reliability of the estimates.

CBP Has Made Progress toward Assessing Performance of Surveillance Technologies, but Has Not Fully Applied Performance Metrics or Assessed the Contributions of Its Technologies

We reported in March 2014 that CBP had identified mission benefits of its surveillance technologies to be deployed under the Plan, such as improved situational awareness and agent safety. However the agency had not developed key attributes for performance metrics for all surveillance technologies to be deployed as part of the Plan, as we recommended in November 2011. Further, in March 2014, we found that CBP did not capture complete data on the contributions of these technologies, which in combination with other relevant performance metrics or indicators, could be used to better determine the impact of CBP’s surveillance technologies on CBP’s border security efforts, and inform resource allocation decisions. Although CBP had a field within its Enforcement Integrated Database for data on whether technological assets, such as SBInet surveillance towers, and nontechnological assets, such as canine teams, assisted or contributed to the apprehension of illegal entrants and seizure of drugs and other contraband, according to CBP officials, Border Patrol agents were not required to record these data. This limited CBP’s ability to collect, track, and analyze available data on asset assists to help monitor the contribution of surveillance technologies, including its SBInet system, to Border Patrol apprehensions and seizures and inform resource allocation decisions. We recommended that CBP require data on asset assists to be recorded and tracked within its database, and once these data were required to be recorded and tracked, that it analyze available data on apprehensions and technological assists— in combination with other relevant performance metrics or indicators, as appropriate— to determine the contribution of surveillance technologies to CBP’s border security efforts. CBP concurred with our recommendations and has implemented one of them. Specifically, in June 2014, CBP issued guidance informing Border Patrol agents that the asset assist data field within its database was now a mandatory data field. Agents are required to enter any assisting surveillance technology or other equipment before proceeding.

Further, as of May 2015, CBP had identified a set of potential key attributes for performance metrics for all technologies to be deployed under the Plan. However, CBP officials stated that this set of performance metrics was under review as the agency continued to refine the key attributes for metrics to assess the contributions and impacts of surveillance technology on its border security mission. In our March 2016 update on the progress made by agencies to address our findings on duplication and cost savings across the federal government, we reported that CBP had modified its time frame for developing baselines for each performance measure and that additional time would be needed to implement and apply key attributes for metrics. According to CBP officials, CBP expected these performance measure baselines to be developed by the end of calendar year 2015, at which time the agency planned to begin using the data to evaluate the individual and collective contributions of specific technology assets deployed under the Plan. Moreover, CBP planned to use the baseline data to establish a tool that explains the qualitative and quantitative impacts of technology and tactical infrastructure on situational awareness in specific areas of the border environment by the end of fiscal year 2016. While CBP had expected to complete its development of baselines for each performance measure by the end of calendar year 2015, as of March 2016 the actual completion is being adjusted pending test and evaluation results for recently deployed technologies on the southwest border. Until CBP completes its efforts to fully develop and apply key attributes for performance metrics for all technologies to be deployed under the Plan, it will not be well positioned to fully assess its progress in implementing the Plan and determining when mission benefits have been fully realized.

CBP Utilizes Unmanned Predator B Aircraft and Tactical Aerostats for a Variety of Border Security Activities

Preliminary Observations on CBP’s Utilization of Predator B Aircraft

Our ongoing work shows that as of May 2016, CBP operates nine Predator B from four AMO National Air Security Operations Centers (NASOC) located in Sierra Vista, Arizona; Grand Forks, North Dakota; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Jacksonville, Florida. Three Predator B aircraft are assigned to the NASOCs in Arizona, North Dakota, and Texas while the NASOC in Florida remotely operates Predator B aircraft launched from the other NASOCs. AMO began operation of Predator B aircraft in fiscal year 2006, and all four NASOCs became operational in fiscal year 2011. See figure 1 for a photograph of a CBP Predator B aircraft.

CBP’s Predator B aircraft may be equipped with video and radar sensors utilized primarily to support the operations of other CBP components, and federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. CBP’s Predator B operations in support of its components and other law enforcement agencies include patrol missions to detect the illegal entry of goods and people at and between U.S. POEs and investigative missions to provide aerial support for law enforcement activities and investigations. For example, CBP’s Predator B video and radar sensors support Border Patrol activities to identify and apprehend individuals entering the United States between POEs. CBP collects and tracks information on the number of assists provided for apprehensions of individuals and seizures of contraband, including narcotics, in support of law enforcement operations by Predator B aircraft. In addition, CBP’s Predator B aircraft have been deployed to provide aerial support for monitoring natural disasters such as wildfires and floods. For example, CBP’s Predator B were deployed in 2010 and 2011 to support federal, state, and local government agencies in response to flooding in the Red River Valley area of North Dakota.

CBP’s Predator B aircraft operate in the U.S. national airspace system in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for authorizing all UAS operations in the National Airspace System. In accordance with FAA requirements, all Predator B flights must comply with a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The COA-designated airspace establishes operational corridors for Predator B activity both along and within 100 miles of the border for the northern border, and along and within 25 to 60 miles of the border for the southern border, exclusive of urban areas. COAs issued by FAA to CBP also include airspace for training missions which involve take offs and landings around a designated NASOC and transit missions to move Predator B aircraft between NASOCs. As of May 2016, CBP has utilized the NASOC in North Dakota as a location to train new and existing CBP Predator B pilots. For our ongoing work, we analyzed CBP data on reported Predator B COA-designated flight hours from fiscal years 2011 to 2015 and found that 81 percent of flight hours were associated with COA-designated airspace along border and coastal areas. For more information on Predator B flight hours in COA-designated airspace, see figure 2.

Based on our ongoing work, we found that airspace access and weather can impact CBP’s ability to utilize Predator B aircraft. According to CBP officials we spoke with in Arizona, Predator B flights may be excluded from restricted airspace managed by the Department of Defense along border areas which can affect the ability of Predator B to support Border Patrol. CBP officials we spoke with in Arizona and Texas told us that Predator B missions are affected by hazardous weather conditions that can affect their ability to operate the aircraft. According to CBP officials we spoke with in Texas, CBP took steps to mitigate the impact of hazardous weather in January and February 2016 by deploying one Predator B aircraft from Corpus Christi, Texas, to San Angelo, Texas, at San Angelo Regional Airport which had favorable weather conditions. CBP’s deployment of a Predator B at San Angelo Regional Airport was in accordance with a FAA-issued COA to conduct its border security mission in Texas and lasted approximately 3 weeks. We plan to evaluate how these factors affect CBP’s utilization of Predator B aircraft as part of our ongoing work.

Preliminary Observations on CBP’s Utilization of Tactical Aerostats in South Texas

Our ongoing work shows that as of May 2016, CBP has deployed six tactical aerostats along the U.S.-Mexico border in south Texas to support Border Patrol. Specifically, CBP deployed five tactical aerostats in Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector and one tactical aerostat In Laredo sector. CBP utilizes three types of tactical aerostats equipped with cameras for capturing full-motion video: Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS), Persistent Ground Surveillance System (PGSS), and Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID). Each type of tactical aerostat varies in size and altitude of operation. See figure 3 for a photograph of a RAID aerostat. CBP owns the RAID aerostats and leases PTDS and PGSS aerostats through the Department of Defense. CBP operates its tactical aerostats in accordance with FAA regulations through the issuance of a COA.

Tactical aerostats were first deployed and evaluated by CBP in August 2012 in south Texas. CBP’s Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition manages aerostat technology and the operation of each site through contracts, while Border Patrol agents operate tactical aerostat cameras and provide security at each site. As of May 2016, Border Patrol has taken actions to track the contribution of tactical aerostats to its mission activities. Specifically, agents track and record the number of assists aerostats provide for apprehensions of individuals and seizures of contraband and narcotics.

Based on our ongoing work, we found that airspace access, weather, and real estate can impact CBP’s ability to deploy and utilize tactical aerostats in south Texas.

Airspace access: aerostat site placement is subject to FAA approval to ensure the aerostat does not converge on dedicated flight paths.

Weather: aerostat flight is subject to weather restrictions, such as hazardous weather involving high winds or storms.

Real estate: aerostat sites utilized by CBP involve access to private property and land owner acceptance, and right of entry is required prior for placement. In addition, CBP must take into consideration any relevant environmental and wildlife impacts prior to deployment of a tactical aerostat, such as flood zones, endangered species, migratory animals, among others.

We plan to evaluate how these factors affect CBP’s utilization of tactical aerostats as part of our ongoing work.

Chairwoman McSally, Ranking Member Vela, and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement included Kirk Kiester (Assistant Director), as well as Jeanette Espinola, Yvette Gutierrez, Amanda Miller, Jon Najmi, and Carl Potenzieri.

Related GAO Products

2016 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-16-375SP. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2016.

Homeland Security Acquisitions: DHS Has Strengthened Management, but Execution and Affordability Concerns Endure. GAO-16-338SP. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2016.

Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Assess Resource Deployment and Progress. GAO-16-465T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2016.

GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules. GAO-16-89G. Washington, D.C.: December 2015.

Border Security: Progress and Challenges in DHS’s Efforts to Implement and Assess Infrastructure and Technology. GAO-15-595T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2015.

Homeland Security Acquisitions: Addressing Gaps in Oversight and Information is Key to Improving Program Outcomes. GAO-15-541T. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2015.

Homeland Security Acquisitions: Major Program Assessments Reveal Actions Needed to Improve Accountability. GAO-15-171SP. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2015. 2015 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-15-404SP. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015.

Border Security: Additional Efforts Needed to Address Persistent Challenges in Achieving Radio Interoperability. GAO-15-201. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2015.

Unmanned Aerial Systems: Department of Homeland Security’s Review of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Use and Compliance with Privacy and Civil Liberty Laws and Standards GAO-14-849R. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2014.

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Assess Effectiveness. GAO-14-411T. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2014.

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Assess Effectiveness. GAO-14-368. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2014.

Border Security: Progress and Challenges in DHS Implementation and Assessment Efforts. GAO-13-653T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2013.

Border Security: DHS’s Progress and Challenges in Securing U.S. Borders. GAO-13-414T. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2013.

Border Security: Opportunities Exist to Ensure More Effective Use of DHS’s Air and Marine Assets. GAO-12-518. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2012.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan. GAO-12-106R. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2011.

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and Costs Is Needed before Proceeding. GAO-12-22. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 2011.

GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs. GAO-09-3SP. Washington, D.C.: March 2009.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.