**February 27, 2004**

# [INSPECTION REPORT]{.underline}

**To:** William Leidinger

> Assistant Secretary
>
> Office of Management

**From:** Cathy H. Lewis

Assistant Inspector General

Evaluation, Inspection, and Management Services

Subject: Guard Quality Assurance Issues at the Mary E. Switzer Building
(ED/OIG I13D0014)

######## Executive Summary

This memorandum provides the results for our inspection of contract
guard quality assurance at the Mary E. Switzer (Switzer) building. Our
inspection objectives were to determine (1) the effectiveness of the
guard quality assurance program at the Switzer building, and (2) the
Department of Education's (Department) role in the quality assurance
process.

Employee concerns about guard performance in the Switzer building
surfaced in a Department-wide safety and security survey conducted in
October 2002. Issues raised by the survey specific to the Switzer
building included lack of uniformity in searching baggage and checking
ID badges, lack of attention to detail, poor professionalism and
training.

The Department relies on the Federal Protective Service (FPS) to provide
contract guard service for Switzer and its other buildings. The primary
responsibility for monitoring the contractor's work rests with the FPS.
The FPS, however, devotes limited resources to this task and relies
heavily upon the Department's Agency Technical Representative (ATR) for
assistance in monitoring the adequacy of performance by the contract
employees and advising the FPS of unsatisfactory performance.

As a result of our inspection, we determined that the quality assurance
program is not being effectively monitored by the FPS. The Department is
not playing the active role in monitoring performance envisioned by the
guard contract and the FPS, in large part because the ATR is unclear
about the role that she is intended to play and with whom, in the FPS
and in the Department, she should be sharing information. Within the
Office of Management (OM) there appears to be uncertainty about which
component has responsibility for the ATR function. The ATR's
responsibilities need to be clarified, and OM needs to clarify for
itself and the FPS what entity within OM has responsibility for
overseeing contract guard performance, who will supervise and train the
ATRs and how this position will be staffed. In addition, because of the
limited role the Department is playing, it does not have access to
performance information that might justify appropriate contract
deductions.

Department offices will move out of the Switzer building next May.
However, it is our understanding that similar guard contracts cover
other Department facilities and will cover the new location on 12^th^
street. Therefore, our recommendations cover not only improvements
needed with respect to the current situation in the Switzer building,
but also planning for the new facility and a recommendation that the
Department assess the situation at other current locations to determine
if the problems identified at the Switzer building also exist at those
other facilities.

*On January 30^th,^ the Assistant Secretary for Management responded to
the draft version of this report. Our comments to the Assistant
Secretary's memorandum can be found starting on page 11 of this report.*

Recommendations:

To address these issues, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for
Management:

1.  Supplement the current guard contract with a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) with the FPS. This document should:

-   Clarify the role of the ATR and the role of the FPS staff with
    respect to the monitoring of the quality assurance standards for
    guard services;

    -   Specify the staff resources that the FPS will commit to the
        monitoring process; and

    -   Identify how information supporting performance deductions will
        be provided to the Department.

2.  Assess the situation at all other Department locations to ensure
    that an active ATR is assigned to cover each location, that this
    individual fully understands his or her role in the quality
    assurance process, and assure that effective communication is
    occurring on a regular basis between the FPS and the Department with
    respect to guard performance, or lack thereof, at each location.

3.  Review the guard contract for the 12^th^ street location and
    incorporate into the contract, or include by attached MOU, language
    consistent with recommendation #1.

4.  Develop and maintain a staff of trained ATRs sufficient to ensure
    that these staff can perform the duties defined in the contract and
    MOU and at each Department facility.

5.  Clarify where responsibility resides within OM for providing ATRs,
    specifically,

-   Who has responsibility for supervising the performance of these
    individuals, including the effectiveness of their communication with
    the FPS and

-   To whom information about possible contract deductions for
    non-performance will be conveyed within the Department and how this
    information will be evaluated and processed.

Background

The Department spends over \$600,000 annually to secure guard services
for the Switzer building and over \$6 million annually to secure these
services for all Department facilities. The FPS provides contract guards
to ensure the physical safety and security of Government employees and
building visitors. Most guards are authorized to carry firearms. Guards
are deployed at roving and fixed posts, where they often man
security-screening devices such as magnetometers and x-ray machines. In
accordance with the 1995 Department of Justice standards, the Switzer
building is a Level IV facility, the second highest (most secure) in the
Federal Government.

As a result of the security enhancement efforts following the April 19,
1995 bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma, the contract
guard force more than doubled to approximately 7,000 security guards.
With FY 2002 obligations of \$144 million, contract guard services
represent the largest expenditure in the FPS budget.

Until March 2003, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintained
the security guard contracts for all federal agencies located in GSA
owned or leased buildings. Through the contract process, GSA provided
security in federal buildings for agencies not authorized delegated
authority. Effective March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) assumed responsibility for the security of federal buildings. The
FPS was transferred from GSA to DHS. Routinely, guard services are
contracted to one of the many local security firms specializing in
public building security. On May 30, 2003 the FPS discontinued using the
contractor, Area Wide Security, at the Switzer building. The current
contractor is Knight Protective, Inc. The new contractor began providing
guard services for the Switzer building on June 1, 2003. According to
the Contracting Officer (CO), the contract change was prompted in part
by a need to consolidate guard contracts and in part because of poor
performance. The CO stated that Area Wide Security had significant
performance issues that added to their decision to re-compete the
contract.[^1]

The Switzer building guard contract pays for three broad service areas:
the guards (staffing), the FPS administration of the contract, and
quality assurance. The CO for the contract is an FPS employee; the
current Contracting Officer Representative (COR) for the contract is the
GSA Building Manager;[^2] and the ATR is a Department employee.

##### Inspection Results

Objective 1: Determine the effectiveness of the guard quality assurance
program at the Switzer building.

The Switzer building does not have an effective guard quality assurance
program. While the FPS has primary responsibility for monitoring guard
services, it does not have sufficient quality assurance staff to ensure
an effective program.

According to the guard contract, the FPS quality assurance specialists,
who are supervised by the COR, "are responsible for the day-to-day
inspection and monitoring of the contractor's work." Specifically, these
specialists are responsible for:

-   Inspecting work to ensure compliance with the contract statement of
    work requirements;

-   Documenting through written inspection reports the results of all
    inspections conducted;

-   Ensuring defects or omissions are corrected;

-   Identifying to the CO and COR areas of non-performance by the
    contractor that may result in deductions from contract payment or
    other contractual remedies being taken, and

-   Conferring with representatives of the contractor regarding problems
    encountered in the performance of the work, and generally assisting
    the COR in carrying out the duties.[^3]

However, according to the FPS CO, the FPS has only nine specialists to
perform these tasks, and these nine are responsible for monitoring 5000
guards and over 100 buildings in the National Capitol Area. In our
interviews with the CO, she stated that the FPS is chronically
understaffed to handle the magnitude of inspections to the depth needed
in order to be effective, and while the FPS is attempting to acquire
more quality assurance specialists, the success of this effort is
uncertain at this time. The Chief Quality Assurance Inspector at the FPS
also acknowledged that the biggest obstacle to achieving better guard
service is the lack of quality assurance inspectors in the FPS.

Under GSA guidance that continues to be followed by the FPS, other FPS
employees also can be designated to perform inspections of the contract
guards, including physical security specialists, law enforcement and
security officers, FPS law enforcement officers and protection
specialists. However, under the contract, the quality assurance
specialist is responsible for the day-to-day inspection and monitoring
of the contractor's work.[^4]

From the FPS' vantage point, it cannot monitor the contract guard
program effectively without active assistance from the ATR. Under the
contract, the ATR is responsible for:

1.  Determining the adequacy of performance by the contract employees in
    accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract;

2.  Performing surveillance of the contract employees while they are on
    duty;

3.  Conducting "intrusion tests" in which undercover FPS staff will
    attempt to bring unauthorized weapons or other prohibited materials
    into the facility, using the prescribed security methods or
    equipment, without being detected by the guards on post;

4.  Acting as the Government's representative in charge of work at the
    site;

5.  Ensuring compliance with contract requirements insofar as the
    guards' duties and behavior are concerned; and

6.  Advising the contractor, CO and COR of nonperformance or
    unsatisfactory performance.[^5]

The Switzer building's ATR's understanding of her responsibilities,
however, differs from that outlined in the contract. According to the
ATR, her role is to provide operational involvement on behalf of the
Department and to create special guard post orders, escort visitors and
secure an additional guard for a post when required due to ceremonies,
special construction work, *etc*. Unless she observes a "major, major
security violation," she does not report it. When she does report a
security violation, it is to the Switzer GSA building manager, the
current COR on the guard contract, although the contract states that the
ATR will also provide such information to the CO, and thus to the FPS.
According to the ATR she was never instructed to communicate with the
FPS. According to the FPS Chief Quality Assurance Inspector, with the
exception of one instance, he said Department officials have never
briefed him on their contract guard concerns. Furthermore, according to
him, because he does not have a rapport with the Department, when
violations occur, he does not relay the issues to Department officials.
According to the COR, the ATR does not talk with him about contract
guard concerns.

The FPS does not have adequate resources to effectively monitor guard
performance at the Switzer building. The guard contract is structured to
place heavy reliance on the Department's ATR playing an active role in
monitoring performance; however, this is not occurring. Adequate
resources to support the monitoring process need to be provided by the
FPS and the responsibilities of the Department's ATR, including to whom
she is expected to report performance problems, need to be clearly
articulated by the Department.

In light of these findings, we conclude that there does not appear to be
an effective guard quality assurance program currently operating in the
Switzer building.

Objective 2: Determine the Department's role in the quality assurance
process.

The Department has a significant role to play in the quality assurance
process; however, it is not effectively fulfilling its responsibilities.
Its ability to perform has been limited by misperceptions by the ATR of
her responsibilities, confusion about lines of responsibility within OM
and lack of communication between the FPS and the Department.

The Department's responsibilities with respect to the quality assurance
process are described in the FPS contract and the Department's Physical
Security Program Directive OM: 4-112, as discussed above. Under the
contract, the ATR is to work actively with the COR and CO. No
information regarding guard performance is apparently being provided to
the CO or the COR by the ATR.

As described above, the ATR perceives her role with respect to providing
input on guard performance as far more limited than what is envisioned
by the FPS or the contract. In addition to her misperceptions, there
appears to be additional confusion about lines of responsibility within
OM. The Department's security directive provides that the ATR will work
with the Department's Security Office in implementing physical security
programs at Department Headquarters. According to the Executive Office
for OM, Security Services should accomplish most of the monitoring of
Department guard contracts and that Security Services staff was the ATR
for the guard contract. Security Services stated that when they were
established in 2002, they were not designed to be the ATRs for all
Department buildings and that they are not properly staffed to fulfill
those duties. Security Services personnel told us that when they were
separated from the Quality Work Group (QWG), the full-time equivalents
(FTE) to perform the ATR duties remained in QWG. The current ATR is in
fact a QWG employee and according to her, no one has directed her to
report performance problems to the Security staff.[^6] The Switzer
building ATR said her duties will expire in a few months and her
position will not be renewed.

Under the terms of the contract and the Department's own security
directive, the ATR has an important role to play in the monitoring
process. We raised this issue in interviews with the Acting Director of
Security Services, the head of QWG, and the OM Executive Officer. The
Acting Director recognized the importance of the ATR; however, from the
interviews with him, Security Services staff, the Executive Officer and
the head of QWG it is unclear where this position will be located within
the OM organizational structure and how OM plans to meet the need for
ATRs[^7].

The lack of information flowing between the Department and the FPS about
identified performance problems raises a potential fiscal as well as
security problem. The FPS has the authority to deduct funds from the
contractor as a penalty for improper procedures or service, including
poor performance. The Quality Assurance specialists have the authority
to carry out deduction notices. We asked the FPS how many Switzer
building deduction notices were processed over the last 36 months (from
June 2003). The FPS was only able to identify one deduction notice over
the past three years. This notice was not related to guard performance.

If a deduction is appropriate, a Reimbursable Work Authorization is
created to transfer funds. These authorizations are also the vehicle for
paying additional

costs, *e.g*., additional guard coverage for special events. The
Security Office is responsible for oversight of the security guard
Reimbursable Work Authorization payments; however, inasmuch as there is
no regular communication between the ATR and Security Services with
respect to guard performance or between the FPS and the Department,
Security Services does not have sufficient information to know if and
when a deduction for non-performance would be appropriate. According to
the FPS CO, if a letter of deduction is created, because she has no link
with the Department, the letter is not shared with the Department. She
said the only way the Department would know it was due return funds from
the FPS due to deductions would be at the end of the contract year when
a Reimbursable Work Authorization is sent to the Department returning
the funds.[^8]

The Department is not effectively carrying out its responsibilities to
monitor contract guard performance in the Switzer building. The ATR's
responsibilities need to be clarified and OM needs to clarify for itself
and the FPS what entity within OM has responsibility for overseeing
contract guard performance, who will supervise and train the ATRs and
how this position will be staffed. The Department also needs to ensure
that non-performance information is flowing to the Security Service (or
whatever entity is given the oversight responsibility) and that the
services of budget staff are provided when needed to appropriately
evaluate and process Reimbursable Work Authorizations.

**Conclusion**

Since the Switzer building does not operate under any special
provisions/operating procedures in terms of guard services, we can
conclude that the concerns mentioned in this report are applicable to
most Department facilities where contract guard services are used. The
FPS employs insufficient quality assurance staff to ensure an effective
guard quality service program for the Department. The FPS is aware of
these resource limitations and has structured the guard contract to rely
heavily on the Department's ATR to provide ongoing feedback to the FPS
on guard performance issues. This expectation is not clearly reflected
in the Department's own Security Directive, and the ATR for the Switzer
building maintains that she is unaware of having such a responsibility.
As a result, the Department is neither giving nor receiving information
about guard performance in the Switzer building or other facilities on a
recurring basis.

There appears to be no reliable mechanism by which these issues will be
raised or resolved by the FPS. Because of the Department's lack of
information, not only is there the opportunity for security to be
compromised for Department employees who work in the Department
facilities, but also the Department may not be claiming deductions
appropriate under the contract for lack of guard performance. The
confusion that exists between the FPS, OM Security Services and the ATR
regarding their respective responsibilities for guard performance needs
to be resolved and the respective roles of each entity clearly and
consistently articulated and implemented for all Department facilities.

Recommendations:

To address these issues, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for
Management:

1.  Supplement the current guard contract with a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) with the FPS. This document should:

    -   Clarify the role of the ATR and the role of the FPS staff with
        respect to the monitoring of the quality assurance standards for
        guard services;

    -   Specify the staff resources that the FPS will commit to the
        monitoring process; and

    -   Identify how information supporting performance deductions will
        be provided to the Department.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Assess the situation at all other Department locations to ensure
    that an active ATR is assigned to cover each location, that this
    individual fully understands his or her role in the quality
    assurance process, and assure that effective communication is
    occurring on a regular basis between the FPS and the Department with
    respect to guard performance, or lack thereof, at each location.

2.  Review the guard contract for the 12^th^ street location and
    incorporate into the contract, or include by attached MOU, language
    consistent with recommendation #1.

3.  Develop and maintain a staff of trained ATRs sufficient to ensure
    that these staff can perform the duties defined in the contract and
    MOU and at each Department facility.

4.  Clarify where responsibility resides within OM for providing ATRs,
    specifically,

-   Who has responsibility for supervising the performance of these
    individuals, including the effectiveness of their communication with
    the FPS and

-   To whom information about possible contract deductions for
    non-performance will be conveyed within the Department and how this
    information will be evaluated and processed.

### Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Objectives:

1.  Determine the effectiveness of the guard quality assurance program
    at the Switzer building.

.

2.  Determine the Department's role in the quality assurance process.

Scope and Methodology:

This inspection determined the effectiveness of the FPS' guard quality
assurance program for the Department as it operates in the Switzer
building, the vulnerabilities that exist in the security guard service
in that building and the Department's role in the quality assurance
process.

As part of the inspection process, we conducted interviews with
essential personnel, gathered pertinent documents, reviewed applicable
policies, regulations and procedures and visited throughout the Switzer
building. We also referred to the recent Department-wide security survey
to better understand how employees view the security guards at the
Switzer building. In addition, we contacted the Offices of Inspector
General (OIG) at GSA and DHS to ascertain their involvement in the
contract guard issue. Our document search extended back 24-36 months
from this report date.

We limited our inspection to the Switzer building guard contract, but
our inspection process and the concerns mentioned in this report are
applicable to most Department facilities where contract guard services
are used. In order for this report to reach the proper FPS officials, we
will provide a copy of this report and recommendations to the DHS, OIG
officials.

This inspection took place from April to June 2003.

This inspection was performed in accordance with the President's Council
on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) Quality Standards for Inspections
dated March 1993.

# Department Response

We provided OM with a draft report. We summarized OM\'s comments after
each recommendation and included them in their entirety as an
attachment.

Recommendation 1: Supplement the current guard contract with a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the FPS. This document should:

-   Clarify the role of the ATR and the role of the FPS staff with
    respect to the monitoring of the quality assurance standards for
    guard services;

-   Specify the staff resources that the FPS will commit to the
    monitoring process; and

-   Identify how information supporting performance deductions will be
    provided to the Department.

OM stated they would contact Mr. Wendell Shingler, FPS Commissioner, no
later than February 28, 2004, to begin the MOU. The Department will
formally request delegation of authority for ATR assignments to cover
all ATR responsibilities at Department facilities.

We found the Department's comments responsive to our recommendation.

# 

Recommendation 2: Assess the situation at all other Department locations
to ensure that an active ATR is assigned to cover each location, that
this individual fully understands his or her role in the quality
assurance process, and assure that effective communication is occurring
on a regular basis between the FPS and the Department with respect to
guard performance, or lack thereof, at each location.

OM stated they will assign Department employees as ATRs, ensure they are
trained and hold quarterly meetings with ATRs.

We found the Department's comments responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation 3: Review the guard contract for the 12^th^ street
location and incorporate into the contract, or include by attached MOU,
language consistent with recommendation #1.

OM stated that all Department facilities having FPS controlled guards
will have the MOU language incorporated into their operating procedures.

We found the Department's comments responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation 4: Develop and maintain a staff of trained ATRs
sufficient to ensure that these staff can perform the duties defined in
the contract and MOU and at each Department facility.

OM said they would assign and maintain Department employees as ATRs. In
addition, all ATRs will be over sighted by OM, Security Services.

We found the Department's comments responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation 5: Clarify where responsibility resides within OM for
providing ATRs, specifically,

-   Who has responsibility for supervising the performance of these
    individuals, including the effectiveness of their communication with
    the FPS and

-   To whom information about possible contract deductions for
    non-performance will be conveyed within the Department and how this
    information will be evaluated and processed.

# 

OM responded that qualified Department employees will be assigned as
ATRs and that Security Services will maintain oversight of all ATRs.
ATRs duties will be assigned as collateral duty. In addition, OM will
ask for FPS guard contracting officials to report all contract
deductions for nonperformance to Security Services. This information
will be retained for future contract guard considerations.

We found the Department's comments responsive to our recommendation. A
copy of the Department Response is included with this report.

[^1]: All FPS guard contracts are written with a right of first refusal
    clause. When the FPS changes contractors (to improve service, save
    money, for convenience to the government etc.), the guards employed
    by the former contractor have the right to remain in their current
    position and must be employed by the new contractor. Executive Order
    12933, dated July 21, 1997 (Non-displacement of Qualified Workers)
    ensures that a new contractor must offer employment to security
    guards from the former contract for at least one year from the time
    the new contract becomes effective. This Executive Order was
    rescinded in 2003; however, 29 CFR Sec.4.173 still requires the new
    contractor to offer its predecessor's employees the right of first
    refusal. This requirement makes it difficult to remove poor
    performing contract guards at the outset of a new contract.

[^2]: The contract references a Contracting Officer Technical
    Representative (COTR) as well as a COR. Typically, these positions
    are interchangeable and are now referred to as just the COR. In any
    event, according to the FPS, there is no COTR assigned to this
    contract.

[^3]: In addition to the contract requirements for quality assurance,
    PBS P 5930.17C, Chapter 9, paragraph 5(a) states, "To ensure that
    the Government receives the caliber of services for which it has
    contracted, the FPS personnel will be required to frequently conduct
    inspections of contract guards as part of their assigned duties."

[^4]: *Ibid.*

[^5]: FPS contract with Knight Protective Solicitation No. WPSB-03-0010,
    Part I \-- Statement of Work, P.4, paragraph (1).

[^6]: We were unable to locate any internal Department guidance for ATRs
    and, with the exception of the Switzer building, we found no other
    ATRs for Department buildings in the National Capital Region. The
    two former ATRs we spoke with said their duties expired several
    years ago.

[^7]: The head of QWG stated that he believed GSA had discontinued the
    position of ATR. According to the FPS, this is not correct. The
    position is clearly identified in the current guard contract for the
    Switzer building.

[^8]: According to the FPS, in most agencies a budget specialist works
    with the ATR in evaluating Reimbursable Work Authorizations. In the
    Department, such authorizations are reviewed by the OM Executive
    Officer, but only to ensure that funds are available for
    expenditure. Staff in the Department's Security Service agreed with
    the FPS' assessment that it would be useful to have a budget
    specialist available.