	FPS Faces Challenges Ensuring Contract Guards Have Been Properly Trained and Certified before Being Deployed to Federal Facilities

		Some FPS Contract Guards Have Not Received Required Training on Responding to Active- Shooter Scenarios

According to FPS officials, since 2010 the agency has required its guards  to receive training on how to respond to an active-shooter scenario. For example, of the 16 contract guard companies we interviewed  about this topic: officials from eight contract guard companies stated that their guards  have received active-shooter scenario training during FPS orientation; officials from five guard companies stated that FPS has not provided  active-shooter scenario training to their guards during the FPS- provided orientation training; and officials from 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 at some  other time. Without ensuring that all  guards receive training on how to respond to active-shooter incidents,  FPS has limited assurance that its guards are prepared for this threat. 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. Consequently, some guards deployed to federal facilities may be using x- ray and magnetometer equipment that they are not qualified to use ─thus  raising questions about the ability of some guards to execute a primary  responsibility to properly screen access control points at federal facilities. We were unable to determine the extent to which FPS’s guards have  received screener training. FPS agreed with our recommendation that  they take immediate steps to determine which guards have not received  screener training and provide it to them. FPS Lacks Effective Management Controls to Ensure Guards Have Met Training and Certification Requirements

In our September 2013 report, we found that FPS continues to lack  effective management controls to ensure that guards have met training  and certification requirements. For example, although FPS agreed with  our 2010 and 2012 recommendations to develop a comprehensive and  reliable system for contract guard oversight, it still does not have such a  system. In our September  2013 report, we found that 23 percent of the 276 guard files we reviewed  (maintained by 11 of the 31 guard companies we interviewed) lacked  required training and certification documentation.some guard files lacked documentation of basic training, semi-annual  firearms qualifications, screener training, the 40-hour refresher training  (required every 3 years), and CPR certification. Preliminary Results Indicate that FPS and Select Federal Agencies’ Risk Assessment Methodologies Do Not Align with ISC’s Risk Assessment Standards

Risk assessments help decision-makers identify and evaluate security  risks and implement protective measures to mitigate the potential  undesirable effects of these risks. ISC’s risk assessment standards state  that agencies’ facility risk assessment methodologies must: consider all of  the undesirable events identified by ISC as possible risks to federal  facilities, and assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequence of specific  undesirable events. Preliminary results from our ongoing review of nine  federal agencies’ risk assessment methodologies indicate that several  agencies, including FPS, do not use a methodology that aligns with ISC’s  risk assessment standards to assess federal facilities. Most commonly, agencies’ methodologies are not consistent with ISC’s  standards because agencies do not assess their facilities’ vulnerabilities  to specific undesirable events. Because agencies’ risk assessment methodologies are  inconsistent with ISC’s risk assessment standards, these agencies may  not have a complete understanding of the risks facing approximately  57,000 federal facilities located around the country—including the 9,600  protected by FPS and several agencies’ headquarters facilities. For example, if an agency does not  know its facility’s potential vulnerabilities to specific undesirable events, it  cannot set priorities to mitigate them. In addition, we reported in 2012 that although federal agencies pay FPS  millions of dollars to assess risk at their facilities, FPS’s interim facility  assessment tool—the Modified Infrastructure Survey Tool (MIST)—was  not consistent with federal risk assessment standards and had other  limitations. Specifically, FPS’s risk assessment methodology was  inconsistent with ISC’s risk assessment standards because it did not  assess the consequence of possible undesirable events (i.e., the level,  duration, and nature of loss resulting from undesirable events). GAO-13-222. Homeland Security: Protecting Federal Facilities Remains a Challenge for  the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service. Homeland Security: Preliminary Results Show Federal Protective  Service’s Ability to Protect Federal Facilities Is Hampered by  Weaknesses in Its Contract Security Guard Program. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States.
Why GAO Did This Study

As part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FPS is responsible for protecting federal employees and visitors in approximately 9,600 federal facilities under the control and custody of the General Services Administration (GSA). Recent incidents at federal facilities demonstrate their continued vulnerability to attacks or other acts of violence. To help accomplish its mission, FPS conducts facility risk assessments and provides oversight of approximately 13,500 contract security guards deployed to federal facilities.
This testimony is based on the results of our September 2013 report (released by the Subcommittee today), previous reports, and preliminary results of work GAO conducted for a report that GAO plans to issue to the Chairman later this year. GAO discusses (1) challenges FPS faces in ensuring contract security guards deployed to federal facilities are properly trained and certified and (2) the extent to which FPS and select federal agencies' facility risk assessment methodologies align with standards issued by the ISC. To perform this work, GAO reviewed FPS and guard company documentation and interviewed officials about oversight of guards. GAO also reviewed FPS's and eight federal agencies' risk assessment documentation and compared it to ISC's standards. These agencies were selected based on their missions and types of facilities.

What GAO Found

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) faces challenges ensuring that contract guards have been properly trained and certified before being deployed to federal facilities around the country. In a September 2013 report, GAO found that providing active-shooter-response and screener training is a challenge for FPS. For example, according to officials at five guard companies, their contract guards have not received training on how to respond during incidents involving an active-shooter. Without ensuring that all guards receive this training, FPS has limited assurance that its guards are prepared for such a threat. Similarly, officials from one of FPS's contract guard companies stated that 133 (about 38 percent) of its approximately 350 guards have never received screener training. As a result, those guards may be using x-ray and magnetometer equipment at federal facilities that they are not qualified to use, raising questions about their ability to properly screen access control points at federal facilities--one of their primary responsibilities. We were unable to determine the extent to which FPS's guards have received active-shooter-response and screener training. FPS agreed with GAO's 2013 recommendation that they take steps to identify guards that have not had required training and provide it to them. GAO also found that 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. Additionally, 23 percent of the 276 guard files GAO examined (maintained by 11 of the 31 guard companies we interviewed) lacked required training and certification documentation. Examples of missing items include documentation of initial weapons and screener training and firearms qualifications.
GAO's preliminary results indicate that several agencies, including FPS, do not use a methodology to assess risk at their facilities that aligns with the Interagency Security Committee's (ISC) risk assessment standards. Risk assessments help decision-makers identify and evaluate security risks and implement protective measures to mitigate the risk. ISC's standards state that agencies' facility risk assessment methodologies must: 1) consider all of the undesirable events identified by ISC as possible risks to federal facilities, and 2) assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequence of specific undesirable events. Most commonly, agencies' methodologies that GAO reviewed are inconsistent with ISC's standards because they do not assess facilities' vulnerabilities to specific undesirable events. If an agency does not know its facilities' potential vulnerabilities to specific undesirable events, it cannot set priorities to mitigate these vulnerabilities. In addition, as GAO reported in August 2012, although federal agencies pay FPS millions of dollars to assess risk at their facilities, FPS's risk assessment tool is not consistent with ISC's risk assessment standards because it does not assess consequence (i.e., the level, duration, and nature of loss resulting from undesirable events). As a result, FPS and the other non-compliant agencies GAO reviewed may not have a complete understanding of the risks facing approximately 57,000 federal facilities located around the country (including the 9,600 protected by FPS).

What GAO Recommends

DHS and FPS agreed with GAO's recommendations in its September 2013 report.