Joint Hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism

Statement

Joint Hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism and Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight - The Future of Border Security: Can SBINET Succeed?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. BENNIE G. THOMPSON (D-MS): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I will be brief.

June 13th 2007 was supposed to be an auspicious date for the SBInet program and for the Department of Homeland Security as a whole. On that date, Project 28 was scheduled to be operational.

Less than a week prior, on June 7th 2007, this committee heard testimony from Department and Boeing representatives regarding the status of Project 28. No mention at that hearing was made of potential delays. No one disclosed any significant problems that could postpone Project 28 for many months.

And yet here we sit, four-and-a-half months later, and the project is still not operational. I am extremely dismayed, to put it mildly. SBInet is not a new concept. It is the Department's third border security technology initiative program. Many had hoped that Project 28 would finally offer an effective technology solution to better secure our borders, unlike SBInet's failed predecessors.

We were told that this time around the outcome would be very different, partially because the Department had learned valuable lessons from prior mistakes. We were also told that Boeing's solution would be proven off-the-shelf technologies that would help mitigate risk and avoid the technical problems that plagued previous initiatives.

Finally, we were told that these technologies would be integrated to give Border Patrol agents the real-time situational awareness they need to take control of this 28-mile stretch of the Arizona border. None of those commitments yet as of this hearing have been fulfilled. Technological problems remain, and Project 28 is not an operational tool to help Border Patrol agents secure the border.

I have a growing sense of deja vu. We have been here before, and we have held hearings like this before. Department cannot continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. We cannot continue to throw good taxpayer money after bad. Today I need the Department and Boeing to tell me how they will turn Project 28 around.

The Department owes the dedicated men and women of the Border Patrol an operational tool that will help them fulfill their mission. Most importantly, we owe the American people security and accountability. I can assure you that the committee will do this -- its part by continuing to conduct vigorous oversight over Project 28 and the SBInet program in general in the coming months and beyond.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your recognizing me.

Mr. Giddens, one of the concerns of the SBInet project is the staffing. You testified earlier, before this committee, on those numbers. Can you reflect on the full time staffing positions you have within your office now?

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir, we have 255.

REP. THOMPSON: Government full-time equivalent?

MR. GIDDENS: Of government, it's 115.

REP. THOMPSON: How many contractors?

MR. GIDDENS: One hundred forty.

REP. THOMPSON: So you have more contractors working in your shop than you have government employees.

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Why is that?

MR. GIDDENS: One of the reasons for that is we were in a rapid startup in '07, and we were able to bring on support contractors at a higher rate than we could bring on government employees, and as we've discussed earlier, it's our goal, by early next year to be at the 50/50 and then have more government employees than we do support contractors, and that's still ongoing.

REP. THOMPSON: If my recollection serves me, you were supposed to provide us with some information on the cost of the fulltime government employees versus the contract employees. Have we received that information yet?

MR. GIDDENS: I'm not sure, sir, I'll go back and check that and get back with the staff.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay, well, in case you have not, I will re --- I will make my request again. Is it your information that those contract employees cost the government more money?

MR. GIDDENS: I think on average the support contractors, if you looked at it particularly on a per-hour basis costs more than government employees.

REP. THOMPSON: What's your experience in your shop right now? Is it one-and-a-half times, two times or you just --- care to just provide us with that information?

MR. GIDDENS: I'd rather take that back and give you the hard answer.

REP. THOMPSON: What is your belief --- that it's costing us more?

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Is it one contractor or a series of contractors.

MR. GIDDENS: We have several contractors working in our office from different companies.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay. Will you provide us the names of those contractors and the contract amount? And also at what point next year do you plan to --- you referenced sometime next year?

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir, I believe the early part of next year we'll be at the 50/50 mark, and then we'll nudge above that with government people.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay. Another issue speaks to defense. Is your office still negotiating with the landowners with respect to defense?

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir, our office as well as the Army Corps as well as the Border Patrol down at this sector in station level are engaged in that.

REP. THOMPSON: So who has primary responsibility?

MR. GIDDENS: We have primary responsibility in my office.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay. Are you aware of some kind of meeting taking place where landowners will be paid some amount of money for attending a meeting?

MR. GIDDENS: No, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: You're not aware of that?

MR. GIDDENS: No, sir, the landowners are paid to attend a meeting? No, sir, I'm not.

REP. THOMPSON: Are you aware of any discussions that went on with the department, where landowners would be paid to attend the meeting?

MR. GIDDENS: No, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Let me --- I yield to the gentleman from South Texas.

REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX): Mr. Chairman, I think the $3,000 that you're probably referring to was not to be used to get them to attend the meeting, but my understanding, Mr. Giddens, is that at one time you all were considering to pay $3,000, I guess, as a retainer to allow the entry of access so you can go in and survey the land. Is that correct?

MR. GIDDENS: Sir, I appreciate you clearing up, and Chairman Thompson, I didn't catch where that was going.

REP. CUELLAR: And I don't want to -- I think that's what they were referring to. You might want to ask him --

MR. GIDDENS: So if I could -- and to put a slight clarification, sir, on what Councilor Cuellar had indicated, we did look at one time of having $3,000, not for the right to enter and survey, but the right to begin construction --

REP. THOMPSON: Oh.

MR. GIDDENS: -- while we finalized the real estate acquisition and the final price. But it was not to enter for survey, but it was actually right of construction.

REP. THOMPSON: Oh, okay.

MR. GIDDENS: But in the end we decided not to do that.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay, so the payment is now off the table.

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: I guess, Mr. Krone, one of my concerns with this contract is that -- am I not correct that Boeing actually tendered Project 28 to the government, this summer?

MR. KRONE: Well, we went through the process, which is called the Systems Verification Test, but we did not pass the Systems Verification Test and as such the government has not taken over ownership of the project.

It's still in, if you will, under the guidance of Boeing and we are still making, you know, this -- (inaudible) --

REP. THOMPSON: Well, I guess my point is, if you had passed the Systems Verification that you submitted to the government --

MR. KRONE: Correct.

REP. THOMPSON: -- which is equivalent to tendering it to the government --

MR. KRONE: That's correct.

REP. THOMPSON: -- but you did not pass?

MR. KRONE: We did not pass.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay. Do you think the government was wrong in turning Boeing's tendering down?

MR. KRONE: No, I do not.

REP. THOMPSON: So the government acted responsibly?

MR. KRONE: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, that's interesting. You also testified that, at this point, Project 28 has cost twice the contract value. Now is it Boeing's intentions to eat the const differential in this contract?

MR. KRONE: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Boeing does not plan to submit a change order or any kind of modification for payment with respect to Project 28?

MR. KRONE: No, Boeing has no plans to submit a claim or request for anymore adjustment for the work done under P28.

REP. THOMPSON: Mr. Giddens, is that your -- understanding also?

MR. GIDDENS: Sir, I don't think I'm in a position to discuss what Boeing's internal plans are, but we've had no indication in their having intent to do that.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, I guess then, is it the department's intention is not to approve any change orders relative, if submissions did occur?

MR. GIDDENS: Sir, if Boeing submits any claim associated with this contract, we have to consider that under its merit. I can't say that anything they submit, that we are -- no matter what they submit -- will have not considered. I mean, we have to consider it and make a ruling.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, you've heard testimony where it says, "spent twice the money." And if in fact they -- and they might not do it. But if they submit it based on it spinning through a spin, is it your testimony that you'll just look at it, at this point?

MR. GIDDENS: Sir, I don't believe there is a process that would allow Boeing to make a reasonable claim that on the upfront fixed price contract, if it costs them more, that they would just send us what it costs in addition to the contract value.

REP. THOMPSON: So, the Project 28 is a fixed price contract?

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: And whatever the cost beyond that fixed price, it's Boeing's cost, is that your testimony to the committee?

MR. GIDDENS: Yes, sir.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Reichert for five minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Mr. Krone, you talked about the different blocks, 1.0, 1.5 -- but at this point 1.0 is not working, am I correct?

MR. KRONE: Again, to be completely accurate, at this point in time, 1.0 is actually, today, and we status this morning, before we came into the hearing, there are no deficiencies against the 1.0 today, sir.

Now I don't want to say that as we enter stability testing, again some issues might come up, but we're very pleased with where we are right now. And that has not been deployed, it's not been turned over to the Border Patrol, but I wouldn't characterize it as not working.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay. What would you characterize it as?

MR. KRONE: Actually I would characterize that we've worked off all our deficiency reports. We've put in what we believe is the final patch on some camera memory software and we're going to enter a period of stability testing.

We succeed through the stability testing, then we'll be ready to turn it over for what's called Systems Verification Testing.

So I would tell you that it's in the very late stages of development and within a short period of time, ready for customer testing.

REP. THOMPSON: I guess the -- for some of us on the committee, it's hard to believe that we're still testing, when a product was submitted to the department as a finished product and it was refused, and if you could just explain that to the committee, I think it would be very, very helpful.

MR. KRONE: Well, I'll do the best job I can, sir. So, we came out of, if you will, that last Systems Verification Test with comments and frankly test matrices from the Border Patrol.

In there they connoted a series of deficiencies in the system. We then took those deficiencies and ran them through our engineering process so that we could alter and enhance the system to address the deficiencies identified by the Border Patrol.

That is what has taken an additional 12 weeks, is to go address those areas where the Border Patrol thought the system was lacking, all right.

We've implemented those changes into a variety of the components of the system, some in the radar, some in the camera system and clearly a lot in the Common Operating Picture software, and we're now once again to the point where the system has entered customer test.

They said we've completed certification and accreditation scans. And we, you know, again we installed the last patches, we believe, today. The system was stable, frankly, as we walked into the hearing.

We suspect it will remain stable, if it does, then we'll be in a position, right, we'll do some testing, they'll do some stability testing, and it will be ready to enter System Verification Testing again.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, part of my statement said, you've been here before, and your statement kind of reaffirms that we're here for the second time.

Can you give the committee a reasonable expectation of a date certain at this point?

MR. KRONE: Yeah, and if I could, sir, I'd like to repeat what I said in the member briefing on the 25th of September.

And at that time, we felt we would begin customer testing in the month of October, sir, which we've done and we thought that we would see customer acceptance in the month of November and sir, as I recall I was asked, whether I could, sir, absolutely, positively say that we would -- that the system would be accepted by the customer in the month of November and my response at that time was -- and I'm an engineer, so please bear with a 90 percent probability that we'll succeed in customer acceptance in the month of November.

We've met our testing goal in the month of October and I still think we have a 90 percent probability that we'll have Project 28 system accepted by the customer and turned over for use in the month of November.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source