Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Deployment Challenges
Released: 2008-09-10T00:00:00

Letter

Background

CBP’s SBI program is responsible for deploying SBInet (e.g., sensors, cameras, radars, communications systems, and mounted laptop computers for agent vehicles), and tactical infrastructure (e.g., pedestrian and vehicle fencing, roads, and lighting) that are intended to enable CBP agents and officers to gain effective control of U.S. borders. SBInet technology is intended to include the development and deployment of a common operating picture (COP) that provides data through a command center to Border Patrol agents in the field and potentially to all DHS agencies and to be interoperable with stakeholders external to DHS, such as local law enforcement. The current focus of the SBI program is on the southwest border areas between the ports of entry that CBP has designated as having the highest need for enhanced border security because of serious vulnerabilities. The SBI program office and its offices of SBInet and tactical infrastructure are responsible for overall program implementation and oversight.

In September 2006, CBP awarded a prime contract to the Boeing Company for 3 years, with three additional 1-year options. As the prime contractor, Boeing is responsible for acquiring, deploying, and sustaining selected SBI technology and tactical infrastructure projects. In this way, Boeing has extensive involvement in the SBI program-requirements development, design, production, integration, testing, and maintenance and support of SBI projects. Moreover, Boeing is responsible for selecting and managing a team of subcontractors that provide individual components for Boeing to integrate into the SBInet system. The SBInet contract is largely performance-based—that is, CBP has set requirements for the project and Boeing and CBP coordinate and collaborate to develop solutions to meet these requirements—and designed to maximize the use of commercial off- the-shelf technology. CBP’s SBI program office oversees and manages the Boeing-led SBI contractor team.

CBP is executing part of SBI activities through a series of task orders to Boeing for individual projects. As of September 5, 2008, CBP had awarded 11 task orders to Boeing for a total amount of $933.3 million. Table 1 is a summary of the task orders awarded to Boeing for SBI projects.

In addition to deploying technology across the southwest border, the SBI program office plans to deploy 370 miles of single-layer pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle fencing by December 31, 2008. Pedestrian fencing is designed to prevent people on foot from crossing the border and vehicle fencing consists of physical barriers meant to stop the entry of vehicles. Figure 2 shows examples of SBI fencing styles along the southwest border. The SBI program office, through the tactical infrastructure program, is using USACE to contract for fencing and supporting infrastructure (such as lights and roads), complete required environmental assessments, and acquire necessary real estate. In June 2008, CBP awarded Boeing a supply and supply chain management task order for the purchase of construction items, such as steel.

Since fiscal year 2006, Congress has appropriated more than $2.7 billion for SBI. Table 2 shows SBI obligations from fiscal years 2006 through 2008 for SBInet technology, tactical infrastructure, and program management. DHS has requested an additional $775 million for SBI for fiscal year 2009.

SBInet Deployment Delays Are Ongoing and Border Patrol Agents Continue to Use Existing Technology to Secure Borders

SBInet technology deployments continue to experience delays and, as a result, Border Patrol agents have to rely upon existing limited technological capabilities to help achieve effective control of the border. We reported in October 2007, that SBI program office officials expected to complete all of the first planned deployment of technology projects in the Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso sectors by the end of 2008. In February 2008, we reported that the first planned deployment of technology would occur in two geographic areas within the Tucson sector—known as Tucson-1 and Ajo-1—by the end of calendar year 2008, with the remainder of deployments to the Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso sectors scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2011. In July 2008, SBI program office officials reported that SBInet technology deployments to Tucson-1 and Ajo-1 would be completed sometime in 2009. These officials further noted that SBInet technology deployments in the Tucson, Yuma, and El Paso sectors had also been delayed.

SBInet program uncertainties contribute to ongoing delays of SBInet technology deployments. These include: SBInet technology will be deployed to fewer sites than originally planned by the end of 2008; is expected to have fewer capabilities than originally planned at that time; and as discussed above, the SBInet program office does not have specific deployment dates; SBInet planning documents and mechanisms, such as the integrated master schedule, have not received executive approval and are constantly changing. For example, the current (unapproved) schedule is out of date and under revision; and The SBInet program office has not effectively defined and managed program expectations, including specific project requirements.

The need to obtain environmental permits is also contributing to the initial Tucson deployment delays. According to DOI officials, DHS officials initially stated that the DHS authority to waive all legal requirements as necessary to ensure expeditious construction covered both SBInet technology and tactical infrastructure projects. However, DHS officials later determined that the Secretary’s April 1, 2008, waiver did not extend to the Tucson-1 and Ajo-1 SBInet projects. Without waiver coverage for these projects, DHS must conform to the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to evaluate the likely environmental effects of projects they are proposing using an environmental assessment or, if the projects likely would significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement. According to DOI officials, SBI program office officials had planned to submit the permit application for the Tucson-1 project area in February 2008, requesting access and permission to build on environmentally sensitive lands. SBI officials said that they had been working with DOI local land managers; however, due to confusion over the DHS waiver authority, the complete application for the tower construction sites was submitted on July 10, 2008, while the SBI program office had planned to begin construction for Tucson-1 on July 15, 2008. According to DOI officials, the approval process normally takes 2 to 3 months, but they have expedited the DHS permit and plan to resolve the application in mid-September 2008.

Given the delays with SBInet technology deployment, Border Patrol agents continue to rely upon existing technologies. The cameras and sensors in use predate SBInet technology and do not have the capabilities that SBInet technology is to provide. In addition, some of the equipment currently in use may be outdated. For example, in the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector, aging cameras and sensors do not work in inclement weather and do not always function at night. In the Tucson sector, Border Patrol agents are using capabilities provided by Project 28, the SBInet prototype that was accepted by the government in February 2008. We previously reported that Project 28 encountered performance shortfalls and delays. Despite these performance shortfalls, agents in the Tucson Sector continue to use Project 28 technology capabilities while waiting for the SBInet technology deployment. During our visit to the Tucson Sector in June 2008, Border Patrol agents told us that the system had improved their operational capabilities, but that they must work around ongoing problems, such as finding good signal strength for the wireless network, remotely controlling cameras, and modifying radar sensitivity. Moreover, during our visit we observed the agents’ difficulties in logging on to the wireless network and maintaining the connection from the vehicle-mounted mobile data terminal. Project 28 is the only available technology in the Tucson-1 project area of the Tucson sector, compared to the Ajo-1 project area, which does not have any technology. Further delays of SBInet technology deployments may hinder the Border Patrol’s efforts to secure the border.

Tactical Infrastructure Deployment Continues, but Costs Are Increasing, the Life-Cycle Cost Is Not Yet Known, and Land Acquisition Issues Pose a Challenge to Completion of the Timeline

The deployment of tactical infrastructure projects along the southwest border is ongoing, but costs are increasing, the life-cycle cost is not yet known, and land acquisition issues pose challenges to DHS in meeting the goal it set, as required by law, to complete 670 miles of fencing—370 miles of pedestrian fence and 300 miles of vehicle fence, by December 31, 2008. We previously reported that as of February 21, 2008, the SBI program office had constructed 168 miles of pedestrian fence and 135 miles of vehicle fence. See figure 3 for photographs of SBI tactical infrastructure projects in Arizona and New Mexico. Approximately 6 months later, the SBI program office reports that 19 additional miles of pedestrian fence and 19 additional miles of vehicle fence have been constructed as of August 22, 2008 (see table 3).

Although SBI program office and USACE officials stated that they plan to meet the December deadline, factors such as a short supply of labor and materials, and the compressed timeline affect costs. SBI program office officials said that beginning in July 2008, as they were in the process of finalizing construction contracts, cost estimates for pedestrian fencing in Texas began to increase. According to USACE officials, as of August 28, 2008, fencing costs average $7.5 million per mile for pedestrian fencing and $2.8 million per mile for vehicle fencing, up from estimates in February 2008 of $4 million and $2 million per mile, respectively. SBI program office officials attributed the cost increases to a short supply of both labor and materials as well as the compressed timeline. For example, they said that as a result of a construction boom in Texas, labor is in short supply and contractors report that they must provide premium pay and overtime to attract workers. In terms of materials, USACE officials stated the price of cement and steel have increased and in some areas within Texas obtaining cement near the construction site is difficult. For example, contractors are now procuring cement from Colorado, and aggregate, a cement mixing agent, from Houston, Texas. The SBI program office officials also said that increasing fuel costs for transporting steel and cement were contributing factors. Officials said they are working to mitigate the cost increases where possible, for example, through their bulk purchase of steel and their negotiations in one county where premium labor rates were higher than usual. The SBI program office officials said that the compressed construction timeline also contributes to the cost increase, particularly in terms of labor costs.

The SBI program office does not yet have an estimated life-cycle cost for fencing because maintenance costs are unknown and the SBI program office has not identified locations for fencing construction projects beyond December 2008. The fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required DHS to submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees an expenditure plan for the SBI program that included, among other things, a life-cycle cost estimate. However, the plan did not include the estimate. In a June 2008 response to an inquiry from the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security regarding several deficiencies in the plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security stated that because Border Patrol agents have traditionally repaired damaged fencing themselves, DHS does not have historical cost data on fence repair by contractors on which to estimate life-cycle fence costs. However, according to the letter, DHS is currently collecting information on maintenance costs and by early calendar year 2009 plans to have a life- cycle cost estimate. In the near term, the department requested $75 million for operations and maintenance of tactical infrastructure in fiscal year 2009, according to the letter. In addition, Border Patrol officials have identified additional segments of the southwest border for construction of pedestrian and vehicle fencing beyond December 2008 and SBI program office and Border Patrol stated that they are developing fencing project priorities for 2009. However, they have not yet established a timeline for construction, and sources of funding have not been determined.

Land acquisition issues such as identifying landowners and negotiating land purchases present a challenge to completing fence construction by December 31, 2008. According to SBI program office officials, in order to adhere to this timeline, all fencing construction projects must be underway by September 30, 2008. However, according to SBI program office officials, as of August 26, 2008, an estimated 320 properties remain to be acquired from landowners. USACE officials noted that completion of fencing construction projects usually take 90 to 120 days and the December 31, 2008 deadline, is in jeopardy if ongoing litigation related to land acquisition is not resolved by September 30, 2008 (see table 4).

Of the 122 landowners who have refused to sell, 97 are within the Rio Grande Valley sector. As of August 28, 2008, of these 97 landowners, 20 are defendants in lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice at the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security for the condemnation and taking of their property. According to USACE officials, the 20 lawsuits were filed in July 2008 and are awaiting an order of possession ruling expected sometime in September 2008. Subsequent lawsuits were filed against the remaining 77 landowners, but court dates have not been set.

The SBI Program Management Office Is Reevaluating Its Staffing Goal and Has Continued to Take Steps to Implement Its Human Capital Plan

As of September 2008, the SBI program office was reevaluating its staffing goal, and the SBI program office continued to take steps to implement the December 2007 Human Capital Plan. In February 2008, we reported that the SBI program office had established a staffing goal of 470 employees for fiscal year 2008. As of August 1, 2008, the SBI program office reported having 129 government staff and 164 contractor support staff for a total of 293 employees (see table 5). SBI program office officials stated that a reorganization of the SBI program office and project delays have resulted in a need for fewer staff during fiscal year 2008. The officials further noted they plan to continue to evaluate the expected staffing needs through the end of fiscal year 2009.

The SBI program office published the first version of its Strategic Human Capital Management Plan in December 2007, and as of September 2008, continued to implement the plan. The SBI program office’s plan outlines seven main goals for the office and includes planned activities to accomplish those goals, which align with federal government best practices. As of September, 2008, the SBI program office had taken several steps to implement the plan. For example, the SBI program office held a meeting on September 2, 2008, to develop SBI’s mission, visionary goals and objectives, and core values, and the office has recruitment efforts under way to fill open positions. However, in other areas, the SBI program office is in the process of drafting or has drafted documents, such as the SBI Value Statement, the SBI Awards and Recognition Plan, and the Succession Management Plan, which have yet to be approved and acted upon. Table 6 summarizes the seven human capital goals, the SBI program office’s planned activities, and steps taken to accomplish these activities. We have previously reported that a properly designed and implemented human capital program can contribute to achieving an agency’s mission and strategic goals. Until the SBI program office fully implements its plan, it will lack a baseline and metrics by which to judge the human capital aspects of the program.

Concluding Observations

The SBI program continues to face challenges that include delays in project implementation and cost increases. The delays and cost uncertainties could affect DHS’s ability to meet projected completion dates, expected costs, and performance goals. Border Patrol agents continue to rely upon existing limited technological capabilities as SBInet technology deployments delays persist, and this may hinder the Border Patrol’s efforts to secure the border. In the tactical infrastructure area, meeting the Secretary’s goal to build 670 miles of fencing by December 31, 2008, a goal that DHS was required by law to set for itself, continues to be challenging. Since our last report to you 6 months ago, 38 miles of fence have been built and 329 are to be constructed during the next 4 months – provided that land acquisition issues can be resolved. Furthermore, tactical infrastructure costs are increasing and the SBI program office has not yet determined a life-cycle cost for fencing because maintenance costs are unknown and the SBI program office has not identified the locations for fencing construction projects beyond December 31, 2008; therefore, the total cost for building and maintaining fences along the southwest border is not yet known. These issues underscore Congress’s need to stay closely attuned to DHS’s progress to ensure that schedule and cost estimates stabilize, and the program efficiently and effectively addresses the nation’s border security needs.

This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that members of the committee may have.

Contacts and Acknowledgments

For questions regarding this testimony, please call Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. In addition to the contact named above, Susan Quinlan, Assistant Director, and Jeanette Espínola, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Sylvia Bascopé, Burns Chamberlain, Katherine Davis, Jeremy Rothgerber, and Erin Smith made significant contributions to the work.

Related GAO Products

Secure Border Initiative: Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS Accountability. GAO-08-739R. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008.

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Oversight Needed to Improve Complex Service Acquisition Outcomes. GAO-08-765T. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008.

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. GAO-08-263. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying Lessons Learned to Future Projects. GAO-08-508T. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2008.

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet Program Implementation. GAO-08-131T. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2007.

Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements Needed to Control Risks. GAO-07-504T. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2007.

Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better Support Oversight and Accountability. GAO-07-309. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2007.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It 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.