REDACTED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

LIMITED OFFICIAL USE - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 

Audit of the United States Marshals Service’s 

Contract Awarded to The GEO Group, Incorporated 

to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, 

Lovejoy, Georgia

AUDIT* DIVISION * * 

 20-085

JULY 2020

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

A redaction was made to the full version of this report for reasons of commercial non-promotion. The 

redaction is contained in Appendix 3, The GEO Group’s Response to the Draft Audit Report, and is of the 

name of a commercial company. 

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Audit of the United States Marshals Service’s Contract Awarded to The GEO 

Group, Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, 

Lovejoy, Georgia 

Objective 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector 

General conducted an audit of the United States 

Marshals Service’s (USMS) Contract Number 

ODT-8-C-0005 with The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), valued 

at about $650 million, to provide detention services at 

the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility (Deyton Facility) 

in Lovejoy, Georgia. The audit assessed the USMS’s 

administration of the contract, and GEO’s performance 

and compliance with the terms, conditions, laws, and 

regulations applicable to the contract. The assessment 

of contractor performance included financial 

management, monitoring, reporting, and progress 

toward meeting the contract goals and objectives. 

Results in Brief 

We found that the USMS needs to improve contract 

oversight procedures, particularly regarding unmet 

staffing levels, processing invoice deductions, and 

contract price reduction proposals and the use of 

commissary funds. As a result of these weaknesses, 

the USMS paid GEO an estimated $3.1 million for staff 

services not provided between January 2018 and 

December 2019. We also identified weaknesses in the 

USMS’s contract with GEO related to defining contract 

requirements and establishing staffing requirements. 

We found that GEO generally complied with the terms 

and conditions of the contract applicable to contract 

management, oversight, and monitoring. However, 

GEO’s performance did not comply with the contract 

terms and law pertaining to mandatory training for 

officers transporting detainees. Additionally, we 

identified an area of needed improvement related to 

detainee safety in the use of bunk beds. 

Recommendations 

Our report contains 10 recommendations to assist the 

USMS in establishing controls to prevent and detect 

GEO’s non-compliance with terms and conditions of the 

contract. 

Audit Results 

Our audit focused on Contract Number ODT-8-C-0005, 

which is a firm-fixed price contract between the USMS 

and GEO for about $650 million. The contract period of 

performance is February 2008 to February 2028, if all 

option years are exercised. 

Staffing Requirements – The USMS did not hold GEO 

accountable for its failure to staff facilities as required 

by the contract from January 2018 to March 2019. The 

contract includes a staffing plan and requires that GEO 

maintain a minimum of 90 percent of the plan for 

detention security services and 85 percent of the plan 

for all other staff categories. The contract permits the 

USMS to apply staffing-related invoice deductions. We 

found that GEO did not consistently maintain the 

90 percent staffing level for detention security services 

during the time period of our audit, did not consistently 

fill essential positions listed in the contract, and had 

numerous positions that were vacant for more than the 

120 days specified in the contract. Despite the facility’s 

failure to meet these staffing requirements, the USMS 

did not issue any invoice deductions during the period 

we audited. We estimated that, for the period 

January 2018 through December 2019, the USMS could 

have taken invoice deductions of more than $3.1 million 

for positions that were vacant for more than the 

120 days specified in the contract. 

Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals – 

The USMS did not prepare contract price reduction 

proposals for the GEO contract in accordance with the 

process outlined in the USMS Detention Services 

Contract Reduction Manual. In addition, the 

Contracting Officer’s Representative did not accurately 

calculate the proposed reductions. As a result, the 

USMS’s processing of reduction proposals was delayed, 

and as of March 24, 2020, USMS did not make decisions 

on reductions proposed between May 2019 and 

October 2019. 

Transportation Officer Training – The USMS did not 

ensure that all of GEO’s transportation officers had 

completed training courses as required by federal law 

for employees of private prisoner transport companies. 

Consequently, transportation officers were not fully 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Audit of the United States Marshals Service’s Contract Awarded to The GEO 

Group, Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy, 

Georgia 

trained, increasing the risk of delays or that a major 

accident or other event could occur during detainee 

transportation for which the officer is not prepared. 

Commissary Fund – The USMS does not have a 

procedure for ensuring that substantial excess 

commissary funds, as existed at the Deyton Facility, are 

used solely to benefit detainees, consistent with the 

terms of the contract. Based on the persistent and 

significant balance in the facility’s commissary fund 

during the period of our audit, we believe that GEO 

should have either reduced the price that it charged 

detainees for commissary items or more promptly used 

the excess funds to purchase items for the benefit of 

detainees. The contract also does not specify how 

accumulated excess commissary funds will be disposed 

at the end of the contract. 

Detainee Bunk Beds – The USMS does not have a 

policy or standard for the appropriate use of ladders in 

facilities that contain bunk beds, and only one of the 

four housing units at the Deyton Facility had ladders 

installed on bunk beds at the time of our audit. We 

further determined that only 2 of the USMS’s 13 private 

contract facilities have ladders or steps installed for 

bunk beds. As a result, there is an increased risk of 

detainee injuries. 

Infectious Disease Prevention and Control – At the 

conclusion of our audit work, GEO had begun taking 

steps in response to the coronavirus pandemic by 

implementing policy guidance and changing procedures 

at the Deyton Facility. Because these actions occurred 

at the conclusion of our audit work, we did not perform 

testing sufficient to verify implementation of either the 

new policy guidance or the assertions of the Deyton 

Facility Administrator regarding the pandemic 

preparations and conditions at the facility. On April 29, 

2020, the Office of the Inspector General initiated an 

oversight review of the USMS response to the 

pandemic. 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE’S 

CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED TO 

OPERATE THE ROBERT A. DEYTON DETENTION FACILITY, 

LOVEJOY, GEORGIA 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 

Background ....................................................................................... 1 

United States Marshals Service .................................................... 1 

The GEO Group, Incorporated...................................................... 2 

Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility .............................................. 2 

Prior OIG Audit of USMS Oversight of a Contract Facility ........................... 3 

OIG Audit Approach ............................................................................ 3 

AUDIT RESULTS.......................................................................................... 4 

The USMS Did Not Hold the Contractor Accountable for Staffing Shortages .. 4 

Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals ..................................... 7 

Preparation of Contract Price Reduction Proposals ........................... 8 

Accuracy of Contract Price Reduction Proposals .............................. 9 

Oversight of Commissary Fund ........................................................... 11 

Prisoner Transport Compliance with Applicable Regulations ..................... 13 

Detainee Bunk Bed Safety Concern ..................................................... 14 

Infectious Disease Prevention and Control ............................................ 16 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 19 

APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................ 21 

APPENDIX 2: THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE RESPONSE TO 

THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ................................................................ 23 

APPENDIX 3: THE GEO GROUP’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT....... 27 

APPENDIX 4: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND 

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ................... 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE’S 

CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED TO 

OPERATE THE ROBERT A. DEYTON DETENTION FACILITY, 

LOVEJOY, GEORGIA 

INTRODUCTION 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has 

completed an audit of the United States Marshals Service’s (USMS) Contract 

Number ODT-8-C-0005 with The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) to provide comprehensive 

detention services at the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility (Deyton Facility) in 

Lovejoy, Georgia. This fixed-price contract has a 5-year base period and three 5-

year options.1 If each of the three available 5-year options is exercised, the 

contract will end February 19, 2028 and have an estimated value of $650 million. 

On December 20, 2017, the USMS exercised the second option for the period of 

performance from February 20, 2018 to February 19, 2023. As of April 13, 2020, 

USMS payments to GEO totaled approximately $369 million or about 57 percent of 

the potential contract value. 

Background 

United States Marshals Service 

The USMS manages the housing, transportation, and care of federal 

detainees. The USMS does not own or operate detention facilities but houses 

prisoners in: state and local government facilities using intergovernmental 

agreements (IGA); Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities; and 13 privately 

managed detention facilities, including the Deyton Facility. The Deyton Facility 

contract was awarded to GEO in early 2008. The facility accommodates 768 

detainees, 32 female and 736 male. The USMS contract provides for a fixed 

monthly operating price for an average daily population of 614 beds or 80 percent 

occupancy. The contract also provides an incremental per diem rate charge if the 

number of occupied beds exceeds 614. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2019, the USMS Prisoner Operations Division (POD) 

managed an average daily detention population of 61,489 detainees of which over 

10,000 were housed in the 13 privately managed detention facilities. According to 

USMS prisoner operations data for FY 2019, the total average daily detention 

population was 41,511 at state and local facilities, 9,575 at BOP facilities, and 

10,403 at private detention facilities. 

The POD’s mission is to preserve the integrity of the federal judicial process 

by establishing national detention policy, national strategies, and programs that 

1 A requirements contract provides for filling all actual purchase requirements of designated 

government activities for supplies or services during a specified contract period (from one contractor), 

with deliveries or performance to be scheduled by placing orders with the contractor. See FAR 

Subpart 16.503, Requirements contracts. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provide for processing, housing, transportation, and care of federal detainees in a 

safe, secure, and cost effective manner. Two POD offices play key roles in 

managing detention contracts such as that with the Deyton Facility. The Office of 

Detention Services staff include contracting officers who are responsible for 

awarding and administering the private detention contracts. The Office of 

Detention Standards and Compliance is responsible for monitoring compliance with 

federal detention standards. 

The Deyton Facility contract is administered by a Contracting Officer (CO) 

located at USMS Headquarters within the POD. The CO directs or negotiates any 

changes in contract terms and has authority to increase or decrease the contract 

amount, modify or extend the period of performance, authorize payment under the 

contract, and take formal action for unsatisfactory contractor performance. A 

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) was designated to assist the CO with 

technical monitoring and administration. The COR is a Detention Contract 

Administrator located on-site at the facility and is responsible for the continuous, 

day-to-day monitoring of the contractor. 

The GEO Group, Incorporated 

GEO is a Florida-based corporation that specializes in the ownership, leasing 

and management of correctional, detention and re-entry facilities; and the provision 

of community-based services and youth services in the United States, Australia, 

South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO’s U.S. Secure Services oversees the 

operation and management of approximately 74,500 beds in 65 secure facilities for 

the USMS, the BOP, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as 

well as nine state correctional clients and various county and city jurisdictions. The 

USMS contracts with GEO for the management of six detention facilities. According 

to GEO’s 2019 annual report, USMS alone accounted for approximately 

$273 million, or 11 percent, of GEO’s revenue in 2019. In 2019, GEO earned 

$2.48 billion in total revenue. 

Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility 

The Deyton Facility is a private detention facility owned by Clayton County, a 

political subdivision of the State of Georgia, and leased to The GEO Group, Inc. for 

a 20-year period beginning April 23, 2007. The detainee population consists of 

individuals charged with federal offenses and who are detained while awaiting 

hearing, trial, or sentencing. The Deyton Facility contract is a sole-source contract 

for comprehensive detention services including: receiving and discharging 

detainees, facility security, transportation and outside guard services, healthcare 

services, and food services. The contract allows other Department of Justice 

components, such as the BOP, and non-Department entities such as ICE, to house 

detainees at the facility. As of August 2019, 704 beds were assigned to the USMS 

and 64 beds were assigned to ICE. According to GEO, the average length of stay 

for a detainee at the Deyton Facility was 28.20 days for the period January 1, 2019, 

through December 31, 2019. For USMS detainees, the average length of stay was 

34.33 days and for ICE detainees, the average length of stay was 9.76 days. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior OIG Audit of USMS Oversight of a Contract Facility 

In April 2017, the OIG issued an audit report on the USMS’s contract for the 

operation of the Leavenworth Detention Center (Leavenworth Center) in 

Leavenworth, Kansas.2 The report noted that from March 2006 through January 2017, 

despite identifying failures to meet certain contract performance requirements, the 

USMS had not proposed or issued any contract price reductions for any of the 

15 contract detention facilities in operation at that time. The report concluded that 

the USMS had failed to provide sufficient oversight at these detention facilities and 

that this resulted in several significant operational issues going unaddressed for an 

extended period at the Leavenworth Detention Center. Of particular concern, the 

USMS COR was located offsite, had no previous contract oversight experience, and 

received no formal guidance and negligible detention-related training. The COR 

maintained an infrequent on-site presence at the Leavenworth Center, did not 

document the inspection activities performed, and did not develop an inspection 

program or monitoring procedures. In response to the OIG’s audit report, the 

USMS established an on-site detention contract monitoring program at all private 

detention facilities. This resulted in the creation of the Detention Contract 

Administrator position. 

OIG Audit Approach 

The objectives of the audit were to assess the USMS’s administration of the 

contract, and GEO’s compliance with the terms, conditions, laws and regulations 

applicable to this contract in the areas of contractor performance, and contract 

management, oversight, and monitoring. The scope of this audit, unless otherwise 

indicated, is the period of contract performance from January 1, 2016, through 

December 31, 2019. 

To determine whether the USMS adhered to federal regulations during the 

administration processes, we reviewed the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

identify compliance requirements that were relevant to the audit objectives. We 

reviewed the USMS’s procurement files and monitoring reports to determine 

whether the USMS’s process for contract oversight met the requirements of the 

FAR. We also conducted interviews with key contract personnel from the USMS to 

understand the USMS’s contract award and administration processes. To determine 

if the USMS and GEO followed staffing requirements, we: evaluated GEO’s 

budgeted and actual staffing figures, shift rosters, and the USMS’s contract staffing 

provisions; and interviewed facility staff to gain an understanding of the facility’s 

staffing levels and conditions. 

2 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the United States

Marshals Service Contract No. DJJODT7C0002 with CoreCivic, Inc., to Operate the 

Leavenworth Detention Center Leavenworth, Kansas, Audit Report 17-22 (April 2017),

(accessed April 1, 2020). 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT RESULTS 

We found that the USMS needs to improve its contract oversight procedures, 

particularly regarding unmet staffing levels, processing contract price reduction 

proposals, and the use of commissary funds. As a result of these weaknesses, the 

USMS paid GEO what we estimate to be more than $3.1 million for staff services 

not provided between January 2018 and December 2019. We also identified 

weaknesses in the USMS’s contract with GEO related to the definition of contract 

requirements and the establishment of staffing requirements. With regard to 

contract management, oversight, and monitoring, GEO generally complied with the 

terms and conditions of the contract. However, GEO did not comply with contract 

terms and law pertaining to the training of officers transporting detainees. 

Additionally, we identified a potential area of improvement related to detainee 

safety in the use of bunk beds. 

The USMS Did Not Hold the Contractor Accountable for Staffing Shortages 

The contract requires that throughout its term GEO maintain the number, 

type, and distribution of staff as described in the contract staffing plan. Inadequate 

staffing increases risks to inmate safety and facility security. We found that the 

USMS did not hold GEO accountable for unmet staffing levels required by the 

contract and for vacancies from January 2018 to March 2019. The contract 

specifies that staffing levels at the facility shall not fall below a monthly average of 

90 percent of full staffing for Detention Security Services, 85 percent for Medical 

Services, and 85 percent for all other departments. However, the contract does not 

state whether or how a deduction should be calculated when staffing falls below the 

required minimum, and we found that the USMS did not seek deductions even 

though Detection Security Services fell below the 90 percent staffing level on 

multiple occasions during the period covered by our audit. The contract, on the 

other hand, does provide that the “failure to fill any individual position within 

120 days of the vacancy may result in a deduction from the monthly invoice.” 

Despite this provision, we found that the USMS did not issue any invoice deductions 

during the period we audited, even though GEO failed to timely fill vacancies. We 

determined that, for the period January 2018 through December 2019, the USMS 

could have taken invoice deductions of an estimated $3,113,091 for positions that 

were vacant for more than 120 days. 

As shown below in Figure 1, GEO did not consistently maintain staffing levels 

at or above the required 90 percent monthly average for Detention Security 

Services from January 2018 to December 2019. We found that GEO did 

consistently maintain the required staffing levels for Medical Services and all other 

departments. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- -

Figure 1 

Detention Security Services Monthly Average Staffing 

r-- <::......r"" 

-.........,__~ _____ _, -

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Actual Required

Jan-18

Feb-18

Mar-18

Apr-18

May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Oct-18

Nov-18

Dec-18

Jan-19

Feb-19

Mar-19

Apr-19

May-19

Jun-19

Jul-19

Aug-19

Sep-19

Oct-19

Nov-19

Dec-19

Note: We began the vertical axis at 50 percent rather than 0 to better illustrate the 

variance between the actual and required staffing level percentages. 

Source: OIG Analysis of the Monthly Staffing Reports for the period from January 2018 

through December 2019. 

In addition to not consistently maintaining the required minimum staffing, 

from January 2018 through December 2019, GEO had 90 positions that were 

vacant for more than 120 days, which accounted for what we estimate to be 

$3,113,091 in possible invoice deductions.3 However, the USMS took no deductions 

from GEO’s monthly invoices for its failure to comply with the staffing requirements. 

Although GEO had not consistently met the monthly staffing requirements at 

the Deyton Facility during January 2018 through March 2019, the language of the 

contract does not explicitly state how the USMS should take deductions from 

invoice payments based on the staffing deficiencies. To assess the extent of this 

problem with other USMS detention contracts, we discussed such contract 

requirements with USMS officials and reviewed documents pertaining to more 

recent detention contracts. We determined that the USMS had made efforts in 

more recent contracts to strengthen the language pertaining to penalties for 

staffing deficiencies. For two recent contracts, the strengthened language was 

included in contracts awarded to GEO. However, after GEO expressed concerns 

regarding the language, the contracts were modified to remove the language. 

We discussed the contract staffing requirements concerns with a senior POD 

official. The senior POD official told us the determination of appropriate contract 

language was tied to a concern regarding automatic invoice deductions. The USMS 

3 To calculate the invoice deduction amount we reviewed all monthly staffing reports, from 

January 2018 to December 2019, and identified the individual positions that were vacant for more 

than 120 days. We then multiplied the total length of vacancy by the lowest applicable pay rate for 

each position that was vacant for more than 120 days and totaled those results. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

official’s position was that such deductions were necessary only when the noncompliance contributed to a performance deficiency at a facility, such as when 

essential positions are not being filled. 

The contract staffing plan for the Deyton Facility identifies 106 essential 

positions that must be consistently filled each day. Examples of essential positions 

include facility manager, case managers, and correctional officers. We selected a 

judgmental sample of 147 of the 2,190 security shift rosters at the Deyton Facility 

from January 2018 through December 2019 to determine if the essential positions 

identified in the staffing plan were filled. The sample was selected to represent the 

various shifts and encompass the entire audit period. We found that GEO did not 

consistently staff the essential security positions identified in the staffing plan. We 

discussed the contract staffing concerns with GEO officials. GEO officials told us 

that while it sought to achieve the minimum staffing levels for security, it used 

overtime to ensure that essential security posts or locations were covered. 

Although the contract provided for the USMS to take price reductions when 

essential security positions were not consistently filled, the USMS had completed no 

price reductions for the Deyton Facility. While neither the previous nor current 

CORs identified for us any specific security incidents at the facility that resulted 

from this failure to consistently staff the essential security positions, we note that 

inadequate staffing of these essential security positions increases risks to inmate 

safety and facility security. We believe it is precisely because of these risks that 

the USMS deems these positions to be essential and why the USMS requires that 

they be filled. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the required essential security 

positions and the actual essential security positions that were staffed for the shift 

rosters reviewed from 2018 to 2019. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 

Essential Security Positions Staffed at the Deyton Facility 

65 

70 

75 

80 

85 

90 

Number of Positions 

60 

55 

50 

1/6/2018 2/6/2018 3/6/2018 4/6/2018 5/6/2018 6/6/2018 7/6/2018 8/6/2018 9/6/2018 

10/6/2018 11/6/2018 12/6/2018 

1/6/2019 2/6/2019 3/6/2019 4/6/2019 5/6/2019 6/6/2019 7/6/2019 8/6/2019 9/6/2019 

10/6/2019 11/6/2019 12/6/2019 

Actual Required 

Note: We began the vertical axis at 50 positions rather than 0 to better illustrate the variance 

between the actual and required positions. This analysis is based on a sample of 147 shift rosters 

from January 2018 through December 2019. Shift rosters are documents prepared by GEO to 

document the number of employees working on each shift. 

Source: OIG Analysis of Security Shift Rosters for the period from January 2018 through 

December 2019. 

We found that the essential security positions shown in Figure 2 more 

consistently tended to be staffed fully when the total facility staffing shown in 

Figure 1 approached the required level. Adequate staffing levels are fundamental 

to providing a safe and secure environment. The contract also requires that 

vacancies be kept to a minimum and be filled timely. We believe that absent 

specific contract requirements regarding when invoice deductions should be taken 

for non-compliance, GEO may lack incentive to make timely efforts to fill positions. 

We recommend that USMS modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify 

when invoice deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related 

contract requirements. 

Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals 

While the Deyton Facility contract does not specifically provide for unilateral 

price deductions based on unmet staffing requirements, it provides for contract 

price reductions based on failure to meet certain performance requirements through 

the use of contract modifications. The OIG’s audit of a similar USMS contract for a 

detention center in Leavenworth, Kansas found that USMS did not make use of 

contract price reductions to hold its contractors accountable. The prior audit 

attributed this condition to a lack of continuous USMS monitoring of contract 

performance and the COR’s lack of knowledge regarding the USMS Detention 

Services Contract Reduction Manual (the Manual). Following the Leavenworth 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

audit, the USMS created the Detention Contract Administrator position at all of its 

contract detention facilities to serve as an on-site Contracting Officer’s 

Representative (COR).4 Having an on-site COR is intended to provide a consistent 

presence and continuous monitoring of contractor performance. The COR is 

responsible for preparing contract price reduction proposals in accordance with the 

Manual. The Manual provides procedures for determining when a price reduction is 

warranted and for preparing reduction proposals. 

During the period of our audit, the Deyton Facility COR submitted two 

reduction proposals for performance and safety issues related to the facility 

correctional staff. We reviewed the preparation and processing of reduction 

proposals. As discussed below, the two reduction proposals were not prepared in 

accordance with the process outlined in the Manual. In addition, the COR did not 

accurately calculate the proposed reductions. Consequently, the processing was 

delayed for the two reduction proposals, and decision on the proposals had not 

been made as of March 24, 2020. 

Preparation of Contract Price Reduction Proposals 

The Manual provides guidance for identifying contractor performance issues. 

The COR is responsible for identifying contractor performance issues and 

immediately notifying the Contracting Officer (CO) of any performance deficiency. 

The CO uses the COR’s description of the performance issue to determine if a 

contract price reduction is warranted. If the CO determines a reduction in contract 

price is warranted, the COR is responsible for preparing a proposal for the reduction 

based on the methodology described in the Manual. The COR then submits the 

reduction proposal to the CO for final review and processing. 

The Deyton Facility COR prepared and provided price reduction proposals to 

the supervisor in the POD Office of Detention and Standards Compliance (ODSC) 

before informing the CO of the performance issue or obtaining a determination that 

the contract price reductions were warranted. CORs were instructed by senior 

ODSC officials that, if the COR thought a contract price reduction was warranted, 

the COR should prepare a price reduction proposal and provide it to their ODSC 

supervisor for review and processing. As a result, the intended coordination with 

the CO as specified in the Manual did not occur. Consequently, as explained below, 

the processing of the reduction proposals was delayed because the supervisory 

review and processing had to be duplicated by the CO. 

The ODSC senior official explained to us that the intent behind processing the 

reduction proposal in this manner is to ensure that the support for the proposed 

reduction is sufficient. However, this procedure resulted in as much as 12 

additional months ODSC spent in processing price reduction proposals. The delay 

was caused by the lack of preliminary communication between the COR and the CO 

regarding the performance issues, which necessitated additional time for the CO to 

determine if a reduction was warranted. Both the COR and CO told us that the lack 

4 Throughout the remainder of this discussion, we refer to the Detention Contract 

Administrator as the COR. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of communication resulted from the USMS organizational structure. The 

organizational structure placed the COR within the ODSC. The COR was required to 

report issues to the ODSC supervisor instead of the CO, who works in the POD 

Office of Detention Services. However, the COR designation letter obligates the 

COR to notify the CO immediately of performance issues so that corrective action 

can be taken immediately.5 Without effective communication between the COR and 

CO regarding performance issues, the CO cannot take timely corrective action on 

unsatisfactory performance. 

We discussed the communication issues between the CO and COR with a 

senior POD official who told us that POD management was aware of the problem 

and that POD is considering making changes in how the CO and COR relationship 

should function. The senior POD official also told us that POD is in the process of 

hiring additional COs to help with the workload and improve the communication. 

We recommend that USMS develop and implement a process by which the COR 

immediately notifies the CO of any performance failure and, when the CO 

determines a reduction in contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction 

proposal based on the CO’s determination in accordance with the Manual. 

Accuracy of Contract Price Reduction Proposals 

We determined that the COR did not calculate the reduction amounts in 

accordance with the Manual. We also found that the COR was not trained on the 

requirements for preparing contract price reduction proposals in accordance with 

the Manual. As a result, the reduction amounts proposed in contract price 

reduction proposals were inaccurate and overstated, resulting in a further delay in 

the processing of the reduction proposals by the CO. 

The Manual provides guidance for making appropriate adjustments to the 

contractor’s billings. The contract establishes the following performance areas and 

specifies the percentage of the total monthly invoice amount each area represents. 

• Health Care – 20 Percent 

• Security and Control – 20 Percent 

• Food Service – 15 Percent 

• Administration and Management – 10 Percent 

• Safety and Sanitation – 10 Percent 

• Staff and Detainee Communication – 5 Percent 

• Workforce Integrity – 2.5 Percent 

• Detainee Discrimination – 2.5 Percent 

5 The designation letter, issued by the USMS contracting officer in accordance with the FAR, 

assigns COR responsibilities and authorizes and requires the performance of duties associated with 

contract administration and monitoring contractor performance. The USMS Detention Services 

Contract Reduction Manual provides guidance to CORs and other USMS officials in carrying out 

responsibilities related to contract reductions. 

9 
10

For each area, the contract establishes specific performance-based detention 

standards that must be met to ensure detainees are housed in a safe, secure, and 

humane environment. Within each performance area, the standards represent a 

portion of the total value of the performance area. Failure to comply with a 

performance area standard is considered a deficiency in the operation of a 

correctional facility.

The Manual includes a method for calculating the reduction amount for a 

failed performance area standard. Based on discussions with an ODSC senior 

official, we understand that the intent of the methodology was to first equally 

distribute the assigned performance area value among the standards within that 

area. The standard value is then multiplied by the number of standards that were 

not met during the month. The resulting percentage is then used to calculate the 

reduction from the monthly invoice amount as shown in the following formula.

At times, a single performance area standard may be failed for multiple 

reasons. Based on our interpretation of the Manual, when that occurs during a 

single invoice period, a reduction can be taken only once for any standard even if

multiple failures for that standard occur. While we confirmed our interpretation of 

the Manual with the Chief of the Office of Detention Standards and Compliance, the 

Manual does not clearly present these instructions. As a result, the COR did not 

calculate the reduction amounts correctly. For example, for one reduction proposal 

we reviewed, the COR calculated the reduction amount based on five identified 

deficiencies instead of the two failed standards related to those deficiencies. 

Consequently, the proposed reduction amount was overstated. We believe this 

error occurred because the Manual does not provide clear instruction regarding 

reduction calculations.6

To assess the extent of this problem, we reviewed 11 reduction proposals 

from several USMS contract facilities that had been submitted but were still in 

processing as of January 8, 2020. The 11 proposals included 2 reduction proposals 

for the Deyton Facility prepared by 1 COR and 9 reduction proposals pertaining to

other USMS detention contracts prepared by 6 other CORs. The 11 proposals were 

prepared from May 2019 to October 2019. We found that for 10 of the 11 

reduction proposals, the reduction amounts as calculated by the COR were 

overstated. Table 1 shows a comparison of the COR-calculated reduction amounts 

and reduction amounts that we re-calculated based on our understanding of the 

Performance Area Percentage

# Standards within the Performance Area X # Failed Standards X Invoice Amount

6 For example, the Manual states that reduction calculations are to be made only on single 

base functional area findings that are relative to the performance failures. However, the Manual does 

not define functional area findings or performance failures. Consequently, performance failures were 

sometimes considered as functional area findings that were duplicated in the calculations of 

reductions.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manual, which, as noted above, we confirmed with the Chief of the Office of 

Detention Standards and Compliance. 

Table 1 

Comparison of the Reduction Amounts 

Contract Number Location Original 

Amount 

Corrected 

Amount 

Overstated 

Amount 

ODT-8-C-0005 Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility $ 666,083 $ 121,688 $ 544,395 

ODT-8-C-0005 Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility 840,260 177,517 662,743 

ODT-7-C-0002 Leavenworth Detention Center 3,898,752 148,198 3,750,554 

ODT-7-C-0002 Leavenworth Detention Center 5,745,554 578,580 5,166,974 

15M40019DA3500003 Queens Private Detention Facility 385,011 144,379 240,632 

15M40019DA3500003 Queens Private Detention Facility 720,597 40,033 680,564 

ODT-9-C-0003 Northeast Ohio Correctional Center 9,973 9,973 0 

ODT-9-C-0003 Northeast Ohio Correctional Center 148,507 66,728 81,779 

ODT-10-C-0001 West Tennessee Detention Facility 149,026 129,535 19,491 

ODT-8-C-0001 Nevada Southern Detention Center 254,784 84,928 169,856 

ODT-5-C-0003 Otay Mesa Detention Center 299,966 47,138 252,828 

Total: $13,118,513 $1,548,697 $11,569,816 

Source: USMS Prisoner Operations Division 

We discussed the miscalculations for the Deyton Facility with the COR who 

submitted the reduction proposals, the COR supervisor, and an ODSC senior official. 

They all agreed that the proposed reduction amounts were not calculated in 

accordance with the Manual. The COR supervisor told us that the calculation errors 

were missed because the supervisor’s review focused on whether the proposal 

sufficiently supported the existence of a performance issue requiring a price 

reduction and did not focus on the calculation or the methodology used to 

determine the reduction amount. The ODSC senior official told us that other ODSC 

staff were responsible for reviewing the reduction amounts in all of the outstanding 

reduction proposals to verify that the amounts were calculated in accordance with 

the Manual. The ODSC senior official further told us that all of the outstanding 

reduction proposals that included amounts that were not calculated in accordance 

with the Manual will be corrected and resubmitted. The COR at the Deyton Facility 

told us that none of the CORs received training on how to calculate the reduction 

amounts associated with the performance failures identified. We recommend that 

the USMS confirm that all of the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have 

been corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Manual. We also recommend 

that the USMS clarify the instructions in the Manual and provide training to both the 

CORs and their supervisors on the procedures for calculating the reduction amounts 

in accordance with the guidance in the Manual. 

Oversight of Commissary Fund 

There is no physical commissary at the Deyton Facility, but detainees can 

order items that are delivered twice a week to their housing unit. Under this 

commissary arrangement, the Deyton Facility sells detainees items such as food, 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

candy, snacks, clothing, and personal care items. The contract requires GEO to 

operate the commissary as a privilege to detainees who will have the opportunity to 

purchase commissary items at least weekly. Payments by detainees for items that 

they purchase fund the commissary account. 

According to the contract, revenues earned in excess of those needed for 

commissary operations are to be used solely to benefit the detainees at the facility. 

The excess revenue accumulates in the commissary fund until GEO identifies 

appropriate uses of the funds for the benefit of detainees. The contract does not 

specify what those appropriate uses are, but GEO’s policy states that expenditures 

of commissary funds require approval by the USMS COR or CO. A POD official told 

us that the COR reviews purchases by GEO using the excess revenues to confirm 

that they are being used solely to benefit detainees at the facility. A GEO official 

told us that the top five items purchased for the benefit of the detainees are: 

recreation supplies including board games, puzzles, and basketballs; AM/FM radios; 

satellite programming; awards for achievement in cleaning or recreation; and new 

movie subscriptions. We reviewed a sample of the commissary account 

transactions and verified that the COR reviewed the use of the commissary funds 

and that the commissary funds were used for the benefit of detainees at the facility. 

As of February 29, 2020, the balance in Deyton’s commissary funds was 

approximately $454,075. We reviewed the account balances and level of 

expenditures from January 2017 through December 2019 and found that the ending 

balances were substantial each year. Table 2 presents the annual deposits and 

expenditures during January 2017 through December 2019. 

Table 2 

Commissary Fund 

Year Beginning 

Balance 

Deposits & 

Credits Expenditures Ending Balance 

2017 $ 977,007 $ 132,069 $ 720,799 $ 388,277 

2018 388,277 134,306 120,259 402,324 

2019 402,324 136,132 101,511 436,945 

Total $402,507 $942,569 

Note: The expenditures in 2017 were significantly higher because, the USMS was reimbursed 

$651,906 to correct an error related to commissary staff payroll that should have been paid 

from the commissary fund. In 2018, 47 new televisions were purchased for $57,289, 

including installation in housing units for the use of all detainees. 

Source: GEO Monthly Inmate Welfare Bank Reconciliation 

Based on the persistent and significant balance in the commissary fund, we 

believe that GEO should have either reduced the price it charges detainees for 

commissary items or more promptly used excess funds to purchase items for the 

benefit of the detainees. We therefore recommend that the USMS evaluate how it 

can best ensure that excess commissary funds are used to benefit detainees and 

that the funds do not accumulate unreasonably. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, the Deyton Facility contract does not specify how accumulated 

excess commissary funds will be handled at the end of the contract. Thus, it is 

unclear whether GEO could seek to retain any excess funds at the end of the 

contract. Moreover, if that were the case, such a situation could incentivize GEO to 

accumulate the excess commissary funds rather than spend them for the benefit of 

detainees. We noted that, on March 29, 2019, the USMS awarded a contract to 

GEO for a detention center in Queens, New York. That contract included the 

following provision for final disposition of commissary funds at the end of the 

contract period: “the accumulated excess commissary revenues will be applied to 

the final contract invoice payment.” Under this arrangement, GEO will keep any 

excess commissary funds at the end of the contract and reduce the amount of its 

invoice to the USMS by a corresponding amount. We found this provision 

concerning for three reasons. First, it allows excess commissary funds to be used 

to benefit the USMS rather than inmates. Second, it potentially incentivizes the 

USMS to allow excessive commissary funds to accumulate rather than ensuring that 

GEO is spending them in a timely manner for the benefit of detainees. Third, the 

use of excess commissary funds at the end of the contract to fund the cost of USMS 

detention operations could potentially raise Anti-Deficiency Act issues. Given these 

concerns, we recommend that the USMS include in all of its detention contracts a 

legally-appropriate mechanism by which, upon termination of each contract, excess 

commissary funds will be used in a manner that is solely for the benefit of 

detainees. 

Prisoner Transport Compliance with Applicable Regulations 

The contract provides that GEO will provide armed guards and transportation 

services as required by the USMS to transport detainees to and from the 

courthouse, hospitals, medical appointments, other detention and BOP facilities, 

and Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System sites. Federal law includes 

minimum standards for the length and type of training that employees of private 

prisoner transport companies must undergo before they can transport prisoners.7 

Pre-service training is required by federal law in the areas of use of restraints, 

searches of prisoners, use of force, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, map reading, 

and defensive driving. 

We reviewed transportation officer training records and found that not all of 

GEO’s transportation officers had completed training programs in map reading or 

defensive driving. Of the 26 officers whose records we reviewed, 19 did not have 

evidence of completing map reading training and 11 did not have evidence of 

completing defensive driving training. When transportation officers are not properly 

trained, there is increased risk that detainee transportation could be delayed or that 

an accident or other event could occur and the transportation officer would not be 

prepared to handle the situation. We discussed the missing training evidence with 

a GEO official who told us map reading training was not included in the training 

curriculum at the Deyton Facility. A GEO official also told us that, since 2012, GEO 

has used a detention and transportation management system that provides real7 42 U.S.C. § 13726b Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport Companies, December 21, 

2000. 28 CFR Part 97 Standards for Private Entities Providing Prisoner or Detainee Services. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

time information necessary for safe and secure operation and tracking of GEO’s 

transport missions. A GEO official told us that, because of advances in technology 

since 2000, it relies on the Global Positioning System (GPS) ability in each of its 

fleet vehicles and the tracking capability of its transportation management system 

rather than map reading skills. The GEO official did not provide us any records of 

training in the use of GPS or procedures for use in the event of system outages. 

We recommend that the USMS ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its 

employees involved in the transportation of detainees, completes all training 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete 

training records including the curriculum and student attendance records. We 

further recommend that the USMS put in place adequate controls to ensure that 

employees involved in detainee transportation at USMS contract detention facilities 

have completed the training required by federal law. 

Detainee Bunk Bed Safety Concern 

We reviewed detainee grievances for the period of January 2017 through 

May 2019 and interviewed detainees to identify any concerns related to safety and 

security. During our detainee interviews, we were told about the absence of 

ladders for bunk beds and how a detainee had fallen and been injured. 

We asked the USMS about the availability of ladders for bunk beds, and the 

USMS Audit Liaison told us that the USMS does not have a specific policy or 

standard regarding the use of ladders for bunk beds. We also requested data from 

the USMS regarding bunk-bed safety and the existence of ladders for other private 

detention facilities under contract with the USMS. The USMS provided data 

showing that only 2 of the 13 facilities have ladders or steps installed for the bunk 

beds. 

We observed the bunk beds at the Deyton Facility and found that only one of 

the four housing units had ladders installed on the bunk beds. The COR told us that 

detainees used makeshift ladders to climb into the top bunks. The COR provided a 

photograph that showed an improvised ladder. Figure 3 shows a makeshift ladder 

made from a bed sheet tied to the bunk bed along with a telephone book to create 

a step. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 

Ladder Made by a Detainee 

Source: USMS photograph taken on September 11, 2019 

We asked GEO about injury data regarding the use of bunk beds, but the 

GEO Health Services Administrator told us that GEO does not track injuries related 

to detainees getting in and out of the top bunk beds. Consequently, we were 

unable to identify the number of detainees who had been injured. Our review of 

grievances at the Deyton Facility found that 15 of 610 detainee complaints filed in 

2018 requested that a ladder be installed for the bunk beds to address safety 

concerns. In September 2019, we discussed the safety concerns associated with 

the lack of ladders with the then-Facility Administrator who agreed with our concern 

and took action to resolve the problem by ordering ladders. As of May 21, 2020, a 

GEO official told us that the ladder project was complete. Figure 4 shows a new 

ladder installed. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 

New Ladder Installed 

Source: USMS photograph taken on December 23, 2019 

We believe that the absence of ladders for bunk beds creates safety concerns 

that the USMS should assess and address. We therefore recommend that the 

USMS evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that do not 

have ladders. We also recommend that the USMS create a standard or other 

requirement regarding the appropriate use of ladders in contract facilities that 

contain bunk beds. 

Infectious Disease Prevention and Control 

Near the end of our audit the 2019-2020 coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic 

became an area of significant concern, particularly regarding prevention and control 

of the pandemic in correction settings. Consequently, we questioned GEO about its 

prevention and control efforts in response to the pandemic, and we noted the 

following. 

Section C.6.8 of the contract, regarding an Infectious Disease Prevention and 

Control Program, states: “The Contractor shall have comprehensive infectious 

disease prevention and control program in place in accordance with the most recent 

CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines.” The contract also 

states: “The infectious disease program shall be responsive to all current emerging 

infectious diseases.” We requested from the USMS documents pertaining to GEO’s 

infectious disease prevention and control program. The USMS provided 

documentary support, which an official said was provided by the Deyton Facility 

Administrator, for the items discussed below. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

On February 14, 2020, GEO Health Service issued an Interim Reference 

Sheet on 2019-Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) providing GEO’s procedures and links 

to CDC reference materials regarding intake medical screening, monitoring of 

patients with exposure risk, assessment of patient’s with potential COVID-19 

symptoms, isolation of at-risk patients, and infectious disease public health actions. 

On February 26, 2020, GEO’s Chief Medical Officer issued to various GEO 

managerial officials, including Facility Administrators, a memorandum providing 

COVID-19 educational guidance consisting largely of CDC materials. 

On February 28, 2020, GEO issued an updated management procedure on 

infection control pertaining to COVID-19 and provided information on treatment, 

infection control, housing, general prevention recommendations, housekeeping, 

notification of staff, transfer and movement of detainees, investigation of contacts, 

reporting of cases within GEO, staff issues such as exposure and return to work, 

management of visitors, and procurement of personal protective equipment. 

Also on February 28, 2020, GEO’s Chief Medical Officer issued a technical 

direction memorandum to various GEO managerial officials, including Facility 

Administrators. The memorandum relayed COVID-19 guidance from the CDC and 

World Health Organization and relayed a GEO patient screening tool required for 

use on arriving detainees. Screening consisted primarily of interviewing detainees 

regarding contact with infected persons and travel to outbreak areas. Detainees 

with such contact or travel were then assessed for fever and other possible 

symptoms of COVID-19. 

Also on February 28, 2020, GEO implemented a requirement for a COVID-19 

emergency plan at each facility and provided each facility with an emergency plan 

template. The facilities were given a deadline of March 6, 2020 to complete the 

plans. 

On February 28, 2020, GEO adopted an updated management policy 

regarding COVID-19. The policy stated: “The identification, monitoring, and 

treatment of COVID-19 Coronavirus signs and symptoms shall be handled in 

accordance with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention.” It also referred to American Correctional Association and National 

Commission on Correctional Health Care materials. 

We discussed with the Deyton Facility Administrator the effect of the 

pandemic at the Deyton Facility. The Administrator told us that four GEO staff 

members and one detainee had been tested for COVID-19 as of April 23, 2020, 

with two staff members and the detainee testing positive for the virus. In response 

to the positive tests, the facility implemented a 2-week pause of detainee 

movement within the facility. The only detainee movement allowed during the 

pause was acceptance of new arrestees. The GEO Facility Administrator stated that 

they planned to remain in contact with GEO’s human resource office and comply 

with CDC guidelines prior to loosening restrictions at the facility. The Administrator 

told us the facility has taken steps to protect detainees at higher risk of infection. 

These steps included modification of intake procedures to include virus protocols 

17 
 

 

 

and use of medical housing for any detainees with COVID-19 related symptoms. 

Further, staff screening procedures have been modified so that before entering the 

facility staff must answer a questionnaire, have their temperature checked, and 

sanitize their hands. The Administrator said that the facility had a stock of medical 

supplies with which it could cope initially with an outbreak of the virus. The facility 

also had a stock of sanitizing supplies, although the supply of disinfectant wipes 

was limited. The Administrator said that the facility had increased its cleaning in all 

areas and departments utilizing “clean teams.” Finally, the Administrator said that 

the following modifications had been made to Deyton Facility rules: 

• The intake process provides for a separate unit where arriving detainees 

receive a 14-day observation before being moved to regular housing units. 

• Detainees in separate units are not allowed to mix. 

• Detainee social visiting is canceled. 

• Attorney visits continue, but attorneys are screened via a questionnaire and 

temperature check. The legal visiting room configuration is changed to 

improve social distancing. 

• Detainees have attended town hall meetings regarding sanitation, 

coronavirus, and programming alterations. 

• The facility issued social distancing recommendations. 

We did not perform testing sufficient to verify either implementation of the 

policy guidance issued by GEO or the assertions of the Facility Administrator 

regarding the pandemic preparations and conditions at the Deyton Facility. On 

March 23, 2020, the CDC issued Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus 

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities. Because this 

guidance was issued after the conclusion of our audit work, we did not inquire of 

USMS or GEO regarding the steps taken to implement the guidance. 

On April 29, 2020, the Office of the Inspector General notified the USMS that 

we were beginning an oversight review of the USMS response to the COVID-19 

pandemic. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The USMS needs to improve its administration of the contract, particularly 

regarding unmet staffing levels, processing contract price reduction proposals, and 

the use of commissary funds. Also, the USMS needs to clearly develop and define 

contract terms particularly for pricing methodology and enhancements. We further 

found that, while GEO generally complied with the terms and conditions of the 

contract applicable to contract management, oversight, and monitoring, it did not 

comply with the terms and conditions of the contract applicable to transportation 

officer training requirements. 

We recommend that USMS: 

1. Modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify when invoice 

deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related contract 

requirements. 

2. Develop and implement a process by which the COR immediately notifies the 

CO of any performance failure and, when the CO determines a reduction in 

contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction proposal based on 

the CO’s determination in accordance with the Detention Services Contract 

Reduction Manual. 

3. Confirm that all of the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have been 

corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract 

Reduction Manual. 

4. Clarify the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual 

and provide training to both the CORs and their supervisors on the 

procedures for calculating the reduction amounts in accordance with the 

guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual. 

5. Evaluate how it can best ensure that excess commissary funds are used to 

benefit detainees and that the funds do not accumulate unreasonably. 

6. Include in all of its detention contracts a legally-appropriate mechanism by 

which, upon termination of each contract, excess commissary funds will be 

used in a manner that is solely for the benefit of detainees. 

7. Ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its employees involved in the 

transportation of detainees, completes all training required by 42 U.S.C. § 

13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete training records 

including the curriculum and student attendance records. 

8. Put in place adequate controls to ensure that employees involved in detainee 

transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have completed the 

training required by federal law. 

9. Evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that do not 

have ladders. 

19 
10. Create a standard or other requirement regarding the appropriate use of 

ladders in contract facilities that contain bunk beds. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 1 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

Objectives 

The objectives of the audit were to assess the U.S. Marshals Service’s 

(USMS) administration of the contract, and The GEO Group, Inc.’s (GEO) 

compliance with the terms, conditions, laws, and regulations applicable to this 

contract in the areas of contractor performance, and financial management, 

monitoring, and oversight. 

Scope and Methodology 

This was an audit of the USMS contract ODT-8-C-0005 with GEO. The scope 

of this audit, unless otherwise indicated, is the period of contract performance from 

January 2016 through December 2019, and included activities of both the USMS 

and GEO. We interviewed USMS and GEO personnel, assessed internal control 

procedures, and examined contract award and administration records. 

Statement on Compliance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards 

We conducted this performance audit 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. 

Internal Controls 

In this audit, we performed testing of internal controls significant within the 

context of our audit objectives. We did not evaluate the internal controls of USMS 

and GEO to provide assurance on its internal control structure as a whole. USMS 

and GEO’s management are responsible for the establishment and maintenance of 

internal controls in accordance with OMB Circular A-123. Because we do not 

express an opinion on the USMS and GEO internal control structures as a whole, we 

offer this statement solely for the information and use of the USMS and GEO. 

Through this testing, we did not identify any deficiencies in USMS’s or GEO’s 

internal controls that are significant within the context of the audit objectives and 

based upon the audit work performed that we believe would affect USMS’s or GEO’s 

ability to effectively and efficiently operate, to correctly state financial and 

performance information, and to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. 

Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

In this audit we tested, as appropriate given our audit objectives and scope, 

selected transactions, records, procedures, and practices, to obtain reasonable 

assurance that USMS and GEO management complied with federal laws and 

21 
 

 

 

 

regulations for which non-compliance, in our judgment, could have a material effect 

on the results of our audit. Our audit included examining, on a test basis, USMS 

and GEO compliance with the following laws and regulations that could have a 

material effect on USMS or GEO operations: 

• FAR Subpart 37.603, Performance Standards, 

• FAR Subpart 1.602-2, Responsibilities, 

• FAR Subpart 42.15, Contractor Performance Information, 

• FAR Subpart 46.4, Government Contract Quality Assurance, 

• FAR Subpart 52.246-4, Inspection of Services – Fixed Price, and 

• 42 U.S.C. § 13726b Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport 

Companies. 

This testing included interviewing USMS and GEO personnel and inspection of 

training records, labor rates, and oversight procedures. As noted in the Audit 

Results section of this report, we found that GEO did not comply with 42 U.S.C. § 

13726b Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport Companies. 

Sample-Based Testing 

To accomplish our audit objectives, we performed sample-based testing to 

determine if essential security positions were consistently filled for each shift 

identified in the staffing plan. In this effort, we employed a judgmental sampling 

design to obtain broad exposure to numerous facets of the areas we reviewed. This 

non-statistical sample design did not allow projection of the test results to the 

universe from which the samples were selected. 

Computer-Processed Data 

During our audit, we obtained information from the Kronos timekeeping 

system and the Learning Management System. We did not test the reliability of 

those systems as a whole, therefore any findings identified involving information 

from those systems were verified with documentation from other sources. 

22 
APPENDIX 2 

THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE 

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 

U.S. Department of Justice 

United States Marshals Service 

Office of Professional Responsibility 

Washington, DC 20530-000/ 

June 25, 2020 

TO: Jason R. Malmstrom 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

Office of the Insp:ctor Ge;1al ( Y' 

FROM: 

Ac

Rona

ting 

ld 

Ass

Carte

ista

r 

nt 

(~ 

Director 

~ 

SUBJECT: Audit Report: Audit of the United States Marshals Service's 

Contract Awarded to the GEO Group, Incorporated to Operate the 

Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy, Georgia 

In response to recent correspondence from the Office of the Inspector General regarding 

the subject report, attached is the United States Marshals Service's response to the Formal Draft 

Audit report. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Krista Eck, External Audit Liaison, at 

202-819-43 71. 

Attachments 

cc: Ferris Polk 

Regional Audit Manager 

Office of the Inspector General 

Bradley Weinsheimer 

Associate Deputy Attorney General 

Department of Justice 

David Metcalf 

Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General 

Department of Justice 

Louise Duhamel 

Acting Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

Justice Management Division 

John Kilgallon 

Chief of Staff 

United States Marshals Service 

23 
States Marshals Service 

Audit of the United States Marshals Service's Contract Awarded to the GEO Group, 

Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy, Georgia 

Recommendation 1: Modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify when invoice 

deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related contract requirements. 

USMS Response (Concur): The United States Marshals Service (USMS) will work with its 

existing detention facility contractors to establish mutual agreement on changes to the existing 

contract language to specify when staffing-related invoice deductions should be taken. Further, 

the USMS will ensure future contract language specifies when such invoice deductions should 

occur. 

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a process by which the COR immediately 

notifies the CO of any performance failure, and when the CO determines a reduction in 

contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction proposal based on the CO's 

determination in accordance with the Detention Service Contract Reduction Manual. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will review and update the Standard Operating 

Procedures provided to CORs to ensure the processes for communicating and responding to 

performance deficiencies are clearly articulated. The USMS will conduct joint training with the 

COs and CORs to further ensure all employees understand their responsibilities as they pertain to 

the contract reduction process. 

Recommendation 3: Confirm that all the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have 

been corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract 

Reduction Manual. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will review all outstanding proposed reduction amounts 

for adherence to the calculation guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual 

and make corrections as necessary. 

Recommendation 4: Clarify the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Manual 

and provide training to both the CORs and their supervisors on the procedures for 

calculating the reduction amounts in accordance with the guidance in the Detention 

Services Contract Reduction Manual. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will conduct training on the procedures for calculating 

the reduction amount with all COs and CORs assigned to detention contracts, as well as their 

immediate supervisors. Further, the USMS will review the Detention Services Contract Manual 

to determine if additional clarifications or examples are necessary. 

Recommendation S: Evaluate how it can best ensure that excess commissary funds are 

used to benefit detainees and that the funds do not accumulate unreasonably. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will ensure that the detention facility contractors are 

appropriately managing the Detainee Welfare and Commissary Fund. Accordingly, existing 

Standard Operating Procedures for the COR will be updated to include procedures for providing 

oversight of commissary fund accumulation and usage. 

24 
6: Include in all of its detention contracts a legally-appropriate 

mechanism by which, upon termination of each contract, excess commissary funds will be 

used in a manner that is solely for the benefit of detainees. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will work with the detention facility contractors to make 

changes to the existing contract language to specifically address the disposition of the excess 

commissary funds. Any changes will result in a material change to the existing contracts which 

will need to be agreed to by the contractor(s). Future detention and detention services contracts 

will specifically address the disposition of excess comrniss<l!Y funds. 

Recommendation 7: Ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its employees involved in 

the transportation of detainees, completes all training required by 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 

28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete training records including the curriculum and 

student attendance records. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will continue to monitor and evaluate contractor 

compliance with the performance work statement, Federal Performance-Based Detention 

Standards, and all applicable local, state and federal laws. 

The USMS will add to its monthly vendor performance documentation submission requirement a 

training roster request and lesson plan associated with the training to ensure the lessons plans and 

training include the requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97. The 

USMS has the right to inspect and test all services called for by the contract, to the extent 

practicable at all times and places during the term of the contract. To ensure compliance is met, 

the COR already observes on-site court and hospital transportation, detainee inpatient outposts at 

a care facility, as well as observing onsite firearm qualification and first aid training for 

transportation and correctional staff. 

Recommendation 8: Put in place adequate controls to ensure that employees involved in 

transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have completed the training required 

by federal law. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will continue to monitor compliance with the 

performance work statement, Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, USMS policy, 

and all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The USMS will continue to evaluate compliance 

by assessing facility policy to ensure staff involved in transportation operations are receiving the 

appropriate training to meet all required mandates. These reviews will be conducted by the 

COR. The USMS will add to its monthly vendor performance documentation submission 

requirement a training roster request and lesson plan associated with the training to ensure the 

lessons plans and training include the requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR 

Part 97. 

Recommendation 9: Evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that do 

not have ladders. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will evaluate and assess bunk bed safety concerns and 

incorporate changes, as necessary, to its private detention facility contract performance work 

statements as well as to the appropriate functions under the Federal Performance Based 

Detention Standards. 

25 
10: Create a standard or other requirement regarding the appropriate 

use of ladders in contract facilities that contain bunk beds. 

USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will assess the layout of the detention facilities with 

Which it has an existing contract to ensure compliance with ACA accreditation requirements, 

detainee capacity and applicable local, state and federal safety laws. The USMS will evaluate 

and assess bunk bed safety concerns and incorporate changes, as necessary, to its private 

detention facility contract performance work statements as well as to the appropriate functions 

under the Federal Performance Based Detention Standards. The USMS will update the Federal 

Performance Based Detention Standards to reference current OSHA guidelines for ladder use 

which include guidelines for ascent, descent, composition, and load bearing. 

26 
APPENDIX 3 

THE GEO GROUP’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 

18, 2020 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Atlanta Regional Audit Office 

75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W ., Suite 1130 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Dear Regional Officer Manager Polle 

The GEO Group, Inc.® 

Corporate Headquarters 

4955 Technology Way 

Boca RolOO, Fbrida 33431 

Toi: 561 893 0101 

006 301 4436 

Fox: 561 999 7635 

1⁄4)Wi grog mm com 

I write to provide the GEO Group, Inc. 's (GEO) comments to your draft report titled 

"Audit of the United States Marshals Service's Contract Awarded to the GEO 

Group, Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy, 

Georgia" dated May 11, 2020. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide 

comments to the draft report and providing us with an exit conference on May 13, 

2020. As discussed during the telephonic exit conference, we have summarized the 

following areas where we respectfully submit comments. We also respectfully 

enclosed a red-lined version of the most recent draft report. We did this for your 

ease of reference, to quickly identify or highlight the areas where we added 

comments, and to help further explain our responses to these enumerated areas 

below, particularly "Staffing Requirements" and "Transportation Officer Training." 

I. Staffing Requirements 

GEO acknowledges that during the time period reviewed by the Office oflnspector 

General (OIG), January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019, there were periods that 

the "on board" staff at the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility (RADDF) fell below 

the contractual requirement of 90%. However, at all times, all essential posts were 

staffed by existing RADDF staff through the use of oveitime and temporary staffing 

assignments. For the period of January 2018 to March 2019, the salary and benefits 

attributed to the expenditure of these staffing resources pending permenant hire of 

the"on board" staff was approximately $500,000. Thus, GEO's inability to maintain 

the contracted staffing levels did not result in a $3.1 Million windfall. Rather, GEO 

incmred substantial ove1time costs and over 70,000 in ove1time hours as a result of 

these vacancies. Given the extra expense and potential to lead to prospective 

turnover from existing staff, GEO had every incentive to timely fill these staffing 

vacancies. 

27 
J 8, 2020 

Page 2 

II. Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals 

As noted in the "Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals" section of the 

draft report, " ... the contract does not specifically provide for unilateral price 

deductions based on unmet staffing requirements, it does provide for contract price 

reductions based upon failure to meet certain performance requirements through the 

use of contract modifications." As discussed during the exit conference, the GEO 

Group and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) routinely engage in 

discussions regarding GEO's support to the USMS at the RADDF. As noted above, 

despite having vacant positions, all essential posts are staffed through the use of 

overtime. We believe a process for a "unilateral price deduction" would not be an 

optimal process for an agency's contracting officer and a government service 

provider to resolve a contract price reduction. While we fully acknowledge the 

USMS authority for a contracting officer to propose and adjudicate a price reduction, 

we respectfully suggest the OIG's report should reflect that any proposed price 

reduction, authored by a contracting officer's representative (COR), will be 

reviewed by a USMS contracting officer, and that the contracting officer will 

provide the govennnent-services provider an opportunity to review and provide a 

response to the proposed reduction before a final decision is made. 

III. Transportation Officer Training 

Although the facility training manager misspoke when initially asked about the 

training curriculum and student attendance records, GEO's regional and facility 

managers confirmed that the training cun-icultun and certificates of 

completion incorporate defensive driving through classroom instruction and actual 

driving skills evaluation. Subsequent to OIG's visit, GEO provided documents 

reflecting the inclusion of defensive driving in the overall training curriculum. In 

addition, since 2012, GEO uses a detention and transportation management 

system that provides real-time infonnation necessary for safe and secure operation 

and tracking of GEO's transport missions. Due to advances in technology, 

GEO relies on the Global Positioning System (GPS) ability in each of its 

fleet vehicles and the tracking capability of its transportation management 

system rather than map reading ski11s. GEO provided OIG with printed -

map copies containing "tum by tum" directions that are provided to the 

transport team with step-by-step navigation to their assigned location as well as 

for all potential routes for use in the event of system outages. In light of the 

docwnentation and responses provided regarding defensive driving, GEO 

respectfully submits that this sub-finding be withdrawn, and the sub-finding 

related to map reading be identified as an area that is largely obsolete. 2 

28 
18, 2020 

Page2 

Further, as it relates to "map reading," GEO further submits that the up-to-date 

procedures cuITently in place far exceed the Government Guidelines of 2000. 

IV. Commissary Fund 

GEO agrees with the OIG' s finding that a more robust contractual process should be 

created for executing existing balances of the detainee welfare fund before the 

expiration of a contract. GEO notes however, that there is no circumstance where 

any amount of detainee welfare funds are retained by GEO. At the end of a contract, 

even if the agreement between GEO and the USMS is silent, all detainee welfare 

funds are returned to the USMS. 

V. Detainee Bunk Beds 

As discussed during the exit conference, GEO, at its expense, has acted upon a local 

recommendation from the USMS's COR, to install ladders to improve egress to the 

top of each bunk bed at the RADDF. This project commenced in late 2019, and was 

completed in May 2020 at GEO's expense of approximately $20,000 (excluding 

labor and installation). It is also important to note that while GEO acknowledges 

that the bunk bed ladders are an improvement, there is no contractual requirement, 

USMS detention standard, or accreditation standard, that requires these ladders. 

Instead, the ladders are being installed as "above and beyond" the contract's 

requirements or "best practice." 

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your draft audit report. We respect 

and appreciate your office's commitment to factual accuracy and careful analysis. 

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our comments. 

Sincerely, 

DAA/r:/0-- MfSD//Lc 

Daniel Ragsdale 

Executive Vice President - Contract Compliance 

The GEO Group, Inc. 

Cc: Blake Davis, SVP GEO 

Amber Martin, EVP GEO 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 4 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT 

The OIG provided a draft of this audit report to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) 

and The GEO Group Inc. (GEO). The USMS’s response is incorporated in Appendix 2 

and GEO’s response is included as Appendix 3 of this final report. In response to 

our audit report, the USMS agreed with our recommendations, and discussed the 

actions it will implement in response to our findings. As a result, the status of the 

audit report is resolved. GEO did not specifically address our recommendations but 

commented on several aspects of the presentation of our report. The following 

provides the OIG analysis of the responses and summary of actions necessary to 

close the report. 

Analysis of The GEO Group Response 

While GEO did not address our recommendations specifically, it responded to 

our findings in the areas of staffing requirements, processing price reduction 

proposals, transportation officer training, the commissary fund, and detainee bunk 

beds. We discuss most of GEO’s response when discussing the related 

recommendations in the following section. One area of GEO’s response that did not 

relate to a recommendation concerned GEO’s discussion of staffing requirements. 

Specifically, GEO acknowledged in its response that staffing levels fell below the 

contractual requirement but emphasized that essential posts were staffed using 

overtime and temporary staffing. As previously discussed in the report, our review 

of shift rosters found that the posts were not always fully staffed with the full 

complement of essential staff positions. GEO further asserted that salary and 

benefit costs amounting to approximately $500,000 related to the use of overtime 

and temporary staffing incentivized the timely filling of vacancies. However, as 

discussed in the report, we identified 90 individual positions that were vacant for 

more than 120 days and calculated an estimated $3.1 million in deductions that the 

contract allowed but the USMS did not take. Any extra expenses incurred by GEO 

to partially fill essential posts using overtime in lieu of employing the required 

personnel are included in the risk accepted under a fixed-price contract. Our report 

makes no recommendation regarding the billing deductions not taken. 

Recommendations for the USMS: 

1. Modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify when invoice 

deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related 

contract requirements. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will work with its detention facility contractors to establish 

mutual agreement on changes to the existing contract language to specify 

when staffing-related invoice deductions should be taken. Further, the USMS 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

will ensure future contract language specifies when such invoice deductions 

should occur. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

that USMS contracts have been modified to specify when invoice deductions 

should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related contract requirements. 

2. Develop and implement a process by which the COR immediately 

notifies the CO of any performance failure and, when the CO 

determines a reduction in contract price is warranted, the COR 

prepares a reduction proposal based on the CO’s determination in 

accordance with the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will review and update the Standard Operating Procedures 

provided to CORs to ensure the processes for communicating and responding 

to performance deficiencies are clearly articulated. The USMS stated that it 

will conduct joint training with the COs and CORs to further ensure all 

employees understand their responsibilities as those pertain to the contract 

reduction process. 

GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its 

response, GEO stated that a process for a unilateral price deduction would 

not be an optimal method to resolve a price reduction. GEO asserted that 

any proposed price reduction should be presented for discussion with the 

contractor prior to any final decision. The report differentiates between the 

unilateral billing deductions for non-compliance with staffing-related contract 

provisions, and price reductions processed in accordance with the USMS 

Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual, which provides for discussion 

with the contractor. Our Recommendation 1 addresses the need for specific 

contract language to identify when billing deductions should be taken. 

Recommendation 2 addresses internal USMS procedures to accomplish the 

preparation of price reductions and does not suggest that those reductions 

should be made unilaterally. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the USMS has implemented a process by which the COR immediately notifies 

the CO of any performance failure and, when the CO determines a reduction 

in contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction proposal based 

on the CO’s determination in accordance with the Detention Services 

Contract Reduction Manual. 

3. Confirm that all of the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have 

been corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Detention 

Services Contract Reduction Manual. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will review all outstanding proposed reduction amounts 

31 
 

 

for adherence to the calculation guidance in the Detention Services Contract 

Reduction Manual and make corrections as necessary. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have been corrected in 

accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction 

Manual. 

4. Clarify the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Reduction 

Manual and provide training to both the CORs and their supervisors 

on the procedures for calculating the reduction amounts in 

accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract 

Reduction Manual. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will conduct training on the procedures for calculating the 

reduction amount with all COs and CORs assigned to detention contracts, as 

well as their immediate supervisors. Further, the USMS will review the 

Detention Services Contract Manual to determine if additional clarifications or 

examples are necessary. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

that the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual 

have been clarified and that training has been provided to both the CORs and 

their supervisors on the procedures for calculating the reduction amounts in 

accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction 

Manual. 

5. Evaluate how it can best ensure that excess commissary funds are 

used to benefit detainees and that the funds do not accumulate 

unreasonably. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will ensure that the detention facility contractors are 

appropriately managing the Detainee Welfare and Commissary Fund. 

Accordingly, existing Standard Operating Procedures for the COR will be 

updated to include procedures for providing oversight of commissary fund 

accumulation and usage. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the Standard Operating Procedures for the COR have been updated to 

include procedures for providing oversight of commissary fund accumulation 

and usage. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Include in all of its detention contracts a legally-appropriate 

mechanism by which, upon termination of each contract, excess 

commissary funds will be used in a manner that is solely for the 

benefit of detainees. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will work with the detention facility contractors to make 

changes to the existing contract language to specifically address the 

disposition of the excess commissary funds. Any changes will result in a 

material change to the existing contracts which will need to be agreed to by 

the contractor(s). Future detention and detention services contracts will 

specifically address the disposition of excess commissary funds. 

GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its 

response, GEO stated that it agreed that a more robust contractual process 

should specify how accumulated excess commissary funds will be handled at 

the end of the contract. GEO noted that it would not retain any of the 

commissary funds. Our finding and recommendation do not suggest that 

either GEO or the USMS have any intent to misuse the remaining 

commissary funds. Instead, our discussion addresses the risk presented by 

the lack of any provision in the contract to specify the disposition of the 

remaining commissary funds. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

detention contracts have been modified to specifically address the disposition 

of the excess commissary funds and ensure that upon termination of each 

contract, excess commissary funds will be used in a manner that is solely for 

the benefit of detainees. 

7. Ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its employees involved in 

the transportation of detainees, completes all training required by 

42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete 

training records including the curriculum and student attendance 

records. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will continue to monitor and evaluate contractor 

compliance with the performance work statement, Federal PerformanceBased Detention Standards, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws. 

The USMS also stated that it will add to its required monthly submission of 

vendor performance documentation a training roster request and lesson plan 

associated with the training to ensure the training includes the requirements 

contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97. 

GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Our draft 

report contained a statement on page 13 that: “We discussed the missing 

training evidence with a GEO official who told us map reading and defensive 

driving training were not included in the training curriculum at the Deyton 

Facility.” In its response, GEO stated that its training manager was mistaken 

33 
 

 

 

in telling us that defensive driving was not included in the training 

curriculum. GEO provided documentation that defensive driving was included 

in the overall curriculum. However, GEO did not provide any documentation 

of completion of the defensive driving training for the 11 transportation 

officers identified in our review of training records. We edited the final report 

to state that only the map reading training was omitted from the training 

curriculum. Our recommendation emphasizes the need for the USMS to 

ensure that employees involved in detainee transportation at USMS contract 

detention facilities have completed the training required by federal law. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the USMS has implemented a procedure to ensure that GEO has properly 

trained all of its employees involved in the transportation of detainees, 

completes all training required by 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, 

and maintains complete training records including the curriculum and student 

attendance records. 

8. Put in place adequate controls to ensure that employees involved in 

detainee transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have 

completed the training required by federal law. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will continue to monitor compliance with the performance 

work statement, Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, USMS 

policy, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The USMS stated that 

it will continue to evaluate compliance by assessing facility policy to ensure 

staff involved in transportation operations are receiving the appropriate 

training to meet all required mandates. The USMS also stated that it will add 

to its required monthly submission of vendor performance documentation a 

training roster request and lesson plan associated with the training to ensure 

the training includes the requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 

28 CFR Part 97. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the USMS has implemented adequate controls to ensure that employees 

involved in detainee transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have 

completed the training required by federal law. 

9. Evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that 

do not have ladders. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will evaluate and assess bunk bed safety concerns and 

incorporate changes, as necessary, to its private detention facility contract 

performance work statements as well as to the appropriate functions under 

the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the USMS has evaluated bunk bed safety concerns and incorporated changes, 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

as necessary, to its private detention facility contract performance work 

statements. 

10. Create a standard or other requirement regarding the appropriate 

use of ladders in contract facilities that contain bunk beds. 

Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in 

its response that it will assess the layout of the detention facilities with which 

it has an existing contract to ensure compliance with the American 

Correctional Association accreditation requirements, detainee capacity and 

applicable local, state and federal safety laws. The USMS stated it will 

evaluate and assess bunk-bed safety concerns and incorporate changes, as 

necessary, to its private detention facility contract performance work 

statements as well as to the appropriate functions under the Federal 

Performance-Based Detention Standards. The USMS also stated that it will 

update the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards to reference 

current Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines for ladder 

use, which include guidelines for ascent, descent, composition, and load 

bearing. 

GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its 

response, GEO noted that it installed ladders to improve access to the top of 

each bunk bed at an expense of approximately $20,000. GEO stated that 

there was no contractual requirement, detention standard or accreditation 

standard that requires ladders and that ladders were “above and beyond” the 

contract’s requirements. While we recognize there is no explicit contract 

requirement for ladders, there is also no requirement for bunk beds. We 

believe that the contract requirements to eliminate safety hazards and 

ensure that detainees are housed in a safe, secure and humane manner are 

sufficient to support our recommendation for the development of a specific 

standard regarding the appropriate use of ladders for bunk beds. Notably, 

our recommendation does not relate to the Deyton Facility but addresses the 

need for the USMS to evaluate the need for ladders in other facilities. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing 

the USMS has evaluated bunk-bed safety concerns and incorporated changes 

regarding the appropriate use of ladders to its private detention facility 

contract performance work statements as well as to the appropriate functions 

under the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards. 

35