OBP005275

From: SELF, JEFFREY D

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: PF 225
Date: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:00:51 AM

FYI

From: AGUILAR, DAVID V [mailto:DAVID.Aguilar@dhs.gov]

Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:52 PM
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: RE: PF 225

Jeff,

One other thing that I would ask for is that Laredo send in a formal request to adjust their TI “Bible”.
This will make for good recordkeeping and tracking.

Same should be done for any other sector making dramatic changes to their original document. I would
also anticipate that somewhere down the road in a full blown SBInet laydown effort we should also be
recording adjustments to our TI requirements based on the SBInet capability enhancements. Maybe
next year’s ORBBP process would be a start ?

David

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:58 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D
Cc: Aguilar, David V; Colburn, Ronald S
Subject: Re: PF 225

Thanks Jeff. It will be important for us to maintain good records of how this has evolved, as I'm certain it will
continue to evolve and change as we move forward. You are correct to retain the history while looking forward.

(b)
(6)
----- Original Message -----
From: SELF, JEFFREY D
To: (b) (6)
Sent: Sat May 05 20:50:00 2007
Subject: PF 225

Chief,

Now that I have had time to review the e mail storm concerning the PF 225 Communication Plan I would like to
make the following known:

In reviewing the messaging between Greg the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, yes I did approve the
Communications Plan and do still think it is a viable plan. What's not mentioned in the e mails is my continuous
warnings to SBI that it was not being executed as written. Critical steps were missed and expedited for time
savings. When I found out that ACE was contacting the County Assessors Offices before any outreach had begun I
told them that these communities were close knit and this would get out. I advised that we would be viewed as
being sneaky and under handed. I told SBI that the present execution of this plan was a snowball headed for Hell
OBP005276

and it arrived there last week.

Fence Laydown:

Chief,

This was not executed correctly from the start. SBI was given the TI Bible with the warning that it was outdated
and anything it was used for, OBP should be advised so the SMEs could identify the problems with using it for the
desired purpose. SBI is claiming that OBP has changed the laydown three times which is a threat to the delivery
date. This is not the case, we have simply gone back and taken the critical steps they missed.

I became a member of the 225 PMT a month after they had already started work. During the first meeting I was
advised that ACE Engineneers were in the field with the TI Bible looking at the desired laydown of fence
locations. OBP and the Sectors had no knowledge of this. I again told them that the TI Bible was a historical
document and fence locations needed to be identified with coordination with the Sectors. It was to late. ACE had
picked and surveyed the locations and because of time constraints they had initially declined to accept any
changes. We pushed back and SBI agreeded to allow us to verify the locations with the Sectors. Some Sector had
different operational needs for fence. This was change number one.

Change two came about when ACE said that they can't build fence in Texas because there were to many red flags.
We disagreed with this but were once again told time and funding were driving this mission.

Sometime later S-1 was given three options because we didn't agree with their laydown. S-1 decided we would go
with the original 370 laydown vs the desired SBInet plan. Once again this is where they say OBP changed the
laydown again.

The claim of change three is connected to change two. I told SBI that the original 370 option needed to be
presented to S-1 with the caveat that there would be no fence in LRT. This was not done and they are claiming
that we have changed it three times now.

You may already know this but I wanted to make sure. There is a lot of historical data that has led us to where we
are today and it is the result of the SMEs not being listened to. I just want you to know that I am focused on the
road ahead but keeping the past in mind so history doesn't repeat its self.

Jeff