Federal Facility Security
Staffing Approaches Used by Selected Agencies Gao ID: GAO-11-601 June 30, 2011The Federal Protective Service (FPS) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides security and law enforcement services to over 9,000 federal facilities through its federal and contract security workforce. Over the years, GAO has made numerous recommendations to address significant weaknesses in FPS's oversight and management of its security workforce. Legislation has been introduced that would, among other things, have FPS examine the effectiveness of relying more on federal employees for security. As requested, this report examines: (1) nine federal agencies' approaches for staffing their security workforces; (2) federal and private sector representatives' views on the benefits and challenges of using contract and in-house security staff; and (3) lessons that FPS can learn from federal agencies that have changed their security staffing approaches. GAO reviewed agency documents and conducted interviews with representatives from federal agencies and private sector firms selected based on the use of security guards and experience in changing a security workforce, among other criteria. The selected agencies and private sector firms are a nonprobability sample, and the information we obtained is not generalizable.
Eight of the nine selected federal agencies reported using a combination of contract and in-house facility security positions, and the distribution of their security staff varies significantly. Contract security staff are primarily used for routine access control functions, while in-house staff, such as federal security guards and inspectors, tend to perform a variety of security functions, such as patrol and risk assessment. Selected agency officials cited facility risk level and cost, among others, as factors considered when staffing a security workforce. Federal agencies used various types of security staff-- even at high-risk facilities--for protection. As a high-profile law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice uses armed contract security guards with prior law enforcement experience to protect its high-risk facilities. Federal and private sector representatives reported that contract and in-house security staff offer benefits and challenges for agencies to weigh when making staffing decisions. The two primary reported benefits of contract security staff were (1) potential cost savings and (2) flexibility to increase or reduce staff size. Conversely, these two issues were commonly cited as challenges in using in-house security staff. The reported benefits for in-house security staff were greater control to select qualified security staff and develop them to meet organizational needs. Early planning to determine security staffing needs and sufficient oversight were cited as key lessons learned when changing staffing approaches. For example, Smithsonian Institution had time to conduct risk-based assessments, which helped it decide to use contract staff only at lower-risk posts. Other agencies' experiences, as well as FPS's experience in transitioning to an inspector-based workforce, suggest that changing FPS's staffing approach could prove challenging. Early planning could help FPS address some of those challenges in the event a transition is desired or mandated, and sufficient oversight and management of its workforce will be critical to providing effective security. GAO provided the nine agencies with a draft of this report for comment. In response, agencies provided technical comments that were incorporated where appropriate.
GAO-11-601, Federal Facility Security: Staffing Approaches Used by Selected Agencies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-601
entitled 'Federal Facility Security: Staffing Approaches Used by
Selected Agencies' which was released on August 1, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives:
June 2011:
Federal Facility Security:
Staffing Approaches Used by Selected Agencies:
GAO-11-601:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-601, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) provides security and law enforcement services to over
9,000 federal facilities through its federal and contract security
workforce. Over the years, GAO has made numerous recommendations to
address significant weaknesses in FPS‘s oversight and management of
its security workforce. Legislation has been introduced that would,
among other things, have FPS examine the effectiveness of relying more
on federal employees for security.
As requested, this report examines: (1) nine federal agencies‘
approaches for staffing their security workforces; (2) federal and
private sector representatives‘ views on the benefits and challenges
of using contract and in-house security staff; and (3) lessons that
FPS can learn from federal agencies that have changed their security
staffing approaches. GAO reviewed agency documents and conducted
interviews with representatives from federal agencies and private
sector firms selected based on the use of security guards and
experience in changing a security workforce, among other criteria. The
selected agencies and private sector firms are a nonprobability
sample, and the information we obtained is not generalizable.
GAO provided the nine agencies with a draft of this report for
comment. In response, agencies provided technical comments that were
incorporated where appropriate.
What GAO Found:
Eight of the nine selected federal agencies reported using a
combination of contract and in-house facility security positions, and
the distribution of their security staff varies significantly (see
figure below). Contract security staff are primarily used for routine
access control functions, while in-house staff, such as federal
security guards and inspectors, tend to perform a variety of security
functions, such as patrol and risk assessment. Selected agency
officials cited facility risk level and cost, among others, as factors
considered when staffing a security workforce. Federal agencies used
various types of security staff”-even at high-risk facilities-”for
protection. As a high-profile law enforcement agency, the Department
of Justice uses armed contract security guards with prior law
enforcement experience to protect its high-risk facilities.
Figure: Selected Agencies‘ Distribution of In-House and Contract
Security Workforce:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The figure depicts a bar representing the amount of security workforce
from left to right. The left end depicts In-house security workforce,
and the right end depicts Contract security workforce.
The following agencies are represented at points on the bar:
Veterans Health Administration: primarily in-house security;
Transportation Security Administration: primarily in-house security;
Smithsonian Institution: primarily in-house security;
Pentagon Force Protection Agency[A]: approximately two-thirds in-
house; one-third contract;
Air Force: approximately half in-house and half contract;
Army: approximately one-third in-house; two-thirds contract;
Federal Protective Service: primarily contract security;
Justice Protective Service: primarily contract security;
U.S. Marshals Service: primarily contract security.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Note: To determine an agency‘s in-house to contract security workforce
ratio for Fiscal Year 2010, GAO used 1,760 work hours per year to
convert contract service hours into one full-time equivalent.
[A] The Pentagon Force Protection Agency did not provide in-house and
contract workforce data, but provided estimates of the number of in-
house and contract security staff for Fiscal Year 2010.
[End of figure]
Federal and private sector representatives reported that contract and
in-house security staff offer benefits and challenges for agencies to
weigh when making staffing decisions. The two primary reported
benefits of contract security staff were (1) potential cost savings
and (2) flexibility to increase or reduce staff size. Conversely,
these two issues were commonly cited as challenges in using in-house
security staff. The reported benefits for in-house security staff were
greater control to select qualified security staff and develop them to
meet organizational needs.
Early planning to determine security staffing needs and sufficient
oversight were cited as key lessons learned when changing staffing
approaches. For example, Smithsonian Institution had time to conduct
risk-based assessments, which helped it decide to use contract staff
only at lower-risk posts. Other agencies‘ experiences, as well as FPS‘
s experience in transitioning to an inspector-based workforce, suggest
that changing FPS‘s staffing approach could prove challenging. Early
planning could help FPS address some of those challenges in the event
a transition is desired or mandated, and sufficient oversight and
management of its workforce will be critical to providing effective
security.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-601] or key
components. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Most Selected Federal Agencies Use a Combination of In-house and
Contract Security Positions to Meet Their Individual Facility Security
Requirements:
Cited Benefits of Contract Security Staff Are Potential Cost Savings
and Personnel Flexibility, While In-house Security Staff Are Viewed as
Offering Increased Control over Staff Selection and Development:
Need for Upfront Planning in Determining Security and Staffing Needs
and Better Oversight of Workforce Were Key Lessons Learned When
Changing Staffing Approach:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Primary Facility Security Functions:
Table 2: Number of U.S. Federal Facilities Secured by Selected Federal
Agencies:
Table 3: Selected Federal Agencies' In-house and Contract Facility
Security Positions:
Table 4: Security Job Series by Most Common GS Grade Levels and
Average Base Salaries of Selected Federal Agencies:
Table 5: Benefits and Challenges for Using Contract or In-house
Facility Security Staff, as Cited by Federal Agency and Private Sector
Representatives:
Figures:
Figure 1: Distribution of Selected Agencies' In-house and Contract
Security Workforces in Fiscal Year 2010:
Figure 2: Number of Selected Federal Agencies Reporting Personnel
Performing Security Functions:
Abbreviations:
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:
CPDF: Central Personnel Data File:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FERS: Federal Employees Retirement System:
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:
FPS: Federal Protective Service:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
GS: general schedule:
GSA: General Services Administration:
ISC: Interagency Security Committee:
JPS: Justice Protective Service:
LESO: law enforcement security officer:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PFPA: Pentagon Force Protection Agency:
RAMP: Risk Assessment Management Program:
Smithsonian: Smithsonian Institution:
TSA: Transportation Security Administration:
USMS: U.S. Marshals Service:
VA: Veterans Affairs:
VHA: Veterans Health Administration:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 30, 2011:
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Protecting federal facilities and their occupants from terrorist
attacks and other violent acts remains a daunting challenge for
federal agencies. Agencies face potential workplace violence,
unauthorized access, and terrorism, among other facility security
threats, and employ security personnel who perform a key role in
helping to protect against such threats. Responsibilities for federal
facility security are dispersed among multiple federal agencies.
Several agencies, including the Departments of Defense (DOD), Justice
(DOJ), and Veterans Affairs (VA), are responsible for securing some of
their own facilities. However, the Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) is the primary federal agency
that is responsible for securing and protecting approximately 9,000
federal facilities nationwide that are under the control and custody
of the General Services Administration (GSA). Through its federal and
contract security workforce, FPS provides facility security services
that include law enforcement, security, and emergency response. In
recent years, our work has identified significant weaknesses in FPS's
oversight and management of its security workforce, including the
failures to ensure that its contract security guards maintain required
training and certifications and to annually evaluate security guard
performance.[Footnote 1] Such oversight gaps have raised questions
about FPS's reliance on a contract workforce.
Congress has begun to explore alternative approaches for staffing
FPS's facility security workforce. Legislation has been introduced
that would, among other things, reclassify and change the job
functions of FPS's federal security employees and require FPS to
examine the effectiveness of using federal employees to staff the
contract security guard positions at the highest-risk federal
facilities.[Footnote 2] In light of your interest in staffing
approaches for facility security workforces, this report examines: (1)
selected federal agencies' approaches in staffing their facility
security workforces; (2) federal agency and private sector
representatives' views on the benefits and challenges of using
contract or in-house security staffing approaches; and (3) lessons
that FPS can learn from other federal agencies that have changed their
security staffing approaches.
To gather information addressing all of these issues, we reviewed
agency documents and conducted interviews with the following nine
federal agencies:
* FPS;
* Transportation Security Administration (TSA);
* U.S. Army;
* Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA);
* U.S. Air Force;
* U.S. Marshals Service (USMS);
* DOJ's Justice Protective Service (JPS);
* Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian); and:
* Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
We selected these agencies based on several criteria, including
dispersed geographic location of facilities, facility security staff
presence, a need to balance public access and security at facilities,
and experience in changing the approach used to staff their facility
security workforce, among other factors. We reviewed selected federal
agencies' documents and data on the facility security workforce
staffing approaches used, including the salary costs for federal
facility security employees and the responsibilities performed by
those employees and contract security personnel. To ensure the
accuracy of the staffing data collected, we provided each federal
agency with data on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees
for security-related positions in the Office of Personnel Management's
(OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for that agency. We asked
each agency to review its CPDF data and provide updated figures for
fiscal year 2010 for the information requested. We assessed the CPDF
data and found it to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We
also gathered views and information on the benefits and challenges for
facility security staffing approaches, including the use of contract
or in-house security staff, from representatives of the nine selected
federal agencies and three private sector industries: (1) commercial
real estate; (2) entertainment, including gaming and theme parks; and
(3) hospitals. The industries were selected using the previously
stated criteria for selecting federal agencies. We selected a total of
10 companies and associations within these industries for interviews.
Because the selected organizations are a nonprobability sample, the
information we obtained are not generalizable. To determine lessons
that FPS can learn from other federal agencies that have changed their
security staffing approaches, we reviewed agency documents and
conducted semistructured interviews with officials from the four
selected agencies that had undergone a workforce transition (Air
Force, Army, Smithsonian, and TSA). In addition, we reviewed our
previous reports and industry literature regarding staffing a security
workforce. See appendix I for more detailed information on our scope
and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through June 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The general purpose of facility security is to protect people,
property, and the facility itself by deterring, detecting, and
responding to potentially criminal and dangerous acts and people.
Threats to facility security may include theft, unauthorized access,
natural disasters, and terrorism, among others. An organization's need
to balance security with open and public access can make facility
security more challenging, including at facilities such as medical
centers, commercial office buildings, and gaming facilities.
Organizations' efforts to provide facility security are more extensive
than simply assigning an individual to "stand guard." Key functions of
facility security generally include facility access, patrol and law
enforcement, and security management (see table 1).
Table 1: Primary Facility Security Functions:
Primary facility security function: Facility access:
Job task: Security access control;
Description of job task: Control access to the facility;
stand post at entry/exit points.
Job task: Visitor processing;
Description of job task: Check visitor identification;
issue visitor identification badges.
Job task: Screening functions;
Description of job task: Operate security equipment, such as x-ray
machines and magnetometers, to screen for prohibited materials.
Job task: Control center operations;
Description of job task: Monitor security cameras and/or alarms.
Primary facility security function: Patrol and law enforcement:
Job task: Proactive patrol and response;
Description of job task: Observe environment for suspicious activity
and conduct patrols in accordance with scheduled routes;
inspect facilities for hazards and unsafe conditions and respond to
reports of incidents; and request emergency assistance if needed.
Job task: Incident investigations;
Description of job task: Investigate reports of crime and incidents.
Job task: Custodial authority;
Description of job task: Detain or arrest offenders.
Primary facility security function: Inspections;
Job task: Inspect posts;
Description of job task: Conduct inspections of facility security
posts to ensure compliance with requirements.
Primary facility security function: Risk assessment;
Job task: Facility security risk assessments;
Description of job task: Identify security risks and needs of
individual facilities and recommend security measures to mitigate risk
to facilities.
Source: GAO analysis of FPS and OPM data.
[End of table]
As part of facility security management, organizations conduct risk
assessments--or facility security assessments--that include
identifying threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences to determine
overall risk and what means, or countermeasures, are best suited to
secure the facility. Organizations use a variety of countermeasures to
provide facility security, including the use of security equipment,
building-design specifications, and security personnel. Nonmilitary
federal facilities are categorized into five facility security risk
levels that are based on five factors: mission criticality, symbolism,
facility population, facility size, and threat to tenant agencies.
[Footnote 3] Private companies make individual determinations on how
they want to mitigate facility security risks and must ensure their
security workforces meet the specific needs of their industry. For
example, security guards in the hospital industry protect employees,
patients, visitors, and hospital equipment, and also may provide
specialized assistance to ensure the safety of people with particular
medical needs.
To carry out facility security functions, organizations may rely on in-
house security personnel; for federal agencies, those personnel are
classified into several specific general schedule (GS) job series.
Federal guidance provides broad parameters for the duties associated
with each job position within its assigned OPM job series, but each
agency is able to further refine its specific position descriptions
within those parameters. The following provides the five job series
used for the security personnel at the agencies we reviewed and a
summary of the key security duties associated with each job series
according to OPM guidance:
* GS-0085 Security Guard--generally performs protective services work
involving guarding, protecting, and controlling access to federal
facilities;
* GS-0083 Police--generally performs law enforcement work involving
protecting the peace, investigating crimes, and arresting violators;
* GS-0080 Security Administration--generally performs or manages
facility security work involving developing risk assessments,
implementing security procedures, and overseeing security staff;
* GS-1811 Criminal Investigation--generally performs or supervises
work involving planning and conducting investigations related to
violations of federal laws; and:
* GS-1802 Compliance Inspection--generally performs work involving
conducting inspections to ensure compliance with federal laws (e.g.,
inspection of airline passengers and baggage).
In addition to in-house facility security personnel, organizations may
also use contract security personnel to secure their facilities.
[Footnote 4] Organizations generally contract for a certain number of
hours of security service to be fulfilled by contracting companies,
rather than specifying the number of contract security personnel.
Contracting companies recruit, hire, train, and pay their own security
staff and typically charge an organization an hourly rate for their
services. Titles for these contract security personnel may vary by
organization. For example, FPS calls them protective security
officers, while the Army more simply calls them contract security
guards.[Footnote 5]
In the federal government, DHS is designated under the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 as the primary agency authorized to enforce
federal laws and regulations aimed at protecting federal facilities
and persons on the property. Within DHS, FPS is the security provider
for GSA-owned or -controlled facilities.[Footnote 6] FPS's federal
workforce consists of about 675 law enforcement security officers
(LESO), also known as inspectors, who are responsible for law
enforcement and security duties, including: patrolling building
perimeters, responding to incidents, completing risk assessments for
buildings, recommending security countermeasures, and overseeing the
contract security workforce. FPS also relies on about 14,000 contract
security guards to control access, operate security equipment, observe
the environment for suspicious activity, and respond to emergency
situations involving the safety and security of the facility. We
previously identified several vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the
oversight of both FPS's federal and contract workforces, and FPS is
currently undertaking efforts to address these weaknesses and improve
management of its security workforce.[Footnote 7] In addition to FPS,
other federal agencies are responsible for securing and protecting
their own facilities. Table 2 shows the facilities protected by the
other agencies included in our review.
Table 2: Number of U.S. Federal Facilities Secured by Selected Federal
Agencies:
Selected federal agency: Federal Protective Service;
Federal facilities secured: 9,000 GSA owned/managed facilities
nationwide[A].
Selected federal agency: U.S. Air Force;
Federal facilities secured: 76 installations nationwide.
Selected federal agency: U.S. Army;
Federal facilities secured: 82 installations nationwide.
Selected federal agency: JPS;
Federal facilities secured: DOJ headquarters and 22 DOJ facilities in
the National Capital region.
Selected federal agency: USMS;
Federal facilities secured: 400 federal court facilities nationwide[B].
Selected federal agency: PFPA;
Federal facilities secured: Pentagon and 27 DOD facilities in the
National Capital region.
Selected federal agency: Smithsonian;
Federal facilities secured: 19 museum facilities in Washington D.C.,
and New York, N.Y., and 9 research facilities in the Washington, D.C.,
metro area, New York, N.Y., and Panama.
Selected federal agency: TSA;
Federal facilities secured: Security screening at 400+ airport
facilities nationwide[C].
Selected federal agency: VHA;
Federal facilities secured: 152 hospitals nationwide.
Source: GAO presentation of federal agency data.
[A] FPS provides security personnel to about 2,360 of these
facilities. Based on facility risk assessments, FPS did not recommend
using contract security personnel as a countermeasure at the remaining
6,600 facilities under its protection. Other security countermeasures,
such as cameras and perimeter lighting, may have been recommended to
mitigate risk at these facilities.
[B] FPS shares responsibility with USMS for securing federal court
facilities. Federal courts operate most often in multitenant buildings
that also house other federal agencies. In these multitenant
buildings, USMS is responsible for securing court space, while FPS is
generally responsible for securing the perimeter of the building and
other offices that are not occupied by the federal courts.
[C] TSA is responsible for protecting the nation's transportation
system, which includes protecting and screening passengers and baggage
at airport facilities nationwide.
[End of table]
Most Selected Federal Agencies Use a Combination of In-house and
Contract Security Positions to Meet Their Individual Facility Security
Requirements:
Selected Federal Agencies Generally Use In-house Staff to Perform a
Wide Range of Security Functions, While Contract Security Guards
Typically Perform Routine Access Control:
Eight of the nine federal agencies selected for our review currently
use a combination of both in-house and contract security personnel to
secure their facilities, and the distribution of in-house and contract
staff vary significantly (see figure 1). VHA almost exclusively uses
federal employees to secure its hospitals.[Footnote 8] Three of the
selected agencies have statutory requirements that determine their use
of federal and contract staff: the Army, Air Force, and TSA. DOD is
generally prohibited from entering into a contract for the performance
of firefighting or security guard functions at any military
installation or facility. However, Congress authorized DOD to
temporarily use contract security staff in fiscal year 2003 to address
increased security needs at its facilities when numerous DOD employees
were deployed overseas, but DOD is now required to discontinue the
temporary use of contract security guards at the end of fiscal year
2012.[Footnote 9] TSA's composition of mostly federal security
employees, or airport passenger screeners, was dictated when the
agency was created in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of
2001.[Footnote 10] Others among our selected agencies generally have
the discretion to determine the extent to which they use in-house
staff or contract the facility security functions out to private
contractors. For instance, PFPA primarily uses federal police officers
to secure the Pentagon--a facility with a high risk for terrorist
attack--and contract security guards to secure its lower-risk
facilities.[Footnote 11]
Figure 1: Distribution of Selected Agencies' In-house and Contract
Security Workforces in Fiscal Year 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The figure depicts a bar representing the amount of security workforce
from left to right. The left end depicts In-house security workforce,
and the right end depicts Contract security workforce.
The following agencies are represented at points on the bar:
Veterans Health Administration: primarily in-house security;
Transportation Security Administration: primarily in-house security;
Smithsonian Institution: primarily in-house security;
Pentagon Force Protection Agency[A]: approximately two-thirds in-
house; one-third contract;
Air Force: approximately half in-house and half contract;
Army: approximately one-third in-house; two-thirds contract;
Federal Protective Service: primarily contract security;
Justice Protective Service: primarily contract security;
U.S. Marshals Service: primarily contract security.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Note: To determine the ratio of the number of in-house and contract
staff in fiscal year 2010, we used 1,760 work hours per year to
convert contract service hours into a FTE number of employees for
contract staff. The 1,760 work hours account for a typical federal
employee and includes estimated time for annual and sick leave that
may be used in a year. The number of in-house staff for the Air Force,
Army, and PFPA does not include military personnel who perform
security functions.
[A] Pentagon Force Protection Agency did not provide us with in-house
and contract workforce data, but provided estimates of the number of
in-house and contract security staff for fiscal year 2010.
[End of figure]
Federal agencies reported using a variety of in-house security
positions (see table 3); however, one or two key positions may account
for the majority of the agency's in-house security staff. For example,
while the Smithsonian reported that it uses four different types of
federal security positions, almost 90 percent of its security
employees are federal security guards.
Table 3: Selected Federal Agencies' In-house and Contract Facility
Security Positions:
Army:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check];
GS-0083 Police: [Empty];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Empty];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
USAF:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check];
GS-0083 Police: [Check];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
PFPA[A]:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty];
GS-0083 Police: [Check];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Check];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
JPS:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty];
GS-0083 Police: [Empty];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Empty];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
FPS:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty];
GS-0083 Police: [Check];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
USMS:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty];
GS-0083 Police: [Empty];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
TSA:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty];
GS-0083 Police: [Empty];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Check];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
VHA:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check];
GS-0083 Police: [Check];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Empty].
SI:
In-house:
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check];
GS-0083 Police: [Check];
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check];
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check];
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty];
Contract:
Contract Security: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis of data submitted by federal agencies.
[A] According to the September 2010 OPM CPDF.
[End of table]
Agency officials reported that their in-house security staffs
collectively perform a broader range of facility security functions
than their contract staff. In-house security administration staff,
police officers, and security guards, among others, perform a wide
range of security functions. The most common security functions that
in-house staff performed are law enforcement, post inspections, and
risk assessments (see fig. 2). In contrast, seven of the eight
agencies currently using contract security personnel reported their
contract staff generally perform routine facility access control
functions, including visitor screening and control center operations.
FPS reported that its contract security guards performed a wider range
of tasks, including some patrol and response duties. Officials from
other agencies reported using contract security guards for what they
consider to be lower-risk security posts, such as those providing
visitor assistance. According to Air Force officials, their decisions
of where to use contract staff are not predicated on facility or post
risk levels, but on where staff are needed to replace deployed
military personnel.
Figure 2: Number of Selected Federal Agencies Reporting Personnel
Performing Security Functions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Security function: Facility access;
Position type: In-house:
Security Guard (GS-0085): 4;
Police (GS-0083: 3;
Security Administration (GS-0080): 0;
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 1;
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 1;
Position type: Contract:
Contract Security Guard: 7.
Security function: Patrol and law enforcement;
Position type: In-house:
Security Guard (GS-0085): 3;
Police (GS-0083: 4;
Security Administration (GS-0080): 5;
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 6;
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 1;
Position type: Contract:
Contract Security Guard: 2.
Security function: Inspect posts;
Position type: In-house:
Security Guard (GS-0085): 2;
Police (GS-0083: 3;
Security Administration (GS-0080): 5;
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 2;
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 0;
Position type: Contract:
Contract Security Guard: 2.
Security function: Risk assessments;
Position type: In-house:
Security Guard (GS-0085): 0;
Police (GS-0083: 0;
Security Administration (GS-0080): 7;
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 1;
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 0;
Position type: Contract:
Contract Security Guard: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of selected federal agency data.
[End of figure]
Depending on the functions that are performed, each security position,
whether in-house or contracted, generally has different training
requirements that are specified by each individual agency's needs.
Training for federal and military police officers is generally more
extensive than that required for federal and military security guards--
two commonly used in-house security positions. While federal police
officers receive training at a police academy, a federal law
enforcement training facility, or a DOD-agency training facility,
training for federal security guards is currently dictated by each
agency's individual needs.[Footnote 12] For example, Air Force
officials told us that Air Force police officers receive 5 weeks of
training and can perform all the job functions of security guards, in
addition to broader law enforcement functions, while Air Force
security guards receive 2 weeks of training to perform a more limited
set of functions focused on facility access.[Footnote 13] Currently,
no federal governmentwide training standards exist for contract
security guards to work in federal facilities.[Footnote 14]
Consequently, training requirements for contract security staff vary
depending on the agency, as well as possible state requirements.
[Footnote 15] Agencies specify in their contract statements of work
the functions that contract staff are expected to perform, as well as
the qualifications that are required for the staff. For instance, in
addition to basic security training provided by the contractor, FPS
contract security guards are required to have 16 hours of FPS-provided
training, including certification on X-ray and magnetometer equipment,
while the Air Force's contract security guards receive 40 hours of
government-provided training specific to the installation in which
they are assigned.
Federal Agencies' Individual Security Needs and Costs Largely Drive
the Makeup of Their Facility Security Workforce:
Selected agency officials told us that their decisions about staffing
facility security functions--whether it be deciding between using in-
house or contract staff or deciding the most appropriate type of in-
house staff--are driven by multiple factors, such as their individual
facility security requirements and costs. Federal facilities
nationwide differ in their facility type, size, location, occupant
mission, and risk level, among other factors. As we have previously
reported, and security officials corroborated, there is no widely
accepted formula to determine the size and makeup of a security
workforce and no standard model can be applied for staffing because
the risk level and specific building needs may differ.[Footnote 16]
While some federal agencies may use in-house staff to secure their
high-risk facilities, other agencies, such as JPS or USMS, may use
contract security guards to protect their high-risk facilities. Over
the years, we have advocated the use of a comprehensive risk
management approach that links threats and vulnerabilities to resource
requirements and allocations to address potential security threats.
According to security officials from selected agencies, staffing for
specific security positions is based on factors such as the risk level
and specific needs of the facilities that are being protected.
Staffing needs dictate the qualifications that agencies set for either
their in-house or contract staff. For instance, FPS requires a high-
school diploma, among other things, for its contract security guards;
however, it does not require a law enforcement background or previous
law enforcement experience. In contrast, PFPA requires some of its
contract security guards to have, among other things, a secret-level
security clearance, because of their potential access to sensitive
materials. Examples of factors considered by agency security officials
in reaching their security staffing decisions include the following:
* Smithsonian reported primarily using federal security guards to
control access, operate security equipment, and patrol the perimeter
of its facilities where the security risks are higher. Contract
security guards are used to assist and advise visitors within the
interior of museums, where security risks are lower because visitors
are screened when granted access to the building.
* JPS security officials stated that the high-profile nature of the
law enforcement and justice mission of DOJ draws increased attention
to its facilities and poses increased or additional security threats,
such as protests and other potential harm. It uses armed contract
security guards, all of whom have prior law enforcement experience and
are highly trained and deputized as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals.
* VHA facilities face security risks due to their open campuses at
diverse locations. VA officials explained they rely on locally
conducted risk assessments to determine their facilities' security
response. At some of its medical facilities located in rural
locations, ready access to local law enforcement services may be
limited; at several of its large urban VHA facilities, local law
enforcement agencies generally do not provide basic police services on
federal facilities.[Footnote 17] As a result, VA primarily uses
uniformed federal police officers to provide facility security and law
enforcement functions.
Security officials also cited cost as another factor that was
considered in staffing their workforces. We previously found that
security officials from federal agencies cited budget considerations
in making law enforcement and facility security staffing decisions.
[Footnote 18] The base salary costs of government security positions
vary depending on the experience and qualifications of the individual
employee. Among our selected federal agencies, in-house security
positions vary in base pay from an average of about $37,000 for
security guards to nearly $90,000 for criminal investigators (see
table 4). We found that an agency may hire entry-level employees into
a GS-3 or GS-4 position, while experienced employees ranged up to the
GS-15 grade level, particularly for security positions requiring
higher levels of responsibilities or qualifications.[Footnote 19] With
respect to contract security staff, the specific functions to be
performed and the hourly rate associated with each position are
established within a contract statement of work. One federal official
told us that using a combined federal and contract workforce
distributed based on functional areas and risks could make sense from
a cost perspective. For example, a cost-effective model may be to have
a high-level federal security or law enforcement officer present at
facilities to oversee contract security guards assigned to perform
certain limited facility access control functions.
Table 4: Security Job Series by Most Common GS Grade Levels and
Average Base Salaries of Selected Federal Agencies:
OPM job series: Security Guard (GS-0085);
Top three most common GS grades: GS-5; GS-4; GS-6;
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 49%; 23%; 15%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $36,822.
OPM job series: Police (GS-0083);
Top three most common GS grades: GS-6; GS-7; GS-8;
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 55%; 20%; 9%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $48,737.
OPM job series: Security Administration (GS-0080);
Top three most common GS grades: GS-12; GS-11; GS-9;
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 31%; 24%; 23%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $78,378.
OPM job series: Criminal Investigation (GS-1811);
Top three most common GS grades: GS-12; GS-13; GS-11;
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 38%; 34%; 14%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $89,656.
OPM job series: Compliance Inspection (GS-1802);
Top three most common GS grades: GS-7; GS-6; GS-8;
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 55%; 15%; 13%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $40,374.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM's September 2010 CPDF.
Note: Table figures include all federal positions classified in the
specified security-related OPM job series, including those positions
that may not perform facility security.
[A] Percentages of GS grade levels do not include those employees
whose positions are not classified into a GS grade.
[B] Average base salaries include all employees classified in the job
series, including those with a GS grade, non-GS grades, and senior
executives.
[End of table]
Cited Benefits of Contract Security Staff Are Potential Cost Savings
and Personnel Flexibility, While In-house Security Staff Are Viewed as
Offering Increased Control over Staff Selection and Development:
Representatives of the nine federal agencies and ten private sector
organizations with whom we spoke identified several issues that
present either benefits or challenges for using contract and in-house
security staff, as identified in table 5. In our analysis of the
benefits and challenges identified for both in-house and contract
security staff, we found that both workforce staffing approaches offer
advantages and disadvantages. As indicated previously, eight of the
nine federal agencies in our review use both in-house and contract
security staff. If staffing is well managed, agencies may achieve the
benefits of either staffing approach.
Table 5: Benefits and Challenges for Using Contract or In-house
Facility Security Staff, as Cited by Federal Agency and Private Sector
Representatives:
Contract security staff;
Benefits:
Cost: Seven representatives[A] cited the potential for cost savings
with contract staff, including savings from employee health and
retirement benefits;
Personnel flexibility: Ten representatives cited contract personnel
flexibility benefits, such as the ability to quickly increase or
decrease staff hours as needed;
Challenges:
Staff selection: Five representatives cited contract staff selection
challenges, including ensuring the quality of contract staff and that
desired certifications are in place;
Staff development and retention: Eight representatives cited staff
development and retention challenges, such as maintaining a consistent
workforce that is familiar with facility and client culture.
In-house security staff;
Benefits:
Staff selection: Seven representatives cited in-house staff selection
benefits, such as increased control over hiring and background checks;
Staff development and retention: Nine representatives cited in-house
staff development and retention benefits, such as increased control
over training to develop specific skills and increased workforce
loyalty;
Challenges:
Personnel responsibilities: Nine representatives cited increased
personnel responsibilities with in-house security staff, including
human capital and performance management activities;
Cost: Eight representatives cited the potential for increased costs
with in-house staff due to salaries, benefits, overtime, and other
costs.
Source: GAO analysis of interviews with representatives of federal
agencies and private sector organizations.
[A] Each representative cited was speaking on behalf of one of the
organizations we spoke with for the purposes of this report.
[End of table]
Cost. Private sector and federal agency representatives identified
potential for cost savings as a benefit of using contract staff over
in-house security staff. Such potential cost savings were based on
several factors identified by representatives: (1) an in-house
staffing model requires organizations to have more employees on board
to staff posts than may be required under a contract model in which
security is procured hourly; (2) a contract workforce may offer
savings in employee compensation costs, including health and
retirement benefits; and (3) contract security costs are fixed within
the contract, which may reduce the risk of budget fluctuations.
First, contract security staff are typically procured based on the
hours of service provided and not by the number of staff who are used
by the contractor to provide such services. Several federal officials
reported that agencies that use in-house security workforces must have
more security staff available than the equivalent hours required to
fill the same security posts through a contract workforce to cover
time when staff are away from their posts, such as for training or
leave. For example, and as discussed later, Smithsonian officials
reported it uses contract security guards at lower-risk areas of its
facilities which has enabled it to staff five posts with contract
security guards for the same cost as three posts staffed with federal
security guards. In addition, the use of an in-house security
workforce increases the number of FTEs an agency must recruit, train,
schedule, and manage, and adds to the in-house administrative
responsibilities and associated costs that could otherwise be handled
by a contractor. However, Army officials reported that an Army
analysis for fiscal year 2009 showed that while contract security
guards would have offered savings over in-house security guards in the
first 2 years of an in-sourcing decision, in-house security guards
would be more cost effective over time as start-up costs for training,
equipment, and uniforms are reduced. They noted it had sufficient
administrative capacity to absorb the increased workload without
additional administrative staff.
Second, federal agency and private sector representatives told us that
a contract security workforce offers savings in employee compensation
costs, including health and retirement benefits. With a contract
security workforce, the contractor is responsible for providing health
or retirement benefits to its workforce, rather than the organization
procuring the service. Several federal and private sector
representatives reported that the benefits offered by contractors may
be of lesser value than those offered in the federal sector, where
employee benefits represent a significant portion of an employee's
compensation. OPM reported that for fiscal year 2010, the cost factor
for federal employee health benefits was about $5,900 per enrolled
employee. Retirement benefits for employees covered under the Federal
Employees Retirement System (FERS) are about 14 percent of a regular
civilian employee's salary and as much as 30 percent of a federal law
enforcement officer's salary.[Footnote 20] An executive from one
private sector hospital that had recently transitioned to a contract
security workforce estimated that the hospital saved about 36 percent
annually by using a contract security workforce rather than an in-
house one, with much of this savings coming from no longer having to
pay for health, retirement, and other benefits. In addition, several
representatives also reported that contract security staff are often
paid less than in-house security staff. According to May 2009 data
from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the
national average annual wage for a contract security guard was
$24,450--about 30 percent less than the national average annual wage
of $36,410 paid to security guards employed by the federal executive
branch in that year.[Footnote 21] However, federal and private sector
representatives also noted that offering lower wages and benefits to
security personnel could present challenges in assembling a qualified
security workforce, which could present security risks. As such,
several representatives noted that, in using a contract security
workforce, it is important to establish minimum wage and training
requirements within the contract.[Footnote 22]
A third benefit of using a contract security workforce is the ability
to predict and manage security costs since the costs of the services
provided are fixed by the contract. For example, in using an in-house
security workforce, increasing security coverage or covering for
workforce absences could require the use of overtime hours, which may
be costly. Five of the federal agencies in our review reported they
budgeted overtime costs for facility security staff for fiscal year
2010, with one agency reporting it budgeted about $1,600 for each
facility security staff in that year. Overtime costs for staff
absences may not be applicable with a contract security workforce
because contractors are responsible for staffing each post under the
terms of the contract. An executive from a private sector hospital
that uses a contract security workforce reported that the hospital
knows its security costs for the life of the contract, including costs
defined in the contract for procuring additional security guard hours,
if needed.
Given the significant fiscal challenges currently facing the federal
government, the reported cost savings offered by a contract security
staff may be of particular interest to federal agencies. However, as
we have previously reported, in the federal procurement system today,
there is common recognition that a cost-only focus does not
necessarily deliver the best quality or performance for the government
or the taxpayers.[Footnote 23] Thus, while cost is always a factor,
and often an important one, it is not the only factor that needs to be
considered.
Personnel flexibility. Representatives also reported personnel
flexibility as a benefit of using contract security staff, including
the flexibility to adjust and deploy security staff levels to meet
immediate needs. According to FPS officials, its security contracts
include a requirement that the contractor maintain a reserve force
with a recommended capacity of at least 10 percent to provide
additional security guard hours as needed. For example, FPS provides
contract security guards to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
support its emergency-response efforts. FPS also provided additional
security guard service hours to the Internal Revenue Service in
response to an attack on an agency facility in Austin, Texas, in 2010.
FPS contractors may employ part-time personnel so they have sufficient
numbers to draw upon in the event of a temporary surge in security
guard needs, according to FPS officials. In the private sector,
executives representing gaming and theme-park industries reported
that, while their organizations primarily rely upon an in-house
security staff for day-to-day security, both industries call upon
contractors to surge their workforce size to address security risks
for New Year's Eve celebrations or other events that attract large
crowds, such as concerts.
Using a contract security workforce may also reduce some in-house
human capital administrative duties, such as recruiting security staff
and addressing performance issues. Several federal agency officials
reported that the use of an in-house security workforce presents
personnel responsibility challenges, such as increased administrative
functions for recruiting and hiring new staff, managing annual or sick
leave, planning work shifts, and other duties. We have previously
reported that the federal hiring process can be lengthy and complex
and is often an impediment to the agencies, managers, and applicants
it is designed to serve[Footnote 24]. This governmentwide hiring
challenge also applies to the hiring of in-house security staff. For
example, officials with one federal agency reported that its personnel
center was taking from 99 to 120 days to recruit and hire new security
staff. With a contract workforce, recruitment, hiring, and other
administrative responsibilities are the responsibility of the
contractor, and the contractor is obligated to provide the hours of
service contracted for, regardless of the challenges it might face in
doing so. Several federal agency and private sector representatives
also reported that contract security staff offer greater flexibility
to quickly address poor security guard performance issues than in-
house staff. Although representatives we interviewed did not cite
specific poor performance issues among in-house staff, several
reported that poor performing contract staff can be quickly removed
from a client's site, which is not generally the case for in-house
staff. It is generally more complex and time consuming to address poor
performing in-house staff, and the process for federal employees may
include performance reviews and appeals.[Footnote 25]
While using contract staff can reduce personnel responsibilities in
some areas, we have previously reported that it is important for
federal agencies to have systems in place to oversee and manage the
performance of contract and in-house security staff. In prior work, we
have noted that it is critical that agencies implement performance
management systems that help their security staff maximize their full
potential, while also providing agencies with the necessary
information to reward top performers and deal with poor performers,
among other things.[Footnote 26] We have also noted that it is
important to monitor contractor performance to ensure that the terms
of the contract are met. Contractor performance evaluations may
include daily oversight activities, such as post inspections, or
annual reviews to ensure that a contractor is meeting all training,
certification, and suitability requirements.[Footnote 27] Private
sector executives who we interviewed told us that the performance of
contract and in-house security guards can be monitored through various
means, including customer service surveys, officer performance
scenario tests and observations, security guard attendance, and other
data. We previously reported that federal agencies can develop
effective performance management systems by implementing a set of key
practices that apply to agencies' management of in-house as well as
contract security workforces.[Footnote 28] Implementing performance
management practices requires effort across an organization and is a
critical ingredient to ensure the performance of either an in-house or
contract workforce model.
Staff selection. Representatives from both federal agencies and
private sector organizations reported that in-house security staff
offer increased control over security staff selection--an important
benefit to ensure a qualified security workforce. Representatives from
several organizations favored selecting their own staff when they
considered the facility or post high risk or when the impact from a
security breach could pose a high risk of loss to the organization. In
using a contract security workforce, individual staff selection
decisions are generally made by the contractor and not by the
organization in which the staff are placed. Although security staff
qualifications may be defined in the contract, several officials
reported that reduced control over security staff selection can result
in a less-qualified workforce. For example, PFPA officials reported
that by using an in-house security workforce, it can control the
selection process to ensure the highest caliber officers are hired to
protect the Pentagon, a high-risk facility for terrorist attack. In
the private sector, executives representing two large gaming
corporations reported that their industry primarily uses in-house
security staff rather than contract staff to help ensure that large
amounts of cash circulating on the gaming floor are secure from theft.
Casinos conduct background investigations on all employees, and
executives reported that having control of the checks, rather than
relying on a contractor to vet officers, ensures their thoroughness
before officers are placed in sensitive security positions. Similarly,
private sector executives reported concerns with ensuring that
thorough security guard background investigations were conducted and
state certifications were kept up-to-date by contractors.
Staff development. Several private sector and federal agency
representatives reported that having in-house security staff allows
for greater control over the training and development that security
guards receive to tailor staff skills to meet organizational needs.
Although specialized training can be costly and time consuming,
executives from two private sector firms and a federal agency told us
they make training investments for their in-house staff, in part,
because they tend to be longer tenured than contract officers. For
example, private sector hospital executives reported that most
hospitals use in-house security staff who receive training in crisis
intervention, infection control, emergency preparedness, and other
issues. VHA officials reported that having in-house security staff is
preferable to contract staff because it can ensure the workforce
receives specific training to meet professional standards. VHA
facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission, an organization
that accredits health care facilities by maintaining specific
standards, such as managing security risks. According to VHA
officials, it is easier to maintain the standards with in-house
employees rather than relying on contractors whose training
requirements are different. According to officials, VHA police
officers are considered to be part of the patient-care team, trained
to provide security in the VHA psychological and behavioral health
centers. VHA officers receive basic training at VHA's own law
enforcement training center, which costs the agency approximately
$7,800 per officer; VHA also provides facility-specific training and
management-level supervisory courses.
Staff retention. Representatives we interviewed commonly cited staff
retention as a benefit of having in-house security staff. In general,
federal agency and private sector representatives reported retaining
security staff was as an important element in building an experienced
workforce that is familiar with the facility and loyal to the
organization they are charged to protect. Representatives from several
private sector organizations reported that turnover rates--or the
percentage of individuals leaving an organization per year--were
considered to be higher for contract security guards than those of in-
house security staff. Several private sector and federal agency
representatives reported that their organization's in-house security
staff turnover rates ranged from 10 to 35 percent; contractor turnover
rates were generally considered to be much higher among the officials
we interviewed. Two private sector executives further noted that
higher security guard turnover can result in an inconsistent security
workforce that may not be as familiar with the organization and the
facilities they are assigned to protect.
Although private sector representatives generally considered staff
retention to be a benefit of in-house staff over contract staff,
officials from five of the nine federal agencies we interviewed
reported that their agencies had experienced some staff retention
challenges. Some federal officials noted that staff retention can be
more difficult in certain geographic locations where the federal
government and contractors may be competing for qualified staff.
Reported challenges included retaining newly hired and trained federal
officers who tended to move to higher paying positions within the
federal system. VHA and Smithsonian officials indicated that their
respective agencies had experienced turnover rates for their in-house
security workforces of approximately 10 and 13 percent per year,
respectively. Although such turnover rates were lower than the
reported turnover rates for contract staff, attrition can be costly
because agencies expend upfront costs to recruit, conduct background
investigations, and train new staff. Furthermore, federal officials
also noted that delays in the federal hiring process can exacerbate
staff retention challenges, as attritions may not be quickly replaced
by new hires. The Smithsonian, for example, determined that, in many
cases, federal security guards hired at the GS-5 level were leaving
for other agencies that hired their security guards at the GS-6 level.
To address its staff retention issues, Smithsonian conducted a
thorough staffing analysis that evaluated security risks and needs at
each post within 19 museum properties in the Washington, D.C., and New
York, New York, areas. It developed a staffing plan that promoted some
GS-5 level security guards to GS-6, with those in-house security
guards posted at higher-risk facility entrance posts. Smithsonian also
procured a contractor to fill 70 lower-risk posts in building
interiors that were previously staffed by federal security guards. In
doing so, Smithsonian officials reported the agency has addressed its
staff retention challenges and restructured its security workforce.
Need for Upfront Planning in Determining Security and Staffing Needs
and Better Oversight of Workforce Were Key Lessons Learned When
Changing Staffing Approach:
Assessing and Determining Security and Staffing Needs Was Cited as a
Key Lesson Learned When Changing a Security Workforce:
Officials from the four selected federal agencies (Air Force, Army,
Smithsonian, and TSA) that had undergone a workforce transition cited
upfront planning in assessing facility security and staffing needs,
including administrative support and training requirements, as a key
lesson learned in facilitating a security workforce transition. These
officials reported that changing their staffing approach was a
challenging undertaking and upfront planning to assess and identify
facility security and staffing requirements was critical to a
successful transition. Officials further noted that this planning
should also include an assessment of the organization's administrative
and training capabilities that are necessary to support the security
workforce. We have previously reported that assessing and determining
facility security and staffing needs is a key practice and element in
a risk management approach for allocating resources in facility
protection.[Footnote 29]
Officials from the Smithsonian, which voluntarily changed its staffing
approach, told us that conducting detailed security and staffing needs
assessments based on risk management helped the transition to its
current approach of using both federal and contract security guards.
Until recently, the Smithsonian had primarily used federal security
guards to protect its 19 museum facilities and assets. Faced with an
increasing turnover rate of its federal security workforce, budget
constraints, and the need to increase security presence at its
facilities, Smithsonian officials told us they developed the current
staffing strategy after drawing on several staffing analyses
undertaken over the years. Components of the multiple facility
security and staffing needs assessments included an examination of job
functions of the security guards, security needs and risk level of
each facility, and actual staffing needs for each post by shift.
[Footnote 30] The agency also looked at post needs in terms of post
hours required by shift, rather than the number of people (i.e., FTEs)
required to staff the post. From these analyses, the agency determined
that it could change its staffing approach and reduce costs for some
low-risk posts by using a contract workforce and eliminating some
posts. Since 2009, the Smithsonian has used contract staff, who are
generally posted at lower-risk interior areas of some buildings to
monitor collections, while continuing to use federal security guards
at higher-risk areas, such as the museum entrance lobbies to screen
visitors.
By contrast, the Army and Air Force were temporarily allowed to change
their staffing approaches, and TSA was required to use an in-house
security force when the agency was created.[Footnote 31] Officials
from these agencies stated that, in hindsight, they believe their
workforce transitions would have benefited from more upfront planning,
including assessing their security and staffing needs. For instance,
in 2006, the Army assessed its staffing and post needs and
requirements, including determining the baseline service hours needed
at each security post, after transitioning from a federal workforce to
a contract one in 2002. The Army had originally replaced its in-house
staff with contract staff on a one-to-one staff exchange without
assessing its security and staffing needs at its military
installations and posts. This resulted in what we and its officials
later determined were higher-than-necessary contract costs.[Footnote
32] Army officials told us that a facility security and staffing needs
analysis was not conducted in 2002, when it was originally allowed to
change its workforce, because of the relatively short time frame it
had for its workforce transition.
Some officials also underscored the importance of assessing the
agency's administrative infrastructure--including its information
technology, financial systems, and human capital management--to
identify administrative and training requirements and capacities, and
to ensure the agency is capable of supporting a change in its staffing
approach. TSA officials told us that the agency spent about $60 to $70
million to change and transfer data into a new financial system to
manage its federal workforce. Because TSA had to transition airport
screeners from a contract workforce hired by the airlines to a federal
employee workforce within 1 year, it initially adopted the Department
of Transportation's (DOT) financial and human resources system.
However, DOT's system was not originally equipped or intended to take
on a large influx of federal employees, and it proved difficult to
use, according to TSA officials. TSA officials told us that, given
their initial time constraints, the agency did not have the time and
opportunity to plan and assess whether the system had the capacity to
handle the increased federal workforce.[Footnote 33]
These agencies' experiences indicate that taking the time and
conducting an assessment of facility security and staffing needs prior
to any security workforce transitions, should such a transition be
mandated or desired by FPS, would likely prove beneficial.[Footnote
34] FPS has recently taken some actions to assess its staffing needs
based on risks, but the outcomes of these efforts are yet to be
determined. For instance, FPS has developed federal workforce
requirements and has incorporated workload data and facility risk as
part of its workforce analysis. However, a final workforce analysis
plan is under executive review with OMB; and, as the details of the
plan are not yet known, it is unclear whether or the extent to which
it will include an assessment of the types and numbers of security
positions needed, as well as associated job functions, roles, and
responsibilities.[Footnote 35] Additionally, FPS is in the process of
developing a Risk Assessment Management Program (RAMP) system, which
among other things, is designed to improve its ability to manage
security at federal facilities and allocate resources based on risks.
[Footnote 36] While these efforts may help provide a foundation for
assessing its security and staffing needs, it is uncertain how much
FPS could use them to assess and identify other staffing approaches
and options that would be beneficial and financially feasible for
protecting federal facilities.[Footnote 37] When changing their
staffing approaches, other agencies found it helpful to assess
security needs and risk level of each facility, identify specific job
functions of its workforce, and link actual security and staffing
needs for each post and facility.
Additionally, an administrative and support capability assessment may
be particularly important if FPS were to transition to primarily using
federal employees to staff the current contract security guard
positions because, as noted earlier, the agency's hiring, personnel,
and administrative responsibilities would increase. As we previously
reported, it is important for agencies to be well equipped to recruit
and retain security professionals; our literature review also
indicated that whether the security staff are in house or contract,
the employee selection and training process is critical.[Footnote 38]
When transitioning to an all-inspector staff, FPS experienced delays
in its hiring and training process when Congress mandated it to
increase the number of federal law enforcement employees, which
affected the agency's ability to bring staff on board and train them
in a timely manner.[Footnote 39] If a change in workforce approach
involved hiring a large number of new federal employees, it could
particularly stretch FPS's existing administrative and support
functions. Determining whether its training needs could be met through
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), which currently
provides training for new FPS hires and continues to experience
backlogs, or through another entity would appear to be the type of
assessment that could lay the groundwork for a smoother transition.
[Footnote 40]
Finally, TSA officials further commented that a pilot program to phase
in staffing changes could help in planning and assessing security and
staffing needs. Legislation has recently been introduced in Congress
calling for the implementation of a pilot program to examine the
effectiveness of using federal employees to staff the current contract
security guard positions at selected higher-risk federal facilities.
[Footnote 41] Pilot programs allow for an alternative staffing
approach to be vigorously evaluated, shared systematically with
others, and adjusted, as appropriate, before it receives wider
application.[Footnote 42] We previously reported that when conducting
pilot programs, agencies should develop sound evaluation plans before
program implementation--as part of the design of the pilot program
itself--to increase confidence in the results and facilitate decision
making about broader applications of the pilot program. The lack of a
documented evaluation plan for the pilot program increases the
likelihood that an agency will not collect appropriate or sufficient
data, which limits understanding of the pilot program's results.
[Footnote 43]
Determining the Appropriate Level of Oversight and Management of
Workforce Was Cited as Another Lesson Learned:
Selected federal officials also cited the need to determine the
appropriate level of oversight and management of its workforce as
another lesson in adopting a new workforce approach. In the case of
the Army, officials cited the importance of determining at the outset
the appropriate level of government oversight needed over its contract
staff. In its contracts awarded in 2006, the Army established
additional oversight requirements and mechanisms, including developing
specific quality assurance plans and requiring full-time contracting
officer technical representatives to perform two detailed inspections
every 6 months. This was based on the recognition that government
oversight requirements in its earlier contract were insufficient.
[Footnote 44] As we previously reported, if the process is well
managed, either an in-house or contract approach to staffing a
security workforce can result in a uniform security workforce that
provides effective security.[Footnote 45]
As noted earlier, managing and overseeing more than 14,000 contract
security guards has proven challenging for FPS, and efforts to
implement our recommendations to monitor contractors' and contract
guards' performance are still under way.[Footnote 46] For instance,
FPS has begun requiring its inspectors to complete two contract
security guard inspections a week at level IV federal facilities, and
is in the process of providing additional training to its contract
security guards. We believe it is important for FPS to continue taking
steps to improve its oversight and management of its contract security
guards. Changing the makeup of its contract security guard force to an
in-house security workforce would continue to require the need for
management and oversight. Some federal officials indicated that
oversight and management of a federal workforce is just as important
in staffing a security workforce. For instance, Army officials
indicated that the job functions of a federal security guard would be
no different than those functions performed by contract staff; the
agency would have to manage its workforce and have the same
expectations and security responsibilities performed. We previously
reported that FPS lacks a human capital plan to oversee and manage its
federal workforce and recommended it develop a strategic human capital
plan.[Footnote 47] In 2011, we reported that human capital management
of the federal workforce continues to be a high-risk issue area in the
federal government and it is essential for agencies to ensure they
have the talent and skill mix needed to address current and emerging
human capital challenges.[Footnote 48] Going forward, in the event FPS
looks to change its staffing approach, it will be important to have a
strategic human capital plan in place to help manage and guide its
current and future workforce planning efforts.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to GSA, Smithsonian, VA, and the
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice in order to
obtain comments from the nine agencies we studied. GSA and DOJ had no
comments. Smithsonian, VA, DOD, and DHS provided technical comments
that we incorporated where appropriate. DHS also provided written
comments that are reprinted in appendix II.
As agreed upon with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until
30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report examines approaches used by selected federal agencies in
staffing federal facility security workforces. Specifically, the
objectives of this report were to identify (1) approaches used by
selected federal agencies in staffing their facility security
workforces; (2) federal agency and private sector representatives'
views on the benefits and challenges of using contract or in-house
security staffing approaches; and (3) lessons that the Federal
Protective Service (FPS) can learn from other federal agencies that
have changed their security staffing approaches. To provide
information on each of these objectives, we reviewed previous GAO
reports and industry literature on staffing security workforces and
selected a nonprobability sample of federal agencies and private
sector companies for our review. Because the selected organizations
are a nonprobability sample, the information we obtained are not
generalizable. Our selection criteria included: dispersed location of
physical facilities and security guard presence, need to balance
public access and security at facilities, use of a federally or in-
house employed and/or contract security workforce, experience in
changing the approach used to staff security positions, and
recommendations by security industry experts.
Based on these criteria we selected nine federal agencies and three
private sector industries for our review. The selected federal
agencies were: (1) FPS, (2) Transportation Security Administration
(TSA), (3) U.S. Army (Army), (4) Pentagon Force Protection Agency
(PFPA), (5) U.S. Air Force (Air Force), (6) U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS), (7) Department of Justice, Justice Protective Service (JPS),
(8) Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian), and (9) Veterans Health
Administration (VHA). To gather a range of perspectives from the
private sector, we selected three industries: (1) commercial real
estate; (2) entertainment, including gaming operations and theme
parks; and (3) hospitals. We selected a total of ten companies and
associations within these industries from which we interviewed
representatives to gather information to research the objectives
described below.
To identify approaches used by selected federal agencies in staffing
their facility security workforces, we reviewed federal agency
documents and data on facility workforce staffing approaches used and
conducted interviews with agency officials. We developed, pretested,
and had a security expert review a data collection instrument that
asked the nine selected federal agencies four questions to gather
information about their facility security workforces:
1. the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) facility security staff
employed by the agency in fiscal year 2010 within several Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) job series, including police (GS-0083),
security guards (GS-0085), and security administration (GS-0080),
among others;
2. the primary responsibilities, or job functions, performed by each
of the different types of facility security positions employed by each
agency in fiscal year 2010;
3. the estimated costs per person for training, recruitment, and
equipment for facility security personnel in fiscal year 2010;
4. the estimated fiscal year 2010 budget for overtime salary costs for
facility security personnel; and:
5. the total number of contract facility security staff hours provided
in fiscal year 2010.
To ensure the accuracy of the staffing data collected from the federal
agencies, we provided each federal agency with data on the number of
FTE employees for security-related positions in OPM's Central
Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 2010--the most current
available data at the time of our review. We asked each agency to
review and verify its CPDF data and provide updated figures for the
information requested. We e-mailed this data collection instrument to
the audit liaisons at each of the agencies, who then forwarded the
instrument to the appropriate officials to provide responses. We
contacted agencies, as necessary, to clarify any questions we had on
the information provided. We received completed data collection
instruments from eight of nine agencies. PFPA did not provide the
requested information, but agency officials provided estimated numbers
of facility security position types and contract staff. We previously
reported that governmentwide data from CPDF for the key variables
reported in this report--agency and pay plan or grade--were 96 percent
or more accurate.[Footnote 49] We determined that the information from
OPM's CPDF reported here is sufficiently reliable for our needs. To
determine the distribution of in-house and contract security
workforce, we used the number of FTE federal employees and the total
number of contract hours procured in fiscal year 2010 that were
provided by eight of the nine agencies in the data collection
instruments. For PFPA, we used estimated data provided by the agency
officials for the number of FTE federal employees and the estimated
number of contract staff employed in 2010. We used 1,760 work hours in
a year to convert the total number of contract hours in fiscal year
2010 into FTEs. While agencies may use different work hours to convert
contract hours to FTE, we used 1,760 work hours in a year, which was
used by FPS for a typical federal employee, and included estimated
time for annual and sick leave that may be used in a year.
To describe federal agency and private sector representatives' views
on the benefits and challenges of using contract or in-house facility
security staffing approaches, we conducted semistructured interviews
with officials from each selected federal agency and with executives
from ten companies and associations within three private sector
industries: (1) commercial real estate, (2) entertainment (including
gaming and theme parks), and (3) hospitals. In those interviews, we
asked federal agency officials and private sector executives open-
ended questions to identify the specific benefits and challenges
presented in the use of in-house and contract security workforces. To
determine the prevalence of the specific benefits and challenges
cited, we completed a content analysis of the interviews. We reviewed
the responses to open-ended questions and identified a total of six
categories that represented the benefits or challenges for the use of
in-house or contract security workforces. We developed a codebook that
defined each of the six categories which were cost, personnel issues--
which included separate codes for personnel flexibility and personnel
responsibilities--staff selection, staff development, staff retention,
and contract management. An analyst reviewed each response and
assigned a code, then a second analyst reviewed each assigned code. If
the two analysts disagreed on any of the assigned codes, the two
analysts discussed any differences in the coding until a consensus was
reached. We then removed any duplicate responses--instances in which a
respondent identified the same benefit or challenge more than once for
either in-house or contract security workforces--to ensure that only
sole benefits and challenges reported by federal agency officials or
private sector executives were reported in our analysis. Finally, we
analyzed the coded responses to determine how many federal officials
and private sector executives reported each benefit and challenge for
using in-house and contract security workforces.
To determine lessons that FPS can learn from other federal agencies
that have changed their security staffing approaches, we selected four
agencies that had undergone workforce transitions. The selected
agencies were the Army, Air Force, TSA, and Smithsonian. We reviewed
agency documents and conducted semistructured interviews with agency
officials on the lessons learned in changing and staffing their
security workforces. To determine how these lessons may apply to FPS,
we reviewed relevant literature from academic and professional
organizations and information from prior GAO and agency Inspector
General reports, and compared the information collected from each
agency with various efforts undertaken by FPS to address its workforce
staffing needs. We also interviewed FPS officials regarding an
internal preliminary staffing analysis on potential changes to its
staffing approach.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through June 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
June 10, 2011:
Mark Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Draft Report GAO-11-601, "Federal Facility Security: Staffing
Approaches Used By Selected Agencies."
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and
Conducting its review.
The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive recognition of the
Federal Protective Service's (FPS) role as the primary federal agency
responsible for security and protecting approximately 9,000 federal
facilities and the people on those properties nationwide. As you know,
FPS is undertaking efforts to enhance the management and oversight of
its in-house and contract security personnel. For example, FPS has
taken action to assess staffing needs based on risk by developing
federal workforce requirements and incorporating workload data and
facility risk as part of this analysis.
Although the draft report does not contain any recommendations, DHS
appreciates the lessons learned you have documented. FPS can use these
lessons as part of its continuous process improvement efforts to
enable better delivery of its law enforcement, security, and emergency
response services, which are relied upon by so many others.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report. Technical comments have been provided under separate
cover. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland Security
issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GA0/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark Goldstein, (202) 512-2834, goldsteinm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein, Assistant
Director; Matt Barranca; Brian Chung; David Hooper; Delwen Jones;
Jennifer Kim; and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service's Contract
Guard Program Requires More Oversight and Reassessment of Use of
Contract Guards, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2010). We have made numerous
recommendations to help FPS address these challenges, and while DHS
agreed with our recommendations, the majority of them have not yet
been fully implemented. See GAO, Homeland Security: Addressing
Weaknesses with Facility Security Committees Would Enhance Protection
of Federal Facilities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-901] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5,
2010).
[2] The Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act,
H.R. 176, 112TH Cong. (2011).
[3] The five factors were defined by the Interagency Security
Committee (ISC), which develops standards designed for federal
security officials responsible for protecting all nonmilitary
facilities occupied by federal employees. The Facility Security Level
Determinations Standard has five security risk levels determined by a
point-scoring matrix. A level I facility is considered the lowest risk
and has the fewest total points; a level IV facility has the highest
total points. Level V facilities may be designated by individual
agencies for "very high" score value for criticality or symbolism, or
is a one-of-a-kind facility, such as the White House.
[4] Federal agencies' use of contract personnel is usually subject to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, which
dictates the federal policy for the competition of commercial
activities.
[5] Security officials told us they prefer using the title of security
officer, instead of security guard, in order to reflect the array of
security services that may be provided by the security officer. In
this report, however, we refer to these positions as security guards.
[6] For the purposes of this report, we refer to property that is
owned by the federal government and under the control and custody of
the GSA Administrator as "GSA-owned property".
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-901]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341]; GAO, Homeland Security:
Greater Attention to Key Practices Would Improve the Federal
Protective Service's Approach to Facility Protection, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-142] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23,
2009); GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should
Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749] (Washington, D.C.:
July 30, 2009).
[8] There are other federal agencies that were not included in this
review, such as the Capitol Police, that also exclusively use federal
security personnel to provide facility security. In addition, while
VHA typically does not use contract security personnel agency-wide,
officials estimated that 2 to 3 percent of individual VHA facilities
may decide on their own to hire contract security personnel for
limited functions.
[9] Under 10 U.S.C. § 2465, DOD is generally prohibited from entering
into a contract for the performance of firefighting or security guard
functions at any military installation or facility. However, in the
aftermath of September 11, 2001, attacks, DOD sent numerous active
duty, U.S.-based personnel overseas to support the global war on
terror. These deployments depleted the pool of military security
guards at a time when DOD was faced with increased security functions
at its domestic military installations. To ease the imbalance, DOD was
allowed by Congress in 2002 to contract with state and local
governments and contract security guards for the performance of
security functions at domestic military installations. In 2008,
Congress extended the temporary authorization to 2012, but DOD is
required to discontinue using these contract staff by the end of that
fiscal year. Additionally, although other DOD entities, such as the
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, are also subject to the statute, we
did not include them in our review.
[10] In the case of TSA, Congress required hiring federal security
employees to replace a contract security workforce that had been
procured independently by the airlines, in an effort to improve
aviation security. A provision under the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act of 2001 also allowed some airports to opt out of using
federal security employees and use a contract security workforce for
screening passengers at its airports.
[11] PFPA is not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2465, but under 10 U.S.C. §
2674, the Secretary of Defense may appoint federal government or
contract personnel to perform law enforcement and security functions
for property occupied by, or under the jurisdiction, custody, and
control of DOD, and located in the National Capital region.
[12] Federal police officers may also receive additional training in
accordance with agency-specific requirements.
[13] Although the Air Force currently uses security guards, officials
told us they plan to convert security guards to police officers and
discontinue security guard training.
[14] ISC has efforts under way to establish minimum standards for
armed contract security guards in federal facilities.
[15] Some states have licensing requirements to become a security
guard and, as such, those states require basic security training for
licensed security guards.
[16] GAO, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal
Protective Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R] (Washington,
D.C.: June 14, 2010).
[17] At about 400 federal facilities nationwide, the federal
government has exclusive jurisdiction of its facilities, whereby the
federal government has all of the legislative authority within the
land area in question and the local police have no residual police
powers.
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R].
[19] The General Schedule has 15 grade levels, ranging from GS-1
(lowest) to GS-15 (highest). Agencies classify the grade level of each
job based on a determination of difficulty, responsibility, and the
qualifications required, among other things.
[20] As we previously reported, generally, the retirement benefits
received by federal law enforcement officers are greater than those
provided to most other federal employees, albeit for a shorter period
of time due to a mandatory retirement age. Under both the Civil
Service Retirement System and FERS, the law provides for a faster
accruing pension for law enforcement officers than that provided for
most other federal employees. For example, under FERS, law enforcement
officer benefits accrue at 1.7 percent per year for the first 20 years
compared to 1 percent per year for regular federal employees. Thus,
for those under FERS, the total defined benefit is 70 percent higher
for law enforcement officers than for other federal employees at 20
years of service. See GAO, Federal Law Enforcement Retirement:
Information on Enhanced Retirement Benefits for Law Enforcement
Personnel, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-727]
(Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009).
[21] BLS defines contract security guards as those employed by
investigation or security service providers. According to BLS data for
May 2009, the national average annual wage for all security guards,
armed and unarmed, was $26,430. Among the private sector industries in
our review, hospital security guards had the highest national average
wage ($31,150), followed by those employed within the real estate
industry ($29,110), casino hotels ($27,830), and amusement parks
($26,340). Compared with unarmed security guards, armed security
guards usually have higher educational and training requirements, as
well as higher wages, benefits, and greater job security, according to
BLS.
[22] For federal contracts, the U.S. Department of Labor issues wage
determinations under the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended,
using available statistical data on prevailing wages and benefits paid
in a specific locality. Contractors are responsible for determining
the appropriate staffing necessary to perform the contract work, and
for complying with the minimum wage and benefits requirements for each
classification performing work on the contract. See 41 U.S.C. § 6703
et. seq.
[23] See GAO, Commercial Activities Panel: Improving the Sourcing
Decisions of the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-847T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27,
2002).
[24] See GAO, Human Capital: Transforming Federal Recruiting and
Hiring Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-762T]
(Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008).
[25] GAO, Issues Related to Poor Performers in the Federal Workplace,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-812R] (Washington,
D.C.: June 29, 2005).
[26] GAO, Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate
Federal Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key
Practices, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-49]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004).
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341].
[28] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14,
2003).
[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-49].
[30] Officials also noted that as part of its multiple analyses, the
Smithsonian determined that no industry-accepted standards,
guidelines, or applicable benchmarks for museum security guard
staffing existed.
[31] As previously noted, Congress authorized DOD to use state and
local government and contract security guards at domestic military
installations to address the reductions that resulted from federal
military personnel being deployed overseas.
[32] GAO, Contract Security Guards: Army's Guard Program Requires
Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-284] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 3, 2006).
[33] The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 created TSA
and required the agency to employ and use federally employed screeners
at 429 commercial airports nationwide within 1 year of the passage of
the Act.
[34] As previously mentioned, there is congressional interest in
requiring FPS to examine the effectiveness of using federal employees
to staff the security guard positions at the highest-risk federal
facilities. H.R. 176, 112TH Cong. (2011).
[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R].
[36] At your request, we are currently reviewing RAMP and will provide
you with a report in July 2011.
[37] In 2010, we recommended, among other things, that FPS identify
alternative approaches and options that would be beneficial and
financially feasible for protecting federal facilities. See GAO-10-341.
[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-49]; Herring,
Paul, "Meeting Management's Expectations," Security Management
(Washington, D.C., September 2004).
[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749]. The Fiscal
Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required FPS to have at
least 1,200 full-time employees on board by July 31, 2008. This same
requirement for FPS was included in DHS's fiscal year 2009
appropriations act, and FPS met this staffing level in April 2009 with
1,239 employees on board. However, according to officials, FPS was not
able to meet the July 31, 2008, mandate because of the challenges
related to shifting its priorities from downsizing its workforce to
increasing it in order to comply with the mandate, inexperience
working with DHS's shared service center, and delays in the candidate
screening process.
[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R]. In addition
to FLETC, other federal entities provide law enforcement training for
federal employees, such as the VA Law Enforcement Training Center.
[41] H.R. 176, 112TH Cong. (2011).
[42] GAO, High Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and
Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public
Management Environment, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-343SP] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13,
2004).
[43] GAO, Telecommunications: FCC's Performance Management Weaknesses
Could Jeopardize Proposed Reforms of the Rural Health Care Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-27] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 17, 2010).
[44] Contracting officer technical representatives are responsible for
conducting daily contract oversight; assessing a contractor's
performance; and ensuring that the contractor is meeting all training,
certification, and suitability requirements. In 2006, we also reported
insufficient oversight as contributing to missing or incomplete
training documents for contract staff tasked with securing military
installations.
[45] GAO, Nuclear Security: DOE Needs to Address Protective Forces'
Personnel Systems Issues, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-275] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29,
2010).
[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341].
[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749]. FPS has not
yet implemented our recommendation to develop a strategic human
capital plan.
[48] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16,
2011).
[49] GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-98-199] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
30, 1998). Also, in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM
official confirmed that OPM continues to follow the CPDF data quality
standards and procedures contained in our 1998 report.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
