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 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. 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.