oversight

Border Infrastructure: Actions Needed to Improve Information on Facilities and Capital Planning at Land Border Crossings

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2019-07-11.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States Government Accountability Office
             Report to Congressional Requesters




             BORDER
July 2019




             INFRASTRUCTURE

             Actions Needed to
             Improve Information
             on Facilities and
             Capital Planning at
             Land Border
             Crossings




GAO-19-534
                                               July 2019

                                               BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE
                                               Actions Needed to Improve Information on Facilities
                                               and Capital Planning at Land Border Crossings
Highlights of GAO-19-534, a report to
congressional requesters




Why GAO Did This Study                         What GAO Found
CBP and GSA own, lease, or manage          The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border
all of the nation’s 167 land border        Protection (CBP) reported infrastructure constraints at land border crossings
crossings. CBP facilitates trade and       including limited inspection capacity, technology challenges, and security
travel at these crossings and has          limitations. However, CBP does not have complete information on infrastructure
identified significant capital investment  conditions at all land border crossings. Specifically, CBP assessed facility
needs at these facilities.                 conditions at four of the 40 land border crossings it owns from 2016 through
GAO was asked to review land border        2018. Further, CBP has not developed a plan to ensure it conducts such
crossing infrastructure. This report       assessments,    consistent with DHS policy which calls for them every three years.
examines (1) infrastructure constraints    Developing and implementing a plan to ensure CBP executes its facility condition
CBP faces and the extent CBP and           assessment program would enable CBP to collect more complete and current
GSA have information on infrastructure     infrastructure information. In addition, while CBP and the General Services
condition, (2) the extent CBP prioritizes  Administration (GSA) both assess facility conditions at 101 GSA-owned land
capital projects and (3) the extent recent border crossings, they do not consistently share or use each other’s information.
GSA capital projects met cost, schedule, Doing so could enable CBP and GSA to improve the accuracy and completeness
and scope goals and challenges CBP         of their respective assessments.
and GSA reported.
                                               Convent Street Land Border Crossing in Laredo, Texas
GAO analyzed land border crossing
data and documentation, including CBP
and GSA facility assessments, CBP
capital investment plans for fiscal years
2014 through 2018, and data for GSA
capital infrastructure projects active
during those years. GAO also
interviewed officials from CBP field
offices that oversee all crossings about
infrastructure constraints and visited 16
crossings selected based on high traffic
volume and border crossings CBP has
prioritized for infrastructure
improvement.

What GAO Recommends                       CBP prioritizes land border crossing capital projects in a five-year plan, which by
                                          statute is to be submitted with DHS’s annual budget request to Congress. In
GAO is making seven                       fiscal years 2014 through 2018, CBP submitted two plans on time, submitted two
recommendations, including that CBP       plans more than 100 days after submission of the budget request, and did not
develop a plan to ensure it conducts      submit a plan in one year due to delays in the plan’s review and approval
facility condition assessments consistent process. By establishing timeframes for the review process, CBP would be better
with DHS policy; that CBP and GSA         positioned to identify and address sources of delay in the review process, and
share and use each other’s information
                                          improve its ability to meet statutory reporting requirements by including its five-
on facility conditions at land border
                                          year plan with its annual budget submission to Congress.
crossings; and that CBP establish
review timeframes for its capital         The 10 completed or ongoing GSA land border crossing capital projects in fiscal
investment plan.                          years 2014 through 2018 generally experienced schedule growth ranging from 0
                                          to 59 percent, but stayed within a 10 percent cost contingency allowance.
                                          Circumstances contributing to increased project costs or schedule growth include
                                          funding lags between project design and construction, and CBP-requested
                                          changes during construction to meet evolving mission needs, according to GSA
                                          and CBP officials.
View GAO-19-534. For more information,
contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or
gamblerr@gao.gov.
                                               ______________________________________ United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                      1
               Background                                                                   5
               CBP Identified Various Infrastructure Constraints at Land Border
                 Crossings, but Does Not Have Complete Information on
                 Infrastructure Condition at All Crossings                                 22
               CBP Prioritizes Infrastructure Projects in Its Annual Plans but Has
                 Not Submitted the Plans on Time or Used a Consistent
                 Methodology                                                               38
               Recent GSA Capital Projects Generally Experienced Schedule
                 Growth, but Met Cost and Scope Goals; CBP and GSA
                 Reported Some Challenges Developing Projects                              44
               Conclusions                                                                 54
               Recommendations for Executive Action                                        55
               Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                          56

Appendix I     U.S. Land Border Crossings along the Northern and Southern
               Borders                                                                     58



Appendix II    Land Border Crossing Project Profiles                                       65



Appendix III   Comments from the Department of Homeland Security                           76



Appendix IV    Comments from the General Services Administration                           80



Appendix V     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                       81


Tables
               Table 1: Facility Assessments at Land Border Crossings 2016-
                       2018                                                                31
               Table 2: Facility Condition Index Scores at Land Border Crossings
                       2016-2018                                                           32




               Page i                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
          Table 3: Days between U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s
                  (CBP) Five-Year Plan and Annual Budget Submission to
                  Congress                                                           39
          Table 4: General Services Administration Land Border Crossing
                  Capital Project Schedule Performance, as of January
                  2019                                                               45
          Table 5: General Services Administration Land Border Crossing
                  Capital Project Cost Performance, as of January 2019
                  (dollars in millions)                                              47
          Table 6: List of U.S. Northern and Southern Land Border
                  Crossings and Facility Conditions, as of December 2018             58

Figures
          Figure 1: Examples of Preprimary Inspection Infrastructure at U.S.
                   Land Border Crossings                                              8
          Figure 2: Examples of Primary Inspection Infrastructure at U.S.
                   Land Border Crossings                                             10
          Figure 3: Examples of Secondary Inspection Infrastructure at U.S.
                   Land Border Crossings                                             12
          Figure 4: Examples of Main Building Infrastructure at U.S. Land
                   Border Crossings                                                  13
          Figure 5: Examples of Outbound Infrastructure at U.S. Land
                   Border Crossings                                                  14
          Figure 6: General Layout of a Land Border Crossing                         15
          Figure 7: Largest Northern and Southern Land Ports of Entry by
                   Volume of Entries into the United States in 2017                  17
          Figure 8: Distribution of Trade in Goods across U.S. States
                   Facilitated by the Largest Northern and Southern Land
                   Ports of Entry by Total Value of Trade in 2017                    18
          Figure 9: Budget Requests and Appropriations for Land Border
                   Crossing Capital Projects in Fiscal Years 2009 through
                   2019                                                              21
          Figure 10: Example of a U.S. Land Border Crossing With Limited
                   Space in the Preprimary Area                                      23
          Figure 11: License Plate Readers and Radiation Portal Monitors
                   on the Southern Border                                            24
          Figure 12: Examples of Holding Facility Constraints at U.S. Land
                   Border Crossings                                                  25
          Figure 13: Diagram of Traffic Flow Impediments at a Commercial
                   Land Border Crossing on the Southern Border                       27




          Page ii                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 14: Officer Lockers Located in the Contraband Seizure
        Room at a Northern Land Border Crossing                                           28
Figure 15: Constructed Exit Lanes to Control Traffic Leaving the
        Land Border Crossing                                                              29
Figure 16: General Services Administration (GSA) Land Border
        Crossing Project Development Timelines as of January
        2019                                                                              49




Abbreviations

CBP               U.S. Customs and Border Protection
DHS               U.S. Department of Homeland Security
FCA               Facility Condition Assessment
GSA               U.S. General Services Administration
NII               Non-intrusive Inspection
OFAM              Office of Facilities and Asset Management
OFO               Office of Field Operations
OMB               Office of Management and Budget
RFID              Radio Frequency Identification
SRA               Strategic Resource Assessment



This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




Page iii                                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                       Letter




441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548




                       July 11, 2019

                       The Honorable Bennie Thompson
                       Chairman
                       Committee on Homeland Security
                       House of Representatives

                       The Honorable Martha McSally
                       United States Senate

                       The Honorable Filemon Vela
                       House of Representatives

                       In 2017, nearly $721 billion in trade passed through the nation’s land
                       border ports of entry, along with over 252 million inbound pedestrian and
                       passenger entries. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within the
                       Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is the lead federal agency
                       charged with the dual mission of facilitating legitimate trade and travel at
                       our nation’s borders while also keeping terrorists and their weapons,
                       criminals and their contraband, and inadmissible individuals out of the
                       country. To fulfill this mission, CBP operates 110 land ports of entry
                       consisting of 167 separate land border crossings and relies on
                       infrastructure, including inspection lanes and technologies, to identify,
                       screen, and inspect persons and cargo while maintaining an efficient
                       stream of cross-border travel and trade. 1

                       The General Services Administration (GSA) owns the majority of land
                       border crossings and has responsibilities related to maintenance, capital
                       planning, and construction at these facilities. Since CBP’s operations
                       depend on the condition and functionality of infrastructure at land border

                       1
                        Ports of entry are facilities that provide for the controlled entry into or departure from the
                       United States. Specifically, a port of entry is any officially designated location (seaport,
                       airport, or land border location) where CBP officers clear passengers, merchandise and
                       other items, collect duties, and enforce customs laws; and inspect persons seeking to
                       enter or depart, or applying for admission into, the United States pursuant to U.S.
                       immigration and travel controls. A single land port of entry may be composed of one or
                       more crossings. For example, the Port of Laredo, Texas, headed by a port director,
                       oversees operations at four separate land border crossings. CBP operates a total of 110
                       land ports of entry along the northern and southern borders consisting of a total of 167
                       individual land border crossings. Some ports of entry process vehicles arriving by ferry.
                       However, we did not include those facilities in this review.




                       Page 1                                                       GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
crossings, GSA works closely with CBP to design, construct, and
maintain these land border crossings.

According to CBP, several of the nation’s 167 land border crossings were
built more than 70 years ago. Even land border crossings constructed as
recently as 15 to 20 years ago may require significant capital investment
to meet present day security standards and operational requirements,
according to CBP. In addition, infrastructure enhancements are critical to
facilitate increasing trade and travel at land border crossings. For
example, we reported in 2013 that CBP identified the need for additional
infrastructure to facilitate legitimate trade and travel—such as additional
passenger vehicle and commercial truck lanes—at some land border
crossings. 2

You asked us to review land border crossing infrastructure. This report
addresses the following questions:

1. What infrastructure constraints, if any, does CBP face at land border
   crossings, and to what extent do CBP and GSA have information
   about the condition of infrastructure at land border crossings?
2. To what extent does CBP prioritize infrastructure projects across land
   border crossings?
3. To what extent have recently completed or ongoing GSA land border
   crossing capital projects met cost, schedule, and scope goals, and
   what challenges, if any, have CBP and GSA reported in developing
   land border crossing capital projects?
To determine what infrastructure constraints, if any, CBP faces at land
border crossings, we visited 16 land border crossings in California,
Arizona, Texas, and New York from June to September 2018 to observe
and discuss infrastructure constraints identified by local CBP officers. 3
We selected these locations based on a variety of factors, including high
traffic volume; the presence of passenger vehicle, pedestrian, and

2
 GAO, U.S.-MEXICO BORDER: CBP Action Needed to Improve Wait Time Data and
Measure Outcomes of Trade Facilitation Efforts, GAO-13-603 (Washington, D.C.: July 24,
2013).
3
 We visited the land border crossings at San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, Laredo Convent Street
Bridge, Laredo Lincoln-Juarez Bridge, Laredo World Trade Bridge, and Laredo Columbia
Solidarity Bridge, Alexandria Bay, Buffalo Peace Bridge, Niagara Falls Rainbow Bridge,
Niagara Falls Whirlpool Bridge, Niagara Falls Lewistown-Queenston Bridge, Calexico
West, Calexico East, Andrade, San Luis, and San Luis II.




Page 2                                                 GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
commercial vehicle processing capabilities; and border crossings that
CBP has prioritized for infrastructure improvement within the next five
years, among others. We also interviewed officials from the nine CBP
Office of Field Operations (OFO) field offices that oversee CBP
operations at all 167 land border crossings to discuss infrastructure
constraints at the land border crossings they oversee. The results of our
site visits cannot be generalized more broadly to all land border
crossings. However, they provide important context and insights into the
infrastructure constraints CBP faces at such locations.

To determine the extent to which CBP and GSA have information about
the condition of infrastructure at land border crossings, we analyzed all
CBP Facility Condition Assessments (FCA) and GSA Building
Engineering Reviews conducted from 2016 through 2018. We assessed
CBP’s processes for conducting FCAs against a DHS Directive on the
Department’s Real Property Management Program to determine the
extent to which CBP conducts FCAs in compliance with DHS policy. We
also interviewed officials within CBP and GSA who are knowledgeable
about each agency’s processes to collect information on the condition of
infrastructure at land border crossings. We assessed CBP and GSA’s
processes for sharing and leveraging information on infrastructure
condition against key practices for collaboration among federal agencies. 4
We also reviewed system documentation and interviewed officials from
CBP’s Office of Facilities and Asset Management (OFAM) knowledgeable
about TRIRIGA—CBP’s real property management system—to determine
the extent to which TRIRIGA effectively maintains information on
infrastructure condition. 5

To identify the extent to which CBP prioritizes land border crossing
projects, we analyzed CBP’s five-year land port of entry capital
investment plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2018. These five-year
plans include a rank ordered list of land border crossing capital projects—
those estimated to cost $3.1 million or more—and describe a high-level


4
 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 21,
2005). In this prior report, we reviewed academic literature and GAO and Congressional
Research Service reports, and interviewed experts in coordination, collaboration, and
partnerships to identify key practices that can help facilitate collaboration.
5
 TRIRIGA (not an acronym) is IBM software that CBP uses to manage assets in its real
property portfolio.




Page 3                                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
process for prioritizing projects. 6 To determine the extent to which CBP
adhered to this process to develop each five-year plan, we analyzed
supporting documentation. These supporting documents included
operational data from CBP’s strategic resource assessments and
feasibility studies that establish the feasibility, risk, and cost of
prospective land border crossing projects, among others. We also
interviewed officials from CBP OFAM to discuss its adherence to this
process, the extent to which it has established a methodology for
executing it, and whether it has formally documented such a methodology
and assessed CBP’s efforts to do so against Standards for Internal
Controls in the Federal Government. 7 We also analyzed CBP’s five-year
plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to determine whether CBP met
statutory reporting requirements by completing and submitting each five-
year plan with its annual budget request to Congress.

To assess the extent to which recent GSA land border crossing capital
projects met, or are on track to meet, cost, schedule, and scope goals, we
analyzed information for projects that were active—i.e., under
construction—during fiscal years 2014 through 2018 and cost $20 million
or more. Specifically, we analyzed project performance data from GSA’s
Electronic Project Management system, including project cost and
schedule baselines and updated cost and schedule performance data as
of January 2019. To assess the reliability of these data, we examined the
data for obvious errors and discussed the data with GSA project
management officials for each of the 10 projects in our scope. We
determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
assessing project cost and schedule performance. We also reviewed
GSA project documents, such as planning studies, funding requests, and
progress reports. Further, to describe challenges CBP and GSA have
reported facing developing land border crossing capital projects, we
conducted interviews with GSA and CBP officials. These officials included
GSA headquarters and project management officials, as well as CBP
OFO field office officials and local CBP officers. We also conducted site


6
 CBP defines projects totaling less than $3.1 million as maintenance and prioritizes these
needs through a separate process. For the purposes of this report, we reviewed CBP’s
prioritization of capital projects and did not examine CBP’s process for identifying and
prioritizing maintenance at land border crossings or infrastructure projects estimated to
cost less than $3.1 million.
7
 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G
(Washington, D.C.: Sep. 10, 2014)




Page 4                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                             visits to land border crossings with recently completed or ongoing capital
                             projects, as discussed above.

                             We conducted this performance audit from March 2018 to July 2019 in
                             accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
                             Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
                             sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
                             findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
                             the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
                             conclusions based on our audit objectives.



Background
Roles and Responsibilities   CBP facilitates trade and travel, and enforces immigration and customs
                             laws at the nation’s 167 land border crossings along the northern and
                             southern border. CBP’s OFO is responsible for inspecting and processing
                             pedestrians, passengers, cargo, and other items at all land border
                             crossings. 8 OFO has 20 Field Offices nationwide with nine that oversee
                             the operations of all 110 land ports of entry—which may consist of one or
                             more land border crossings—within their designated areas of
                             responsibility. CBP OFAM manages CBP’s portfolio of owned and leased
                             real property, including all 167 land border crossings. OFAM is
                             responsible for capital planning at all land border crossings and for
                             prioritizing capital projects across its portfolio based on need.

                             GSA owns 101 (60 percent) of the 167 land border crossings, partially
                             owns three, and leases 19 (11 percent). CBP owns 40 land border
                             crossings (24 percent) and leases one directly from private owners. The
                             National Park Service owns two and U.S. Forest Service owns one land
                             border crossing. 9 For the 101 land border crossings that GSA owns, it has
                             occupancy agreements with CBP, which is the principal user of the
                             facilities. GSA has responsibilities related to capital planning and
                             construction at all 101 GSA-owned land border crossings. Since CBP’s

                             8
                              See 6 U.S.C. § 211(g) (establishing, and listing duties of, Office of Field Operations,
                             within U.S. Customs and Border Protection); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1185 (U.S. travel controls), 1225
                             (immigration inspections of applicants for admission); 19 U.S.C. §§ 1461, 1467 (customs
                             inspections of persons, merchandise and baggage).
                             9
                              Land border crossings owned by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service fall
                             under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Homeland Security.




                             Page 5                                                   GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                              operations depend heavily on the condition and functionality of
                              infrastructure at land border crossings, GSA works closely with OFAM to
                              plan, design, construct, and implement capital infrastructure
                              improvements to accommodate ever-growing trade and travel at land
                              border crossings.

                              GSA-owned and leased land border crossings consist of large, medium,
                              and small crossings along the northern and southern border. Land border
                              crossings owned by other federal agencies—including CBP—tend to be
                              small by comparison and are typically situated in remote locations along
                              the northern border. See appendix I for more information on the nation’s
                              portfolio of land border crossings.


Infrastructure at U.S. Land   Of the 167 land border crossings at which CBP operates, 120 are located
Border Crossings              along the northern border and 47 are located along the southern border.
                              Land border crossings vary across the northern and southern border, but
                              are generally designed to process some combination of pedestrian,
                              passenger vehicle, and commercial traffic with separate facilities for each
                              mode. Infrastructure and layout at each land border crossing may vary
                              depending on a variety of factors including the modes of traffic CBP
                              processes at that location, traffic volume, local climate, and area-specific
                              threats, among others. Many large land border crossings, including GSA’s
                              Otay Mesa land border crossing in California, are designed to process
                              pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and commercial traffic and are equipped
                              with distinct infrastructure for each mode of traffic. Other land border
                              crossings are designed to process a single mode of traffic, such as San
                              Luis II in Arizona, which processes only commercial trucks. In general,
                              CBP’s inspection process at land border crossings follows a standard
                              sequence that includes separate areas designated for preprimary
                              inspection, primary inspection, and secondary inspection for each mode
                              of traffic and a main building which houses administrative and operational
                              support activities, which we describe below.

                              Preprimary inspection: Upon proceeding to cross the border into the
                              United States, pedestrians and vehicles enter the land border crossing
                              and are directed to preprimary inspection, where initial screening takes
                              place. Depending on availability, CBP may deploy officers with canines to
                              walk among the vehicles in preprimary waiting to reach an inspection
                              booth. Overhead signage may be present to help CBP actively manage
                              traffic by directing travelers to different lanes according to the type of
                              travel documents they have. For example, CBP may use signs to
                              designate specific lanes for travelers with Radio Frequency Identification


                              Page 6                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
(RFID) or other machine readable documents (“Ready lanes”) or for
trusted travelers. 10 Infrastructure in the pedestrian preprimary area often
includes a space for travelers to queue prior to entering primary
inspection. Infrastructure in the preprimary area for passenger vehicle
and commercial traffic includes lanes for traffic to queue and radiation
portal monitors that are designed to detect radiation and help prevent the
smuggling of nuclear material into the United States. 11 The passenger
vehicle preprimary area also often includes screening technologies,
including license plate readers and RFID readers to capture information
on vehicles and RFID-ready travel documents such as passport cards
and border crossing cards. 12 At some land border crossings, CBP may
use RFID readers in the commercial preprimary inspection area to
electronically transmit identification, manifest, and other information to
CBP officers prior to entering primary inspection. See figure 1 for
examples of preprimary infrastructure.




10
  Trusted travelers are individuals enrolled in one of four CBP programs—Global Entry,
NEXUS, Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) and Free
and Secure Trade (FAST)—for expedited travel through designated lanes at land border
crossings. For additional information, see GAO, Trusted Travelers: Programs Provide
Benefits, but Enrollment Processes Could Be Strengthened, GAO-14-483 (Washington,
D.C.: May 30, 2014).
11
 For additional information on radiation portal monitors, see GAO, Radiation Portal
Monitor: DHS’s Fleet Is Lasting Longer than Expected, and Future Acquisitions Focus on
Operational Efficiencies, GAO-17-57 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2016).
12
  In 2008, the Department of State began issuing passport cards as a lower-cost
alternative to passports for U.S. citizens. The U.S. State Department issues Border
Crossing Cards to eligible Mexican citizens applying for admission as a temporary visitor
for business or pleasure. Mexican citizens using the Border Crossing Card may travel 55
miles into the United States—except in the Nogales/Tucson area, where travel to Tucson
is authorized.




Page 7                                                   GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 1: Examples of Preprimary Inspection Infrastructure at U.S. Land Border Crossings




                                         a
                                         CBP manages four trusted traveler programs designed to expedite crossings for enrolled travelers.




                                         Page 8                                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Primary inspection: After preprimary inspection, pedestrians enter the
primary inspection area, typically located within the main building.
Infrastructure for pedestrian primary inspection may include one or more
lanes and officer booths where CBP officers review traveler information.
Passenger vehicles and commercial traffic enter a primary inspection
area where CBP officers verify passenger identification and perform an
initial inspection of the vehicle, which may include a visual inspection of
vehicles’ exterior and interior. Infrastructure supporting vehicular primary
inspection includes one or more lanes and officer booths. Each booth
may be equipped with an HVAC system to keep dangerous vehicle
emissions and other fumes from entering the workspace and maintain a
safe work environment during extreme heat and cold. Primary inspection
booths are designed to be bullet and blast resistant to ensure officer
safety. See figure 2 for examples of primary inspection infrastructure.




Page 9                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 2: Examples of Primary Inspection Infrastructure at U.S. Land Border Crossings




                                         Secondary inspection: If a pedestrian, driver, passenger or vehicle
                                         gives reason for suspicion or if the CBP officer is unable to complete the




                                         Page 10                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
inspection at primary inspection for any reason, the officer may refer them
to secondary inspection. 13 Infrastructure in the pedestrian secondary
inspection area is typically located within the main building and may
include a processing area and a separate secure room where CBP
officers can perform more thorough inspections for travelers suspected of
criminal activity. Infrastructure in the passenger vehicle secondary
inspection area may include work areas where CBP officers can search
vehicles, vehicle lifts, and non-intrusive inspection x-ray technologies to
identify contraband hidden in concealed compartments. Passengers may
wait in the pedestrian secondary inspection area while CBP officers
inspect vehicles. Infrastructure in the commercial secondary inspection
area may include a loading dock where CBP officers can manually
examine cargo and use x-ray technologies to identify hidden contraband.
In addition, CBP uses canines at some land border crossings to conduct
secondary inspections in the pedestrian, passenger, and commercial
environments. See figure 3 for examples of secondary inspection
infrastructure.




13
  If questions or issues are unresolved about the admissibility of persons or clearance of
cargo at primary inspection, a more thorough inspection is required and the travelers are
to be referred for secondary inspection. Travelers can be directed to secondary inspection
for a wide range of issues, including when radiation is detected (either on the traveler or
from his or her vehicle), if a traveler does not have required travel documents or an officer
has any questions about the validity of travel documents, if the traveler’s information
matches to derogatory information from law enforcement or intelligence databases, or if
the officer suspects that the traveler is carrying contraband. Foreign visitors to the United
States (with the exception of Canadian citizens and Mexican citizens using border
crossing cards) may also be referred to secondary inspection to complete processing of
their admission records, referred to as Form I-94s. Additionally, CBP selects passenger
vehicles at random to be sent to secondary for a Compliance Examination.




Page 11                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 3: Examples of Secondary Inspection Infrastructure at U.S. Land Border Crossings




                                        Main buildings: Land border crossings may have facilities that support
                                        various administrative and operational activities. Infrastructure at CBP’s
                                        main buildings may include agricultural labs, commercial facilities, traveler
                                        processing areas, holding rooms, staff work areas, and locker rooms,



                                        Page 12                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                         among other infrastructure. See figure 4 for examples of main building
                                         infrastructure.

Figure 4: Examples of Main Building Infrastructure at U.S. Land Border Crossings




                                         Page 13                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                        Outbound infrastructure: Pedestrians and vehicles leaving the United
                                        States at land border crossings exit through the outbound area. Outbound
                                        infrastructure in the passenger vehicle, bus, commercial, and pedestrian
                                        area typically consists of one or more exit lanes and may also include
                                        inspection booths, inspection technologies, a secondary inspection area
                                        and support facilities, among others, to process traffic leaving the United
                                        States. See figure 5 for examples of outbound infrastructure.

Figure 5: Examples of Outbound Infrastructure at U.S. Land Border Crossings




                                        Figure 6 depicts a generic layout of a land border crossing with all modes
                                        of traffic.




                                        Page 14                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 6: General Layout of a Land Border Crossing




                                        Page 15      GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Travel, Trade, and Law     Travel: The volume of traffic at land border crossings varies across the
Enforcement at U.S. Land   northern and southern borders. At the nation’s busiest land border
                           crossing—San Ysidro in California—CBP processed over 32 million
Border Crossings
                           entries in 2017. Conversely, at the Whitlash land border crossing in
                           Montana—one of the smaller land border crossings—CBP processed
                           1,339 entries that same year. In total, CBP processed over 252 million
                           entries in 2017 including 43 million pedestrian entries, 209 million
                           passengers traveling to the United States in over 104 million passenger
                           vehicle entries, 256,000 buses, and nearly 12 million commercial truck
                           crossings. 14 Figure 7 shows the largest northern and southern border
                           U.S. land ports of entry by volume in 2017.




                           14
                             To identify the total number of U.S.-bound persons processed at land ports of entry in
                           2017, we analyzed data from the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation
                           (BTS) Statistics’ Border Crossing/ Entry database. We assessed the reliability of these
                           data by reviewing the steps BTS takes to ensure data quality and determined these data
                           are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also compared BTS border crossing data
                           with entry data maintained by CBP and discussed these data with BTS officials. Note that
                           an entry does not represent a unique traveler since a single traveler may have entered the
                           United States multiple times in 2017.




                           Page 16                                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 7: Largest Northern and Southern Land Ports of Entry by Volume of Entries into the United States in 2017




                                         Note: U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics compile
                                         crossing data at ports of entry, which may include one or more land border crossings. The Bureau of
                                         Transportation Statistics does not report the number of passengers in U.S.-bound commercial trucks.
                                         Therefore, “Trucks” represent the number of commercial trucks entering through a U.S. land port of
                                         entry.




                                         Page 17                                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                         Trade: In 2017, CBP processed and inspected nearly $721 billion in
                                         traded goods (imports and exports) through U.S. land ports of entry. 15 As
                                         shown in figure 8, trade in goods transported via commercial truck
                                         through the largest northern and southern border land ports of entry
                                         impacted states across the country.

Figure 8: Distribution of Trade in Goods across U.S. States Facilitated by the Largest Northern and Southern Land Ports of
Entry by Total Value of Trade in 2017




                                         Note: The dollar values identify the total nominal value of trade in goods transported by commercial
                                         trucks through land ports of entry. A land port of entry may consist of one or more land border

                                         15
                                           To identify the total value of trade through land ports of entry in 2017, we analyzed data
                                         from the BTS’s TransBorder Freight database. We assessed the reliability of these data
                                         through an interview with BTS on the steps it takes to ensure the quality of TransBorder
                                         Freight data and determined these data are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also
                                         compared these data with trade data maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau for
                                         anomalies.




                                         Page 18                                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                       crossings. These totals do not include trade in goods transported through other modes, including the
                       mail, pipelines, or railways or services. The state of origin and destination identified in the figure may
                       not be the state of initial origin or final destination since some goods may be routed through
                       distribution centers where they are then dispersed.


                       Law Enforcement: Land border crossings serve a critical role in enabling
                       CBP’s enforcement of immigration and customs laws. According to CBP,
                       its officers encountered nearly 139,000 inadmissible individuals at land
                       border crossings in fiscal year 2018. 16 According to CBP, the lack of
                       required travel documents, such as a visa, was the most common reason
                       CBP officers determined individuals to be inadmissible. Further,
                       according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the nation’s land
                       border crossings remain a target for exploitation by transnational criminal
                       organizations. Specifically, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2018
                       National Drug Threat Assessment found that the most common
                       smuggling method used by Mexican transnational criminal organizations
                       involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. land border crossings in
                       passenger vehicles with concealed compartments or commingled with
                       legitimate goods on tractor trailers. In fiscal year 2018, CBP seized
                       363,000 pounds of drugs at land border crossings, including
                       approximately 265,000 pounds of marijuana, 70,000 pounds of
                       methamphetamine, 20,000 pounds of cocaine, and 1,400 pounds of
                       fentanyl. 17


CBP and GSA Capital    As part of its capital planning process, CBP is responsible for identifying
Planning and Project   land border crossing infrastructure needs and prioritizing capital projects
                       across its portfolio of 167 land border crossings. At CBP-owned land
Development Process
                       border crossings, CBP generally funds these projects and hires a
                       contractor to plan and execute capital infrastructure projects. 18 At GSA-
                       leased land border crossings, CBP and GSA typically work with the
                       property owner to plan and execute capital projects. The owner of the

                       16
                         Upon inspection by a CBP officer at a U.S. port of entry, a foreign national may be
                       determined to be inadmissible to the United States and denied entry if they fall within the
                       classes of inadmissibility defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, Pub.
                       L. No. 82-414, tit. II, ch. 2, § 212(a), 66 Stat. 163, 182-87 (1952) (classified, as amended,
                       at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)) (e.g., foreign nationals who have engaged in terrorist or criminal
                       activities or previously violated U.S. immigration law).
                       17
                         We currently have a review underway looking at CBP’s inspection activities at land ports
                       of entry. We plan to issue a report on our findings in summer 2019.
                       18
                        According to CBP officials, CBP may partner with GSA to execute capital projects at
                       CBP-owned land border crossings.




                       Page 19                                                             GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
land border crossing funds these projects, while CBP funds any
alterations needed to fulfill its mission. 19

At GSA-owned land border crossings, CBP typically works with GSA to
complete a feasibility study and uses this information to prioritize
infrastructure projects. According to GSA policy documents, feasibility
studies are intended to determine the technical and economic viability of
a project, define the project budget and scope, and establish an initial
project design. GSA and CBP are to further refine land border crossing
capital projects with a program development study, which updates project
plans and budgets and provides the necessary information to pursue
project funding. 20 Each year, the Office of Management and Budget
reviews each project included in GSA’s budget request and Congress
authorizes projects and appropriates project funds as part of the federal
budget cycle. GSA typically includes CBP’s top priority land border
crossing capital infrastructure projects in its annual budget submission.
GSA may pursue project funding for design and construction in separate
budget requests or in a single appropriation, depending on the contract
vehicle used. Once funded, GSA hires one or more contractors to design
and execute the project.

Figure 9 identifies funding for CBP and GSA-owned land border crossings
in fiscal years 2009 through 2019.




19
  CBP amortizes the costs of improvements over the lease term, paying the port owner
through GSA, which manages the lease on behalf of the U.S. government.
20
  Feasibility studies and program development studies may be combined into one
document. According to GSA officials, this may be done in order to provide a more
accurate cost estimate to Congress earlier in the planning process, or because the project
is using a one-step contract vehicle, with Congress funding design and construction
concurrently.




Page 20                                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 9: Budget Requests and Appropriations for Land Border Crossing Capital
Projects in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2019




Note: Appropriations include appropriated funds, as reported by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), for fiscal years 2009 through 2019, for the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal
Buildings Fund, and for GSA and CBP through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115), as well as reprogrammed funds and project transfers. CBP
reported not receiving funds for land border crossing capital projects in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
CBP reported that GSA and CBP did not request or receive funds for any land border crossing capital
projects in fiscal year 2013. Appropriation totals for each year are in nominal dollars.


CBP defines its general land border infrastructure requirements in its
Land Port of Entry Design Standards, which describe various
infrastructure at land border crossings and detail how this infrastructure
should operate. According to CBP, it updates these standards every few
years to ensure the standards reflect CBP’s changing mission, including
new technologies and infrastructure requirements.




Page 21                                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
CBP Identified
Various Infrastructure
Constraints at Land
Border Crossings, but
Does Not Have
Complete Information
on Infrastructure
Condition at All
Crossings
CBP’s Reported               CBP officers we spoke with at 16 land border crossings and OFO field
Infrastructure Constraints   offices that oversee land border crossings reported examples of land
                             border crossing infrastructure constraints they face at each stage of the
at Land Border Crossings
                             inspection process including preprimary, primary, and secondary
Include Limited Capacity     inspections. CBP relies on infrastructure to fulfill its mission at land border
and Technology               crossings. Specifically, according to CBP, well-functioning infrastructure is
Challenges                   a critical factor in its ability to effectively screen persons and cargo, and
                             facilitate cross-border travel and trade. For example, CBP officials stated
                             that the number of operational inspection lanes is a key variable that
                             affects traffic wait times. These officers also identified land border
                             crossing infrastructure challenges with office space and port security.
                             Examples of infrastructure constraints identified by CBP officers include:

                             •   Limited space in the preprimary inspection area. According to
                                 CBP officers, land border crossings with primary inspection booths
                                 located in close proximity to the border line with Mexico have
                                 restricted space for CBP to conduct operations in the preprimary area.
                             Figure 10 below shows a photo of restricted space in the preprimary area
                             at a land border crossing on the southern border.




                             Page 22                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 10: Example of a U.S. Land Border Crossing With Limited Space in the
Preprimary Area




•   Non-functioning screening technology in the preprimary
    inspection area. CBP officers stated that vehicle inspection
    technologies may not always function correctly. For example, at a
    land border crossing on the southern border, license plate readers
    and radiation portal monitors are inoperable at least once a week
    during summer months due to overheating, according to CBP officials.
    Temperatures can exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit and the
    technology is exposed to the sun.
Figure 11 shows license plate readers and radiation portal monitors in the
preprimary area exposed to the sun at a land border crossing on the
southern border.




Page 23                                            GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 11: License Plate Readers and Radiation Portal Monitors on the Southern
Border




•   Officer inspection booths in the primary inspection area in need
    of repair. CBP officers stated that officer inspection booths may be
    inadequately cooled or heated resulting in officers more frequently
    rotating out of the booths for health and safety reasons. At one land
    border crossing, officers stated that the booth windows provide limited
    visibility since the old bullet resistant glazing has deteriorated and
    clouds officers’ view. At another land border crossing we visited, we
    observed that the doors on the primary inspection booths do not have
    working locks. Officers stated that as a result, when the land border
    crossing closes overnight they are unable to secure the booths or the
    computer equipment inside.
•   Inadequate holding facilities in the secondary inspection area.
    Holding facilities at several land border crossings we visited had
    holding rooms that did not meet current CBP safety requirements,
    according to CBP officers. Officers at two land border crossings stated
    that safety concerns included inadequate ventilation. Officers at


Page 24                                             GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                             another land border crossing identified exposed wiring in a holding
                                             room as a safety hazard. Other land border crossings we visited did
                                             not have holding rooms and officers stated they detain individuals in
                                             the lobby of the administration building as a result.
                                         Figure 12 shows examples of holding facilities at land border crossings on
                                         the northern and southern borders that CBP officials identified as not
                                         meeting CBP requirements.

Figure 12: Examples of Holding Facility Constraints at U.S. Land Border Crossings




                                         •   Lack of availability of non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology in
                                             the secondary inspection area. CBP officers stated that the
                                             availability of NII technology improves their ability to conduct
                                             inspections. However, NII technology is not always available because
                                             it may need maintenance or repair, or CBP may share the technology



                                         Page 25                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
     with multiple land border crossings. 21 Officers stated they may
     perform manual inspections of vehicles when NII technology is not
     available, which they noted can be less effective.
•    Inadequate facilities for canine inspection in the secondary
     inspection area. CBP officers provided examples of limited facilities
     for inspection canines. For example, officers at one land border
     crossing stated they do not have a dedicated area to exercise
     inspection canines. Officers at another land border crossing stated
     they recently converted a storage closet into a climate-controlled
     canine kennel within the secondary inspection building. Previously,
     the CBP officers at this land border crossing kept the canines in
     running vehicles with air conditioning to keep them cool.
•    Impeded traffic flow within the land border crossing. CBP officers
     identified challenges with facilitating traffic flow within the land border
     crossing. For example, the layout at a commercial land border
     crossing on the southern border impedes the flow of traffic because it
     requires commercial trucks to make a series of sharp turns as they
     travel through the border crossing. In addition, commercial traffic
     referred for secondary inspection must cut across four primary egress
     lanes to enter and exit the secondary inspection area. According to
     CBP officers, commercial trucks proceeding toward the border
     crossing exit may need to stop or reverse direction to create space for
     the trucks entering or exiting the secondary inspection area which
     creates delays in processing commercial traffic.
Figure 13 shows an aerial view of a land border crossing with a diagram
of where CBP officers identified that the land border crossing layout
impedes traffic flow.




21
  NII technologies assist CBP in detecting contraband such as narcotics and weapons, as
well as materials that pose potential nuclear and radiological threats. NII technologies
include large-scale x-ray and gamma-ray imaging systems, radiation detection equipment,
small-scale baggage x-ray systems, and portable hand-held devices.




Page 26                                                 GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 13: Diagram of Traffic Flow Impediments at a Commercial Land Border Crossing on the Southern Border




                                        •   Insufficient capacity to accommodate the volume of traffic. CBP
                                            officers stated that the number of travelers can exceed the capacity of
                                            the facility. For example, CBP officers stated that insufficient number
                                            of inspection lanes can result in lengthy wait times for travelers.
                                        •   Limited administrative space. CBP officers stated that insufficient
                                            administrative office space can be a challenge at land border
                                            crossings. For example, one land border crossing we visited did not
                                            have sufficient space for officer lockers and as a result placed some
                                            lockers in the contraband seizure room.
                                        Figure 14 shows lockers located in the contraband seizure room at a land
                                        border crossing on the northern border due to insufficient administrative
                                        space.




                                        Page 27                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 14: Officer Lockers Located in the Contraband Seizure Room at a Northern
Land Border Crossing




•   Port security limitations. CBP officers also described challenges
    with land border crossing security. For example, officers stated the
    lack of measures to prevent travelers from exiting the crossing without
    authorization, such as vehicle barriers and security gates, impedes
    CBP’s ability to stop drivers from fleeing the land border crossing and
    entering the United States without inspection.
Figure 15 shows exit lanes constructed with temporary barriers to control
the flow of traffic leaving the land border crossing and entering the United
States.




Page 28                                            GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 15: Constructed Exit Lanes to Control Traffic Leaving the Land Border
Crossing




•   Lack of inspection facilities for outbound traffic. CBP officers at
    land border crossings without facilities to inspect outbound traffic can
    face difficulties when inspecting traffic exiting the United States. For
    example, at one land border crossing without outbound inspection
    facilities, officials stated they park CBP vehicles in the outbound traffic
    lanes to slow traffic so that CBP officers can stop and inspect vehicles
    exiting the United States.




Page 29                                             GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
CBP Has Limited
Information on the Current
Condition of Infrastructure
across Land Border
Crossings
CBP Has Assessed Facility        CBP collects information on the condition of infrastructure at some land
Conditions at Some but Not All   border crossings through contracted Facility Condition Assessments
Land Border Crossings            (FCA), but has not assessed conditions at all land border crossings. 22
                                 FCAs are engineering inspections that evaluate the condition of the
                                 facility and identify repair and improvement needs. The output of an FCA
                                 is a report that describes infrastructure deficiencies at a facility and
                                 represents the condition of the land border crossing infrastructure at the
                                 time of the FCA. 23

                                 From 2016 through 2018, CBP and GSA assessed the condition of
                                 infrastructure at 95 of the 167 land border crossings. As of December
                                 2018, CBP had conducted FCAs at 74 of the 167 land border crossings
                                 within the previous three years. In addition, according to CBP officials, in
                                 2016 GSA funded and conducted Building Engineering Reviews at 21
                                 land border crossings in response to conversations between CBP and
                                 GSA on how to improve GSA service delivery at land border crossings. 24
                                 CBP officials stated they use facility condition information from the 2016
                                 Building Engineering Reviews because they contain information similar to

                                 22
                                  For GSA-owned and leased land border crossings, CBP submits Reimbursable Work
                                 Authorizations to GSA to obtain a contractor to conduct FCAs. For CBP-owned crossings,
                                 CBP conducts FCAs through contractors or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
                                 23
                                   FCAs calculate the land border crossing present replacement value (in dollar amounts),
                                 facility condition index (0-10% good, 10-20% fair, 20-30% poor, and 30-100% critical), and
                                 remaining service life index value for each land border crossing infrastructure asset (100-
                                 0% service life remaining).The facility condition index is a ratio of the costs to correct the
                                 facility deficiencies divided by the total replacement cost of the facility. The remaining
                                 service life index (RSLI) is defined as a ratio of service life remaining based on the
                                 facility’s age and design life and weighted by the facility’s current replacement value. A
                                 low RSLI indicates the building is aging, where a high RSLI would indicate most of the
                                 infrastructure at the facility was recently installed.
                                 24
                                   GSA Building Engineering Reviews were visual inspections of facilities that identified
                                 infrastructure in need of repair. Similar to FCAs, Building Engineering Reviews calculated
                                 the total costs to repair land border crossings as well as the current replacement value of
                                 the facilities. According to GSA officials, GSA generally no longer conducts Building
                                 Engineering Reviews and instead uses their Building Assessment Tool to collect
                                 information on the condition of infrastructure at GSA facilities.




                                 Page 30                                                     GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
what CBP collects through an FCA. According to GSA officials, GSA now
rarely conducts Building Engineering Reviews because they are costly
and their data quickly become obsolete. GSA now uses other tools to
assess infrastructure condition and GSA officials were not aware of any
reviews at land border crossings since 2016. See table 1 for a breakdown
of the land border crossings that CBP and GSA have assessed.

Table 1: Facility Assessments at Land Border Crossings 2016-2018

    Land Border Crossing by                                     Number of Facility             Number of Land
    Ownership                                                      Assessments                Border Crossings
    General Services Administration                                                   73                     104
    Owned (including partially owned)
    General Services Administration                                                   18                      19
    Leased
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection                                                 4                      40
    Owned
            a
    Other                                                                              0                        4
    Total                                                                             95                     167
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection information | GAO-19-534
a
 This includes one land border crossing that U.S. Customs and Border Protection directly leases from
private owners.

According to the assessments, the condition of infrastructure varies
across land border crossings. The facility condition index—the ratio of the
costs to correct facility infrastructure deficiencies to the total replacement
value of the facility—ranges from 0 percent to 69 percent across the 95
FCAs and Building Engineering Reviews conducted between 2016 and
2018. These assessments identified approximately $140 million in
estimated infrastructure deficiencies and the average facility condition




Page 31                                                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
index is 16 percent. 25 See table 2 for the distribution of facility condition
indices across land border crossings by ownership type. See appendix I
for facility condition index scores across CBP’s land border crossing
portfolio.

Table 2: Facility Condition Index Scores at Land Border Crossings 2016-2018

    Land Border                            Average Facility           Facility Condition           Number of
    Crossing                                    Condition                         Index               Facility
    by Ownership                                 Index (%)                    Range (%)          Assessments
    General Services                                           17                       0-58                 73
    Administration Owned
    (including partially owned)
    General Services                                           17                       0-69                 18
    Administration Leased
    U.S. Customs and Border                                      6                      0-20                  4
    Protection Owned
            a
    Other                                                     N/A                       N/A                   0
    Total Across All Land                                      16                       0-69                 95
    Border Crossings
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection information | GAO-19-534
a
 This includes one land border crossing that U.S. Customs and Border Protection directly leases from
private owners.
Note: The facility condition index is a ratio of the costs to correct the facility deficiencies divided by the
total replacement cost of the facility: (0-10% good, 10-20% fair, 20-30% poor, and 30-100% critical).
Of these 95 facility condition assessments, 21 were Building Engineering Reviews conducted by the
General Services Administration. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, facility
condition assessments and Building Engineering Reviews are largely interchangeable and provide
similar facility condition index scores.




25
  While FCAs identify deficient infrastructure and estimate the cost of fixing these
deficiencies, these assessments do not necessarily identify the extent to which existing
infrastructure meets CBP’s requirements or other capital needs. For example, an FCA
may determine that facilities at a land border crossing are in good condition, but fail to
identify whether these facilities meet CBP’s current operational requirements. Further,
FCAs may not identify whether a crossing’s existing infrastructure is adequate to facilitate
the volume of traffic CBP processes at that location. In one such instance an FCA at the
Calexico East land border crossing found the condition of passenger vehicle primary
inspection infrastructure to be in good condition. However, CBP officials stated that the
number of passenger vehicle primary inspection lanes at the Calexico East land border
crossing do not provide sufficient capacity to efficiently process traffic. We previously
reported that in 2015, CBP identified $5 billion to meet infrastructure and technology
requirements, see GAO, U.S. Ports of Entry: CBP Public-Private Partnership Programs
Have Benefits, but CBP Could Strengthen Evaluation Efforts, GAO-18-268 (Washington,
D.C.: March 15, 2018).




Page 32                                                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
CBP began conducting FCAs at CBP-owned land border crossings in
2008. OFAM officials stated they set a goal of conducting FCAs at each
CBP-owned land border crossing on a three-year cycle, but have not
always been able to do so due to resource constraints. Our analysis
identified that CBP conducted FCAs at only four of the 40 CBP-owned
land border crossings over three years—2016 to 2018—when its goal
was to have conducted FCAs at all 40 facilities over this time frame (see
table 1 above). CBP also began conducting FCAs at GSA-owned facilities
in 2016, and at GSA-leased facilities in 2017. According to CBP officials,
they plan to conduct several FCAs at selected GSA-owned facilities each
year to obtain information on the condition of infrastructure at these
facilities, though there is no required interval at which they must assess
these facilities. CBP officials stated they prioritize GSA land border
crossings in need of capital investment when selecting which facilities to
assess.

DHS Directive 119-02-004 “DHS Real Property Facility Condition
Assessment” instructs each DHS component—including CBP—to
implement and maintain a program to ensure that the condition of real
property is assessed every three years and updated each fiscal year
through FCAs beginning in fiscal year 2018. The Directive applies to land
border crossings owned by CBP and is intended to ensure that CBP
collects information on the condition of infrastructure across these
facilities. 26 Although CBP has a goal of conducting FCAs at CBP-owned
land border crossings every three years, it has not met this goal in recent
years as CBP assessed only four of the 40 land border crossings from
2016 through 2018. According to CBP officials, FCAs older than three
years may not accurately reflect the current condition of infrastructure at
land border crossings. According to OFAM officials, they have not
developed a plan to ensure that CBP implements its program consistent
with the Directive by conducting FCAs on a three-year cycle going
forward due to limited resources to conduct the assessments.
Specifically, CBP officials stated that CBP has not been able to fully fund
the FCA program due to other competing facility priorities. However,
developing a plan that accounts for the new requirements under the
Directive could assist CBP in planning funding needs for the FCA
program. Further, developing and implementing a plan to ensure CBP
executes its FCA program consistent with Directive 119-02-004 would
26
  According to the Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer—the DHS office that
developed and monitors the Directive— DHS Directive 119-02-004 does not apply to land
border crossings owned or leased by GSA.




Page 33                                               GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                               assist CBP in making resource decisions for this program. Implementing
                               its FCA program consistent with DHS Directive 119-02-004 would enable
                               CBP to collect more complete and current information on the condition of
                               infrastructure at land border crossings it owns.

CBP and GSA Have Not           CBP and GSA conduct separate assessments of facility conditions at
Routinely Shared Information   GSA-owned land border crossings; however, they do not routinely share
with Each Other about Land     or use the results of each other’s efforts to inform their assessments of
Border Crossing Facility       facility condition. More specifically, separate from CBP’s process for
Conditions                     assessing facility condition, GSA uses its Building Assessment Tool to
                               assess the condition of infrastructure across its entire real property
                               portfolio, including land border crossings. This process is intended to
                               assist GSA in estimating its future costs for repairing and maintaining the
                               buildings in its portfolio.

                               Although the CBP FCA and the GSA Building Assessment Tool both
                               assess elements of facility condition, these assessments have different
                               methodologies, scopes, and purposes. We reviewed a 2018 CBP
                               comparative analysis of the FCAs and Building Assessment Tool
                               processes. CBP’s analysis showed that FCAs are detailed assessments
                               of all building systems that CBP uses at a land border crossing.
                               According to CBP officials, CBP uses FCAs to collect information on the
                               condition of infrastructure at land border crossings and to inform land
                               border crossing capital infrastructure projects. In comparison, GSA’s
                               Building Assessment Tool is a standardized assessment used across
                               GSA’s federal real property portfolio to identify, plan for, and prioritize
                               repair and maintenance needs across GSA properties. As a result, while
                               the two types of assessments may be related in some aspects, officials
                               from each agency stated they could not use the other’s facility
                               assessment in place of their own.

                               GSA officials assessing land border crossing infrastructure condition are
                               not required to consult with CBP officials who operate the port or review
                               any existing CBP FCAs, according to GSA officials. CBP provides GSA
                               with pre-assessment questionnaires prior to conducting FCAs at GSA-
                               owned land border crossings. These questionnaires inquire about
                               available GSA information on facility condition. However, CBP officials
                               stated they do not specifically request GSA Building Assessment Tool
                               data, and as a result, have not generally received these data prior to
                               conducting a FCA.




                               Page 34                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                  GSA officials stated that CBP FCAs and GSA Building Assessment Tool
                                  assessments differ in scope and as a result GSA does not use FCAs in
                                  place of their Building Assessment Tool assessments. However, FCAs
                                  identify infrastructure needs at land border crossings and the results
                                  could provide GSA with an understanding of infrastructure needs
                                  identified by CBP at land border crossings. Likewise, GSA’s Building
                                  Assessment Tool is used to identify infrastructure in need of repair and
                                  could provide CBP with an understanding of infrastructure needs
                                  identified by GSA.

                                  We have previously identified key practices for collaboration among
                                  federal agencies. Specifically, agencies can enhance and sustain their
                                  collaborative efforts by identifying and addressing needs by leveraging
                                  resources. 27 According to CBP officials, improving information sharing on
                                  facility condition could help ensure that both CBP’s and GSA’s
                                  assessments are as accurate and complete as possible. Moreover, using
                                  each other’s facility condition information could enable CBP and GSA to
                                  improve the accuracy and completeness of their respective assessments
                                  of facility condition at land border crossings.

CBP Does Not Maintain             CBP uses a software system called TRIRIGA to manage its real property
Reliable Information on the       asset portfolio, but information in this system is not fully reliable. Among
Current Condition of Land         other functions, CBP uses TRIRIGA to track infrastructure needs and the
Border Crossing Infrastructure,   condition of facilities at land border crossings. CBP identifies
but Is Taking Steps to Improve    infrastructure needs through FCAs and records these data in TRIRIGA.
Its Reliability                   CBP also identifies additional infrastructure needs as they arise and
                                  records these data in TRIRIGA. For example, an infrastructure need may
                                  arise at a building and be recorded in TRIRIGA in the months following a
                                  CBP FCA. CBP uses TRIRIGA data to calculate a score reflecting the
                                  overall current condition of infrastructure at a land border crossing. CBP
                                  uses this score on condition to inform internal planning and prioritization
                                  of maintenance and repair projects at the local level, according to CBP
                                  officials. 28 In addition, CBP’s goals for facility condition data in TRIRIGA
                                  include making facility condition information available in real time, starting
                                  with TRIRIGA for responses to data calls and reporting, and using data in

                                  27
                                    GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
                                  Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 21,
                                  2005).
                                  28
                                    CBP also plans to use the facility condition indices from TRIRIGA to inform capital
                                  project prioritization in the future. However, CBP had not finalized the new capital project
                                  prioritization process at the time of this review.




                                  Page 35                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
the system for more efficient planning and decision making. However,
according to CBP officials, land border crossing facility condition data in
TRIRIGA have not been consistently reliable because some data on
infrastructure needs are duplicative, out of date, or incomplete.

•   Duplicate Data: CBP officials stated that in the past, OFAM officials
    responsible for entering infrastructure needs into TRIRIGA created
    duplicate entries in some instances. For example, OFAM officials
    have identified, and entered into TRIRIGA, infrastructure needs at
    land border crossings that had already been identified and entered in
    the past. As a result, TRIRIGA double-counted the costs associated
    with these duplicate infrastructure needs which impacted the reliability
    of the calculation of the score on facility condition for the associated
    land border crossing. According to OFAM officials, they have taken
    several steps to improve the TRIRIGA data entry processes. During
    the course of our review, OFAM officials identified internal confusion
    regarding who had the authority to remove infrastructure needs from
    TRIRIGA. In response, in April 2019 OFAM developed new guidelines
    clarifying roles and responsibilities for accurately entering FCA data
    and removing infrastructure needs from TRIRIGA. OFAM officials
    stated they expect this process to avoid duplicative data entry in the
    future. Further, as described earlier, by conducting FCAs for each
    CBP-owned land border crossing every three years, updating them
    annually consistent with DHS Directive 119-02-004, and then entering
    the results into TRIRIGA in accordance with the new guidelines for
    reviewing existing infrastructure needs and removing them as needed,
    CBP would be positioned to more frequently review and validate these
    data in the system on an ongoing basis.
•   Out of Date Data: Officials stated that FCA data for some land border
    crossings in TRIRIGA originate from as early as 2013, the last time
    CBP conducted an FCA at those border crossings. As a result,
    TRIRIGA does not accurately reflect the current condition of these
    facilities. Historically, CBP has updated TRIRIGA with facility condition
    information collected through FCAs. As described earlier, DHS
    Directive 119-02-004 directs CBP to conduct FCAs for each CBP-
    owned land border crossings every three years and update them
    annually. By developing and implementing a plan to complete more
    timely FCAs at CBP-owned land border crossings, CBP will be better
    positioned to ensure that TRIRIGA is updated to reflect more current
    condition information. In addition, as CBP continues to conduct FCAs
    at GSA owned and leased land border crossings, CBP can continue
    to update TRIRIGA with more current information on facility condition
    consistent with OFAM’s April 2019 guidance on TRIRIGA data entry.



Page 36                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
•     Incomplete Data: Officials stated that because CBP oversees
      maintenance and repair work at CBP-owned land border crossings,
      data in TRIRIGA are more reliable for these land border crossings
      than for GSA-owned land border crossings where GSA is responsible
      for planning and executing maintenance and repair work. CBP
      officials said that while they do identify infrastructure needs at GSA-
      owned land border crossings and enter related information into
      TRIRIGA, the information on these needs can be incomplete. CBP
      officials stated that for example, a past CBP FCA may have identified
      a building roof in need of repair. Following the FCA, CBP would then
      enter a record of this infrastructure need in TRIRIGA. If GSA repaired
      the roof during the following year as part of its planned maintenance
      work, but did not inform CBP headquarters, TRIRIGA would continue
      to identify a deficient roof at the land border crossing after GSA
      repaired it. CBP officials stated that GSA may conduct maintenance
      or repair work to address an infrastructure need without CBP’s
      knowledge because CBP and GSA did not have a process for GSA to
      notify CBP of maintenance and repair work the agency conducts at
      land border crossings. According to OFAM officials, GSA began
      sharing with OFAM monthly summary-level data on maintenance GSA
      performs at land border crossings. However, these data do not
      include the level of detail required to update condition data or close
      out deficiencies in TRIRIGA. We previously identified key practices for
      collaboration among federal agencies, including that agencies can
      enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by identifying and
      addressing needs by leveraging resources. 29 Sharing information on
      GSA maintenance and repair work at GSA-owned land border
      crossings at the level of detail necessary for CBP to update TRIRIGA
      would enable CBP to improve the completeness and accuracy of data
      in the system. As a result, CBP would have access to more complete
      and accurate data to use when planning and prioritizing infrastructure
      maintenance activities, improving the availability of real-time facility
      condition information, and responding to data calls and reporting. For
      example, more complete and accurate data in TRIRIGA would better
      position CBP to identify and report to Congress on improvements
      needed at land ports of entry. Specifically, the 2018 United States
      Ports of Entry Threat and Operational Review Act requires CBP to
      submit to Congress a threat and operational analysis that includes,
      among other elements, an assessment of current and potential threats
      due to security vulnerabilities and unlawful entry, and improvements

29
    GAO-06-15.




Page 37                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                   needed at ports of entry to enhance travel and trade facilitation and
                                   reduce wait times. 30 CBP officials stated they have not yet determined
                                   which data they will use to develop this report, but this reporting
                                   requirement is one potential example of how more reliable data from
                                   TRIRIGA could be used to effectively report on the condition of land
                                   border crossing infrastructure.


CBP Prioritizes
Infrastructure Projects
in Its Annual Plans
but Has Not
Submitted the Plans
on Time or Used a
Consistent
Methodology
CBP Prioritizes Projects in   CBP prioritizes prospective land border crossing projects within its annual
Five-Year Capital             Five-Year Land Port of Entry Capital Investment Plan (five-year plan).
                              CBP is statutorily required to complete a detailed five-year plan each
Investment Plans but Has
                              fiscal year and include it with its annual budget submission to Congress
Not Consistently              (i.e., President’s budget), which typically occurs in February. 31 Each five-
Submitted the Plans as        year plan is to cover all federal land border port of entry projects with a
Required                      yearly update of total projected future funding needs delineated by land
                              port. 32 According to CBP officials, CBP generally completes an initial draft
                              of the five-year plan in November or December each fiscal year and

                              30
                                Pub. L. No. 115-372, 132 Stat. 5107.
                              31
                                 The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009 required
                              beginning in fiscal year 2010 and every year thereafter, that CBP’s annual budget
                              submission for construction include, in consultation with GSA, a detailed five-year plan for
                              all federal land border port of entry projects with a yearly update of total projected future
                              funding needs. See: Pub. L. No. 110-329, div. D, tit. II, 122 Stat. 3652, 3658 (2008). The
                              fiscal year 2010 DHS appropriation included the same language. See Pub. L. No. 111-83,
                              tit. II, 123 Stat. 2142, 2148 (2009). In fiscal year 2012, the DHS appropriation included
                              similar language for fiscal year 2012 and thereafter, but also required that the projected
                              future funding needs be delineated by land port of entry. See Pub. L. No. 112-74, div. D,
                              tit. II, 125 Stat. 943, 949 (2011) (classified, as amended, at 6 U.S.C. § 214 note).
                              32
                                6 U.S.C. § 214 note.




                              Page 38                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
submits it to CBP and GSA leadership, DHS leadership, and the Office
and Management and Budget for review and approval. However, our
analysis of CBP’s five-year plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2018
identified that CBP completed its five-year plan after the annual budget
submission in fiscal year 2016 and 2018 and did not complete a plan at
all in fiscal year 2017. Specifically, CBP submitted its fiscal year 2016
five-year plan in July 2016—163 days after CBP’s annual budget
submission—and its fiscal year 2018 plan in October 2018—235 days
after CBP’s annual budget submission. Table 3 identifies the days
between CBP’s submission of its five-year plan and budget to Congress
in fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

Table 3: Days between U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Five-Year Plan
and Annual Budget Submission to Congress

    CBP Five-Year Five-Year Plan                       Annual Budget     Days Between Five-Year
    Plans By      Submission Date                      Submission Date          Plan and Budget
    Fiscal Year                                                               Submission Dates
    2014                 03/11/2014                    03/04/2014                                 7
    2015                 02/02/2015                    02/02/2015                                 0
    2016                 07/21/2016                    02/09/2016                              163
                              a
    2017                 N/A                           05/23/2017                              N/A
    2018                 10/05/2018                    02/12/2018                              235
Source: GAO analysis of CBP information | GAO-19-534
a
CBP did not complete or submit a five-year plan in fiscal year 2017.


CBP officials stated they completed the five-year plans after the annual
budget submission in fiscal years 2016 and 2018, and did not complete a
five-year plan for Congress in fiscal year 2017, due to delays in the
review and approval process. CBP officials stated the review and
approval process may take several months to complete due to revisions
at various stages and competing priorities among stakeholders that may
slow the process. Officials also said they have little control over how long
it takes stakeholders within CBP leadership, DHS, and the Office of
Management and Budget to review and approve the five-year plan.
Consequently, according to CBP officials, CBP has not attempted to
establish time frames for completing the plan. While we acknowledge that
setting time frames for completing the plan may not guarantee timeliness,
establishing time frames for each stakeholder could help measure and
assess progress in reviewing and approving the draft plan. Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management
should define objectives so that they are understood at all levels,
including by outlining the time frames for achievement of those


Page 39                                                              GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                           objectives. 33 By establishing time frames for stakeholders throughout the
                           five-year plan review and approval process, CBP would be better
                           positioned to identify and address sources of delay and could improve its
                           ability to meet statutory reporting requirements by including its five-year
                           plan with its annual budget submission to Congress.


CBP Has Not Followed a     CBP develops a list of roughly eight to twelve priority land border crossing
Consistent Methodology     capital projects each year and presents these projects to Congress in the
                           five-year plan, but the agency has not established a consistent
for Prioritizing Capital
                           methodology in developing this list. CBP’s five year plans note five broad
Projects                   steps CBP follows in developing the list of priority capital projects. These
                           steps are applicable to the entire land border crossing portfolio—
                           regardless of ownership—and include:

                           1. Strategic Resource Assessment (SRA): According to the five-year
                              plan, CBP conducts SRAs cyclically to compare infrastructure
                              requirements across its portfolio and present a uniform picture of
                              capital investment needs at all land border crossings along the
                              northern and southern borders.
                           2. Capital Project Scoring: Using data generated during the SRA, CBP
                              scores and ranks each land border crossing by criticality and relative
                              urgency of infrastructure needs.
                           3. Sensitivity Analysis: CBP then applies a sensitivity analysis and
                              updates its initial ranking based on factors unaccounted for through
                              the SRA, including unique regional conditions, bilateral planning with
                              partners in Canada and Mexico, or interests of other federal, state, or
                              local agencies.
                           4. Assess Feasibility and Risk: CBP coordinates with project
                              stakeholders—including GSA for all GSA-owned land border
                              crossings—to evaluate the feasibility, risk, and cost associated with
                              project implementation by completing a feasibility study. These
                              studies analyze alternatives and review environmental, cultural, and
                              historic preservation requirements as well as land acquisition
                              requirements and procurement risks. CBP also assesses the
                              likelihood of obtaining funding for the proposed project.
                           5. Establish a Five-year Capital Investment Plan: After the SRA and
                              the scoring, analysis, and assessment phases, CBP prioritizes land

                           33
                            GAO-14-704G




                           Page 40                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
     border crossing capital projects and develops a five-year capital
     investment plan in coordination with GSA. CBP updates the plan
     annually, taking into account the changing conditions at land border
     crossings.
Although CBP has outlined the five broad steps it uses to prioritize
projects, our analysis of CBP’s five-year plans for fiscal years 2014
through 2018 identified that CBP did not follow a consistent methodology
across the years or across projects when prioritizing prospective land
border crossing projects. For example, in some five-year plans CBP
prioritized projects by comparing relative need at land border crossings
using more recent SRA data for some land border crossings and older
data for other land border crossings. 34 In one such instance in fiscal year
2018, CBP compared relative need using 2015 data for some land border
crossings and data dating as far back as 2007 for other land border
crossings. Although CBP’s five-year plan states that CBP performs SRAs
cyclically, CBP has not established the frequency at which SRAs are to
be completed. In 2015, CBP completed a partial SRA update for 36 of
167 land border crossings that it considered high-priority, but has not
completed a portfolio-wide SRA since 2007.

Our analysis of CBP’s five-year plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2018
also identified that CBP had feasibility studies for some, but not all,
projects listed in the five-year plans. 35 Specifically, our analysis identified
that CBP had feasibility studies for approximately two thirds (28 of 41) of
the projects it prioritized over these years. CBP officials told us that due to
the limited shelf-life of feasibility studies (two to three years), CBP and
GSA target high-priority land border crossing projects for feasibility
studies that are likely to receive funding within the next two to three years.
However, of the top five projects CBP ranked as the highest priority in
each of its five-year plans in fiscal years 2014 through 2018, CBP

34
  As of March 2019, CBP continues to rely on SRA data from 2007 and 2015 to inform its
prioritization of capital projects. However, CBP officials noted that they may use more
recent data on land border crossings not produced via an SRA as they are available to
inform prioritization decisions.
35
  CBP prioritizes land border crossing projects at all land border crossings regardless of
ownership. If CBP chooses to pursue a capital project at a GSA-owned land border
crossings, CBP requests that GSA fund and complete a feasibility study. According to
GSA officials, GSA generally initiates project feasibility studies at GSA-owned land border
crossings when directed to do so by CBP and bases feasibility studies on CBP-identified
infrastructure requirements. However, GSA may conduct feasibility studies at GSA-owned
land border crossings if an infrastructure need is identified by GSA or another tenant
agency at a land border crossing.




Page 41                                                   GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
completed feasibility studies for approximately half (12 of 20) of these
projects. 36 Further, among the 12 projects CBP ranked in the top five in its
fiscal years 2014 through 2018 five-year plans that had feasibility studies,
10 of 12 projects had a feasibility study that was more than five years old
when CBP prioritized them.

In addition, CBP prioritized projects on each of its five-year plans by
comparing cost estimates developed through different methodologies.
Specifically, CBP prioritized projects using detailed cost estimates
developed as part of a feasibility study for some projects and order of
magnitude cost estimates for projects that do not have a feasibility study
or that had an out-of-date feasibility study. 37 These order of magnitude
cost estimates were significantly different from the cost estimates that
were later produced for these projects through feasibility studies. For
example, CBP’s fiscal year 2015 plan included an order of magnitude
cost estimate of $95 million to implement a single project at two separate
crossings—San Luis I and II. However, after completing a feasibility study
for the project in October 2017, GSA estimated it would cost $289
million—a nearly 300 percent cost increase—to complete the project.

CBP outlines the five broad steps it is to take in general to develop a list
of priority projects each year and establish an annual five-year plan and

36
  To calculate this figure, we reviewed the top five land border crossing projects CBP
prioritized in each five-year plan in fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for a total of 20 projects
(CBP did not complete a five-year plan in 2017). CBP may prioritize a single land border
crossing project in the top five in more than one five-year plan if it remains an unfunded
priority from one year to the next. In fiscal years 2014 through 2018, CBP prioritized a total
of 12 distinct projects in four separate five-year plans. Among these 12 distinct projects,
CBP eventually completed feasibility studies for 10 projects, but in eight separate
instances, did not do so before prioritizing these projects on a five-year plan. In some
instances, CBP completed a feasibility study for a project after prioritizing it on prior five-
year plans. In these cases, we calculated CBP as not having completed feasibility study to
inform its prioritization of this project on all prior five-year plans, but calculated CBP as
having a completed feasibility study to inform its prioritization of this project on all
subsequent five-year plans.
37
  GSA and CBP develop a total project cost estimate through a feasibility study. These
cost estimates are based on project requirements and cover design, site acquisition, and
construction, among other costs. CBP and GSA develop order of magnitude cost
estimates for projects without defined requirements or a completed feasibility study and
base these estimates on the cost of past capital projects at land border crossings similar
in size. CBP did not identify whether cost estimates it listed for projects in its five-year
plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 were produced via a feasibility study or through
an order of magnitude estimate based on the size and location of the land border
crossing.




Page 42                                                     GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
these steps are documented at a high level. However, there is not a
detailed planning methodology that would help ensure officials
consistently and appropriately develop and assess priority projects each
year. For example, the five-year plans do not define what minimum steps
CBP personnel are to take at each step in the process, such as guidance
and procedures on which projects require feasibility studies. The plans
also do not include time frames for completing each step, such as
establishing expectations for the frequency at which CBP personnel are
to update SRA data. As a result, CBP officials told us they rely on
informal processes and procedures to complete these steps and prioritize
land border crossings in its annual five-year plans. CBP officials
acknowledged that they have not issued formal guidance documenting
the steps in its prioritization process or establishing procedures and time
frames for each step, but stated that they plan to do so going forward.
Specifically, officials told us that CBP plans to document its process for
prioritizing land border crossing projects to improve transparency, better
educate staff on roles and responsibilities, and help ensure CBP
consistently applies this process each year. While these would be positive
steps, CBP was not able to provide information on specific plans or
expected time frames for implementing these steps.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that
management should define objectives so that they are understood at all
levels by outlining what is to be achieved, how it will be achieved, and the
time frames for achievement. 38 The standards also establish that
management should implement control activities through documented
policies. 39 To achieve this, management should document policies that
establish each unit’s responsibility for achieving the objectives related to
an operational process.

Establishing and documenting a methodology for CBP’s annual land
border crossing capital prioritization process, including procedures and
time frames for each step, could help ensure that CBP identifies key
activities needed to prioritize projects and that CBP personnel follow a
consistent methodology across projects and across years. For example,
such a methodology could help CBP identify which projects require
feasibility studies in a given fiscal year, and how they are to use
information on project feasibility, risk, and cost when prioritizing projects.

38
 GAO-14-704G
39
 GAO-14-704G




Page 43                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                            Further, having time frames for each step could help CBP determine how
                            often to update SRA data across its portfolio for purposes of comparing
                            relative infrastructure needs at land border crossings. Lastly, establishing
                            and documenting a land border crossing prioritization methodology could
                            help CBP ensure it consistently provides Congress with more up-to-date
                            and complete information in its five-year plans.



Recent GSA Capital
Projects Generally
Experienced
Schedule Growth, but
Met Cost and Scope
Goals; CBP and GSA
Reported Some
Challenges
Developing Projects
Most of GSA’s 10 Land       From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, GSA initiated or completed 10
Border Crossing Projects    capital infrastructure projects at eight land border crossings. Among these
                            projects, six were complete and four were ongoing as of March 2019.
Experienced Schedule
                            Projects at three of these border crossings—Alexandria Bay, Calexico
Growth, but Stayed within   West, and San Ysidro—consist of multiple phases. GSA manages each
Cost Contingency            phase as a distinct project funded under separate congressional
Allowances at Full Scope    appropriations and executed through separate contracts. 40

                            Across all 10 projects, the amount of schedule growth against the original
                            schedule baselines ranged from 0 percent growth to 59.2 percent growth,
                            though several of these projects revised their baselines to account for the
                            schedule growth. Half of the projects experienced less than 10 percent
                            schedule growth above their original schedule baselines, and the other
                            half experienced more than 10 percent schedule growth.


                            40
                              For the purposes of this report, we describe each separately funded phase as a distinct
                            project. Project cost, schedule, and scope performance metrics, for the purposes of this
                            report, refer only to the project construction phase.




                            Page 44                                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                                               When accounting for projects for which schedule baselines were revised,
                                                               among the 10 projects, six have met or are on track to meet schedule
                                                               baselines. The Alexandria Bay project, which GSA expects to complete in
                                                               January 2020, is the only project on track to meet its original schedule
                                                               baseline. 41 GSA revised its schedule baselines during construction for the
                                                               remaining five projects and all have met or are on track to meet these
                                                               revised baselines. 42 More specifically, Calexico West, Derby Line, and
                                                               Nogales West-Mariposa are the three projects that are complete and met
                                                               revised schedule baselines. San Ysidro phases II and III are the two
                                                               ongoing projects that are on track to meet their revised schedule
                                                               baselines as of January 2019. See table 4 below for a breakdown of
                                                               project schedule performance.

Table 4: General Services Administration Land Border Crossing Capital Project Schedule Performance, as of January 2019

                                              Expected to Meet              Expected to Meet            Percent Schedule            Percent Schedule
                                              Original Baseline             Revised Baseline             Growth Against        Growth Against Revised
 Project (Phase)                                    Date?                        Date?                  Original Baseline                    Baseline
 Alexandria Bay, NY                                        Y                        N/A                                  0.0                          N/A
 Phase I
 Calexico West, CA                                         N                         Y                                 16.2                           0.0
 Phase Iª
 Columbus, NM                                              N                         N                                   7.9                          1.2
 Derby Line, VTª                                           N                         Y                                 16.2                           -1.2
 Laredo, TXª                                               N                         N                                   7.4                          3.5
 Nogales West-Mariposa,                                    N                         Y                                 12.5                           0.0
 AZª
 San Ysidro, CA                                            N                        N/A                                  9.8                          N/A
 Phase Iª
 San Ysidro, CA                                            N                         Y                                 11.4                           0.0
 Phase II
 San Ysidro, CA                                            N                         Y                                   2.3                          0.0
 Phase III
 Tornillo-Guadalupe, TXª                                   N                         N                                 59.2                          10.1
Source: GAO analysis of General Services Administration data | GAO-19-534




                                                               41
                                                                 All projections in this report for expected project completion dates are as of January
                                                               2019.
                                                               42
                                                                 GSA establishes original baselines at the beginning of project construction. GSA may
                                                               revise schedule baselines due to schedule changes or delays resulting from natural
                                                               disasters, customer-requested changes, or other major setbacks. GSA leadership must
                                                               approve all revised schedule baselines.




                                                               Page 45                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
a
Capital project is complete.

Note: “N/A” = not applicable. Percent schedule growth is measured by determining the amount of time
a project is completed after its schedule baseline, and dividing this amount by the project’s total
planned duration. Because some projects are still ongoing, the expected completion date as of
January 2019 is used for those projects. Projects without data for revised baselines are still using
their original schedule baselines.


Four of GSA’s 10 projects did not meet, or are not expected to meet, their
schedule baselines. The Tornillo-Guadalupe project experienced the most
schedule growth of the projects we reviewed. GSA completed the
Tornillo-Guadalupe project in October 2014, 470 days later than its
original baseline in July 2013 and 80 days later than its August 2014
revised baseline. Schedule growth at Tornillo-Guadalupe was primarily
due to delays in the construction of corresponding Mexican infrastructure,
unstable soil conditions, and contractor performance, according to GSA
officials. 43 In addition to Tornillo-Guadalupe, the San Ysidro I and Laredo
projects did not meet their schedule baselines, and the Columbus project
is not on track to meet its schedule baseline, as of January 2019. Of the
four projects that experienced schedule growth against their final
schedule baselines, two projects had less than 5 percent growth and two
projects had about 10 percent growth.

While none of the 10 projects kept costs at or below baselines, eight
projects stayed within their 10 percent cost contingency allowance. 44 The
Tornillo-Guadalupe and Derby Line projects both exceeded their cost
contingency allowance. GSA completed the Tornillo-Guadalupe project in
October 2014 at a final construction cost of $59 million—18.7 percent
above its cost baseline—due to challenges described above. GSA
completed the Derby Line project in November 2018 with a final
construction cost of $26.4 million—10.6 percent above its cost baseline—




43
  For the purposes of this report, construction completion date refers to each project’s
substantial complete date, which is the date GSA considers the project space suitable for
occupancy.
44
  Construction contingency is an allowance for changes to costs that may occur during
construction as a result of unexpected circumstances or incomplete design documents.
Depending on the type of capital project, contingency of 7 to 10 percent is included in the
project budget. OMB’s Capital Programming Guide indicates that, as a general guide, a
cost variance of plus or minus 10 percent or more should trigger formal reporting so that
management can take corrective action. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, cost
performance for all select projects was measured against 10 percent cost contingency.




Page 46                                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                                               mainly due to CBP-requested changes, according to GSA officials. 45 The
                                                               total baseline construction cost for all 10 projects, as of January 2019, is
                                                               $1.03 billion and the combined current contract value is $1.09 billion—
                                                               which is about $62.9 million (6.1 percent) over baseline budgets. See
                                                               table 5 below for a breakdown of project cost performance.

Table 5: General Services Administration Land Border Crossing Capital Project Cost Performance, as of January 2019 (dollars
in millions)

Project                                           Met Cost           Stayed Within 10%       Construction Cost          Current Contract          Percent Above
                                                  Baseline           Cost Contingency              Baseline ($)              Amount ($)                Baseline
Alexandria Bay, NY Phase I                             N                      Y                               90.9                      91.8                1.0
Calexico West, CA Phase I                              N                      Y                               88.9                      94.6                6.4
Columbus, NM                                           N                      Y                               67.9                      70.2                3.3
Derby Line, VT                                         N                      N                               23.9                      26.4               10.6
Laredo, TX                                             N                      Y                               92.9                      98.8                6.3
Nogales West-Mariposa, AZ                              N                      Y                              139.3                    146.9                 5.5
San Ysidro, CA Phase I                                 N                      Y                              160.0                    168.8                 5.5
San Ysidro, CA Phase II                                N                      Y                              148.0                    153.5                 3.8
San Ysidro, CA Phase III                               N                      Y                              166.9                    181.2                 8.6
Tornillo-Guadalupe, TX                                 N                      N                               49.7                      59.0               18.7
Total                                              0 of 10                  8 of 10                        1,028.3                  1,091.2                 6.1
Source: GAO analysis of General Services Administration data | GAO-19-534

                                                               Note: Current Contract Amounts in bold represent final costs for completed projects.


                                                               GSA has completed, or expects to complete, nine out of the 10 projects at
                                                               full scope. GSA reduced scope for one project—Laredo, TX—due to cost
                                                               concerns after the construction contract award. During Laredo project
                                                               construction, GSA removed plans to build a footbridge spanning the
                                                               passenger vehicle primary lanes and cosmetic finishes to buildings to
                                                               avoid further cost overruns, according to GSA and CBP officials. See
                                                               appendix II for detailed descriptions of the ten projects.




                                                               45
                                                                 While CBP-requested changes are typically paid through CBP-funded Reimbursable
                                                               Work Authorizations, in this case GSA agreed to cover the costs because it had sufficient
                                                               budget available.




                                                               Page 47                                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
GSA and CBP Reported
Facing Various Challenges
Related to Planning,
Designing, and
Constructing Infrastructure
Projects at Land Border
Crossings
Project Challenges During     GSA reported facing challenges planning and designing land border
Planning and Design           crossing capital projects. These challenges included delays between
                              design and construction and the division of large projects into smaller
                              phases, which GSA officials reported led to higher costs and longer
                              development timelines.

                              Funding Lags. GSA officials reported that funding lags between project
                              design and construction can increase costs and extend construction
                              timelines. GSA has requested separate appropriations for project design
                              and construction using a model known as design-bid-build, which created
                              the potential for funding lags to occur. 46 According to CBP and GSA
                              officials, the process from requesting an infrastructure project to
                              completing the project lasts approximately 7 years. However, GSA
                              experienced funding lags of up to 10 years between design and
                              construction. Figure 16 identifies development timelines from initial
                              planning through construction for our 10 selected land border crossing
                              capital projects.




                              46
                                Under the design-bid-build delivery method, GSA requests funding from Congress for
                              design, and solicits and contracts with a design firm to develop a 100-percent design.
                              Then, GSA requests funding for construction, and once received, solicits and contracts
                              with a construction contractor.




                              Page 48                                                 GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Figure 16: General Services Administration (GSA) Land Border Crossing Project Development Timelines as of January 2019




                                        a
                                         GSA conducts feasibility studies at U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) request to
                                        determine the technical and economic viability of a project, identify what infrastructure improvements
                                        may be necessary, and determine the project’s estimated cost.
                                        b
                                         As part of a program development study, GSA and CBP refine the project created in the feasibility
                                        study to provide the necessary information to pursue construction funding. The study is to review and
                                        update project plans and budgets, and propose an implementation strategy for the project.
                                        Note: “Completion date” refers to each project’s substantial complete date, which is the date the
                                        project space is suitable for occupancy. Years without the presence of timelines indicate an absence
                                        of specific planning, design, or construction activity. According to GSA and CBP officials, these may
                                        be caused by a variety of factors, including funding delays or changing CBP priorities.

                                        The cost of labor and materials can escalate when funding lags occur
                                        between design and construction. For example, after completing design
                                        for the Calexico West project, GSA requested construction funding in
                                        fiscal year 2010, but did not receive funding until five years later. As a
                                        result, estimated construction costs escalated from $78.5 to $90.8 million
                                        (16 percent). To keep project cost estimates up-to-date during funding
                                        lags, GSA officials explained that GSA typically increases project cost



                                        Page 49                                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
estimates over time to account for inflation, changes in the labor market,
and the cost of materials, among other factors. To help address cost
escalation, contractors have purchased materials upfront, and GSA has
combined projects that would otherwise be constructed separately. To
address increasing materials costs for the Alexandria Bay project, the
contractor purchased steel upfront in order to avoid future cost increases
due to import tariffs, according to GSA officials. The Laredo project faced
significant labor and material cost growth due to a boom in the Texas
construction market. As a result, GSA decided to combine the two Laredo
crossings into one contract to lock in prices and avoid paying higher
prices in the future.

According to GSA officials, funding lags between design and construction
may result in outdated project designs that do not reflect newer CBP
infrastructure requirements. In such instances, GSA must invest
additional time and resources to update project designs and incorporate
new CBP requirements, such as newer inspection technologies or
facilities. According to GSA officials, design refreshes can be challenging
due to a lack of continuity and staff turnover at the architecture and
engineering firms that originally designed the project. In some instances,
according to GSA officials, the original firms may not be available or
interested in redesigning the project and GSA may need to hire a new
firm. For example, GSA spent $3.3 million on design for the Columbus
project in fiscal years 2007 and 2009. However, the funding lag between
design and construction required a $7.4 million design refresh in fiscal
year 2014. 47 In another example, GSA established the Calexico West
project’s design concept in fiscal year 2007, but didn’t receive
construction funding until fiscal year 2015. According to officials, GSA had
to spend approximately $1 million for a design refresh to account for new
CBP requirements, which resulted in a longer development timeline.

To address risks of funding lags with the design-bid-build approach, GSA
has shifted toward using contract vehicles for land border crossing capital
projects that combine design and construction into a single




47
  In this case, Congress not funding any land border crossing capital projects from fiscal
years 2011 through 2013, as well as changing CBP priorities, resulted in an extended
development timeline.




Page 50                                                   GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
appropriation. 48 This approach allows for more precise planning, less risk
from delays, and less time for costs to escalate, according to GSA
officials.

Project Phasing. According to GSA officials, OMB may request that GSA
and CBP divide large projects into separate phases when high-cost
projects are unlikely to be funded in a single appropriation. For example,
of the eight border crossing locations represented across the 10 projects
in our review, CBP and GSA broke three projects at three locations into
phases to obtain approval: Alexandria Bay, Calexico West, and San
Ysidro.

However, for similar reasons as those related to funding lags between
design and construction, breaking up projects into smaller phases can
increase overall costs and add years to project timelines. According to
GSA and CBP officials, when appropriations do not align with project
schedules, contractors may leave the site after completing a single phase
to pursue new work opportunities. Additionally, by the time GSA receives
appropriations for latter phases, the contractor must remobilize equipment
and labor, costs of labor and material may have increased, and projects
may need design refreshes, as described above. For example, after
Calexico West phase II remained unfunded two years after phase I was
completed, GSA estimated that project costs increased by $27.7 million
due to increases in labor and materials and potential redesign work. In
another example, GSA officials told us that after originally designing the
Alexandria Bay project as a single-phase in 2010, OMB directed GSA to
break the project into two phases in 2014 to increase the likelihood of
funding. According to GSA officials, redesigning Alexandria Bay as a two-
phase project added as much as $16.5 million to total project costs.
Construction costs escalated by about $58.4 million from the single-phase
estimate in fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2017 when phase I construction
began, an increase of 36 percent. Further, completing the Alexandria Bay
project in two phases added an additional three years to the project
timeline.



48
  These include both design-build and construction manager as constructor contract
vehicles. Under the design-build method, GSA contracts with a single firm to provide both
design and construction services. Under the construction manager as constructor method,
GSA contracts with separate design and construction firms concurrently, under separate
contracts.




Page 51                                                 GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                            While breaking projects into phases can potentially lead to higher costs,
                            GSA officials told us that doing so can be an effective way to start work
                            on a large capital project when funding for the entire project is not
                            available in a single year and can be cost effective when GSA receives
                            appropriations for each phase in line with its planned schedule.

Project Challenges During   GSA and CBP have reported facing challenges constructing land border
Construction                crossing projects, including those related to CBP-requested changes,
                            geographical and environmental factors, and inadequate or incomplete
                            infrastructure in neighboring countries.

                            CBP Change Requests. CBP may request modifications to ongoing
                            projects through Reimbursable Work Authorizations to meet changing
                            infrastructure requirements, such as incorporating newer technologies
                            and CBP design standards. 49 These requests range from installing new
                            information technology and security equipment to enhancing office,
                            holding facilities, or public-facing areas of the port. CBP change requests
                            are often necessary because the span between design and construction
                            can last up to 10 years, according to CBP and GSA officials. While CBP
                            typically pays for the cost of these modifications, GSA must incorporate
                            changes into existing project plans, which can result in schedule growth,
                            according to GSA officials. CBP-requested changes led to cost and/or
                            schedule growth at the Calexico West, Columbus, Derby Line, Nogales
                            West-Mariposa, and San Ysidro land border crossing projects, according
                            to GSA officials. In one example, GSA revised the Nogales West-
                            Mariposa project’s schedule baseline from March 2014 to August 2014 to
                            incorporate a $10 million Reimbursable Work Authorization from CBP that
                            added an outbound inspection facility.

                            Environmental and geographical challenges. Environmental and
                            geographical factors including extreme climates, remote locations, and
                            limited space, can create construction challenges, according to CBP and
                            GSA officials. Extreme climates can disrupt construction activities, such
                            as concrete work at land border crossings. CBP officials said that at some
                            southern crossings concrete may crack when it dries too quickly due to
                            extreme heat, requiring contractors to pour concrete in the early morning
                            when temperatures are cooler. However, officials said that because this

                            49
                              According to CBP officials, CBP updates its land port of entry design standards every 2
                            to 3 years. Officials said a project is bound by the design standards established when the
                            design is funded, and there is not a requirement to update designs to current standards for
                            construction; however, efforts are made to update what is feasible.




                            Page 52                                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
work typically occurs outside of regular business hours, it often comes at
a premium and can increase project costs. Along the northern border,
contractors may not be able to do concrete work during the winter months
because temperatures can be too cold to pour concrete. At Derby Line,
because of delays earlier in construction, work extended into an
additional winter season, contributing to cost and schedule growth
because contractors were slowed or limited by weather, according to
GSA officials.

Environmental conditions surrounding construction sites also led to
construction challenges, and in turn, cost and schedule growth. The area
surrounding the Columbus land border crossing is prone to severe
flooding, and major flood events have forced CBP to close the port
several times a year, according to GSA officials. Officials also said
flooding posed a potential risk of deteriorating port structures. After GSA
spent $3.3 million to develop the original design, it spent an additional
$7.4 million on a design refresh to incorporate flood protection and update
CBP requirements to prepare for construction. In another example, GSA
and the contractor discovered unstable soil conditions during the Tornillo-
Guadalupe project that resulted in a two month delay and $1.3 million
cost increase (about 3 percent of the project budget) to mitigate.

GSA officials told us they may also experience challenges accessing
labor, materials, and utilities for projects at remote land border crossings.
For example, Alexandria Bay’s remote location created logistical
challenges for transporting concrete to the site. Because the land border
crossing is on an island and only accessible via toll bridge, the contractor
determined it was more cost effective to construct a temporary concrete
plant onsite. GSA officials also stated the labor market in Alexandria Bay
is limited—due in part to its remoteness—and that labor costs were high
because the contractor had to temporarily relocate its employees to the
area. In another example, officials reported challenges with transporting
construction materials to the Tornillo-Guadalupe site due to its remote
location, contributing to 2.5 months in schedule growth.

Natural features and dense population centers surrounding land border
crossings can create challenges for contractors during construction. For
example, the Alexandria Bay project—which will triple the crossing’s
footprint when complete—required contractors to blast massive rock
formations to create more room for facilities. GSA officials stated the rock
removal entailed significant coordination with CBP because GSA required
CBP to temporarily halt vehicle processing for safety reasons when
GSA’s contractor was using dynamite. Officials also told us that snow


Page 53                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
              removal is a challenge at Alexandria Bay because there are limited
              places to put plowed snow without impeding traffic and interrupting CBP
              operations.

              Corresponding international infrastructure. Inadequate or incomplete
              infrastructure in neighboring countries can lead to project delays. GSA
              officials explained that because land border crossings on both sides of
              the border need to connect, capital infrastructure projects in the United
              States are largely dependent on the readiness of Mexican or Canadian
              infrastructure. For example, GSA completed the Tornillo-Guadalupe
              project in October 2014, but delayed opening cargo processing facilities
              due to Mexico’s delays in completing its new commercial facilities and
              bridge system required for commercial traffic. As a result, CBP did not
              begin processing inbound cargo at Tornillo-Guadalupe until March
              2016—16 months after it began processing passenger vehicles.
              Furthermore, after processing 277 trucks in 14 months, CBP suspended
              commercial inspection operations in May 2017, citing low traffic volumes.
              CBP officials said that commercial transporters were unwilling to use
              underdeveloped Mexican infrastructure in the region, leading to low
              commercial traffic volumes, and in turn, CBP’s decision to suspend
              commercial operations. Similarly, GSA had to delay work for 3 months on
              the Calexico West project because Mexico was behind schedule on its
              infrastructure project, according to GSA officials. To address this issue,
              GSA slowed work in that area and Mexico accelerated its schedule so
              that GSA and Mexico could complete their sections simultaneously.


              CBP is charged with facilitating billions of dollars in trade and travel at the
Conclusions   nation’s border, while also preventing terrorists, criminals and other
              inadmissible individuals from entering the country. Given that CBP relies
              on infrastructure at land border crossings to fulfill its mission, maintaining
              the condition of the infrastructure is critical and can also be challenging,
              as many land border crossings were built more than 70 years ago. By
              developing and implementing a plan to ensure CBP executes its FCA
              program to assess the condition of infrastructure at CBP-owned land
              border crossings consistent with DHS policy, CBP would be able to
              maintain more complete and current information on its overall
              infrastructure needs. Also, given that GSA owns many of the land border
              crossings out of which CBP operates, sharing and using certain relevant
              information with each other—such as their respective facility assessments
              and repairs at land border crossings—could help both agencies improve
              the accuracy and completeness of their respective assessments of facility
              condition.


              Page 54                                           GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                      Additionally, while CBP develops five-year plans to prioritize capital
                      projects at land border crossings, establishing time frames for
                      stakeholders who review and approve the plans would better position
                      CBP to identify and address sources of delay and could improve its ability
                      to complete a plan each year and include it in the budget submission to
                      Congress. Furthermore, by also establishing a methodology for
                      prioritizing its capital projects—including key required procedures and
                      time frames—CBP could better ensure consistency in its approach from
                      year to year.


                      We are making a total of seven recommendations, including five to CBP
Recommendations for   and two to GSA:
Executive Action
                      The CBP Commissioner, in conjunction with the DHS Office of the Chief
                      Readiness Support Officer, should develop and implement a plan to
                      ensure that CBP executes its FCA program by conducting FCAs at each
                      CBP-owned land border crossing consistent with DHS Directive 119-02-
                      004. (Recommendation 1)

                      The CBP Commissioner should share FCA reports with GSA and use
                      facility condition information in GSA’s Building Assessment Tool to inform
                      FCAs. (Recommendation 2)

                      The GSA Administrator should share Building Assessment Tool reports
                      with CBP and use facility condition information in CBP’s FCAs to inform
                      its assessments through the Building Assessment Tool.
                      (Recommendation 3)

                      The GSA Administrator, in conjunction with CBP, should share with CBP
                      information on GSA maintenance and repair work at GSA-owned land
                      border crossings at the level of detail necessary to inform CBP’s data in
                      TRIRIGA. (Recommendation 4)

                      The CBP Commissioner should use information on maintenance and
                      repair work conducted by GSA at GSA-owned land border crossings to
                      update facility condition information in TRIRIGA on an ongoing basis.
                      (Recommendation 5)

                      The CBP Commissioner should establish review time frames for
                      stakeholders involved in its Five-year Capital Investment Plan review and
                      approval process. (Recommendation 6)



                      Page 55                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                     The CBP Commissioner should establish and document a methodology
                     for its annual land border crossing capital prioritization process that
                     includes procedures and time frames for each step. (Recommendation 7)


                     We provided a copy of this report to DHS and GSA for review and
Agency Comments      comment. DHS and GSA provided comments, which are reproduced in
and Our Evaluation   full in appendix III and appendix IV, respectively, and discussed below.
                     DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
                     appropriate.

                     In its comments, DHS and GSA concurred with our seven
                     recommendations and described actions planned to address them.

                     With respect to our first recommendation that CBP develop and
                     implement a plan to execute FCAs at CBP-owned land border crossings
                     consistent with DHS Directive 119-02-004, DHS stated that CBP intends
                     to develop a plan for completing FCAs at CBP-owned land border
                     crossings consistent with the Directive.

                     With regard to our second recommendation that CBP share FCA reports
                     with GSA and use GSA’s Building Assessment Tool to inform CBP FCAs,
                     DHS stated that CBP plans to provide FCA data to GSA. DHS also stated
                     it has already begun receiving Building Assessment tool reports from
                     GSA and will determine how to best use the information to inform CBP
                     FCAs.

                     With respect to our third recommendation that GSA share Building
                     Assessment Tool reports with CBP and use CBP’s FCAs to inform its
                     assessments, GSA stated it is developing a plan to share Building
                     Assessment Tool information and use FCA information to inform its
                     assessments.

                     With regard to our fourth recommendation that GSA share information on
                     its maintenance and repair work at GSA-owned land border crossings at
                     the level of detail necessary to inform CBP’s data in TRIRIGA, GSA
                     stated it will develop a plan to share information on GSA maintenance
                     and repair work at the level of detail necessary to inform CBP’s data in
                     TRIRIGA.

                     With respect to our fifth recommendation that CBP use information on
                     maintenance and repair work conducted by GSA at land border crossings
                     and update facility condition information in TRIRIGA on an ongoing basis,


                     Page 56                                        GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
DHS stated it has already begun receiving data from GSA on corrective
maintenance work at land border crossings and that CBP will develop a
plan for updating facility condition information in TRIRIGA using the data.

With regard to our sixth recommendation that CBP establish time frames
for stakeholders involved in its Five-year Capital Investment Plan review
and approval process, DHS stated that CBP will establish a policy that
outlines time frames for stakeholders involved in the review and approval
process.

DHS also concurred with our seventh recommendation that CBP
establish and document a methodology for its annual land border
crossing capital prioritization process that includes procedures and time
frames for each step. Specifically, DHS stated that CBP will document the
process and procedures, and provide time frames, for each step in the
process.


We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Administrator of the General Services Administration. In addition, this
report is available at no charge on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at 202-512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of our report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report
are listed in appendix V.




Rebecca Gambler
Director, Homeland Security and Justice




Page 57                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings
                                           Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                           the Northern and Southern Borders



along the Northern and Southern Borders

                                           U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operates at 167 land border
                                           crossings along the northern and southern borders. Of the 167 land
                                           border crossings, CBP owns 40. The General Services Administration
                                           (GSA) fully owns 101, partially owns three, and leases 19. The National
                                           Park Service owns two and the U.S. Forest Service owns one. One land
                                           border crossing is privately owned. Further, CBP and GSA have
                                           assessed the condition of 95 of the 167 land border crossings along the
                                           northern and southern borders and calculated a facility condition index (0-
                                           10% good, 10-20% fair, 20-30% poor, and 30-100% critical) and identified
                                           the total cost of infrastructure deficiencies at each crossing. Table 6
                                           identifies land border crossings by name, state, ownership, year
                                           constructed, the year last renovated, facility condition index score, and
                                           the cost of known infrastructure deficiencies, according to CBP data, and
                                           is for informational purposes only.

Table 6: List of U.S. Northern and Southern Land Border Crossings and Facility Conditions, as of December 2018

                                                                                            Facility            Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                         Year          Year Last      Condition            Infrastructure
Name and State                Ownership               Constructed         Modernized      Index (%)           Deficiencies ($)
Alcan, Alaska                 General Services                1974                N/A            56                  3,809,500
                              Administration
                              (GSA)
Dalton Cache, Alaska          GSA                             1979                N/A            29                  1,275,450
Poker Creek, Alaska           GSA                             1999                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Skagway, Alaska               GSA                             1976               1994            51                  1,570,034
Raul Hector Castro -          GSA                             1936               1993            13                  2,320,932
Douglas, Arizona
Lukeville, Arizona            GSA                             1976                N/A            28                  2,090,300
Naco, Arizona                 GSA                             1936               1995            21                  1,438,766
Nogales East, Arizona –   GSA                                 1935               1998            18                  3,173,367
DeConcini and Morley Gate
Nogales West, Arizona -       GSA                             1973               2014             5                  3,538,436
Mariposa,
San Luis II, Arizona          GSA                             2010                N/A             7                  2,183,819
San Luis, Arizona             GSA                             1984                N/A            34                  5,444,082
Sasabe, Arizona               GSA                             1937               1997            25                  1,034,348
Andrade, California           GSA Owned/GSA                   1958               1992             6                    244,603
                              Leased
Calexico East, California -   GSA                             1996                N/A            15                  8,702,854
Imperial Valley
Calexico West, California –   GSA                             1933               2018           N/A                        N/A
Downtown




                                           Page 58                                              GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                           Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                           the Northern and Southern Borders




                                                                                             Facility            Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                         Year          Year Last       Condition            Infrastructure
Name and State                Ownership               Constructed         Modernized       Index (%)           Deficiencies ($)
Cross Border Express,         Customs and                     2015                N/A            N/A                        N/A
California                    Border Protection
                              (CBP) Leased from
                              Private Owners
Otay Mesa, California         GSA                             1984               1994             17                 14,114,553
                                                                                       a
San Ysidro, California        GSA                             1932              2019             N/A                        N/A
Tecate, California            GSA                             1933               2005              7                    945,372
Eastport, Idaho               GSA                             1989                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Porthill, Idaho               GSA                             1967                N/A              2                    231,165
Bridgewater, Maine            CBP                             1976               2012            N/A                        N/A
Calais, Maine - Ferry Point   GSA                             1935               2008             15                    769,759
Calais, Maine - Int’l Avenue GSA                              2009                N/A              4                  1,152,296
Calais, Maine - Milltown      GSA                             1940                N/A              2                      9,278
Coburn Gore, Maine            GSA                             1932                N/A              7                    167,086
Easton, Maine                 CBP                             2001               2012            N/A                        N/A
Estcourt, Maine - St.         GSA Leased                      1953                N/A             69                    152,947
Francis
Forest City, Maine            CBP                             1965               2013            N/A                        N/A
Fort Fairfield, Maine         GSA                             1933               1990             19                    322,983
Fort Kent, Maine              GSA                             1981                N/A             16                    496,102
Hamlin, Maine                 CBP                             1972               2012            N/A                        N/A
Houlton, Maine                GSA                             1985                N/A             10                  1,138,239
Jackman, Maine                GSA                             1963               2010            N/A                        N/A
Limestone, Maine              GSA                             1933               1990             31                    246,167
Lubec, Maine                  GSA Leased                      1964                N/A             17                    177,140
Madawaska, Maine              GSA                             1959                N/A             15                    328,834
Monticello, Maine             CBP                             1970                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Orient, Maine                 GSA                             1974                N/A             13                    156,539
St. Aurelie, Maine            GSA Leased                      1963               2001              0                      2,728
St. Juste, Maine              GSA Leased                      2004                N/A              0                          0
St. Pamphile, Maine           GSA                             1995                N/A            N/A                        N/A
St. Zacharie, Maine           GSA Leased                      2004                N/A              3                     18,023
Van Buren, Maine              GSA                             1965               2013              0                     85,734
Vanceboro, Maine              GSA                             1964                N/A             28                    676,076
Detroit, Michigan -           GSA Owned/GSA                   1984       2006 (Cargo)              3                  1,065,326
Ambassador Bridge             Leased
Detroit, Michigan - Windsor GSA Leased                        1977                N/A             17                  1,319,347
Tunnel



                                           Page 59                                               GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                            Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                            the Northern and Southern Borders




                                                                                              Facility            Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                          Year          Year Last       Condition            Infrastructure
Name and State              Ownership                  Constructed         Modernized       Index (%)           Deficiencies ($)
Port Huron, Michigan - Blue GSA Leased                         1996                N/A              7                  1,097,796
Water Bridge
Sault St. Marie, Michigan   GSA                                2005                N/A              5                    703,670
Baudette, Minnesota         GSA                                1997                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Crane Lake, Minnesota       GSA Leased                         1953                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Ely, Minnesota              U.S. Forest Service                1993                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Grand Portage, Minnesota    GSA                                1965                N/A             54                  1,921,378
International Falls,        GSA                                1991               2003              3                    122,501
Minnesota
Lancaster, Minnesota        CBP                                2004                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Pinecreek, Minnesota        CBP                                1958               2012            N/A                        N/A
Roseau, Minnesota           CBP                                2004                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Warroad, Minnesota          GSA                                1962               2010            N/A                        N/A
Chief Mountain, Montana     GSA                                1938               1940             18                    407,353
Del Bonita, Montana         CBP                                1962               2012            N/A                        N/A
Goat Haunt, Montana         National Park                      1965                N/A            N/A                        N/A
                            Service
Morgan, Montana             CBP                                1963               2011            N/A                        N/A
Opheim, Montana             CBP                                2004                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Piegan, Montana             GSA                                2000                N/A              0                      3,408
Raymond, Montana            GSA                                2005                N/A              3                    225,630
Roosville, Montana          GSA                                2002                N/A              5                    380,654
Scobey, Montana             CBP                                1978               2011            N/A                        N/A
Sweetgrass, Montana         GSA                                2004                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Turner, Montana             GSA                                1992                N/A              5                     96,870
Whitlash, Montana           CBP                                1974               2013            N/A                        N/A
Wild Horse, Montana         CBP                                1964               2011            N/A                        N/A
Willow Creek, Montana       CBP                                2004                N/A            N/A                        N/A
Pittsburg, New Hampshire    CBP                                1960               2011            N/A                        N/A
Antelope Wells, New         CBP                                1971               2013              1                     39,720
Mexico
                                                                                        a
Columbus, New Mexico        GSA                                1989              2019             N/A                        N/A
Santa Teresa, New Mexico    GSA                                1997                N/A             19                  3,588,118
                                                                                        a
Alexandria Bay, New York - GSA                                 1974              2020             N/A                        N/A
Thousand Islands
Buffalo, New York - Peace   GSA Leased                         1927               1998             13                  3,177,504
Bridge
Cannons Corner, New York CBP                                   1974               2012            N/A                        N/A



                                            Page 60                                               GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                         Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                         the Northern and Southern Borders




                                                                                          Facility            Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                       Year          Year Last      Condition            Infrastructure
Name and State              Ownership               Constructed         Modernized      Index (%)           Deficiencies ($)
Champlain, New York         GSA                             1967               2009           N/A                        N/A
Chateaugay, New York        GSA                             1932                N/A            35                  1,055,241
Churubusco, New York        CBP                             1968               2012           N/A                        N/A
Fort Covington, New York    GSA                             1933                N/A            28                    697,812
Massena, New York           GSA                             1952               2010           N/A                        N/A
Mooers, New York            GSA                             1933                N/A            58                    936,691
Niagara Falls, New York -   GSA Leased                      1961                N/A            57                  6,860,494
Lewiston Bridge
Niagara Falls, New York -   GSA Leased                      2000                N/A             8                  1,597,598
Rainbow Bridge
Niagara Falls, New York -   GSA Leased                      1897               2018            14                    895,555
Whirlpool Rapids
Ogdensburg, New York        GSA Leased                      2003                N/A            25                  4,330,204
Overton Corners, New York GSA                               1933                N/A           N/A                        N/A
- Route 276
Rouses Point, New York -    GSA                             1933                N/A            16                  1,074,802
St. John’s Highway
Trout River, New York       GSA                             1931                N/A            48                  1,395,732
Ambrose, North Dakota       GSA                             1931               2006            30                    307,348
Antler, North Dakota        CBP                             1961               2011           N/A                        N/A
Carbury, North Dakota       CBP                             1963               2011           N/A                        N/A
Dunseith, North Dakota      GSA                             1974                N/A             7                    203,062
Fortuna, North Dakota       CBP                             2004                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Hannah, North Dakota        CBP                             1961               2012           N/A                        N/A
Hansboro, North Dakota      CBP                             1963               2011           N/A                        N/A
Maida, North Dakota         CBP                             1961               2011           N/A                        N/A
Neche, North Dakota         CBP                             1965               2011           N/A                        N/A
Noonan, North Dakota        CBP                             1975               2011           N/A                        N/A
Northgate, North Dakota     CBP                             2004                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Pembina, North Dakota       GSA                             1999                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Portal, North Dakota        GSA                             1934               2013             0                     71,817
Sarles, North Dakota        CBP                             1961               2012           N/A                        N/A
Sherwood, North Dakota      CBP                             1981               2011           N/A                        N/A
St. John, North Dakota      GSA                             1931               2005           N/A                        N/A
Walhalla, North Dakota      CBP                             1962               2011           N/A                        N/A
Westhope, North Dakota      CBP                             1974               2011           N/A                        N/A
Amistad Dam, Texas          CBP                             1969               2013             4                    119,959




                                         Page 61                                              GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                             Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                             the Northern and Southern Borders




                                                                                              Facility            Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                           Year          Year Last      Condition            Infrastructure
Name and State               Ownership                  Constructed         Modernized      Index (%)           Deficiencies ($)
Boquillas, Texas             National Park                      2013                N/A           N/A                        N/A
                             Service
Bridge of the Americas       GSA                                1967               2003            13                  5,128,387
(BOTA) , Texas
Brownsville, Texas -      GSA                                   1991                N/A             9                    818,791
Brownsville and Matamoros
(B&M)
Brownsville, Texas -         GSA                                1950               1989             9                  1,573,582
Gateway International
Bridge
Brownsville, Texas - Los     GSA                                1999                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Tomates - Veterans
International Bridge
Del Rio, Texas               GSA                                1967               2009           N/A                        N/A
Donna, Texas                 GSA                                2010                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Eagle Pass I, Texas -        GSA                                1960               2006            14                  1,683,176
Piedras Negras Bridge
Eagle Pass II, Texas         GSA Owned/GSA                      1999                N/A             6                  1,358,730
                             Leased
Tornillo-Guadalupe           GSA                                2014                N/A           N/A                        N/A
(Fabens), Texas
Falcon Dam, Texas            CBP                                1953                N/A            20                  1,397,553
Fort Hancock, Texas          GSA                                2003                N/A             1                     51,583
Hidalgo, Texas               GSA Leased                         1982                N/A            22                  3,138,003
Laredo Bridge I, Texas -     GSA                                1943               2018           N/A                        N/A
Convent St.
Laredo Bridge II, Texas -    GSA                                1974               2019             6                  1,731,485
Lincoln Juarez
Laredo Bridge III, Texas –   GSA                                1991                N/A            13                  4,400,874
Colombia Solidarity
Laredo Bridge IV, Texas -    GSA                                2000                N/A           N/A                        N/A
World Trade Bridge
Los Ebanos Ferry, Texas      CBP                                1979               2013             0                      3,846
Los Indios, Texas - Free     GSA                                1992                N/A             9                  2,634,919
Trade Bridge
McAllen Anzalduas, Texas     GSA                                2009                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Paso Del Norte, Texas -      GSA                                1967               2009             3                    680,263
Santa Fe Street Bridge
Pharr, Texas                 GSA                                1996                N/A            14                  4,488,897
Presidio, Texas              GSA Leased                         1988               2001            10                  1,154,532




                                             Page 62                                              GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                          Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                          the Northern and Southern Borders




                                                                                           Facility            Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                        Year          Year Last      Condition            Infrastructure
Name and State               Ownership               Constructed         Modernized      Index (%)           Deficiencies ($)
Progreso, Texas - B&P        GSA Leased                      1982                N/A            15                  1,105,623
Bridge
Rio Grande City, Texas -     GSA Leased                      1966               2001             9                    989,067
Starr-Camargo Bridge
Roma, Texas - Starr         GSA Leased                       1989                N/A            13                    862,152
County International Bridge
Stanton Street DCL, Texas    GSA Leased                      1999                N/A             8                    281,606
- Good Neighbor Bridge
Ysleta, Texas                GSA                             1991               1996            12                  5,976,049
Alburg Springs, Vermont      GSA                             1935                N/A            28                    341,046
Alburg, Vermont              GSA                             1988                N/A            41                    385,123
Beebe Plain, Vermont         GSA                             1937                N/A            22                    163,355
Beecher Falls, Vermont       GSA                             1932                N/A             6                    120,879
Canaan, Vermont              GSA                             1933                N/A            19                    240,151
Derby Line, Vermont - I-91   GSA                             1965               2018           N/A                        N/A
Derby Line, Vermont -        GSA                             1931                N/A            35                    596,608
Route 5
East Richford, Vermont -     GSA                             1931                N/A            34                    950,123
Route 105
Highgate Springs, Vermont    GSA                             1997                N/A            24                  2,785,961
Morses Line, Vermont         CBP                             1934                N/A           N/A                        N/A
North Troy, Vermont          GSA                             2005                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Norton, Vermont              GSA                             1932               2007            10                    339,109
Pinnacle Road, Vermont       CBP                             1971               2011           N/A                        N/A
Richford, Vermont - Route    GSA                             1932                N/A            26                    641,196
139
West Berkshire, Vermont      GSA                             1934                N/A            29                    479,357
Blaine, Washington -         GSA                             1999               2005           N/A                        N/A
Pacific Highway
Blaine, Washington - Peace GSA                               1978               2011           N/A                        N/A
Arch
Boundary, Washington         CBP                             1978               2013           N/A                        N/A
Danville, Washington -       GSA                             1988                N/A           N/A                        N/A
Carson
Ferry, Washington - Curlew GSA                               1936               1980           N/A                        N/A
Frontier, Washington         CBP                             1956               2011           N/A                        N/A
Laurier, Washington          GSA                             1935               1981            18                    292,343
Lynden, Washington           GSA                             1988                N/A            18                    850,596
Metaline Falls, Washington   GSA                             1931                N/A            24                    278,894




                                          Page 63                                              GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                                               Appendix I: U.S. Land Border Crossings along
                                                               the Northern and Southern Borders




                                                                                                                          Facility                 Total Cost of
Land Border Crossing                                                                  Year         Year Last            Condition                 Infrastructure
Name and State                            Ownership                            Constructed        Modernized            Index (%)                Deficiencies ($)
Nighthawk, Washington                     CBP                                        1962                 2012                  N/A                             N/A
Oroville, Washington                      GSA                                        2005                   N/A                 N/A                             N/A
Point Roberts, Washington                 GSA                                        1997                   N/A                 N/A                             N/A
Sumas, Washington                         GSA                                        1988                   N/A                   3                        156,991
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data | GAO-19-534
                                                               ª
                                                               Land border crossing is currently undergoing a capital infrastructure project. Crossings with ongoing
                                                               projects listing the “year last modernized” as 2019 or later are based on expected completion dates
                                                               as of January 2019.
                                                               Note: “N/A” = not applicable




                                                               Page 64                                                          GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix II: Land Border Crossing Project
                     Appendix II: Land Border Crossing Project
                     Profiles



Profiles


                     To provide an overview of recent land border crossing capital
Overview of Recent   infrastructure projects, we developed a profile for each project that was
GSA Land Border      active during fiscal years 2014 through 2018. 1 These profiles contain
                     background information on each crossing, along with basic travel, trade,
Crossing Capital     and law enforcement data. Each profile also contains information on how
Projects             infrastructure constraints affected U.S. Customs and Border Protection
                     (CBP) operations, and how CBP and the General Services Administration
                     (GSA) addressed those constraints through the capital project. Finally,
                     the profiles include an assessment of project cost and schedule
                     performance.

                     We compiled information in the following project profiles from a variety of
                     federal sources. We provide background information on each land border
                     crossing in the “At A Glance” section of each profile. Some land ports of
                     entry contain multiple land border crossings. While each project, and
                     associated project performance data, refers to a single crossing unless
                     otherwise noted, all throughput and trade data in this section is provided
                     at the port-level. 2 Law enforcement data are provided at the port-level,
                     with the exception of arrests, which is provided at the crossing level. Daily
                     CBP officers assigned to the port refers to the daily average for fiscal year
                     2017. We obtained condition, staffing, and law enforcement data from
                     CBP’s Office of Facilities and Asset Management. Condition information
                     includes the year GSA built each individual crossing and when GSA last
                     modernized it through a major capital project. The number of arrests
                     refers to arrests at land border crossings made by CBP Office of Field
                     Operations officers, and does not include Border Patrol apprehensions.
                     We analyzed data on imports, exports, and trade values from the

                     1
                      GSA’s Public Buildings Service Cost and Schedule Management Policy Requirements
                     state that earned value management—through which GSA tracks cost, scope, and
                     schedule performance against baselines—are only required for projects valued at $20
                     million or more. As a result, our scope only includes projects with construction costs of at
                     least $20 million.
                     2
                      Among the project profiles, the Derby Line, Laredo, and Nogales land ports of entry each
                     have multiple crossings, with throughput, trade, and law enforcement data provided for the
                     entire land port of entry. Data for Calexico West are provided at the crossing-level, and
                     does not include data from the Calexico East land border crossing. According to BTS
                     officials, throughput data for Tornillo-Guadalupe and Columbus include passenger vehicle
                     data for nearby small, non-commercial crossings; Tornillo-Guadalupe includes passenger
                     vehicle data for the Fort Hancock crossing, and Columbus includes passenger vehicle
                     data for the Antelope Wells crossing. For Alexandria Bay and San Ysidro, the port of entry
                     has only one crossing, and data represent the entire port of entry. The Laredo project
                     included renovation of two different crossings.




                     Page 65                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix II: Land Border Crossing Project
Profiles




Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
TransBorder Freight Data. These data are collected by CBP, processed
and validated by the U.S. Census Bureau, and analyzed by BTS. Value of
trade includes the combined totals of imports and exports for 2017. 3 We
also analyzed BTS’s Crossing/Entry Data to determine throughput for
pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and cargo trucks.

We analyzed project cost and schedule performance data from GSA’s
Electronic Project Management system. These data included project cost
and schedule baselines, and updated cost and schedule performance
data as of January 2019. For multi-phase projects with only one phase
included in our scope, phase costs may not equal total project costs when
combined because certain project costs, such as site acquisition, cannot
be attributed to an individual phase. 4 Under schedule performance,
original completion date refers to the project’s baseline substantial
completion date. 5 Revised completion date, if applicable, refers to a
project’s updated substantial completion as revised by GSA to address
project setbacks or delays. 6 For ongoing projects, expected completion
date is the date when GSA officials expect to complete the project. 7 For
completed projects, the actual completion date is the date the project
reached substantial completion.



3
 Data in these sections are reported for calendar year 2017 because BTS aggregates and
reports data in calendar years. Certain ports of entry do not report commercial throughput
or trade data because they do not have commercial facilities. For these ports without
commercial facilities, we labeled trade information as not applicable.
4
 The projects include Calexico West phase I and Alexandria Bay phase I. For example,
while Congress appropriated about $105 million for Alexandria Bay phase I, total phase I
costs equal about $125 million because it includes site acquisition and design costs that
are not attributed to a distinct phase, and are shared between the two phases.
5
 A project’s substantial complete date refers to the date the project space is suitable for
occupancy.
6
 GSA establishes original baselines at the beginning of project construction. GSA may
revise schedule baselines due to schedule changes or delays resulting from natural
disasters or other major setbacks. GSA leadership must approve all revised schedule
baselines.
7
 For example, the Columbus project has an expected completion date of April 11, 2019
and a Revised Completion Date of 4/2/2019 (as of January 2019). While a Revised
Completion Date represents a new schedule performance baseline due to challenges
during construction, the Expected Completion Date of April 11, 2019 signifies that GSA
officials do not expect to complete the project before the revised baseline.




Page 66                                                    GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix II: Land Border Crossing Project
Profiles




We obtained information on crossing infrastructure constraints and project
plans through interviews with GSA and CBP officials and project
documents. These officials included GSA headquarters and project
management officials, as well as CBP Office of Field Operations field
office officials and local CBP officers. “Infrastructure Impacts on CBP
Operations” refers to infrastructure constraints that existed prior to GSA’s
recent capital project, while “Infrastructure Improvement Plans” describes
each project’s scope and performance.

To assess the reliability of project performance data from GSA’s
Electronic Project Management system, we examined the data for
obvious errors, and discussed the data with GSA project management
officials. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for our
purposes. To assess the reliability of trade data, we reviewed
documentation and conducted interviews with officials from the U.S.
Census Bureau, the original source of the validated data. Specifically, we
analyzed procedures by agencies responsible for collecting the statistics,
and reliability assessments by those agencies and outside sources. After
reviewing data dictionaries and BTS’s quality control measures for
analyzing the Census data, and conducting data quality checks, we
determined that the trade data, originally collected by Census and
released by BTS, are sufficiently reliable for providing contextual
information about the value of trade. To assess the reliability of BTS
crossing/entry data, we reviewed relevant documentation and procedures
for analyzing the data, and met with BTS officials to discuss potential
limitations. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of reporting entry data for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and
trucks. Finally, we found the dates land border crossings were built and
last modernized may be inconsistently recorded as provided by CBP’s
Office of Facilities and Asset Management, but we provided accurate
information in the project profiles.




Page 67                                         GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                                                      Alexandria Bay, New York (Phase I)
                                                      Built in 1974, Alexandria Bay is the seventh busiest commercial border
                                                      crossing between the United States and Canada, as of 2017. In 2017,
                                                      U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processed about 4,100
                                                      passengers, 1,600 passenger vehicles, 4 buses, and 600 trucks per day
                                                      at Alexandria Bay. The majority of people crossing into the United States
                                                      through Alexandria Bay in passenger vehicles are tourists traveling from
                                                      the Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, and Montreal regions, according to
                                                      General Services Administration (GSA) project documentation. In 2017,
                                                      GSA began phase I of a capital infrastructure project at Alexandria Bay.



Alexandria Bay at a Glance
Condition
  Built: 1974
  Last Modernized: N/A
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Pedestrians: 0
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 596,887
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 203,717
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: $13.9 billion
  CY17 Top Exports: Computer-related                  Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
  machinery, aluminum, and vehicles                   Prior to the project, the existing crossing lacked capacity to process
  CY17 Top Imports: Aluminum, stones                  growing traffic volumes which led to significant backups. These delays
  and metals, computer-related                        effectively brought cross-border traffic to a standstill, with traffic backups
  machinery                                           sometimes stretching three miles into Canada. The preprimary area did
Law Enforcement                                       not provide adequate space for commercial traffic because the bridges
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 96             connecting the United States and Canada were not designed to support
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 872                  prolonged periods of heavy traffic caused by backups. The commercial
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 2.3                    inspection facility provided enough space to unload a single commercial
                                                      truck at a time and CBP’s commercial office space was housed in mobile
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks.
                                                      trailers. GSA’s projected increases in traffic volume and updated CBP
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics
                                                      security procedures would necessitate an increase in the federal workforce
                                                      beyond the existing crossing’s capacity.
Capital Project Performance
Cost Performance                                      Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                      Phase I of this two-phase project will feature a new commercial building
                                                      and warehouse, new commercial inspection lanes, and a new veterinary
                                                      services building, among other enhancements. The completed two-phase
                                                      project will more than double building space and triple the crossing’s
                                                      footprint. Phase I will include five commercial inspection lanes—some of
                                                      which will be equipped to process both commercial and passenger
                                                      vehicles. After phase II, the crossing will feature five more passenger
                                                      vehicle lanes and five more commercial lanes than the existing facility. An
                                                      improved traffic pattern throughout the crossing will increase queuing
                                                      space and allow safe and secure processing of traffic entering from
                                                      Canada. Total funding for the entire project is $238 million, including $105
                                                      million for phase I, and construction began in August 2017. Phase I
                                                      remains largely on budget and on schedule for completion in January
                                                      2020. GSA is expected to begin phase II in January 2020 and complete
                                                      the project in July 2022.
Schedule Performance
 Start of Construction: 8/1/2017
 Original Completion Date: 1/31/2020
 Expected Completion Date: 1/31/2020



Page 68                                                                                             GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                      Calexico West, California (Phase I)
                                                      Calexico West, located in downtown Calexico, California, processes
                                                      pedestrians and passenger vehicles. Inbound commercial and bus traffic
                                                      are processed at the nearby Calexico East land border crossing, which
                                                      opened in 1997 after Calexico West ceased commercial operations.
                                                      Calexico West is the main crossing linking the California Imperial Valley
                                                      agricultural industry to the Mexican state of Baja California and, according
                                                      to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, processes large
                                                      volumes of farm workers during harvest season.




Calexico West at a Glance
Condition
  Built: 1933
  Last Modernized: 1987
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Pedestrians:
  4,212,342
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 4,409,648
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 0
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: N/A
  CY17 Top Exports: N/A
  CY17 Top Imports: N/A                               Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
Law Enforcement                                       CBP and General Services Administration (GSA) officials reported that the
                                                      crossing’s facilities were undersized relative to current traffic volumes and
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 437
                                                      obsolete in terms of inspection officer safety and border security.
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 6,568
                                                      According to GSA, the crossing’s layout was also inefficient, resulting in
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 4,522
                                                      bottlenecks and long lines for passenger vehicles and pedestrians.
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks.     Passenger vehicle wait times regularly exceeded 1.5 hours during peak
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics   travel times, with outbound traffic often extending 1.5 miles into the United
                                                      States. Facilities in the main building, including agricultural inspection
Capital Project Performance                           laboratories, storerooms, holding cells, waiting areas, and officer work
                                                      areas, were inadequate and undersized. CBP faced challenges finding
Cost Performance
                                                      space to install newer inspection equipment and technologies in the
                                                      existing facilities, according to CBP officials. Finally, the passenger vehicle
                                                      secondary inspection area was open to public view, enabling individuals to
                                                      observe CBP inspections.

                                                      Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                      CBP and GSA officials reported that phase I of this two-phase project
                                                      reconfigured and expanded the existing crossing to reduce congestion and
                                                      created five times more building space. Phase I delivered a new main
                                                      building, 10 of 16 planned inbound vehicle inspection lanes, and five
                                                      outbound vehicle inspection lanes. It also included a secondary vehicle
                                                      inspection facility with canine kennels. The new preprimary inspection area
                                                      is significantly larger, allowing CBP to actively manage traffic and reduce
                                                      congestion. Further, the larger preprimary inspection area allows CBP
                                                      officers to safely and effectively patrol this area with canine units,
Schedule Performance                                  improving the effectiveness of CBP’s inspections. GSA completed the
 Start of Construction: 10/6/2015                     $94.6 million phase I construction in September 2018, about 6.4 percent
 Original Completion Date: 3/24/2018                  above its cost baseline and six months later than planned. Delays
 Revised Completion Date: 9/10/2018                   associated with a corresponding infrastructure project in Mexico and CBP-
 Actual Completion Date: 9/10/2018                    requested modifications contributed to schedule growth. Phase II received
                                                      partial funding in February 2019—two years after Phase II was scheduled
                                                      to begin.


Page 69                                                                                              GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                       Columbus, New Mexico
                                                       Built in 1989, Columbus processes commercial traffic, passenger
                                                       vehicles, and pedestrians. It is the only 24-hour pedestrian border
                                                       crossing in New Mexico. Commercial traffic has steadily increased from
                                                       about 5,700 trucks in 2007 to over 14,100 trucks in 2017. Historically,
                                                       according to a GSA planning study, commercial traffic spiked in August
                                                       and September during harvest season because produce is one of
                                                       Columbus’s primary imports. Pedestrian traffic is higher during the harvest
                                                       months due to farm workers and the winter when seasonal visitors cross
                                                       the border. In 2017, the General Services Administration (GSA) began a
                                                       capital infrastructure project at Columbus.


Columbus at a Glance
Condition
  Built: 1989
  Last Modernized: N/A
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) 2017: 257,998
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 380,308
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 14,114
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: $91.1 million
  CY17 Top Exports: Clothing, stone and
  cement, computer components
  CY17 Top Imports: Vegetables, fruit,
  and other food products
Law Enforcement
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 62              Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 231                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and GSA officials reported that
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 348.6                   prior to this project, CBP operated from deteriorating facilities that were
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks.      reaching the end of their useful lives. The volume of commercial trucks
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics.   and travelers has increased significantly since the crossing opened and is
                                                       expected to continue to grow. Over the years, GSA added additional
Capital Project Performance                            facilities that, in turn, impeded traffic flow, caused backups, and threatened
                                                       officer safety. Prior to the project, CBP could inspect two trucks at a time
Cost Performance
                                                       at the cargo loading dock. CBP also lacked the space to completely
                                                       offload cargo, limiting inspection effectiveness. The site experienced
                                                       significant flooding during major rain events that further limited inspection
                                                       space and further deteriorated infrastructure, according to officials.

                                                       Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                       CBP and GSA officials reported that the project involves a complete
                                                       demolition of existing facilities and more than triples the crossing’s
                                                       footprint with donated land. New facilities include a separate commercial
                                                       processing facility and an expanded main building with new Non-Intrusive
                                                       Inspection technologies, a hazardous material inspection area, canine
                                                       kennel, narcotics vault, and site drainage improvements to address
                                                       flooding. Processing capacity will expand from one pedestrian lane to four,
                                                       from two passenger vehicle lanes to three, and from zero commercial
                                                       lanes to one, and will increase usable commercial dock spaces from two to
Schedule Performance                                   12. GSA spent $3.3 million on design from 2007 to 2009. It spent another
 Start of Construction: 2/12/2017                      $7.4 million in 2014 on a redesign that incorporated flood protection and
 Original Completion Date: 2/12/2019                   new CBP standards. GSA expects to complete the $87 million project in
 Revised Completion Date: 4/2/2019                     April 2019--about 3 percent above its cost baseline and two months later
 Expected Completion Date: 4/11/2019                   than planned due to CBP requested changes.


Page 70                                                                                              GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                      Derby Line, Vermont (Interstate 91)
                                                      Built in 1965, Derby Line I-91 is the busiest land border crossing in
                                                      Vermont. The crossing processes passenger vehicles, buses, cargo, and
                                                      pedestrians. There are two border crossings in Derby Line, at I-91 and
                                                      about a half mile west on Route 5. The I-91 crossing is a large facility
                                                      located on a major highway whereas the Route 5 crossing is relatively
                                                      small, located on the village’s Main Street. U.S. Customs and Border
                                                      Protection (CBP) processed about 3,000 passengers per day in 2017,
                                                      along with about 1,500 passenger vehicles and 300 trucks. In 2016,
                                                      General Services Administration (GSA) began a capital infrastructure
                                                      project at the Derby Line I-91 crossing.


Derby Line at a Glance
Condition (I-91 Crossing)
  Built: 1965
  Last Modernized: N/A
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Pedestrians:
  362
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 529,719
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 94,902
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: $2.3 billion
  CY17 Top Exports: Aircraft; spacecraft
  and parts, paper, and plastics
  CY17 Top Imports: Computer-related
  machinery and parts, wood, and paper                Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
Law Enforcement                                       CBP and GSA officials reported that CBP substantially increased staffing
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 76             at the crossing over the years, resulting in overcrowded conditions. The
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 357                  administrative building lacked sufficient office and storage space, had
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 0.92                   limited secure areas to perform interviews and searches, and lacked a
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks.     secure holding area. Due to insufficient space and outdated IT systems,
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics   the crossing could not accommodate newer inspection technologies. The
                                                      commercial secondary inspection area was too small to completely offload
                                                      cargo trucks for inspection and the vehicle lift was inoperative. The facility
Capital Project Performance                           also lacked sufficient space to inspect buses and luggage. The crossing
Cost Performance                                      had poor lighting and inadequate perimeter security, and lacked measures
                                                      to prevent travelers from exiting the crossing without authorization. Finally,
                                                      poorly designed inbound primary inspection lanes made it difficult for
                                                      commercial trucks to navigate through the crossing, at times resulting in
                                                      long traffic delays, according to officials.

                                                      Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                      CBP and GSA officials reported that the capital project will reduce cross-
                                                      border travel times and improve the traveler experience. The project
                                                      expanded the crossing’s footprint from 0.25 to 23 acres and improved
                                                      traffic flow around the crossing, while adding measures to prevent
                                                      travelers from exiting the crossing without authorization. Site
                                                      improvements included new lighting, fire protection, and storm water
                                                      management systems, among others. The project included a main
                                                      building, and a commercial secondary inspection facility for CBP to offload
Schedule Performance                                  and inspect trucks. GSA completed construction in November 2018 about
 Start of Construction: 9/7/2016                      5 months later than originally planned and 11 percent above its cost
 Original Completion Date: 6/15/2018                  baseline. Cost and schedule growth were primarily due to CBP-requested
 Revised Completion Date: 11/25/2018                  changes and contractor performance.
 Actual Completion Date: 11/14/2018


Page 71                                                                                             GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                        Laredo, Texas (Bridges 1 & 2)
                                                        The Laredo Land Port of Entry is made up of four land border crossings,
                                                        each with its own bridge. In January 2019, the General Services
                                                        Administration (GSA) completed a capital project at two of these crossings
                                                        —the Convent Street Bridge (Laredo 1), and the Lincoln-Juarez Bridge
                                                        (Laredo 2). Laredo 1 and 2 are located in downtown Laredo and process
                                                        passenger vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The other two crossings–the
                                                        Colombia Solidarity Bridge (Laredo 3) and the World Trade Bridge
                                                        (Laredo 4)—primarily process cargo. The city of Laredo owns and
                                                        maintains these bridges, while GSA owns and maintains the crossings
                                                        and all property inside the crossing facilities.


Laredo at a Glance
Condition
  Built: Laredo I: 1943;
         Laredo II: 1974
  Last Modernized: Laredo I: 1991
                      Laredo II: N/A
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) Pedestrians:
  3,016,801
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 4,990,649
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 2,182,984
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: $166.6 billion
  CY17 Top Exports: Computer and
  electrical machinery and parts                        Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
  CY17 Top Imports: Vehicles, computer
  and electrical machinery and parts                    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and GSA officials reported that
Law Enforcement                                         volume at Laredo 1 and 2 have increased significantly in recent decades.
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 897              Prior to the capital project, facilities at Laredo 1 did not effectively separate
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 15,141                 vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians within the crossing, creating
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 83,460                   congestion, safety concerns, and pedestrian queues that could extend
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks, and
                                                        across the bridge into Mexico. GSA is unable to make extensive
represents trade through bridges 3 and 4. Number of     alterations or expand Laredo 1 because it is a U.S. Historic Site and is
arrests is combined from bridges 1 and 2.               surrounded by businesses and homes. Laredo 2 was unable to efficiently
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics     process current traffic volumes. For example, GSA originally designed
                                                        Laredo 2 to process up to 10 buses per day. However in 2017, Laredo 2
Capital Project Performance                             processed approximately 110 buses and 2,000 bus passengers each day.
                                                        To accommodate these volumes, CBP converted Laredo 2’s passenger
Cost Performance
                                                        vehicle secondary facility to inspect buses and moved secondary vehicle
                                                        inspections to a temporary facility.

                                                        Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                        CBP and GSA officials reported that the capital project focused on
                                                        improving efficiency, safety, and security while expanding pedestrian
                                                        capacity at Laredo 1 and bus capacity at Laredo 2. GSA combined
                                                        improvements at the two crossings into one estimated $96.6 million project
                                                        ($33 million for Laredo I and $63.6 million for Laredo II) to save on labor
                                                        and material costs. At Laredo 1, GSA replaced the main building,
                                                        expanded pedestrian lanes from eight to 14, and reconfigured vehicle
                                                        lanes to integrate newer inspection technologies. At Laredo 2, GSA
                                                        enlarged the main building, built a facility to process passenger vehicle
                                                        and bus passengers, and expanded bus processing capacity from two to
Schedule Performance                                    eight lanes. GSA scoped out a footbridge and scaled back aesthetic
 Start of Construction: 10/28/2015                      finishes to control costs. GSA completed Laredo 1 in April 2018 and
 Original Completion Date: 10/16/2018                   Laredo 2 in January 2019—about 3 months later than originally planned
 Revised Completion Date: 11/30/2018                    and 6 percent above cost baseline.
 Actual Completion Date: 1/10/2019

Page 72                                                                                                 GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                      Nogales West-Mariposa, Arizona
                                                      Nogales West-Mariposa is one of three land border crossings in Nogales,
                                                      Arizona and is one of the busiest land border crossings in the United
                                                      States. It serves as the southern border’s main entry and distribution point
                                                      for produce entering from Mexico. Nogales West processes about half of
                                                      the agricultural commodities entering the United States from Mexico and
                                                      has facilities for pedestrian, passenger vehicle, and commercial traffic.
                                                      The other crossings in Nogales are the DeConcini (pedestrians and
                                                      passenger vehicles) and Morley Gate crossings (pedestrians). In 2010,
                                                      the General Services Administration (GSA) initiated a $180 million capital
                                                      infrastructure project.


Nogales at a Glance
Condition (Nogales West-Mariposa)
  Built: 1973
  Last Modernized: 1987
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Pedestrians:
  3,349,123
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 3,806,449
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 333,941
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: $16.5 billion
  CY17 Top Exports: Electrical machinery
  and computer-related machinery
  CY17 Top Imports: Electrical
  machinery, vegetables, fruit, and nuts
                                                      Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
Law Enforcement
                                                      U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and GSA officials reported that
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 388
                                                      facilities and technologies at the original Nogales West-Mariposa land
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 108
                                                      border crossing were outdated. The crossing’s layout was also inefficient
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 53,682
                                                      resulting in bottlenecks, congestion, and commercial traffic backups that
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks.     extended for miles into Mexico. GSA subsequently added new facilities to
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics   accommodate bus and pedestrian inspections, but did so in a way that
                                                      further constrained space, impairing traffic movement within the crossing,
Capital Project Performance                           according to officials. Wait times of up to eight hours resulted in spoilage
                                                      or reduced shelf-life of perishable goods, resulting in financial losses for
Cost Performance
                                                      businesses. The original crossing also lacked adequate space and CBP
                                                      repurposed some facilities to accommodate operational needs, including
                                                      storing evidence in holding areas.

                                                      Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                      CBP and GSA officials reported that the capital project focused on
                                                      improving operational efficiencies, processing capacity, and security and
                                                      safety of officers and the traveling public. The project entailed demolishing
                                                      all existing structures and replacing them with new facilities, including new
                                                      inspection areas, a main building, and other support facilities. GSA added
                                                      13 acres to the crossing’s footprint and expanded processing capacity
                                                      from three to eight cargo primary lanes, one to five commercial exit lanes,
                                                      23 to 56 cargo docks (including six for refrigerated inspection), four to 12
                                                      passenger vehicle primary lanes, and eight to 24 passenger vehicle
                                                      secondary inspection spaces. GSA completed the $180 million project in
Schedule Performance
                                                      August 2014 more than 5 months later than originally planned and 5.5
 Start of Construction: 7/13/2010                     percent above its cost baseline. This was due to CBP-requested changes,
 Original Completion Date: 3/7/2014                   design deficiencies, and high site utility costs, among other reasons,
 Revised Completion Date: 8/20/2014                   according to officials. The project resulted in reduced wait times, but led to
 Actual Completion Date: 8/20/2014                    higher than expected operational and maintenance expenses.


Page 73                                                                                             GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                        San Ysidro, California
                                                        Built in 1932, San Ysidro is the busiest land border crossing in the western
                                                        hemisphere, with 24/7 operations. San Ysidro processes pedestrians,
                                                        passenger vehicles, and buses. The crossing does not have any
                                                        commercial facilities for screening cargo. In 2017, U.S. Customs and
                                                        Border Protection (CBP) processed about 65,000 northbound vehicle
                                                        passengers and 23,000 northbound pedestrians each day at San Ysidro.
                                                        The General Services Administration (GSA) began construction on a
                                                        three-phase, $741 million project in 2011, with plans to complete all three
                                                        phases by late 2019.



San Ysidro at a Glance
Condition
 Built: 1932
 Last Modernized: 1974
Throughput
 Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Pedestrians:
 8,279,253
 CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 13,777,990
 CY17 Commercial Trucks: 0
Law Enforcement
 Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 971
 Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 21,620
 FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 39,846
Note: San Ysidro does not have commercial facilities.
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics
                                                        Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
Capital Project Performance
                                                        CBP and GSA officials reported that queues and wait times at San Ysidro
Cost Performance
                                                        steadily increased over the years and that existing facilities could no
                                                        longer accommodate the traffic volume. CBP also reported that outdated
                                                        infrastructure in the pedestrian primary inspection area created officer
                                                        safety concerns and that renovations were necessary to provide a safe
                                                        and secure work environment for CBP staff. For example, CBP officials
                                                        stated that the design and location of the existing pedestrian primary
                                                        inspection booths obstructed officers’ view of pedestrians as they entered
                                                        the primary inspection area.

                                                        Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                        CBP and GSA officials reported that to better accommodate traffic growth
                                                        and CBP’s requirements, GSA’s capital project is expanding and
                                                        reconfiguring the crossing. The project entails demolishing existing
                                                        structures and constructing new primary and secondary passenger vehicle
Schedule Performance                                    inspection areas, a new main building, and other support structures. The
Phase 1                                                 project also includes two pedestrian processing areas—on the east and
 Start of Construction: 2/14/11                         west sides of the crossing—that connect with transportation centers in
 Original Completion Date: 7/14/2014                    Mexico and the United States. Once complete, the crossing will have 34
 Actual Completion Date: 12/22/2014                     passenger vehicle lanes with 62 booths, including stacked booths that
Phase 2                                                 allow CBP officers to simultaneously inspect two vehicles in most lanes.
 Start of Construction: 9/21/2015                       The crossing will also add a dedicated bus lane and a total of 36
 Original Completion Date: 3/21/2019                    pedestrian primary inspection lanes across its two pedestrian facilities.
 Revised Completion Date: 9/2/2019
                                                        GSA is building the $741 million project in three stand-alone phases, with
 Expected Completion Date: 9/2/2019
                                                        expected completion in November 2019.
Phase 3
 Start of Construction: 8/8/2016
 Original Completion Date: 10/25/2019
 Revised Completion Date: 11/25/2019
 Expected Completion Date: 11/25/2019


Page 74                                                                                              GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
                                                      Tornillo-Guadalupe, Texas
                                                      Tornillo-Guadalupe (also known as the Marcelino Serna land border
                                                      crossing) opened in 2015. Tornillo-Guadalupe replaced the Fabens land
                                                      border crossing, which dated back to 1938. U.S. Customs and Border
                                                      Protection (CBP) currently processes passenger vehicles and pedestrians
                                                      at Tornillo-Guadalupe. Although Tornillo-Guadeloupe has commercial
                                                      processing facilities, CBP ceased using these facilities in 2017 due to low
                                                      volumes of commercial traffic.




Tornillo at a Glance
Condition
  Built: 2014
  Last Modernized: N/A
Throughput
  Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Pedestrians:
  34,636
  CY17 Passenger Vehicles: 327,202
  CY17 Commercial Trucks: 104
Trade
  CY17 Value of Trade: $7.1 million
  CY17 Top Exports: Vehicles, computer-
  related machinery, and electrical                   Infrastructure Impacts on Operations
  machinery
  CY17 Top Imports: Computer-related                  CBP and General Services Administration (GSA) officials reported that the
  machinery                                           original Fabens land border crossing was unable to process high traffic
                                                      volumes and that the existing bridge connecting the United States and
Law Enforcement                                       Mexico was no longer structurally sound enough to support commercial
  Daily CBP Officers Assigned to Port: 96             crossings. CBP ceased all commercial operations at Fabens in 2001,
  Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Arrests: 532                  limiting CBP to pedestrian and passenger vehicle traffic processing. The
  FY17 Drug Seizures (pounds): 188                    number of CBP personnel at the crossing exceeded facility capacity and
Note: Trade data refer only to trade from trucks.     the limited space hindered CBP’s ability to process, interview, isolate, and
Source: CBP and Bureau of Transportation Statistics   detain travelers, according to CBP officials. Further, the existing septic
                                                      system was not designed for the number of employees at the facility and
Capital Project Performance                           the original water system was insufficient. CBP had to haul water on site to
                                                      operate its facilities and provide bottled water for its employees and the
Cost Performance
                                                      public to drink, according to officials.

                                                      Infrastructure Improvement Plans
                                                      CBP and GSA officials reported that the recent capital project delivered
                                                      new passenger vehicle and pedestrian inspection facilities along with a
                                                      new main building. The project also included a dedicated bus inspection
                                                      area and a parking lot for seized vehicles. Commercial facilities included a
                                                      new bridge and commercial building, 10 covered secondary inspection
                                                      docks, two primary inspection lanes with a canopy, a hazardous materials
                                                      containment area, agriculture lab, and seized narcotics storage. The
                                                      project also added an additional 109 acres of donated farmland to the
                                                      original crossing’s 6 acre footprint. GSA completed the $73.5 million
                                                      construction project in October 2014, about 15 months later than planned
                                                      and 19 percent above its cost baseline. Unstable soil conditions and
Schedule Performance                                  contractor performance issues contributed to cost and schedule growth,
                                                      according to GSA. Delays associated with infrastructure in Mexico delayed
 Start of Construction: 5/16/2011
                                                      the start of cargo processing by 16 months. Despite investing in new
 Original Completion Date: 7/18/2013
                                                      commercial processing facilities at the crossing, CBP suspended cargo
 Revised Completion Date: 8/12/2014
                                                      processing in May 2017 after 14 months, citing low traffic volumes due to
 Actual Completion Date: 10/31/2014
                                                      underdeveloped infrastructure in Mexico.
Page 75                                                                                            GAO-19-534 – Border Infrastructure
Appendix III: Comments from the
             Appendix III: Comments from the Department
             of Homeland Security



Department of Homeland Security




             Page 76                                      GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security




Page 77                                      GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security




Page 78                                      GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix III: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security




Page 79                                      GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix IV: Comments from the General
             Appendix IV: Comments from the General
             Services Administration



Services Administration




             Page 80                                  GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments


                  Rebecca Gambler (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov
GAO Contact
                  In addition to the contact named above, Michael Armes (Assistant
Staff             Director) Kirk Kiester (Assistant Director), Bruce Crise (Analyst in
Acknowledgments   Charge), Lilia Chaidez, Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Daniel
                  Kuhn, Jeremy Manion, Mara McMillen, Marc Meyer, and Sasan J. “Jon”
                  Najmi made significant contributions to this report.




(102665)
                  Page 81                                       GAO-19-534 Border Infrastructure
                         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
GAO’s Mission            arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
                         responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
                         federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
                         funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
                         recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
                         oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
                         is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                         The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of      through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
GAO Reports and          posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To
                         have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov
Testimony                and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone           The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
                         distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
                         the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
                         information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                         Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                         TDD (202) 512-2537.
                         Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
                         Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

                         Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO         Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                         Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

                         Contact FraudNet:
To Report Fraud,
                         Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in
                         Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Federal Programs
                         Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400,
Congressional            U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125,
Relations                Washington, DC 20548

                         Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                         Washington, DC 20548

                         James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
Strategic Planning and   U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
External Liaison         Washington, DC 20548




                            Please Print on Recycled Paper.