From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN (

Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

Date: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:06:24 AM

(b) (6)
There are 2 different chain link fence issues in EPT. The IBWC fence, installed by IBWC, paid for and
aintained by BP ( approx 14 miles) and then this fence near the Santa Teresa POE (1,900 feet) which
was built by the county and is not maintained by the BP. Maybe someone “assumed” it was the same
but that was a mistake.
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:53 AM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6) – there was chain link fence in EPT added into the primary fence inventory last year that was
originally built my IBWC. This fence, however, is maintained and utilized operational by OBP. At least
this is what sector told us, and the joint decision was made last year by OBP, and concurred by SBI, to
bring it into the primary fence inventory.

(b) (6)
Business Manager, Operations
SBI - Tactical Infrastructure Program (PF225, VF300)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:49 AM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc (
b
)
Subject: RE: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

All,
This brings me to the question of who keeps adding chain link fence as primary fencing. It is not
operational fencing. Before anyone says the BP added that to the 370 miles needs to do research.
For many of the reasons listed below and other places….it gets noted over and over…WE DO NOT
OWN THAT FENCE…so Why do people keep tallying it as part of our fence totals ? What if the owner
decided to take it down ? What would your totals be then? This has to be revisited.
(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:43 AM

To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

Loren

Attached is a change request for segment J1 to replace existing chain link pedestrian fencing
associated with the Santa Teresa Port of Entry. The core members of the FEIT have reviewed the
change request and recommend that it be DENIED primarily for the following reasons.

The existing fence proposed to be replaced with PF225 fence is legacy fencing currently being
counted towards the 370 mile goal. Replacing this fence would result in no additional miles
relative to the 370 mile goal.
The existing NEPA documents do not cover the replacement of the fence. A supplemental
environmental assessment would need to be prepared.
The existing chain link fence is not the property of OBP/or OFAM and would require the
approval of GSA.

Please let me know if you have any questions and how you would like to proceed.

Thanks

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:19 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:20 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Change Order Request for J1 at the POE

(b) (6)
Please find the attached Change Order Request for Loren Flossman's approval/rejection for the J1
Project regarding the existing chain link fence that the CBP would like removed and replaced to meet
their operational needs.

I have conveyed to the CBP that this is not an automatic approval, but subject to the approval of Loren
based upon their needs and availability of funding.

<<PF225 Change Request (J1).doc>>

 Please advise ASAP for me to proceed accordingly.
Thanks,
(b
)
(6
)Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers-Albuquerque District
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM, 87109
(b) (6)