a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

September 2006 HOMELAND 

SECURITY

Federal Protective 

Service Could Better 

Measure the 

Performance of Its 

Control Centers

GAO-06-1076
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1076.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mathew Scire 

at (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-1076, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

September 2006

HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Protective Service Could Better 

Measure the Performance of Its Control 

Centers 

FPS MegaCenters provide three primary security services—alarm 

monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatching of FPS police officers and 

contract guards. These and other services are provided around the clock 

from four locations—Battle Creek, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Suitland, Maryland. With a fiscal year 2006 

budget of $23.5 million, the MegaCenters monitor alarms at over 8,300 

federal facilities, covering almost 381 million square feet, and have available 

for dispatch over 7,800 FPS police officers and contract guards. 

The MegaCenter Emergency Response Process 

The 

MegaCenter 

operator 

responds to 

the signal or 

call.

Operator responds with

some or all of these actions:

(1) Notifies federal agency 

emergency contact

(2) Notifies local police or fire 

department

(3) Dispatches FPS police officers, 

contract guards, or both, and 

monitors their radio communications.

Alarm 

responders

take 

necessary 

response 

actions and 

clear the 

alarm.

Source: GAO analysis of FPS data.

Alarm signal or 

emergency call 

originates at 

protected facility 

and goes directly 

to the 

MegaCenter. 

FPS MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter operations through a variety 

of means, including reviewing data about volume and timeliness of 

operations, listening to and evaluating a sample of calls between operators 

and FPS police officers and contract guards, and receiving informal 

feedback about customer satisfaction. FPS managers have also developed 

performance measures for assessing MegaCenter operations. However, 

these measures are of limited use because they are not always clearly stated 

or measurable and do not address governmentwide priorities of efficiency, 

cost of service, and outcome—which are among the attributes that GAO has 

identified for successful performance measures. In addition, the 

MegaCenters do not measure a key activity—the time from alarm to officer 

dispatch—that would link MegaCenter performance to an FPS-wide 

performance measure of response time. Without a corresponding measure, 

FPS is limited in its ability to evaluate the MegaCenters’ contribution to the 

FPS-wide measure of response time. 

Nine selected security organizations—including federal and local police and 

private entities—offer some of the MegaCenters’ services as well as provide 

and assess these services in a manner that is generally similar to the 

MegaCenters. Like the MegaCenters, many of the selected organizations 

have centralized their operations. They also use regular call reviews and 

volume and time measures to assess the quality of the services they provide. 

A major difference between the MegaCenters and some selected 

organizations is the use of a computer-aided dispatch system, which enables 

these organizations to automate many functions. 

The Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) Federal 

Protective Service (FPS) through 

its control centers (MegaCenters) 

helps provide for the security and 

protection of federally owned and 

leased facilities. This report (1) 

identifies the services MegaCenters 

provide, (2) determines how FPS 

assesses MegaCenter performance 

and whether FPS links MegaCenter 

performance measures to FPS-wide 

measures, and (3) examines how 

MegaCenters and selected 

organizations compare in the 

services they provide. To address 

these issues, GAO reviewed FPS’s 

performance measures and past 

MegaCenter assessments, assessed 

the MegaCenters’ performance 

measures, and interviewed officials 

and collected relevant information 

at FPS, the four MegaCenters, and 

nine selected security 

organizations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

direct FPS to (1) establish 

MegaCenter performance measures 

that meet the attributes of 

successful performance measures, 

(2) develop a performance measure 

for the MegaCenters that 

corresponds to the FPS-wide 

performance measure of response 

time, and (3) routinely assess the 

extent to which MegaCenters meet 

established performance measures. 

DHS generally agreed with the 

findings and recommendations in 

this report. 
Page i GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

MegaCenters Provide Alarm and Radio Monitoring and Dispatch 

from Four Locations 5

MegaCenters’ and FPS’s Performance Measures Are Not Linked 6

Nine Selected Organizations Provide Some of the MegaCenters’ 

Services in a Generally Comparable Manner 9

Conclusions 10

Recommendations for Executive Action 11

Agency Comments 12

Appendixes

Appendix I: Briefing for the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. 

House of Representatives, August 14, 2006 14

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 61

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 63

Abbreviations

CAD computer-aided dispatch

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FPS Federal Protective Service

GSA General Services Administration

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IT information technology

UL Underwriters Laboratories

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 29, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 

Oklahoma City and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade 

Center and the Pentagon, terrorism has threatened the nation’s security, 

including the physical security of federal facilities. The Homeland Security 

Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a new 

federal department with the mission of preventing terrorist attacks within 

the United States, which includes safeguarding federal facilities.1

 DHS, 

through its Federal Protective Service (FPS), provides law enforcement 

and security services to federal agencies that occupy facilities under the 

jurisdiction of the General Services Administration (GSA) and DHS, 

protecting millions of federal employees, contractors, and citizens.2As part 

of its approach to facility protection, FPS provides support for its law 

enforcement and security services through four control centers known as 

MegaCenters that are located in Battle Creek, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Suitland, Maryland. 

Because of the important role MegaCenters play in ensuring the safety of 

federal facilities and their occupants, our objectives were to (1) identify the 

services the MegaCenters provide and how they provide them, (2) 

determine how FPS assesses and measures the performance of 

MegaCenter operations and how FPS links MegaCenter performance 

measures to FPS-wide performance measures, and (3) examine how the 

MegaCenters compare to selected security organizations in the services 

they provide and in the methods they use to provide them. 

To determine the services offered by the MegaCenters and how the 

MegaCenters provide these services, we interviewed managers at the four 

1

Federal facilities include government-owned and -leased space.

2

Under agreement, FPS authority can be extended to provide its law enforcement and 

security services to any property with a significant federal interest.
Page 2 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

MegaCenters and the MegaCenter branch chief, toured three 

MegaCenters—Denver, Philadelphia, and Suitland, collected information 

on services and workload data from MegaCenter management, and 

conducted document reviews. To determine how FPS assesses MegaCenter 

performance and how FPS links MegaCenter performance measures to 

FPS-wide performance measures, we reviewed documentation on FPS’s 

performance measures and past MegaCenter assessments and interviewed 

MegaCenter management and FPS headquarters officials. We also assessed 

the MegaCenters’ 11 performance measures to determine whether they 

were consistent with selected attributes of successful performance 

measures we have identfied, that is, that they were linked to agency 

mission and goals; clearly stated; contained measurable targets; sufficiently 

covered the program’s core activities; and addressed governmentwide 

priorities of quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcome.3

To determine how the MegaCenters compare to selected security 

organizations we (1) identified criteria for selecting comparable 

organizations and selected four public and five private organizations; (2) 

interviewed officials at the nine selected organizations; (3) toured four of 

the organizations’ control centers—both public and private—to observe 

their security operations, procedures, and technology; (4) collected 

detailed service and workload information from the organizations; (5) used 

the information gathered to compare the MegaCenters and the selected 

organizations with respect to services offered, organizational structure, 

quality assessment practices, and technology utilization; and (6) 

interviewed officials from security industry standard-setting and 

accreditation associations (associations) because these associations were 

identified as having information on security industry organizations, 

operations, quality assessment practices, and technology utilization 

practices.4

 We used two approaches for selecting the private and public 

organizations. We selected private organizations from industry lists of the 

top 20 largest security service providers and system integrators in terms of 

2005 revenue that provided services such as alarm monitoring and access 

3

We did not assess whether the performance measures were objective, reliable, overlapping, 

or balanced.

4

We interviewed officials from the following associations: Association of Public Safety 

Communications Officials, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement 

Agencies, the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association, the National Fire Protection 

Association, Priority Dispatch, the Security Industry Association, and Underwriters 

Laboratories.
Page 3 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

control.5 With the help of one of the associations we interviewed, we were 

able to make contact with the five security organizations that were selected 

as our comparison group.6

 For public organization comparisons, we 

selected three federal organizations: U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Park Police. We selected these 

federal organizations because each had a law enforcement branch; 

centralized control center(s) that offered, at a minimum, one of the 

MegaCenters’ primary services; and nationwide operations, characteristics 

most similar to those of the MegaCenters. We also selected the Denver 

Police Department to serve as a nonfederal public organization that 

provided dispatch and radio monitoring services through a central control 

center. Because we judgmentally selected the organizations, the 

information we collected from them cannot be generalized. We conducted 

our work from October 2005 through September 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

This report summarizes the information we provided to your office during 

our August 14, 2006, briefing and, in addition, contains recommendations to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve the MegaCenters’ 

performance measures. The briefing slides are included in appendix I. 

Results in Brief The primary services that FPS MegaCenters provide are remote monitoring 

of building alarm systems as well as radio monitoring and dispatch of FPS 

police officers and contract guards. These and other services are provided 

around the clock from four locations across the country: Battle Creek, 

Denver, Philadelphia, and Suitland. Each MegaCenter has a sister center 

with redundant capabilities that can serve as an emergency backup, and 

each is operated by full-time federal employees and private contractors. In 

fiscal year 2006, the MegaCenters had a budget of $23.5 million—

accounting for about 5 percent of FPS’s total budget—to protect and 

5

We looked at two lists: one was in terms of gross revenue, the other was in terms of 

revenue.

6

In specific situations, two of the private security organizations dispatched either contract 

guards or their own guards. However, because these were situational circumstances, we did 

not include them as being similar to the MegaCenters’ dispatching service. For example, one 

organization only uses contract guards when local jurisdictions will not dispatch their own 

police officers without actual verification of the nature of the alarm. In these cases, the 

organization will have a guard check whether there is a burglary in progress, and if so, the 

organization will contact the police. 
Page 4 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

monitor over 8,300 federal facilities and dispatch over 7,800 FPS police 

officers and contract guards. To provide these services, the MegaCenters 

rely on a variety of information technology (IT) systems, communications 

systems, and other equipment.

FPS MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter activities through a variety 

of means, including reviewing reports on the timeliness and volume of 

operations, listening to and evaluating a sample of calls between operators 

and FPS police officers and contract guards, and receiving informal 

feedback about customer satisfaction. Also, FPS managers have developed 

performance measures for assessing MegaCenter operations. These 

performance measures reflect some of the attributes of successful 

performance measures we have identified, but also contain some 

weaknesses because they are not always clearly stated or measurable and 

do not address the governmentwide priorities of efficiency, cost of service, 

and outcome. In addition, the MegaCenters do not have a performance 

measure that corresponds to the FPS-wide performance measure that is 

applicable to the MegaCenters’ operations—the patrol and response time 

measure, which tracks the elapsed time from the receipt of an alarm to a 

police officer’s arrival on the scene.7

 While the FPS-wide patrol and 

response time measure covers the MegaCenters’ activities and reflects their 

performance, the MegaCenters do not have their own measure that covers 

only the activities for which they are responsible—from the receipt of the 

alarm to the officer’s dispatch. Without clearly stated and measurable 

performance measures, including a measure that corresponds to FPS’s 

agencywide patrol and response time measure, FPS cannot compare the 

MegaCenters’ performance over time, assess their contribution to 

agencywide measures, and identify opportunities for their improvement. 

We are recommending that FPS (1) establish MegaCenter performance 

measures that meet the attributes of successful performance measures we 

have identified; (2) develop a performance measure for the MegaCenters 

that corresponds to the FPS-wide patrol and response time measure and 

covers the MegaCenters’ operations, from alarm to dispatch; and (3) 

routinely assess the extent to which the MegaCenters meet established 

performance measures. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS 

generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.

7

In addition to patrol and response time, FPS has three other agencywide performance 

measures (1) timely deployment of countermeasures, (2) functionality of countermeasures, 

and (3) facility security index (an average success rate for the other measures). 
Page 5 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

The nine selected security organizations offer some of the same security 

services as the MegaCenters, and the services the organizations offer are 

delivered and assessed in a manner generally similar to that of the 

MegaCenters. For example, like the MegaCenters, many organizations have 

centralized their control center operations, have backup capability, allocate 

workload among centers based on geographic location, and use regular call 

reviews as well as volume and time measures to assess the quality of the 

services they provide. A few organizations offer services that the 

MegaCenters do not offer. One major difference between the MegaCenters 

and the organizations is that three organizations use a computer-aided 

dispatch (CAD) system. Selected organizations and associations referred to 

CAD systems as being beneficial for dispatching services by allowing for 

faster operator response, automatic recording of all operator actions 

enabling easier performance analysis, and automatic operator access to 

standard operating procedures and response prioritization. MegaCenters 

have identified a need and developed a plan for a CAD system, but FPS has 

not allocated funding for such a system.

MegaCenters Provide 

Alarm and Radio 

Monitoring and 

Dispatch from Four 

Locations

FPS MegaCenters provide federal agencies with three primary security 

services—alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch—through four 

locations using a variety of IT systems. MegaCenters monitor intrusion, 

panic, fire/smoke, and other alarms. They also monitor FPS police officers’ 

and contract guards’ radio communication to ensure their safety and to 

provide information, such as criminal background or license plate 

histories, to officers upon request. In addition, they exercise command and 

control authority by dispatching FPS police officers or contract guards. 

MegaCenters also provide a variety of other services. For example, they 

notify federal agencies regarding national emergencies and facility 

problems and remotely diagnose problems with federal agency alarms. 

They also receive and transcribe FPS police officer incident reports. 

Individual MegaCenters may also provide unique services not provided by 

other MegaCenters, such as facility-specific access control and remote 

programming of alarms via the Internet. One MegaCenter also provides an 

after-hours telephone answering service for the Drug Enforcement 

Administration and for GSA building maintenance emergencies.

The MegaCenters are located in Battle Creek, Denver, Philadelphia, and 

Suitland. Each MegaCenter has a sister center with redundant capability as 

backup in case of a failure at that MegaCenter. Suitland is paired with 

Battle Creek, and Philadelphia is paired with Denver. A force of 1,014 FPS 

police officers and 6,842 contract guards is available for the MegaCenters 
Page 6 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

to dispatch in response to alarms and other emergencies. In fiscal year 

2006, the MegaCenters were supported by a budget of $23.5 million, which 

accounts for about 5 percent of FPS’s total budget.8

 The MegaCenters are 

operated by 23 full-time federal employees—some of whom manage the 

centers—and about 220 private contractors to provide around the clock 

security services for over 8,300 federal facilities. 

The MegaCenters rely on a variety of IT systems, communications systems, 

and other equipment to provide their security services. The IT systems 

enable MegaCenter staff to, among other activities, monitor alarms and 

radio communications of FPS police officers and contract guards. For 

communications systems, MegaCenters have regional and national toll-free 

numbers for tenants and the public to contact the MegaCenters during 

emergencies. Other equipment includes dictation machines, which enable 

FPS police officers to dictate reports about incidents that occur at 

facilities.

MegaCenters’ and 

FPS’s Performance 

Measures Are Not 

Linked

MegaCenters use various means to assess operations, but their 

performance measures have weaknesses and are not linked to FPS-wide 

performance measures. MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter 

operations through a variety of means, including reviewing data about 

volume and timeliness of operations, listening to and evaluating a sample 

of calls between operators and FPS police officers and contract guards, 

and receiving informal feedback about customer satisfaction. FPS 

managers also have developed 11 performance measures for assessing 

MegaCenter operations: 

• distribute emergency notification reports (also known as SPOT reports) 

within 30 minutes of notification;

• review problem alarm reports daily;

• obtain regular feedback about customer satisfaction from field 

operations;

• continuously review all SPOT reports and other outgoing information to 

ensure 100 percent accuracy;

8

As of August 2006, MegaCenter officials reported a revised MegaCenter budget of 

approximately $19 million for fiscal year 2006. 
Page 7 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

• transcribe dictated offense and incident reports into the database 

management system within 8 hours of receipt of the report;

• submit reviewed contractor billing reports and time sheets within 7 

business days after the last day of the month;

• prepare and review contractor reports for quality assurance plan;

• maintain completely accurate (nonduplicative) case control numbers;

• meet Underwriters Laboratories (UL) guidelines and requirements 

continuously;9

• test failover of alarm, radio, and telephone systems weekly;10 and 

• monitor calls and review recorded call content for adherence to 

standard procedures at least monthly.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires federal 

agencies to, among other things, measure agency performance in achieving 

outcome-oriented goals. Measuring performance allows organizations to 

track the progress they are making toward their goals and gives managers 

critical information on which to base decisions for improving their 

progress. We have previously reported on some of the most important 

attributes of successful performance measures. These attributes indicate 

that performance measures should (1) be linked to an agency’s mission and 

goals; (2) be clearly stated; (3) have quantifiable targets or other 

measurable values; (4) be reasonably free of significant bias or 

manipulation that would distort the accurate assessment of performance; 

(5) provide a reliable way to assess progress; (6) sufficiently cover the 

program’s core activities; (7) have limited overlap with other measures; (8) 

have balance or not emphasize one or two priorities at the expense of 

9

UL certifies control centers that provide all elements of service required by UL’s standards, 

including appropriate operator response to fire alarm signals and proper equipment 

inspection, testing, and maintenance. 

10“Failover” is the capability to switch over automatically to a redundant or standby system 

in the event of a system failure. Each MegaCenter tests its ability to run its sister-center’s 

operations in case that center has system failure. 
Page 8 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

others; and (9) address governmentwide priorities of quality, timeliness, 

efficiency, cost of service, and outcome.11

We assessed the 11 FPS MegaCenter performance measures against 

selected attributes: linkage to mission and goals, clarity, and measurable 

targets. Ten of the 11 MegaCenter performance measures were aligned with 

FPS’s mission to protect federal properties and personnel and with the 

MegaCenter program’s mission to provide high-quality and standardized 

alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch. We found no link 

between timely review of contractor time sheets and billing statements and 

FPS’s mission, however, primarily because this measure seems to be 

related to administrative activities. In addition, while 6 of the 11 

performance measures have measurable targets—a key component for 

measuring performance, none of the MegaCenter performance measures 

met the clarity attribute because FPS could not provide information about 

how managers calculate the measures—a key component in the clarity 

attribute. For example, the performance measure that the centers test the 

failover ability of alarm, radio, and telephone systems weekly is 

measurable because it has a quantifiable target but does not meet the 

clarity attribute because FPS could not describe its methodology for 

calculating it. 

We also assessed whether, collectively, the MegaCenters’ 11 performance 

measures sufficiently cover their core program activities (i.e., alarm 

monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch) and address governmentwide 

priorities of quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcome. 

Most of the MegaCenter performance measures relate to the three core 

activities. For example, regular feedback on customer service and monthly 

review of operator calls cover aspects of the dispatch and radio-monitoring 

functions. Other performance measures, like distributing emergency 

notification reports in 30 minutes, help fulfill other critical support 

functions. However, two performance measures—reviewing contractor 

quality assurance plans and timely review of contractor time sheets and 

billing statements—relate to administrative activities that are not strictly 

related to MegaCenter core activities. Additionally, the MegaCenter 

performance measures do not collectively address all of the 

governmentwide priorities. The MegaCenter performance measures 

primarily address the governmentwide priorities of quality and timeliness. 

11See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002), pp.2-3, 46-53.
Page 9 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

For example, the MegaCenter measures pertaining to transcribing reports 

within 8 hours and reviewing recorded calls to see if the operator followed 

standard operating procedures address aspects of service timeliness and 

quality, respectively. None of the measures relate to the governmentwide 

priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and outcome.

Finally, FPS does not link MegaCenter performance measures to FPS-wide 

performance measures, specifically the patrol and response time measure. 

FPS established FPS-wide performance measures to assess its efforts to 

reduce or mitigate building security risks. The performance measures that 

FPS established were (1) timely deployment of countermeasures, (2) 

functionality of countermeasures, (3) patrol and response time, and (4) 

facility security index. The one measure that relates to the MegaCenters—

patrol and response time—assesses FPS’s ability to respond to calls for 

service and measures the average elapsed time from when a law 

enforcement request is received (e.g., alarm, telephonic request from a 

building tenant, FPS police officer-initiated call) to the time an officer 

arrives at the scene. FPS’s goal is to reduce response times by 10 percent in 

fiscal year 2006. The MegaCenters are responsible for part of the patrol and 

response activity that is being measured because the MegaCenters receive 

alarms and emergency calls and dispatch FPS police officers or contract 

guards to the scene. However, although data pertaining to this activity exist 

in the MegaCenters’ records management system, they do not measure the 

timeliness of this activity, and FPS has not developed a performance 

measure that would identify the MegaCenters’ contribution toward meeting 

FPS’s measure. 

Nine Selected 

Organizations Provide 

Some of the 

MegaCenters’ Services 

in a Generally 

Comparable Manner

The nine selected security organizations generally do not provide all three 

of the MegaCenters’ primary services. However, the services these 

organizations offer are provided similarly by the MegaCenters with the 

exception of a CAD system, which three organizations use and the 

MegaCenters do not. The MegaCenters provide three primary services (i.e., 

alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch), and the selected 

organizations provide all or some of these three main services. For 

example, the Park Police provide all three services, while the private 

organizations focus on providing alarm monitoring and offer some services 

the MegaCenters do not. Like the MegaCenters, all of the private 

organizations reviewed have centralized operations: the number of their 

national control centers ranges from two to five. Work allocation (i.e., how 

incoming alarms and calls are assigned) among centers varies by 

organization but overall is similar to the MegaCenter structure. For 
Page 10 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

example, most of the organizations assign calls and alarms to a specific 

center based on the geographic location of the call or signal. However, the 

Postal Inspection Service and one private organization are unique because 

they are able to allocate workload to centers based on demand and 

operator availability. The organizations use a variety of methods to 

measure the quality of their services, many similar to methods used by the 

MegaCenters. For example, like the MegaCenters, most review a sample of 

operator calls on a regular basis. Two entities have established measurable 

performance goals for their centers. While there are similarities in the 

services offered, number of centers, work allocation, and service quality 

appraisals between the organizations reviewed and the MegaCenters, three 

organizations use a CAD system, which the MegaCenters do not. A CAD 

system is a tool used by the Denver Police Department for dispatching and 

officer tracking and by the Postal Inspection Service for officer tracking. 

The Park Police also uses a CAD system with limited capabilities at its San 

Francisco center and plans to purchase and upgrade the system for all 

three of its centers. Selected organizations and associations referred to 

CAD systems as being beneficial for dispatching services by allowing for 

faster operator response, automatic operator access to standard operating 

procedures and response prioritization, and automatic recording of 

operator actions enabling easier performance analysis. Since 2003, FPS and 

DHS both have assessed MegaCenter technology and have identified needs 

for technology upgrades, including the installation of a CAD system for the 

MegaCenters. Our guide on IT investment decision making—based on best 

practices in the public and private sector—stresses that part of achieving 

maximum benefits from an IT project requires that decisions be made on a 

regular basis about the status of the project.12 To make these decisions, 

senior managers need assessments of the project’s impact on mission 

performance and future prospects for the project. While the MegaCenters 

have assessed their technology on many occasions and have determined 

that some refreshment is needed, FPS has not yet allocated the funding for 

such upgrades. 

Conclusions FPS MegaCenters play a key role in protecting federal facilities, those who 

enter these facilities, and the FPS police officers and contract guards 

whose calls the MegaCenters respond to and monitor. How well the 

MegaCenters are fulfilling their role and carrying out their responsibilities 

12GAO, Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT 

Investment Decision-making, GAO/AIMD-10.1.13 (Washington, D.C.: February 1997).
Page 11 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

is uncertain because they do not generate much of the information that 

would be useful for assessing their performance. 

To their credit, the MegaCenters have established performance measures 

for a number of their activities and operations, and these measures are 

aligned with the MegaCenters’ mission. However, the measures have 

weaknesses, both individually and collectively, compared with the selected 

attributes of successful performance measures that we have identified. 

Many of the individual measures are neither quantifiable nor clearly stated, 

and collectively the measures do not address the governmentwide 

priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and outcome. As a result, FPS 

cannot compare performance across the MegaCenters or over time, and 

without such information, FPS is limited in its ability to identify shortfalls 

and target improvements. 

Although FPS has established an FPS-wide performance measure for 

response time—from the alarm to the FPS police officer’s arrival on the 

scene—that incorporates the MegaCenters’ operations, the MegaCenters 

have not established a comparable measure for their operations alone. 

Without such a measure, FPS cannot evaluate the MegaCenters’ 

contribution—from the alarm to the FPS police officer’s dispatch—to the 

FPS-wide measure for response time and identify opportunities for 

improvement. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director 

of the Federal Protective Service to take the following three actions:

• establish MegaCenter performance measures that meet the attributes of 

successful performance measures we have identified; 

• develop a performance measure for the MegaCenters that is directly 

linked to the FPS-wide response time measure and covers the scope of 

the MegaCenters’ operations, from alarm to dispatch; and

• routinely assess the extent to which the MegaCenters meet established 

performance measures.
Page 12 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to DHS, the Department of the Interior, 

and the U.S. Postal Service for their review and comment. DHS provided 

comments in a letter dated September 6, 2006, which are summarized 

below and reprinted in appendix II. DHS also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. The 

Postal Service informed us that it had no comments on this report. The 

Department of the Interior did not provide comments on this report. 

DHS generally agreed with the report’s findings and recommendations. 

DHS stated that FPS and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) have undertaken a comprehensive review of the MegaCenters to 

identify, among other things, ways in which performance can be better 

measured. DHS noted that through this broad approach, FPS personnel will 

be able to generate and track the kind of information necessary to assess 

the MegaCenters’ performance. This one-time review may help FPS identify 

information needed to assess the MegaCenters’ performance and, 

therefore, develop appropriate performance measures. In order to reliably 

assess performance over time, FPS should not only establish appropriate 

performance measures, but also routinely assess performance using these 

measures. We therefore clarified our recommendation to include the 

routine use of established performance measures to assess the 

MegaCenters’ performance. With regard to the report’s discussion of CAD 

system capabilities, DHS said that ICE’s Chief Information Officer is 

currently assessing the MegaCenters’ technology requirements and 

recognizes that previous studies have identified the need for technology 

upgrades. DHS indicated that the current assessment will have a 

meaningful impact on FPS’s technology capabilities.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, and DHS’s Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.
Page 13 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Mathew J. Scire

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 14 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government Apendxies

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006 ApendxiI

1

Review of the Federal Protective Service’s 

MegaCenters

Briefing for the Committee on Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

August 14, 2006
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 15 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

2

Briefing Overview

• Introduction and Objectives

• Scope and Methodology

• Results in Brief

• Background

• Results of GAO Work
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 16 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

3

Introduction

• Since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 

and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 

terrorism has threatened the nation’s security, including the physical security of 

federal facilities.

• The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), a new federal department with the mission of preventing terrorist attacks

within the United States, which includes safeguarding federal facilities.1

• DHS, through its Federal Protective Service (FPS), provides law enforcement and 

security services to federal agencies that occupy almost 9,000 facilities under the 

jurisdiction of the General Services Administration (GSA) and DHS, protecting 

millions of federal employees, contractors, and citizens. Under agreement, FPS 

authority can be extended to provide its law enforcement and security services to 

any property with a significant federal interest.

• As part of its approach to facility protection, FPS provides support for its law 

enforcement and security services through four control centers (known as 

MegaCenters) located in Battle Creek, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; and Suitland, Maryland. 

1Facilities include government owned and lease space.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 17 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

4

Objectives

• Because of the important role MegaCenters play in assuring the safety 

of federal facilities and their occupants, our objectives were to: 

(1) Identify the services the MegaCenters provide and how they 

provide them. 

(2) Determine how FPS assesses and measures the performance of 

MegaCenter operations and how FPS links MegaCenter

performance measures to FPS-wide performance measures. 

(3) Examine how the MegaCenters compare to selected security 

organizations in the services they provide and in the methods they 

use to provide them.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 18 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

5

Scope and Methodology

• Document review: Reviewed the Memorandum of Agreement between GSA and FPS 

and other documentation related to MegaCenter services as well as documentation related 

to (1) FPS’s request for a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system for the MegaCenters; (2) 

past FPS assessments of MegaCenter operations; (3) FPS’s performance measures; and 

(4) FPS’s budget for the MegaCenters.

• Interviews: Interviewed FPS officials, including MegaCenter branch chief and managers,

and staff from the Program Review Office, Financial Management Division, and other

offices; Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Budget Enforcement Office; and 

officials from selected public and private organizations; officials from security industry

standard setting and accreditation associations (associations).

• Selected organizations:

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection

• U.S. Park Police

• U.S. Postal Inspection Service

• Denver Police Department

• 5 private security companies

• We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 19 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

6

Results in Brief

• Remote monitoring of building alarm systems, radio monitoring, and dispatching of FPS

police officers and contract guards are the primary services FPS MegaCenters provide.

These and other services are provided around the clock from four locations across the 

country. Each MegaCenter has a sister center with redundant capabilities that can serve 

as an emergency backup and each is operated by full-time federal employees and private 

contractors. In addition, the MegaCenters have a fiscal year 2006 budget of $23.5 million 

and use a variety of information technology (IT) systems and other equipment to provide 

their services.

• FPS MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter operations through a variety of means, 

including reviewing information on the timeliness and volume of operations, listening to 

and evaluating a sample of calls between operators and FPS police officers and contract

guards, and receiving informal feedback about customer satisfaction. FPS managers have 

also developed performance measures for assessing MegaCenter operations. Although 

these MegaCenter measures reflect some attributes of successful performance measures, 

they also contain some weaknesses because they are not always clearly stated or

measurable, and do not address governmentwide priorities of efficiency, cost of service, 

and outcome. In addition, they do not directly measure key operations that would link to 

FPS-wide performance measures, which are (1) the timely deployment of

countermeasures, (2) functionality of countermeasures, (3) patrol and response time, and 

(4) facility security index.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 20 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

7

Results in Brief, continued

• The nine selected organizations offer some of the MegaCenters’ primary services, and 

they deliver and assess the services they offer in a generally similar manner to the 

MegaCenters. For example, like the MegaCenters, many of these organizations have 

centralized their control center operations, have backup capability, allocate workload 

among control centers based on geographic location, and use regular call reviews as well 

as volume and time measures to assess the quality of the services they provide. A few 

organizations offer services the MegaCenters do not offer. One difference between the 

MegaCenters and the selected organizations is that three of these organizations use a 

CAD system, which the MegaCenters do not have. The MegaCenters have assessed 

their technology and have identified the need for a CAD; however FPS has not allocated 

funds for such a purchase.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 21 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

8

Background: FPS’s funding structure

• FPS operations are solely funded through security fees and reimbursements collected from federal agencies for FPS security services.

• These security fees consist of basic and building-specific security charges.

• The basic security charges cover the security services that FPS provides to all federal tenants 

in FPS-protected buildings, which include such services as patrol, monitoring of building 

perimeter alarms and dispatching of law enforcement response (MegaCenter operations),

criminal investigations, and security surveys.

• The building-specific security charges are for FPS security measures that are designed for a 

particular building and are based on the FPS Building Security Assessment and its 

designated security level. Such measures include contract guards, X-ray machines, 

magnetometers, cameras, and intrusion detection alarms. Also, the tenant agencies may 

request additional security services such as more guards, access control systems, and 

perimeter barriers.

• The above two charges are billed monthly to the tenant agencies. The basic security charge 

is the same for all tenants regardless of the type of space occupied and is a square footage 

rate. The building-specific security charge reflects FPS cost recovery for security measures

specific to a particular building and the billing is handled differently for single- and multi-tenant 

buildings. Single tenant buildings—the tenant agency is billed for the total cost of the security 

measures. Multi-tenant buildings—the tenant agencies are billed based on their pro rata 

share of the square feet occupied within the respective building.

• FPS uses a reimbursable program to charge individual agencies for additional security services 

and equipment that they request above the level determined for their building.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 22 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

9

Background: FPS’s funding structure, 

continued

• FPS bills the tenant agencies for FPS security fees they have incurred.

• The agencies pay the fees into an FPS account in the Department of the Treasury, which is 

administered by FPS. Congress exercises control over the account through the annual

appropriations process that sets an annual limit—called obligation authority—on how much 

of the account FPS can expend for various activities.

• FPS uses the security fees to finance its various activities within the limits that Congress 

sets. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006 

authorized $487 million in obligation authority for FPS expenses and operations. Through 

FPS’s security fees, funds are to be collected and credited to FPS’s account as an 

offsetting collection from tenant agencies.

• Under the FPS reimbursable program, agencies request additional security services and 

equipment using a funded Security Work Authorization. Once the services are provided and the 

costs are expensed, FPS bills the agency for the costs, and the funds are transferred to the FPS 

account to offset the expenses FPS incurred.

• The DHS Inspector General reported in 2006 that when FPS was part of GSA it budgeted and 

paid for FPS's annual administrative support costs such as financial management, human 

capital, and IT using funds beyond those generated by security fees. GSA estimated these FY 

2003 support services to cost about $28 million. According to the report, beginning in FY 2004, 

neither DHS’s annual budget request nor DHS’s appropriations set aside funding for FPS's

support services. In FY 2004, as a component of DHS, FPS paid almost $24 million for support 

services using funds from security fees only; a year earlier these services had been funded by 

GSA using funds not derived from fees.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 23 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

10

Background: Evolution of the MegaCenters

• Before GSA established the MegaCenters, FPS used regional and satellite control centers

to monitor alarm systems, dispatch FPS police officers and contract guards, and perform 

criminal background checks. In total, there were 22 regional control centers and 12 

satellite control centers, which were located throughout FPS’s 11 regions. Most regions 

had more than 1 control center.

• In 1991, GSA conducted an internal review of the control centers. The review found that

because of significant budgetary and personnel constraints over more than a decade, the 

control centers no longer performed well enough to ensure safe, effective, and efficient

FPS actions to preserve life and property. GSA contracted with Sandia National

Laboratories– the lead laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy security systems– to

conduct an in-depth study of the control centers’ operation and make recommendations.

• In 1993, Sandia issued its study entitled GSA Control Center Upgrade Program. The 

Sandia study identified serious shortfalls and problems that would require a more radical 

upgrade of the control centers at a much higher cost than originally believed. After

validating the study’s findings, GSA determined that a multimillion dollar upgrade of all 

control centers would be prohibitively expensive. The study noted that the control centers 

could be consolidated to almost any level to achieve economies of scale. However, the 

study recommended against a single national-level control center because a second 

center would be needed to continue operations under catastrophe or failover conditions.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 24 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

11

Background: Evolution of the MegaCenters, 

continued

• GSA concluded that the control center problems that the study identified were

material weaknesses and reported them to Congress. FPS conducted an 

operational and technical review of the Sandia study’s findings, which provided a 

critical assessment of the control centers, a high-level concept of operations for the 

centers, and functional specifications for upgrading the centers. GSA decided to 

upgrade 11 control centers—one in each region—and address the weaknesses that 

the study had identified. 

• Within GSA, concerns were raised about the cost of upgrading 11 control centers, 

how many control centers were really needed, and whether the centers’ operations 

could be outsourced. GSA established a project team to investigate these concerns.

The team contacted several public and private sector organizations that operate

control centers. The team found that the organizations were consolidating their

control centers but were unable to assume the operations of FPS control centers. A 

decision was made to consolidate additional centers and the multi-regional control 

center or “MegaCenter” concept was developed. GSA endorsed the MegaCenter

concept. GSA assembled a core project team and hired contractors to design, plan,

and supervise the construction of the centers.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 25 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

12

Background: Evolution of the MegaCenters, 

continued

• In 1994, GSA issued a bid for MegaCenter technical and performance 

specifications and awarded the contract.

• In 1996, FPS reaffirmed that the MegaCenter concept was the best 

approach for addressing the control center weaknesses. GSA selected 

the MegaCenters sites: Denver, CO; Battle Creek, MI; New York, NY 

and Suitland, MD.2

• In 1996, construction began on the Denver MegaCenter and design was 

initiated on the Battle Creek MegaCenter.

• In 1997, the Denver MegaCenter was opened, followed by Battle Creek 

in 1999, Suitland in 2000, and Philadelphia in 2001.

2Site selection for New York, NY was never finalized and eventually was switched to a site in Philadelphia, PA.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 26 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

13

Objective 1: MegaCenters’ primary 

services

• The MegaCenters’ mission is to provide the highest quality, nationally 

standardized dispatch, alarm monitoring, and federal law enforcement 

emergency response services. Based on this mission statement, we 

chose to focus on alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch as 

the primary services the FPS MegaCenters provide.

• Primary services:

• Alarm monitoring: monitoring intrusion, panic, fire/smoke, elevator, 

and/or environmental alarms.

• Radio monitoring: monitoring FPS police officers’ and contract 

guards’ radio communication for safety and providing information

upon request.

• Dispatch: exercising command and control authority by dispatching 

FPS police officers and/or contract guards. 
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 27 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

14

Objective 1: MegaCenters provide other 

services

• Other services:

• Notifying federal agencies regarding national emergencies and facility problems (also 

known as SPOT reports)

• Checking criminal background histories (including inquiries to the National Crime 

Information Center database, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

maintains) for FPS police officers responding to a call or an alarm or FPS regions and 

other DHS agencies requesting this assistance

• Receiving and transcribing FPS police officer reports

• Providing a toll-free help desk line for agency support, including remote diagnosis and 

service of alarms

• Updating quarterly building and emergency contact information from customer

agencies to ensure accurate notifications and alerts

• Unique services (provided by individual MegaCenter):

• Monitoring and controlling access to buildings

• Using the Internet to program, monitor, and test alarms

• Providing after-hours telephone answering service for Drug Enforcement

Administration and for GSA maintenance
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 28 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

15

Objective 1: MegaCenters’ responses to 

building alarms

Figure 1: MegaCenters’ Operations for Responding to Alarms and Emergency Calls
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 29 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

16

Objective 1: MegaCenters provide services 

to a variety of clients

Table 1: Services Provided to MegaCenter Clients

Services GSA, DHS, and

federal agency

clients

FPS regions,

police officers,

and contract

guards

Monitor remote building alarms

X X

Dispatch FPS police officers, contract guards,

and other response services X X

Monitor FPS police officers’ and contract

guards’ radio communications for their safety X

Keep track of FPS police officer and contract

guard locations X

Provide warrant and other information from

the National Crime Information Center X X

Help maintain lists of buildings and contacts

for emergency notifications X X
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 30 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

17

Objective 1: MegaCenters’ organization for 

service delivery

• MegaCenters are located in four cities and are responsible for 

providing various services in their respective FPS Regions:

• Philadelphia, PA (FPS Regions 1, 2, 3)

• Battle Creek, MI (FPS Regions 4, 5, 6)

• Denver, CO (FPS Regions 7, 8, 9, 10)

• Suitland, MD (FPS Region 11- National Capital Region)

• Each MegaCenter is paired with a sister center:

• Suitland is paired with Battle Creek

• Philadelphia is paired with Denver

• Sister center pairings provide for redundant capability in case of a 

catastrophic failure at any MegaCenter.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 31 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

18

Objective 1: MegaCenter workloads

• As of June 2006, MegaCenters had available to them a dispatchable force of 1,014 FPS police 

officers and 6,842 contract guards to help protect and monitor 8,328 federal facilities covering 

almost 381 million square feet, which are mostly under the jurisdiction of GSA and DHS.3

Figure 2: MegaCenters’ National Workload

aThe Suitland MegaCenter typically does not dispatch its 4,500 contract guards. Due to the geographical area of the region and close

proximity of GSA owned or leased facilities, only FPS police officers are dispatched.

bThe number of facilities monitored is a monthly average.

• 3Under agreement, other federal agencies may obtain MegaCenter alarm services for a fee. For example, the Denver MegaCenter provides alarm monitoring

for some National Guard Armory and Air Force units. These units dispatch their own response teams when the MegaCenter receives an alarm and notifies

the units. At the tenant agencies’ request, private security firms also provide this service to some facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and DHS.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 32 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

19

Objective 1: FY 2006 federal and contractor

staffing levels at each MegaCenter

• MegaCenters rely upon contractor staff to carry out dispatch and technical support

services.

• Each MegaCenter also has FPS officials located on site to oversee the center’s overall 

operations.

• MegaCenters operate around the clock.

Table 2: FY 2006 Actual Federal and Contractor Staffing Levels at Each MegaCenter

MegaCenter Federal staff Primary Contractor Contractor staff

Battle Creek 9

4

6

4

23

Wackenhut Services Inc.a 74

Denver Gonzales Consulting

Servicesa

56

Philadelphia Gonzales Consulting

Services

49

Suitland Gonzales Consulting

Services

38

Total 217

aThe Battle Creek and Denver MegaCenters have other contracts for personnel to provide services, such as technical support, however, these

contracts are small in terms of the number of personnel provided– three in Denver and five in Battle Creek.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 33 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

20

Objective 1: Historical budget and 

MegaCenter allocations

• Recent FPS MegaCenter budgets:

• Fiscal year 2004 $20.0 million

• Fiscal year 2005 $21.5 million

• Fiscal year 2006 $23.5 million, which accounts for less than 5 percent of 

FPS’s total budget.4

• Estimated fiscal year 2006 budget for each MegaCenter:

• Suitland $6.0 million

• Philadelphia $5.0 million

• Battle Creek $6.5 million

• Denver $6.0 million

• MegaCenter cost information for FY 2004 and prior years is not available since FPS

transitioned from GSA’s accounting system. FY 2005 and FY 2006 cost information 

is also not available because the ICE accounting system was not modified to capture 

costs solely for the MegaCenters. According to FPS, it is working with ICE to 

establish the capability in the accounting system to capture MegaCenter costs in the 

future.

4As of August 2006, MegaCenter officials reported a revised MegaCenter budget of approximately $19 million for fiscal year 2006.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 34 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

21

Objective 1: MegaCenters rely on IT 

systems to deliver services

Information technology systems Alarm monitoring Radio monitoring Dispatch

Security Information System and software (alarm

receivers and signal receivers) X XX

Facility and building client enterprise information 

systems X XX

MegaCenter-owned telephone exchange system

and regional and national toll-free emergency 

numbers

X XX

Remote programming software

X

Radio systems

X XX

Patrol and dispatch operations logs

X XX

Voice audio recorders

X XX

Software that allows MegaCenters to access 

federal and state law enforcement databases X X

Table 3: Information Technology Systems That Support MegaCenters’ Primary Services

• MegaCenters depend on a variety of IT systems and equipment to deliver their primary

services.

• MegaCenters also depend on additional information technology systems, such as 

failover equipment and servers that facilitate sharing files with sister centers.

Source: GAO analysis of FPS data
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 35 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

22

Objective 1: MegaCenters rely on IT systems 

to deliver services, continued

• Figure 3: MegaCenter Operator at Consoles Used for Alarm Monitoring, Radio 

Monitoring, and Dispatch.

Source: FPS Philadelphia MegaCenter
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 36 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

23

Objective 2: MegaCenters use various 

means to assess operations

• Reports on operator activities—FPS MegaCenter supervisors—staff who are responsible for 

overseeing operators—review information about the timeliness and volume of operators’

activities. For example, they review reports that describe how long it took operators to send out 

emergency notifications and transcribe dictated reports and the number of problem alarms, 

among other things.

• Assessments of operator communications—Supervisors and designated quality assurance staff 

listen to live conversations between operators and FPS police officers and contract guards as 

well as regularly listen to a sample of taped conversations to identify whether operators are 

following standard operating procedures. According to MegaCenter managers, staff sample 

taped calls on a monthly basis.

• Comprehensive reviews of MegaCenter operations—In 2003 and 2004, the MegaCenter

managers completed a manager review of each MegaCenter. These reviews were replaced by 

more comprehensive program reviews in which FPS regional staff with subject area expertise 

were to review each MegaCenter and report on concerns and best practices related to 

MegaCenter management, administration, technology, and equipment. In 2005, the Philadelphia

MegaCenter was the first and only MegaCenter to undergo a program review. Program reviews 

were to be conducted annually at each MegaCenter, however, the MegaCenter managers

suspended these reviews due to budgetary constraints.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 37 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

24

Objective 2: MegaCenters use various 

means to assess operations, continued 

• Feedback on customer satisfaction—MegaCenter managers and supervisors use informal 

means for gathering information about the level of customer satisfaction. For example, they 

receive information from conversations with FPS region program staff and FPS police officers 

who, according to MegaCenter managers, do not hesitate to inform them of performance 

concerns. Managers also obtain feedback from federal building tenants and agencies during 

routine activities, such as when they update their emergency contact database, and from 

regional staff by attending regional staff meetings.

• Underwriters Laboratories (UL) control center certification—Although not an assessment by the 

MegaCenter staff themselves, the UL certification process involves feedback from UL inspectors 

about whether the MegaCenter meets technical and performance standards. UL inspectors 

complete initial inspections to certify the MegaCenters and conduct regular inspections once a 

center is certified. The Denver MegaCenter was UL certified in 2003 and has since had a 

subsequent inspection. The Philadelphia MegaCenter’s initial UL inspection is scheduled to be 

completed in August 2006. Initial UL inspections at the remaining two MegaCenters have not 

been scheduled.

• Performance measurement—FPS has established performance measures for the MegaCenters.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 38 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

25

Objective 2: MegaCenters use various means to 

assess operations, continued

• Figure 4: MegaCenter Supervisors Monitoring Center Operations

Source: FPS Denver MegaCenter
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 39 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

26

Objective 2: MegaCenter performance measures

• FPS has identified 11 performance measures for MegaCenter operations.

• Distribute emergency notification reports (SPOT reports) within 30 minutes 

of notification.

• Review problem alarm reports daily.

• Obtain regular feedback about customer satisfaction from field operations.

• Continuously review all SPOT reports and other outgoing information to 

ensure 100 percent accuracy.

• Transcribe dictated offense and incident reports into database management 

system within 8 hours of receipt of the report.

• Submit reviewed contractor billing reports and time sheets within 7 business 

days after the last day of the month.

• Prepare and review contractor reports for quality assurance plan.

• Maintain completely accurate (non-duplicative) case control numbers.

• Meet UL guidelines and requirements continuously.5

• Test failover of alarm, radio, and telephone systems weekly.6

• Monitor calls and review recorded call content for adherence to standard 

procedures at least monthly.

5UL certifies centers that provide all elements of service required by UL’s standards, including appropriate operator response to fire alarm signals and proper

equipment inspection, testing, and maintenance. 6Failover is the capability to switch over automatically to a redundant or standby system in the event of a system failure. Each MegaCenter tests its ability to run 

its sister-center’s operation in case that center has system failure.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 40 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

27

Objective 2: Attributes of successful 

performance measures 

• The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires federal agencies to develop strategic plans, 

link them with outcome-oriented goals, and measure agency performance in achieving these goals. Measuring 

performance allows organizations to track the progress they are making toward their goals and gives managers 

critical information on which to base decisions for improving their progress.

• Organizations need to have performance measures that (1) demonstrate results, (2) are limited to the vital few, 

(3) cover multiple program priorities, and (4) provide useful information for decision making in order to track 

how their programs and activities can contribute to attaining the organization’s goals and mission.

• We have previously reported on some of the most important attributes of successful performance measures.

These attributes indicate that performance measures should:

(1) Be linked to an agency’s mission and goals; 

(2) Be clearly stated: a measure’s name and definition are consistent with the methodology used to 

calculate it;

(3) Have quantifiable targets or other measurable values;

(4) Be reasonably free of significant bias or manipulation that would distort the accurate assessment of 

performance;

(5) Provide a reliable way to assess progress;

(6) Sufficiently cover the program’s core activities;

(7) Have limited overlap with other measures;

(8) Have balance or not emphasize one or two priorities at the expense of others; and 

(9) Address governmentwide priorities of quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcome.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 41 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

28

Objective 2: Assessing MegaCenter

performance measures 

• We assessed the 11 FPS MegaCenter performance measures against selected attributes of successful 

performance measures: linkage to performance goals and mission, clarity, and measurable targets.

We also assessed whether collectively the 11 performance measures sufficiently cover the 

MegaCenters’ core program activities and address governmentwide priorities of quality, timeliness,

efficiency, cost of service, and outcome.

• Ten of the eleven MegaCenter performance measures were aligned with FPS’s mission to protect and 

secure federally owned and leased properties and personnel and with the MegaCenter program’s

mission to provide high quality and standardized alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch. For

example, distributing emergency notification reports (SPOT reports) to federal agencies within 30 

minutes helps protect federal personnel and properties by alerting federal managers of suspicious 

activities near their locations. We could find no link between timely review of contractor time sheets and 

billing statements and FPS’s mission primarily because this measure seems to be related to 

administrative activities.

• MegaCenter performance measures lacked clarity and measurable targets. Although some of the 

measures seemed clearly stated, FPS could not provide information about how managers calculate any 

of the measures—a key component in the clarity attribute. Six of eleven performance measures have 

measurable targets—a key component for measuring performance. For example, the MegaCenter

measure for testing the failover ability of alarm, radio, and telephone systems on a weekly basis is 

measurable because it has a quantifiable target but does not meet the clarity attribute because FPS 

could not describe the methodology for calculating this measure.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 42 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

29

Objective 2: Assessing MegaCenter

performance measures 

• Seven of the eleven MegaCenter performance measures relate to the 

MegaCenters’ core activities. For example, daily review of problem alarm 

reports and weekly failover of alarm systems relate to the MegaCenters’ alarm 

monitoring operation. Regular feedback on customer service and monthly 

review of operator calls cover aspects of the radio monitoring and dispatch 

functions. Other performance measures, like distributing emergency notification 

reports in 30 minutes, help fulfill other critical support functions. However, two of 

the performance measures—the timely review of contractor time sheets and 

preparing and reviewing contractor quality assurance plans—seem to relate to 

administrative activities and are not strictly related to MegaCenter core activities.

• The MegaCenter performance measures primarily address the governmentwide

priorities of quality and timeliness. For example, transcribing reports within 8 

hours and reviewing recorded calls to see if the operator followed standard 

procedures address aspects of service timeliness and quality, respectively.

None of the measures relate to the other governmentwide priorities of efficiency, 

cost of service, and outcome. 
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 43 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

30

Objective 2: FPS has established building 

security performance measures

• FPS has identified four performance measures to assess its efforts to reduce or 

mitigate building security risks. 

• One of these measures—patrol and response time—assesses FPS’s ability to 

respond to calls for service within certain time limit goals. It measures the 

average elapsed time from when a MegaCener receives a law enforcement 

request (e.g., an alarm, telephone request from a building tenant, FPS officer 

initiated call) to the time an FPS officer arrives at the scene. In fiscal year 2005, 

FPS reported a national average response time of 47 minutes. Its goal is to 

reduce response time by 10 percent in fiscal year 2006.

Performance measure Purpose

Timely deployment of countermeasures To compare actual deployment dates with planned

deployment dates

Countermeasure functionality (e.g., surveillance

cameras, X-ray machines)

To gauge whether those security countermeasures

for which FPS is responsible are working as

intended, once deployed

Patrol and response time To assess FPS’s ability to respond to calls for

service within certain time limit goals

Facility security index To calculate FPS’s average success rate for the

above three performance measures

Source: GAO, Homeland Security: Guidance and Standards Are Needed for Measuring the Effectiveness of Agencies’ Facility

Protection Efforts, GAO-06-612 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).

Table 4: FPS-wide Performance Measures for Facility Protection
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 44 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

31

Objective 2: FPS response measure not 

linked to MegaCenters

• FPS does not link the MegaCenter performance measures to the FPSwide performance measures, specifically, the FPS-wide patrol and 

response time measure. 

• The MegaCenters are responsible for part of the patrol and response 

activity that is being measured because MegaCenter operators are in 

control of the alarm and call response and dispatch operations. 

However, although some time-related data is recorded in their records 

management system, the MegaCenters do not measure the timeliness 

of this activity and FPS has not developed a performance measure that

would identify the MegaCenters’ contribution toward meeting the FPSwide measure.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 45 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

32

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ 

provision of MegaCenters’ primary services

• The Park Police was the only selected organization that provides all

three primary services offered by the MegaCenters. The remaining 

selected organizations provide one or two of these MegaCenter

primary services.

Organization Alarm

monitoring

Radio

monitoring

Dispatch

Federal Protective Services XX X

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection X

U.S. Park Police XX X

U.S. Postal Inspection Service X X

Denver Police Department X X

Private security organizations X

Table 5: MegaCenters’ Primary Services Offered by Selected Organizations
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 46 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

33

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ 

provision of other services

• Selected organizations also offer other services the MegaCenters offer.

• Many organizations record telephone and radio communications in case these 

communications need to be reviewed; officials from the associations stated that reviewing

calls to ensure procedures are followed correctly is an important control center practice.

• All public organizations provide information to officers based on inquires to the FBI’s

National Crime Information Center among other databases.7

• All private organizations provide access control services that allow them to track and 

restrict facility access.

• One private organization monitors system conditions separately to distinguish between an 

intrusion, door propped open, tamper, or long access, which assists in determining the 

appropriate action to take. 

• A few organizations offer services the MegaCenters do not.

• Three private organizations provide audio and/or video monitoring services which allow 

operators to remotely listen and/or view live audio and/or video transmission from the 

secured site. Officials from two organizations reported that this type of surveillance

technology minimizes the number of on-site guards required for their clients. In addition, 

this surveillance technology provides operators with additional intelligence information to 

help them decide what further actions to take.

7Like the MegaCenters, Customs and Border Protection, Postal Inspection Service, and Park Police also retrieve information for officers from the

National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System and the Denver Police Department retrieves information for officers from the Colorado

Crime Information Center database.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 47 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

34

Objective 3: Workload and staffing of public 

organizations compared to MegaCenters

• Workloads and staffing vary by public organization. While Postal Inspection Service monitors more 

facilities than the MegaCenters, it does not dispatch officers. Park Police, an organization that does 

dispatch officers, has far fewer officers available to dispatch than the MegaCenters and, because the 

Park Police has a different purpose, it monitors far fewer facilities than the MegaCenters. 

Public

organization

Center Purpose Number

of

centers

Facilities

monitored

Dispatchable

personnel

Center

staffinga

Federal

Protective

Service

Monitor alarm systems of federal facilities and dispatch

FPS police officers and contract guards to these

facilities, if necessary. Monitor the radios of officers

and guards to ensure their safety and to provide

information to officers.

Monitor radios nationwide for all customs investigations

at ports to ensure officer safety and coordinate

response, if necessary.

Monitor alarms and dispatch Park Police officers and

law enforcement rangers to protect national

monuments and parks. Monitor officer radios to ensure

officer safety and provide information to officers.

Monitor postal facilities’ alarm systems and radio

communication of Postal Inspection police and federal

agents to ensure officer safety and to provide

information to officers.

Provide emergency services to the city and county of

Denver.

4 8,328 7,856 240

U.S. Customs

and Border

Protection

1 Not

applicable

Not applicable 71

U.S. Park Police 3 875b 717 36

U.S. Postal

Inspection

Service

2 11,448 Not applicable 67

Denver Police

Department

1 Not

applicable

1,452 129c

Table 6: Workload Statistics of Selected Public Organizations’ Centers

aThis includes both full-time federal employees and contract staff, where applicable.

bThis is the approximate number of alarms monitored by Park Police’s two centers in the District of Columbia and San Francisco. The New York

control center does not monitor alarms.

cOne hundred and twenty-nine is an approximation. Denver Police Department reported 131 personnel, 4 are part time.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 48 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

35

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ 

general organizational structure

• The selected organizations have organizational structures similar to the 

MegaCenters.

• Like the MegaCenters, all five private organizations monitor alarms through 

centralized control centers.

• Each of the five private organizations have between 2 to 5 national 

central control centers.

• One private organization official stated that centralizing and consolidating 

monitoring services allows for easier staffing, better customer service, and 

higher quality technology.

• Like the MegaCenters, all public and private organizations have backup 

ability, with the exception of Customs and Border Protection.8

• Officials from the organizations and associations we interviewed cited the 

importance of center redundancy in the event of catastrophic failure at any 

one control center.

8Park Police’s control center in the District of Columbia has backup capabilities for all three primary services. The centers in San Francisco and

New York are able to backup their radio and call taking functions, however, the San Francisco center is not able to backup its alarm monitoring

function.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 49 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

36

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ work 

assignment structure

• Similar to the MegaCenters, most of selected organizations assign calls and alarms to a 

specific control center based on the geographic location of the call or alarm signal.

• Some organizations reported that this type of work allocation is beneficial because it

reduces stress for the operator and provides better customer service. For example,

one private organization reported that its operators become familiar with both the 

people who call the control centers and their locations which allows them to provide 

better directions to responders.

• Postal Inspection Service and one private organization are able to allocate workload to 

their control centers based on demand and operator availability. For example, when an 

alarm signal or telephone call comes into Postal Inspection Service, its software decides 

which center should receive the signal or call based on center workload.

• Both organizations reported efficiencies from this type of work allocation.

• Postal Inspection Service reported a reduction in required center staff.

• The private organization reported the ability to close some of its control centers 

during non-peak hours, reducing costs.

• Both organizations attribute the ability to allocate work in this manner to more 

advanced technology.9

9Postal Inspection Service can only allocate work in this manner for its alarm monitoring and call taking service. Radio signals must be assigned

to a specific center because the technology at the time Postal Inspection Service built its control centers was not yet developed to allow radio

signals to be assigned to first available center.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 50 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

37

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ methods to 

assess service quality

• The selected organizations use a variety of methods to 

ensure centers are meeting their goals and providing quality 

services, many similar to the MegaCenters.

Organization Regular review of a 

sample of operators 

calls

Operator pay 

incentives based on 

performance

Volume and/or time 

measures

Regular and formal

process for soliciting 

customer feedback

Federal Protective 

Service

X X

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protectiona

X X

U.S. Park Police

U.S. Postal Inspection

Service

X X

Denver Police

Department

X X

Private security 

organizations

Xb X Xb Xb

aCustoms and Border Protection officials reported that they are in the process of developing a formal customer survey tool.

bIndicates that at least one of the selected private security organizations used these methods.

Table 7: Selected Organizations’ Methods to Ensure Quality Service 
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 51 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

38

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ methods to 

assess service quality, continued

• Regular review of calls

• Most officials from the associations we interviewed agreed that competent 

control centers have a quality assurance process that includes regular 

review of a random sample of calls to ensure that the operators asked the 

correct questions and provided the correct information when dispatching 

and to check the timelines and timing of responses. FPS MegaCenter

supervisors monitor each of their operators calls on a monthly basis to 

ensure correct procedures are followed.

• Pay incentives

• One private organization not only conducts call reviews but also ties pay 

incentives to its quality assessment program by linking employee call review 

evaluations to spot awards and bonuses. None of the federal agencies 

reviewed, including the MegaCenters, used these types of pay incentives.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 52 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

39

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ methods to 

assess service quality, continued

• Volume and time measurements

• Examples of measurements are the amount of time it takes to answer a call, 

time taken to act on a call, and number of complaints from responding 

officers. Although the MegaCenters have volume and time measurements, 

they do not report the time it takes from receipt of alarm signal to officer 

dispatch. Some of the measures the MegaCenters use include the time 

elapsed between an officer calling in an incident and its entry into the 

records management system and the time it takes to send emergency 

notification reports to higher management. They also report volume 

statistics to their regions, such as the number of cases they have opened in 

a month.

• Officials from Customs and Border Protection and the Commission on 

Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies stated that many volume and 

time measurements cannot be used in law enforcement because timing can 

depend on circumstances. For example, the time it takes a Customs and 

Border Protection operator to clear a radio call would not be an appropriate

measure because some of their functions are more tactical in nature– for

example providing radio support in an undercover investigation– and cannot 

accurately be measured with time and volume statistics only. 
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 53 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

40

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ methods to 

assess service quality, continued

• Customer satisfaction

• Two private organizations regularly and formally survey their customers to 

find out if operators were pleasant, delivered timely service, and seemed to 

be well trained and informed.

• Other organizations, like MegaCenters, use a more informal process to 

gauge customer satisfaction. To formalize its customer feedback, the 

Suitland MegaCenter developed a survey to gauge officer satisfaction, 

however, it is waiting for approval to use it.

• Customs and Border Protection has hired a private consultant to help 

them develop a customer satisfaction survey and believe its use, in

conjunction with volume statistics, will provide a more meaningful

measure of their service quality.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 54 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

41

Objective 3: Selected organizations’ methods to 

assess service quality, continued

• Performance measures

• One private organization and the Postal Inspection Service not only perform 

assessment activities but also have established measurable performance 

goals for their control centers. Examples of the private organization’s goals 

are: resolution of 90 percent of high priority events within 60 seconds and 

resolution of 85 percent of inbound and technical assistance specialist calls 

within 18 seconds.

• Postal Inspection Service has begun to establish volume and time

measurement goals, such as a 25 percent reduction in the number of 

complaints in which standard operating procedures were not followed and a 

10 percent reduction in the time it takes to answer radio calls. They intend 

to revise their goals in fiscal year 2007 once they have actual experience 

against which to set a benchmark. 

• The MegaCenters have created performance measures, however, they lack 

some attributes of successful performance measures, such as measurable 

targets.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 55 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

42

Objective 3: Selected organizations use of

a CAD system

• The MegaCenters perform dispatch and incident management functions manually while Denver Police Department uses a CAD system to perform these functions and the Postal 

Inspection Service uses a CAD system to track officer locations and perform incident

management functions. The Park Police’s San Francisco center also uses a CAD system 

with limited capabilities, and Park Police has a plan in place to purchase and upgrade a 

system for its three centers.

• MegaCenter operators keep track of officers on duty and their locations by hand or by using an Excel spreadsheet, and when they dispatch an officer to a federal building they 

must enter the address location into the database. In comparison, when a Postal 

Inspection Service operator tracks an officer to a building, the CAD system automatically 

populates the address field and the system shows all contact information for that building.

Without a CAD system, the operators spend more time retrieving information from different

sources and entering data, such as client contact information.

• CAD systems automate dispatch and incident management functions and allow for more efficient handling of incidents. Typical CAD system functions include management of call routing and prioritization, dispatching, and response procedures. For example, a CAD 

system can decide which control center a call should go to based on workload, prioritize 

the call for the operator, and automatically display to the operator the actions to take.

CAD systems record times of incidents, locations, and corresponding actions by 

dispatchers and officers which allows for analysis to be conducted to determine, for

example, response times, workload, the types of incidents requiring response, and 

resource allocation needs.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 56 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

43

Objective 3: Selected organizations use of 

a CAD system, continued

• Figure 5: Left: Postal Inspection Service Operators Using a CAD System to Track 

Officer Locations, Right: Postal Inspection Service’s Network Server Room

Source: U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s National Law Enforcement Control Center, Dulles, VA.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 57 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

44

Objective 3: Selected organizations use of 

a CAD system, continued

• Selected organizations and associations stated that CAD systems are 

beneficial for dispatching services by allowing for faster operator 

response, automatic recording of operator actions enabling easier 

performance analysis, and automatic operator access to standard 

operating procedures and response prioritization. For example, when a 

signal comes into a Postal Inspection Service control center, the CAD 

system automatically retrieves and displays the response actions for the 

operator to follow.

• FPS has repeatedly recognized the need for a CAD system. In 1993, 

the Sandia study of FPS's former control centers recommended that the 

centers have a CAD system for the most effective and time efficient 

dispatch operations while using a minimum center personnel structure.

A 2003 DHS MegaCenter review also stated that the MegaCenters

needed a CAD system. In January 2006, FPS issued a request for 

information for a CAD system. No funding has been allocated in fiscal 

year 2006 for the MegaCenters to purchase a CAD system.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 58 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

45

Objective 3: Best practices: technology 

planning

• Our guide on IT investment decision-making– based on best practices in 

the public and private sectors– stresses that part of achieving maximum

benefits from an IT project requires that decisions be made on a regular

basis about the status of the project. To make these decisions, senior

managers need assessments of the project’s impact on mission 

performance and future prospects for the project.

• Senior managers should regularly question whether (1) the current 

system meets organizational needs, (2) the system should be modified 

to better meet these needs, (3) a new system is needed to best meet 

these needs, or (4) the needs could best be met by outsourcing the 

work. Included in the regular review should be costs for operation and 

maintenance of the project, such as hardware upgrades, system 

software changes, and ongoing user training. Successful IT 

management requires that a plan be developed for the continued 

support and operation of every IT project.10

10GAO, Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT Investment Decision-making, GAO/AIMD-10.1.13 (Washington,

D.C.: February 1997).
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 59 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

46

Objective 3: FPS technology planning

• While the MegaCenters have assessed their technology on several occasions and have determined that some refreshment is needed, no funding has been allocated by FPS for this

use.

• When the MegaCenters were established, FPS intended scheduled replacement of their 

technical systems after 5 years, but this timeline has passed. In addition, a 2003 DHS 

MegaCenter review found that there were various states of technologies in systems across 

centers and proposed planning for life cycle equipment replacement. However, according 

to FPS officials, no technology replacement program has been established, and equipment

is replaced on a per MegaCenter, as-needed basis. 

• A 2005 program review of the Philadelphia MegaCenter found that no strategic plan had 

been established to guide and lead the MegaCenters into the future in terms of technology 

and equipment. The review suggested that a national team be assembled to focus on the 

MegaCenters’ communications and technology needs. Loss of IT positions at the 

MegaCenters has prevented the MegaCenter branch chief from creating this national team.

However, FPS’s IT program manager conducts weekly teleconferences to discuss IT 

issues in the MegaCenters, which MegaCenter IT staff attend. In addition, the MegaCenter

branch chief has developed a radio coverage plan– his main technology priority for the 

MegaCenters– which outlines plans to acquire technology systems that will ensure the 

MegaCenters can receive radio signals for all areas in the regions.11 There has been no 

funding to implement this plan. 

11Currently there are some areas where FPS police officers’ and contract guards’ radios cannot transmit signals to the MegaCenters preventing the 

MegaCenter operators from being able to monitor the radios.
Appendix I

Briefing for the Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 

August 14, 2006

Page 60 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

47

Objective 3: FPS technology planning,

continued

• As part of the budget justification process, FPS has submitted the required analysis 

and requested funding for a technology upgrade project for each budget year from 

2003 through 2006.12 FPS’s proposed project is to maintain, consolidate,

standardize, and enhance current and future FPS systems and integrate it with DHS 

systems. Included in the request for each year is an Operations Reporting and 

Information Network (ORION) system to be used at the MegaCenters that would

provide enhanced incident capture and tracking, officer tracking, and officer safety

features and includes a CAD system.

• Although FPS has developed this investment plan, no funds have been allocated for

ORION or any other MegaCenter technology improvements. An FPS official stated 

that because of limited funding, the MegaCenters are not investing in technology, and 

the only money being spent on MegaCenter technology is for maintenance so they 

can maintain current operations. Another official reported that under GSA, FPS was 

given funds for technology investment but since moving to DHS, FPS has not

received these extra funds and must take money from its operating budget to fund 

technology purchases. 

12Each year agencies submit to the Office of Management and Budget a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case to justify each request for a major IT 

investment.
Page 61 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 62 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service
Page 63 GAO-06-1076 Federal Protective Service

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact Mathew J. Scire (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov.

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Other key contributors to this report were Gerald P. Barnes, Assistant 

Director; Deirdre Brown; Bess Eisenstadt; Colin Fallon; Brandon Haller; 

Richard Hung; Alex Lawrence; Gail Marnik; and Josh Ormand.

(543151)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER