Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: Fences

    2 publications with a total of 4 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: Rebecca Gambler
    Phone: (202) 512-8777

    2 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure Border Patrol has the best available information to inform future investments in TI and resource allocation decisions among TI and other assets Border Patrol deploys in the furtherance of border security operations, and to ensure that key parties within Border Patrol's Requirements Management Process are aware of their roles and responsibilities within the process, the Chief of the Border Patrol should develop metrics to assess the contributions of pedestrian and vehicle fencing to border security along the southwest border using the data Border Patrol already collects and apply this information, as appropriate, when making investment and resource allocation decisions.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection: Office of the Commissioner: U.S. Border Patrol
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DHS concurred agreed with the this recommendation and stated that it planned to develop and incorporate metrics into Border Patrol's Requirements Management Process.
    Recommendation: To ensure Border Patrol has the best available information to inform future investments in TI and resource allocation decisions among TI and other assets Border Patrol deploys in the furtherance of border security operations, and to ensure that key parties within Border Patrol's Requirements Management Process are aware of their roles and responsibilities within the process, the Chief of the Border Patrol should develop and implement written guidance to include roles and responsibilities for the steps within its requirements process for identifying, funding, and deploying tactical infrastructure assets for border security operations.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection: Office of the Commissioner: U.S. Border Patrol
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that it plans to update the Requirements Management Process and, as part of that update, plans to add communication and training methods and tools to better implement the Process. DHS plans to complete these efforts by September 2019.
    Director: Gambler, Rebecca S
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan and maximize the effectiveness of technology already deployed, the Commissioner of CBP should take the following step in planning the agency's new technology approach: determine the mission benefits to be derived from implementation of the plan and develop and apply key attributes for metrics to assess program implementation.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
    Status: Open

    Comments: As GAO recommended in November 2011, CBP has identified mission benefits to be derived from implementing the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (Plan). In April 2013, CBP issued its Multi-Year Investment and Management Plan for Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology for Fiscal Years 2014 through 2017, which identifies mission benefits to be achieved by all surveillance technologies (e.g., cameras or sensors) to be deployed under the Plan. According to CBP, the majority of these technologies will provide the mission benefits of improved situational awareness and agent safety. Furthermore, according to CBP's Multi-Year Investment and Management Plan for Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017, the technologies deployed or planned for deployment as part of the Plan are intended to help enhance the ability of Border Patrol agents to detect, identify, deter, and respond to threats along the border. CBP's identification of mission benefits will help position CBP to assess its progress in implementing the Plan and the effectiveness of the Plan's technologies in achieving their intended goals. CBP has made some progress in identifying key attributes for metrics to assess implementation of the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (Plan), as GAO recommended in November 2011, but it has not yet fully identified and applied attributes for metrics for all technologies under the Plan. Since August 2010, CBP has operated multiple technology systems under the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet), which preceded the Plan and is a combination of surveillance technologies aimed at creating a "virtual fence" along the southwest border. Specifically, CBP has operated two surveillance systems under SBInet's initial deployment in high-priority regions of the Arizona border. In October 2012, CBP officials stated that these operations identified examples of key attributes for metrics that can be useful in assessing the implementation for technologies. For example, according to CBP, to help measure whether illegal activity has decreased, examples of key attributes include decreases in arrests, complaints by citizens and ranchers, and destruction of public and private lands and property. In November 2014, CBP identified a set of potential key attributes for performance metrics for all technologies to be deployed under the Plan. While CBP has yet to apply these measures, it established a timeline for developing performance measures for each technology. CBP initially expected baselines for each performance measure to be developed by the end of fiscal year 2015. However, in October 2015, CBP officials stated that CBP had modified its time frame for developing baselines and that additional time would be needed to implement and apply key attributes for metrics. In March 2016, CBP officials stated that CBP had planned to use the baseline data to establish a tool by the end of fiscal year 2016. In addition, CBP officials stated these performance measures would profile levels of situational awareness in various areas of the border. In September 2016, CBP provided GAO a case study that assessed technology assist data along with other measures such as field-based assessments of capability gaps, to determine the contributions of surveillance technologies to its mission. While this is a start to developing and applying performance metrics, the case study was limited to one border location and the analysis was limited to select technologies. Until CBP completes its efforts to fully develop and apply key attributes for performance metrics for all technologies to be deployed under the Plan, it will likely not be able to fully assess its progress in implementing the Plan and determine when mission benefits have been fully realized.
    Recommendation: To increase the reliability of CBP's Cost Estimate for the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, the Commissioner of CBP should update its cost estimate for the Plan using best practices, so that the estimate is comprehensive, accurate, well-documented, and credible. Specifically, the CBP's Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) program office should (1) fully document data used in the cost model; (2) conduct a sensitivity analysis and risk and uncertainty analysis to determine a level of confidence in the estimate so that contingency funding can be established relative to quantified risk; and (3) independently verify the new life-cycle cost estimate with an independent cost estimate and reconcile any differences.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
    Status: Open

    Comments: As GAO recommended in 2011, CBP provided cost estimates for the IFT and RVSS programs, the two highest cost programs in the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (Plan), in February and March 2012, respectively, and updated the cost estimate for the Plan in June 2013. However, these estimates do not fully meet cost-estimating best practices. In November 2011, GAO reported that the Plan's original cost estimate met some, but not all, cost-estimating best practices. Specifically, CBP had not conducted a sensitivity analysis and a risk and uncertainty analysis to determine a level of confidence in the original estimate, nor did CBP compare the original cost estimate with an independent estimate. For the cost estimate that CBP provided for the IFT in February 2012 and RVSS in March 2012, CBP partially documented the data used in the cost model for the IFT's LCCE (but needs to provide additional data and document management approval) and fully documented the cost model for the RVSS' LCCE. Developing a well-documented cost estimate is a best practice. CBP also conducted a sensitivity analysis and risk and uncertainty analysis to determine the level of confidence in both LCCEs so that contingency funding could be established relative to quantified risk. In addition, CBP's June 2013, CBP revised the cost estimate for the Plan does not fully address our concerns. For example, the IFT and RVSS compose over 90 percent of the Plan's cost in the June 2013 cost estimate; however, CBP has not independently verified its cost estimates for these two programs with independent cost estimates and reconciled any differences. Such action would help CBP better ensure the reliability of each system's cost estimate. Furthermore, the remainder of the June 2013 cost estimate is not fully documented for the Plan's other five programs, consistent with best practices. For example, the estimates for the other five programs are not fully documented because they are provided as summary program costs without detailed descriptions, such as including back-up documentation for labor hours. In November 2015, CBP had yet to update its LCCEs for two of its highest cost programs under the plan. In May 2016, CBP officials stated that the DHS's Cost Analysis Division had started piloting DHS's Independent Cost Estimate capability on the RVSS program in fiscal year 2016. According to CBP officials, this pilot test within CBP is an opportunity to assist DHS in developing its Independent Cost Estimate capability and that CBP selected the RVSS program for the pilot because the RVSS program is at a point in its planning and execution process where it can benefit most from having an independent cost estimate performed as these technologies are being deployed along the southwest border, beyond Arizona. As of October 2016, CBP officials stated that the RVSS schedule and analysis, as well as the results of the independent program cost estimate pilot is expected to be completed at the end of fiscal year 2017. CBP officials stated that they will provide information on the final reconciliation of the independent cost estimate and the RVSS program cost estimate once the pilot has been completed. Further, CBP officials have yet to detail similar plans for the IFT program. As updated life-cycle cost estimates have yet to be completed and independent cost estimates have not been conducted, GAO cannot determine the extent to which the agency is following best practices when updating the life-cycle cost estimates. Moreover, to fully address our recommendation, a LCCE for the Plan that fully addresses best practices is needed to ensure that the estimate is comprehensive, accurate, well-documented, and credible to help the agency and Congress fully understand the impacts of integrating the Plan's various programs.