This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-106R 
entitled 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security 
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure 
Plan' which was released on November 17, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

GAO-12-106R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 17, 2011: 

The Honorable Mary Landrieu:
Chairman:
The Honorable Frank Lautenberg:
Vice Chairman:
The Honorable Dan Coats:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt:
Chairman:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

Subject: U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, 
Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan: 

This letter formally transmits the briefing slides we provided on 
November 16, 2011, in response to a mandate in the Department of 
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.[Footnote 1] 
This mandate required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to (1) 
update its Fiscal Year 2010 expenditure plan on border security 
fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) for fiscal year 2011 
budget authority and (2) submit the updated plan to the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees. The plan is to address 10 
legislative conditions in the fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriations act 
and be reviewed by GAO.[Footnote 2] 

DHS submitted an updated plan to Congress on September 8, 2011. 
[Footnote 3] As required by the act, we reviewed the plan. To conduct 
this work, we analyzed the expenditure plan and documents referenced 
within the plan, such as strategic plans and reports, and interviewed 
DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to obtain 
clarification on material contained in the expenditure plan, including 
certification memoranda from the DHS Chief Procurement, Chief 
Information, and Chief Human Capital Officers. 

In summary, the expenditure plan satisfied some but not all of the 
legislative conditions. Specifically, of the 10 legislative 
conditions, the expenditure plan satisfied 3, partially satisfied 5, 
and did not satisfy 2 (see enclosure, table 1, slides 7 through 9). 
[Footnote 4] For more information on the legislative conditions and 
the results of our analyses, see enclosure, slides 16 through 25. 
Based on our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans over 5 consecutive 
years, DHS has consistently not included all required elements in the 
plans leading to partially satisfied or not satisfied legislative 
conditions each year. Providing an explanation of which elements of 
the legislative conditions were not included in the expenditure plan 
and why the elements were not included would help DHS to provide 
Congress with a more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-
funded programs. Similarly, including an explanation in the 
certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of 
the condition were or were not certified, along with references to 
supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more clarity on 
how and why the BSFIT programs were or were not certified. Based on 
the results of our review, we are recommending that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that 
explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that 
are not fully addressed. Further, we are recommending that the 
Secretary enhance the plan by ensuring that the required certification 
memoranda include descriptions of the review processes used for the 
certifications along with references to the documentation used to make 
certifications for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS 
provided written comments which are reprinted in the enclosure, 
appendix V. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS concurred 
with our first recommendation to enhance the expenditure plan by 
ensuring that explanations are included for all required legislative 
conditions that are not fully addressed and stated that CBP is 
committed to providing complete and thorough information in future 
BSFIT expenditure plans. In addition, DHS concurred with our second 
recommendation to enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that 
required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review 
processes used for the certifications along with references to 
supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. In 
commenting on the draft, DHS noted that the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT 
expenditure plan is mandated to be an update to the fiscal year 2010 
and earlier BSFIT expenditure plans and that CBP therefore omitted 
discussions that were addressed in the earlier plans such as detailed 
program management capabilities. We recognize that the fiscal year 
2011 expenditure plan was mandated to be an update and reviewed the 
plan accordingly. For example, in instances where changes in BSFIT 
programs were significant, we assessed whether the fiscal year 2011 
plan provided current and accurate information. Specifically, 
regarding detailed program management capabilities, between the 
issuance of the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 BSFIT expenditure plans, DHS 
reorganized its management of the acquisition, deployment and 
integration of surveillance and detection technologies, dissolving the 
Secure Border Initiative program management office and creating the 
Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition. We assessed whether 
the BSFIT plan addressed detailed program management capabilities of 
the new office, among other things. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This 
correspondence will also be available at no charge on our web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have 
questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 
or stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Key contributors to this report were Chris Keisling, Assistant 
Director; Kevin Copping, Analyst-in-Charge; Sarah Arnett; Michael 
Sweet; Frances Cook; Celina Davidson; Rebecca Wilson; Richard Hung; 
Linda Miller; and Lara Miklozek. 

Signed by: 

Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Briefing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security 
Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology: 

Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure Plan: 

Prepared for the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations: 

November 16, 2011: 

Briefing Overview: 

* Introduction; 
* Objective, Scope, and Methodology; 
* Results in Brief; 
* Background; 
* Finding: 
- Legislative Conditions; 
* Conclusions; 
* Recommendations; 
* Agency Comments; 
* Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs; 
* Appendix II: Tactical Infrastructure Program; 
* Appendix III: Tactical Communications Modernization Program; 
* Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis; 
* Appendix V: Comments from DHS; 
* Related GAO Products. 

Introduction: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched the Secure Border 
Initiative (SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort aimed at 
securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration, in November 
2005. Under this initiative, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 
the lead agency within DHS for border security, implemented the 
following programs: 

* SBI Network (SBInet)-—A mix of radars, sensors, and cameras along 53 
miles of Arizona's 376-mile border with Mexico. 

* Northern Border Program—-A mix of cameras, radars, and operations 
centers along the northern border. 

* Tactical Communications (TACCOM) Modernization-—Upgrade to CBP 
communications systems. 

* Tactical Infrastructure (TI)-—Fences, roads, and lighting along the 
southwest border. 

In January 2011, after 5 years and a cost of nearly $1 billion, DHS 
ended SBInet because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability 
standards. 

DHS is developing a successor plan to secure the southwest border 
called the  Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology plan. The plan's 
first phase is the Arizona  Border Surveillance Technology Plan, which 
also includes a mix of radars, sensors, and cameras. The Arizona 
Border Surveillance Technology Plan is expected to cost approximately 
$1.5 billion over 10 years. 

The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011, required DHS to update its fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan on 
border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology for fiscal 
year 2011 budget authority and submit the updated plan to the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees.[Footnote 5] The plan is to 
address 10 legislative conditions set forth in the fiscal year 2010 
DHS appropriations act and be reviewed by GAO.[Footnote 6] DHS 
received approximately $573 million for border security fencing, 
infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) programs for fiscal year 2011. 
[Footnote 7] 

In response to similar requirements in previous appropriations acts, 
we issued four reports discussing the extent to which DHS met 
legislative conditions for its fiscal year 2007, 2008, 2003, and 2010 
BSFIT expenditure plans.[Footnote 8] 

In response to the above requirements, DHS submitted a plan to 
Congress on September 8, 2011, titled Border Security Fencing, 
Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2011 Expenditure 
Plan. [Footnote 9] 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology:  

Our objective was to determine whether CBP's BSFIT expenditure plan 
satisfied 10 legislative conditions as specified in the Department of 
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. 

To accomplish our objective, we: 

* analyzed the BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced within 
the plan, such as strategic plans and reports, and, 

* interviewed cognizant DHS and CBP program officials in Washington, 
D.C., to obtain clarification on material contained in the BSFIT 
expenditure plan. 

In making our determination regarding whether the BSFIT expenditure 
plan satisfied each of the 10 legislative conditions, we limited our 
assessment to information in the expenditure plan and documents 
referenced in the plan because the legislative conditions specified 
that the expenditure plan was to contain the information to address 
them. 

Also, in making our determination regarding the extent to which the 
plan satisfied the 10 legislative conditions, we examined the 
expenditure plan and documents referenced therein for the presence of 
the required elements. We did not assess the quality of these elements. 

We compared the results of our analysis of the 2007 through 2010 BSFIT 
expenditure plans with the results of our 2011 analysis. 

We determined that funding, staffing, and fencing mileage data 
provided in the plan were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this 
briefing. We based our decision on an assessment for each respective 
area by questioning cognizant DHS officials about the source of the 
data and policies and procedures to maintain the integrity of these 
data. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through November 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

Of the 10 legislative conditions, the BSFIT expenditure plan and 
documents referenced therein satisfy 3, partially satisfy 5, and do 
not satisfy 2.[Footnote 10] The 10 legislative conditions and the 
level of satisfaction are summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions: 

Legislative conditions: 1. A detailed accounting of the program's 
implementation to date for all investments, including technology and 
tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended relative to 
system capabilities or services, system performance levels, mission 
benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program management 
capabilities, identification of the maximum investment, including life-
cycle costs, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and 
description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures[A]; 
Status: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 2. A description of how specific projects will 
further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DI-IS Secure Border 
Strategic Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding to the 
highest priority border security needs[B] 
Status: Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 3. An explicit plan of action defining how all 
funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with the 
planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery of 
specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission benefits 
and outcomes, and program management capabilities.
Status: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 4. An identification of staffing, including 
full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office. 
Status: Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 5. A description of how the plan addresses 
security needs at the northern border and ports of entry, including 
infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements, 
specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for 
northern border activities; 
Status: Satisfied 

Legislative conditions: 6. A report on budget, obligations and 
expenditures, activities completed, and progress made by the program 
in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the 
United States; 
Status: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 7. A listing of all open GAO and Office of 
Inspector General (01G) recommendations related to the program and the 
status of DI-IS actions to address the recommendations, including 
milestones to fully address such recommendations; 
Status: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 8. A certification by the Chief Procurement 
Officer (CPO) of the Department, including all supporting documents or 
memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment 
review processes used to obtain such certifications, that (a) the 
program has been reviewed and approved in accordance with the 
investment management process of the Department, and that the process 
fulfills all capital planning and investment control requirements and 
reviews established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
including as provided in Circular A-11, part 7; (b) the plans for the 
program comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements, 
guidelines, and practices, and a description of the actions being 
taken to address areas of non-compliance, the risks associated with 
such actions, together with any plans for addressing these risks, and 
the status of the implementation of such actions; (c) procedures to 
prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major 
subcontractors are established and that the SBI Program Office has 
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border 
Initiative program, and all contracts under the program, including the 
exercise of technical oversight; 
Status: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 9. A certification by the Chief Information 
Officer (CIO) of the Department, including all supporting documents 
and memoranda, and documentation and a description of the investment 
review processes used to obtain such certifications, that: (a) the 
system architecture of the program has been determined to be 
sufficiently aligned with the information systems enterprise 
architecture of the Department to minimize future rework, including a 
description of all aspects of the architectures that were or were not 
assessed in making the alignment determination, the date of the 
alignment determination, and any known areas of misalignment together 
with the associated risks and corrective actions to address 
any such areas; (b) the program has a risk management process that 
regularly and proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and 
monitors risks throughout the system life-cycle and communicates high-
risk conditions to CBP and DI-IS investment decision-makers, as well 
as a listing of all the program's high risks and the status of efforts 
to address such risks; and (c) an independent verification and 
validation agent is currently under contract for the projects funded 
under the BSFIT heading; 
Status: Not Satisfied. 

Legislative conditions: 10. A certification by the Chief Human Capital 
Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs of the 
Secure Border Initiative program are being addressed so as to ensure 
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border 
Initiative; 
Status: Not Satisfied. 

Sources: Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. at 2145-47, as made applicable 
with modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. 
at 102-03,140. and GAO analysis.  

[A] Since 2007, SBI programs, including tactical infrastructure, 
SBlnet, Northern Border program and TACCOM, have been funded from the 
BSFIT account in DHS appropriations. While SBlnet was canceled in 
January 2011, the other SBI programs listed above in addition to the 
SBlnet successor program, the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology 
plan, are still funded from the BSFIT account. The legislative 
conditions refer to these programs when stating the program" or the 
SBI program."  

[B] Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan 
(Washington, D.C., Dec. 1, 2006).  

[End of table] 
 
For the five legislative conditions that we determined that DHS 
partially satisfied, DHS officials told us that they did not include 
the required elements because of an oversight or because the elements 
were under development. An explanation was not included in the BSFIT 
expenditure plan. 

For the two legislative conditions that we determined that DHS did not 
satisfy, in one case  DHS officials told us that they did not include 
the required element because of an oversight and in the other case 
they did not provide supporting documentation for the certification. 
An explanation was not included in the BSFIT expenditure plan. 

By providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative 
conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the 
elements were not included, DHS would provide Congress with a more 
complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs. Moreover, 
for those conditions that require a certification, including an 
explanation in the certification memorandum of why elements of the 
condition were or were not certified, along with references to 
supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more information 
in appropriating funds to BSFIT. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of DHS enhance the expenditure 
plan by ensuring that explanations are included for all legislative 
conditions that are not fully addressed and that required 
certification memoranda include descriptions of review processes used 
for the certifications along with references to supporting 
documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. DHS concurred 
with these recommendations. 

Background: BSFIT Appropriations: 

Over $4.7 billion has been appropriated for BSFIT activities from 
fiscal years 2007 through 2011 (see Table 2). 

Table 2: BSFIT Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011 (Dollars 
in Thousands): 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Appropriated funds: $1,187,565[A]. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Appropriated funds: $1,302,587[B]. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Appropriated funds: $845,000[C]. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Appropriated funds: $800,000[D]. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Appropriated funds: $573,000[E]. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
Appropriated funds: $$4,708,152. 

Sources: CBP budget data and DHS's annual appropriations acts. 

[A] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 
No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1359 (2006). BSFIT funds are no-year 
dollars, meaning they do not expire at the end of a given fiscal year. 

[B] Includes approximately $77.6 million of reprogrammed funds from 
other DHS accounts, plus $1.225 million appropriated through the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 
1844, 2047 (2007). BSFIT funds from this appropriations act are no-
year dollars. 

[C] Includes $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 162, 302 (2009), which 
expires at the end of fiscal year 2010, plus $775 million appropriated 
through the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3655 
(2008), which are no-year dollars. DHS later reprogrammed $30 million 
to DHS's Office of Emergency Communications for an interoperable 
border communications technology demonstration project. 

[D] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. 
No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145 (2009). 

[E]Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act, 
2011, Pub. L. No.112-10 div. B, § 1610(a), 125 Stat. 38, 140, 
appropriated $574,173,000. An across-the-board cut to DHS 
appropriations of 0.2 percent reduced the BSFIT appropriation to $573 
million. 

[End of table] 

Map of 20 Border Patrol Sectors: 

The Border Patrol has 20 sectors as shown below in Figure 1.  

Figure 1: U.S. Border Patrol Sectors: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

U.S. Border Patrol Sectors: 
Blaine; 
Buffalo; 
Del Rio; 
Detroit; 
El Centro; 
El Paso; 
Grand Forks; 
Havre; 
Houston; 
Laredo; 
Miami; 
New Orleans; 
Ramey; 
Rio Grande Valley; 
San Diego; 
Spokane; 
Swanton; 
Tucson; 
Yuma. 
 
Source: CBP.   
   
[End of figure] 

Background: BSFIT-Funded Programs: 

BSFIT-funded programs include: 

* Surveillance technology programs: 

- Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan—-is to place border 
surveillance and related technologies in Arizona. 

- Northern Border Program—-is to provide technology deployments and 
demonstrations for addressing the needs and vulnerabilities of the 
Northern Border. 

- Legacy Systems--provide surveillance, detection, tracking and 
identification capabilities.[Footnote 11] 

* Tactical infrastructure (TI) program—projects for pedestrian 
fencing, vehicle fencing, roads, and lighting.[Footnote 12] 

* Tactical communications (TACCOM) modernization pro dram—-systems 
such as mobile radios to enable communications for CBP agents and 
officers.[Footnote 13] 

Background: Program Management Responsibilities: 

The CBP program offices responsible for the implementation of BSFIT-
funded programs are the: 

* Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA). OTIA manages 
the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, the Northern Border 
Program, and other technology projects. OTIA was formed in July 2010 
and took over the responsibilities of the SBI program office related 
to the acquisition, deployment and integration of surveillance and 
detection technologies. 

* Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure (BPFTI) — 
Program Management Office (PMO). The BPFTI PMO is part of CBP's Office 
of Administration and manages TI projects. 

* Office of Information and Technology (OIT) — Wireless Systems 
Program Office (WSPO). 01T-WSPO manages TACCOM Modernization. 

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for program management: $76.4 
million. 

Background: Summary of GAO Products related to SBI and the Alternative 
Southwest Border Technology Plan: 

We have publicly reported on the SBI program 23 times since February 
2007 and have made 38 recommendations (see list of related GAO 
products at the end of this briefing). 

* Our reports and recommendations pointed to an SBlnet technology 
program that was in a constant state of flux, with delays in 
deployment that required the Border Patrol to continue relying on 
existing technology for securing the border and weaknesses in testing 
and acquisition that have resulted in a program that did not produce 
expected results. 

On November 4, 2011 we reported on the extent to which CBP has the 
information needed to develop and implement its Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology Plan, the first stage of the Alternative 
Southwest Border Technology Plan, and the extent to which CBP's 
estimated life-cycle costs for the Arizona Border Surveillance 
Technology Plan reflect best practices. The report had three 
recommendations related to CBP's planning for its new technology 
approach and three recommendations related to increasing the 
reliability of cost estimation for the plan.[Footnote 14] 

Legislative Condition #1: Detail Program Progress to Date (Partially 
Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a detailed accounting of the program's 
implementation to date for all investments, including technology and 
tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended relative to 
system capabilities or services, system performance levels, mission 
benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program management 
capabilities, identification of the maximum investment, including life-
cycle costs, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and 
description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein partially satisfy legislative condition 1. The plan provides a 
detailed accounting of the BSFIT funded programs' implementation to 
date, milestones, and system capabilities and services for technology 
investments. However, the plan and documents referenced therein do not 
provide system performance levels, mission benefits or outcomes for 
all investments or programs, or detailed descriptions of program 
management capabilities. The plan and documents referenced therein do 
not provide cost targets, maximum investment, and the methodology for 
determining cost figures for each technology investment program. CBP 
officials told us that they did not include this information in the 
plan because of an oversight. Additionally, for TACCOM, CBP did not 
include a cost target because it was still under development.[Footnote 
15] 

Legislative Condition #2: Describe How Activities Further the 
Objectives of SBI's Strategic Plan (Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a description of how specific projects 
will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure 
Border Strategic Plan, and how the expenditure plan allocates funding 
to the highest priority border security needs. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies condition 2. The 
expenditure plan provides information on how technology investments 
and tactical infrastructure projects further objectives from the 
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and CBP's Missions, Goals, 
and Strategies FY 2011-2013; these objectives align with those in DHS's
Secure Border Strategic Plan (2006).[Footnote 16] The expenditure plan 
states that CBP has determined that Arizona is the highest priority 
security need. CBP used an operational assessment to determine the 
allocation of funds within the Tucson Sector of Arizona.[Footnote 17] 

Legislative Condition #3: Describe How Funds Are Obligated to Meet 
Future Program Commitments (Partially Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include an explicit plan of action defining how 
all funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with 
the planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based 
delivery of specific capabilities, services, performance levels, 
mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein partially satisfy legislative condition 3. The BSFIT 
expenditure plan includes some information required by the condition, 
such as a plan defining how all funds are to be obligated for 
surveillance technology, TACCOM, and TI, and the planned expenditures 
needed to achieve TI milestones. However, the expenditure plan and 
documents referenced therein do not include a link between planned 
expenditures and milestones, services, system performance levels, 
mission benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities. 
CBP officials told us that because of an oversight they did not draft 
the BSFIT expenditure plan with a level of detail to establish such a 
linkage.[Footnote 18] 

Legislative Condition #4: Identify Staffing by Activity (Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Identify staffing, including full-time 
equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies the condition. The 
plan identifies staffing levels by program office for organizations 
that execute BSFIT funds.[Footnote 19] 

Legislative Condition #5: Describe Security Needs at the Northern 
Border and Ports of Entry (Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a description of how the plan addresses 
security needs at the northern border and ports of entry, including 
infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements, 
specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for 
northern border activities. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan satisfies this condition. The 
plan describes how $46.5 million of appropriated funds will address 
the security needs at the northern border and POEs including 
infrastructure, deployment of surveillance technologies, and the 
northern border security priorities related to the missions, goals, 
and objectives of DNS and CBP.[Footnote 20] 

Legislative Condition #6: Report on Budget, Activities Completed, and 
Progress (Partially Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a report on budget, obligations and 
expenditures, the activities completed, and the progress made by the 
program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border 
of the United States. 
GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein partially satisfy this condition. The plan reports the budget, 
obligations, and expenditure amounts from fiscal years 2006 through 
2011 and discusses activities completed. However, the plan and 
documents referenced therein do not discuss the progress that the 
BSFIT-funded programs have made in terms of obtaining operational 
control of the U.S. border.[Footnote 21] CBP officials told us that 
they no longer use operational control as a measure of border security 
but instead are developing three new performance measures to measure 
security at the southwest border.[Footnote 22] 

Legislative Condition #7: Provide a Status of All Open GAO and OIG 
Recommendations (Partially Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a listing of all open GAO and OIG 
recommendations related to the program and the status of DHS actions 
to address the recommendations, including milestones to fully address 
them. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein partially satisfy the condition because although the plan 
lists all six open GAO recommendations and two open OIG 
recommendations, the description of the status of DHS actions to 
address the open recommendations does not contain milestones for five 
of the six GAO open recommendations and one of the two open OIG 
recommendations. CBP officials told us that they had information 
available on milestones for addressing open recommendations but did 
not include this information in the BSFIT expenditure plan because of 
an oversight.[Footnote 23] 

Legislative Condition #8: Include Certification by the DHS CPO 
(Partially Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a certification by the CPO of the 
Department, including all supporting documents or memoranda, and 
documentation and a description of the investment review processes 
used to obtain such certifications, that: (a) the program has been 
reviewed and approved in accordance with the investment management 
process of the Department, and that the process fulfills all capital 
planning and investment control requirements and reviews established 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including as provided in 
Circular A-11, part 7; (b) the plans for the program comply with the 
Federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices, 
and a description of the actions being taken to address areas of non-
compliance, the risks associated with such actions, together with any 
plans for addressing these risks, and the status of the implementation 
of such actions; and (c) procedures to prevent conflicts of interest 
between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established 
and that the SBI Program Office has adequate staff and resources to 
effectively manage the program, and all contracts under the program; 
including the exercise of technical oversight. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein partially satisfy this condition. The DHS CPO certified that 
the programs met the condition's requirements and referenced 
supporting documentation. However, the certification memorandum did 
not fully address all aspects of the condition because the assessment 
did not certify that the program has adequate staff. DHS CPO officials 
told us that they used the term "resources" in the certification 
memorandum to encompass both resources and program staff. However, 
because the memorandum did not specify "staff', DHS technically did 
not satisfy the condition.[Footnote 24] 

Legislative Condition #9: Include Certification by the DHS CIO (Not 
Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a certification by the CIO of the 
Department, including all supporting documents and memoranda, and 
documentation and a description of the investment review processes 
used to obtain such certification, that: (a) the system architecture 
of the program has been determined to be sufficiently aligned with the 
information systems enterprise architecture of the Department to 
minimize future rework, including a description of all aspects of the 
architectures that were or were not assessed in making the alignment 
determination, the date of the alignment determination, and any known 
areas of misalignment together with the associated risks and 
corrective actions to address any such areas; (b) the program has a 
risk management process that regularly and proactively identifies, 
evaluates, mitigates, and monitors risks throughout the system life-
cycle and communicates high-risk conditions to CBP and DHS investment 
decision-makers, as well as a listing of all the program's high risks 
and the status of efforts to address such risks; and (c) an 
independent verification and validation agent is currently under 
contract for the projects funded under this heading. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein do not satisfy this condition. The plan includes a CIO 
certification memorandum; however, this certification does not 
explicitly certify the conditions required by law, including that the 
system architecture was sufficiently aligned with DHS's architecture, 
that an effective risk management process is in place, and that the 
program has an independent verification and validation agent under 
contract. Also, the plan does not include or reference supporting 
documents or memoranda and does not contain a description of the 
investment review processes used to obtain the certification. A senior 
DHS CIO official told us that the office did not include this 
information in the certification memo but could not explain why this 
was not done. 

Legislative Condition #10: Include Certification by the DHS
CHCO (Not Satisfied): 

Legislative condition: Include a certification by the Chief Human 
Capital Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs 
of the SBI program are being addressed so as to ensure adequate staff 
and resources to effectively manage SBI. 

GAO analysis: The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced 
therein do not satisfy the condition. In a July 28, 2011, memorandum, 
the DHS CHCO declined to certify the BSFIT expenditure plan because 
the OTIA human capital plans and supporting documentation were 
unavailable during the transition from the SBI program to OTIA. 
Further, the CHCO did not address the human capital needs of the OIT 
WSPO and BPFTI PMO. DHS officials told us that they did not direct the 
CHCO to conduct a certification of the other two program offices 
because they focused on the legacy SBI PMO's transition to OTIA. DHS 
officials agreed that human capital certifications in future BSFIT 
expenditure plans should address all three program management offices. 
[Footnote 25] 

Status of Legislative Conditions from 2007 through 2011: 
 
Our reviews of BSFIT expenditure plans in fiscal years 2007, 2008, 
2009, 2010, and 2011 have consistently shown that the plans have not 
satisfied all elements of the legislative conditions specified for 
each year. (See Table 3 for selected results of our reviews for these 
years.) 

While DHS told us why certain conditions were not fully satisfied in 
the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT expenditure plan—including that required 
elements were omitted or under development—these explanations were not 
included in the plan. Internal control standards for the federal 
government call for agencies to promptly record and clearly document 
significant events to maintain their relevance and value to decision 
makers in ensuring that their objectives are met.[Footnote 26] 

Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative 
conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the 
elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress with a 
more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs as 
well as reasonable assurance that CBP's planned expenditures for its 
multi-billion dollar border security efforts are in accordance with 
legislative requirements. Similarly, including an explanation in each 
certification memorandum of why all legislatively-required elements of 
the condition were or were not certified, along with references to 
supporting documentation, would provide Congress with more clarity on 
how and why the BSFIT programs were or were not certified. 

GAO Reviews of Fiscal Years 2007 - 2011 BSFIT Expenditure Plans: 

Table 3: GAO Reviews of Fiscal Years 2007-2011 BSFIT Expenditure Plans: 

Legislative Condition: No. 1: Detailed accounting of implementation to 
date (including milestones and costs);  
FY 2007[A]: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 2: Describes how projects further the 
objectives of the Secure Border Initiative and funding is allocated 
according to highest priority security needs; 
FY 2007[A]: Not Satisfied; 
FY 2008: Not Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 3: Explicit plan of how funds obligated and 
how planned expenditures link to milestones, services, performance 
levels, benefits and outcomes, and management capabilities; 
FY 2007[A]: Satisfied[B]; 
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 4: Identification of staffing by program 
office; 
FY 2007[A]: Satisfied; 
FY 2008: Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 5: Addresses security needs at northern 
border (including infrastructure, technology, and priorities for 
activities); 
FY 2007[A]: N/A; 
FY 2008: Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 6: Report on budget, obligations and 
expenditures and progress made to obtain operational control of entire 
U.S. border; 
FY 2007[A]: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 7: Listing of all open GAO and DHS OIG 
recommendations related to program and status of DHS actions to 
address them; 
FY 2007[A]: N/A; 
FY 2008: Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No 8: Certification by Chief Procurement 
Officer (DHS); 
FY 2007[A]: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2008: Satisfied[C]; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Partially Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 9: Certification by Chief Information 
Officer (DHS); 
FY 2007[A]: Satisfied[C]; 
FY 2008: Partially Satisfied[C]; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Not Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Not Satisfied. 

Legislative Condition: No. 10: Certification by Chief Human Capital 
Officer (DHS); 
FY 2007[A]: N/A; 
FY 2008: Satisfied; 
FY 2009: Partially Satisfied; 
FY 2010: Satisfied; 
FY 2011: Not Satisfied. 

Source:GAO. 

[A] Several of the legislative conditions were less detailed in fiscal 
year 2007 than in subsequent fiscal years, but wed the same broad 
categories. 

[B] In fiscal year 2007, conditions 3 and 4 were combined into one 
legislative condition as identifies funding and the organization 
staffing requirements by activity. This condition received a satisfied 
rating. 

[C] Fiscal years 2007 and 2008 legislative conditions did not have a 
rolled-up assessment of the CPO and CIO's certifications. In fiscal 
year 2007, all elements of the CPO certification were included; 
however, only one of three elements of the CIO legislative condition 
was present GAO gave the CPO-related conditions two partially 
satisfied and one satisfied rating. The CIO-related condition received 
a satisfied rating. In fiscal year 2003 all CIO and CPO sub-criteria 
were present and received the same rating as is shown in this table.   

[End of table] 

Conclusions: 

Based on our reviews of the current BSFIT expenditure plan and those 
of the previous 4 years, DHS has consistently not included all 
required elements in the plans leading to partially or not satisfied 
legislative conditions each year. While DHS told us why certain 
conditions were not fully satisfied, these reasons were not described 
in the plans. 

Providing an explanation of which elements of the legislative 
conditions were not included in the expenditure plan and why the 
elements were not included would help DHS to provide Congress with a 
more complete picture of the status of the BSFIT-funded programs as 
well as the extent to which CBP's planned expenditures for its multi-
billion dollar border security efforts are reported in accordance with 
legislative requirements. 

Similarly, including an explanation in each certification memorandum 
of why all legislatively required elements of the condition were or 
were not certified, along with references to supporting documentation, 
would provide Congress with more clarity on how and why the BSFIT 
programs were or were not certified. 

Recommendations: 

To provide the Congress with the best information possible on the 
status and proposed expenditures of the programs described in any 
future BSFIT expenditure plan, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that: 

1. explanations are included for all required legislative conditions 
that are not fully addressed; and; 

2. required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review 
processes used for the certifications along with references to 
supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS 
provided written comments which are reprinted in Appendix V. DHS 
concurred with our first recommendation and stated that CBP is 
committed to providing complete and thorough information in future 
BSFIT expenditure plans. DHS also concurred with our second 
recommendation. Further, DHS noted that the fiscal year 2011 BSFIT 
expenditure plan is mandated to be an update to the fiscal year 2010 
and earlier BSFIT expenditure plans and that CBP omitted discussions 
that were addressed in the earlier plans such as detailed program 
management capabilities. We recognize this point and reviewed the plan 
accordingly. For example, where changes in BSFIT programs were 
significant, we assessed whether the fiscal year 2011 plan provided 
current and accurate information. Specifically, regarding detailed 
program management capabilities, between the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 
BSFIT expenditure plans, DHS reorganized its management of the 
acquisition, deployment, and integration of surveillance and detection 
technologies, dissolving the Secure Border Initiative Program 
management office and creating OTIA. We assessed whether the BSFIT 
plan addressed detailed program management capabilities of the new 
office, among other things. DHS also provided technical comments which 
we incorporated, as appropriate. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Surveillance Technology Programs: 

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan: 

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment: 
$185 million: 

Projects: 

* Agent Portable Surveillance System: portable ground-sensing radar 
and computer equipment to provide surveillance. 

* Integrated Fixed Tower: system of fixed towers, commercial sensors, 
and Border Patrol (BP) stations to provide a wide area surveillance. 

* Mobile Surveillance Capabilities: suite of vehicle-mounted mobile 
sensory equipment to provide wide area surveillance. 

* Mobile Video Surveillance System: camera system mounted on a vehicle 
to provide surveillance. 

* Remote Video Surveillance System: remotely-controlled video cameras 
attached to towers or other structures for day and night surveillance. 

* Thermal Imaging Devices: device for BP agents to see clearly at an 
effective range in areas that are dimly lit or in total darkness. 

* Unattended Ground Sensors and Imaging Sensors: ground detection and 
imaging systems to detect activity and transmit information. 

Northern Border Program: 

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment, 
Operations and Maintenance: $46.5 million. 

Projects: 

* Operational Integration Center: collaborative operations center for 
DHS, CBP, and federal, state, local, and Canadian partners. 

* Low-Flying Aircraft Surveillance: short-range radar systems to 
detect low-flying aircraft. 

* Aircraft Video Down Link: technology to send aircraft video imagery 
to BP agents on the ground. 

* Ku Band Satellite Backhaul: technology to send aircraft video and 
data long distances. 

* Maritime Radar: detection system for maritime traffic. 

* Combined Agency Security Centers: surveillance monitoring centers 
that support land ports of entry (POE) on the northern border. 
[Footnote 27] 

* Border Security Deployment Project: project to deliver technologies 
to CASC and associated land POE. 

* Northern Border-1: surveillance systems at Detroit, Buffalo, and 
Swanton Sectors, and the Champlain POE. 

* Mobile Surveillance Capabilities: suite of vehicle-mounted mobile 
sensory equipment to provide wide area surveillance. 

Legacy Surveillance Systems: 

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Operations and Maintenance: 
$61.8 million: 

Projects: 

* Block 1 System: legacy SBlnet deployment of towers with integrated 
day and night cameras, radars, unattended ground sensors and a "Common 
Operating Picture" that displays the results at a command center. 
Deployed to 53 miles of the Arizona border with Mexico. 

* Static Remote Video Surveillance: static cameras for day and night 
surveillance of fixed areas such as a road or tunnel. 

* Border Intrusion Surveillance System: camera system to monitor and 
record border intrusions. 

* Trailered Remote Video Surveillance: remotely-controlled cameras 
that are integrated on a mobile trailer or platform. 

* Remote Video Surveillance System: remotely-controlled video cameras 
attached to towers or other structures for day and night surveillance. 

* Mobile Video Surveillance System: camera system mounted on a vehicle 
to provide surveillance. 

Other Technology: 

Fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures for Development and Deployment: 
$40.6 million: 

Projects: 

* Open Architecture: investment to standardize interfaces for future 
information technology deployments. 

* Innovative Technology Pilot Program: program to augment CBP's 
selection of technology-based tools through testing and operational 
demonstrations. 

* Systems Engineering/Modeling and Simulation (Technology Road Map): 
tool that will link technology capabilities to mission needs. 

* Ultra Light Aircraft Detection: detection and tracking system for 
slow-flying aircraft. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Tactical Infrastructure Program: 

Since fiscal year 2006, CBP has allocated approximately $2.9 billion 
for TI along the southwest border. Fiscal year 2011 planned 
expenditures are $25 million for TI deployment and $75 million for TI 
maintenance. 

TI includes both pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Pedestrian fencing is 
intended to help prevent people on foot from crossing the border and 
vehicle fencing is intended to help prevent vehicles engaged in drug 
trafficking and alien smuggling operations from crossing the border. 

* As of August 2011, CBP had constructed 649 miles of pedestrian and 
vehicle fencing on the 1,993-mile southwest border, covering about 33 
percent of the border. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Tactical Communications Modernization Program: 

TACCOM systems such as mobile radios enable communications for CBP 
agents and officers. CBP's fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures 
include $40 million on development and deployment of TACCOM projects 
and $16.4 million on TACCOM maintenance. Primarily funded by BSFIT in 
fiscal year 2011, TACCOM modernization includes the following projects: 

* Project-25 Modernization:[Footnote 28] 

- Replacement of current voice communications infrastructure to 
provide expanded coverage and capacity, encryption to allow for secure 
voice communications, and enhanced interoperability with other 
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

- Tucson, Yuma, Rio Grande Valley, Houlton, and El Paso BP Sectors are 
receiving the Project-25 Modernization. 

* Digital in Place: 

- Transitions CBP analog radio equipment in the remaining 15 BP 
Sectors to the digital Project-25 interoperability standard. 

TACCOM 2: 

* Would enable CBP to provide voice, video, and data capabilities to 
end users by using third-party subscriber broadband wireless systems. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Details Supporting GAO Analysis: 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 1: 

With regard to surveillance technology investments in the Arizona 
Border Surveillance Technology Plan and the Northern Border Program, 
the BSFIT expenditure plan: 

* Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date, including 
completed and future milestones. 

* Describes the system capabilities and services provided by each 
technology investment. For example, Mobile Video Surveillance Systems 
provides persistent video surveillance and situational awareness in 
rural, remote areas. 

* Provides mission benefits for each technology investment. For 
example, Low Flying Aircraft Surveillance provides area surveillance 
and situational awareness in rural, remote, and semi-urban areas. 

* Describes the formation and organization of the OTIA Program 
Management Office. 

* Provides system performance levels for six of the seven Arizona 
Border Surveillance Technology Plan projects and states that system 
performance levels are under development for the remaining project. 

* Provides system performance levels for one of the eight Northern 
Border technology projects and states that system performance levels 
are under development for four of the Northern Border technology 
projects and in draft form for the other three projects. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein: 

* Do not provide outcomes for technology investments. According to 
OTIA officials, CBP is no longer measuring operational control of the 
border—their previous outcome measure. Slide 53 discusses CBP's plans 
for developing a Border Condition Index as an outcome measure of the 
condition or state of the border. 

Additionally, with regard to surveillance technology investments in 
the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan and Northern Border 
program, the BSFIT expenditure plan: 

* Provides cost targets for four of the seven Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology plan projects—including life cycle costs. 
[Footnote 29] For the remaining three projects, the BSFIT expenditure 
plan states that life cycle cost estimates are under development or 
being revised. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein: 

* Do not provide cost targets for any of the eight Northern Border 
program projects. The BSFIT expenditure plan states that cost targets 
are in development for two Northern Border projects and does not 
provide life cycle cost information on the remaining 6 projects. 

* Do not describe the methodology used to obtain cost figures or 
identify the maximum investment required for each technology 
investment with life cycle costs specified. For example the 
expenditure plan estimates Thermal Imaging Devices will cost 
approximately $10.4 million for acquisition, operation, and 
maintenance over 10 years, but does not describe the methodology used 
to obtain cost figures. 

* Do not detail the OTIA Program Management Office's program 
management capabilities. For example, the expenditure plan states that 
the OTIA Program Management office oversees planning, staffing, 
organizing, and leading the management of specific acquisition 
programs, but the plan does not detail specific responsibilities 
regarding the projects in the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology 
plan or the projects along the northern border. 

With regard to technology investments in TACCOM, the BSFIT expenditure 
plan: 

* Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date with 
completed and future milestones. 

* Describes the mission benefits, capabilities and services of TACCOM 
as providing increased secure coverage, capability, reliability, and 
improved interoperability to-CBP law enforcement officers and agents. 

* Provides the system performance level as meeting 95percent of 
coverage requirements in the sectors undergoing TACCOM modernization. 

* Names the program office that manages TACCOM: OIT-WSPO. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein: 

* Do not describe the OIT-WSPO's program management capabilities. The 
plan states that OIT-WSPO manages the entire scope of the existing 
TACCOM program, but does not provide specific program management 
capabilities. 

* Do not include the cost target, the maximum investment including 
life cycle costs, or the methodology used to obtain TACCOM cost 
figures. 

* Do not provide outcomes for TACCOM modernization. 

With regard to investments in TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan: 

* Provides a detailed accounting of implementation to date with 
completed and future milestones. 

* Describes the capabilities and services provided as pedestrian 
fencing, vehicle fencing, and roads. 

* Describes the mission benefits of TI as persistent impedance of 
illicit cross-border activity and facilitating agent access to border 
regions. 

* Provides system performance levels for TI projects including 
pedestrian and vehicle fencing as well as roads. For example, vehicle 
fencing should have the capability of disabling a 6,000 pound vehicle 
traveling at 40 miles per hour. 

* Provides a cost target, the maximum investment with life cycle costs 
and the methodology used to determine cost figures. 

* Names the program office responsible for managing TI projects—BPFTI 
PMO. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein: 

* Do not detail the BPFTI PMO's program management capabilities. The 
plan states that the BPFTI PMO plans, constructs, and maintains TI, 
but does not detail specific program management capabilities. 

* Do not provide an outcome for TI. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 2: 

The BSFIT expenditure plan: 

* Describes how each project furthers the objectives of the QHSR and 
CBP's Missions, Goals, and Priorities FY 2011-2013. The expenditure 
plan does not reference the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan because, 
according to OTIA officials, that plan is no longer in use. However, 
the goals and objectives outlined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic 
Plan align with the goals and objectives of the QHSR and CBP's 
Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013 (see Table 4). 

Table 4: Comparison of Goals and Objectives in DHS Secure Border Plan, 
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Customs and Border 
Protection's Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013: 

Secure Border Strategic Plan, 2006: Goal 1: Gain Effective Control of 
the Border; 
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, 2010: Goal 2.1: 
Effectively Control U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders; 
CBP's Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013: Goal 1.1: Secure 
the Southwest Border; 
Goal 1.2: Secure the Northern Border, Littoral Borders, and Associated 
Airspace. 

Secure Border Strategic Plan, 2006: 1.1 Develop and deploy the optimal 
mix of personnel, infrastructure technology, and response capabilities 
to identify, classify, and interdict cross-border violators; 
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, 2010: Objective: Prevent 
the illegal flow of people and goods across the U.S. air, land, and 
sea borders while expediting the safe flow of lawful travel and 
commerce; 
CBP's Missions, Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013: Objective 1.1.1: 
Reduce the illicit flows and crimes associated with smuggling at and 
between the ports of  entry in Arizona in order to reduce criminality, 
illegal migration, and the threat of terrorism; 
Objective 1.1.3: Build a mobile and flexible response capability to 
anticipate and respond to security threats; 
Objective 1.2.1: Secure the northern border through an integrated 
approach to border enforcement; 
Objective 1.2.2: Secure the littorals and continental airspace. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents. 

[End of table] 

Regarding the allocation of funds to the highest priority border 
security needs, the BSFIT expenditure plan: 

* Describes securing the southwest border, specifically reducing the 
illicit flows and crimes associated with smuggling at and between the 
ports of entry in Arizona, as a priority. 

* States that funds are allocated based on operational assessments of 
the threats and vulnerabilities to the nation's borders. While the 
expenditure plan states that all operational assessments of BP sectors 
are not complete, the operational assessment for the Tucson sector is 
complete. 

* Provides a description of how TI operations and maintenance funds 
were allocated based on operational requirements. For example, the 
expenditure plan states that an analysis of operational requirements 
resulted in the allocation of TI funds to replace primary pedestrian 
fencing in Nogales, Douglas, and Naco, Arizona—considered the highest 
priority TI projects. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 3: 

The BSFIT expenditure plan describes fiscal year 2011 planned 
expenditures, including surveillance technology, TACCOM and TI. Table 
5 summarizes the planned expenditure of fiscal year 2011 funds. 

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Expenditures: 

Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Expenditures: 

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan: $185.0 million. 

Northern Border Program: $46.5 million. 

TACCOM: $56.4 million. 

TI: $100.0 million. 

Border Surveillance Technology: $68.1 million. 

Other Technology Projects: $40.6 million. 

Program Management: $76.4 million. 

Total: $573.0 million. 

Source: CBP. 

[End of table] 

With regard to technology investments for both the Arizona Border 
Surveillance Technology Plan and Northern Border program, the BSFIT 
expenditure plan: 

* Describes planned expenditures for each technology investment for 
fiscal year 2011, including development and deployment and operations 
and maintenance. For example, the plan describes $5.1 million for 
development and deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers and $5 million 
for operations and maintenance of Combined Agency Security Centers 
along the northern border. 

* Describes milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities (e.g. 
contract awards and deliveries for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems), 
system performance levels, services, and mission benefits, but does 
not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example, 
Mobile Video Surveillance Systems are to detect items of interest 
during night and day operations at a range that is effective to 
provide a system operator with sufficient resolution to determine if 
an item of interest is human, vehicle, or animal. The expenditure plan 
does not link the cost of these system performance levels to fiscal 
year 2011 planned expenditures. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and the documents referenced therein: 

* Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link 
these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. 

With regard to technology investments in TACCOM, the BSFIT expenditure 
plan: 

* Describes planned expenditures for fiscal year 2011 including 
development and deployment ($40 million) and operations and 
maintenance ($16.4 million). 

* Describes milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities (e.g., 
contract awards for commodity purchases), system performance levels 
for the system as a whole, services, and mission benefits, but did not 
link these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example, 
TACCOM has a target of meeting 95 percent of identified coverage 
requirements in sectors undergoing full modernization. The expenditure 
plan and documents referenced therein do not link this level of 
coverage to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein: 

* Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link 
these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. 

With regard to TI, the BSFIT expenditure plan: 

* Provides planned expenditures for fiscal year 2011 including 
development and deployment ($25 million) and operations and 
maintenance ($75 million). 

* Links milestone-based delivery of specific capabilities to the 
fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. For example, conducting all 
activities for fence replacement construction in Nogales, Arizona, is 
expected to cost $10.4 million. 

* Describes system performance levels, capabilities, services, and 
mission benefits, but does not link these to fiscal year 2011 planned 
expenditures. For example, the BSFIT expenditure plan mentions 
providing for safe use and maintainability of steep grades as a 
performance requirement for roads, but does not provide the fiscal 
year 2011 planned expenditures needed to meet this level of 
performance. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein: 

* Do not describe program management capabilities and outcomes or link 
these to fiscal year 2011 planned expenditures. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 4: 

The BSFIT expenditure plan identifies staffing by program office for 
organizations that execute BSFIT funds. As of April 28, 2011, CBP's 
program offices executing BSFIT funds identified approved staffing at 
403 employees, including government full-time equivalents, 
Contractors, and detailees (see Table 6). 

Table 8: BSFIT-Funded Approved Staff as of April 28, 2011: 

OTIA Program Management Office: 
Government Employees: 161; 
Contract Employees: 105; 
Detailees: 5; 
Total: 271. 

CBP Office of Administration: 
Government Employees: 19; 
Contract Employees: 0; 
Detailees: 0; 
Total: 19. 

CBP Office of Information and Technology: 
Government Employees: 7; 
Contract Employees: 63; 
Detailees: 0; 
Total: 70. 

BPFTI: 
Government Employees: 15; 
Contract Employees: 26; 
Detailees: 2; 
Total: 43. 

Total: 
Government Employees: 202; 
Contract Employees: 194; 
Detailees: 7; 
Total: 403. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[End of table] 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 5: 

The BSFIT expenditure plan describes how security needs are addressed 
at the northern border and ports of entry including: 

* Infrastructure. For example, procurements are under way to increase 
the monitoring capability for the Detroit Operational Integration 
Center, including a hardware and services acquisition for sensor 
infrastructure and construction of a tower site in Grosse Pointe, 
Michigan. 

* Technology. For example, $5 million of fiscal year 2011 appropriated 
funds are planned for the procurement, deployment, and first year of 
operation for up to four maritime radar systems to the Buffalo Sector. 

* Design and Operations Requirements. For example, $2.1 million of 
fiscal year 2011 appropriated funds for the acquisition of Mobile 
Surveillance Capabilities on the northern border is to provide Border 
Patrol with operational capabilities such as detection, 
identification, and tracking. 

* Specific locations. For example, $5 million of fiscal year 2011 
appropriated funds are planned to support operations and maintenance 
of rural land POE surveillance systems in Maine through April 2012. 

* Priorities for northern border activities. Projects align to the 
missions, goals, and objectives under the QHSR and the CBP Missions, 
Goals, and Priorities, FY 2011-2013 by providing mission benefits such 
as improved situational awareness, collection of intelligence, 
detection of suspicious activity, and illegal smuggling or entry. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 6: 
 
The BSFIT expenditure plan reports on appropriations, obligations, and 
expenditures for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 (see Table 7).  

Table 7: BSFIT Funding Summary as of June 28, 2011 ($ in millions): 

Activity: Program Management; 
Funding Received: $332.2; 
Obligated $294.8; 
Unobligated Balance: $37.3; 
Expenditures: $234.4. 

Activity: OTIA/SBI; 
Funding Received: $1,607.8; 
Obligated $1,225.2; 
Unobligated Balance: $382.6; 
Expenditures: $1,085.2. 

Activity: TACCOM; 
Funding Received: $207.8; 
Obligated $110.0; 
Unobligated Balance: $97.8; 
Expenditures: $43.4. 

Activity: TI; 
Funding Received: $2,652.2; 
Obligated $2,534.8; 
Unobligated Balance: $117.4; 
Expenditures: $2,260.9. 

Activity: BSFIT Total;  
Funding Received: $4,799.9; 
Obligated $4,164.8; 
Unobligated Balance: $635.1; 
Expenditures: $3,604.0. 

Source: CBP data. 

Note: Amounts may not add to totals because of rounding. Distributed 
funds do not always match appropriated funds because of the status of 
recoveries and their redistribution by CBP. 

[End of table] 

The BSFIT expenditure plan discusses completed activities, including: 

* As of June 2011 CBP had completed 351 miles of pedestrian fencing 
and 299 miles of vehicle fencing. 

* CBP deployed 250 Remote Video Surveillance Systems on the southwest 
border. 

* CBP deployed 38 Mobile Surveillance Systems along the southwest 
border. 

The BSFIT expenditure plan and documents referenced therein do not 
discuss the progress made in obtaining operational control of the 
border. CBP no longer uses operational control as a measure of border 
security. Instead, the plan measures progress in securing the border 
through output measures such as seizures and apprehensions. [Footnote 
30] 

CBP is currently developing three new performance measures to measure 
security at the southwest border, including: 

* A CBP-led initiative to estimate total illegal crossings at the 
southwest border and the probability of apprehension. This measure, 
based on a Homeland Security Institute statistical model using 
apprehension and recidivism data, is to consider data from external 
sources, such as census data.[Footnote 31] CBP expects to introduce 
this measure in February 2012. 

* A CBP-led initiative to develop a "Border Condition Index" outcome 
measure of the condition or state of the border. CBP expects to 
introduce this measure in February 2012. 

* A BP-led initiative to standardize and strengthen metrics that had 
formerly supported the operational control measure. As part of this 
effort, BP is finalizing its 2012-2016 Border Patrol National Strategy 
and developing measures to support the implementation of this 
strategy. BP plans to introduce these measures in fiscal year 2013. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 7: 

As of September 2011, there are six open recommendations from two GAO 
reports for BSFIT funded programs.[Footnote 32] 

The expenditure plan lists all six of the open GAO recommendations. 

* In September 2009, we recommended that CBP conduct a cost-effective 
evaluation of the impact of tactical infrastructure on effective 
control of the border. The expenditure plan describes CBP actions to 
address this recommendation with an analysis of the effectiveness of 
border fencing and provides a February 2012 completion date for this 
analysis. 

* For the five recommendations we made in May 2011, the expenditure 
plan and documents referenced therein provide general information on 
planned CBP actions but do not provide milestones for addressing the 
recommendations. For example, we recommended that CBP establish 
procedures for coordinating with the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA) to monitor the status of closeout audits related to the 
original SBlnet program. While the expenditure plan notes CBP is 
developing an electronic database to track closeout audits, the plan 
does not provide milestones as to when the database will be 
operational or how this will ensure coordination with DCAA. 

The DHS Office of Inspector General has two open recommendations 
related to BSFIT-funded programs. The expenditure plan lists both 
recommendations; however, the plan does not include milestones to 
address one of the two recommendations. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 8: 

On June 28, 2011, the DHS CPO certified that the BSFIT-funded programs: 

* were reviewed in accordance with the DHS Capital Planning and 
Investment Control process, which complies with the requirements set 
forth in the OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, as well as the DHS Acquisition 
Management Review Process. 

* have adequate processes in place to ensure compliance with federal 
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices. 

* have established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between 
the prime integrator and major subcontractors. 

The certification letter did not specifically certify that the BSFIT-
funded programs have adequate staff to effectively manage the programs 
and contracts. DHS CPO officials told us that they used the term 
"resources" in the certification memorandum to encompass both 
resources and program staff. Further, CPO officials stated that they 
consider staffing levels to be adequate given the increase in the 
staffing level from 36 percent of authorized staffing in fiscal year 
2010 to 88 percent in fiscal year 2011. However, because the 
memorandum did not specify "staff", DHS technically did not satisfy 
the condition. 

Details Supporting GAO Analysis of Legislative Condition 10: 

In its memorandum, the DHS CHCO recommended a provisional 
certification of the OTIA Human Capital Strategic Plan based, in part, 
upon the timely completion of three items: 

* OTIA Workforce Plan-—estimated completion February 2012: 
This plan is to identify anticipated workforce needs, including goals 
and strategies to meet those needs, and performance targets that 
measure success in meeting those goals. 

* OTIA Human Capital Plan-—estimated completion March 2012: 
This plan is to outline human capital management goals, actions, 
timeline and
milestones, measurements, and the responsible accountability program 
official. According to DHS CHCO officials, the plan is to align to the 
DHS Workforce Strategy for FY2011-FY2016. 

* OTIA Human Capital Implementation Framework—-estimated completion 
May 2012: 
This document is to describe how OTIA plans to implement the Human 
Capital Plan in management areas such as developing leaders and 
growing the workforce. 

The DHS CHCO memorandum focused on OTIA human capital needs, but it 
did not address human capital needs for the other BSFIT-funded 
programs, including tactical infrastructure—managed by BPFTI PMO—-or 
TACCOM-—managed by OIT-WSPO. 

[End of section] 
 
Appendix V: Comments from DHS: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC: 

November 9, 2011: 
 
Richard Stana: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
411 G Street, NW: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-12-106R, "U.S. Customs and Border Protection's 
Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 
2011 Expenditure Plan"  

Dear Mr. Stana: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security appreciates the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and issuing this 
report. The Department is pleased that GAO notes that U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) "satisfied" or "partially satisfied" 8 out of 
10 legislative conditions. DHS and CBP will continue to work to 
satisfy the legislative requirements.  

A mandate in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriation Act, 2011 required DHS to update its Fiscal Year (FY) 
2010 Expenditure Plan on border security, fencing, infrastructure, and 
technology (BSFIT) for FY 2011 budget authority and to submit the 
updated plan to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 
Pursuant to this mandate, DHS submitted an updated plan to Congress on 
September 8, 2011.  

As the FY 2011 Expenditure Plan is mandated to be an update to the FY 
2010 Expenditure Plan, CBP opted to omit certain discussions that had 
been addressed in the FY 2010 and earlier Expenditure Plans, such as 
detailed program management capabilities and instead focused on the 
substantial changes from FY 2010 to FY 2011, fulfilling the spirit of 
the legislative mandate.  

The draft report contained two recommendations directed at DHS, with 
which the Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security:  

Recommendation 1: Enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that 
explanations are included for all required legislative conditions that 
are not fu11y addressed.  

Response: Concur. CBP is committed to providing complete and thorough 
information in future BSF1T Expenditure Plans.  

Recommendation 2: Enhance the expenditure plan by ensuring that 
required certification memoranda include descriptions of the review 
processes used for the certifications along with references to 
supporting documentation for each relevant BSFIT funded program.  

Response: Concur. The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 
(OCHCO) has stated that, in providing required certification 
memoranda, OCHCO will include descriptions of the review processes 
used for the certifications along with references to supporting 
documentation for each relevant BSFIT-funded program. OCHCO will also 
continue to coordinate with CBP's Office Human Resources (HRM) and 
Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) staff in 
developing the OITA strategic and human capital plans as well as work 
with CBP's HRM and appropriate CBP staff in developing future 
strategic and human capital plans, which include each relevant BSPIT-
funded program. In addition, DHS's Office of the Chief Information 
Officer (OCIO) is committed to enhancing the expenditure plan by 
modifying the required memorandum certification by OCIO to include 
sufficient responses to legislative conditions as outlined by 
Congress, along with supporting documentation, as evidence of 
compliance.  

As part of a recent transition of technologies and associated offices, 
DHS and CBP's Chief Information Office's are in the process of 
reassessing and updating the congressionally requested benchmarks for 
the new systems and technologies-—until these new reviews are 
completed, the Department cannot testify to the extant legislative 
criteria.  

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 
draft report. General, technical, and sensitivity comments on the 
report were previously provided under separate cover. We look forward 
to working with GAO on future Homeland Security issues.  

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker:  
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Arizona Border Surveillance Technology: More Information on Plans and 
Costs Is Needed before Proceeding. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-22]. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 
2011. 

Secure Border Initiative: Controls over Contractor Payments for the 
Technology Component Need Improvement. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-68]. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2011. 

Border Security: DHS Progress and Challenges in Securing the U.S. 
Southwest and Northern Borders. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-508T]. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 
2011. 

Border Security: Preliminary Observations on the Status of Key 
Southwest Border Technology Programs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-448T]. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 
2011. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Strengthen Management and 
Oversight of Its Prime Contractor. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-11-6]. Washington, D.C.: October 18, 
2010. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, 
Infrastructure and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-877R]. Washington, 
D.C.: July 30, 2010. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Follow Through on Plans to 
Reassess and Better Manage Key Technology Program. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-840T]. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 
2010. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Reconsider Its Proposed 
Investment in Key Technology Program. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-340]. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2010. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Has Faced Challenges Deploying 
Technology and Fencing Along the Southwest Border. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-651T]. Washington, D.C.: May 4, 
2010. 

Secure Border Initiative: Testing and Problem Resolution Challenges 
Put Delivery of Technology Program at Risk. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-511T]. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 
2010. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Testing and Performance 
Limitations That Place Key Technology Program at Risk. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-158]. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 
2010. 

Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the 
Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1013T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
17, 2009. 

Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays Persist and the 
Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-896]. Washington, D.C.: September 
9, 2009. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure Border Initiative Fiscal 
Year 2009 Expenditure Plan. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-274R]. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 
2009. 

Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-244R]. Washington, D.C.: January 
29, 2009. 

Northern Border Security: DHS's Report Could Better Inform Congress by 
Identifying Actions, Resources, and Time Frames Needed to Address 
Vulnerabilities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-93]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2008. 

Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs 
Lack Appropriate Oversight. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-29]. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 
2008. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in 
Delivering Key Technology Investment. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086]. Washington, D.C.: September 
22, 2008. 

Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in 
Delivering Key Technology Investment. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1148T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
10, 2008. 

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Deployment Challenges. GAO-
08-1141T. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2008. 

Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows 
Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS 
Accountability. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008. 

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Oversight Needed 
to Improve Complex Service Acquisition Outcomes. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-765T]. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 
2008. 

Homeland Security: DHS Has Taken Actions to Strengthen Border Security 
Programs and Operations, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-542T]. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 
2008. 

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed 
to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-263]. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 
2008. 

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying 
Lessons Learned to Future Projects. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-508T]. Washington, D.C.: February 
27, 2008. 

Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet 
Program Implementation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-131T]. Washington, D.C.: October 
24, 2007. 

Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements 
Needed to Control Risks. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-504T]. Washington, D.C.: February 
27, 2007. 

Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better 
Support Oversight and Accountability. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309]. Washington, D.C.: February 
15, 2007. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1601, 125 Stat. 38, 140. 

[2] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. 
No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-2147 (2009), as made applicable with 
modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. at 
102-03, 140. 

[3] For purposes of this report, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT 
expenditure plan. 

[4] Satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein 
either satisfied or provided for satisfying each requirement of the 
condition or direction that we reviewed. Partially satisfied means 
that the plan either satisfied or provided for satisfying some, but 
not all, key aspects of the condition or direction that we reviewed. 
Not satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced therein 
did not satisfy any of the key aspects of the condition or direction 
we reviewed. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1601, 125 Stat. 38, 140. 

[6] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. 
No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142, 2145-47 (2009), as made applicable with 
modifications by Pub. L. No. 112-10, §§ 1101(a), 1610, 125 Stat. at 
102-03, 140. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1610(a), 125 Stat. at 140. 

[8] GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Border Security Fencing, 
Infrastructure, and Technology Fiscal Year 2010 Expenditure Plan, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-877R] (Washington D.C.: 
July 30, 2010); GAO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure 
Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-274R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 
2009); Secure Border Initiative Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan 
Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and 
DHS Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R] (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 
2008); and Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to 
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 
2007). 

[9] For purposes of this briefing, we refer to this plan as the BSFIT 
expenditure plan. 

[10] Satisfied means that the plan and documentation referenced 
therein either satisfied or provided for satisfying each requirement 
of the condition or direction that we reviewed. Partially satisfied 
means that the plan either satisfied or provided for satisfying some, 
but not all, key aspects of the condition or direction that we 
reviewed. Not satisfied means that the plan and documentation 
referenced therein did not satisfy any of the key aspects of the 
condition or direction we reviewed. 

[11] For more information on surveillance technology programs, see 
appendix I. 

[12] For more information on the tactical infrastructure program, see 
appendix II. 

[13] For more information on the tactical communication program, see 
appendix Ill. 

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

[15] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 1, 
see appendix IV. 

[16] The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), issued in 
February 2010, was required by the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The QHSR provides a review of national 
security threats and outlines DHS's strategic framework to address 
these threats. 

[17] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 2, 
see appendix IV. 

[18] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 3, 
see appendix IV. 

[19] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 4, 
see appendix IV. 

[20] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 5, 
see appendix IV. 

[21] CBP defined operational control as the number of border miles 
where Border Patrol had the ability to detect, respond, and interdict 
cross-border illegal activity. 

[22] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 6, 
see appendix IV. 

[23] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 7, 
see appendix IV. 

[24] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 8, 
see appendix IV. 

[25] For details supporting GAO's analysis of legislative condition 
10, see appendix IV. 

[26] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 

[27] At a port of entry location, CBP officers secure the flow of 
people and cargo into and out of the country while facilitating 
legitimate travel and trade. 

[28] Project-25 is a suite of national standards that are intended to 
enable interoperability among the communications products of different 
vendors. 

[29] A life cycle cost estimate provides the total cost to the 
Government of acquisition and ownership of the system over its full 
life time. It includes the cost of development, acquisition, 
operations and support, and (where applicable) disposal. 

[30] Output measures are performance measures that address the direct 
products and services delivered by a program, while outcome measures 
focus on the results of products and services. See GAO, Performance 
Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-11-
646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

[31] Established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6.U.S.C. § 192, 
the Homeland Security Institute is a specialized studies and analysis 
Federally Funded Research and Development Center to assist DHS in 
addressing homeland security issues, particularly issues requiring 
scientific, technical, and analytical expertise. 

[32] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Technology Deployment Delays 
Persist and the Impact of Border Fencing Has Not Been Assessed, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-896] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept 9, 2009) and GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Controls over 
Contractor Payments for the Technology Component Need Improvement, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-68] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 25, 2011). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.