mr. borkowski? >> senator, we've got some pretty good process that's have grown in the department that put some discipline to check the affordability which proves whether or not we can pay for o & m. but there's a continuing problem, and i'll just be frank that when i challenge people they blame it on congress. let me tell you what that is. >> no. >> they do. i'm not sure that's true, but i'll tell you what they say. what happens is we buy more technology. you would expect that the operations and maintenance costs would go up. so what our budget plan is -- let's say i have $100 and i start with $80 to buy it and $20 to operate it. over time as i spend that $80 after i've built all of my technology, maybe i'm down to zero and i've moved all of that money from buying to operating and maintaining. what happens is the budget people don't look at that as a total of 100. they look at it as money to buy and money to operate. they see the money to buy going down and they say that's great, we love you, you'v

mr. borkowski, for example for a potential acquisition. as you know, before we start a project, we are addicted with an operating component and estimating return on investment. .. >> so it's not just about oh, look what great this capability could do what great things this capability could do for you but if you were to buy one or three or five systems and we estimate it would help you find five or ten more tunnels just be with conservative per year, what does that mean in terms of cost saving? so we try to do that from an s&t standpoint to help them make the right decision. the other part is about acquisition program. and as you know s&t it's not in our responsibility to do acquisition. that's otia's responsibility. however, the department does employ us as an adviser and we try to make investments to help acquisition programs better understand the implication of the maintenance costs the tale of anything. just like you pointed out senator, a lot of times the acquisition costs is actually the lowest cost, but it's the easiest one that ever

mr. borkowski? >> senator, we've got some pretty good processes that have grown in the department that put some discipline to check the affordability which proves whether or not we can pay for o & m. but there's a continuing problem, and i'll just be frank that when i challenge people they blame it on congress. let me tell you what that is. >> no. >> they do. i'm not sure that's true, but i'll tell you what they say. what happens is we buy more technology. you would expect that the operations and maintenance costs would go up. so what our budget plan is -- let's suppose i have $100 and start with $80 to buy it and $20 to operate it. over time as i spend that $80 after i've built all of my technology, maybe i'm down to zero and i've moved all of that money from buying to operating and maintaining. what happens is the budget people don't look at that as a total of 100. they look at it as money to buy and money to operate. they see the money to buy going down and they say that's great, we love you, you

mr. borkowski? >> senator, we've got some pretty good process that's have grown in the department that put some discipline to check the affordability which proves whether or not we can pay for o & m. but there's a continuing problem, and i'll just be frank that when i challenge people they blame it on congress. let me tell you what that is. >> no. >> they do. i'm not sure that's true, but i'll tell you what they say. what happens is we buy more technology. you would expect that the operations and maintenance costs would go up. so what our budget plan is -- let's say i have $100 and i start with $80 to buy it and $20 to operate it. over time as i spend that $80 after i've built all of my technology, maybe i'm down to zero and i've moved all of that money from buying to operating and maintaining. what happens is the budget people don't look at that as a total of 100. they look at it as money to buy and money to operate. they see the money to buy going down and they say that's great, we love you, you'v

mr. borkowski gave us some great insights. and ron here was about to get into it and i had to slip out of the room. so you want to pick up where we left off? >> so, as i was saying, i was agreeing with both of my colleagues. some of the lessons we've learned with trying to fit technology in without the proper kind of awareness with all of the capabilities or lack of capabilities. one of the lessons we've learned is as we move into this new version of our technology laydown we have and are using field input for all of the installations. >> give us some examples of that. >> we have this process, capability gap analysis. and those in business are familiar with gap analysis. as a border patrol agent it's something well known in this environment. it allows us to go to the field and do surveys and walk the ground and understand what threats are faced at a station level. right, so the agents on the ground who are challenged day-to-day. and patrolling the border. where are the biggest problems and what kinds of technologies that they

mr. borkowski served as the component acquisition executive. prior to his deployment, he served as the border initiative program. mr. borkowski. >> thank you, chairman johnson and senator booker. appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i represent the acquisition community. our responsibility is to deliver the stuff that the operators need. we buy it. i know there is some question about the distinction between us and dhssnt. let me highlight that a little bit to start. dhsnt makes sure there is stuff there. it is not always ready. we don't always have systems, technologies, software that we need. so first has to be there. once it is there, we have to figure out how best to get it. that means we have to know what the options are, we have to do the business case analysis, we have to figure out how many to buy and have to understand why we're buying it. and for that, of course, we ask the people in uniform, the green or the tan or the blue uniforms, the folks on either side, they describe what we need. it is our job then in acquisition to som

mr. borkowski served as the component acquisition executive. prior to his deployment he served as the border initiative program. mr. borkowski. >> thank you, chairman johnson and senator booker. appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i represent the acquisition community. our responsibility is to deliver the stuff that the operators need. we buy it. i know there is some question about the distinction between us and dhssnt. let me highlight that a little bit to start. dhsnt makes sure there is stuff there. it is not always ready. we don't always have systems technologies software that we need. so first has to be there. once it is there, we have to figure out how best to get it. that means we have to know what the options are we have to do the business case analysis, we have to figure out how many to buy and have to understand why we're buying it. and for that of course, we ask the people in uniform, the green or the tan or the blue uniforms, the folks on either side, they describe what we need. it is our job then in acquisition to somehow

mr. borkowski, for example, for potential acquisition. it's a process we keep improving. as you know, before we start a project we already consult with operating component in estimating the return on investment. and when return on investment, it's their r&d investment, not my r&d investment. if we pursue this particular technology let's say we could find ten more tunnels per year. what does that mean in terms -- and we estimate throughout it would cost x dollars to buy a new tunnel detection system that we're developing does that mean five years, ten years? so at first it's just an estimate. and as we move further into the development of the solution, then we try to come up with a better and better estimate, and in the end when we get to operational assessment that's when we try to come up with a much better return on investment and estimate to help cbp make the decision. so it's not just about oh, look, what great this capability could do, what great things this capability could do for you, but if you were to buy one or three or five systems, and we estimate it would hel

mr. borkowski give us a thousand great insights. ronald was i think about to get into and i had to slip out. they want to pick up where you left off the? >> and succinct on screen with both of my colleagues. i think some of the lessons we've learned with trying to fit technology without the proper kind of awareness of all of the capabilities or the lack of capabilities. i think one of the lessons we've learned is as we move into this new version of the technology lay down, we started to use we have and are using field input for all of the installations. >> give us some examples of that spirit we have this process called capability gap analysis and those in business partner with gap analysis come as a border patrol agent if something is well-known in this environment. ..