OBP004986

From: (b) (6)

To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6) "BORKOWSKI, MARK S"; ADAMS, ROWDY D; (b) (6)
Subject: Tactical Infrastructure Tracking
Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:48:00 AM

Sirs,

For several years, the OBP GIS unit has been heavily involved in tracking tactical infrastructure (TI).
Our initial efforts began in 2003 with the implementation of Operation Waypoint. At the time,
Operation Waypoint was conceived by the GIS unit. As such, most of the data captured was also
conceived by the GIS unit and was for the most part, a prototype for enterprise-wide GPS collection, not
a final solution.

Since that time, the importance and urgency of tracking TI has increased significantly. With
construction estimates at about $1 million per mile of fence our total investments in TI will likely soar
into the hundreds of millions. Unfortunately, our system of tracking these investments has not evolved
commensurate with the level of investment. Most of our TI tracking occurs on spreadsheets which are
prone to error.

For the past year, the GIS unit has been working in conjunction with OIT and key TI managers to
improve our ability to more accurately track both TI proposals and TI construction. The EIT/OBP GIS
assessment at this point is that in order to more accurately track TI construction; we will need an
enterprise-wide system (database) to complement our GPS collection efforts. What we have found in
attempting to devise this solution is that there are command and control issues related to tracking TI
projects that prevent us from carrying a solution forward. There appear to be multiple components
involved in managing projects, defining requirements and setting priorities, with no one component in
control of the others. From the best I can determine, there are four components managing TI issues.
CBP Facilities and Infrastructure (b) (6) has a role, OBP TI Managers (Mission Support)
have a role (b) (6) and (b) (6) ), SBI Program Managers have a role ((b) (6)
(b) (6) and Loren Flossman) and OBP (Southwest Border) has a role ((b) (6) and
(b) (6) ).

In devising an IT solution capable of accurately tracking the many issues involved with TI; such as
mapping proposed and existing fencing, determining mileage and relating this data to projects (PF70,
PF225, VB200, SFA), we will need to have strict protocols in place to help us build a system for tracking
TI proposals and construction progress. Some examples of questions that need to be answered; that
have not been, due to the command and control issues, are as follows:

Who/what is the definitive source for what constitutes OBP’s proposed fencing?

In the past there has been contention as to whether ORBBP is the source or the “TI Bible” is the source.
There is also an unclear distinction between what was requested in an ORBBP plan and what will be
funded.
OBP004987

Who is the definitive source for any changes that occur to proposed fencing?

Currently, nearly all the key managers from the multiple components have requested that the GIS unit
make changes to proposed and sometimes existing fencing. For the Chief, this means the figures he
presents may be a moving target. We are in desperate need of a change management system.

Who is responsible for tracking the progress of fence construction and determining the recurrence of
collection (daily, weekly, monthly)?

OBP GIS has received multiple instructions in this respect. Also, it is unclear to OBP GIS what our role is
vs. USACE. Further, there has been minimal collaboration between project managers on the ground and
the Op Waypoint collectors (we can’t collect if we are unaware of construction progress)

Who is responsible for defining what attributes need to be included in tracking these assets (fence type,
vehicle barrier type)?

In creating an enterprise system for tracking these assets, we will need a definitive list of what needs to
be tracked.

Who is the data steward?

Currently USACE is developing spatial databases to track TI projects and construction. OBP GIS in
conjunction with OIT have also developed spatial databases to track TI. OBP/OIT should be the data
steward as USACE is on contract, which at some point will end, leaving us without a data steward.

Who is tasking USACE and Michael Baker Corporation?

Both USACE and Michael Baker appear to be aggressively attempting to devise systems for gathering
and tracking TI related data, yet these efforts are not being communicated to all TI stakeholders. OBP
GIS is attempting to devise similar systems as many map and data request come through OBP GIS.

In order to address these issues, I would like to recommend appointing a single point of contact with
authority over all components for TI management. Although I recognize the need to have multiple units
managing specific aspects of TI construction, I believe a more central chain of command will assist us in
improving our management and tracking of these assets.

Thank you,

(b) (6)

Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (GIS)

Office of Border Patrol

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

OBP004988

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Room 6.5E

Washington, DC 20229

(b) (6)

Office (b) (6)

Cell (b) (6)

Fax (b) (6)