U.S. Ports of Entry: CBP Public-Private Partnership Programs Have Benefits, but CBP Could Strengthen Evaluation Efforts
Released: 2018-03-15T00:00:00

Letter

Background

CBP Staffing and Infrastructure

In fiscal year 2017, approximately 24,000 CBP officers performed a variety of functions at over 300 air, land, and sea POEs, including inspecting travelers and cargo containers, among other activities. According to CBP, increases in passenger and cargo volumes are outpacing CBP’s staffing resources, resulting in increased passenger wait times and cargo backups, among other things. For example, in fiscal year 2017, CBP identified a need for an additional 2,516 CBP officers across all POEs. Further, as of 2017, CBP estimated that it needed approximately $5 billion to meet infrastructure and technology requirements at about 167 land POEs. To help identify and mitigate resource challenges, CBP developed its Resource Optimization Strategy, an integrated, long-term plan to improve operations at all POEs. The Strategy consists of three components:

Business transformation: utilize new technology, such as Automated Passport Control kiosks, or new processes, such as trusted traveler programs, to increase CBP operational efficiencies;

Workload Staffing Model: utilize modeling techniques to help ensure that existing staffing resources are appropriately aligned with threat environments while maximizing cost efficiencies; and

Alternative funding strategies: utilize public-private partnership agreements, such as RSP and DAP, to supplement regular appropriated resources.

Overview and Evolution of the RSP

The RSP enables partnerships between CBP and private sector or government entities, allowing CBP to provide new or additional services upon the request of partners. These services can include customs, immigration, or agricultural processing; border security and support at any facility where CBP provides, or will provide, services; and may cover costs such as salaries, benefits, overtime expenses, administration, and transportation costs. According to authorizing legislation, RSP agreements are subject to certain limitations, including that they may not unduly and permanently impact existing services funded by an appropriations act or fee collection. According to AFP officials, the purpose of the RSP is to provide new or additional CBP services at POEs that the component would otherwise not have been able to provide. From 2013 to 2017, the number of RSP agreements has increased as new authorizing legislation has expanded participant eligibility and made the program permanent. Table 1 below outlines the evolution of RSP through its different legislative authorities.

Overview and Evolution of the DAP

The DAP permits CBP and GSA to accept donations from private and public sector entities, such as private or municipally-owned seaports or land border crossings. Donations may include real property, personal property, money, and non-personal services, such as design and construction services. Donated resources may include improvements to existing facilities, new facilities, equipment and technology, and operations and maintenance costs, among other things. In terms of the types of locations that may accept donations, donations may be used for activities related to land acquisition, design, construction, repair, alteration, operations, and maintenance, including installation or deployment of furniture, fixtures, equipment or technology, at an existing CBP-owned land POE; a new or existing space at a CBP air or sea POE; or a new or existing GSA-owned land POE. CBP and GSA may not accept donations at a leased land POE, nor is CBP able to accept a donation at or for a new land POE if the combined fair market value of the POE and donation exceeds $50 million. Additionally, CBP may not use monetary donations accepted under the DAP to pay salaries of CBP employees performing inspection services. Finally, CBP may not accept donations on foreign soil. Table 2 below depicts the evolution of DAP authorizing legislation since the program’s inception in 2014.

Figures 1 and 2 depict the location and number of RSP and DAP agreements in place through fiscal year 2017.

CBP Uses Criteria and Documented Procedures to Evaluate and Approve Public-Private Partnership Applications and Administer Programs

CBP Uses Criteria and Procedures to Approve Public-Private Partnership Applications and Coordinate with Partners

RSP Application Process

CBP has developed detailed guidance on the RSP application process, including application timeframes, requirements, and evaluation criteria, and this guidance is on CBP’s website. According to this guidance, in 2017, CBP expanded the RSP application submission period. Whereas in prior years applications were accepted during a single one-month window, prospective partners may now submit applications throughout the year. Under this new process, CBP evaluates submissions three times per year—beginning in March, July, and November. According to CBP, the submission period was expanded in part because new legislative authorities removed previous restrictions on the number of RSP agreements CBP can enter into each year. The overarching RSP application process—from application submission through CBP evaluation and applicant notification—is depicted in figure 3.

According to CBP’s procedures for accepting and reviewing applications, potential partners first submit a letter of application that includes a variety of logistical information concerning the stakeholders, services to be requested, location of services to be requested, available facilities, and funding. For example, in submitting a letter of application, an applicant is to estimate how many hours of services it may request per month and identify the applicant’s available budget for the first fiscal year of the partnership, among other things. According to the application guidance, prospective applicants are encouraged to work with local CBP officials at individual POEs to develop letters of application. After submission, CBP officials at the affected POEs, including affected CBP Field Offices, review applications and communicate their findings and recommendations to the AFP office. In addition, the CBP Office of Chief Counsel reviews the applications for legal sufficiency and may suggest that CBP request additional information from applicants.

Next, CBP convenes an expert panel consisting of two senior CBP officials who are not part of the AFP office to consider POE and legal comments on the applications, among other information provided by AFP officials. The panel deliberates and scores each proposal based on seven criteria, and all proposals that achieve a certain minimum score are accepted. The seven evaluation criteria used to weigh the merits of potential new partnership agreements are listed in table 3.

The scoring scale ranges from -5 to 5, and the 7 criteria are weighted based on potential impact. For example, impact to CBP operations is weighted more heavily than other agency support. In September 2017, we observed an RSP application review panel. Among other things, we observed senior CBP officials, who were independent from the AFP office, score 31 RSP applications that impacted 46 CBP Field Office locations. The panel members based their deliberations on set criteria and reached consensus on which applications to approve. Finally, Congress and approved partners are notified of the selections. Where CBP denies a proposal for an agreement, it is to provide the reason for denial unless such reason is law enforcement sensitive or withholding the reason for denial is in the national security interests of the United States.

Once CBP approves an application, CBP and its prospective new partners follow documented procedures to formalize the agreements and prepare all involved stakeholders, including new partners and local CBP officials, for Reimbursable Services Agreement implementation. The process to establish new RSP partnerships at specific POEs is depicted in figure 4 below.

After CBP notifies the applicant of its selection, officials from the AFP office schedule a site visit to meet with local CBP officials at the POEs and the new partners. According to CBP program requirements, the purpose of the site visit is to discuss workload and services, and to verify that the POE facilities and equipment meet CBP’s required specifications. AFP officials also provide program training to CBP Field Office and POE officials, as well as to new partners on the processes to request and fulfill RSP service requests, among other things. We attended an AFP office visit to CBP’s Baltimore Field Office in October 2017 and observed AFP officials sharing best practices with local CBP officials and new RSP partners. According to CBP’s procedures, before any RSP services can be provided, CBP and the prospective partners must sign a legally binding Reimbursable Services Agreement. Among other things, the Reimbursable Services Agreement establishes that the partner will reimburse CBP for the costs of services provided under the RSP authorizing legislation, including the officer overtime rates, benefits, and a 15 percent administrative fee. Further, the partner agrees to reimburse CBP for these services within 15 days of billing through a Department of the Treasury system. Finally, local CBP Field Office and partner officials negotiate a local MOU that outlines the services, schedules, and other conditions for the POE location(s) covered by the Reimbursable Services Agreement.

DAP Application Process

Similar to the RSP application process, CBP, in conjunction with GSA, utilizes criteria and documented processes to evaluate DAP proposals and implement the program. More specifically, in alignment with the most recent DAP authorizing legislation, CBP and GSA developed the Section 482 Donation Acceptance Authority Proposal Evaluation Procedures & Criteria Framework (Framework) for receiving, evaluating, approving, planning, developing, and formally accepting donations under the program. The initial steps of the Framework, which encompass the DAP application process, are depicted in figure 5.

In prior years, CBP accepted large-scale proposals, defined by CBP as $5 million or more, during one application and evaluation cycle per year. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, CBP accepts large-scale proposals on a rolling basis, using a streamlined process for expedited review. CBP also accepts small-scale proposals, defined by CBP as less than $5 million, on a rolling basis. According to AFP officials, CBP undertakes considerable effort to provide early education about the program to potential partners who plan to apply for a DAP agreement, including discussing CBP’s operational needs at the POEs. The Framework notes that this outreach helps prospective donors gauge their willingness and ability to work cooperatively with CBP and GSA on potential POE improvements and also helps applicants enhance the viability of their submissions.

After a DAP proposal is submitted and checked for completeness, CBP and GSA subject matter experts evaluate the proposal against seven operational and six technical criteria (see table 4 below). The evaluators reach consensus on proposed recommendations and submit their evaluation results to CBP and GSA senior leadership for consideration. Leadership reviews the recommendations and other pertinent information and determines whether or not to select proposals.

In accordance with legislative requirements, CBP must notify DAP applicants of the determination to approve or deny a proposal not later than 180 days after receiving the completed proposal. Figure 6 depicts all three phases of the DAP Framework from selecting a proposal to signing a formal Donations Acceptance Agreement.

Phase 2 of the Framework begins shortly after CBP notifies new partners of DAP selections. CBP officials then initiate a series of biweekly calls with GSA officials, if applicable, and the partner. AFP officials provide partners with documentation in the form of a high-level roadmap which contains a sequence of activities and deliverables CBP expects from the partners, and all stakeholders convene to track progress against planned activities and milestones. CBP, GSA, and the partner also meet to discuss the technical implementation of the donation.

AFP and GSA officials conduct a site visit to meet with new partners; obtain a visual understanding of how CBP, GSA, and the partner will implement the donation; and help the partner begin the planning and development phase. CBP, GSA, and the partner negotiate a MOU on roles and responsibilities and terms and conditions of the donation. CBP then provides the partner with its technical standards and other operational requirements, such as space and staffing needs, under a non- disclosure agreement. The partner then begins to plan and develop its conceptual proposal into an executable project in close coordination with CBP and GSA. By the end of Phase 2, CBP, GSA, as applicable, and the partner confirm that all pre-construction development activities are complete, no outstanding critical risks exist, and that the appropriate agencies are prepared to request future funding, as applicable.

Finally, stakeholders move to Phase 3 of the Framework to formalize the terms and conditions under which either CBP, GSA, or both, may accept the proposed donation. After CBP, GSA and the partner agree to the provisions of the project plan, they sign the legally binding Donations Acceptance Agreement, and stakeholders proceed to project execution.

CBP Administers the Public-Private Partnerships Using Documented Policies and Procedures, and Implementation of the Programs Can Vary by Port

CBP has documented standard operating procedures, roadmaps, and other formally documented policies and procedures to administer the RSP and DAP. In addition, as mentioned above, AFP officials conduct site visits to the POEs with new RSP and DAP agreements, and provide formal training for CBP personnel at Field Offices and POEs.

The general process for administering RSP–from requesting and fulfilling services to billing and collecting payments–is dictated by standard operating procedures, as shown in figure 7.

In general, RSP partners submit a formal request for services by completing an electronic form and calendar access via CBP’s Service Request Portal. Once the partner submits the request, the portal sends an electronic copy of the request to the partner’s email and the port’s RSP email inbox. CBP supervisors at the POE access the Service Request Portal to review, edit, approve, deny, or cancel requests. The system tracks and requires CBP officials to comment on any requests that CBP edits, denies, or cancels, and sends an email notification of CBP’s decision to the partner. If CBP approves the request, the Service Request Portal creates a line item with information about the request, such as codes for the location and partner, as well as the hours CBP officers will work.

Next, CBP officers enter line item information—information on accounting codes for the location and partner and the actual hours CBP officers worked to fulfill the request—into CBP’s overtime management system. At the end of every shift, CBP supervisors review and approve the amount of overtime and other data entered into the overtime management system. In addition, data from this system is checked for accuracy and certified weekly by both CBP POE and AFP officials. After the overtime and request information is checked, payroll data generated from the overtime management system, including salary and benefits information for each officer that worked RSP overtime, uploads to CBP’s financial accounting system at the end of each pay period, or every 14 days. CBP bills its partners for two full pay periods, and the partner has 15 days to make a full payment through the partner’s account with the Department of the Treasury. After the partner makes the payment through the Department of the Treasury collection system, CBP National Finance Center officials reimburse the CBP annual Operations & Support account initially used to pay its officers for all of the RSP overtime worked during that pay cycle by moving the expenses to the RSP officer payroll fund.

Although the general request and billing processes for RSP services are the same across all POEs regardless of location or mode—air, land, or, sea—CBP and its partners have flexibility to tailor RSP implementation based on local conditions or needs. Some of this implementation variation is documented in locally negotiated MOUs. For example, CBP’s partner at Miami International Airport in Florida relies on CBP to schedule RSP overtime daily based on CBP expertise. CBP officials at the airport developed their own software templates to plan, track, and manage CBP officers for RSP overtime for a given amount of available overtime funding. At the Pharr land POE in Texas, CBP staff at the POE submit recommended RSP overtime request proposals to the partner based on local conditions, including staffing, and the partner decides whether to submit a formal request to CBP. In all of these instances, RSP partners and CBP Field Office and POE officials expressed satisfaction with their more customized administration processes.

CBP and its partners also noted some challenges to implementing RSP and DAP agreements, but partners generally agreed that the program benefits outweighed the challenges. For example, some DAP partners we met with mentioned that navigating GSA requirements was difficult and sometimes caused delays. GSA officials we met with noted that they are educating partners on GSA building standards and the GSA approvals process for donations, among other things, to help partners manage their timelines and expectations. GSA officials noted that they are working with CBP and partner officials to manage and learn from these early implementation challenges.

CBP, GSA, and DAP partners also acknowledged a lack of clarity about which entity or entities are responsible for the long-term operations and maintenance costs of DAP infrastructure projects, although CBP has taken steps to address this issue. GSA pricing procedures dictate that once a POE receives an improvement, it charges the customer (CBP) for the additional operating costs, such as utilities. CBP officials acknowledged that the long term sustainability of donations, specifically the costs of operations, maintenance, and technology for infrastructure- based donations, needs to be addressed, and officials reported taking initial steps. For example, once CBP and its partner complete the planning of a project and GSA has calculated the project’s estimated operating expenses, the AFP office begins working with the CBP Office of Facilities & Asset Management to budget for such costs with the goal of reaching a mutually acceptable partnership for donations that will have long-term sustainability.

CBP officials noted that the agency cannot commit to funding that is not guaranteed for the future. To mitigate budget uncertainty, CBP now includes language in its MOU and Donations Acceptance Agreement templates stating that upon project completion, the partner will be responsible for all costs and expenses related to the operations and maintenance of the donation until the federal government has the available funding and resources to cover such costs. According to AFP officials, CBP also makes efforts to educate its DAP partners on the budgeting process and associated timeframes with project completion.

CBP officials noted that the majority of projects are in the early stages of development, and it will be years before the projects are complete. Furthermore, GSA officials stated that the actual operating and maintenance costs associated with DAP projects will not be known until about 1 year after the projects are completed.

Public-Private Partnerships Are Increasing and Provide a Variety of Additional Services and Infrastructure Improvements

RSP Partnerships are Increasing and Provide a Variety of Additional Services at POEs

As noted previously, as CBP’s authorities to enter into new RSP agreements expanded to an unlimited number of agreements per year, and in total, for all types of POEs in 2017, the number of applications that CBP has selected has also increased. For example, in fiscal year 2013, CBP received 16 applications from interested stakeholders and selected five of these applications for partnerships, while in fiscal year 2017 cycle 2, CBP received 31 applications from interested stakeholders and tentatively selected 30 for partnerships. From fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017 cycle 2, CBP has tentatively selected over 100 partners for RSP agreements. This figure includes RSP agreements under the authorities provided in Section 481 that allow CBP to enter into agreements with small airports to pay for additional CBP officers above the number of officers assigned at the time the agreement was reached. Figure 8 details this information for each application cycle.

As mentioned above, once CBP selects an application for a new reimbursable services partnership, CBP and its partner sign a legally binding Reimbursable Services Agreement. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017 cycle 2, CBP selected 114 applications and entered into 69 Reimbursable Services Agreements with partners. As mentioned previously, local CBP officials also work with the partner to negotiate the terms of an MOU, which outlines how the partnership will work at the POE. As of November 2017, CBP and its partners were implementing 54 MOUs from partnerships that they entered into from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. Of those 54 MOUs, 10 cover agreements at land POEs, 22 cover agreements at sea POEs, and 23 cover agreements at air POEs. According to AFP officials, during the process of negotiating the MOUs with its partners, CBP and the partner often agree to include a variety of services that the partner can request, so that if a need arises, there is a record that CBP has agreed to provide those services under the MOU. CBP and its partners also negotiate a variety of other terms for the agreements in the MOUs, including the types of requests for services the partner can make, expectations for how often CBP and its partners communicate, and how to amend the MOU, among others terms. Table 5 provides details about the existing 54 MOUs.

As noted in the above table, MOUs detail a variety of services that CBP officers can provide at the POEs, and the types of services vary by POE type. For example, most MOUs across land, air, and sea POEs allow partners to request services for freight or cargo processing, while a majority of the MOUs at air POEs allow CBP to provide services for traveler processing and to address unanticipated irregular operations or diversions. In addition, all MOUs allow partners to submit ad-hoc requests that partners make for services in advance. Most of these MOUs also allow partners to make urgent requests for immediate services.

In examining the MOUs, we found that 44 of the 54 MOUs, or 81 percent, indicate that CBP and its partner meet at least quarterly to discuss how the partnership is going. Further, CBP and some of its partners meet more often. For example, CBP and its partners agreed to meet monthly in accordance with 23 MOUs, while CBP and its partners agreed to meet weekly according to 3 MOUs. All partners we interviewed that have utilized their RSP agreements reported that maintaining strong communication between CBP and the partner is important to implementing the RSP agreements at the POEs. Appendix I has additional information about each of the 54 current MOUs.

Tables 6 and 7 provide the amount that partners reimbursed CBP for overtime services, the total number of overtime hours that CBP officers worked for each fiscal year from 2014 through 2017, and the total number of travelers and vehicles that CBP officers inspected during RSP partner requests for services from fiscal years 2014 through 2017 respectively.

DAP Partnerships Provide for Infrastructure Improvements at POEs

Similar to the RSP, the number of DAP partnerships more than doubled in fiscal year 2017. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, CBP selected seven DAP proposals. In fiscal year 2017, CBP selected 9 DAP proposals. Combined, these 16 DAP projects affect 13 POEs.

The donations that partners will provide CBP and GSA, as applicable, include a variety of POE improvements such as the installation of new inspection booths and equipment, removal of traffic medians, and new cold inspection facilities, as well as smaller items such as a high-capacity perforating machine, which reduces document processing time and allows CBP officers to focus on more critical operational duties, among other donations. According to CBP, these 16 donation proposals combined are intended to support over $150 million in infrastructure improvements at U.S. POEs. CBP also expects a variety of benefits from these donations, including support for local and regional trade industries and tourism, reductions in border wait times, and increased border security and officer safety, among others. Table 8 provides information on the scope and status of DAP projects that CBP and GSA have selected since CBP established the DAP in fiscal year 2015.

As noted in the table above, CBP has fully accepted six donations, including the donation of a high capacity perforating machine to facilitate the processing of titles and other documents at the Freeport Sea POE in fiscal year 2016, the removal of traffic medians at the Ysleta Land POE, and recurring luggage donations in fiscal year 2017. Figure 9 is a photo of the high capacity perforating machine that CBP accepted at the Port of Freeport Sea POE from its partner Red Hook Terminals in 2016.

As mentioned above, once CBP selects an application for a new donation partnership, CBP, GSA, if applicable, and partner officials negotiate the terms of a MOU, which outlines intentions of the partnerships for projects that require coordinated planning and development. CBP currently has MOUs for 9 of its 16 DAP projects. The MOUs contain a variety of project- specific information, including the scope of the project, a list of documents that CBP and GSA may request to determine whether the project is ready for execution, and details on donor warranty and continuing financial responsibility after CBP and GSA accepts the donation. As mentioned previously, CBP classifies donations under the DAP into two categories: small-scale donations, which are reviewed on an expedited basis, and large-scale donations. For example, the Salvation Army’s recurring donation of six to nine pieces of luggage per year to support Office of Field Operations canine training activities is a small-scale donation. Large-scale donations are donations with an estimated value of $5 million or more and are moderate to significant in size, scope, and complexity. For example, the City of Laredo’s donation for construction of four additional commercial vehicle lanes and booths, roadways and infrastructure, and exit booths and related technologies is a large-scale donation.

CBP Uses Various Processes to Monitor and Evaluate Its Partnerships, but Could Benefit from Establishing an Evaluation Plan to Assess Overall Program Performance

CBP Has Various Processes to Monitor and Evaluate the Implementation and Benefits of Its Public- Private Partnership Programs

RSP Audits, Metric Reports, and Partner Satisfaction Surveys

Given that partner requests for RSP services are predominately for the purposes of CBP officer overtime, CBP primarily monitors the RSP through audits. Specifically, CBP conducts regular audits using information from its Service Request Portal, its overtime management system, and its internal accounting system to ensure partners appropriately reimburse CBP for the overtime services officers provide under the RSP. Figure 10 describes how and when CBP uses these tools to conduct audits as part of the RSP request, fulfillment, and billing processes.

As noted previously, CBP officers who work RSP overtime enter information from the Service Request Portal, such as the partner code and POE code, into CBP’s overtime management system for the actual hours that the officer worked to complete the request. At the end of every shift, CBP supervisors review and approve the information entered into the overtime management system, which contains the information needed for CBP to bill its RSP partner for the services that it performed, such as the number of hours each CBP officer worked to fulfill RSP requests and the salary and benefits information for those officers. POE supervisors then update the Service Request Portal records so that they reflect what CBP officers actually worked. On Mondays, AFP officials and CBP POE supervisors conduct concurrent audits of weekly overtime management system reports and reconcile these data with the information from the Service Request Portal to ensure that CBP will bill the partner appropriately. At the end of two pay period cycles, or every 28 days, officials at CBP’s National Finance Center review the payroll and benefits information that was uploaded from the overtime management system into CBP’s financial management system to confirm that it matches the appropriate partner code. This ensures that the correct partner is billed for the reimbursable services that CBP provided.

Generally, CBP and partner officials we met with did not have any problems with the billing and payment process, and CBP officials noted that any discrepancies in the billing information between the Service Request Portal, the overtime management system, or the financial accounting system, such as the partner code or the number of hours that CBP officers worked, are usually identified and corrected during the weekly audits. Further, in October 2017, we received a demonstration of how partners and CBP manage requests for services in the Service Request Portal, how CBP officers and supervisors at the POEs enter and review overtime information, and how CBP runs reports in its financial accounting system during the audit process. In addition, we conducted a test of the data from the overtime management system and the billing information from the financial accounting system for a selection of partners across eight pay periods from fiscal years 2014 through 2017 to determine if CBP billed its partners appropriately. Specifically, for each of the eight selected pay periods, we randomly selected one RSP partner from the universe of partners who used RSP services during the period. We then compared the number of RSP overtime hours logged in CBP’s overtime management system for the selected partners and pay periods with the number of hours on the corresponding partner bills. In all eight cases, the amount of RSP overtime hours logged by CBP officials matched the overtime hours billed to the partners. Our observations, review of applicable documentation, and testing provided reasonable assurance that CBP is being appropriately reimbursed by partners for the services that it provided under the RSP.

To evaluate the benefits of RSP services, the AFP office develops metrics reports on the services that CBP performed while fulfilling RSP requests throughout the billing cycle that it provides its partners. These metrics reports include data, such as the number of overtime hours CBP officers worked, the number of travelers CBP processed, the number of containers CBP inspected, and the average wait times CBP recorded during RSP overtime services, among other data. According to AFP officials, this information about the impact of reimbursable services helps partners make informed decisions when assessing their future requests. The AFP office works with partners to ensure that the information CBP provides in these reports is useful and will provide additional data upon the partners’ request, as applicable.

CBP also conducts annual RSP partner satisfaction surveys to obtain feedback and evaluate overall satisfaction with program implementation. In 2015 and 2016, RSP partners expressed high levels of satisfaction about the level of services CBP provided, the request and fulfilment process, the billing and payment process, the monthly and annual metrics reports that CBP provides its partners, and the program’s ability to meet partner goals. Additionally, partners generally responded that the program allowed them to achieve their goals, which primarily focused on reducing wait times and increasing their own customer satisfaction levels.

Monitoring and Evaluation of DAP Implementation and Benefits

CBP has guidance that it follows to monitor and evaluate the implementation of DAP projects, and CBP and its partners use tools such as implementation roadmaps and other policy documents, such as standard operating procedures, to administer and monitor the progress of DAP projects at the POEs. For example, CBP develops project roadmaps for all donation projects in close collaboration with its partner, GSA (as applicable), and other entities involved in the project, and shares them with project participants. The roadmap identifies a variety of project milestones and tasks, such as drafting the MOU and completing the technical requirements package, among other things. The roadmap also tracks the number of days that CBP expects will be required to complete each task, which helps CBP to ensure that all stakeholders meet project milestones.

CBP also monitors overall DAP implementation by collecting quantitative data on the efficiency of DAP processes to inform program and process improvements. For example, from 2015 to 2016, CBP consolidated certain elements of its application evaluation process to reduce the number of days it takes to evaluate and approve applications from an average of 144 days to 75 days for large-scale donations. Similarly, from 2015 to 2016, CBP determined that it could gain efficiencies by establishing a separate application evaluation and approval process for small-scale donation applications to better accommodate small-scale donations, and delegated approval and acceptance authority to the Office of Field Operations Executive Assistant Commissioner. This new process expedited the proposal evaluation timeline for small-scale donations from approximately 27 days to 14 days. In addition, GSA implemented a similar delegation authority for approval and acceptance of small-scale donations in fiscal year 2017, which decreased GSA’s application evaluation process from approximately 57 days to 25 days from fiscal year 2016 to 2017.

In addition to monitoring the implementation of the overall program and the progress of specific DAP projects, CBP works with its partners to evaluate the benefits of each project. Specifically, during the planning and development phase of a donation, AFP officials coordinate with local CBP officials and DAP partners to develop a plan for identifying, measuring, and reporting on the local benefits to be derived from accepted donations upon project completion. CBP has completed its evaluation of the benefits of one completed small-scale project. For example, CBP estimated that the donated perforating machine at the Freeport Sea POE will save CBP 166 officer hours and approximately $7,450 in salary and maintenance costs per year. For large-scale projects, CBP is working with its partners to develop these evaluation plans, but it is too early for CBP to evaluate the benefits given that most of these projects are in the early planning and development phases. CBP shares its findings on benefits with its partners to help them assess their return on investment and so that they can share that information with their own local stakeholders.

CBP Is Taking Steps to Plan for the Expansion of Its RSP and DAP, but Could Benefit from Establishing an Evaluation Plan to Assess Overall Program Performance

CBP is taking steps to monitor the existing use and impacts of RSP and DAP and to plan for further expansion of these programs. For example, in addition to the monthly metrics reports that CBP provides its RSP partners, AFP officials told us that they monitor the fulfillment rates of formal partner requests for RSP services. The current fulfillment rate across all of CBP’s RSP agreements is over 99 percent. In addition, as noted previously, AFP officials coordinate with local CBP officials and DAP partners to develop a plan for identifying, measuring, and reporting on the local benefits to be derived from accepted donations upon project completion. Furthermore, with regard to planning for future program expansion, CBP has taken steps to plan for the additional oversight activities that it expects at the headquarters level as the RSP expands. For example, CBP is hiring new staff members and contractors for the AFP office, as well as reimbursing the Office of Finance for one staff position and embedding one staff member in the Budget Office to help complete the increased number of financial transactions and audits. In addition, the AFP office is considering the future impact of DAP projects on staffing and other resources at the affected POEs, and is working with Field Office, POE, and partner officials to identify and budget for anticipated operational needs, with assistance from CBP’s Workload Staffing Model and Planning, Program Analysis and Evaluation offices.

These efforts to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the programs and plan for further expansion are positive steps that should help position CBP to manage anticipated increases in the number of agreements going forward. Furthermore, prior to Sections 481 and 482 authorities, in accordance with the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013, CBP submitted semiannual reports to Congress on its Section 560 partnerships for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. CBP included information in these reports on the benefits of RSP services. For example, CBP compared baseline traveler and vehicle volume and wait times at participating POEs from previous years to the traveler and vehicle volume and wait times during time periods when CBP provided reimbursable services.

Subsequently, in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, CBP developed an evaluation plan with objectives, criteria, evaluation methodologies, and data collection plans to be used to evaluate RSP and DAP performance on an annual and aggregated basis. However, the provision requiring that an evaluation plan be established for the section 559 pilot program was repealed by the Cross- Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016. This Act requires that CBP report to Congress annually to identify the activities undertaken and the agreements entered into under the RSP and DAP but does not require that CBP develop or report on an evaluation plan for these programs. As of November 2017, CBP had not decided whether it will use a performance evaluation plan going forward. However, in December 2017, AFP officials acknowledged that such a plan—that examines RSP and DAP performance at the programmatic level—could benefit program management and augment evaluation activities already conducted by the AFP office. We reviewed draft versions of CBP’s fiscal year 2017 reports to Congress on new Section 481 fee agreements and new Section 482 donation agreements. Both reports detailed how CBP responded to changes in legislative authorities for the RSP and DAP and listed its fiscal year 2017 selections for public-private partnership agreements, but did not include an evaluation plan or identify measures for tracking program performance going forward.

Further, while the AFP office tracks the fulfillment rates of requests for RSP services and is working with its partners and other CBP components to monitor and plan for program expansion, CBP could benefit from a more robust assessment of possible impacts of staffing challenges on program expansion. As mentioned above, as of fiscal year 2017, CBP has an overall staffing shortage of 2,516 officers, according to CBP’s Workload Staffing Model analysis, and CBP officer hiring remains an agency-wide challenge. We identified some staffing challenges that could affect CBP’s management and implementation of its RSP and DAP programs, which roughly doubled in the number of agreements from fiscal year 2016 to 2017. As of November 2017, public-private partnership agreements were in place at approximately one-third of all U.S. POEs. With the removal of the limit on the number of air agreements that CBP can enter each year, some POEs have or are anticipated by CBP to have more than one RSP agreement in place. According to AFP officials, if there are multiple RSP partnerships at the same POE, CBP will try to accommodate all partner requests. Generally, the AFP office expects the POEs to handle requests on a first-come, first-serve basis. As the number of RSP partners increase across POEs, requests for services are likely to also increase, according to CBP officials. While it is too soon for CBP to assess the extent to which fulfillment rates may change over time, if at all, with the expansion of the program, officials noted that RSP agreements do not guarantee that CBP will be able provide all services that partners request, and that RSP services are above and beyond what CBP would normally provide. According to CBP, the recent increase in the mandated cap on officer overtime pay from $35,000 to $45,000 has allowed CBP officers to work more RSP overtime. Nevertheless, it is unclear how CBP will evaluate and address any increase in RSP agreements that may outpace the staff available to fulfill service requests.

As noted previously, new authorities for the RSP also allow CBP to enter into agreements that allow partners to reimburse CBP for up to five additional officers, above the number assigned at the time the agreement was reached, at small airports. In fiscal year 2017, CBP selected four partners for this type of reimbursable services agreement. For its agreement with the Rhode Island Airport Corporation, CBP relocated three officers from the Boston-Logan International Airport, one of the busiest U.S. international airports, to T.F. Green State International Airport, which inspects less than 100,000 international travelers annually. AFP officials noted that, in accordance with legislation, the Port Director overseeing the port of origin for the CBP officer(s) added to small airports must determine that the movement of the officer(s) from one POE to another in fulfilling RSP agreements for additional CBP officers does not permanently affect operations at any other POE, including the POE that the officer(s) depart. However, CBP has not planned for how individual POEs or the agency more broadly would make these determinations or how CBP would evaluate any longer term impacts on overall CBP officer staffing resulting from the movement of officers among POEs.

Office of Management and Budget guidance for making program expansion decisions indicates that agencies should evaluate cost- effectiveness in a manner that presents facts and supporting details among competing alternatives, including relative costs, benefits, and performance tradeoffs. Further, in September 2016 we developed a list of leading practices for evaluation based on the American Evaluation Association’s An Evaluation Roadmap for a More Effective Government, including development of an evaluation plan or agenda, a description of methods and data sources in evaluation reports, procedures for assuring evaluation quality, and tracking the use of evaluation findings in management or reforms, among others. CBP is taking steps to monitor its RSP and DAP and plan for program expansion. However, given its staffing challenges, CBP could benefit from developing and implementing an evaluation plan for assessing overall RSP and DAP performance. Such a plan could further integrate evaluation activities into program management and could better position CBP to assess relative costs, benefits, and performance trade-offs as CBP expands its RSP and DAP, and consider the extent to which any future program changes may be needed.

Conclusions

The amount of legitimate travel and trade entering through the nation’s POEs continues to increase each year. To date, CBP and its partners have utilized public-private partnerships to help meet an increased demand for CBP services and infrastructure improvements at POEs, and agency officials and program partners have generally concurred that the RSP and DAP have been effective in helping to bridge CBP resource gaps and improve partner operations. However, given CBP’s officer hiring and retention challenges and its finite resources for addressing infrastructure needs at POEs, CBP’s ability to monitor and evaluate the implementation of its public-private partnership programs is essential to ensuring that CBP leaders have the information that they need to make program decisions and identify and respond to challenges as the programs expand. As CBP continues to expand its public-private partnership programs, evaluating the RSP and DAP at the program level could better position CBP leaders to assess the relative costs, benefits, and performance trade-offs of continuing to expand the programs. It could also better position CBP to identify and respond to expansion challenges, such as CBP officer staffing.

Recommendation for Executive Action

The CBP Commissioner should develop and implement an evaluation plan to be used to assess the overall performance of the RSP and DAP, which could include, among other things, measurable objectives, performance criteria, evaluation methodologies, and data collection plans to inform future program decisions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and GSA for their review and comment. GSA indicated that it did not have any comments on the draft report via e-mail. DHS provided written comments, which are noted below and reproduced in full in appendix II, and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

DHS concurred with our recommendation and described the actions it plans to take in response. Specifically, DHS stated that CBP will develop and implement a plan to assess the overall performance of the RSP and DAP to inform future program decisions. The plan will evaluate current partnerships, including but not limited to: service denial rate; trend analysis of frequency and type of requests; annual stakeholder survey results; impact of multiple stakeholders in one port location on levels of service provided; impact of unanticipated operations and maintenance costs associated with property donations; and staffing implications on donations of upgraded port infrastructure. If implemented effectively, these planned actions should address the intent of our recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Details of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reimbursable Services Program Agreement Memoranda of Understanding

Since 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has entered into public-private partnerships with private sector or government entities under its Reimbursable Services Program (RSP) to cover CBP’s cost of providing certain services at U.S. ports of entry (POE) upon the request of partners. As of the end of fiscal year 2017, CBP approved 114 applications for reimbursable fee agreements. These services can include customs, immigration, agricultural processing, border security and support at any facility where CBP provides, or will provide services and may cover costs such as salaries, benefits, overtime expenses, administration, and transportation costs. Once CBP selects an application for a new reimbursable services partnership, CBP and its partner sign a legally binding Reimbursable Services Agreement, which is a standard legal form that CBP uses for all new RSP agreements. Local CBP officials then work with the partner to negotiate the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which outlines how the partnership will work at the POE.

In the following table, we provide select details from the 54 existing MOUs between CBP and its partners in the RSP.

In addition to the partners listed in the table above, CBP has also signed Reimbursable Services Agreements with the following partners, but has not completed negotiating the terms of an MOU as of the end of fiscal year 2017.

Fiscal year 2016 partners: 1. City of Charlotte Aviation Department 2. Dole Fresh Fruit Company (Port of Wilmington, Delaware; Port Everglades; and Port of Freeport)

3. GT USA LLC 4. Port of Galveston 5. Presidio Port Authority Local Government Corporation 6. Red Hook Container Terminal, LLC 7. United Parcel Service Co.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Kirk Kiester (Assistant Director), Dominick Dale, Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Stephanie Heiken, Susan Hsu, Elizabeth Leibinger, David Lutter, and Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi made significant contributions to this report.