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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Department of Homeland SecurityOffi
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents/AbbreviationsExec
Page 5: BackgroundU.S. Customs and Border P
Page 9: The Transportation PMO also include
Page 13 and 14: analyze transportation routes to de
Page 15 and 16: Appendix APurpose, Scope, and Metho
Page 17 and 18: Appendix BManagement Comments to th
Page 19 and 20: Appendix CDetainee Transportation P
Page 21 and 22: Appendix EReport DistributionDepart

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?