From: (b) (6)

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

Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Change Management Process
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:11:10 AM

(b)
(6)
Since B-1 was a contingency segment for PF225 and its deletion will pose no noteworthy impacts to
the overall management and execution of PF225, as long as OBP approves of this change, SBI PMO is
OK with this deletion. Please note that we sincerely appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention
and inquiring about our change management process. Had this change potentially resulted in impacts
to the project's cost or schedule, we would have utilized the CM process (b) (6) eferences below.

Thanks

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:06 PM
To: (b) (6) FLOSSMAN, LOREN W; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Change Management Process

(b)
(6)
We have a change management form that was developed by (b) (6) . There is also a process.
Since (b) (6) is out this week, i have asked (b) (6) to search the files here and get you what you
need. (b) if you know where they are located, let us know. We found the slide with the process but
(6) to locate the form. (b)
are unable if you come down to my office, i can give you the process.
(6)
thanks, (b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:47 PM
To: RECINOS,(b) (6) ; FLOSSMAN, LOREN W
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Change Management Process

Loren, (b) and (b) (6)

I would(6)
like to test our change management process. El Centro wants the B-1 segment placed into
VF-300 from PF-225. Please advise of how we want this handled. Thanks.
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
Headquarters U.S. Border Patrol
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:49 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: 2 Questions

(b)
(6)
The B-1 segment was originally a project under both PF-225 and VB-300. The El Centro Sector has
requested that the B-1 segment be placed solely as a VB-300 project as the Normandy style barrier is
far more suitable to the terrain and operational need for that area.

The B5-b segment answer is simple. There must be a special design solution as the toolbox solutions
simply will not work for both Yuma and ELC in the Imperial Sand dunes. I regret that SBI now feels
that a special design would be too cumbersome or beyond their capabilities.

I have been involved with SBI Fence lab and SBInet PF 370 since the field representatives were first
called in early this year. Both YUM and ELC have pointed out that the Imperial Sand dunes would
require a site specific solution. As this has been an ongoing topic of discussion I am perplexed by the
sudden opposition to a site specific design and troubled by the attitude that this request would be too
cumbersome or beyond SBInet capabilities.

The Imperial Sand Dunes remains ELC’s most active non urban area. The recreational vehicle traffic in
that area provides an environment that is especially vulnerable to drug smuggling and is the perfect
potential site for smuggling a weapon of mass destruction into the U.S. using the significant
clutter of hundreds of off road enthusiasts. The area requires this barrier and expanded RVSS sites to
address this threat. With both YUM and ELC both receiving a significant amount of primary fence the
Imperial Sand Dunes will become an even more active area. Choosing not to place fencing in this area
is simply not a sound operational decision and cannot be supported by ELC.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:17 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: 2 Questions
Importance: High

(b) (6)
There are two questions that I need answered to complete a couple of taskings that I have been given.
The first one concerns segment B-1. I was told that this project was originally under PF 225, but is
now under VB-300. I wanted to verify that this is correct and to further ask if this was a sector request.
If this was a sector request, we (OBP) need to initiate a change management process and run it
through the established path. If it was not a sector request, we will need to find out who initiated this
change and for what reason. Once we know more details about this, we can ensure that we submit
the proper paper work. We will take care of that.

The other question deals with the B-5B segment. I was asked by the SBInet office to inquire with you
about what your option would be if they were not able to accommodate your sector with a special
design (other than the toolbox). Would you choose one of the fence designs that is already in the
toolbox, or would you go without any fence at all for that particular segment? The SBInet office stated
that they would try to accommodate your request, but that they felt that it would be a hard thing to do
and that they could not guarantee that your proposal would get done.

(b) (6)
SBInet
(b) (6)
(b) (6)