User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

    After getting considerable heat from constituents, members of Congress, and the press, homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano made a statement promising not to start any new border construction projects and to set-up a 30 day review on how the projects were selected. Scobey and particularly Whitetail border crossings were among those causing the ruckus.
    According to a budget plan released in May of this year, Scobey port is slated for a $14,969,565 make-over and  Whitetail port a $15,469,565 overhaul, both with completion times of the 4th quarter of 2011.
    At the time of the “call for review”, sub-contracts of $6.6 million had already been awarded for the Scobey port. Other contracts had also been awarded for other ports but, as of yet we are not aware of any contracts awarded for Whitetail.
    North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan (D) has been among the most verbal in opposing the spending of so much money on the ports and was instrumental in causing the 30 day review. Now, he is still voicing his opinion, disagreeing with the findings of the 30 day review.  He says the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision to proceed with their plans to tear down and rebuild facilities at 22 northern border ports of entry will be a waste of money.
    “The plan for these small northern border ports of entry, nine of which are in my state, is driven by security requirements that were developed in 2006 by the agency,” says Dorgan.
    “I just disagree with those requirements. A number of these ports have had recent upgrades and improvements and can be further modified with much less spending than is now being proposed by DHS.”
    “The issue here is the spending more than a hundred million dollars above that which I think would be a reasonable investment to upgrade our northern border ports of entry.”
    Released on October 30, the 30 day, review report says that after investigating, which included some on-site inspections, most everything is copacetic and plans are to go ahead.
    Findings by the review committee includes the following:
    When Congress enacted its economic stimulus legislation, it appropriated a sum of money far in excess of what the legacy organizations of the Department of Homeland Security had ever received for upgrades to the United States land ports of entry along the northern border. The facilities at those ports of entry have a long history of little or no investment in maintenance and improvements. By the time Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”), key officials in the Congress and the Executive Branch shared a mutual understanding that the current state of the facilities at those ports of entry were outdated in a manner that hindered the mission of the officers staffing those ports. We reviewed the plans for spending tax dollars on these facilities. We have concluded that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection component of the Department has followed the intent of Congress and has followed sound methodologies in implementing the spending instructions of the Recovery Act.
    We did not find any inappropriate interference (political or otherwise) in the merit-based decisions made with respect to upgrading these facilities.
    Congress does not lightly appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for a particular purpose.
    When Congress appropriated more than $400 million to the Department for construction at the ports of entry owned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it did so after receiving briefings, cost estimates, and explanations of the current conditions at the United States facilities at issue. A recent Congressional report stated that “the Committees on Appropriations are alarmed at the condition of the Nation’s ports of entry.” Several years ago, Congressional reports urged CBP to provide planning and prioritization for construction at port of entry facilities. Since that time, CBP has followed established planning and prioritization protocols. And CBP has had continuing communications with senior officials in the Department, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress on this issue for at least several years pre-dating the enactment of the Recovery Act. Congress had transparent access to CBP’s plans for the use of appropriated funds for port of entry facilities, and Congress ultimately decided to provide those funds.
    The northern border facilities currently scheduled for new construction are in poor shape.
    These facilities (one more than seventy years old) have received very little in the way of investment over the decades, and the United States built them with a different set of national interests in mind than exists today.
    Facilities at the entry to our Nation cannot be built solely to process our peaceful neighbors. As history has vividly shown, those determined to kill within our borders seek to pass through our ports of entry. If the United States Government decides to maintain a port of entry at a particular location along its border, it will incur some minimum cost to enable the missions it sets out for those standing post at that port of entry.
    This does not mean, of course, that gold-plated fixtures should adorn any new construction projects. Our review has convinced us that CBP has followed merit-based processes that avoid lavish spending on the new facilities. CBP construction planning officials consulted with senior field managers for facility requirements and the prioritization of construction among facilities.
    CBP also consulted with architectural and engineering experts in developing prototype designs.
    The costs of these facilities are significant, in part, because of changes to infrastructure (e.g., roadways) at the sites. The designs call for significant changes, but they are not lavish.
    We note, however, that further cost reductions may be realized by a reconsideration of certain aspects of design prototypes as they apply to particular facility sites.
    During the course of our review, we discovered that the Department has not issued sufficient guidance on a recognized principle known as “value engineering.” We recommend that the Department develop this guidance and that CBP apply “value engineering” practices in future planning and design of construction projects.
    Some statutory restrictions have affected how CBP has approached its spending at the facilities. For example, the Recovery Act requires $420 million to be spent at CBP-owned land ports of entry. Many of the Nation’s port of entry facilities, however, are owned by the General Services Administration (GSA), not CBP. (Congress separately appropriated funds for use at the GSA facilities.) Therefore, CBP shifted its plans to match the spending to the facilities designated by Congress. This has resulted in more spending in the near term for northern border ports—as compared to southern border ports—than CBP had proposed in its prioritization plans prior to enactment of the Recovery Act. Another impact of the statute relates to procurement mechanisms. CBP decided to approach the procurement of construction contracts in ways that expedited construction in keeping with the stated Congressional goals contained in the Recovery Act. Those expedited procedures—although lawful—reduced the number of contractors that might otherwise have bid on the construction projects. We find no fault in this choice; the decision to pursue the procurements in this fashion more closely aligned with the stated directives of the Recovery Act than other options.
    We make two additional recommendations. The first relates to projections CBP initially made to Congress regarding the number of facilities that could be constructed with the $420 million appropriated. CBP is experiencing lower costs than initially projected. We therefore recommend that CBP continue to invest in additional port of entry facilities with the remaining Recovery Act funds.
    Second, we recommend that the Department conduct periodic studies to determine whether any ports of entry should be closed. The Secretary of Homeland Security currently has authority to close permanently ports of entry. None have been closed for at least several decades. Although permanent closure of a port of entry involves a number of complex considerations, some of the facilities that currently exist are separated by only several miles and have low traffic volumes. We believe that further and periodic study is therefore warranted.
    Based on our 30-day review, we believe that CBP acted prudently in response to the large appropriation specified for CBP-owned port of entry facilities.
    The complete executive summary and a 33 page reports is available at http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/archives/2009_octarch.shtm