Lucrative opportunities survive SBInet's demise

DHS readies $750M in contracts for Arizona alone

As the Homeland Security Department launches a new southwestern border security technology strategy, DHS wants to make a few things clear: The program won’t be an SBInet system redux, but there probably will be some technologies that are similar to those developed during SBInet.

Unlike the $1 billion SBInet electronic surveillance system development program that was recently canceled after five years, the new strategy aims to use only proven technologies from the start, said Mark Borkowski, assistant commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection agency's Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition.

“SBInet was a development program,” Borkowski said. The new strategy is different. “We are not developing anything. If you have got it, we will consider buying it, if it is worth the cost for the performance."

At the same time, although SBInet overall was a disappointment because of cost overruns and schedule delays, the capability delivered for the 53-mile SBInet Block 1 segment in Arizona is working effectively and might be replicated to some degree in the new strategy, Borkowski said.

“The deployment of Block 1 gave us confidence,” he said. “What we built works, it is effective, and the Border Patrol likes it.”

The SBInet Block 1 system is showing good performance with 90 percent availability, he added.

Lessons from disappointment

CBP’s acquisition team has traveled a long road to get to this point. And it's still a rocky path forward as the Border Patrol grapples with an urgent need to control illegal entries along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. The lessons learned from SBInet might help define what lies ahead.

SBInet started in 2006 with a contract awarded to Boeing Co. to build an integrated tower system with cameras, radars and a common operating picture. The initial system, named Project 28, suffered delays, technical glitches, mismanagement and shifting requirements before beginning operation in February 2008. The SBInet Block 1 followed and was completed in 2010, but members of Congress and federal auditors continued to criticize its high costs, totaling $1 billion to date.

In January, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano canceled the remainder of SBInet and declared that each of the nine geographic border sections would be analyzed to determine the best mix of technologies.

“I think it’s disappointing that we spent so much to get to this point,” said Borkowski, who became executive director of SBInet in November 2008. “We now have a tool that is available to us. It is a high-end capability. We got something, but I’m not going to say I’m not disappointed.”

“SBInet’s aspirations exceeded our needs,” Borkowski said. "We spent more than we should have."

According to the new plan, SBInet Block 1 will continue to operate. But DHS has shelved previous plans to extend it across the entire border.

The department expects to spend $750 million to acquire border technologies for the 370-mile Arizona border first, with $185 million available this fiscal year and $242 million requested for fiscal 2012. Those funds would pay for integrated fixed towers, remote video cameras, handheld devices, mobile systems and other technologies.

Border Patrol agents in Arizona have compiled a list of 48 combinations of technologies for use along the border, and several requests for proposals will go out later this year.

“We will have multiple RFPs,” Borkowski said. "We will be buying a bunch of systems."

Big bidders in the wings

An RFP for integrated fixed towers that combine integrated sensors and a common operating picture is likely to be released early next year, Borkowski said. Boeing is eligible to apply for the new integrated fixed tower systems, he added. Contractors that bid on the first round of SBInet — including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. — also are expressing interest.

“It makes sense that Arizona would be the place to start,” said Lee Hall, director of homeland security solutions at Lockheed Martin. “It also makes sense to use an incremental approach based on proven technologies — and to employ only those technologies that are relevant to a unique geographic sector’s needs. A one-size-fits-all strategy just won’t work."

Hall said Lockheed Martin appreciates the flexibility in the new strategy and has proven capabilities to offer CBP.

Northrop Grumman also plans to offer fixed location and mobile systems to CBP in the next phase of border security, said Cyril Draffin, vice president of homeland security at Northrop Grumman.

“We think that mission-critical solutions that are secure, scalable, cost-effective and reliable are characteristics that are important for border security,” Draffin said.

Boeing also might bid on the next round. “We are proud of the accomplishments of our team and of the unprecedented capabilities delivered in the last year that provide Border Patrol agents increased safety, situational awareness and operational efficiency,” that company said in a statement. “Boeing remains committed to providing valuable solutions and supporting DHS.”

What's in the toolbox

As Borkowski sees it, CBP will select various border technologies from a toolbox, and an integrated tower system with cameras, radars and common operating picture — but with less capacity than SBInet’s design — might fill a need. The design of SBInet Block 1 called for additional capabilities, such as being able to integrate feeds from blue force units and mobile units, which made that design more expensive, he said.

“We have critical needs to do something now,” Borkowski said. “We’d like the opportunity to pick and choose from the toolbox. A less ambitious SBInet could be useful.”

Having a baseline system in place and operating is helpful, Borkowski said. “Before SBInet, we had no integrated technology for border security, no baseline, no foundational technology. We learned a lot from SBInet.”

In the next phase, CBP will consider the lowest-cost systems first and will consider cost vs. effectiveness for every system. Borkowski described it as “a complete turning-upside-down of the earlier paradigm.”

Market analysts and industry executives see benefits in the new approach. “CBP needs to have clear requirements,” Draffin said. “They can do that upfront this time, so that is an advantage.”

However, some risks remain. Because of the scope of the challenge and need to possibly integrate many disparate areas, it is likely that mainly the larger systems integrators would be bidding, said John Slye, principal analyst at Input, a market research firm in Reston, Va.

“But it was this same issue — shear scope and complexity — that presented such a challenge to the existing program," Slye said. "The only way to avoid this is to build things modularly, testing individual components as you go.”

Even with such precautions, there is a risk of technological obsolescence as you get to later phases, which is a known issue with every large-scale program, Slye added.

“Ultimately, DHS needs to avoid the expectation that they can set out on a massive-scope program within a rapidly changing environment applying developing technologies and expect no delays and seamless operations,” Slye said. "Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes."

About the Author

Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week.

Reader Comments

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 Chilly Pepper So Cal

SBInet failed because the people running it from the Boeing side just didn't know what they were doing. I used to work there and have 1st hand experience on the program. From failing software to constantly failing radar systems they lifted from MSS. Boeing did everything wrong, and the taxpayer foots the bill.

Tue, Mar 29, 2011 Marvin No. Va.

I just love revisionists who claim SBInet was really a success. I agree completely that the govt, the govt contractor, and the govt's mission support contractor all failed. But the world's leading integrator was hired, and the subsys were all in use and proven. An airplane is a lot more complicated than this, but all the kings horses and men could not integrate it. Further, top officials, obscured, to be polite, the facts of failure from the Congress, OMB, and even the contractor's shareholders and the financial analysts who followed the stock. Anyone who touched that project should not be working on the latter day version of it. They should get the severest discipline that their organizations' allow.

Fri, Mar 25, 2011

It failed because the gov't does not want to secure the borders

Wed, Mar 16, 2011 Brent C

I am going to guess that none of you were involved in the SBInet program. I say this because I was on the project and the real problem was gross mismanagement. If you have people building something that is totally brand new and it is managed by three totally different entities with different management approaches the project is doomed to failure. After witnessing first hand what was occurring I am not surprised about the cost overruns. I for one am very happy that DHS took these steps to correct the problem and started looking at off the shelf items. When it's done we'll have a product that works in a timely manner.

Tue, Mar 15, 2011 SB

I agree. I suspect the issue was a combination of intransigence by both the govt and the contractor, but without any sort of report, who knows? The article notes the 'success' of 90% availability of the system. That sounds like a pretty low bar based on modern expectations. After all, this is operating in a fixed, civilian environment, quite different from the demands of unpredictable military scenarios. The way government procures these systems is always by trying to define the technology and it sounds like they are doing the same thing again. Wouldn't it be better to define the business reqs and award contracts based on operational availability against those targets? Let the market figure out how to provide the right level of service at the right price and don't over-manage.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here


contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.