Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security
Who got paid, how much, for what, and whether it is defensible. Citizen opinion on the record, not a mandate.
Status and record
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, (OIT) TARGETING AND ANALYSIS SYSTEMS PROGRAM DIRECTORATE (TASPD)'S OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M), UPGRADES, UPDATES, MODIFICATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS CONTRACT
$586.2M · DELIVERY ORDER · Department of Homeland Security · VA
FEDERAL SPENDING · CITIZEN OPINION
Was this federal payment to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION worth it?
$586.2M · Department of Homeland Security to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Be the first to put your opinion on the record.
What this award is
AI analysis
This contract pays Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to keep running, update, and improve the computer systems that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses to screen and analyze people and cargo crossing U.S. borders. SAIC will handle day-to-day operations, fix problems, and make upgrades to these technology systems over five years.
DEEPER CONTEXTAnalysis · Risks · Arguments
WHY THIS MONEY IS BEING SPENT
WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?
CBP is required by law to screen travelers, cargo, and shipments entering the United States to stop threats like terrorism, drug smuggling, and illegal entry. This contract gives CBP the technical support needed to keep those screening systems running reliably.
WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?
The U.S. government needs to quickly and accurately identify potential threats at the border, including dangerous goods, wanted individuals, and illegal shipments. These targeting and analysis computer systems help border officers make faster and better-informed decisions about who and what to inspect.
WHO BENEFITS?
The primary beneficiaries are CBP officers and agents who rely on these systems to do their jobs at ports of entry across the country. The broader American public also benefits if the systems successfully help stop dangerous people or goods from entering the country.
Plain-language reading generated from the USASpending award record. Not legal or financial advice.
RISKS AND TRADEOFFS
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
A contract of this size, running nearly 586 million dollars over five years, carries risks of cost overruns, delayed upgrades, or systems that do not perform as expected. Because the contract type is listed as unknown, it is unclear what financial protections or performance standards are built into the agreement.
WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?
If this contract were cancelled, CBP's border screening and targeting computer systems could become outdated, unreliable, or go without technical support. This could slow down or weaken the government's ability to identify threats at U.S. ports of entry.
FOR AND AGAINST
ARGUMENTS FOR
- •Keeping border screening systems updated and well-maintained is essential for national security and stopping dangerous goods or individuals from entering the country.
- •Centralizing operations and maintenance with one experienced contractor can create consistency and efficiency across CBP's technology systems.
- •Continuous upgrades help border systems keep pace with evolving threats, new smuggling methods, and growing volumes of travelers and cargo.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- •Nearly 586 million dollars to a single contractor over five years raises questions about whether competitive bidding produced the best value for taxpayers.
- •The contract type is listed as unknown, making it difficult for the public or oversight bodies to assess whether costs are properly capped or justified.
- •Large, long-term technology contracts in government have a history of scope creep and cost overruns, and without clear public details, accountability is harder to ensure.
SPENDING TIMELINE
Add a tag
Written opinion on whether this spending is appropriate · not a duplicate of the Worth It / Wasteful vote or spending record. Similar opinions on this spending record can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Your stance is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate. Mandate accountability applies when Congress votes on tracked legislation.