Some members of Congress are skeptical of a new border surveillance system being rolled out in Arizona, citing a lack of specific measurements for its success and the $1 billion already spent on the failed program it replaces.
After the Secure Border Initiative net was canceled in 2011 — a “virtual fence” that covered 53 miles of Arizona’s 387-mile border with Mexico — Customs and Border Protection developed the new security plan. It includes a mix of radars, sensors and cameras.
At a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday to discuss the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic representative from El Paso, said, “In concept it sounds good, but given our history with SBInet, we want to make sure we are aware of what CBP does next.”
Despite improvements since SBInet, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported Wednesday that there are still some issues to resolve:
- CBP hasn’t developed performance measurements.
- The programs under the Arizona plan are behind schedule.
- CBP lacks an integrated master schedule for all of the components.
- The agency hasn’t independently verified life-cycle cost estimates.
- And it plans to conduct only limited testing of the highest-cost program — fixed surveillance towers.
Just recently, the agency awarded a $145 million contract to Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of Israeli-based Elbit Systems, to deploy up to 50 fixed towers to Southern Arizona. The amount includes operations and maintenance costs for seven years.
Even though testing was limited, Mark Borkowski, assistant commissioner for the Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition for CBP, told members of Congress that he was confident of its quality.
“What we saw in the demos was very impressive,” he said, and pointed to the fact that it was technology already being used in Israel.
He acknowledged that the programs were delayed, but he said the agency “elected to trade schedule for higher likelihood of success” and has reduced the cost in the process.
Many of the programs are on contract and some already have been deployed, including portable surveillance systems, thermal imaging devices, underground sensors and some mobile video surveillance systems, Borkowski said.
CBP agreed with most of the GAO’s recommendations, including keeping better data to assess the impact of technology in securing the border.
In about 69 percent of the apprehensions in the Tucson Sector and 87 percent in the Yuma Sector, agents didn’t note whether surveillance technology had helped. The Border Patrol will make this record-keeping mandatory by Dec. 31.
But it disagreed that it needed to revise the test and evaluation plan for the fixed towers or to keep one master schedule.
“It would drive us back to SBInet,” Borkowski said Wednesday of having a combined master schedule. “It’s a bad idea.”
At the end of the hourlong hearing, subcommittee members said they wished for the program’s success but didn’t want a repeat of the SBInet debacle, which O’Rourke called one of the most mismanaged federal projects.
CBP officials defend the Arizona plan. While SBInet focused on developing new technology, the latter uses off-the-shelf products, allowing for more flexibility.
Meanwhile, lawmakers said they will be watching.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., didn’t respond to a request for comment. When the fixed-tower contract was awarded, however, he said in a written statement that he would be closely overseeing how effectively the Department of Homeland Security procured the towers “to make certain we do not have another mistake like the SBInet project that set back for years the deployment of needed technology.”
And Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., a ranking member of the House’s Homeland Security subcommittee on oversight and management efficiency, said in an email that he would also be closely monitoring the project.
“I have seen firsthand the waste of taxpayer dollars, and I am determined that will not happen with this project,” Barber wrote.
Borkowski estimates the total cost for the Arizona plan will be between $500 million and $700 million, including operation and management for 10 years.
But O’Rourke said a $200 million range is significant, especially when the government already spends $18 billion on border security.
And he wonders if it’s wise to place fixed systems in Arizona at a time when there is a surge in Border Patrol apprehensions in south Texas.
For the first time in nearly 20 years, the Tucson Sector did not lead the Southwest border in the number of apprehensions. Last fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the Rio Grande Valley Sector had 154,453 apprehensions, compared with 120,939 in Tucson.
“I’m not saying we need to cancel the project,” O’Rourke said, “but it would be wise to pause the project until we resolved these very serious outstanding concerns the GAO has raised.”
