Appendix APurpose, Scope, <strong>and</strong> MethodologyOur objective was to determine whether the U.S. <strong>Customs</strong> <strong>and</strong><strong>Border</strong> Protection (CBP) <strong>Transportation</strong> Program ManagementOffice (PMO) developed an effective plan to provide efficient <strong>and</strong>cost effective ground transportation for detainees.To accomplish our objective, we reviewed <strong>and</strong> analyzed applicablelaws <strong>and</strong> regulations; prior audit reports; CBP documentationestablishing <strong>and</strong> managing the <strong>Transportation</strong> PMO, ExecutiveCoordinating Council, <strong>and</strong> Integrated Project Team outputs; <strong>and</strong>contract documents related to transportation services from August2006 through August 2010.We interviewed CBP headquarters personnel from the Secure<strong>Border</strong> Initiative, Field Operations, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Border</strong> Patrol, includingstaff from the <strong>Transportation</strong> PMO. We also spoke with personnelfrom the Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>Border</strong> Patrol Workforce Management, Finance<strong>and</strong> Logistics branches, CBP Acquisition <strong>and</strong> ProgramManagement Offices, as well as personnel from <strong>Transportation</strong>PMO contractor companies.We analyzed cost models that the <strong>Transportation</strong> PMO used toestimate contract <strong>and</strong> CBP alternatives to support long-termtransportation decisions. We also reviewed analysis performed by<strong>Transportation</strong> PMO contractors that the <strong>of</strong>fice included in its costmodels. We reviewed data from apprehension <strong>and</strong> timekeepingsystems to see whether they contained information that CBP coulduse to determine transportation needs.We selected <strong>and</strong> visited field locations in California <strong>and</strong> Arizonabased on high rates <strong>of</strong> apprehensions <strong>and</strong> border-crossing statistics.We toured one <strong>Border</strong> Patrol station <strong>and</strong> two ports <strong>of</strong> entry in SanDiego, CA, <strong>and</strong> two <strong>Border</strong> Patrol stations <strong>and</strong> two ports <strong>of</strong> entryin Tucson, AZ. We also visited the <strong>Border</strong> Patrol <strong>and</strong> FieldOperations headquarters <strong>of</strong>fices in both locations. During thesevisits, we spoke with field personnel, including chiefs, shiftsupervisors, <strong>and</strong> agents at <strong>Border</strong> Patrol stations <strong>and</strong> at <strong>Border</strong>Patrol sectors. We spoke with port directors, watch comm<strong>and</strong>ers,<strong>and</strong> CBP <strong>of</strong>ficers at ports <strong>of</strong> entry <strong>and</strong> Field Operations <strong>of</strong>fices.We conducted this performance audit between April <strong>and</strong>September 2010 under the authority <strong>of</strong> the Inspector General Act<strong>of</strong> 1978, as amended, <strong>and</strong> according to generally acceptedgovernment auditing st<strong>and</strong>ards. Those st<strong>and</strong>ards require that weplan <strong>and</strong> perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriateevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings <strong>and</strong>U.S. <strong>Customs</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Border</strong> Protection’s <strong>Ground</strong> <strong>Transportation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Detainees Page 11
Appendix APurpose, Scope, <strong>and</strong> Methodologyconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe theevidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings <strong>and</strong>conclusions based on our audit objectives.U.S. <strong>Customs</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Border</strong> Protection’s <strong>Ground</strong> <strong>Transportation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Detainees Page 12
Change language