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 various programs. The Plan’s seven acquisition programs include fixed and mobile surveillance systems, agent portable devices, and ground sensors. Its three-highest cost programs which represent 97 percent of the Plan’s estimated cost are the Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT), Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS), and Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC). In March 2014, we found that CBP had a schedule for 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. More recently, in our April 2015 assessment of DHS’s major acquisitions programs, we reported on the status of the IFT program in particular, noting that from March 2012 to September 2014, the program’s initial operational capability date had slipped from the end of September 2013 to the end of September 2015. CBP officials said that this slip occurred because the program released its request for proposals behind schedule, and then received more proposals than anticipated. The subsequent bid protest extended the slip. CBP officials said these delays contributed to the IFT’s full operational capability slip, but funding shortfalls are the major contributor to the delay. Originally, full operational capability was scheduled to occur by September 2015, but as of December 2014, it was scheduled for March 2022. The IFT program anticipated it would receive less than half the fiscal year 2015 funding it needed to remain on track, and it anticipated its funding plan would be reduced further in the future. As a result of this expected funding shortage, the program anticipated it would be able to deliver 24 of 52 planned IFT units, with the funding through 2020, and that it planned to deploy the IFT units to three of the six original Border Patrol Station areas of responsibility. Furthermore, the Chief of the Border Patrol had informed the program that 12 of the 28 remaining IFT units systems are not needed given changing threats. Further, with regard to schedules, 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 found 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 was not based on any connection between risks and specific activities. 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 far as practical when updating the three programs’ schedules. In May 2015, CBP provided us a summary of its completed and planned milestones for the IFT, RVSS, and MSC programs. However, CBP has not provided us with a complete program schedule for the IFT, RVSS, and MSC, and, therefore, we cannot determine the extent to which the agency has followed best practices when updating the respective schedules. 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 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 that at this point it does not believe that there would be a benefit in expending funds to obtain independent cost estimates and that if the costs realized to date continue 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. However, 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. As of May 2015, CBP officials stated that the agency plans to update the life-cycle cost estimates for the three of its highest-cost programs under the Plan, including IFT and RVSS, by the end of calendar year 2015. We reported in March 2014 that CBP identified the mission benefits of its surveillance technologies, as we recommended in November 2011. More specifically, CBP had identified mission benefits of surveillance technologies to be deployed under the Plan, such as improved situational awareness and agent safety. However, we also reported that the agency had not developed key attributes for performance metrics for all surveillance technology to be deployed as part of the Plan, as we recommended in November 2011. 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 measures was under review as the agency continues to refine the measures to better inform the nature of the contributions and impacts of surveillance technology on its border security mission. While CBP has yet to apply these measures, CBP established a time line for developing performance measures for each technology. CBP officials stated that by the end of fiscal year 2015, baselines for each performance measure will be developed, at which time the agency plans to begin using the data to evaluate the individual and collective contributions of specific technology assets deployed under the Plan. Moreover, CBP plans to establish a tool by the end of fiscal year 2016 that explains the qualitative and quantitative impacts of technology and tactical infrastructure on situational awareness in specific areas of the border environment. While these are positive steps, 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 able to fully assess its progress in implementing the Plan and determine when mission benefits have been fully realized. Moreover, in March 2014, we found that CBP does 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 contributions of CBP’s surveillance technologies and inform resource allocation decisions. Although CBP has a field within its Enforcement Integrated Database for maintaining 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.