According to FPS officials, the agency has required its guards to receive training on how to respond to an active-shooter scenario since 2010. However, as our 2013 report shows, FPS faces challenges providing active-shooter response training to all of its guards. We were unable to determine the extent to which FPS’s guards have received active-shooter response training, in part, because FPS lacks a comprehensive and reliable system for guard oversight (as discussed below). When we asked officials from 16 of the 31 contract guard companies we contacted if their guards had received training on how to respond during active-shooter incidents, responses varied.companies we interviewed about this topic: For example, of the 16 contract guard officials from eight guard companies stated that their guards had received active-shooter scenario training during FPS orientation; officials from five guard companies stated that FPS had not provided active-shooter scenario training to their guards during the FPS- provided orientation training; and officials from three guard companies stated that FPS had not provided active-shooter scenario training to their guards during the FPS- provided orientation training, but that the topic was covered at some other time. Without ensuring that all guards receive training on how to respond to active-shooter incidents, FPS has limited assurance that its guards are prepared for this threat. According to FPS officials, the agency provides guards with information on how they should respond during an active-shooter incident as part of the 8-hour FPS-provided orientation training. FPS officials were not able to specify how much time is devoted to this training, but said that it is a small portion of the 2-hour special situations training. According to FPS’s training documents, this training includes instructions on how to notify law enforcement personnel, secure the guard’s area of responsibility, and direct building occupants according to emergency plans as well as the appropriate use of force. As part of their 120 hours of FPS-required training, guards must receive 8 hours of screener training from FPS on how to use x-ray and magnetometer equipment. However, in our September 2013 report, we found that FPS has not provided required screener training to all guards. Screener training is important because many guards control access points at federal facilities and thus must be able to properly operate x-ray and magnetometer machines and understand their results. In 2009 and 2010, we reported that FPS had not provided screener training to 1,500 contract guards in one FPS region. In response to those reports, FPS stated that it planned to implement a program to train its inspectors to provide screener training to all its contract guards by September 2015. Information from guard companies we contacted indicate that guards who have never received this screener training continue to be deployed to federal facilities. An official at one contract guard company stated that 133 of its approximately 350 guards (about 38 percent) on three separate FPS contracts (awarded in 2009) have never received their initial x-ray and magnetometer training from FPS. The official stated that some of these guards are working at screening posts. Officials at another contract guard company in a different FPS region stated that, according to their records, 78 of 295 (about 26 percent) guards deployed under their contract have never received FPS’s x-ray and magnetometer training. These officials stated that FPS’s regional officials were informed of the problem, but allowed guards to continue to work under this contract, despite not having completed required training. Because FPS is responsible for this training, according to guard company officials, no action was taken against the company. Consequently, some guards deployed to federal facilities may be using x- ray and magnetometer equipment that they are not qualified to use─thus raising questions about the ability of some guards to execute a primary responsibility to properly screen access control points at federal facilities. In our September 2013 report, we found that FPS continues to lack effective management controls to ensure that guards have met training and certification requirements. For example, although FPS agreed with our 2012 recommendations to develop a comprehensive and reliable system to oversee contract guards, it still has not established such a system. Without a comprehensive guard management system, FPS has no independent means of ensuring that its contract guard companies have met contract requirements, such as providing qualified guards to federal facilities. Instead, FPS requires its guard companies to maintain files containing guard-training and certification information. The companies are then required to provide FPS with this information each month. In our September 2013 report, we found that 23 percent of the 276 guard files we reviewed (maintained by 11 of the 31 guard companies we interviewed) lacked required training and certification documentation. As shown in table 1, some guard files lacked documentation of basic training, semi-annual firearms qualifications, screener training, the 40-hour refresher training (required every 3 years), and CPR certification. FPS has also identified guard files that did not contain required documentation. FPS’s primary tool for ensuring that guard companies comply with contractual requirements for guards’ training, certifications, and qualifications is to review guard companies’ guard files each month. From March 2012 through March 2013, FPS reviewed more than 23,000 guard files. It found that a majority of the guard files had the required documentation but more than 800 (about 3 percent) did not. FPS’s file reviews for that period showed files missing, for example, documentation for screener training, initial weapons training, CPR certification, and firearms qualifications. As our September 2013 report explains, however, FPS’s process for conducting monthly file reviews does not include requirements for reviewing and verifying the results, and we identified instances in which FPS’s monthly review results did not accurately reflect the contents of guard files. For instance, FPS’s review indicated that required documentation was present for some guard files, but for some of those files we were not able to find (for example) documentation of training and certification, such as initial weapons training, DHS orientation, and pre- employment drug screenings. As a result of the lack of management controls, FPS is not able to provide reasonable assurance that guards have met training and certification requirements. We found in 2012 that FPS did not assess risks at the 9,600 facilities under the control and custody of GSA in a manner consistent with federal standards, although federal agencies paid FPS millions of dollars to assess risk at their facilities. Our March 2014 report examining risk assessments at federal facilities found that this is still a challenge for FPS and several other federal agencies. Federal standards such as the National Infrastructure Protection Plan’s (NIPP) risk management framework and ISC’s RMP call for a risk assessment to include a threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessment. Risk assessments help decision-makers identify and evaluate security risk and implement protective measures to mitigate risk. Moreover, risk assessments play a critical role in helping agencies tailor protective measures to reflect their facilities’ unique circumstances and enable them to allocate security resources effectively. Instead of conducting risk assessments, FPS uses an interim vulnerability assessment tool, referred to as the Modified Infrastructure Survey Tool (MIST), with which it assesses federal facilities until it develops a longer- term solution. According to FPS, MIST allows it to resume assessing federal facilities’ vulnerabilities and recommend countermeasures— something FPS has not done consistently for several years. MIST has some limitations. Most notably, it does not assess consequence (the level, duration, and nature of potential loss resulting from an undesirable event). Three of the four risk assessment experts we spoke with generally agreed that a tool that does not estimate consequences does not allow an agency to fully assess risks. FPS officials stated that it intends to eventually incorporate consequence into its risk assessment methodology and is exploring ways to do so. MIST was also not designed to compare risks across federal facilities. Consequently, FPS does not have the ability to comprehensively manage risk across its portfolio of 9,600 facilities and recommend countermeasures to federal tenant agencies. As of April 2014, according to an FPS official, FPS had used MIST to complete vulnerability assessments of approximately 1,200 federal facilities in fiscal year 2014 and have presented approximately 985 of them to the facility security committees. The remaining 215 assessments were under review by FPS. FPS has begun several initiatives that, once fully implemented, should enhance its ability to protect the more than 1 million federal employees and members of the public who visit federal facilities each year. Since fiscal year 2010, we have made 31 recommendations to help FPS address its challenges with risk management, oversight of its contract guard workforce, and its fee-based funding structure. DHS and FPS have generally agreed with these recommendations. As of May 2014, as shown in table 2, FPS had implemented 6 recommendations, and was in the process of addressing 10 others, although none of the 10 have been fully implemented. The remaining 15 have not been implemented. According to FPS officials, the agency has faced difficulty in implementing many of our recommendations because of changes in its leadership, organization, funding, and staffing levels. For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or by email at GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Tammy Conquest, Assistant Director; Geoff Hamilton; Jennifer DuBord; and SaraAnn Moessbauer. Federal Facility Security: Additional Actions Needed to Help Agencies Comply with Risk Assessment Methodology Standards. GAO-14-86. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2014. Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Continues to Face Challenges with Contract Guards and Risk Assessments at Federal Facilities. GAO-14-235T. Washington, D.C.: December 17, 2013.