US Customs and Border Protection's Ground Transportation of ...

Department of Homeland SecurityOffice of Inspector GeneralU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees OIG-11-27 January 2011

Office ofInspector GeneralU.S. Department of Homeland SecurityWashington, DC 20528JAN 11 2011HomelandSecurityPrefaceThe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (DIG) wasestablished by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendmentto the Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series ofaudit, inspection, andspecial reports prepared as part ofour oversight responsibilities to promote economy,efficiency, and effectiveness within the department.This report addresses the effectiveness of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's efforts tocreate a plan to provide efficient ground transportation for detainees. It is based oninterviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, directobservations, and a review of applicable documents.The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to ouroffice, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. Wetrust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. Weexpress our appreciation to all ofthose who contributed to the preparation of this report.~~~Anne L. RichardsAssistant Inspector General for Audits

Table of Contents/AbbreviationsExecutive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Background..........................................................................................................................2 Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................3 CBP Does Not Have a Comprehensive Approach for Determining Transportation Needs................................................................................3 CBP Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Transportation PMO.......................6 CBP Is Ill-prepared to Make Long-Term Transportation Decisions .............................7 Recommendations..........................................................................................................7 Management Comments and OIG Analysis ..................................................................8 AppendicesAppendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................11 Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.......................................13 Appendix C: Detainee Transportation Process..........................................................16 Appendix D: Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................17 Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................18 AbbreviationsCBPDHSFYICEOIGPMOU.S. Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Inspector General Program Management Office

OIG Department of Homeland SecurityOffice of Inspector GeneralExecutive SummaryU.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for securing theNation’s borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. Theagency often requires transportation services for illegal aliensapprehended at or between U.S. ports of entry. This includesmedical escort, transport to U.S. Immigration and CustomsEnforcement facilities, and transport to and from local jails andcourts. Our objective was to determine whether the U.S. Customsand Border Protection Transportation Program Management Officedeveloped an effective plan to provide efficient and cost effectiveground transportation for detainees.The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Transportation ProgramManagement Office has not developed an effective plan to provideefficient and cost effective ground transportation for detainees. Ithas not developed a comprehensive approach for identifying andevaluating current transportation uses and therefore has beenunable to develop a model to predict future transportationrequirements. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has not clearlydefined the scope and authority of the Transportation ProgramManagement Office or provided sufficient management andoversight of the office to ensure that it accomplished its mission.U.S. Customs and Border Protection has spent more than$229 million on transportation services and the TransportationProgram Management Office since August 2006. Without athorough evaluation of the current uses and future requirements fortransportation services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is illpreparedto make an informed long-term decision for transportationservices when the existing transportation contract expires in August2011.We are making two recommendations that, if implemented, wouldhelp U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s efforts in identifyingand implementing comprehensive ground transportation solutions.The U.S. Customs and Border Protection concurred with bothrecommendations and has begun to formulate plans and initiateactions to address the recommendations.U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 1

BackgroundU.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible forsecuring the Nation’s borders while facilitating legitimate tradeand travel. Within CBP, the Office of Field Operations (FieldOperations) relies on Customs and Border Protection Officers(officers) for the security and flow of people and cargo at ports ofentry, whereas the Office of Border Patrol (Border Patrol) relies onBorder Patrol Agents (agents) for maintaining border securitybetween ports of entry.Field Operations and the Border Patrol often require transportationservices. These services include transporting illegal aliensapprehended at or between the ports of entry to medical facilities,to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities,and to and from local jails and courts. Appendix C contains moredetails on the transportation of detainees.In 2004, the Undersecretary for Border and TransportationSecurity issued a memorandum instructing that the apprehendingagency is responsible for all costs associated with the care andcustody of aliens until they are turned over to ICE. ICE initiallyprovided CBP with 170 agents to perform transportation services.In 2006, ICE recalled its agents to comply with the memorandum.In August 2006, CBP awarded a transportation contract thatprovided support to CBP sectors and ports along the SouthwestBorder. The 5-year contract was intended as a stopgap measure toallow the agency the opportunity to identify alternative solutionsduring a transition period. The initial budget for the contract was$50 million, funded through an interagency agreement with ICE.In March 2007, the Secure Border Initiative created the detaineeTransportation Program Management Office (PMO) to oversee thedetainee transportation contract and develop a more efficienttransportation solution at and between border ports of entry. Infiscal year (FY) 2008, the budget for the contract and theTransportation PMO was $75 million, which increased to$83 million per year in FYs 2009 and 2010.In 2008, the Secure Border Initiative approved the TransportationPMO’s charter, which tasked the office to implement newtransportation capabilities through any mix of in-house, contract,or reimbursable support resources. The charter explains that theTransportation PMO is responsible for assisting Field OperationsU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 2

support, hiring additional officers and agents to perform thetransportation duties, and creating a new type of position andhiring detention enforcement officers 1 to perform transportationduties. The Transportation PMO presented these options to theExecutive Coordinating Council, an overarching group establishedto review integration of detainee transportation and related guardservices for Field Operations and Border Patrol, showing thereplacement contract as the low cost alternative. However, theTransportation PMO did not adequately evaluate and present thecosts associated with these options to identify the optimal solutionsfor transportation requirements.Our review of the information the Transportation PMO provided tothe Executive Coordinating Council showed that theTransportation PMO:• Did not have adequate support for its estimate of futuretransportation requirements;• Overstated the cost of the detention enforcement officerposition by $89 million;• Overstated the cost of hiring additional officers and agentsby $75 million; and• Understated contract costs by $22 million.The Transportation PMO used CBP’s FY 2011 budget model as abasis for the life cycle cost estimate of the detention enforcementofficer position as well as the costs for CBP officers and agents. Incontrast, the office used FY 2009 actual expenses adjusted forinflation as a basis for the contract alternative.We reviewed these models and identified that the TransportationPMO included inappropriate costs for each government employee 2for personal compensation awards, relocation, long-distance phonecalls, and recruitment expenses, which were not included for thecontractor. The Transportation PMO overstated the detentionenforcement officer option by using an inflated grade level. Inaddition, the Transportation PMO understated the contract costs byexcluding the amounts spent on continuous contract support andoversight.1A Detention Enforcement Officer would be a newly formed position within CBP, focused primarily ontransportation functions. The position would also be able to provide support for additional activities asneeded by CBP. This position would not have the full law enforcement responsibilities of a CBP agent orofficer and would use a lower pay structure.2 This includes the proposed detention enforcement officer and additionally hired officers and agents.U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 5

The Transportation PMO also included overhead expenses alreadyincurred by the government such as General ServicesAdministration rental payments, utilities, and shipping fees thatshould not significantly increase with the addition of the detentionenforcement officer position.CBP Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the TransportationPMOThe agency has not provided adequate management and oversightfor the Transportation PMO. CBP did not provide criteria thatclearly defined the scope, authority, or performance expectationsof the office. Without establishing performance expectations andmonitoring the Transportation PMO’s execution of its mission,CBP was not able to ensure that the office identified and presentedappropriate future solutions for transportation requirements.Transportation PMO Not Following its CharterCBP has not ensured that the Transportation PMO is fulfilling itsmission as defined in its charter. The charter establishes theoffice’s overall mission broadly in some sections, yet narrows itsfunctions and responsibilities to contract-related tasks in others.For example, the charter tasks the Transportation PMO to assistField Operations and Border Patrol sponsors to gather, analyze,validate, and prioritize operational requirements and ensure thattransportation solutions meet end users’ requirements. Yet itfurther defines the scope of the Transportation PMO to:• Provide oversight and visibility of current contract service.• Develop an integrated system of detainee transportation,security, and administrative support.• Implement short-term and stopgap strategies pendingdevelopment of long-term capabilities.• Identify acquisition strategies that provide transportationsolutions.The Transportation PMO selected what functions it performed andlimited its focus to the contract in place and planning for a followoncontract. Transportation PMO leadership explained that theybelieved theirs was an acquisition management office with limitedinfluence over CBP operations affecting officers and agents. TheTransportation PMO Director believes the office cannot imposeU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 6

changes outside of the transportation contract and should thereforelimit itself to a narrow contract management role.CBP did not establish clear performance expectations to evaluatethe Transportation PMO. The Transportation PMO establishedfive performance goals for FY 2010, but none of the goalsaddressed how effectively the Transportation PMO program metthe missions defined in its charter. Additionally, the five goalswere not measurable and were limited to acquisition complianceand contract management. The CBP official responsible foroverseeing the Transportation PMO acknowledged that heassumed that the office was functioning as intended withoutperforming close oversight to ensure that it met its mission.CBP Is Ill-prepared to Make Long-term TransportationDecisionCBP is ill-prepared to make a long-term decision for detaineetransportation. CBP has invested more than $291 million in theTransportation PMO and its activities to implement more efficientground transportation solutions. However, the agency has noassurance that the optimal transportation solution has beenidentified to meet future requirements. Without completeinformation and analysis, CBP does not know if its officers andagents perform excessive collateral transportation services or if theagency’s plans to award a new contract for transportation serviceswill meet its needs efficiently.The agency plans to invest an estimated $400 million over 5 yearsfor transportation solutions when the current contract ends inAugust 2011. Before CBP makes this investment, it should ensurethat the Transportation PMO clearly identifies CBP’stransportation needs with a thorough analysis of alternatives tosupport the most cost effective long-term solution.RecommendationsWe recommend that the Chief, U.S. Border Patrol and theAssistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations:Recommendation #1: Establish a methodology to identify currenttransportation requirements, create a model to predict futureU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 7

equirements, and identify the optimal mix of resources to meetthose requirements.Recommendation #2: Provide sufficient management andoversight to ensure accountability for performing the analysis ofcurrent and future transportation needs.Management Comments and OIG AnalysisCBP concurred with both of the recommendations in the report andthe agency has already begun to formulate plans and initiateactions to address the recommendations. CBP expressed concernthat the report does not acknowledge some of the significant effortson the part of the Transportation PMO, thereby negatively skewingthe balance and tone of the report. We recognize the PMO’sefforts; however, the agency’s official response provided generalstatements without the documentation and evidence to refute themessage of our report. CBP explained that the PMO adhered tothe DHS acquisition program management policy and guidanceand used an approved Analysis of Alternatives Study Plan to guidetheir cost benefit analysis. While CBP may have used theapproved Study Plan, the draft report identifies internal controlweaknesses with CBP’s approach to determining its transportationneeds. Specifically, the Transportation PMO did not establish aprocess to identify, analyze, or validate comprehensivetransportation needs. We continue to assert this is necessaryinformation to use as a foundation for a realistic cost analysis.CBP disagreed with the OIG’s conclusion that the TransportationPMO overstated the cost of the detention enforcement officer andthe cost of hiring additional Office of Field Operations officers andBorder Patrol agents. The agency noted that even if all costadjustments recommended by the OIG were made, the five yearestimates would not change the fact that contracting is still the lowcost alternative. The OIG reviewed all documentation provided bythe PMO, held meetings with the PMO to discuss the cost analysismethodology, and briefed PMO management on multipleoccasions. Our report does not disagree that using a transportationcontract may be the lowest cost option, but emphasizes the absenceof basic data elements and unnecessary overhead expenses makesthe cost analysis unreliable for CBP to make an informed longtermtransportation decision. The OIG team attempted to furtherdiscuss and gather evidence to support CBP’s position; however,U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 8

the agency cancelled the meeting and did not provide additionalsupporting documentation.CBP expressed concern with the OIG’s conclusion that the agencyhas not provided adequate oversight to the Transportation PMO.Our conclusion is based on the absence of specific criteria thatclearly defined the scope, authority, or performance expectationsof the office, leaving the PMO to limit its focus to the contract inplace and planning for a follow-on contract and not managing thecomprehensive transportation program.We consider the recommendations unresolved and open until moreinformation is provided. CBP’s response also included technicalcomments which provided additional details and clarification thatwas unavailable at the time of our fieldwork. We considered thesecomments when preparing the final report and, where appropriate,modified the report. A summary of the recommendations andCBP’s actions to address the recommendations follows.Management Response to Recommendation #1:CBP concurred: CBP agreed with the need to establish amethodology to identify current transportation requirements, createa model to predict future requirements, and identify the optimalmix of resources to meet those requirements. The agencyconfirmed that the ideal data collection methodology wouldinclude activity-based data captured real or near real time. Thedata would be verified and validated, and made available todecision makers on a timely basis. The method must integratecollection activity between Border Patrol and Field Operationswhose operations are substantially different from each other. Itmust identify and accurately allocate the correct time and resourcesspent on multiple, but concurrent activities such as line watch andtransporting apprehended aliens.CBP plans to assess the cost and feasibility of a system with theneed to minimize operational impact and increase effectivenessand efficiency. In the meantime, Border Patrol and FieldOperations have begun a process of collecting requirements fromdata calls and survey instruments. The data will be verified andvalidated by comparing existing databases and prior submissions.The agency will also collect data from a modified randomsampling of locations that transport a high number of aliens toindependently validate data. CBP indicated that the PMO has beenusing several modeling approaches developed by a contractor toU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 9

analyze transportation routes to determine the optimal mix ofstaffing resources such as detention enforcement officers,contractors, and CBP personnel. CBP will collect data morefrequently to reduce error and improve data quality. The agencyplans to complete a feasibility study by June 30, 2012.OIG Analysis: We appreciate CBP’s efforts to move towards adata collection methodology would include activity-based datacaptured real or near real time. Although CBP has beguncollecting more information and agreed to conduct a feasibilitystudy to assess the cost and feasibility of such a system, the agencydid not provide sufficient details on its effort and commitment toidentify accurate transportation requirements create a model topredict future requirements, and identify the optimal mix ofresources. This recommendation is unresolved and will remainopen.Management Response to Recommendation #2:CBP concurred: CBP responded that management oversight toprovide guidance and to ensure accountability for accuratelydetermining current and future transportation needs is important.The agency agreed to provide more management and oversight toensure accountability for performing the analysis of current andfuture transportation needs. CBP indicated that Border Patrolprovided oversight of the Transportation Office, but acknowledgedthe office could do more to improve management oversight. CBPwill review the charters for the PMO and the ECC and makerevisions to better define the scope of the PMO and clarify theroles and responsibilities of each no later than April 30, 2011.CBP has recently established a Component Acquisition Executiveto provide acquisition oversight of the Transportation program andsimilar programs. This management oversight will include aquarterly program review with the Component AcquisitionExecutive beginning no later than March 31, 2011.OIG Analysis: This recommendation is unresolved and willremain open. We recognize CBP’s efforts to provide acquisitionoversight of the Transportation program; however, more details areneeded to understand how Border Patrol will improve managementoversight. We also need to review all modifications made to thePMO and ECC charters to ensure the intent of the recommendationis satisfied.U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 10

Appendix APurpose, Scope, and MethodologyOur objective was to determine whether the U.S. Customs andBorder Protection (CBP) Transportation Program ManagementOffice (PMO) developed an effective plan to provide efficient andcost effective ground transportation for detainees.To accomplish our objective, we reviewed and analyzed applicablelaws and regulations; prior audit reports; CBP documentationestablishing and managing the Transportation PMO, ExecutiveCoordinating Council, and Integrated Project Team outputs; andcontract documents related to transportation services from August2006 through August 2010.We interviewed CBP headquarters personnel from the SecureBorder Initiative, Field Operations, and Border Patrol, includingstaff from the Transportation PMO. We also spoke with personnelfrom the Office of Border Patrol Workforce Management, Financeand Logistics branches, CBP Acquisition and ProgramManagement Offices, as well as personnel from TransportationPMO contractor companies.We analyzed cost models that the Transportation PMO used toestimate contract and CBP alternatives to support long-termtransportation decisions. We also reviewed analysis performed byTransportation PMO contractors that the office included in its costmodels. We reviewed data from apprehension and timekeepingsystems to see whether they contained information that CBP coulduse to determine transportation needs.We selected and visited field locations in California and Arizonabased on high rates of apprehensions and border-crossing statistics.We toured one Border Patrol station and two ports of entry in SanDiego, CA, and two Border Patrol stations and two ports of entryin Tucson, AZ. We also visited the Border Patrol and FieldOperations headquarters offices in both locations. During thesevisits, we spoke with field personnel, including chiefs, shiftsupervisors, and agents at Border Patrol stations and at BorderPatrol sectors. We spoke with port directors, watch commanders,and CBP officers at ports of entry and Field Operations offices.We conducted this performance audit between April andSeptember 2010 under the authority of the Inspector General Actof 1978, as amended, and according to generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards. Those standards require that weplan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriateevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings andU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 11

Appendix APurpose, Scope, and Methodologyconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe theevidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings andconclusions based on our audit objectives.U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 12

Appendix BManagement Comments to the Draft Report1300 ""nllsylvmi~ A"enue!':WW~lhillglon. DC 20229~~u.s. Customs ilndBorder ProtectionDccemher 13,2010MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD L. SKINNERINSPECTOR GENERALDI::PARTMENT OF IIOMELAND SECURITYFROM: Assistant Commissioner ~ ..... 1 --o:reDs QOffice of Internal Affairs cr--~' tSUBJECT:U.s. Customs and Border Prot~tion's Response to the Office of InspectorGeneral's Draft Re]Xlrt Entitled, "U.S. Customs and Border Protection'sGround Transportation of Detainees Program"Thank you for providing us with a copy of your draft report entitled ··U.S. Customs and BorderProtl~tion's Ground Transportation of Detainees Program." dated November 2010. We appreciate theopportunity to revie\\ and respond to the report. The report llddresses the effectiveness of U.S.Customs and Border Protection's (CBI') efforts to create a plan to provide efficient groundtransportation for detainees.After careful review, we believe the draft report docs not acknowledge some of the significant cffortson the part ofthe Transportation Program Management Office (1'11.10). thereby negativel) skewing thebalance and tone of the report. For example. the Office of Inspector General (O[G) concluded thatCBp docs not have a comprehensive approlleh for determining transportation needs lind that COP didnot provide adequate oversight ofthe Tr.msportation PMO. The Transportation PMO adhered tof)epartmenl ofllomcland Security (DHS) acquisition program management policy and guidance. Insupport orlhis process. the Transportation I'MO developed an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Stud}Plan that \,as endorsed by the Executiv

Appendix BManagement Comments to the Draft ReportFinancial Olf>C< CRp O[fioi< T'""'I""!a1ion "MO ",pIoml ..'''i,.d.,''' lItWl d< oorncI '''"'' and '""""'" _ 0

Appendix BManagement Comments to the Draft ReportKuomm!ldlljoa n, Pro> ,nag ...bDIino'''i

Appendix CDetainee Transportation ProcessField to Border Patrol Station: Transportations usually conducted by Border Patrolagents from locations between the ports of entry near the border or from checkpointsestablished on known egress routes.Port of Entry or Border Patrol Station to Detention and Removal Facilities:Transportation conducted by CBP officers and agents after the detainee has beenprocessed and a final disposition of the detainee has been determinedPort of Entry or Border Patrol Station to Other: Transportations conducted by CBPofficers and agents after the detainee has been apprehended at a port of entry ortransported to a Border Patrol station, but before the detainee has been processed or afinal disposition of the detainee has been determined.U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 16

Appendix DMajor Contributors to This ReportPatrick O’Malley, DirectorChristine Haynes, Audit ManagerJeanette Hyatt, Auditor in ChargeJacque Bear, Program AnalystJohn Jadick, Program AnalystKeith Lutgen, Program AnalystThomas Bobrowski, Independent ReferencerU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 17

Appendix EReport DistributionDepartment of Homeland SecuritySecretaryDeputy SecretaryChief of StaffDeputy Chief of StaffGeneral CounselExecutive SecretariatDirector, GAO/OIG Liaison OfficeAssistant Secretary for Office of PolicyAssistant Secretary for Office of Public AffairsAssistant Secretary for Office of Legislative AffairsU.S. Customs and Border ProtectionCommissionerChief, U.S. Border PatrolAssistant Commissioner, Office of Field OperationsOIG LiaisonOffice of Management and BudgetChief, Homeland Security BranchDHS OIG Budget ExaminerCongressCongressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, asappropriateU.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Ground Transportation of Detainees Page 18

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIESTo obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100,fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig.OIG HOTLINETo report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminalmisconduct relative to department programs or operations:• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603;• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292;• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or• Write to us at:DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600,Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline,245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410,Washington, DC 20528.The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.