Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Federal Protective Service Contract 


Guard Procurement and Oversight Process
 

OIG-09-51 April 2009 
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

 April 6, 2009 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Protective Service’s 

(FPS) procurement and oversight of its Contract Guard Program. It is based on 

interviews with FPS employees and officials, direct observations, and a review of 

applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Richard L. Skinner 


Inspector General 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 


Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1
 

Background..........................................................................................................................2
 

Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................3


 Selection Methodology for FPS Guard Contracts ..........................................................3 


Recommendations...........................................................................................................8


 Management Comments and OIG Analysis ...................................................................9 


 Oversight of FPS Guard Contracts ...............................................................................11 


Recommendations.........................................................................................................18


 Management Comments and OIG Analysis .................................................................18 


Appendices

 Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology..........................................................21 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..........................................23 


Appendix C: Major Contributors to this Report ...........................................................31 


Appendix D: Report Distribution..................................................................................32 


Abbreviations 

CCG Consolidated Contracting Group 


CERTS Contract Guard Employment Requirements Tracking System
 

COTR Contracting Officer Technical Representative 


DHS Department of Homeland Security 


FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 


FPS Federal Protective Service 


GSA General Services Administration 


ICE United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 


OIG Office of Inspector General 


Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 
OIG
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Federal Protective Service uses contract guards to fulfill its 

responsibility for the security of federal properties and personnel 

across the nation. The objectives of our audit were to determine 

whether the Federal Protective Service’s award selection practices 

facilitate the procurement of guard service contracts in the 

government’s best interests, and whether the agency’s oversight 

activities provide reasonable assurance that contractors are 

satisfying requirements. 

The Federal Protective Service did not use consistent selection 

practices to award guard contracts. The agency did not 

consistently apply its selection methodology, define evaluation 

factors, or staff its evaluation teams with the same mix of 

personnel. Standard guidance for these practices is still being 

developed. Inconsistent selection practices may lead to disparate 

levels of service quality and open the agency to public criticism. 

Federal Protective Service contract oversight activities did not 

ensure that contractors were deploying qualified guards and 

satisfying contract requirements. The agency did not consistently 

perform or document guard and post inspections, monitor 

certification records, review invoices, pursue deductions for 

violations, or evaluate performance. This resulted from limited 

oversight policies and procedures, the need for an agency-wide 

inspection information system, and insufficient oversight 

personnel. Until these shortfalls are addressed, the agency cannot 

ensure that guards are complying with contract requirements or 

effectively using past performance as an evaluation factor in guard 

service procurements. This may lead to decreased security, putting 

federal employees, facilities, and visitors at risk. 

We are making six recommendations to the Federal Protective 

Service, which should strengthen policies and procedures for the 

contract guard program. We also address the need for an 

information system and sufficient resources for the agency to 

procure and oversee guard service contracts. The agency 

concurred with our recommendations. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 1 

Background 

The mission of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is to render 

federal properties safe and secure for employees, officials, and 

visitors in a professional and cost-effective manner by deploying a 

highly trained and multidisciplined police force. To accomplish its 

mission, FPS currently has a workforce of about 1,100 employees 

and approximately 15,000 contract guards located throughout the 

country. 

In 2003, FPS was transferred from the General Services 

Administration (GSA) to the United States Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) within DHS. FPS is currently tasked 

with providing physical security and law enforcement services to 

about 9,000 facilities owned or leased by the GSA. 

FPS contracts with private companies for essential security guard 

services, such as controlling access to facilities, checking 

employee and visitor identification, monitoring security 

equipment, and patrolling the interior and exterior of federal 

facilities. These contractors are responsible for providing and 

maintaining all services necessary to accomplish security as 

described in the contract statement of work, including 

management, supervision, manpower, training, equipment, 

supplies, and licensing. FPS is responsible for ensuring that the 

contractor follows the terms of the contract and assessing price 

deductions for services that are not rendered. 

Guard contracts are awarded and monitored by FPS employees in 

the following roles and groups: 

1) Consolidated Contract Group (CCG): Located within ICE 

Office of Acquisition Management, the CCG provides 

contracting support to FPS for guard services and other FPS 

mission-related acquisitions. 

2) Regional program offices: FPS’ 11 regional program offices 

are responsible for monitoring, overseeing, and ensuring 

quality using the following personnel: 

�	 Contract guard program managers serve as the primary 

focal points and liaisons among the customer tenant 

agencies, CCG, and regional program office budget and 

guard monitoring staff. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 2
 
�	 

�	 

Contracting officer technical representatives (COTR) 

are responsible for monitoring the performance of the 

FPS guard contracts. COTR functions include 

performing inspections to ensure compliance with 

contract terms, reviewing and approving invoices, and 

periodically evaluating contractor performance. 

Inspectors support the COTRs in overseeing contract 

guards, as well as completing security assessments and 

responding to emergency situations. In some regions, 

inspectors may also be designated as COTRs. 

Generally, FPS evaluates contractor offers using "best value" 

selection methods to ensure that guard services are procured in the 

manner most advantageous to the government. According to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101, “best value” is the 

expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the government’s 

estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to a 

requirement. 

Results of Audit 

Selection Methodology for FPS Guard Contracts 

FPS did not use standardized evaluation methods for determining “best 

value” as a basis for its guard contract award decisions. Specifically, the 

agency did not consistently apply its selection methodology, define 

evaluation factors, or staff its evaluation teams with the same mix of 

personnel. Standard guidance for these practices did not yet exist; as of 

October 2008, guidance was still under development. As a result, guard 

contracts that provide similar services across the nation may not have been 

awarded in the government’s best interests. Inconsistent selection 

practices may lead to disparate levels of service quality and open the 

agency to public criticism. 

Best Value Guard Contracts 

We reviewed files for 31 contracts awarded between March 2007 

and April 2008 with an estimated total value of more than 

$529 million. We also reviewed three preaward contract files. We 

reviewed these files to determine whether contracts were awarded 

in a manner consistent with FPS’ goal of awarding contracts that 

would be of "best value" to the government. One contract was 

awarded to an incumbent contractor on a limited source basis in 

accordance with the FAR 8.405-6. For nine contracts, it appears 

that FPS made "best value" determinations by choosing the lowest 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 3
 
bidders. For the remaining 21 contracts and 3 preawards, FPS 

made "best value" determinations after evaluating a variety of price 

and nonprice factors. See Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Basis of Award for Guard Contracts 

21

7

3 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Best Value Low BidInterim 

Contracts 

PreawardBest Value Low BidEmergency Limited 

Source 

Basis for Award 

No. of Contracts 

FPS awarded "lowest bid" contracts for two emergency 

procurements and seven interim contracts. FPS awarded these 

contracts solely on the basis of price. The nine "lowest bid" 

contracts were for guard services procured through GSA’s federal 

supply schedule using FAR 8.4. The prices for all services offered 

through the federal supply schedule are determined by GSA to be 

fair and reasonable. The agency awarded six interim contracts to 

the lowest bidders as a result of a September 2006 protest of FPS’ 

efforts to award best value statewide contracts. The agency chose 

to issue these interim contracts on the basis of price until it could 

award new state-wide best value contracts that consider both price 

and non-price evaluation factors. However, as of October 2008, 

FPS was still using these low-bid interim contracts. 

The practice of awarding guard service contracts solely on the 

basis of price conflicts with the FPS’ contract guard acquisition 

plan, which states that performance or schedule requirements 

should not be compromised to obtain low cost. Due to competing 

priorities, FPS was unable to allocate the necessary personnel to 

process new state-wide contracts in a timely manner. FPS officials 

noted that 92 of the 123 guard contracts (75%) had to be processed 

and awarded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, stretching the assigned 

personnel beyond their capacity. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 4
 
 

 

Best Value Technical Evaluation Factors 

FPS did not use a consistent set of factors to evaluate similar guard 

service contractor quotes and define best value for the 21 contracts 

and 3 preawards we reviewed that were evaluated using both price 

and nonprice factors. These best value technical evaluations 

included a consideration of price and a combination of nonprice 

factors such as corporate experience, management plan, past 

performance, quality control plan, socioeconomic status, and 

technical capability. See Figure 2. 

The contract files we 

reviewed had adequate 

support for the individual 

award decision, including 

acquisition plans, criteria 

for selection, and award 

decision memorandums. 

However, contracting 

officers used many different 

combinations of technical 

factors to determine which 

contracts yielded the best 

value to the government for 

similar contract guard 

services. For example, 5 of 

the 21 procurements were 

based on past performance 

and price factors; 2 

procurements were based 

on past performance, 

quality control plan, and 

price; and another was 

based on past performance, 

management approach, 

socioeconomic status, and 

price. 

Figure 2. Definitions of Technical (Nonprice) 

Evaluation Factors 

Past Performance: Successful performance of 

projects of a similar size and complexity 

obtained from references and other sources. 

Management Plan/Approach: Techniques 

and actions described that demonstrate an 

ability to successfully accomplish the 

government’s requirement. 

Socioeconomic Status: Socially and 

economically disadvantaged businesses will be 

considered as a positive enhancement to the 

evaluation and trade-off process. 

Corporate Experience: Currency and 

relevance of past projects similar in scope and 

complexity to the government’s current 

requirement. 

Quality Control Plan: A supervisory plan that 

demonstrates the contractor’s clear and distinct 

understanding of the need for quality control. 

Technical Capability: Demonstration of 

technical resources, knowledge, and expertise. 

This may include a transition plan and quality 

control plan. 

Source: Federal Protective Service Guard 

Contracts 

The FAR does not require a specific formula for evaluating price 

and nonprice factors, but the practice of using different evaluation 

factors for similar services conflicts with FPS’ plan for a 

standardized guard acquisition process. Contracting officers used 

the different combinations of technical evaluation factors because 

national standardized guidance did not exist until June 2007. The 

contracts we reviewed were awarded either before or while FPS 

developed the guidance and, as a result, do not align with FPS’ 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 5
 
intent to standardize the acquisition process for guard services 

nationwide. Because FPS awards guard contracts across all 

11 regions, the use of varying evaluation factors to define best 

value may leave the agency open to public criticism as well as 

receiving disparate levels of service quality. 

Proposal Evaluation Teams 

FPS’ evaluation guidance suggests that contract technical 

evaluation teams be composed of both regional program office and 

CCG contracting personnel. However, proposal evaluation teams 

were not consistently staffed according to FPS’ guidance. 

Regional program office staff was not always able to provide 

technical expertise or consistently participate on evaluation teams. 

According to regional program office and CCG personnel, certain 

regions do not have staff with the expertise required to evaluate all 

technical factors. One CCG official explained that even with 

instruction, some personnel could not effectively evaluate the 

quality of management plans submitted by different offerors. 

Ideally, the CCG would lead the procurement team to ensure that 

FAR requirements are met, while regional program office staff 

would serve as technical experts in evaluating contractor 

proposals. 

Staff shortages and competing priorities prevent FPS from 

ensuring that regional program office personnel have sufficient 

expertise, training in federal acquisition, and time to thoroughly 

evaluate contractor proposals. For example, one COTR recalled 

that he was required to respond to emergency law enforcement 

calls while participating on a technical evaluation team. CCG 

contracting staff at one office acknowledged that they do not 

usually include the regional program office in the technical 

evaluation process because they do not believe these employees 

are trained to conduct a thorough evaluation. They explained that 

regional program office teams could take weeks to prepare 

evaluation reports, which are often poorly written, because of the 

large number of contracts to be awarded and the shortage of 

trained personnel on the technical teams. Consequently, CCG 

personnel have had to make up for regional program offices’ 

weaknesses to ensure that evaluations are legally defensible. 

FPS Progress in Standardizing Selection Practices 

In spring 2007, FPS began to standardize its approach for 

acquiring guard services by issuing a programwide acquisition plan 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 6
 
and developing a national best value evaluation guide. Previously, 

contracting officers developed separate acquisition plans for each 

procurement, without overarching nationwide guidance from FPS. 

The new program-wide plan describes FPS’ intent to compete all 

guard service requirements and award contracts on a best value 

basis after evaluating price and nonprice factors. FPS also 

established a contract review board to review and approve 

contracting actions at critical decision-making points in the 

acquisition process to ensure that the government receives best 

value for these actions. 

The FPS’ standardized evaluation guidance is still under 

development. The most recent iteration of the evaluation guide, 

issued in February 2008, identifies four evaluation factors: price, 

past performance, management approach, and socioeconomic 

status. According to the guide, the highest weighted nonprice (or 

technical) factor is past performance, followed by management 

approach and socioeconomic status. The other factors shown in 

figure 2—corporate experience, quality control, and technical 

capability—have either been incorporated into the definitions of 

the four required factors or eliminated. 

Although development of the national evaluation guide represents 

significant progress for FPS, regional program office and CCG 

contracting staff expressed several concerns about the new 

guidance. For example, some CCG contracting staff disagreed 

with the weight assigned to the nonprice factors, and would prefer 

greater emphasis on factors such as quality control and transition 

plans. FPS’ national evaluation guide also indicates that the 

contract guard manager may waive the management approach 

factor, but gives no further guidance about when or why this factor 

could be waived. Staff defended the waivers by explaining that 

certain regions did not have staff with sufficient expertise to 

evaluate this factor, and therefore, the factor added no value to the 

procurement. 

In addition, even though FPS designated past performance as the 

highest rated technical (nonprice) factor in the new guidance, 

information from the Contractor Performance System1

 is often too 

generic to be useful for an evaluation. According to contracting 

staff at the three CCGs, not enough historical data are available 

because FPS did not input contractor performance evaluations into 

the system until recently. Although data from other agencies may 

1 The Contractor Performance System is a federal, multiagency, Web-based system created by the National Institutes of 

Health to collect, maintain, and disseminate historical contractor performance information. The DHS Acquisition 

Regulation requires DHS officials to use the Contractor Performance System to evaluate contractor performance. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 7
 
be available in the Contractor Performance System, their 

usefulness may be limited because the performance questions and 

responses from these agencies are not specific to FPS 

requirements. Further, FPS primarily relied on questionnaires to 

obtain past performance information. This method allowed each 

contractor to select its best references, potentially hindering FPS’ 

ability to get a realistic picture of the contractor’s overall, recent 

performance record. 

Contracts awarded based on best value evaluation factors are 

intended to ensure that the government makes good business 

decisions by using factors other than price. FPS is actively 

working to provide the highest level of security guard services 

possible, and will continue to provide these services to federal 

agencies for the indefinite future. Without comprehensive 

technical evaluation procedures, trained evaluation teams, and 

proper resource allocation, FPS may not be able to consistently 

procure guard contracts in the government’s best interests. Since 

FPS awards guard contracts for similar services across all 

11 regions, the agency may be open to public criticism if the 

contracts are awarded without consistent selection practices. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Head of Contracting Activity for the 

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in 

coordination with the Director of the Federal Protective Service: 

Recommendation #1: Refine and complete standardized 

procedures and templates to ensure that the Federal Protective 

Service consistently solicits and awards guard contracts in the 

government’s best interests. 

Recommendation #2: Allocate sufficient Consolidated 

Contracting Group and regional program office staff to perform 

thorough technical evaluations and award timely follow-on guard 

contracts that are in the government’s best interests. 

Recommendation #3: Provide training to the regional program 

office personnel who participate in technical evaluations so that 

they can successfully evaluate contractor technical proposals to 

award best value guard contracts. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 8
 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The ICE Assistant Secretary concurred with the recommendations. ICE 

believes that the steps it is taking to address the issues raised in this report 

respond to each of our recommendations and will result in a better-managed 

and more accountable procurement and oversight process. 

Response to Recommendation #1 

ICE Response: ICE concurs. The Office of Acquisition Management and 

FPS continue to refine existing templates and develop new templates and 

standardized policies and procedures within the contract guard acquisition 

program to ensure contracts are awarded in the government's best interest. 

Specifically, the Office of Acquisition Management completed a full 

review and revision of the “request for quotation” template for FAR 

Part 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules) on January 9, 2009 to incorporate best 

practices, lessons learned, and increased standardization. Some of the 

significant proposed changes include a complete re-write and mandatory 

use of the Management Approach evaluation factor, as well as 

enhancements in the evaluation of pricing on guard service procurements. 

ICE Office of Acquisition Management intends to issue the revised 

“request for quotation” template to the workforce, along with guidance 

concerning exceptions to its use. The office is also developing a “request 

for proposal” template for acquiring security guard services under the 

authority of FAR Part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation) and FAR Part 12 

(Acquisition of Commercial Items). It is anticipated that this template will 

be completed by April 30, 2009. 

While ICE continues to work to achieve consistency in the procurement of 

guard services, there might be circumstances where the use of the template 

would not provide the "best value" as defined in FAR 2.101. ICE 

acknowledges that it has yet to issue formal guidance to specifically 

advise when it is appropriate to deviate from the template, or what 

approvals are required in those instances. However, ICE intends to issue 

revised templates and guidance concerning exceptions to their use. 

OIG Analysis: ICE’s actions to refine existing contract guard 

procurement templates will help FPS consistently solicit and award guard 

contracts in the government’s best interest. This recommendation is 

resolved but will remain open until ICE completes and issues revised 

procurement templates and guidance on their use to the workforce. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 9
 
Response to Recommendation #2 

ICE Response: ICE concurs. The agency acknowledges that proper and 

timely staffing of technical evaluations teams was a challenge during the 

period covered by the audit, particularly with the number of simultaneous 

acquisitions in progress and the highly competitive bidding environment 

for guard services procurements at that time. The significant increases in 

personnel staffing of contract specialists within the Office of Acquisition 

Management and inspectors within FPS during 2007-2008 will help 

resolve this issue. The Office of Acquisition Management and FPS have 

also made progress in the proper resourcing of technical evaluations 

teams. Specifically, FPS completed the development of the draft, 

“Acquisition Planning and Pre-Award Policy” on January 12, 2009. This 

draft policy, currently under review, defines the roles and responsibilities 

of FPS and Office of Acquisition Management personnel in the conduct of 

acquisition planning and technical evaluations supporting the contract 

guard program. The policy will prescribe use of established templates by 

evaluation teams, as well as the appropriate composition and mix of staff 

on evaluations teams. It is anticipated that this policy will be completed 

by April, 30 2009. 

OIG Analysis: The increase in staffing and FPS’ proposed policy will 

help to ensure that technical evaluation teams are sufficiently staffed and 

Consolidated Contracting Group and regional program office staff perform 

thorough technical evaluations and award timely follow-on guard 

contracts. This recommendation is resolved but will remain open until we 

are able to review a copy of the finalized “Acquisition Planning and PreAward Policy.” 

Response to Recommendation #3 

ICE Response: ICE concurs. The agency acknowledges the need for 

additional training of regional personnel who conduct technical 

evaluations. To improve, ICE now performs technical evaluations at a 

specific location where the technical team will have the Contracting 

Officer, ICE Office of Acquisition Policy, and the ICE Office of the 

Principal Legal Advisor available to help guide it through the evaluation 

process as it occurs. These technical evaluations begin with in-briefings, 

lessons learned from previous evaluations, and specific guidelines on how 

to perform the evaluations. Additionally, ICE plans to immediately begin 

including FPS regional personnel in Contract Review Board meetings, as 

well as provide best value training that specifically covers technical 

evaluation to regional program office personnel. ICE expects to have 

training developed and scheduled by no later than April 30, 2009. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 10
 
OIG Analysis: Regional program office participation in Contract Review 

Boards and enhanced training and guidance should provide stronger 

evaluations of contractor technical proposals. This recommendation is 

resolved but will remain open until we have the opportunity to review the 

enhanced best value training curriculum and implementation schedule. 

Oversight of FPS Guard Contracts 

FPS is responsible for ensuring that guard service contractors comply with 

contract terms. However, FPS’ oversight activities did not provide 

sufficient assurance that contractors satisfied requirements or deployed 

qualified contract guards. The four FPS regional program offices we 

visited conducted contract guard oversight differently. FPS did not 

consistently perform or document inspections of guards and guard posts, 

monitor guard certification records, thoroughly review contractor invoices, 

pursue deductions for contract violations, or regularly evaluate contractor 

performance. We attribute these shortfalls to FPS’ need for improved 

oversight policies and procedures, an agencywide information system to 

collect and report results of inspections, and sufficient personnel dedicated 

to oversight functions. Until these are in place, FPS cannot ensure that 

guards are fully complying with contract requirements or FPS is fully 

using contractor past performance as a best value evaluation factor in 

guard service procurements. More important, insufficient oversight may 

lead to decreased security, putting federal employees, facilities, and 

visitors at risk. 

Contract Guard and Post Inspections 

Inspectors and COTRs in FPS regional program offices conduct 

inspections of guards and guard posts to ensure compliance with 

contract requirements. In the four regional program offices we 

visited, FPS inspectors and COTRs did not consistently perform 

guard inspections or regularly document and track the results of 

their inspections. 

Inspection Approaches and Frequency 

Regional program offices’ inspection approaches varied widely. 

Some regions inspect the guards, but others inspect the guard 

posts. An inspection of every guard should ensure that all posts 

are covered; however, a guard post inspection may not cover all 

the guards assigned to that particular post. For example: 

�	 Guard inspections cover items such as guard equipment and 

uniforms, compliance with sign in/sign out procedures and 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 11
 
equipment operating procedures, and possession of current 

certifications and licenses. 

�	 Guard post inspections include stationary locations such as 

access control points and roving locations such as facility 

perimeters and garages. 

Regional program offices also were inconsistent in the frequency 

of requirements for inspections. For instance, Region 11 requires 

that 90% of its buildings be inspected once per month, Region 3 

requires only yearly post inspections, and Region 7 requires each 

guard to be inspected once per year. Inspection activities can vary 

within regions as well. For example, in Region 8, one supervisor 

requires weekly post inspections, while another supervisor requires 

two guard inspections per shift per day. 

Inspection activities are inconsistent in part because FPS does not 

have specific, agencywide policies and procedures for conducting 

guard contract oversight. For example, the agency’s COTR 

Guidebook, issued in August 2007, only describes very general 

procedures for monitoring contracts and does not specify the 

frequency or number of guard inspections. FPS Headquarters 

personnel explained that this guidebook was primarily issued to 

meet a deadline from ICE Office of Acquisition Management. 

Some COTRs and inspectors also use the FPS Policy Handbook, 

which indicates that FPS should conduct guard inspections 

frequently but does not provide clear instructions on the schedule 

or number of inspections to be conducted. This handbook has not 

been updated since February 2000, when FPS was under the GSA. 

As a result, the information is dated and the FPS staff may not be 

performing inspections in accordance with the agency’s latest 

guard service expectations. 

FPS does not have sufficient personnel dedicated to oversight 

functions. As such, competing priorities often prevent COTRs and 

inspectors from conducting guard inspections beyond their 

region’s minimum requirements. For example, two of the four 

regional program offices we visited designated full-time COTRs, 

but these COTRs were assigned oversight responsibilities for 

multiple contracts. In one of these regions, three COTRs were 

responsible for overseeing 23 guard contracts. These COTRs were 

primarily desk officers and relied on inspectors to perform guard 

inspections. 

Inspectors have conflicting priorities that require more time and 

are of more importance than their contract guard oversight duties. 

Two regions relied on inspectors who were designated as COTRs 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 12
 
on a single contract. Although designated as COTRs, regional 

program office officials explained that an inspector’s primary 

responsibilities were to conduct building security assessments, 

perform law enforcement functions, and respond to emergency 

calls. One regional Area Commander agreed that inspectors 

designated as COTRs may have to devote more than a full 

workday to conducting building security assessments or 

performing law enforcement activities. 

There is insufficient time for a COTR who also has inspection 

responsibilities to perform inspector duties and monitor the 

contract guard program. Finally, COTRs commented that they 

have no authority over inspectors and therefore cannot control the 

amount of time inspectors devote to contract guard oversight 

responsibilities. 

Documentation of Inspection Results 

FPS does not have a standardized system for FPS inspectors and 

COTRs to document and track the results of their guard 

inspections. Although each of the four regional program offices 

we visited developed spreadsheets to track guard inspections, they 

could not identify the actual number of inspections conducted. 

COTRs and inspectors may inspect their assigned buildings on a 

regular basis; however, they do not always document their 

activities using the required Contract Guard Inspection Report 

(GSA Form 2820) or capture all relevant inspection data in their 

local tracking systems. For example, one region recorded the first 

post inspection per year; yet if the post was inspected a second 

time, the inspection was not recorded. In another region, 

inspection results had not been recorded because of an 

administrative personnel shortage. Several inspectors also 

explained that they do not complete an inspection report unless 

they find discrepancies at a post or with a guard. 

Until FPS develops a nationwide information system, its ability to 

collect and report the results of contract guard inspections will be 

limited. A standardized system would provide FPS managers with 

access to necessary information to evaluate building security, 

contractor performance, and frequency of inspections. A 

nationwide system would also provide FPS Headquarters with 

information to evaluate regional performance. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 13
 
Guard Certifications 

In the four regions we visited, COTRs were not consistently 

monitoring certification records to verify that guards were 

qualified according to contract requirements. Guard contractors 

are responsible for maintaining all licenses, permits, and 

certifications described in the statement of work. They also are 

responsible for maintaining the status of each element of the 

guards’ certifications, such as suitability determinations, firearms 

requalification, and first aid training. These certifications are 

tracked by FPS personnel in the regional program offices. 

FPS’ agencywide Contract Guard Employment Requirements 

Tracking System (CERTS) is either not used or not consistently 

maintained by the regional program offices to track guard 

qualifications. In addition, local tracking spreadsheets used by one 

region were incomplete and outdated. We reviewed CERTS data 

for 100 contract guards to determine whether each guard had a 

favorable suitability determination and 12 other required 

certifications. We determined that 54 of the 100 guards had at 

least one expired or unrecorded certification field in CERTS. As 

detailed in table 1, the 54 guards had a total of 225 certifications 

that were either expired or not recorded in CERTS. 

TABLE 1. EXPIRED OR UNRECORDED CERTIFICATIONS FOR 54 

GUARDS 

CERTIFICATION 

TYPE 

# 

EXPIRED 

# NOT 

RECORDED 

IN CERTS TOTAL 

1) Basic/Refresher Training 16 12 28 

2) Baton 23 11 24 

3) CPR 15 12 27 

4) Domestic Violence 11 10 21 

5) Drug Screening 0 15 15 

6) Firearms License 2 5 7 

7) Firearms Qualifications 11 10 21 

8) First Aid 4 11 15 

9) FPS Provided Training 0 15 15 

10) High School Equivalency 0 17 17 

11) Medical 7 12 19 

12) Written Examination 0 2 2 

13) Suitability Determination 4 0 4 

Total 93 132 225 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 14
 
 

We also reviewed one region’s local certification tracking 

spreadsheets for 25 guards. Although 12 of the 25 guards had 

current certifications, 8 guards had at least one expired 

certification. The certification records for the remaining five 

guards had not been recorded at the time of our review. 

We attribute these monitoring inconsistencies to FPS not having 

formal written policies detailing regional requirements or 

responsibilities for monitoring certifications. Although a record 

must be initiated in CERTS to begin each guard’s certification 

process, FPS has not mandated the exclusive use of CERTS for 

monitoring certifications. Consequently, FPS cannot ensure that 

contractors are complying with recertification requirements or that 

contract guards retain their knowledge of required areas. 

Review of Invoices and Assessment of Monetary Deductions 

Some regional program offices did not verify that contractors 

billed only for guard services that were actually performed. To 

verify that billing is accurate, FPS should compare the contractors’ 

invoices with the guards’ Records of Time of Arrival and 

Departure from Building (GSA Form 139). This is a timeconsuming process, but it is the only mechanism FPS has to 

validate actual guard duty time. Two of the regional program 

offices we visited compared contractor invoices against a sample 

of GSA Form 139s. However, the other two regions compared 

invoiced hours against guard post exhibits, which identify the 

required coverage for each post as stated in the contract, not the 

actual hours worked. Several COTRs commented that they check 

GSA Form 139 when time permits or when they are made aware of 

a problem with a particular guard or post. One region’s COTR 

discussed having a positive relationship with contractors and relied 

on them to submit accurate invoices. 

FPS does not always take deductions against a contractor for 

services that are not provided in accordance with contract 

requirements. Deductions are the primary penalty mechanism 

available to address contractor nonperformance or inadequate 

services. The following are examples of potential contract 

violations: 

�

�

Failure to man posts 

Unarmed guards working at armed posts 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 15
 
 

�	 

�	 

Guards working without valid certifications or suitability 

clearances 

Failure to provide required relief breaks for guards 

At one region, we reviewed 34 inspection reports on which FPS 

inspectors identified such contractor deficiencies. Of the 34 

inspection reports, 11 warranted a monetary deduction, which FPS 

did not assess. According to contracting office personnel, the 

COTR did not always effectively communicate inspection results 

for cost deduction processing, although the deficiencies were 

identified in the region’s electronic database. 

FPS is not consistently verifying invoices or assessing monetary 

deductions because the FPS COTR Guidebook does not 

specifically address these processes. Without clear guidance and 

sufficient staff to review contractor invoices and assess monetary 

deductions, FPS cannot ensure that the government pays only for 

actual services rendered. 

Performance Evaluations 

Contracting and regional program office personnel do not always 

conduct contractor performance evaluations as required by ICE’s 

contractor performance evaluation procedures, and suggested by 

the FPS COTR Guidebook. According to this guidance, FPS must 

evaluate contractor performance against the requirements of the 

contract annually and at the conclusion of the contract for those 

exceeding $100,000.2

 The use of past performance as a major 

evaluation factor in the contract award process is instrumental in 

making “best value” selections and is one of the most important 

tools available for ensuring good contractor performance. 

Completion of past performance assessments also enables other 

federal agencies to identify the quality of, and customer 

satisfaction with, potential future work. 

Performance evaluations did not always provide sufficient detail to 

describe contractor performance. Specifically, 3 of 11 evaluations 

provided by FPS regional program office and CCG personnel 

provided enough detail to accurately reflect the contractors’ 

performance; the remaining 8 evaluations were composed of 

nondescriptive responses. To illustrate, one COTR rated the 

contractor’s “timeliness of performance” element as “good,” and 

2

 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Contracting and Acquisition Procedure 0406.01.03, Contractor 

Performance Evaluation Procedures 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 16
 
noted that the contractor needed improvement; however, the 

COTR did not describe what the contractor needed to improve. 

Furthermore, completed evaluations were not always recorded in 

the Contractor Performance System. The contracting officer or 

COTR must enter and finalize contractor evaluations in the system 

so that the information is available to all federal agencies for use in 

their contract award process. However, none of the 11 evaluations 

we reviewed were available in the Contractor Performance System. 

Of these 11 evaluations, 7 had been entered into the system but had 

not been finalized, even though the performance periods had ended 

as early as June 2005. The other five evaluations were not entered 

into the system at all. 

We attribute the limited reporting of past performance to the 

agency’s lack of emphasis on the use of the Contractor 

Performance System. In July 2007, the DHS Under Secretary for 

Management issued a memorandum that reemphasized the 

importance of past performance information, stating that a 

complete picture of a contractor’s performance is possible only if 

each office assesses performance and enters the information into 

the system. 

Quality Control Plans 

COTRs do not use quality control plans to evaluate contractor 

performance. The FPS contract guard statement of work indicates 

that adequate and consistent quality control is an essential 

component of successful performance. The statement of work 

further provides that contractors shall conduct inspections 

according to their quality control plans and as frequently as 

necessary to ensure effective performance. A quality control plan 

shall include a description of the type, level, and frequency of 

inspections performed, as well as documentation of inspections 

performed by the contractor. FPS requires prospective contractors 

to describe their quality control plans or approaches as part of their 

proposals, or submit their plans to the contracting officer 10 days 

after the contract is awarded. 

COTRs and inspectors explained that they have many conflicting 

priorities, such as conducting building security assessments, 

performing law enforcement functions, and responding to 

emergency calls, which often require more time but may be viewed 

as more important than their contract guard oversight duties. As a 

result, they are less likely to perform oversight duties, including 

obtaining quality control plans and monitoring contractor 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 17
 
 

inspections. Without obtaining quality control plans and reviewing 

contractors’ inspection reports, FPS COTRs have no assurance that 

contractors are in compliance with their quality control plans and, 

therefore, with contract requirements. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Director of the Federal Protective Service: 

Recommendation #4: Develop standardized policies and 

procedures to ensure that FPS personnel provide effective contract 

oversight. At a minimum, policies and procedures need to include 

performing and documenting inspections, reviewing invoices, 

assessing monetary deductions, evaluating contractor performance, 

and testing quality control plans. 

Recommendation #5: Develop an agencywide information 

system to collect and report the frequency of all inspections and 

their results to provide nationwide FPS managers with the 

necessary information to evaluate building security and contractor 

performance. 

Recommendation #6: Increase staffing and resources at the 

regional program offices to perform the necessary contract 

administration and oversight function over guard services. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

ICE concurred with the recommendations and recognizes that 

improvement is needed in the oversight of guard contracts. As such, ICE 

has begun initiatives in each recommendation area. 

Response to Recommendation #4 

ICE Response: ICE concurs. FPS began addressing this issue through a 

number of initiatives prior to our review. Additionally, FPS has 

developed many standardized policies to govern the elements of guard 

contract oversight. Implementation of some of these policies is underway, 

while others remain under development. 

The FPS Guard Contract Performance Monitoring policy, approved by the 

Director of FPS and scheduled for issuance in spring 2009, addresses 

specific responsibilities for FPS staff and requirements for both 

performing and documenting inspections, monitoring guard certifications, 

and evaluating contractor performance. Additionally, FPS is continuing to 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process
 

Page 18
 
improve and streamline its process for reviewing contractor invoices and 

assessing monetary deductions. FPS envisions many improvements will 

be realized with the deployment of the Risk Assessment Management 

Program. FPS plans to incorporate successful performance of guard 

contract oversight functions into individual performance goals and 

evaluation criteria for FPS staff. 

OIG Analysis: FPS’ efforts to implement standardized policies and 

procedures will improve its ability to conduct effective contract oversight. 

While the FPS Guard Contract Performance Monitoring policy addresses 

specific responsibilities for FPS staff and requirements for performing and 

documenting inspections, monitoring guard certifications, and evaluating 

contractor performance; the policy does not directly address how the 

agency will test contractor quality control plans. This recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain open until ICE addresses the testing of contractor 

quality control plans, finalizes policies for contract performance 

monitoring, and provides documentation of the successful implementation 

of the Risk Assessment Management Program information system. 

Response to Recommendation #5 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation and acknowledges 

that improvement is needed in documenting the guard inspection process 

and outcomes. In 2007, FPS began requirements development and 

acquisition planning for the Risk Assessment Management Program 

information system. The new system will help maintain a complete 

inventory of all guard posts for each facility and contract; automate 

scheduling for guard post inspections; record completion of inspection 

reports; remind inspectors of upcoming inspection dates; and report 

inspection results. The Risk Assessment Management Program will also 

allow COTRs, contracting officers, and inspectors to access reports on 

performance of guard posts, contracts, and individual guards. Delivery of 

the first phase of this system is scheduled for early FY 2010. 

OIG Analysis: The new information system should provide a central 

database for storing inspection results, scheduling guard post inspections, 

and tracking their frequency. These improvements meet the intent of our 

recommendation. The Risk Assessment Management Program will 

provide the documentation and standardization needed within the FPS 

Contract Guard program, and allow FPS managers to use historical data 

for evaluating building security and contractor performance. This 

recommendation is resolved, but will remain open until ICE provides 

reports demonstrating successful implementation of the Risk Assessment 

Management Program information system. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 19
 
Response to Recommendation #6 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation and acknowledges 

that additional staffing is required to perform contract administration and 

oversight of guard services. FPS is in the midst of an unprecedented 

hiring initiative to increase federal staffing levels agency-wide. 

Specifically, FPS is increasing the number of federal law enforcement and 

mission support personnel. Should the Administration provide additional 

funding, the agency will continue to increase its staffing levels based on 

measurable needs of its new systems. ICE identified additional federal 

staffing enhancements for FY 2009 that would support contract 

administration and oversight of guard services. FPS will hire additional 

Program Managers, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives, and 

Inspectors to provide guard contract administration and oversight. 

Additionally, FPS has obtained contract employees to serve as Security 

Assistants in each of its 11 regions. 

OIG Analysis: Increasing staffing levels within the regional program 

offices will increase FPS’ ability to provide sufficient contract 

administration and oversight for guard services. The staffing goals will 

improve guard contract administration expertise at the local level and will 

allow for greater monitoring of guard services. This recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain open until ICE provides documentation that it 

has completed its planned staffing enhancements. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 20
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether FPS’ award 

selection practices facilitate the procurement of guard service 

contracts in the government’s best interests, and whether FPS’ 

oversight activities provide reasonable assurance that contractors 

are satisfying requirements. 

We obtained and reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations, 

ICE Contract and Acquisition Procedures, the FPS COTR 

Guidebook, and the FPS Policy Handbook. We also reviewed 

prior audit reports, testimony, congressional correspondence, and 

related documents. 

We interviewed FPS Headquarters Contract Guard Program 

officials to discuss standards established for contract guard 

procurement and oversight. We also interviewed FPS personnel 

from the three CCG offices and four FPS regional program offices 

to understand the process for procuring and overseeing contract 

guard services. 

We reviewed FPS contract and preaward files representing the 

11 regions to identify whether contract files contained key decision 

documents. We also reviewed evaluation criteria and reports to 

identify whether FPS is consistently defining and applying best 

value criteria to its guard contracts. We reviewed files for 

31 contracts awarded between March 2007 and April 2008 and 

3 preaward contract files with an estimated total value of more 

than $529 million. 

We reviewed documentation of oversight activities, such as 

inspection reports, invoices, guard certification documentation, and 

contractor performance evaluations. We examined guard files and 

CERTS data for 100 contract guards to determine whether guard 

certifications had expired. We examined GSA Forms 2820 and 

GSA Forms 139 submitted by inspectors to evaluate how the four 

FPS regional program offices monitor guard qualifications and 

contractor performance. We also assessed the process for 

identifying deficiencies and whether deductions were being 

processed against contractors for violation of contract 

requirements. 

We did not evaluate the quality of inspections or GSA Form 139 

audits. The scope of our review did not include FPS’ contract 

suitability process or the quality of contractor processes for 

monitoring guard qualifications and ensuring compliance with 

other contract provisions. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 21
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We conducted our review at the three CCG offices located in 

Philadelphia, PA; Fort Worth, TX; and Denver, CO. Additionally 

we visited four regional program offices located in Philadelphia, 

PA; Fort Worth, TX; Denver, CO; and Washington, DC. 

We conducted the audit according to generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We conducted 

fieldwork between May and October 2008 under the authority of 

the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. 

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies extended to our audit 

team by FPS. 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 22
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 23 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 24 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 25 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 26 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 27 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 28 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 29 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 30 

Appendix C 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Patrick O’Malley, Director 

Christine Haynes, Audit Manager 

Kevin Donahue, Auditor 

Elizabeth Clark, Program Analyst 

Melissa Jones, Program Analyst 

Emily Pedersen, Program Analyst 

Gary Alvino, Independent Referencer 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 31 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Acting Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Acting General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

Director, Federal Protective Service 

DHS Component Liaison, ICE 

DHS Component Liaison, FPS 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Federal Protective Service Contract Guard Procurement and Oversight Process 


Page 32 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4199, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.