BCD 1-2 (Oct. 2012)

October 2012Volume 1, Issue 2

www.BCD-kmi.com

Border Threat Prevention and CBRNE Response

Acquisitions Manager

Rafael Borras

Under Secretary for ManagementU.S. Department of Homeland Security

DHS Technology Partners O BiometricsRadiation Detection & Protection O Supply Chain SecurityPRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

LEBANON JCT., KY

PERMIT # 805

Special Section:

Border Security Roundtable

MARCH 2.1q&a

Mark BorkowskiAssistant Commissioner, Office of Technology Innovation and AcquisitionU.S. Customs and Border Protection

special sectionCBP 10 Year Anniversary

border security focusBorder Patrol Vehicle Review

cbrne focusNational Guard Civil Support Teams

featuresCounternarcoticsUnattended Ground Sensors Public Safety Networks

tradeshowsBorder Security Expo*Joint CBRN Conference*AFCEA Homeland Security Conference

closing dateFebruary 7

APRIL 2.2q&a

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector, Federal Bureau of Investigation

special sectionPublic Safety & Security Roundtable

border security focusMobile Surveillance Systems

cbrne focusCBRN Survivability

featuresCybersecurityEmergency CommunicationsBiosurveillance

tradeshowsGovSec East*Counter terror Expo (UK)ISC West

closing dateMarch 19

MAY 2.3q&a

David V. AguilarActing Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

special sectionHomeland Security Education Directory

border security focusTactical Communications

cbrne focusRadiological/Nuclear Detection

featuresDisaster Preparedness & ResponseAccess ControlIT Modernization

tradeshowsMaritime Homeland Security SummitCounter Terror Expo* (US)IAFC Hazmat 2013

closing dateApril 30

JULY 2.4q&a

Paul N. StocktonAssistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs

special sectionJPEO-CBD Project Management Update

border security focusMaritime Surveillance

cbrne focusChemical/Biological Defense

featuresLaw Enforcement TrainingAirport SecurityMedical Countermeasures

tradeshowsCBRN JIIM-IA*National Homeland Security Conference*AUVSI*

closing dateJune 13

SEPTEMBER 2.5q&a

John H. PistoleAdministrator, Transportation Security Administration

special sectionBorder Security Roundtable

border security focusCounterintelligence Operations

cbrne focusExplosives Trace Detection

featuresBiometrics & Identity ManagementCargo & Port SecurityCounterterrorism

tradeshowsBorder Management Conference & Expo*IACP 2013*ASIS 2013*

closing dateAugust 21

NOVEMBER 2.6q&a

Michael J. FisherChief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

special section2014 National Preparedness Grants Program

border security focusSecuring and Managing Borders

cbrne focusCBRNE Unmanned Vehicles

featuresGlobal Supply Chain SecurityCritical InfrastructureVideo Surveillance

tradeshowsHST’13*HALO Counter-Terrorism SummitEMEX 2013*

closing dateOctober 11

Border & cBrne defenSe

editorial calendar

This editorial calendar is a guide. Content is subject to change. Please verify advertising closing dates with your account executive.*BONUS DISTRIBUTION

2013

Border & CBRNE Defense OctOber 2012VOlume 1 • Issue 2

Features cOVer / Q&a

16

Departments

2

3

14

27

Editor’s Perspective

Frontline News

Security Watch

Resource Center

InDustry InterVIew

28

Rafael BorrasUnder Secretary for Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

TJ KennedyDirector of Public Safety and SecurityRaytheon Network Centric Systems

BiometricsBiometrics work to authenticate identity by verifying an individual’s unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints, hand and face geometry, or patterns found in the eye’s iris. Since these identifiers can’t be borrowed or stolen, biometrics provide identity authentication with a strong degree of confidence.By Peter Buxbaum and Brian O’Shea5

Supply Chain SecurityEnsuring that goods coming through U.S. points of entry are not counterfeit, illegal or part of terrorist activities involves properly securing the supply chain. There are several government and trade partner programs that aim to protect all goods en route to our borders.By William Murray and Brian O’Shea9

Better Radiation DetectionThe Department of Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office supports research and development of new technologies for detecting nuclear threats. New detection materials integrated into mobile and human-portable devices, coupled with advanced algorithms, allow for significantly improved detection.By Henry Canaday24

DHS and Its Technology PartnersIn the decade since its creation by Congress, DHS has been assigned and undertaken many tasks of national significance. While industry has worked hard to provide DHS with technology solutions, the results of this collaborative effort have not always been satisfactory. However, change—and improvement—are on the horizon for both DHS and industry.By Brian Seagrave12

Border Security Management RoundtableGovernment and industry leaders in border management and security solutions discuss the main challenges for effective border security and how can technology help alleviate those challenges.

19

How much control is too much control in cybersecurity? That seems to be the question lawmakers are grappling with in trying to pass cybersecurity legislation. Both Democrat and Republican bills have failed to pass this year, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently said during a Senate hearing that an executive order from President Obama is still being drafted and circulated to relevant agencies for final approval.

Obama still needs to approve the order; Napolitano recently told senators that the order is now “close to completion.” The executive order will supposedly mirror a failed cybersecurity bill by Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

The goal of the bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, was to improve the nation’s cybersecurity standards for networks and companies that deal with the power grid, gas pipelines and water supply, and transportation systems.

Meeting these standards is voluntary, but it’s been reported that the process was more mandatory than voluntary. If passed, the bill would have given federal agencies in charge of regulating critical infrastructure industries the ability to mandate cybersecurity recommendations.

“This has been a very interesting and troubling discussion in Congress,” said Napolitano at the 2012 Social Good Summit. “It gets to the question, which is ‘how does the government, which has overall security responsibly, interact with the private sector when an attack on private sector could have multiple rippling effects throughout the country?’ When you get into this debate, it’s a Washington, D.C., thing about government regulating the private sector.”

Napolitano added that any legislation that passes needs to benefit all parties involved. “I think regulation in the traditional sense isn’t the right relationship,” she said. “It has to be one of mutually beneficial partnership and responsibility … if you’re doing the balance statement for a private company, security for others isn’t something you can reflect on your own balance sheet, but it is a responsibility. That’s what government has: responsibility is shared equally.”

As of September 27, the executive order has yet to be passed. I hope it doesn’t take a cyber-attack of significant magnitude to motivate lawmakers into passing some form of cybersecurity legislation.

If you have any questions regarding Border & CBRNE Defense, feel free to contact me at any time.

Brian O’SheaEditor

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE


eDItOrIal

EditorBrian O’Shea [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison Donnelly [email protected]

Online Editorial ManagerLaura Davis [email protected]

CorrespondentsHenry Canaday • Peter Buxbaum • William Murray

art & DesIgn

Art DirectorJennifer Owers [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Graphic Designers Amanda Kirsch [email protected] Morris [email protected] Waring [email protected]

aDVertIsIng

Associate PublisherCharles Weimer [email protected]

KmI meDIa grOupPublisherKirk Brown [email protected]

Chief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Chief Financial OfficerConstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Executive Vice PresidentDavid Leaf [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff McKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Operations AssistantCasandra Jones [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

OperatIOns, cIrculatIOn & prODuctIOn

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

Data SpecialistsTuesday Johnson [email protected] Walker [email protected] Villanueva [email protected] Winston [email protected]

a prOuD member OF

subscrIptIOn InFOrmatIOnBorder & CBRNE Defense

is published 6 times a year by KMI Media Group.All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without

permission is strictly forbidden.© Copyright 2012.

Border & CBRNE Defense is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees

of the U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S.

All others: $65 per year.Foreign: $149 per year.

cOrpOrate OFFIces

KMI Media Group15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300

Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USATelephone: (301) 670-5700

Fax: (301) 670-5701Web: www.BCD-kmi.com

bOrDer & cbrne DeFense

Volume 1, Issue 2 • October 2012

KmI meDIa grOup leaDershIp magazInes anD websItes

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence

Forum

www.BCD-kmi.com

June 2012Volume 1, Issue 1

www.BCD-kmi.com


Border Protector

Michael J. Fisher

ChiefU.S. Border PatrolU.S. Customs and Border Protection

Wide Area Aerial Surveillance O Hazmat Disaster ResponseTactical Communications O P-3 Program

SPECIAL SECTION:Integrated Fixed Towers

Leadership Insight:Robert S. BrayAssistant Administrator for Law Enforcement/Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service

Border & CBRNE Defense

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.GCT-kmi.com

Ground Combat

Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Military Logistics Forum

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans

Affairs Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

Special Operations Technology

www.TISR-kmi.com

Tactical ISR Technology

www.USCGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard Forum

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffFRONTLINE NEWS

Security Software Contract AwardedLockheed Martin Space Systems Co.,

Sunnyvale, Calif., is being awarded a $26,159,047 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide for the procurement of security hardware, associated software, equipment installation, system test, accreditation, certification and delivery of nuclear weapon security (NWS) system equipment at Navy installations. This contract contains options, which, if exercised, will bring

the contract value to $37,612,863. Work will be performed in Kings Bay, Ga. (43.1 percent); Sunnyvale, Calif. (21.9 percent); Silverdale, Wash. (16.3 percent); Pittsfield, Mass. (9.8 percent); Cape Canaveral, Fla. (6 percent); and Simpsonville, S.C. (3 percent). Work is expected to be completed January 30, 2013. Work will continue through March 31, 2015, if all options are exercised. Contract funds in

the amount of $512,410 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. Lockheed Martin Space Systems is the only known source with the critical experience, expertise, personnel, facilities and in-depth knowledge of the NWS system equipment required. The Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

$504 Million For CBP Cargo

Risk Assessment Systems

Unisys has won a potential $504 million task order from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop systems for risk assessments of cargo and people entering the country. The company said it will also operate and manage those systems for the targeting and analysis systems program office, within Customs and Border Protection‘s office of information and technology.

Unisys received the five-year order, containing one base year and four option years through the General Services Administration’s Alliant governmentwide acquisition contract.

“This new task order builds upon Unisys’ relationship with TASPO and continues our longstanding presence supporting CBP’s mission-critical systems,” said Steve Soroka, group vice president for homeland security within the federal systems segment.

Unisys has worked with the office and its predecessors for 15 years. Under the cost-plus-fixed-fee order, the company will also operate and update the office’s applications.

The company also recently won a $139 million cloud computing order from the Internal Revenue Service through the Alliant vehicle, where it will move the agency’s information records to a private cloud platform.

Idaho Technology Inc. recently announced it changed the corporate name to BioFire Diagnostics Inc. to more accurately reflect its business strategy and strong momentum in the marketplace. The company also re-launched its website to reveal its new branding.

“We are excited to announce our new name to our customers and industry members,” said Kirk Ririe, chief executive officer of BioFire Diagnostics. “The new name reflects the passion and energy of the company and management team, and highlights our expanded presence in the clinical diagnostics market. We have established strong momentum in the diagnostics marketplace and the new branding under BioFire Diagnostics better reflects the markets we serve. We believe we are in an excellent position to continue building our business by driving growth of our broad molecular diagnostic product portfolio.”

BioFire Diagnostics will continue to focus on leveraging its novel FilmArray pathogen detection system to develop multiplex diagnostic tests for various clinical applications. The FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) is FDA-cleared for 20 viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens. BioFire now provides the only FDA cleared clinical diagnostic test for eight of the 20 organisms in its panel. In addition to the FilmArray RP, the company is developing similar FilmArray panels for pathogen identification in blood culture, gastrointestinal infections, meningitis and much more.

In addition to its enthusiasm around the clinical diagnostics space, BioFire will continue to lead in the development of reliable and sensitive biosurveillance products such as its PCR-based biodetection system Razor Ex and the FilmArray BioSurveillance System.

The Transportation Security Administration is dropping nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on compact, next-generation body scanners to better detect concealed explosives. The imaging machines, like other upgraded systems, hide a passenger’s body from TSA officers by displaying generic representations of limbs with suspect items flagged.

Three five-year contracts paying out a combined total of up to $245 million have been awarded to L-3 Communications Corp., American Science and Engineering Inc. and Smiths Detection, according to government databases. The procurement documents released during the past week do not disclose the number of machines

purchased or name the airports where they will be stationed.

Agency officials said the new body scanners will provide “enhanced threat detection capabilities and increased passenger throughput.”

The procurement documents state the next-generation machines can discern both metallic and non-metallic items such as “weapons, improvised explosive device components and plastic threats.”

The Homeland Security Department, which supervises TSA, is partnering with A-T Solutions on a five-year, $46 million project aimed at countering homegrown IEDs, the contractor announced on September 13.

Name Change Reflects Growing Breadth of Services in Molecular Diagnostics

TSA Pays $245 million for Smaller, Faster Body Scanners

www.BCD-kmi.com BCD 1.2 | 3

Compiled by KMi Media Group staffFRONTLINE NEWS

Threat Signal Simulator Program

Scientific Research Corporation, Atlanta, was awarded a $74,192,846 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the procurement of the Threat Signal Simulator Program. Work will be performed in Atlanta, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2017. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity.

Department of Homeland

Security BioWatch Laboratory Staffing

Astrix Technology Group (Astrix) recently announced it has been awarded the Laboratory Staffing Contract to support the DHS Office of Health Affairs BioWatch Program. The award is a five-year contract consisting of a base period and four option years with the total amount of the award exceeding $75 million.

The mission of the BioWatch Program is to provide and maintain a continuous bio-terrorism air monitoring system in large metropolitan areas. The program coordinates with state and local public health communities to prepare for and respond to a bioterrorist event. Established in 2003, BioWatch continuously monitors select urban environments 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Acting as the small business team lead in response to the DHS solicitation, Astrix partnered with A-TEK, the firm that has been supporting the contract for the previous eight years. The teaming arrangement between Astrix and A-TEK will allow the two companies to share and implement best practices to staff and support the BioWatch laboratories to help fulfill the program’s objectives.

“We are committed to working with our partner A-TEK to provide the highest level of quality and service to the DHS BioWatch program,” stated Richard Albert, CEO of Astrix.

Tactical Communications ContractGeneral Dynamics has been awarded a

contract to support the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Tactical Communications Equipment and Services (TacCom) program. The multiple-award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract has a potential value of $3 billion to all 30 awardees over five years, if all options are exercised. General Dynamics was one of five companies selected for each of the defined technical categories.

Through the TacCom contract, General Dynamics will deliver a full array of tactical communications products, infrastructure and services to DHS and its partner agencies, departments and components. Specifically, the company may engineer, design and install communications systems and provide key infrastructure components such as repeaters, routers, towers, generators and shelters. General Dynamics may also manage software upgrades, equipment testing, spectrum

analysis and frequency management functions, as well as provide operations and maintenance support for mobile radio and base station installations.

“General Dynamics is committed to delivering superior communications capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security through this program,” said Jerry DeMuro, executive vice president of General Dynamics’ Information Systems and Technology group. “We will leverage General Dynamics’ unique experience working with the department and our legacy of providing tactical communications and infrastructure systems for national security missions to meet Homeland Security’s critical requirements.”

This contract was awarded to General Dynamics One Source, a joint venture of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, General Dynamics C4 Systems and General Dynamics Information Technology.

Contract Awarded to Detect Chemical

ThreatsAgentase LLC, Elkridge, Md., was awarded an

$88,339,214 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the development of technologies for the detection of persistent low-volatility chemical threats. Work location will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of September 12, 2015. There were 100 bids solicited, with 45 bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command is the contracting activity.

$245 Million For TSA Imaging

Systems

L-3 Communications has won a potential $245 million contract to provide the Transportation Security Administration new imaging systems at airports, according to a September 17 contracting notice. TSA wants the Advanced Imaging Technology-2 systems to provide transportation security officers with threat detection capabilities, including locating potential threats concealed from view on a passenger.

The AIT-2 systems detect weapons, improvised explosive components, plastic threats and other metallic and non-metallic anomalies. TSA ordered reduced-sized systems, hoping they will provide an alternative to full-size systems and reduce the machines’ overall footprint for smaller checkpoint configurations. BAE Systems and NCR Government Systems helped the agency test a new boarding pass and passenger identification system in the spring with the goal of detecting fraudulent documents.

Modernizing Information

InfrastructureIron Bow Technologies, Chantilly, Va., was

awarded a $12,084,437 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the services in support of the Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program. Work will be performed in Fort Huachuca, Ariz., with an estimated completion date of March 11, 2013. Six bids were solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity.

www.BCD-kmi.com4 | BCD 1.2

IdentIty-basedmanagement programs

crossIng departmental boundarIes.by peter buxbaum, bcd correspondent

and brIan o’shea, bcd edItor

Might the use of biometrics have pre-vented the terror attacks of September 11, 2001? If a Florida state trooper had known of ringleader Muhammad Atta’s outstanding arrest warrant, he could have been detained a month before the attacks. The 19 hijackers could have been stopped at the airport before boarding those three fateful flights. Of course, all this pre-supposes that the terrorists’ biometric data had been on file, was accessible to the authorities, and was accompanied by information that justified their detention.

It’s a tantalizing proposition, one sad-dled by a lot of ifs, but one that under-lies massive United States government investments in biometrics-based identity management programs that cross depart-mental boundaries. The Department of Homeland Security’s US-VISIT program, put into place beginning in 2003 at air-ports, seaports and land crossings, obtains fingerprints and digital photographs of incoming foreign visitors and placed in a database called IDENT, which, with 100 million records and growing, is one of the largest biometrics databases in the

world today. The IDENT information is designed to prevent terrorists, criminals and those with past immigration problems from entering the country.

The Department of Defense has incor-porated fingerprint biometrics and facial images into its common access card (CAC), which controls entry to DoD facili-ties and information systems. The same goes for the personal identity verification (PIV) card, the CAC equivalent for civilian federal agencies. Additional biometrics, such as iris scans, palm prints, footprints and others are likely to be incorporated into the PIV card and US-VISIT programs at some point in the future.

Biometrics work to authenticate iden-tity by measuring and verifying an individ-ual’s unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints, hand and face geometry, or patterns found the eye’s iris. Since these identifiers can’t be borrowed or stolen, biometrics provide identity authentication with a strong degree of confidence.

In the case of US-VISIT, visa applicants are required to submit a set of finger-prints when they apply to an overseas

consular officer. Fingerprints of travelers from visa-waiver countries, those who are not required to apply for a visa in advance, are captured at the port of entry.

“This was one of the initial ways bio-metrics was implemented,” said Kim Mills, director of traveler entry programs at the Department of Homeland Security’s Cus-toms and Border Protection (CBP) bureau. “They are used to verify that the person issued the visa is the person presenting the visa at the port of entry.”

CBP also runs the prints against watch lists and databases to exclude those who are not admissible for reason of terrorist ties or past criminal activity. A similar procedure is used for the Trusted Traveler Program, which allows U.S. travelers expe-dited entry upon their return to the U.S.

Biometrics are generally used as part of either a verification system or an iden-tification system. A verification system checks a biometric presented by a specific person against the biometric already in the database linked to that person’s file.

“These are usually described as one-to-one matching systems,” said Charles


Li, technical director for intelligence and information systems at Raytheon Com-pany, the systems integrator for DHS’s IDENT database. “These require a sensor on the front end and a matching system, located remotely in a data center, on the back end.”

Identification systems are often referred to as one-to-many systems because they seek to identify an unknown person or unknown biometric. “In this scenario, someone new comes across the border and there is no record of that person in the system,” said Li. “These types of systems require a middle tier, sometimes called the transaction management level, which seeks to match a biometric to existing records or which sets up a new file if none is found.”

The federal government’s efforts in issuing PIV and CAC cards illustrate the potential as well as some problems, associ-ated with using biometrics for access control. In 2004, Presi-dent George W. Bush issued Homeland Security Presi-dential Directive 12, which required all federal agencies to begin a program of issu-ing high assurance verification cards to all employees for both logical access to federal com-puter systems as well as physi-cal access to facilities.

In March 2006, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued FIPS 201-1, a standard for PIV cards which required a facial image, as well as fingerprint biometrics, to be included on the cards. DoD’s pre-existing CAC effort has since been merged with the general PIV movement as far as the stan-dards to be followed.

“The original purpose of the PIV program was to provide a means to positively identify a cardholder by a stronger means than PIN presentation alone,” said Chris Edwards, chief technical officer at Intercede. “The initial application of this in the PIV envi-ronment was to make sure the right card

got to the right person. The person would be enrolled by presenting documentation and fingerprints, which were then sent to the FBI for a criminal background check. Then there would be a second visit where the biometric was used to make sure it was the right person picking up the card. These aspects of the program have been very successful.”

“But that is not what the biometrics on the PIV and CAC were meant to be used for,” noted Dave Adams, senior director for product marketing at HID Global. “The

card was meant to iden-tify the person carrying it. The way it has been used does not authen-ticate the person. The card is merely placed against a reader and if the card number finds a match in the database, the door opens. Federal agencies are only now starting to use the PIV cards for what they were originally meant.”

The delay came about because the PIV requirements consti-tuted an unfunded man-date. “The agency folks considered themselves compliant as long as they handed out the PIV cards,” said Adams.

But in early 2011, the Office of Manage-ment and Budget required all agencies to come up with a plan to implement all of the FIPS 201 requirements. That could, theoreti-cally, have included the authentication of finger-print and iris biometrics at the point of access, as was required by an early version of FIPS 201-2, a 2012 update of the original standards.

But iris scanning has hit a bump in the biometrics road. NIST recently published a second draft FIPS 201-2 for review that would make iris scans non-mandatory. The reason: The iris biometric

is too difficult and expensive to imple-ment. London’s Heathrow Airport is a case in point, as its iris biometrics program was pulled for those very reasons.

“The original draft required iris scans in cases where fingerprints couldn’t be used,” said Patrick Grother, a NIST computer scientist. “This would have been required some agencies to buy iris equipment and we received a number of comments complaining about how expensive a proposition that would be. So the new draft of FIPS 201-2 recommends that agencies use iris scans but doesn’t require it.”

A recent report from NIST tested the algorithms that drive one-to-many iris matching systems and found dispari-ties in their performance. The 92 algo-rithms evaluated exhibited success rates of between 90 percent and 99 percent, which means that some produced as many as 10 times more errors than others.

Iris capture proceeds along two steps. “First, the system finds the pupil and the boundary of the iris and the white of the eye. That is an image processing problem,” Grother explained. “The next is to repre-sent the texture of the iris. That is a pat-tern recognition problem. We found that those developers that paid more attention to the image processing step ended up with better algorithms.”

Another area that continues to hang up biometrics technologies—although progress has been made—involves the issue of interoperability. FBI, DHS and DoD biometrics databases are interoper-able, meaning that the systems can share and exchange data.

Interoperability has been driven by the development of standards and standards have been driven largely by the PIV phe-nomenon, according to Edwards. Many of today’s biometrics technologies are based on open standards and open architectures, noted Li, which facilitate interoperability.

“Data standards dictate how finger-prints and other biometrics are represented so that vendors can follow them,” said Li. “We have made big progress in this area.”

NIST has been instrumental in devel-oping interoperability standards and is working to expand them. The agency recently released expanded standards that cover DNA, footmarks and enhanced fin-gerprint descriptions.

Patrick Grother

Chris Edwards

[email protected]

Chris Edwards

[email protected]


“You can have a transmission that will include fingerprint, iris and palm data as well as a facial image,” said Brad Wing, biometrics standards coordinator at NIST. “We have plans to expand this standard to incorporate more modalities such as dental forensic and voice biometrics.”

But some interoperability problems still remain. “There have been standards pub-lished,” said Sudhi Umarji, president of Trusted Federal Systems Inc., “but that does not mean that everyone has implemented the standards in the same manner. There are options within the stan-dards. There are varying lev-els of implementation.”

Then there is the issue of existing systems. “A gov-ernment agency may have already procured an existing system that needs to inter-operate with another exist-ing system and they don’t have the budget to buy a new one,” said Umarji. “So there is a need to look at what can be done to improve the interoperability for systems that are already out there.”

US-VISIT is supposed to check biometrics against DoD databases, but DoD doesn’t have enough bandwidth to accommodate the volume of CBP requests, according to Mills. “We are working with DoD to upgrade their system to handle our expected vol-ume,” which can reach 100,000 requests per day, she said.

For Li, the future of biometrics will involve a multi-modal fusion of several biometric identifiers. “When you combine more than one, you get a higher degree of accuracy,” he said. “Designing a multi-modal biometric system is not a technical challenge. The technologies are there. It is just a question of a customer identifying such a need and a systems integrator could put it together.”

Using iris scans, in addition to finger-prints, would increase the reliability of bio-metric authentication, according to Doug

Sabel, the program manager for US-VISIT at Accenture Federal Services. “Finger-prints are the basis of the US-VISIT system and they work fine,” he said. “But using an additional modality would improve the

percentage of making a cor-rect assessment.” Accenture is the lead contractor on US-VISIT.

Accenture has partici-pated in pilot projects testing iris scanning at several U.S. ports of entry. “We are cur-rently collecting and analyz-ing the results,” said Sabel.

CBP is also interested in iris biometrics, but “it is too early to say if is viable or not,” said Mills. “We are testing dif-ferent technologies in a lab environment. Iris scans will never replace fingerprints, but it may be possible to aug-ment fingerprints with iris scans or other biometrics.”

Accenture is also working with CBP to store other bio-metrics such as scars, marks and tattoos. “We have the capacity to store these bio-metrics but are not yet in the process capturing them,” said Sabel. “That will be deter-mined at some future point.”

One company, EyeLock, says that it has the technol-ogy to make implementing iris scans quicker and easier. “Fingerprint biometrics has been used as the fallback in many systems because the iris technology has been

quite clunky,” said Tony Anto-lino, chief marketing officer at EyeLock. “The older technology required the sub-ject to remain perfectly still while the iris scan was captured. You need a faster, easier and more reliable system for use in airports. That’s why Heathrow replaced its iris program.”

Iris scanning has the potential to be an extremely accurate biometric identifier. “The iris contains 200 points of uniqueness,” said Antolino. “The left and right irises of a single individual are also unique to each other. The iris will stay near constant for an individual from infancy until death, while

Brad Wing

Doug Sabel

Tony Antolino

[email protected]


fingerprints can be changed. If you use both irises, the likelihood of authenticat-ing an individual with certainty is very high. Only DNA matching provides a higher degree of certainty.”

EyeLock’s innovation is to capture iris images on video at 16 frames per sec-ond, which ensures a good image capture and provides a more pleasant experience for enrollees. The company’s matching technology can identify subjects while in motion from a distance of four feet. That capability was proved in a DHS pilot at a border crossing in McAllen, Texas.

The McAllen demonstration did not seek to identify specific individuals but to identify patterns of border crossings. In other words, it sought to identify people who were crossing the border often as potential persons of interest. The EyeLock technology has been deployed as an access control system at the Bank of America headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., in health care facilities in Singa-pore, corrections facilities in Leon, Mexico, as well being integrated into cash management systems at Hilton, Hyatt and Lowes Hotels in the U.S.

Other companies also tout system that claim speedy processing of biometrics identification. MorphoTrak markets its e-Gate system, which uses facial recogni-tion software, sometimes combined with other biometrics, such as fingerprints, to speed travelers through airport security.

“The biometric match is made as trav-elers are moving through,” said Abby Mackness from MorphoTrak’s Federal Business Unit. “You might have one secu-rity guard monitoring eight lanes versus several people in one lane.” E-Gate has been deployed in Egypt, Australia and New Zealand. In France, e-Gate uses both facial recognition and fingerprints.

An emerging biometric technology that promises to move travelers quickly through security and ports of entry is called fingerprints on the fly. “It is a con-tactless fingerprint reader,” said Mack-ness. “You wave your hand over a plate and it reads your prints for identifica-tion. We think it could be a good adjunct for a biometric exit system.” Congress

has mandated the development of such a program.

MorphoTrak is working on such a sys-tem and CBP is following those develop-ments. “The technology shows potential but contactless systems are not ready for operational deployment at this time,” said Mills. “While we have yet to test MorphoT-rak’s fingerprints on the fly technology, we have found that other contactless sys-tems did not give us the matching quality when running fingerprints against a large database.”

Smartphones are likely to play an important role in the future biometric identification. Intercede is working on a device that can be plugged into a smart-phone, making it a PIV card biomet-

ric reader. “This will have applications in the case of security checks around a port facility,” said Edwards, “or where a security perim-eter has to be set up in case of an emergency.”

“Access control sys-tems could be continuously reading the biometrics of a person carrying a mobile phone and pre-authenticat-ing the person before he

gets to the door,” said Adams. “This can make the transaction at the door that much simpler and quicker.”

Another vendor of biometric solutions is Unisys, who has historically devoted sig-nificant research and development efforts for biometrics solutions resulting in the development of a commercial solution called Library of Electronic Identity Arti-facts (LEIDA), said Troy Potter, vice presi-dent, identity solutions, Unisys Federal Systems.

“We have designed and architected LEIDA as a vendor- and platform-inde-pendent solution of reusable identity arti-facts that can be readily integrated with a variety of other technologies,” said Pot-ter. “LEIDA is specifically designed to rapidly develop and deploy new identity management and biometric projects for numerous mission critical purposes such as national security, border management, military operations, identity entitlement and law enforcement.”

The LEIDA solution houses over 600 reusable artifacts that can be readily

integrated with a variety of other tech-nologies to rapidly develop and deploy new biometric projects, added Potter. LEIDA serves as a pallet in which reus-able components can easily be integrated with other third-party technologies, and it is loosely coupled to promote separa-tion between each layer of architecture. LEIDA was developed using industry best practices, leveraging proven open source frameworks that support the best modern design principles. The result is a platform that is highly extensible, reusable and scalable to rapidly deliver biometric systems.

LEIDA provides customers will a full end-to-end solution by integrating any number of distinct modules for the entire identity management life cycle: biomet-ric collection, enrollment, identification, verification, storage, expert examination, results, document production and docu-ment authentication, said Potter. LEIDA supports any combination of fingerprint, face, iris and signature collection and fused or single modality matching for identification, verification and watch lists, with integration of leading biometric technology or other biometric modalities. Most importantly, the LEIDA solution employs a scalable and repeatable service oriented architecture with gallery-sized implementations designed to exceed 100 million and is fully tested in field deploy-ments to scale to more than 250,000 bio-metric enrollments per day with service level agreements measured in seconds.

“Delivering adaptability through focus on reusability versus custom solutions is one of the many benefits of the LEIDA solution. By fully embracing the concept of reuse, we have created the LEIDA solution, whereby new capabilities are harvested and added to the solution as they are developed and refined, therefore immediately available for use in other implementations,” said Potter. “Just as important, but often overlooked, previous implementations can also be enhanced by leveraging those capabilities developed in subsequent implementations.” O

For more information, contact BCD Editor Brian O’Shea at [email protected]

or search our online archives for related stories at www.BCD-kmi.com.

Troy Potter


In order to ensure that goods coming through U.S. points of entry are not counterfeit, illegal or part of terrorist activities, the supply chain must be properly secured. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have three key programs to balance the goals of protecting the U.S. and goods being transported and maintaining the international flow of commerce. These programs use both voluntary and mandatory certifications.

The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) and Non-Intrusive Identification (NII) programs all face key tests in CBP supply chain security. Given the United States’ role as a global economic superpower and the fact that the vast majority of the supply chain is privately owned, properly securing the supply chain—the system of organizations, people, technol-ogy, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer—is a daunting task.

C-TPAT is a voluntary certification program sponsored by CBP that extends the U.S. zone of security to the point of origin for goods shipped by more than 10,000 providers. These companies

represent more than 50 percent of the import volume into the United States. Points of origin could include fisheries, farms, produce warehouses and factories. According to agency officials, C-TPAT uses industry best practices for supply chain security, such as points of origin and transportation link secu-rity practices so that contents of export shipping containers do not receive additional materials after the export contents are packed. A primary benefit of C-TPAT to importers is expedited processing of goods at U.S. points of entry.

“After the 9/11 tragedy, [CBP] knew the country’s imports were vulnerable to terrorist infiltration via smuggling of weap-ons, terrorists, or weapons of mass effect,” said Shawn C. Bed-dows, acting director, C-TPAT/Industry Partnership Programs at CBP. “Lacking international jurisdiction, CBP’s biggest challenge was how to secure global cargo from its point of ori-gin throughout its journey to the United States. CBP devised its layered defense strategy to mitigate this weakness, and the [C-TPAT] program was a key component of the strategy. As the owners of supply chains, the private sector had the leverage that CBP lacked to influence their global partners.

by WIllIam murray, bcd correspondent and

brIan o’shea, bcd edItorprotectIng cargo en route to our borders.


“The partnership aspect is very impor-tant since CBP has no jurisdiction inter-nationally and must rely on our partners to ensure their supply chains are secure,” Beddows said. “It also allows CBP to focus more resources on the portion of imports that are not being imported via our trusted traders.”

In addition to its progress on C-TPAT, CBP has also completed a pilot test with more than 14 million transactions for its ACAS program, Acting CBP Deputy Com-missioner Thomas Winkowski announced in March at the AirCargo 2012 confer-ence in Miami. CBP officials have tried to design ACAS so that air cargo companies and CBP would work together effectively to make it a more effective program. Through the NII program, meanwhile, CBP uses imaging systems and radiation detection equipment to detect anomalies between the contents of a shipping con-tainer and its manifest.

metrIc for success

One of the critical aspects of gain-ing perspective on CBP programs is how Congress, the Department of Homeland Security and agency officials measure success, according to Jim Hiles, managing director for National Security Solutions business development at MorganFranklin of McLean, Va. A former Navy supply offi-cer, Hiles retired in 2005 after 23 years of service, and his company’s clients include the U.S. Central Command and CBP. “How do you measure that nothing happened” when potential calamities don’t occur as a result of CBP programs, he asked. “Do you measure the effort applied?”

Hiles recalled that while a majority of cargo abroad comes to the U.S. through the sea aboard ships in containers, a key metric that CBP uses to determine success is shipments of containers through the air. It’s important that offi-cials at the senior executive level in the Department of Homeland Security and CBP understand such issues, according to Hiles.

In some cases, such as NII, CBP offi-cials may measure the program’s effective-ness by the number of systems in place or percentage of shipping containers that officials can inspect using imaging sys-tems and radiation detection equipment. In other cases, CBP officials may measure a program’s success, in part, by the volume of contraband seized at points of entry, according to Hiles.

C-TPAT is one of many programs aimed at securing goods from the point of origin

to their destination. To secure global supply chains, the World Customs Organization (WCO) has partnered with industry to create voluntary Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) pro-grams that provide benefits to both the government and to AEO operators. Customs requires that AEO operators cascade security

requirements to the business partners in their interna-tional supply chain. AEO operators periodically document whether or not their business partners that are eligible for AEO certification (carriers, ports, terminals, brokers, consolidators, etc.) are AEO certified. Business partners of AEO operators that are not eligible for AEO certification must provide written or electronic confirmation indicat-ing that they are meeting AEO security requirements. There are many keys to AEO program success and par-ticipation, said Bob Byrne, executive program manager, Office of Import Compliance and Supply Chain Security, IBM. The benefits for government stakeholders are the Jim Hiles

DLA’s Supply Chain Security ChallengesAt Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

and within the military logistics com-

munity, Al Banghart, defense supply

chains lead at Deloitte Consulting LLP

of New York, noted that counterfeiting

is a primary threat to the U.S. mili-

tary and defense contractors. In some

cases, offshore offenders substitute

a cheaper product for what a defense

agency ordered, and receive the origi-

nal agreed-upon price. This practice,

solely motivated by potential monetary

gain, can weaken not only U.S. military

preparedness but also the defense

contractor industry, said Banghart, who

served for more than 30 years in the

Navy as a career logistician.

Supply chain security is also impor-

tant in DoD because an adversary’s

successful disruption of key systems

could have a “catastrophic impact on

the data flow,” given the dependence

that logisticians have on information

technology. “It’s important that there

be no single point of failure,” Banghart

said. According to Banghart, DLA and

DoD logisticians have put a great deal

of effort into network redundancy and

backups, developing a counter-attack

strategy and forming cross-department

teams that can quickly react if there is

a network failure.

“Our adversaries are continually

probing our nation’s systems,” Bang-

hart said. He noted that the tsunami

that caused the Fukushima Daiichi

nuclear disaster in March 2011 showed

that natural disasters such as earth-

quakes and hurricanes can also wreak

havoc with logistics systems, but in

the case of Toyota and the Japanese

auto industry, the Fukushima disaster

did not hobble their ability to procure

parts as much as some experts had

predicted. “The network outside that

area healed itself pretty well,” he noted.

Thomas P. Machelli, executive

director of enterprise solutions at DLA

at Fort Belvoir, Va., said that the pres-

sures to become more efficient at DLA

have not resulted in any supply chain

security compromises, even as DLA

personnel have tripled their productiv-

ity in recent years. DLA, which man-

ages nine supply chains, recorded $40

billion in fiscal 2011 sales and revenue.

A colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve,

Machelli noted that DLA has invested

greatly in network redundancy so it

could meet warfighter demands posed

by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One advantage that DLA appears to

have over CBP is that it owns and con-

trols its supply chain infrastructure.


abilities to better manage risk and to utilize limited resources for high risk transactions. After demonstrating compliance, industry stakeholders benefit from a streamlined import process, reduced inspections and improved cycle time.

Byrne also stressed that there needs to be consistency in AEO program requirements, collaboration during program develop-ment between industry and trading partners and a commitment of skills and resources.

Bruce Wimmer, CPP, director, Global Consulting & Sup-ply Chain Security, International Division-Pinkerton Corporate Risk Management, agrees with Byrne concerning the benefits to stakeholders and added that by participating in supply chain programs, stakeholders will also benefit from an ability to better predict the delivery of components or finished products needed for business, and have an actual reduction in losses due to theft and pilferage. They will have an opportunity to enhance brand protection by improving security to a point that they have con-fidence their product is not adulterated and/or compromised during the manufacturing and supply chain cycles (especially important for food products, baby formula, pharmaceuticals, vehicle and aircraft parts). Companies can avoid a damaged reputation and demonstrate corporate responsibility by being reputable members of the business community that care about the safety and security of society. In order to reap these benefits, consistency and collaboration between industry, government and trade partners is key.

“All World Customs Organizations-affiliated programs make it clear that industry and government must work together,” said Wimmer. “It is vitally important. A table cannot stand on one leg alone; at least two legs—government and private sector—must work together if supply chain security is to be strong while the global supply chain moves products around the globe in a timely, efficient manner.”

There are a myriad of supply chain security programs, including government programs such as WCO’s AEO program and C-TPAT, but there is also the International Standard Orga-nization’s (ISO) supply chain security standard—the ISO 28000 series—as well as some association programs such as the Trans-ported Asset Protection Association program and Business Alli-ance for Secure Commerce.

“All of these programs have strengths and weaknesses,” said Wimmer. “By analyzing the programs and pulling the best prac-tices of each program, any company can have much more effec-tive supply chain security than those who try their own programs or just one of the above approaches.” O



Border and CBRNEJune 12, 20127.37w x 5.25hCoastGuardForum_2.2012indd

Our Security Requires Leadership and KnowledgeSecurity-related positions are expected to increase significantly. SUNY Empire State College offers leading-edge concentrations designed to maximize military training and work experience. Advance your career with a concentration in:

• Emergency Management• Homeland Security• Fire Service Administration• Computer Crime and

Security Management

Speak to a military advisor today.Call 888-372-0873 Visit esc.edu/military


The Department of Homeland Security will celebrate its 10th anniversary on November 25, 2012. In the decade since its creation by Congress, DHS has been assigned and undertaken many tasks of national significance. While industry has worked hard to provide DHS with technology solutions, the results of this collaborative effort have not always been satisfactory. However, change—and improvement—are on the horizon for both DHS and industry.

The attacks of 9/11 demonstrated that domestic security in the United States had not received necessary attention from govern-ment or industry. Civilian security budgets were traditionally rather modest prior to 9/11, and important and complex problems, like securing our borders, had been largely neglected for decades.

That trend dramatically reversed itself in the years following 9/11. Government homeland security entities were under pressure to solve big problems fast. Congress set ambitious goals for DHS in the Homeland Secu-rity Act and in other legislation, and budgets reflected those ambitions. With unprecedented mandates and resources—and hoping to achieve rapid gains in secu-rity—many DHS agencies undertook solutions that were large, complex and often expensive. However, DHS, as an aggregate of 22 legacy federal departments and agencies, did not have uniform experience in procuring and man-aging large integrated systems.

Industry rushed to both help DHS prevent another attack on the United States and to take advantage of new market opportuni-ties. But many companies had greater experience with customers in places like the Department of Defense, where clearly-defined requirements, established acquisition processes and experienced procurement personnel were common. Some companies struggled to understand the civilian security agencies that made up DHS, where operational requirements were in rapid flux and acquisition processes were less uniform and well-defined.

Most observers of the homeland security enterprise would agree that several ambitious programs have not lived up to expectations.

SBInet usually leads the list of troubled programs, but there are others that have experienced technical shortcomings or long delays, such as the transportation worker identity credential program to help secure ports; the transformation case management system at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which would more read-ily identify foreign nationals seeking to harm the United States; and the advanced spectroscopic portal program, which would detect and identify smuggled nuclear and radiological materials.

Government oversight entities have focused in part on the acquisition and program management abilities within DHS. The Government Accountability Office, which has issued many hun-

dreds of recommendations to DHS since its founding, could be paraphrased as saying: “You need a professional corps of acquisitions and requirements-setting staff; you should develop and meet technology program requirements and employ a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to identify maximum return on investment; you need to oversee and conduct testing of new technologies with proven practices; and you need to identify acquisition program baselines or starting points, program schedules, and costs.”

At present, DHS appears to be in the early stages of adopting new approaches to operations

and acquisitions, driven by rising stakeholder expectations, shrink-ing budgets, and its own experience implementing programs large and small. DHS is increasingly focusing on doing a better job with the resources it already has, or seeking the best-value solution from proven available commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products.

DHS seems to be moving towards a more risk-based approach to accomplishing its objectives—both in terms of underlying mis-sion risk and program risk. For example, the Border Patrol’s new Strategic Plan emphasizes its move from a resource-focused to a risk-based approach. The Transportation Security Administration has also announced that it plans to develop new risk-based screen-ing procedures.

by brIan seagrave

Brian Seagrave

ImprovIng collaboratIon betWeen dhs and Industry for technology solutIons.


Likewise, DHS has taken steps to implement an acquisition strategy that lowers program risk. This has not only included greater oversight of large agency programs. It has also included efforts by DHS agencies to improve procurement organizations and processes. For example, at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency created a new Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA) to establish better governance and integration of CBP’s applied technology and acquisition efforts. OTIA has already made clear that it intends to move away from more developmental, integration-heavy programs like SBInet in favor of lower-risk efforts that focus on mature, proven, stable, ready-to-deploy technologies.

These changes will challenge homeland security vendors, many of whom are still in the process of learning how to effectively support DHS. Companies that can support DHS’ direction toward a more risk-based, results-oriented approach to operations and acquisitions can play key roles in helping DHS evolve, mature and succeed.

Vendors will need to calculate how they can present low risk solutions to DHS. This can be manifested in numerous ways, but vendors should be attentive to language found in the draft contract guidebook for program managers issued by the DoD’s Open Systems Architecture Data Rights Team, entitled “Breaking and Avoiding Vendor Lock.” DoD devotes many pages to how an organization can get away from dependency “on a single manufacturer or supplier for product(s) and/or services.” Like DoD, DHS will have a healthy allergy to proprietary systems, software and sensors. That means vendors will need to ensure their offerings are “open.”

DHS knows that security systems are best able to adapt to changed threats when they feature an open architecture and a com-pletely modular design. Optimally flexible systems are built from independent, modular subsystems and components, interconnected by open standards-based interfaces both at the sensor-to-software interface, and at the software-to-software interface. In an open sys-tem, the internal structure of these subsystems and components is also modular and open-standards based. DHS is likely to prefer that all of the system components are built using COTS items, hosting software with commercial standard operating systems and infra-structure components, and interconnected by commodity network-ing components. This kind of architecture permits evolutionary development, new technology insertion, and competitive innova-tion. And, most important of all, a fast response to adopt improve-ments—which is the type of sophisticated and agile development DHS is seeking for the future. O

Brian Seagrave is vice president of Raytheon Homeland Security.

12AUAM1406 • AC-0255

LETTERS

FROM HOME

USED TOTAKE WEEKS

TO ARRIVE

MILITARY.ASHFORD.EDU/CBRNE866.858.1935

400 NORTH BLUFF BLVD. CLINTON, IA 52732




World’s Smallest and Fastest FBI Certified Appendix F Mobile ID Fingerprint Scanner

Integrated Biometrics announced Watson-Mini, the world’s smallest and fastest non-optical scanner to achieve FBI Appendix F certification. The FBI certified that Watson-Mini meets or exceeds all requirements listed in EBTS Appendix F Mobile ID SAP 45 as well as PIV-071006 of the FBI IAFIS image quality specifications.

Watson-Mini is the smallest, lightest and fastest Appendix F certified two-finger scanner in the world, weighing 85 grams and measuring 61 mm by 60 mm by 34 mm. Watson-Mini offers unique operational benefits compared to existing certified scanners include high quality imaging in dirty environments, no difficulty operating in direct sunlight, does not use a membrane, and does not require latent prints

to be wiped from the sensor surface. It can be used for both enrollment and verification in single, multiple or roll fingerprint applications. Watson-Mini is available in a form suitable for embedding in hardware or externally connecting through USB.

Watson-Mini utilizes Integrated Biometrics’ patented light emitting sensor (LES) technology. LES technology utilizes a highly engineered charged polymer film interacting with the specific properties of human skin to luminesce fingerprint images. Watson-Mini is provided with Integrated Biometrics SDK for Windows XP and later, Linux or Android 4.0 operating systems, and includes the functionality needed for efficient integration of Watson-Mini into your application and operating environment.

New Capabilities of Lynx Multi-mode Radar Tested on U.S. Northern

Border with CBPGeneral Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. (GA

ASI), a leading manufacturer of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), tactical reconnaissance radars, and electro-optic surveillance systems, recently announced that it has completed the successful integration and operational testing of its Lynx multi-mode radar, a next-generation capability that integrates synthetic aperture radar, ground moving target indicator (GMTI), and dismount moving target indicator (DMTI) radar.

Testing was conducted in May by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection out of its National Air Security Operations Center in Grand Forks, N.D. CBP continues to utilize an earlier Lynx variant in day-to-day border search operations aboard its Predator B RPA, also manufactured by GA-ASI.

“Utilizing the moving target indicator mode for detecting people walking or slow-moving vehicles from an RPA is a cutting-edge capability,” said Linden Blue, president, Reconnaissance Systems Group, GA-ASI. “The real paradigm shift is DMTI, which allows agents to detect extremely slow-movers, ranging from walkers or people on bicycles.”

The Lynx multi-mode radar expands agent situational awareness significantly, enabling them to detect, locate and improve high geo-location accuracy of a much wider range of moving targets. It also enhances the system’s ability to cross-cue Predator B’s other onboard sensors to pursue high-value targets and allows for improved target tracking.

Integrated into CBP’s Predator B, Lynx multi-mode demonstrated several significant performance achievements during the test, meeting all of CBP’s required specifications for the radar. The DMTI mode allowed agents to detect both very slow-moving vehicles and personnel moving (dismounts). In addition, the ability to select a GMTI/DMTI target and cross-cue the target to Predator B’s electro-optical/infrared sensor field-of-view was demonstrated.

The new Lynx multi-mode radar is a two-channel variant of the existing single-channel Lynx Block 20 radar. It utilizes enhanced radar techniques and a space time adaptive processor that permits a target to be imaged using a matrix rather than a linear array. This is a significant technical enhancement that improves the radar’s MTI capabilities, enabling the detection of people.

New Rugged Tablet PC MobileDemand, a leading tablet PC

provider, recently introduced the rugged xTablet T7200, the next generation of the industry leading xTablet T7000 Tablet PC. The xTablet T7200 meets military 810G standards for drops and shocks and has an IP65 sealant rating to protect against water and dust. It combines the functionality of a notebook, full Windows OS of a tablet and the portability and data collection capabilities of a handheld in a lightweight slate form factor. The reliability of the xTablet T7200 is ideal for any environment including transportation, field service, food and beverage distribution, manufacturing, warehousing, military and public sector.

The 7-inch high resolution touch screen display with revolutionary new xView Pro technology features a reflective mode for enhanced viewing in the most intense sunlight and a back-lit transflective mode for superior viewing in low light or indoor conditions. In addition, xTablet T7200 offers a built-in numeric keypad, optional bar code scanner, 802.11a/g/n WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0 and optional 4G LTE or 3G Gobi 3000 radio WWAN connectivity. Plus, the all new supercharged Intel Atom processor with dual core provides 2.35 times better CPU performance and 3.93 times

better disk performance to handle graphic intensive applications at a lower price than other high-end processors.

“The xTablet T7200 is our latest innovation and addition to the MobileDemand Rugged Tablet PC line-up,” said MobileDemand President Matt Miller. “It features our new xView Pro display technology which not only significantly conserves battery life, it offers enhanced viewing in bright sunlight to better serve the productivity needs of field workers anywhere. This reliable new rugged tablet PC offers long-term savings. Plus it has an upgraded processor for more power and performance to help users get more work done in less time.”

Maureen Szlemp;[email protected]


SECURITY WATCH

Respirator Designed for Diverse CBRN Environments

Dräger announced the release of the DHS 7000 hybrid system, an innovative respirator that uses Dräger’s worldwide leading breathing technology to ensure the purity of breathing air. Ideal for use in military, law enforcement and responder applications, the DHS 7000 will be available for sale in the United States and Canada beginning June 11, 2012.

“The DHS 7000 is designed for situations where seconds could make a difference in keeping a person safe,” said David Warnacut, product manager, Compressed Air Breathing Equipment. “This versatile system enables the wearer to quickly adapt to and overcome unknown hazards—whether chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear. For additional protection, we have removed several lights and alarms that could compromise the wearer’s location.”

New Management Platform for Agencies

NJVC is introducing a new cloud service framework for federal agencies to move their technology applications into a cloud environment, the company announced.

Cloudcuity Management Portal is a commercial, multi-cloud broker service specifically designed for customers, the company said.

NJVC is partnering with Gravitant to provide federal agencies Cloudcuity for agencies to test, configure and manage vendor-neutral cloud services through one online platform, President Jody Tedesco said in a release.

“This family of NJVC cloud capabilities, beginning with the Cloudcuity Management Portal, is designed for technology decision makers who must deploy IT applications to the cloud with transparency for managing risk and governance under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program and the Federal Information Security Management Act,” Tedesco said.

In July, NJVC signed an agreement with Oculis Labs to sell Oculis’ software used for protecting sensitive information on computer screens.

“The Cloudcuity Management Portal provides a secure environment for federal agencies to try out and test cloud programs before committing to a large-scale migration,” said Dr. Ilyas Iyoob, Gravitant’s director of advanced analytics.

Amazon, GoGrid, Savvis and Terremark are offering cloud services through Cloudcuity and NJVC expects Amazon’s GovCloud to be available through the portal by mid-October.

Cloudcuity automatically purchases cloud products and services once a user decides on what to buy, with users holding the option to change vendors at a later date.

The platform meets security standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Security Agency, according to NJVC.

Michelle Snyder; [email protected]

Border Protection and Security Systems for Customers Worldwide

General Dynamics C4 Systems and EADS North America have joined forces to deliver cost-effective border protection and security systems that leverage the command, control and communications expertise of General Dynamics and the proven border security solutions and industry leading radar and sensor capabilities of EADS. The combined expertise from both companies represents a perfect match for border protection and security systems, including the Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) program currently under evaluation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“This long-term partnership between General Dynamics and EADS will deliver a system that is based on operationally proven capabilities that will become an effective force multiplier for the U.S. Border Patrol. In addition to greater situational awareness overall, border patrol agents will also have the critical tools needed to rapidly detect, identify and respond to potential threats at the nation’s borders,” said Chris Marzilli, president of General Dynamics C4 Systems.

Cassidian, an EADS company, is a worldwide leader in global security solutions and systems, providing systems integration and value-added products and services to civil and military customers around the globe. Cassidian’s proven, modular and open command-and-control software has successfully provided multi-layered command, control and coordination of EO/IR, radar, mobile surveillance systems, unattended ground sensors and non-organic intelligence into an integrated common operating picture for the effective defense of national borders. The software can accommodate a wide range of cameras and radars to suit the needs of the mission and the environment in which it operates. Cassidian has installed more than 1,000 sensors on its border surveillance towers, and has demonstrated the ability to upgrade them quickly with minimal

software adjustments. The company has trained more than 10,000 agents to operate its intuitive user interface.

The General Dynamics-built Rescue 21 system is the U.S. Coast Guard’s tower-based command and control system for maritime search and rescue operations. Rescue 21 comprises 245 towers and associated command centers that monitor more than 41,800 miles of shoreline that include the Great Lakes, Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico. In collaboration with Arizona State University, General Dynamics also maintains a desert test range that demonstrates various tower-based, border security capabilities that include border patrol agents working in realistic scenarios to fine-tune these critical national security systems and capabilities.

The General Dynamics and EADS team also plan to work together to implement cost-effective systems and capabilities in response to other border security programs throughout the Department of Homeland Security.


Compiled by KMi Media Group staff

Rafael Borras was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security. He joined the depart-ment in April 2010. Borras exercises leadership authority over all aspects of the department’s management programs as the desig-nated chief management officer and chief acquisition officer. As chief management officer, Borras oversees management of DHS’s nearly $60 billion budget, appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and finance. As chief acquisition officer, he adminis-ters control over the department’s approximately $19 billion in procurement. Borras oversees the Management Directorate’s six lines of business—financial, human capital, information technol-ogy, procurement, security and administrative.

Borras has more than 30 years of management experience, including over 20 years in federal government and city govern-ment, and 10 years in the private sector. Prior to his appointment with DHS, Borras served as a vice president with URS Corpora-tion, a global engineering services firm.

Prior to joining URS, Borras served as the regional admin-istrator for the mid-atlantic region of the U.S. General Services Administration, where he managed an organization with more than 1,300 employees, providing federal customer agencies with real estate, supply and procurement, vehicle acquisition, and information technology services. Borras also served as deputy assistant secretary for administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce, where he was responsible for overseeing the depart-ment’s financial, personnel, information technology, budget, administrative services, acquisition and grants functions.

In city government, Borras served as deputy city manager in the city of Hartford, Conn., where he was responsible for the departments of finance, police, fire, code enforcement, informa-tion technology, purchasing, budget and human relations. He also served as deputy city manager of New Rochelle, N.Y.

Borras began his public sector career as administrative officer for the Office of the County Manager in 1982 with Metropolitan Dade County Government in Dade County, Fla.

Borras earned received his B.A. from Florida International University in 1981.

Q: How will the DHS acquisition process be improved by acquisi-tion management and reform?

A: One of the first management initiatives Secretary Napolitano asked me to take on was to develop and implement a strategy to transform acquisition management. DHS invests more than $18

billion annually in various acquisition programs, and it was criti-cal to achieve two key goals: improve the probability that our pro-grams were executed successfully, and reduce the risk associated with, and inherent in, the execution of our investment programs. In order to achieve these two goals, it was important to focus on the fidelity of our data, as well as the infrastructure the depart-ment had in place to help increase the probability of success.

One of my first tasks was restructuring oversight of major programs by creating the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management [PARM]. PARM manages acquisition policy, Acquisition Management Directive [D] 102-01, serves as execu-tive secretariat to the Investment Review Board, the department’s overarching acquisition governing body, and conducts indepen-dent assessments of major programs to inform leaders of any issues that need to be addressed to keep programs on track.

Secondly, I tasked PARM, along with the Office of the Chief Information Officer, to develop and implement a Decision Sup-port Tool [DST], a web-enabled business intelligence tool that provides DHS leaders, governance boards and program managers a central dashboard for assessing and tracking the health of major acquisition projects, programs and portfolios. The DST provides department leadership and program personnel greater visibility into health indicators, such as funding profile, cost, schedule and technical performance, milestones, headquarters assessment rat-ings, D102 compliance and risks.

Rafael BorrasUnder Secretary for Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security


Acquisitions ManagerImproving Probability of Success and Reducing Risks with Acquisitions

Q&AQ&A

To help reduce program risk, increase acquisition manage-ment capabilities and improve program performance, PARM led the creation of the Centers of Excellence [COE] for Acquisition and Program Management. Eight COEs are currently serving components and programs: Cost Estimating & Analysis, Program Management, Accessibility Compliance, Enterprise Architecture, Requirements Engineering, Privacy, Systems Engineering, and Test and Evaluation. The COEs are providing components and programs with workshops, best practices, guidance and expert counsel in their respective disciplines.

Finally, in collaboration with the DHS Office of Policy, as well as the Science and Technology Directorate, we are piloting new ways to improve our focus on requirements development based on departmental priorities as well as better threat analysis. The integrity of the DHS acquisition management process is improv-ing through a combination of a heightened focus on risk, aggres-sive emphasis on business intelligence to better predict program performance, the establishment of a robust support network to support program health through our centers of excellence, and active engagement across all of the management disciplines across the DHS enterprise. We know much more today about the status of our major program investments than ever before, and with additional planned enhancements, we will continue to drive down the risks associated with the investment of our taxpayer dollars in DHS program activities.

Q: How has the department worked to improve financial man-agement?

A: The DHS financial community has made extraordinary prog-ress in many areas of financial management and accountability. Notable is the rapid progress DHS has made toward having accurate and complete financial statements. When the depart-ment stood up in 2003, we inherited 30 significant deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting. Eighteen of those deficiencies were so severe they were considered material weak-nesses.

DHS has reduced the number of material weaknesses in internal controls from 18 to five, and increased the department’s auditable balance sheet balances to approximately 90 percent in fiscal year 2011. We have actively engaged with senior manage-ment and staff at the components, driving risk management activities and overseeing corrective actions to ensure continued progress. As a direct result, the department mitigated high-risk areas and prevented new material weaknesses, and increased the department’s auditable balance sheet balances in FY11to approximately 90 percent of its $173.7 billion in assets and liabilities—up from 63 percent in FY09—ultimately earning a qualified opinion on the department’s Balance Sheet and State-ment of Custodial Activity. Earning this opinion is a pivotal step to increasing transparency and accurately accounting for the department’s resources.

In addition, the department has reduced estimated improper payments from 7 percent in FY08 to less than 1.5 percent in FY11. We are developing additional measures—such as risk-based analytic tools and stronger internal controls—to further reduce the probability of future improper payments.

Our efforts began with what we call the “Tone at the Top” to enforce accountability and engrain awareness of the importance

of internal controls into the culture of the department. Secretary Napolitano challenged us to achieve an opinion on our balance sheet as well as building a sustainable, repeatable process to improve our overall financial performance. We have instituted new communication and governance structures to bridge the gaps between disparate component missions, processes and prac-tices. These structures include meetings where components can share best practices to fix departmentwide problems, as well as one-on-one audit risk meetings with component senior financial officers and issue-specific working groups. I am working closely with our CFO and the components to standardize business processes and internal controls, implement a common line of accounting, maintain data quality standards, and provide gover-nance and oversight of current and future financial management system enhancements.

Q: Can you provide details about the new homeland security grants program?

A: DHS provides financial assistance to individuals, families, small businesses, states, territories, local governments, educa-tional institutions and nonprofit organizations. In FY11, DHS grants programs provided more than $10 billion in assistance through the National Flood Insurance Program, Disaster Relief Fund payments and disaster recovery loans as well as by funding programs related to preparedness, recovery and public safety.

Given the fiscal challenges to the department’s state and local partners, DHS is approaching these partnerships in new and innovative ways. The administration has proposed a new homeland security grants program in FY13 designed to develop, sustain and leverage core capabilities across the country in sup-port of national preparedness, prevention and response.

The FY13 National Preparedness Grant Program will help create a robust national preparedness capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable state and local assets. Using a competitive, risk-based model, the program will use a compre-hensive process for identifying and prioritizing deployable capa-bilities, will limit periods of performance to put funding to work quickly, and will require grantees to regularly report progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities.

Establishing a financial assistance line-of-business is a key priority for department senior leaders. This will increase DHS stewardship over financial assistance from appropriation through award use to award closeout and allow us to ensure the funding is being used to meet program goals and objectives. Our efforts are also linking financial assistance programs to the DHS missions and to the National Preparedness Goal to establish rel-evancy and eliminate duplication.

Q: How has the new Grants Program been implemented?

A: In the last two years, we published the first DHS-wide finan-cial assistance policies, unifying all financial programs under one set of overarching requirements. This increased governance will also reduce applicant/awardee burdens by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of awarding entities.

We also designated the first set of senior accountable offi-cials [SAOs] for the financial assistance line of business. These SAOs must ensure delivery of transparent, timely, accurate and


complete award data for public consideration via USASpending .gov. In the year since we established this responsibility, we have increased the completeness of our data submissions from 25 percent to 90 percent.

Q: What has the department done in the area of workforce planning?

A: The Department as a whole has made great strides towards workforce planning. An example would be the component Cus-toms and Border Protection [CBP]. CBP uses advanced business intelligence tools in a systematic approach to conduct workforce planning. Specifically, we analyze both current and historical staffing data, applicant and management surveys, along with relevant civilian labor statistics to identify workforce gaps and trends and to develop workforce strategies. These strategies ensure that we meet both current and future departmental and agency requirements to include recruitment and hiring goals objectives. Finally, CBP utilizes various special hiring initiatives which allow us to ensure a qualified and diverse workforce.

Q: What is the department doing to evolve its efforts of secur-ing and managing our borders?

A: DHS has a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach to securing our borders. Some of the most conspicuous elements are the increased resources we have applied to border security. In addition to increases in our front-line personnel, we have added infrastructure like physical fence and roads and we have deployed various sensor technologies along the border. Our less conspicuous efforts are also very significant. We have adjusted strategies, doctrine and tactics so that our resources are focused on the highest priority areas and are not mis-diverted to lower risk areas. This contrasts with past approaches, which were focused on rapid growth in capability to stem the significant amount of illegal traffic we experienced in the past. Our cur-rent approach is more finessed and cost-effective and focuses on deploying our resources in a more strategic, risk-based manner. We collect tremendous amounts of data and we continue to improve our analytical capability so that we can predict how our environment and threats will change over time. By focusing on risks and improving our analytical capability, we can develop a better, more quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of our efforts. Consequently, we are better able to manage the available resources in this austere budget environment. We’ve adjusted some of our organizational designs so that our field commanders can better use the totality of DHS resources in a particular area and break through traditional stovepipes. We have put in place a consequence delivery system that tailors penalties for illegal entrants in a way that is more likely to discourage them from repeated attempts. Our data shows that these combined efforts have been successful in decreasing the number of people who attempt to enter the country illegally and increasing the likeli-hood that we can successfully detect and prevent those who do make the attempt. Having said that, it’s important to remember that effective border enforcement is intertwined with effective immigration policy—which requires immigration reform. As a nation, we need to put additional focus on understanding the relationship between enforcement and immigration policy.

Q: How is the Department of Homeland Security using acqui-sition processes to help advance the management of CBRNE detection equipment?

A: On September 8, 2011, I established an executive steering committee [ESC] and a commodity working group [CWG] for detection equipment. The ESC is chaired by my office while the CWG is chaired by the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. The CWG reports directly to the ESC and is responsible for devel-oping the coordinated approach to the acquisition and manage-ment of detection equipment.

Q: Can you tell me who comprises the CWG and what strategies are used in the acquisition management of CBRNE detection equipment?

A: The CWG is comprised of program and procurement repre-sentatives from the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Protection and Pro-gram Directorate/Federal Protective Service, Science & Technol-ogy, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

We tasked the CWG to deliver a recommended strategy to the ESC for detection equipment. This tasking required a descrip-tion of those types of detection equipment for which the CWG believes a strategically sourced initiative will be advantageous for the department and supporting rationale for that recom-mendation. It also required rationale for those types of detection equipment that the CWG believes are not conducive to strategic sourcing. Lastly, the tasking requested, where possible, that the CWG include a recommendation for which component(s) will be the executive agent for executing the procurement responsibility in implementing the strategic sourcing recommendation. This is part of a broader department strategic sourcing initiative, and an example of how we are broadening the scope of our strategic sourcing efforts.

Q: What steps has the CWG taken to advance the strategic source initiative?

A: The CWG has completed developing its initial recommenda-tions to the ESC on the types of detection equipment that a strategically sourced initiative would be advantageous for the department. The CWG has identified six types of detection equip-ment suitable for strategic sourcing that fall into the high-level categories of explosive/contraband detection, imaging, radiation/nuclear and metal detection. The CWG briefed the ESC on its recommendations in August and will be approved to move for-ward as a departmentwide strategic sourcing initiative. Addition-ally, the CWG will continuously look for opportunities for other detection equipment types as component demand changes.

Through strategic sourcing, the department will improve development and implementation of DHS-wide strategies for the effective and efficient acquisition of detection equipment. Strate-gic sourcing will enable opportunities to share services, resources and infrastructure across components, promote interoperability through joint solutions, and maximize economies of scale that fully leverage DHS’s buying power. O

Roundtable


Maintaining a secure border is crucial for preventing threats from crossing over

into our country. Those threats range from violent criminals to weapons

of mass destruction. The federal government plays a large role in

keeping our country safe. Although they are aided by innovation

from industry, reaching the goal of a secure border has

its challenges. Below, leaders in border security and

industry discuss how technology helps mitigate

those challenges.

Generally speak-ing, the primary challenge is the lack of information about those that

intend to and have the capability to come across the border illegally (whether by land or by sea) and not really knowing what potential threats they pose. That’s one of the things that the Department of Homeland Security, certainly in a post-9/11 environment, strives to do each and every day. It’s a huge chal-lenge given the geography: 2,000 miles of border with Mexico and about 4,000 miles with Canada—it’s a lot of open territory. We are constantly evolving and striving to adapt

to the ever-changing environment in which we operate and to the evolving and dynamic threats that we face within this country as it relates to our national security mission.

As far as technology goes, it’s critically important. Whether it’s the Predator Bs, the cameras, seismic sensors, or ground-based radar, we’ve got more feeds on things that are happening out there than ever before. Communication is critical too, whether it’s in the clear or encrypted, which is how most of our agents are operating right now. Tactical communications for us is everything from pushing voice and data across a broader bandwidth. This provides our agents a greater sense of situational awareness and affords

the ability to provide a common operating picture for the decision-makers in the field to get a broader sense of what’s happening; to be able to deploy and re-deploy resources against the greatest risks.

Ultimately, though, what matters most in the end is the last 50 feet. Because at the end of the day, in order to stop a particular threat it’s going to take a Border Patrol agent being able to close that last 50 feet to be able to identify, classify and stop that threat. There is no technology that I have seen that’s going to be able to close that 50 feet other than the border patrol agents. In my estimation, they are and will continue to be the most valuable asset that we have in this organization.

Michael J. FiSherChiefU.S. Border Patrol

What are the main challenges for effective border security and how can technology help alleviate those challenges?Q

Roundtable

Border SecurityManagement

Special Section


One of the main challenges is mak-

ing sure we all have a common understand-ing of what we mean by border security. In this context, I believe what we’re talking about is the security and sanctity of our borders between the ports of entry.

The challenge that we have is the mag-nitude of the problem—the number of people coming across the border and the difficulty in segregating risk among those people. There are different levels of risk. There’s a ranked ordering of risk with the large number of people coming across, most of whom are not high risk. Those who are not high risk are not violent criminals, they’re not terrorists, they’re not carrying weapons of mass destruction, and they’re not drug smugglers.

We don’t want to deal with border secu-rity as a brute force problem. Also, we’re in a resource-constrained environment. So the challenge becomes making sure that we have a good assessment of where we should apply resources. Then we must confirm that and make sure if that changes—if there’s a movement of activity to an area that didn’t used to have activity—then we can detect that proactively and respond to it.

How does technology play into that? Traditionally when we look at technology,

specifically between the ports of entry, we use it to help us know what’s going on. In order to secure the border, two conditions must be met: I want to know what’s hap-pening and I want to have the capacity to respond to it.

Border patrol agents can both watch the border and respond to what they see. They’re really the most valuable asset, because they can do everything. Technology can only do the first of those conditions: It can let me know what’s going on. However, it doesn’t have the capacity to respond to the information.

Technology doesn’t do a very good job of responding, although there are some tech-nologies that can help border patrol agents be more efficient in their response. Technol-ogy helps us know what’s happening.

We have things like unattended ground sensors, night vision goggles and long range infrared sensors, radars, cameras, airplanes, helicopters and UASs. Their basic function, generally speaking, is to give us information that we can provide to the border patrol agents so that they can more effectively and efficiently respond.

Technology can play a part in helping us identify if there’s a change in a region of the border. If we see something, we want the immediate capacity to respond to it. That’s

the way we’re trained and that’s the way we’ve done things in the past. We’re talking about using technologies in areas where we don’t currently have a response capability, and we’re using it to collect more strategic information that tells us whether things are changing, or if assets need to be redeployed to deal with the situation.

Technology also helps us measure and track changes in behavior, changes in per-formance, so that we can make more stra-tegic decisions about how we ought to best deploy resources over time. However, as we use the kinds of technology I already discussed, and as they becomes effective, our adversaries react. Examples of how they react are increased use of tunnels, ultra-light aircraft, or getting on panga boats and going out into the ocean and going around the typical land borders. So now there’s dif-ferent technology that’s required to adapt to the evolution of the threat. Technology that can help us identify activity that represents tunneling, or technology that can better help us detect and interdict ultra-light air-craft, or technology that can help us identify when something that shouldn’t be going on out in the ocean is occurring—that is the evolution of technology. We must be prepared to adapt our technology as our adversary adapts to us.

Since 1636, the National Guard has played a role

in protecting the lives and property of the American people, and has been active in securing the Southwest border from the 1916 Mexican Border Crisis forward.

Today, the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for securing the borders. The National Guard’s role is to provide requested support when appropri-ate, lawful and approved by the president or secretary of defense. National Guard units can also provide support to law

enforcement agencies (LEAs) along the borders while under the control of their state governors, according to individual state laws.

The unique Southwest land border environment presents a challenge to many aspects of border security. The geography hosts a variety of landscapes, from des-ert to mountains, and remote wilderness to highly populated urban environments. The Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) operating along and across our bor-ders have also demonstrated themselves to be an adaptive threat. The National Guard

employs militarily unique skills and capa-bilities that domestic LEAs do not have or cannot replicate, that help mitigate these two challenges.

In July 2010, the National Guard began the deployment of 1,200 personnel to the Southwest border as part of the U.S. Bor-der Patrol’s Operation Phalanx. Initially, the bulk of these Guardsmen, under the command and control of their state gover-nors, served as Entry Identification Teams manning ground observation posts in order to report on potential illegal border crossings.

Mark BorkowSkiAssistant Commissioner Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition (OTIA)U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Special Section

arMy MaJ. Gen. Gerald w. ketchuMDirectorNational Guard Domestic Operations and Force Development


Tunnel detec-tion expertise or mil i tary-unique

technology is requested frequently by the U.S. Border Patrol, Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. government has sought technology to detect tunnels for decades. Since 1991, 175 tunnels have been detected along the northern and southern border of the U.S. Along the Southwest border, the problem continues to escalate as U.S. Bor-der Patrol agents tighten security. Criminal organizations that smuggle drugs are being forced to go underground. There are likely numerous undiscovered tunnels. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have also faced challenges detecting tunnels of prisoners seeking to escape from theater internment facilities. These tunnels have varying levels of sophistication and range from human-sized gopher holes to 90-foot deep, highly sophisticated structures.

Multiple government agencies, national laboratories, academia and commercial ven-dors have proposed and demonstrated pro-totype counter-tunnel technologies against known tunnel targets. All proposed technical solutions lacked maturity to produce reliable and consistent tactical results. The systems either produced massive amounts of data that were not easily understood or produced unacceptably high false alarm rates. Law enforcement agencies had very little confi-dence in either the accuracy or tactical utility of the systems. Tunnels were found primarily through informants or even by water trucks

used to settle dust on the federal easement collapsing the structures with their weight.

In 2010, United States Northern Com-mand, a combatant command charged with defending the homeland, initiated a technical program at the request of its subordinate command, Joint Task Force North, Fort Bliss, Texas. JTF-N is the primary military entity charged with supporting law enforce-ment in counter-drug issues.

USNORTHCOM, working with the Department of Defense Rapid Fielding Direc-torate and the Army Corps of Engineers-Engineer Research Development Center, initiated a program called the Rapid Reaction Tunnel Detection Joint Capability Technol-ogy Demonstration in 2010. The impetus of this program was to develop and mature technology that would assist DoD soldiers in detecting tunnels in overseas theaters. The technology would readily be transitioned to assist border patrol agents, who are man-dated to identify, interdict and remediate tunnels along the Southwest border.

The technology developed by DoD through the next three years includes sen-sors that are both passive and active. These systems were subjected to stringent opera-tional testing and readily demonstrated the ability to detect tunnels. One challenge fac-ing the team, however, was the wide variety of geologic conditions that exist along the border. In addressing this challenge, it was determined that a family of systems would be the answer to best detect tunnels. These technologies could perform individually or be coupled with one another in most geo-logic conditions. The program has demon-strated high technical maturity and is now operational primarily in overseas theaters, and are available upon request by the U.S. Border Patrol.

In March 2012, the nature of the mis-sion changed from static observation posts to one of mobile, flexible and adaptive aerial detection and monitoring of the border. Helicopters mitigate many of the geographical challenges of the Southwest border, allowing observation of remote and rugged terrain, the ability to observe larger areas from a long distance, and flexibility to easily shift observation to new areas along an expansive border.

National Guard OH-58 Kiowa and

UH-72 Lakota helicopters, along with RC-26B fixed-wing aircraft, all specially config-ured with systems to record and stream day/night real-motion video and equipped with LEA-compatible communications, provide our USBP partners with the ability to rap-idly react to changes in TCO operations.

Throughout Operation Phalanx, soldiers and airmen have also served as criminal ana-lysts supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this role, they provide specific reports regarding historical,

investigative and predictive analysis related to TCO operations and other cross-border activity.

Operation Phalanx builds upon the unprecedented cooperation and teamwork established between federal agencies and the National Guard during Operation Jump Start (2006-2008) and the working rela-tionships the National Guard has with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies through National Guard State Counterdrug Programs.

Special Section

aMy l. clyMer Operational ManagerRapid Reaction Tunnel Detection Joint Capability Technology Demonstration /United States Northern Command


Diversity of terrain, the ever-changing tactics of

those trying to illegally cross the border, and the information and communication needs required to provide sufficient data to anticipate the actions of the transnational

criminal organizations (TCOs) are among the many challenges of border security.

The geographic diversity of mountains, desert, foliage, water and extreme tem-peratures of the Southwest border creates a challenging environment to detect, clas-sify, and identify of items of interest. We

know “one-size-fits-all” approaches do not work with the variety of sensing technolo-gies.

The tactics exercised by the TCOs cre-ate a “cat and mouse” game as new tech-niques are used to smuggle goods and people across the border. This quickly

Gordon keStinGVice President for Homeland Security SolutionsElbit Systems of America LLC

The two main challenges to effective border security are the

safety of the border agents and efficiency of the security mission. Border secu-rity is demanding. The environment is austere with rough and dense terrain. Much of the work performed by agents is done at night, making it even more diffi-cult. Technology provides external senses for the agents to enhance their situa-tional awareness. Whether an unattended ground sensor that provides proximity awareness, an aerostat that provides views

into a valley, or an integrated fixed tower that detects, tracks, identifies and clas-sifies activity at long range, the result is the same—increased safety and efficiency of the response.

As with any operational environment, safety is paramount. Technology provides information that increases safety. Know-ing where illegal or dangerous activity is taking place allows agents to safely plan their route of engagement. Understand-ing where illegal crossers may be located allows agents to build a response plan so that they are on the offensive.

Technology also increases agent and

mission efficiency. Situational awareness allows tactical agents in the field to deter-mine the type and size of the response required. If there is a non-threatening, small group of people, then only a cou-ple of agents may be required; agents can respond at their choosing with the extra “eyes” provided by technology. Or, if the group is carrying drugs or weapons, agents might choose a larger response with stronger weaponry. No matter the case, technology gives agents the upper hand before the engagement ever occurs. Technology helps puts the right resources at the right place for border security.

Stephanie c. hill PresidentLockheed Martin IS&GS - Civil

The main chal-lenge to border security is the abil-

ity to effectively utilize the diverse set of tools necessary for the detection and assessment of border incursions so that appropriate responses can be planned, resourced, executed and adjudicated effec-tively and in a timely manner. As solutions are deployed to border regions, the flow of incursions adapts to the tools deployed to curtail them. Thus, effective border security can only be achieved through the implementation of a wide variety of fixed and mobile, airborne and terrestrial, manned and unmanned assets, each serving

a purpose to address specific terrain and threat types. The integration of these assets (those in use today as well as those utilized to combat future threats) into a common operational picture becomes paramount. Of course as more information is presented to an operator, a different concern arises—over-saturation of the operator with data, rather than actionable, event-driven infor-mation. An enterprise-level C4I system provides the means for effective operator interaction with the various tools and subsystems.

For the Integrated Fixed Tower pro-gram, Northrop Grumman offered a solution based on open standards-based

components to integrate field-proven detection and assessment devices. The Northrop Grumman architecture provides a foundation for future expansion enabling situational assessment at the field agent to multi-AoR situational awareness through centralized oversight of all IFT AoRs. This architecture also allows seamless expan-sion of the IFT system to include other detection, surveillance and situational awareness systems. Our mature C4I system employs a human-machine interface that reduces operator workload by providing the right mix of operator immersion in the surveiled environment through an event-based assessment and response interface.

Michael danick DirectorCritical Infrastructure and Force Protection / Defense Systems DivisionNorthrop Grumman Information Systems

Special Section


Technology is supposed to make life easier, but often it has the opposite effect: placing an additional burden of learning curve and information overload on the user. If technology advances are applied correctly, they should actually make an agent’s job easier and reduce workload without the requirement of extensive training.

For example, when a border agent is using a radar with a low scan rate for wide-area surveillance, he or she can see radar plots, but must evaluate all of them to decide how to proceed: build a track or slew the camera to confirm the nature of the item of interest (IOI), and that’s if the IOI is within camera range. A radar with a very high scan rate, such as one with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) tech-nology, can eliminate this time-consuming burden by automatically displaying tracks of all moving IOIs.

In addition to displaying IOI tracks, an AESA radar also can classify their nature—vehicles, people, animals—even at more than 7 miles away. Once the operator has identified a target to watch more closely, the AESA radar can track that IOI while continuing to perform wide-area surveil-lance.

However, even this sort of technology advancement is of little use if it is difficult for agents to access and process the data it provides. The ultimate goal when design-ing a human-machine interface must be to truly understand the way agents work: what information they need most and what they do with it.

In a smartphone world, elegant solu-tions such as intuitive symbology and simple mapping and menu navigation structures ensure operators can quickly become proficient with new technologies. If detection, tracking, identification and classification are easy and intuitive, agents on the ground can better intercept and prosecute illegal activities. O

Special Section



adapting threat employed ultra-lights, semi-submersibles, tunnels and even UAVs. Each of these measures requires a different set of technologies to counter them.

An open architecture system supporting a variety of sensing modalities to address the diversity of terrain coupled with communi-cation technologies enabling collaboration is the solution. This is best highlighted by Israel’s border security system deployed by Elbit Systems. Hosting a variety of manned and unmanned sensing technologies, data is routed through a communications network

using a variety of wide and narrow band technologies to a common operating pic-ture, allowing the team to coordinate an effective response to threats. Reliable and trusted technology is a necessary contribu-tor to the overall success of critical border security missions facing today’s challenges.

Human intelligence, with information capabilities providing critical data to ana-lyze the threat, is essential for facilitating a rapid response to border incursions. Elbit’s technology provides common situational awareness to all segments of the response

team, at headquarters or in the field, allow-ing a quicker response from detection to action.

Once border security is achieved, the challenge becomes one of maintaining con-trol with minimal impact on the local popu-lation. Based on our experience, Elbit found that unmanned technologies play a key role at this stage. Unmanned ground sensors, unmanned air systems, unmanned ground vehicles and unmanned surface vehicles can successfully fill the surveillance role with minimal disruption to the community.

JoSeph Valenzuela Director Border Security Solutions / EADS North America


The Department of Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) supports research and development of new technologies for detecting nuclear threats. DNDO works with federal agencies, local governments and private firms to advance and deploy detection technologies for the Transportation Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Coast Guard and other federal agencies.

New detection materials integrated into mobile and human-portable devices, coupled with advanced algorithms, allow for sig-nificantly improved detection, according to DNDO Acting Director Dr. Huban Gowadia. “Frontline responders and law enforcement officials now regularly use detection equip-ment to search for, find and identify nuclear materials in the field,” Gowadia said.

But fundamental challenges remain: dis-tinguishing signal from noise; increasing detection speed and distance; dealing with shielded materials; and operating in chal-lenging environments, such as on water and in rugged terrain.

Current detection systems include small personal radiation detectors, handheld radio-isotope identification devices (RIIDs), large, fixed radiation portal monitors and mobile detectors mounted in ships or vehicles and backpack detection systems.

“DNDO led the development of a next-generation RIID,” Gowadia noted. “Based on an enhanced detection material, lanthanum bromide and improved algorithms, this new handheld technology is easy to use, light-weight and more reliable, and because it has built-in calibration and diagnostics, it has a much lower annual maintenance cost.”

DNDO is now working on more advanced systems that will be cost-effective, capable of wide-area searches in cluttered environ-ments and scanning general aviation and

small vessels and can detect nuclear threats even when heavily shielded.

For example, DNDO has explored alter-natives to using scarce Helium-3, including tubes based on boron or lithium. Gowa-dia says these alternative neutron-detection technologies are now commercially available.

DNDO’s Advanced Radiation Monitoring Device exploits the efficiency and energy resolution of emerging detector crystals, such as strontium iodide and cesium lith-ium yttrium chloride, to develop smaller and more capable detection systems. “The detector materials have sufficiently matured where they are now commercially available,” Gowadia noted.

The Long Range Radiation Detection project seeks to detect, identify and locate radiation sources at stand-off distances with passive gamma-ray technology. Demonstra-tions have been conducted and “DNDO is assessing the potential for further develop-ment based upon operator feedback,” Gowa-dia said.

Networked detectors, developed under DNDO’s Intelligent Radiation Sensor Sys-tem project, are intended to detect, identify, locate and track threats across distributed sensors. This could be highly useful for detection at special security events, between ports of entry along land borders or scanning general aviation and small vessels.

To address the shielding challenge, DNDO’s Shielded Nuclear Alarm Resolution (SNAR) project seeks advanced active inter-rogation systems to detect special nuclear material and to resolve alarms with con-fidence. Technologies under SNAR review include induced fission, high-energy back-scatter and nuclear resonance fluorescence.

CBP’s main priorities in radiation detection are sustainment of currently deployed capa-bilities and development of transformational

technologies that detect multiple types of contraband, including illicit radioactive and nuclear material, according to LaFonda Sutton-Burke, director of Non-Intrusive Inspection. CBP also wants to increase both detection efficiency and to speed the flow of legitimate commerce.

CBP is focusing on a number of emerg-ing technologies developed in the com-mercial market and by joint industry and government initiatives. “CBP considers development of hardware and software that better distinguish between naturally occur-ring radioactive materials and illicit materi-als an important need,” Sutton-Burke said. The agency also wants to deploy integrated non-intrusive inspection systems that com-bine compact radiography with a portal for detection of nuclear materials in vehicles.

Meanwhile, private firms are advancing in similar directions: improving the sensitiv-ity of detectors to radiation threats, reducing erroneous false alarms, enabling radiation searches over wide areas and tying detection tools together in networks.

Ametek’s Ortec Business Unit has devel-oped its Detective-SPM [Spectroscopic Portal Monitor), and a highly mobile Detective-200, explained Frank Vorwald, Ametek division vice president and Ortec business unit man-ager.

Detective SPM offers the best source identification of any passive system for detecting nuclear materials, simultaneously detecting and identifying any source of radia-tion, Vorwald said. Algorithms enable real-time response and have a false alarm rate of very much lower than 0.1 percent. “Other portals have a false alarm rate or 4 percent,” Vorwald said.

The SPM can detect and correctly iden-tify uranium and plutonium, even when shielded or masked. It uses 16 high-purity

usIng the latest technology to detect threats. by henry canaday, bcd correspondent


germanium crystals as gamma ray detec-tors to identify and classify gamma-emitting radio-nuclides. Detection and identification probabilities are both in excess of 95 percent. Eight crystals on each side enable SPM to process trucks going five miles per hour. Real-time detection with very few errors saves major time and delay when checking out a stream of trucks at a checkpoint.

SPM is modular, built on an interchange-able detector module that can be swapped out for service when necessary, yielding high availability and limited down time. Batteries are built in, so units can continue to oper-ate for three hours if power is disrupted. And SPM is extremely rugged, designed to withstand temperatures up to 52 degrees centigrade.

Ortec is working with a firm that pro-vides X-ray inspection. Unlike other radiation detectors, SPM is not sensitive to X-rays, so the two tools can be integrated in a single machine. “They can go through an X-ray and radiation-detection portal all at once,” Vorwald noted. A lithium-6 neutron detector can also be integrated with the Ortec device.

SPM is now being tested at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Vorwald said early indications are that tests are going very well.

There is strong interest in a number of terri-tories in improving nuclear security through the deployment of these systems.

Ortec’s Detective-200 uses the same kind of detection technology in a portable, rug-ged device. “You can drop it in a river and it floats, or drop it 6 feet and it bounces up,” Vorwald said.

This model is designed for searches—for example, Coast Guard patrols in harbors or roving land searches in the back of a Tahoe—at fixed choke points or possibly for temporary use at major sporting events like the Olympics.

Weighing less than 50 pounds, Detec-tive-200 enables users to design their own mobile nuclide detection solutions. The equipment produces the same low false alarm rates and ability to detect even shielded nuclear materials as SPM.

Vorwald estimates Ortec’s approach is six times more effective at identifying specific nuclear materials than traditional sodium iodide tools. Ortec tools need only initial calibration, rather than repeated calibration in operation, saving costs in maintenance.

Ortec has been working on its algorithms and techniques for cooling germanium crys-tals for many years. Vorwald is confident

Ortec has made a “big leap beyond what others can do.”

Bruker Detection offers a radiation back-pack, the Sentry, which detects radiation and identifies radioactive isotopes, said Frank Thibodeau, vice president for business devel-opment. “The Sentry is well suited for spe-cial-event coverage for monitoring of areas and large gatherings to pre-emptively find radiation sources that may pose a threat. The Sentry is also well suited to monitor and survey large areas after accidental radiation events or after natural disasters that cause radioactive fallout.”

Sentry has a sensitive crystal that dis-tinguishes isotopes as coming from natural, man-made, industrial, medical or possibly weaponized radioactive sources. It then makes an audible report of its findings, almost instantaneously, to the operator, detailing the actual isotope, the level of activ-ity, and the direction and a plot of intensity.

Thibodeau emphasized that the Sentry is light in weight, easy to operate, fast, sen-sitive and a cost-effective way of monitor-ing and identifying radioactive threats. The device has only recently been introduced to the market, but Thibodeau said it will be the basis for a modular radiation-detection

Indra radiation portal monitors used in airports [Photo courtesy of Indra]

A soldier wears a RAE Systems GammaRAE II R personal gamma radiation detector and dosimeter. [Photo courtesy of RAE Systems]

1. Bruker Radiation Backpack Sentry

2. RAE’s GammaRAE II (Front) and Neutron RAE II

3. Bruker Ruggedized PDA


and identification instrument to meet many applications in the near future.

RAE Systems was known in the early 2000s for its gas detection capabilities, but has added radiation detection in a line that includes the GammaRAE II, NeutronRAE II, AreaRAE Gamma Steel and DoseRAE2, explained Bobby Sheikhan, director of prod-uct management.

Hazmat teams can use RAE products for large public gatherings, as wireless covers large areas in real time. Sheikhan said, “You get a real-time view over the whole area, and you can supply that view over a couple of miles or by the Internet anywhere to an offsite expert or for multi-agency response.”

RAE’s devices are small and robust and can be worn on a belt. “It’s very good for covert operations,” Sheikhan said. “You put it on a buckle, and it shows images and the meter on a smartphone. It’s good for going through a crowd. You get the meter on the face of the smartphone, you get GPS loca-tion, and you get a picture of who you are following.”

RAE devices have been used at Fuku-shima, mounted on robots to keep people out of high radiation areas.

Sheikhan said RAE devices are distin-guished by solid-state construction, which yields higher energy than many compet-ing devices. And they are rugged. “We got an order from the Marines. They can walk around with it, and it will not break.”

RAE products are also very easy to learn, with just two buttons. “They are intuitive,” Sheikhan said. “You do not need to read the manual. That make them very simple for the armed forces; they can learn [to use the devices] in 10 minutes.”

RAE has introduced several new products this year, including the RadScope, minDose and DoseRAE Pro, and plans to continue rolling out new capabilities. “We can handle industrial toxic chemical and gamma rays, and we can tie that it with wireless technol-ogy, which we have a very good reputation for. A lot of users want that wireless connection.”

Spain’s Indra has developed new and improved radiation portal monitors, explained spokesman Antonio Tovar. The monitors can detect passing radioactive materials with optimized sensor geometry and high-speed electronics, enabling greater sensitivity. “New detection algorithms make this compatible with a minimum false alarm rate,” Tovar said.

Indra’s system detects and identifies mate-rials emitting neutrons or gamma radiation. Radiation is transformed into electrical

impulses that offer results to users in real time, updated every few milliseconds with abnormal levels raising an alarm.

Tests at the Port of Valencia showed the Indra portal has greater sensitivity and a lower false alarm than existing devices. The system has been adapted to monitor luggage in a range of appropriate dimensions. A pedestal version can be placed in terminal walkways to detect abnormal radioactivity in passengers. The Indra system can also be used in metal, recycling and waste-management industries and in disassembly of nuclear plants.

Tovar said Indra technology is distin-guished by it greater sensitivity to radiation and lower false alarm rate, compared with current technology. It can also be configured according to application and according to the isotope of most interest. “The system can be automatically configured to optimize perfor-mance for a port, an airport or a scrap metal facility, for instance.”

The new system has just been launched in the market. Tovar said new applications are being developed, integrating other technolo-gies and sources of information.

Smiths Detection’s new RadSeeker is a handheld, portable, rugged and highly accu-rate radioisotope detector and identifier, according to Fred Facemire, director of Rad-Nuc Technology. “The RadSeeker DL was developed under DNDO contract in collabora-tion with DNDO and other DHS components as a next-generation handheld radiation detector and identifier with enhanced capa-bility to distinguish radiological and nuclear threats from background ‘false positives’ pro-duced by naturally occurring radiation or other legitimate everyday radiological mate-rials.”

RadSeeker is based on Symetrica’s Dis-covery Technology, which combines advanced spectrum processing and identification algo-rithms with a choice of highly sensitive lan-thanum bromide or sodium iodide detectors for accuracy that is unique to Smiths Detec-tion, Facemire said. Applications include customs inspection, border protection, emer-gency response and monitoring of radiologi-cal facilities and staff.

Smiths’ instruments were designed in collaboration with DHS for reliability and ease-of-use and are very rugged, just like Smiths’ chemical and explosive-detection products. “RadSeeker employs a patented stabilization process and extensive built-in health checks to continuously monitor sys-tem function and performance,” Facemire noted. Accuracy is thus maintained across

the entire energy range in all operating con-ditions, eliminating the need for periodic recalibration.

Facemire said stand-alone instruments for radiation and nuclear searches at points of entry have already been deployed. But these stand-alone systems are not suitable when checkpoints are not feasible, for example in wide-area searches, or when checkpoints could impede traffic. So Smiths is testing a networked system of fixed and portable devices for detection and identification over wide areas. Detector data will be communi-cated through a wireless data network and fused to reduce delays and false alarms. O

1. Ortec Detective-200 HPGe Radioisotope Identification System

2. Ortec IDM-200-P Interchangeable Detector Module

3. Ortec Detector Module




The

adve

rtise

rs in

dex

is p

rovi

ded

as a

ser

vice

to o

ur re

ader

s. K

MI c

anno

t be

held

resp

onsi

ble

for d

iscr

epan

cies

due

to la

st-m

inut

e ch

ange

s or

alte

ratio

ns.

aDVertIsers InDex

Ashford University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

www.military.ashford.edu/cbrne

Empire State College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

www.esc.edu/military

Raytheon Company (NCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4

www.raytheon.com

Skedco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

www.skedco.com

calenDarOctober 15-17, 2012Border Management Conference & Technology ExpoEl Paso, Texaswww.bordertechexpo .com

October 26-November 2, 2012EMEX 2012Orlando, Fla.www.emex.org

October 29-November 2, 2012HALO Counter-Terrorism SummitSan Diego, Calif.www.thehalosummit .com

November 13-14, 2012Homeland Security SummitArlington, Va.www.ndia.org/

BCD RESOURCE CENTER


TJ KennedyDirector of Public Safety and Security

Raytheon Network Centric SystemsTJ Kennedy leads Raytheon Network

Centric Systems’ Public Safety and Security portfolio, which includes large integrated security systems and a full spectrum of pub-lic safety technologies. With vast experience in homeland security and public safety, he has been a program manager and security executive at multiple Olympic Games.

Q: How is Raytheon positioned strategically in the homeland security market?

A: In today’s challenging economic environ-ment reliability, flexibility and cost effective-ness are paramount. The company’s open systems architecture approach promotes interoperability at all levels; leverages current infrastructure to save costs; and reduces the need for frequent equipment replacement—a critical budget consideration. Raytheon leverages our long history in large integrated systems and in-house technology as well as the best of breed, commercially available technology to produce systems quickly and with high reliability.

Raytheon has focused on what we call the power of the network. We can attach multiple sensors and communication technology to allow operators in the field to have the best data available to improve situational aware-ness and detection at all times. This allows this data to be pushed to command centers as well as to officers in the field on handheld devices, and to in-car laptops and tablets.

We are leveraging the strong customer base we have in public safety interoperability to bring them integrated security solutions and homeland security to meet their needs. We employ industry veterans who under-stand the budget constraints that agencies are under and know how to apply our tech-nology integration to cost-effective solutions.

Raytheon’s ability to detect perimeter or border breaches with state-of-the-art sensor systems is combined with equally compel-ling command and control and coordination technology. We provide complete end-to-end solutions that include training and mission support that can be scaled to a wide range of requirements and budgets.

Q: Can you describe a few solutions?

A: Our Integrated Fixed Tower proposal—the Border View security solution—with its turn-key integrated tower, sensor and power platform uses 100 percent off-the-shelf sen-sors and components. It is built out today in rugged border terrain and is available for customers to visit and see the system in operation. It’s designed to be an open standards system that enables fast and easy integration or exchange of sensors from any vendor—with interoperability that provides the customer the ability to create the right solutions with the products the customer chooses.

We have bid on the recent procurement by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] for Integrated Fixed Towers and look forward to being able to show the CBP our live system and strong capabilities in auto-mated, persistent wide area surveillance that is geared towards detection, tracking, identifi-cation and classification of illegal entries into the United States.

We also have one of the most dynamic commercially available software suites, called Clear View, which provides situational aware-ness and an integrated picture to operators of border security, coastal security and perim-eter security systems. This proven software, pre-integrated with many common cameras, radars, fence sensors and unattended ground sensors, is able to provide a quick proven solution for our customers’ most important security needs.

As part of our overall focus on air, land and marine borders, we also produce our own marine domain awareness product line that supports coastal and port security operations. Raytheon’s High Frequency Surface Wave Radar provides long-range coastal security and has allowed countries to better pro-tect their environment and their exclusive

economic zones off sovereign coastlines. This radar as well as our Marine Small Target Tracker and marine radars provide unmatched marine security.

Q: How will Raytheon expand its presence in public safety and security?

A: Raytheon opened up its Public Safety Regional Technology Center in Downey, Calif., near Los Angeles, earlier this year, and we’ve had significant interest and visitors from many federal, state and local police, fire and emergency medical services. This new center is a fully operational public safety center with an emergency operations center, data center and dispatch center, and has other key displays of public safety technology that allows departments to not only see the tech-nology but to use it. We actually have a police car and command vehicle at the facility that have all the latest in car video, computer and communications equipment installed for first responders to be able to get their hands on the latest technology.

We’ve also partnered with academia to advance research on public safety networks and have a partnership with UCLA that is looking at how public safety agencies can best leverage networked solutions in the field for public safety.

Q: Are there any success stories that you would like to discuss?

A: Raytheon has established a track record in integrated public safety applications. We’re providing in-car and on-motorcycle com-puters that have integrated multiple public safety applications for the LA County Sheriff’s Office, and we’re contracted to provide new dispatch consoles for LA County Fire and LA County Sheriff. This year we also supported Adams County, Colo., in designing one of the first public safety long term evolution [LTE] broadband systems. We believe that our open standards approach to public safety commu-nications and security and our deep history in interoperability support Raytheon’s commit-ment to be a major contributor to the deploy-ment of the National Public Safety Broadband Network being rolled out by FirstNet. O

INDUSTRY INTERVIEW Border & CBRNE Defense


DHS Eagle II Update Eagle II is a multi-billion dollar information technology contract yet to be awarded for the Department of Homeland Security. The program manager discusses the advantages of Eagle II and the importance of industry to the contract vehicle.

Critical InfrastructureDHS critical infrastructure, focusing on the Government Facilities Sector and the Emergency Services sector, and the strategies used to maintain safe operations.

Joint Task Force Civil SupportMajor General Jeff W. Mathis III, commander, Joint Task Force Civil Support, discusses Vibrant Response 2013, a simulated response to a 10-kiloton nuclear detonation in downtown Chicago.

leaderShip inSightExclusive interview with leadership perspective from Colonel Brett Barraclough, Joint Project Manager for Guardian, Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense.

Special Section

DHS 10th Anniversary Look AheadAfter a decade of operation, all 16 components of DHS discuss the challenges they will face over the next 10 years.

November 2012Volume 1, Issue 3NExT ISSuE

Insertion Order Deadline: November 2, 2012 • Ad Materials Deadline: November 9, 2012

cover and in-depth interview with:

rand BeersUnder Secretary National Protection & Programs DirectorateU.S. Department of Homeland Security

featureS

DHS 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

Safeguarding borders demands monitoring that’s grounded in intelligence. Raytheon delivers fl exible, scalable border surveillance solutions with fi xed or transportable physical capability to detect, identify and classify emerging threats before they can disrupt our way of life. It’s proven technology, backed by consulting expertise, to strengthen our borders today and tomorrow.

BORDER SECURITY AGENTS CAN’TBE EVERYWHERE AT ONCE.OR CAN THEY?

HOMELAND SECURITYBORDER SECURITY

www.raytheon.com | Keyword: HLS-Border

INNOVATION IN ALL DOMAINS

Follow us on:

© 2012 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved. “Customer Success Is Our Mission” is a registered trademark of Raytheon Company.

12NCS311_HLS_BorderCBRNEdef_September2012.indd 1 8/27/12 5:30 PM

Date post:	31-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kmi-media-group
View:	229 times
Download:	1 times

BCD 1-2 (Oct. 2012)

Documents