SBInet border system likely to be scaled back, replaced by UAVs

DHS recognizes the electronic surveillance system has caused "frustration"

Homeland Security Department officials likely will stop future construction of a “virtual-fence” security system along the U.S.-Mexico border and instead augment the existing system with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and mobile systems, a senior official said at a House hearing today.

“We recognize that the SBInet program has been a frustration,” Mark Borkowski, executive director of the Secure Border Initiative, told the House Homeland Security Committee’s Management, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee.

The Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet) video and radar surveillance system has been in development since 2006, and a 28-mile prototype began operating in Arizona in early 2008. DHS plans to complete its first permanent installation of SBInet along a 53-mile section of the Arizona border this year.


Related coverage:

Boeing, DHS defend work on SBInet

SBInet's caretaker shares frustrations about delays, snafus

Napolitano orders SBInet reassessment


Under existing plans, SBInet would expanded to include the entire 387-mile Arizona border, and then the entire U.S.-Mexico border. But those plans are now being re-evaluated as part of an ongoing reassessment and funding freeze on future SBInet work started in March by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The future scale of SBInet is likely to be reduced, and DHS will likely look to other technologies, including UAVs, which may be more effective at a lower cost for certain areas, said Borkowski, who oversees SBInet and other border infrastructure programs.

“My expectation is we will not do SBInet along the entire southern border,” Borkowski said.

As part of a broad reassessment of SBInet, the department is “seriously considering” increasing its fleet of Predator and Shadow UAVs and blimps, as well as  using more mobile camera surveillance systems, Borkowski added.

Another reason for anticipated modifications to SBInet is that the cross-border threat continues to evolve, Michael Fisher, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, said at the hearing. Although physical fencing and SBInet video systems deter some illegal border crossings, new methods are being used to skirt those barriers, he said.

“It is a dynamic threat environment,” Fisher said. People are using tunnels to dig under the fences and vehicle barriers, and gliders to fly over the fences and cameras, he said.

The Government Accountability Office, while commending some recent work on the current 53-mile segment of SBInet, also delivered a critical audit report on the program, asserting that DHS has not developed a reliable master schedule or demonstrated the cost effectiveness for the system. GAO also reiterated longstanding shortcomings in the program that include lacking documentation for key milestone decisions, weaknesses in how requirements have been developed and managed and gaps in how risks have been managed and tests have been conducted.

GAO also said that while costs have increased, DHS has reduced the expected performance capabilities for the program. According to a 2008 estimate, the costs of deploying the first 53-mile permanent segment of SBInet was to be $758 million, with another $544 million to be spent on operating and maintaining that segment over its life.

Meanwhile, capabilities have been reduced. “The stringency of the performance capabilities has been relaxed to the point that, for example, system performance will be deemed acceptable if it identifies less than 50 percent of items of interest that cross the border. The result is a system that is unlikely to live up to expectations,” the GAO report said.

GAO recommended that DHS reconsider its proposed SBInet deployment and explore ways to limit its near-term investments until the long-term strategy is determined.

The GAO made 12 recommendations for SBInet that include:

  • Limiting near-term spending on the first incremental block of SBInet. Economically justifying longer-term investment in SBInet
  • Improving key program management disciplines
  • Providing a life-cycle cost estimate for incremental blocks of SBInet capabilities and
  • Forecasting benefits for incremental blocks of SBInet capabilities.

DHS officials agreed with 10 of the recommendations and partially agreed with two of them.

 

2014 Rising Star Awards

Help us find the next generation of leaders in federal IT.

Reader comments

Sat, Oct 16, 2010 riisisisi

Ask the CBP agents who use the system not politicians. What are the detection numbers of illigals and drugs? Is it the total answer no. Could it be better Yes. Why not make it better and build on those development costs and lessons learned. Use it in the hot spots of Texas, AZ, etc and develope and learn from it just like anything. Until illigals have stiff consequences the whole capture and detection of illigals is a joke. Do you know what the penalties is for a person caught as an illegal? With drugs? Do illegals care about are country? Have you seen all the garbage they leave in the desert? Some of it 3 feet high in places? If you want to know ask a CBP agent...

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 Edmond Hennessy United States

There is reference to 2006 in the article, however one must trace the history of the SBInet Initiative - to its roots in being defined by key, technical organizations and the roll-out of BAAs to reel-in suitable Industry players to fulfill its stated needs/objectives. It was in vogue, then. Not taking shots - and, am only conversant on some of the technologies considered and the range of practical applications for SBInet, however there were those in Industry that were somewhat stunned, by the Industry players selected to implement and support the Initiative. How much of that has been a factor in the current state of SBInet? Plus, the article mentions dollar figures that were slotted to support this stage of implementation - the article does not state what it will cost the taxpayer - total cost to-date - if it is shut-down. A big fan and believer of UAVs/UASs - good to see that they have a key role, however do hope that budget/funding allocation and priority prevail to support other technology considerations for Perimeter/Border Control - because dependence on UAVs/UASs singularly, will not do it.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above