Erin’s Fluency Blog

In September of 2006, the
U.S. Government awarded Boeing Co. with a $67 million contract to install a “virtual fence” along the Mexican border.  This contract is for the first phase of the government’s Secure Border Initiative Network that is estimated to cost $2 billion.  The contract mandates the use of cameras, sensors and unmanned planes, but exactly how the money is used is left up to the contractor.  This immediately made me think of accountability issues.  Upon further researching the Initiative, I learned that 58 companies had applied for the contract, but when narrowed down to the five finalist, the list was comprised of four companies who were regularly contracted out for defense (Boeing Co, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman) and one newcomer, Ericsson.  Ericsson was the only finalist with specific telecommunications expertise, being a leading wireless infrastructure vendor globally and having built a similar “virtual fence” on the border between Russia and
Norway three years ago.  It makes me wonder why Ericsson was not given the contract.  If the government is going to put billions of dollars in the hands of a contractor and say,” Do whatever you want, so long as you utilize cameras, sensors and unmanned planes,” wouldn’t it make sense to entrust a contractor who has direct experience with such a project?  It is possible that Boeing Co’s proposed plan appeared to be more comprehensive and efficient, but it seems hard to believe.  To me, it seems more believable that considering the long and profitable history of Boeing Co as a defense contractor for the government, they were granted special consideration.  After all, according to the Project on Government Oversight between 1997 and 2004, the four federal contractors making the highest campaign contributions were Lockheed Martin, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.  This list sounds pretty similar to the list of the top five finalists to build the “virtual fence.”  There is one name missing however, Ericsson, the company with telecommunication expertise.  Based on this information though, it appears that it may not be expertise that wins contracts, but instead campaign contributions.  In addition, in the past, Boeing has been investigated and found guilty of placing especially “generous” Pentagon officials in high ranking positions within the company, raising further issues in conflicts of interest.   Contracts awarded based on this criteria will likely lead to increased waste of money, decreased accountability and in this case, failure to control illegal immigration at the Mexican border.