Several of FPS’s Guard Requirements Are Generally Comparable to Selected Agencies, but FPS Faces Challenges in Other Aspects of Guards’ Training

		FPS Has Several Guard Training Requirements That Are Generally Comparable to Other Selected Agencies

Before guards are assigned to a post or an area of responsibility at a  federal facility, FPS requires that they all have contractor employee  fitness determinations (the employee’s fitness to work on behalf of the  government based on character and conduct) and complete  approximately 120 hours of training provided by the contractor and FPS,  including basic training, firearms training, and screener (X-ray and  magnetometer) training. All six agencies and FPS require basic, firearms, and  screener (x-ray and magnetometer) training for their armed guards. For example, an official at one contract guard company stated that 133 of  its approximately 350 guards (about 38 percent) on three separate FPS  contracts (awarded in 2009) have never received their initial x-ray and  magnetometer training from FPS. Through this  pilot program, contract guard company instructors, in addition to FPS  inspectors, will be certified to provide screener training to guards. According to FPS officials, the agency requires its guards to receive  training on how to respond to an active-shooter scenario, but we found  that some guards have not received it. For example, of the 16 contract  guard companies we interviewed about this topic: eight contract guard company officials stated that their guards have  received active-shooter scenario training during orientation,  five guard company officials stated that FPS has not provided active- shooter scenario training to their guards, and  three guard companies stated that FPS had not provided active- shooter scenario training to their guards during the FPS-provided  orientation training, but that the topic was covered in one of the  following ways: during guard company-provided basic training or refresher training,
FPS provided on-the-job instruction on the topic during post
FPS provided a link to an active-shooter training video, which the  company shows its guards. Twenty-three Percent of Contract Guard Files We Reviewed Did Not Have Required Training and Certification Documentation

Some contract guard files we reviewed did not contain all required  documentation. We reviewed 276 randomly selected (non-generalizeable)  guard files maintained by 11 of the 31 guard companies we interviewed  and found that 212 files (77 percent) contained the required training and  certification documentation, but 64 files (23 percent) were missing one or  more required documents. As shown in table 2, the 64 guard files were missing 117 total documents. Although FPS  has taken some steps to address its challenges in this area, our previous  recommendations are a guide to furthering its efforts. According to FPS officials, it plans to address this recommendation in the  near future. FPS Still Lacks Effective Management Controls to Ensure Guards Have Met Training and Certification Requirements

		FPS Continues to Lack a Comprehensive System to Effectively Manage Guard Training, Certification, and Qualification Data

DHS agreed with our 2010 and 2012 recommendations to develop a  comprehensive and reliable system for contract guard oversight, but it still  does not have such a system. According to FPS officials, it  plans to address this recommendation in the near future. FPS Management Controls Do Not Ensure Consistency in Monthly File Review Process

FPS’s monthly reviews of contract guard companies’ guard files are its  primary management control for ensuring that the companies are  complying with contractual requirements for guards’ training, certification,  and qualifications. In the absence of specific guidance regarding how files are  to be selected, the four regions we visited varied in how they conducted  the monthly file reviews. Allowing  contract guard company officials to select files for review by FPS could  result in selection bias and affect the results of FPS’s review. However, FPS’s  directive regarding monthly file reviews, discussed above, does not  include requirements for reviewing and verifying the results of the file  reviews. FPS agreed with the  recommendations in our 2010 and 2012 reports. Finally, inconsistencies in how FPS regional officials conduct monthly file  reviews (which are FPS’s primary management control for ensuring  compliance with the guard contract requirements) indicate that the current  guidance for monthly file reviews is insufficient to ensure that, for  instance, guard companies do not have the opportunity to select files for  review and thus affect the results of the file reviews. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the management and oversight of FPS’s contract guard  program, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct  the Under Secretary of NPPD and the Director of FPS to take the  following three actions:  take immediate steps to determine which guards have not had  screener or active-shooter scenario training and provide it to them  and, as part of developing a national lesson plan, decide how and  how often these trainings will be provided in the future require that contract guard companies’ instructors be certified to teach  basic and refresher training courses to guards and evaluate whether a  standardized instructor certification process should be implemented;  and develop and implement procedures for monthly guard-file reviews to  ensure consistency in selecting files and verifying the results.
Why GAO Did This Study

FPS relies on a privately contracted guard force (about 13,500 guards) to provide security to federal facilities under the custody and control of the General Services Administration. In 2010 and 2012, GAO reported that FPS faced challenges overseeing its contract guard program, specifically in ensuring guards' qualifications.
GAO was asked to update the status of FPS's contract guard oversight. This report examines (1) how FPS's requirements for contract guards compare to those of selected federal agencies and challenges, if any, that FPS faces in ensuring its requirements are met; (2) the extent to which guard companies have documented compliance with FPS's guard requirements; and (3) the management controls FPS uses to ensure compliance with its guard requirements. GAO reviewed 31 FPS guard contracts, and analyzed guard files from 11 contracts, selected based on geographic diversity; interviewed officials from guard companies, FPS headquarters, and 4 of 11 FPS regions; and reviewed the contract guard requirements and processes at six federal agencies, selected for their comparability to FPS.

What GAO Found

Several of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Protective Service's (FPS) guard requirements are generally comparable to those of the six selected agencies GAO reviewed, but FPS faces challenges in some aspects of guards' training. FPS and the six selected agencies GAO reviewed require basic, firearms, and screener (x-ray and magnetometer equipment) training for their armed guards. However, GAO found that providing screener training remains a challenge for FPS. For example, officials from one of FPS's contract guard companies stated that 133 (about 38 percent) of its approximately 350 guards have never received this training. Similarly, according to officials at five guard companies, some of their contract guards have not received training on how to respond during incidents involving an active shooter. Additionally, while contract guard industry guidance states that all training should be done with a certified instructor, GAO found that FPS does not require guard instructors to be certified to provide basic and refresher training, which represents the majority of guards' training. According to six guard companies, the lack of a requirement has led to having to retrain some guards, potentially increasing costs to FPS.
Twenty-three percent of contract guard files GAO reviewed did not have required training and certification documentation. GAO reviewed 276 randomly selected (non-generalizable) guard files maintained by 11 of the 31 guard companies GAO interviewed and found that 212 files (77 percent) contained the required training and certification documentation, but 64 files (23 percent) were missing one or more required documents. For example, the 64 files were missing items such as documentation of initial weapons and screener training and firearms qualifications. Although FPS has taken steps to address its challenges in this area, GAO's previous recommendations concerning monitoring guard companies' performance are a guide to furthering FPS's efforts. According to FPS officials, it plans to address GAO's recommendations in the near future. FPS continues to lack effective management controls to ensure its guards have met its training and certification requirements. For instance, although FPS agreed with GAO's 2010 and 2012 recommendations that it develop a comprehensive and reliable system for managing information on guards' training, certifications, and qualifications, it still does not have such a system. According to FPS officials, it plans to address this recommendation in the near future.
FPS also lacks sufficient management controls to ensure consistency in its monthly guard file review process (its primary management control for ensuring that guards are trained and certified), raising questions about the utility of this process. In the absence of specific guidance regarding how files are to be selected, FPS's 11 regions varied in how they conducted the monthly file reviews. For example, FPS officials from three regions stated that they randomly select their files for review, while officials from one guard company in another region stated that FPS asks the guard company to select the files for review. Allowing contract guard company officials to select files for review by FPS could result in selection bias and affect the results of FPS's review. FPS also lacks guidance on reviewing and verifying the results of its guard-file reviews. Without such guidance, FPS may not be able to determine the accuracy of its monthly file review results or if its contract guard companies are complying with the guard training and certification requirements.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS direct FPS to take immediate steps to determine which guards have not had screener or active-shooter scenario training and provide it to them; require that guard instructors be certified to teach basic and refresher training; and develop and implement guidance for selecting guard files and verifying the results. DHS concurred with GAOs recommendations.