This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-601 
entitled 'Federal Facility Security: Staffing Approaches Used by 
Selected Agencies' which was released on August 1, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
Representatives: 

June 2011: 

Federal Facility Security: 

Staffing Approaches Used by Selected Agencies: 

GAO-11-601: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-601, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Homeland Security, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) within the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) provides security and law enforcement services to over 
9,000 federal facilities through its federal and contract security 
workforce. Over the years, GAO has made numerous recommendations to 
address significant weaknesses in FPS’s oversight and management of 
its security workforce. Legislation has been introduced that would, 
among other things, have FPS examine the effectiveness of relying more 
on federal employees for security. 

As requested, this report examines: (1) nine federal agencies’ 
approaches for staffing their security workforces; (2) federal and 
private sector representatives’ views on the benefits and challenges 
of using contract and in-house security staff; and (3) lessons that 
FPS can learn from federal agencies that have changed their security 
staffing approaches. GAO reviewed agency documents and conducted 
interviews with representatives from federal agencies and private 
sector firms selected based on the use of security guards and 
experience in changing a security workforce, among other criteria. The 
selected agencies and private sector firms are a nonprobability 
sample, and the information we obtained is not generalizable. 

GAO provided the nine agencies with a draft of this report for 
comment. In response, agencies provided technical comments that were 
incorporated where appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

Eight of the nine selected federal agencies reported using a 
combination of contract and in-house facility security positions, and 
the distribution of their security staff varies significantly (see 
figure below). Contract security staff are primarily used for routine 
access control functions, while in-house staff, such as federal 
security guards and inspectors, tend to perform a variety of security 
functions, such as patrol and risk assessment. Selected agency 
officials cited facility risk level and cost, among others, as factors 
considered when staffing a security workforce. Federal agencies used 
various types of security staff—-even at high-risk facilities-—for 
protection. As a high-profile law enforcement agency, the Department 
of Justice uses armed contract security guards with prior law 
enforcement experience to protect its high-risk facilities. 

Figure: Selected Agencies’ Distribution of In-House and Contract 
Security Workforce: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

The figure depicts a bar representing the amount of security workforce 
from left to right. The left end depicts In-house security workforce, 
and the right end depicts Contract security workforce. 

The following agencies are represented at points on the bar: 

Veterans Health Administration: primarily in-house security; 
Transportation Security Administration: primarily in-house security; 
Smithsonian Institution: primarily in-house security; 
Pentagon Force Protection Agency[A]: approximately two-thirds in-
house; one-third contract; 
Air Force: approximately half in-house and half contract; 
Army: approximately one-third in-house; two-thirds contract; 
Federal Protective Service: primarily contract security; 
Justice Protective Service: primarily contract security; 
U.S. Marshals Service: primarily contract security. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: To determine an agency’s in-house to contract security workforce 
ratio for Fiscal Year 2010, GAO used 1,760 work hours per year to 
convert contract service hours into one full-time equivalent. 

[A] The Pentagon Force Protection Agency did not provide in-house and 
contract workforce data, but provided estimates of the number of in-
house and contract security staff for Fiscal Year 2010. 

[End of figure] 

Federal and private sector representatives reported that contract and 
in-house security staff offer benefits and challenges for agencies to 
weigh when making staffing decisions. The two primary reported 
benefits of contract security staff were (1) potential cost savings 
and (2) flexibility to increase or reduce staff size. Conversely, 
these two issues were commonly cited as challenges in using in-house 
security staff. The reported benefits for in-house security staff were 
greater control to select qualified security staff and develop them to 
meet organizational needs. 

Early planning to determine security staffing needs and sufficient 
oversight were cited as key lessons learned when changing staffing 
approaches. For example, Smithsonian Institution had time to conduct 
risk-based assessments, which helped it decide to use contract staff 
only at lower-risk posts. Other agencies’ experiences, as well as FPS’
s experience in transitioning to an inspector-based workforce, suggest 
that changing FPS’s staffing approach could prove challenging. Early 
planning could help FPS address some of those challenges in the event 
a transition is desired or mandated, and sufficient oversight and 
management of its workforce will be critical to providing effective 
security. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-601] or key 
components. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most Selected Federal Agencies Use a Combination of In-house and 
Contract Security Positions to Meet Their Individual Facility Security 
Requirements: 

Cited Benefits of Contract Security Staff Are Potential Cost Savings 
and Personnel Flexibility, While In-house Security Staff Are Viewed as 
Offering Increased Control over Staff Selection and Development: 

Need for Upfront Planning in Determining Security and Staffing Needs 
and Better Oversight of Workforce Were Key Lessons Learned When 
Changing Staffing Approach: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Primary Facility Security Functions: 

Table 2: Number of U.S. Federal Facilities Secured by Selected Federal 
Agencies: 

Table 3: Selected Federal Agencies' In-house and Contract Facility 
Security Positions: 

Table 4: Security Job Series by Most Common GS Grade Levels and 
Average Base Salaries of Selected Federal Agencies: 

Table 5: Benefits and Challenges for Using Contract or In-house 
Facility Security Staff, as Cited by Federal Agency and Private Sector 
Representatives: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Distribution of Selected Agencies' In-house and Contract 
Security Workforces in Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 2: Number of Selected Federal Agencies Reporting Personnel 
Performing Security Functions: 

Abbreviations: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

CPDF: Central Personnel Data File: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FERS: Federal Employees Retirement System: 

FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: 

FPS: Federal Protective Service: 

FTE: full-time equivalent: 

GS: general schedule: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

ISC: Interagency Security Committee: 

JPS: Justice Protective Service: 

LESO: law enforcement security officer: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PFPA: Pentagon Force Protection Agency: 

RAMP: Risk Assessment Management Program: 

Smithsonian: Smithsonian Institution: 

TSA: Transportation Security Administration: 

USMS: U.S. Marshals Service: 

VA: Veterans Affairs: 

VHA: Veterans Health Administration: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 30, 2011: 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Thompson: 

Protecting federal facilities and their occupants from terrorist 
attacks and other violent acts remains a daunting challenge for 
federal agencies. Agencies face potential workplace violence, 
unauthorized access, and terrorism, among other facility security 
threats, and employ security personnel who perform a key role in 
helping to protect against such threats. Responsibilities for federal 
facility security are dispersed among multiple federal agencies. 
Several agencies, including the Departments of Defense (DOD), Justice 
(DOJ), and Veterans Affairs (VA), are responsible for securing some of 
their own facilities. However, the Department of Homeland Security's 
(DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) is the primary federal agency 
that is responsible for securing and protecting approximately 9,000 
federal facilities nationwide that are under the control and custody 
of the General Services Administration (GSA). Through its federal and 
contract security workforce, FPS provides facility security services 
that include law enforcement, security, and emergency response. In 
recent years, our work has identified significant weaknesses in FPS's 
oversight and management of its security workforce, including the 
failures to ensure that its contract security guards maintain required 
training and certifications and to annually evaluate security guard 
performance.[Footnote 1] Such oversight gaps have raised questions 
about FPS's reliance on a contract workforce. 

Congress has begun to explore alternative approaches for staffing 
FPS's facility security workforce. Legislation has been introduced 
that would, among other things, reclassify and change the job 
functions of FPS's federal security employees and require FPS to 
examine the effectiveness of using federal employees to staff the 
contract security guard positions at the highest-risk federal 
facilities.[Footnote 2] In light of your interest in staffing 
approaches for facility security workforces, this report examines: (1) 
selected federal agencies' approaches in staffing their facility 
security workforces; (2) federal agency and private sector 
representatives' views on the benefits and challenges of using 
contract or in-house security staffing approaches; and (3) lessons 
that FPS can learn from other federal agencies that have changed their 
security staffing approaches. 

To gather information addressing all of these issues, we reviewed 
agency documents and conducted interviews with the following nine 
federal agencies: 

* FPS; 

* Transportation Security Administration (TSA); 

* U.S. Army; 

* Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA); 

* U.S. Air Force; 

* U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); 

* DOJ's Justice Protective Service (JPS); 

* Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian); and: 

* Veterans Health Administration (VHA). 

We selected these agencies based on several criteria, including 
dispersed geographic location of facilities, facility security staff 
presence, a need to balance public access and security at facilities, 
and experience in changing the approach used to staff their facility 
security workforce, among other factors. We reviewed selected federal 
agencies' documents and data on the facility security workforce 
staffing approaches used, including the salary costs for federal 
facility security employees and the responsibilities performed by 
those employees and contract security personnel. To ensure the 
accuracy of the staffing data collected, we provided each federal 
agency with data on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees 
for security-related positions in the Office of Personnel Management's 
(OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for that agency. We asked 
each agency to review its CPDF data and provide updated figures for 
fiscal year 2010 for the information requested. We assessed the CPDF 
data and found it to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We 
also gathered views and information on the benefits and challenges for 
facility security staffing approaches, including the use of contract 
or in-house security staff, from representatives of the nine selected 
federal agencies and three private sector industries: (1) commercial 
real estate; (2) entertainment, including gaming and theme parks; and 
(3) hospitals. The industries were selected using the previously 
stated criteria for selecting federal agencies. We selected a total of 
10 companies and associations within these industries for interviews. 
Because the selected organizations are a nonprobability sample, the 
information we obtained are not generalizable. To determine lessons 
that FPS can learn from other federal agencies that have changed their 
security staffing approaches, we reviewed agency documents and 
conducted semistructured interviews with officials from the four 
selected agencies that had undergone a workforce transition (Air 
Force, Army, Smithsonian, and TSA). In addition, we reviewed our 
previous reports and industry literature regarding staffing a security 
workforce. See appendix I for more detailed information on our scope 
and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through June 2011 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The general purpose of facility security is to protect people, 
property, and the facility itself by deterring, detecting, and 
responding to potentially criminal and dangerous acts and people. 
Threats to facility security may include theft, unauthorized access, 
natural disasters, and terrorism, among others. An organization's need 
to balance security with open and public access can make facility 
security more challenging, including at facilities such as medical 
centers, commercial office buildings, and gaming facilities. 
Organizations' efforts to provide facility security are more extensive 
than simply assigning an individual to "stand guard." Key functions of 
facility security generally include facility access, patrol and law 
enforcement, and security management (see table 1). 

Table 1: Primary Facility Security Functions: 

Primary facility security function: Facility access: 

Job task: Security access control; 
Description of job task: Control access to the facility; 
stand post at entry/exit points. 

Job task: Visitor processing; 
Description of job task: Check visitor identification; 
issue visitor identification badges. 

Job task: Screening functions; 
Description of job task: Operate security equipment, such as x-ray 
machines and magnetometers, to screen for prohibited materials. 

Job task: Control center operations; 
Description of job task: Monitor security cameras and/or alarms. 

Primary facility security function: Patrol and law enforcement: 

Job task: Proactive patrol and response; 
Description of job task: Observe environment for suspicious activity 
and conduct patrols in accordance with scheduled routes; 
inspect facilities for hazards and unsafe conditions and respond to 
reports of incidents; and request emergency assistance if needed. 

Job task: Incident investigations; 
Description of job task: Investigate reports of crime and incidents. 

Job task: Custodial authority; 
Description of job task: Detain or arrest offenders. 

Primary facility security function: Inspections; 
Job task: Inspect posts; 
Description of job task: Conduct inspections of facility security 
posts to ensure compliance with requirements. 

Primary facility security function: Risk assessment; 
Job task: Facility security risk assessments; 
Description of job task: Identify security risks and needs of 
individual facilities and recommend security measures to mitigate risk 
to facilities. 

Source: GAO analysis of FPS and OPM data. 

[End of table] 

As part of facility security management, organizations conduct risk 
assessments--or facility security assessments--that include 
identifying threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences to determine 
overall risk and what means, or countermeasures, are best suited to 
secure the facility. Organizations use a variety of countermeasures to 
provide facility security, including the use of security equipment, 
building-design specifications, and security personnel. Nonmilitary 
federal facilities are categorized into five facility security risk 
levels that are based on five factors: mission criticality, symbolism, 
facility population, facility size, and threat to tenant agencies. 
[Footnote 3] Private companies make individual determinations on how 
they want to mitigate facility security risks and must ensure their 
security workforces meet the specific needs of their industry. For 
example, security guards in the hospital industry protect employees, 
patients, visitors, and hospital equipment, and also may provide 
specialized assistance to ensure the safety of people with particular 
medical needs. 

To carry out facility security functions, organizations may rely on in-
house security personnel; for federal agencies, those personnel are 
classified into several specific general schedule (GS) job series. 
Federal guidance provides broad parameters for the duties associated 
with each job position within its assigned OPM job series, but each 
agency is able to further refine its specific position descriptions 
within those parameters. The following provides the five job series 
used for the security personnel at the agencies we reviewed and a 
summary of the key security duties associated with each job series 
according to OPM guidance: 

* GS-0085 Security Guard--generally performs protective services work 
involving guarding, protecting, and controlling access to federal 
facilities; 

* GS-0083 Police--generally performs law enforcement work involving 
protecting the peace, investigating crimes, and arresting violators; 

* GS-0080 Security Administration--generally performs or manages 
facility security work involving developing risk assessments, 
implementing security procedures, and overseeing security staff; 

* GS-1811 Criminal Investigation--generally performs or supervises 
work involving planning and conducting investigations related to 
violations of federal laws; and: 

* GS-1802 Compliance Inspection--generally performs work involving 
conducting inspections to ensure compliance with federal laws (e.g., 
inspection of airline passengers and baggage). 

In addition to in-house facility security personnel, organizations may 
also use contract security personnel to secure their facilities. 
[Footnote 4] Organizations generally contract for a certain number of 
hours of security service to be fulfilled by contracting companies, 
rather than specifying the number of contract security personnel. 
Contracting companies recruit, hire, train, and pay their own security 
staff and typically charge an organization an hourly rate for their 
services. Titles for these contract security personnel may vary by 
organization. For example, FPS calls them protective security 
officers, while the Army more simply calls them contract security 
guards.[Footnote 5] 

In the federal government, DHS is designated under the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 as the primary agency authorized to enforce 
federal laws and regulations aimed at protecting federal facilities 
and persons on the property. Within DHS, FPS is the security provider 
for GSA-owned or -controlled facilities.[Footnote 6] FPS's federal 
workforce consists of about 675 law enforcement security officers 
(LESO), also known as inspectors, who are responsible for law 
enforcement and security duties, including: patrolling building 
perimeters, responding to incidents, completing risk assessments for 
buildings, recommending security countermeasures, and overseeing the 
contract security workforce. FPS also relies on about 14,000 contract 
security guards to control access, operate security equipment, observe 
the environment for suspicious activity, and respond to emergency 
situations involving the safety and security of the facility. We 
previously identified several vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the 
oversight of both FPS's federal and contract workforces, and FPS is 
currently undertaking efforts to address these weaknesses and improve 
management of its security workforce.[Footnote 7] In addition to FPS, 
other federal agencies are responsible for securing and protecting 
their own facilities. Table 2 shows the facilities protected by the 
other agencies included in our review. 

Table 2: Number of U.S. Federal Facilities Secured by Selected Federal 
Agencies: 

Selected federal agency: Federal Protective Service; 
Federal facilities secured: 9,000 GSA owned/managed facilities 
nationwide[A]. 

Selected federal agency: U.S. Air Force; 
Federal facilities secured: 76 installations nationwide. 

Selected federal agency: U.S. Army; 
Federal facilities secured: 82 installations nationwide. 

Selected federal agency: JPS; 
Federal facilities secured: DOJ headquarters and 22 DOJ facilities in 
the National Capital region. 

Selected federal agency: USMS; 
Federal facilities secured: 400 federal court facilities nationwide[B]. 

Selected federal agency: PFPA; 
Federal facilities secured: Pentagon and 27 DOD facilities in the 
National Capital region. 

Selected federal agency: Smithsonian; 
Federal facilities secured: 19 museum facilities in Washington D.C., 
and New York, N.Y., and 9 research facilities in the Washington, D.C., 
metro area, New York, N.Y., and Panama. 

Selected federal agency: TSA; 
Federal facilities secured: Security screening at 400+ airport 
facilities nationwide[C]. 

Selected federal agency: VHA; 
Federal facilities secured: 152 hospitals nationwide. 

Source: GAO presentation of federal agency data. 

[A] FPS provides security personnel to about 2,360 of these 
facilities. Based on facility risk assessments, FPS did not recommend 
using contract security personnel as a countermeasure at the remaining 
6,600 facilities under its protection. Other security countermeasures, 
such as cameras and perimeter lighting, may have been recommended to 
mitigate risk at these facilities. 

[B] FPS shares responsibility with USMS for securing federal court 
facilities. Federal courts operate most often in multitenant buildings 
that also house other federal agencies. In these multitenant 
buildings, USMS is responsible for securing court space, while FPS is 
generally responsible for securing the perimeter of the building and 
other offices that are not occupied by the federal courts. 

[C] TSA is responsible for protecting the nation's transportation 
system, which includes protecting and screening passengers and baggage 
at airport facilities nationwide. 

[End of table] 

Most Selected Federal Agencies Use a Combination of In-house and 
Contract Security Positions to Meet Their Individual Facility Security 
Requirements: 

Selected Federal Agencies Generally Use In-house Staff to Perform a 
Wide Range of Security Functions, While Contract Security Guards 
Typically Perform Routine Access Control: 

Eight of the nine federal agencies selected for our review currently 
use a combination of both in-house and contract security personnel to 
secure their facilities, and the distribution of in-house and contract 
staff vary significantly (see figure 1). VHA almost exclusively uses 
federal employees to secure its hospitals.[Footnote 8] Three of the 
selected agencies have statutory requirements that determine their use 
of federal and contract staff: the Army, Air Force, and TSA. DOD is 
generally prohibited from entering into a contract for the performance 
of firefighting or security guard functions at any military 
installation or facility. However, Congress authorized DOD to 
temporarily use contract security staff in fiscal year 2003 to address 
increased security needs at its facilities when numerous DOD employees 
were deployed overseas, but DOD is now required to discontinue the 
temporary use of contract security guards at the end of fiscal year 
2012.[Footnote 9] TSA's composition of mostly federal security 
employees, or airport passenger screeners, was dictated when the 
agency was created in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 
2001.[Footnote 10] Others among our selected agencies generally have 
the discretion to determine the extent to which they use in-house 
staff or contract the facility security functions out to private 
contractors. For instance, PFPA primarily uses federal police officers 
to secure the Pentagon--a facility with a high risk for terrorist 
attack--and contract security guards to secure its lower-risk 
facilities.[Footnote 11] 

Figure 1: Distribution of Selected Agencies' In-house and Contract 
Security Workforces in Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

The figure depicts a bar representing the amount of security workforce 
from left to right. The left end depicts In-house security workforce, 
and the right end depicts Contract security workforce. 

The following agencies are represented at points on the bar: 

Veterans Health Administration: primarily in-house security; 
Transportation Security Administration: primarily in-house security; 
Smithsonian Institution: primarily in-house security; 
Pentagon Force Protection Agency[A]: approximately two-thirds in-
house; one-third contract; 
Air Force: approximately half in-house and half contract; 
Army: approximately one-third in-house; two-thirds contract; 
Federal Protective Service: primarily contract security; 
Justice Protective Service: primarily contract security; 
U.S. Marshals Service: primarily contract security. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: To determine the ratio of the number of in-house and contract 
staff in fiscal year 2010, we used 1,760 work hours per year to 
convert contract service hours into a FTE number of employees for 
contract staff. The 1,760 work hours account for a typical federal 
employee and includes estimated time for annual and sick leave that 
may be used in a year. The number of in-house staff for the Air Force, 
Army, and PFPA does not include military personnel who perform 
security functions. 

[A] Pentagon Force Protection Agency did not provide us with in-house 
and contract workforce data, but provided estimates of the number of 
in-house and contract security staff for fiscal year 2010. 

[End of figure] 

Federal agencies reported using a variety of in-house security 
positions (see table 3); however, one or two key positions may account 
for the majority of the agency's in-house security staff. For example, 
while the Smithsonian reported that it uses four different types of 
federal security positions, almost 90 percent of its security 
employees are federal security guards. 

Table 3: Selected Federal Agencies' In-house and Contract Facility 
Security Positions: 

Army: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Empty]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Empty]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

USAF: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Check]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

PFPA[A]: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Check]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Check]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

JPS: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Empty]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Empty]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

FPS: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Check]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

USMS: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Empty]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

TSA: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Empty]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Empty]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Check]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

VHA: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Check]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Empty]. 

SI: 
In-house: 
GS-0085 Security Guard: [Check]; 
GS-0083 Police: [Check]; 
GS-0080 Security Administration: [Check]; 
GS-1811 Criminal Investigation: [Check]; 
GS-1802 Compliance Inspection: [Empty]; 
Contract: 
Contract Security: [Check]. 

Source: GAO analysis of data submitted by federal agencies. 

[A] According to the September 2010 OPM CPDF. 

[End of table] 

Agency officials reported that their in-house security staffs 
collectively perform a broader range of facility security functions 
than their contract staff. In-house security administration staff, 
police officers, and security guards, among others, perform a wide 
range of security functions. The most common security functions that 
in-house staff performed are law enforcement, post inspections, and 
risk assessments (see fig. 2). In contrast, seven of the eight 
agencies currently using contract security personnel reported their 
contract staff generally perform routine facility access control 
functions, including visitor screening and control center operations. 
FPS reported that its contract security guards performed a wider range 
of tasks, including some patrol and response duties. Officials from 
other agencies reported using contract security guards for what they 
consider to be lower-risk security posts, such as those providing 
visitor assistance. According to Air Force officials, their decisions 
of where to use contract staff are not predicated on facility or post 
risk levels, but on where staff are needed to replace deployed 
military personnel. 

Figure 2: Number of Selected Federal Agencies Reporting Personnel 
Performing Security Functions: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Security function: Facility access; 
Position type: In-house: 
Security Guard (GS-0085): 4; 
Police (GS-0083: 3; 
Security Administration (GS-0080): 0; 
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 1; 
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 1; 
Position type: Contract: 
Contract Security Guard: 7. 

Security function: Patrol and law enforcement; 
Position type: In-house: 
Security Guard (GS-0085): 3; 
Police (GS-0083: 4; 
Security Administration (GS-0080): 5; 
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 6; 
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 1; 
Position type: Contract: 
Contract Security Guard: 2. 

Security function: Inspect posts; 
Position type: In-house: 
Security Guard (GS-0085): 2; 
Police (GS-0083: 3; 
Security Administration (GS-0080): 5; 
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 2; 
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 0; 
Position type: Contract: 
Contract Security Guard: 2. 

Security function: Risk assessments; 
Position type: In-house: 
Security Guard (GS-0085): 0; 
Police (GS-0083: 0; 
Security Administration (GS-0080): 7; 
Criminal Investigation (GS-1811): 1; 
Compliance Inspection (GS-1802): 0; 
Position type: Contract: 
Contract Security Guard: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected federal agency data. 

[End of figure] 

Depending on the functions that are performed, each security position, 
whether in-house or contracted, generally has different training 
requirements that are specified by each individual agency's needs. 
Training for federal and military police officers is generally more 
extensive than that required for federal and military security guards--
two commonly used in-house security positions. While federal police 
officers receive training at a police academy, a federal law 
enforcement training facility, or a DOD-agency training facility, 
training for federal security guards is currently dictated by each 
agency's individual needs.[Footnote 12] For example, Air Force 
officials told us that Air Force police officers receive 5 weeks of 
training and can perform all the job functions of security guards, in 
addition to broader law enforcement functions, while Air Force 
security guards receive 2 weeks of training to perform a more limited 
set of functions focused on facility access.[Footnote 13] Currently, 
no federal governmentwide training standards exist for contract 
security guards to work in federal facilities.[Footnote 14] 
Consequently, training requirements for contract security staff vary 
depending on the agency, as well as possible state requirements. 
[Footnote 15] Agencies specify in their contract statements of work 
the functions that contract staff are expected to perform, as well as 
the qualifications that are required for the staff. For instance, in 
addition to basic security training provided by the contractor, FPS 
contract security guards are required to have 16 hours of FPS-provided 
training, including certification on X-ray and magnetometer equipment, 
while the Air Force's contract security guards receive 40 hours of 
government-provided training specific to the installation in which 
they are assigned. 

Federal Agencies' Individual Security Needs and Costs Largely Drive 
the Makeup of Their Facility Security Workforce: 

Selected agency officials told us that their decisions about staffing 
facility security functions--whether it be deciding between using in- 
house or contract staff or deciding the most appropriate type of in- 
house staff--are driven by multiple factors, such as their individual 
facility security requirements and costs. Federal facilities 
nationwide differ in their facility type, size, location, occupant 
mission, and risk level, among other factors. As we have previously 
reported, and security officials corroborated, there is no widely 
accepted formula to determine the size and makeup of a security 
workforce and no standard model can be applied for staffing because 
the risk level and specific building needs may differ.[Footnote 16] 
While some federal agencies may use in-house staff to secure their 
high-risk facilities, other agencies, such as JPS or USMS, may use 
contract security guards to protect their high-risk facilities. Over 
the years, we have advocated the use of a comprehensive risk 
management approach that links threats and vulnerabilities to resource 
requirements and allocations to address potential security threats. 

According to security officials from selected agencies, staffing for 
specific security positions is based on factors such as the risk level 
and specific needs of the facilities that are being protected. 
Staffing needs dictate the qualifications that agencies set for either 
their in-house or contract staff. For instance, FPS requires a high-
school diploma, among other things, for its contract security guards; 
however, it does not require a law enforcement background or previous 
law enforcement experience. In contrast, PFPA requires some of its 
contract security guards to have, among other things, a secret-level 
security clearance, because of their potential access to sensitive 
materials. Examples of factors considered by agency security officials 
in reaching their security staffing decisions include the following: 

* Smithsonian reported primarily using federal security guards to 
control access, operate security equipment, and patrol the perimeter 
of its facilities where the security risks are higher. Contract 
security guards are used to assist and advise visitors within the 
interior of museums, where security risks are lower because visitors 
are screened when granted access to the building. 

* JPS security officials stated that the high-profile nature of the 
law enforcement and justice mission of DOJ draws increased attention 
to its facilities and poses increased or additional security threats, 
such as protests and other potential harm. It uses armed contract 
security guards, all of whom have prior law enforcement experience and 
are highly trained and deputized as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals. 

* VHA facilities face security risks due to their open campuses at 
diverse locations. VA officials explained they rely on locally 
conducted risk assessments to determine their facilities' security 
response. At some of its medical facilities located in rural 
locations, ready access to local law enforcement services may be 
limited; at several of its large urban VHA facilities, local law 
enforcement agencies generally do not provide basic police services on 
federal facilities.[Footnote 17] As a result, VA primarily uses 
uniformed federal police officers to provide facility security and law 
enforcement functions. 

Security officials also cited cost as another factor that was 
considered in staffing their workforces. We previously found that 
security officials from federal agencies cited budget considerations 
in making law enforcement and facility security staffing decisions. 
[Footnote 18] The base salary costs of government security positions 
vary depending on the experience and qualifications of the individual 
employee. Among our selected federal agencies, in-house security 
positions vary in base pay from an average of about $37,000 for 
security guards to nearly $90,000 for criminal investigators (see 
table 4). We found that an agency may hire entry-level employees into 
a GS-3 or GS-4 position, while experienced employees ranged up to the 
GS-15 grade level, particularly for security positions requiring 
higher levels of responsibilities or qualifications.[Footnote 19] With 
respect to contract security staff, the specific functions to be 
performed and the hourly rate associated with each position are 
established within a contract statement of work. One federal official 
told us that using a combined federal and contract workforce 
distributed based on functional areas and risks could make sense from 
a cost perspective. For example, a cost-effective model may be to have 
a high-level federal security or law enforcement officer present at 
facilities to oversee contract security guards assigned to perform 
certain limited facility access control functions. 

Table 4: Security Job Series by Most Common GS Grade Levels and 
Average Base Salaries of Selected Federal Agencies: 

OPM job series: Security Guard (GS-0085); 
Top three most common GS grades: GS-5; GS-4; GS-6; 
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 49%; 23%; 15%; 
Overall average base salary[B]: $36,822. 

OPM job series: Police (GS-0083); 
Top three most common GS grades: GS-6; GS-7; GS-8; 
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 55%; 20%; 9%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $48,737. 

OPM job series: Security Administration (GS-0080); 
Top three most common GS grades: GS-12; GS-11; GS-9; 
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 31%; 24%; 23%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $78,378. 

OPM job series: Criminal Investigation (GS-1811); 
Top three most common GS grades: GS-12; GS-13; GS-11; 
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 38%; 34%; 14%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $89,656. 

OPM job series: Compliance Inspection (GS-1802); 
Top three most common GS grades: GS-7; GS-6; GS-8; 
Percentage of job-series employees[A]: 55%; 15%; 13%;
Overall average base salary[B]: $40,374. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM's September 2010 CPDF. 

Note: Table figures include all federal positions classified in the 
specified security-related OPM job series, including those positions 
that may not perform facility security. 

[A] Percentages of GS grade levels do not include those employees 
whose positions are not classified into a GS grade. 

[B] Average base salaries include all employees classified in the job 
series, including those with a GS grade, non-GS grades, and senior 
executives. 

[End of table] 

Cited Benefits of Contract Security Staff Are Potential Cost Savings 
and Personnel Flexibility, While In-house Security Staff Are Viewed as 
Offering Increased Control over Staff Selection and Development: 

Representatives of the nine federal agencies and ten private sector 
organizations with whom we spoke identified several issues that 
present either benefits or challenges for using contract and in-house 
security staff, as identified in table 5. In our analysis of the 
benefits and challenges identified for both in-house and contract 
security staff, we found that both workforce staffing approaches offer 
advantages and disadvantages. As indicated previously, eight of the 
nine federal agencies in our review use both in-house and contract 
security staff. If staffing is well managed, agencies may achieve the 
benefits of either staffing approach. 

Table 5: Benefits and Challenges for Using Contract or In-house 
Facility Security Staff, as Cited by Federal Agency and Private Sector 
Representatives: 

Contract security staff; 
Benefits: 
Cost: Seven representatives[A] cited the potential for cost savings 
with contract staff, including savings from employee health and 
retirement benefits; 
Personnel flexibility: Ten representatives cited contract personnel 
flexibility benefits, such as the ability to quickly increase or 
decrease staff hours as needed; 
Challenges: 
Staff selection: Five representatives cited contract staff selection 
challenges, including ensuring the quality of contract staff and that 
desired certifications are in place; 
Staff development and retention: Eight representatives cited staff 
development and retention challenges, such as maintaining a consistent 
workforce that is familiar with facility and client culture. 

In-house security staff; 
Benefits: 
Staff selection: Seven representatives cited in-house staff selection 
benefits, such as increased control over hiring and background checks; 
Staff development and retention: Nine representatives cited in-house 
staff development and retention benefits, such as increased control 
over training to develop specific skills and increased workforce 
loyalty; 
Challenges: 
Personnel responsibilities: Nine representatives cited increased 
personnel responsibilities with in-house security staff, including 
human capital and performance management activities; 
Cost: Eight representatives cited the potential for increased costs 
with in-house staff due to salaries, benefits, overtime, and other 
costs. 

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with representatives of federal 
agencies and private sector organizations. 

[A] Each representative cited was speaking on behalf of one of the 
organizations we spoke with for the purposes of this report. 

[End of table] 

Cost. Private sector and federal agency representatives identified 
potential for cost savings as a benefit of using contract staff over 
in-house security staff. Such potential cost savings were based on 
several factors identified by representatives: (1) an in-house 
staffing model requires organizations to have more employees on board 
to staff posts than may be required under a contract model in which 
security is procured hourly; (2) a contract workforce may offer 
savings in employee compensation costs, including health and 
retirement benefits; and (3) contract security costs are fixed within 
the contract, which may reduce the risk of budget fluctuations. 

First, contract security staff are typically procured based on the 
hours of service provided and not by the number of staff who are used 
by the contractor to provide such services. Several federal officials 
reported that agencies that use in-house security workforces must have 
more security staff available than the equivalent hours required to 
fill the same security posts through a contract workforce to cover 
time when staff are away from their posts, such as for training or 
leave. For example, and as discussed later, Smithsonian officials 
reported it uses contract security guards at lower-risk areas of its 
facilities which has enabled it to staff five posts with contract 
security guards for the same cost as three posts staffed with federal 
security guards. In addition, the use of an in-house security 
workforce increases the number of FTEs an agency must recruit, train, 
schedule, and manage, and adds to the in-house administrative 
responsibilities and associated costs that could otherwise be handled 
by a contractor. However, Army officials reported that an Army 
analysis for fiscal year 2009 showed that while contract security 
guards would have offered savings over in-house security guards in the 
first 2 years of an in-sourcing decision, in-house security guards 
would be more cost effective over time as start-up costs for training, 
equipment, and uniforms are reduced. They noted it had sufficient 
administrative capacity to absorb the increased workload without 
additional administrative staff. 

Second, federal agency and private sector representatives told us that 
a contract security workforce offers savings in employee compensation 
costs, including health and retirement benefits. With a contract 
security workforce, the contractor is responsible for providing health 
or retirement benefits to its workforce, rather than the organization 
procuring the service. Several federal and private sector 
representatives reported that the benefits offered by contractors may 
be of lesser value than those offered in the federal sector, where 
employee benefits represent a significant portion of an employee's 
compensation. OPM reported that for fiscal year 2010, the cost factor 
for federal employee health benefits was about $5,900 per enrolled 
employee. Retirement benefits for employees covered under the Federal 
Employees Retirement System (FERS) are about 14 percent of a regular 
civilian employee's salary and as much as 30 percent of a federal law 
enforcement officer's salary.[Footnote 20] An executive from one 
private sector hospital that had recently transitioned to a contract 
security workforce estimated that the hospital saved about 36 percent 
annually by using a contract security workforce rather than an in-
house one, with much of this savings coming from no longer having to 
pay for health, retirement, and other benefits. In addition, several 
representatives also reported that contract security staff are often 
paid less than in-house security staff. According to May 2009 data 
from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 
national average annual wage for a contract security guard was 
$24,450--about 30 percent less than the national average annual wage 
of $36,410 paid to security guards employed by the federal executive 
branch in that year.[Footnote 21] However, federal and private sector 
representatives also noted that offering lower wages and benefits to 
security personnel could present challenges in assembling a qualified 
security workforce, which could present security risks. As such, 
several representatives noted that, in using a contract security 
workforce, it is important to establish minimum wage and training 
requirements within the contract.[Footnote 22] 

A third benefit of using a contract security workforce is the ability 
to predict and manage security costs since the costs of the services 
provided are fixed by the contract. For example, in using an in-house 
security workforce, increasing security coverage or covering for 
workforce absences could require the use of overtime hours, which may 
be costly. Five of the federal agencies in our review reported they 
budgeted overtime costs for facility security staff for fiscal year 
2010, with one agency reporting it budgeted about $1,600 for each 
facility security staff in that year. Overtime costs for staff 
absences may not be applicable with a contract security workforce 
because contractors are responsible for staffing each post under the 
terms of the contract. An executive from a private sector hospital 
that uses a contract security workforce reported that the hospital 
knows its security costs for the life of the contract, including costs 
defined in the contract for procuring additional security guard hours, 
if needed. 

Given the significant fiscal challenges currently facing the federal 
government, the reported cost savings offered by a contract security 
staff may be of particular interest to federal agencies. However, as 
we have previously reported, in the federal procurement system today, 
there is common recognition that a cost-only focus does not 
necessarily deliver the best quality or performance for the government 
or the taxpayers.[Footnote 23] Thus, while cost is always a factor, 
and often an important one, it is not the only factor that needs to be 
considered. 

Personnel flexibility. Representatives also reported personnel 
flexibility as a benefit of using contract security staff, including 
the flexibility to adjust and deploy security staff levels to meet 
immediate needs. According to FPS officials, its security contracts 
include a requirement that the contractor maintain a reserve force 
with a recommended capacity of at least 10 percent to provide 
additional security guard hours as needed. For example, FPS provides 
contract security guards to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
support its emergency-response efforts. FPS also provided additional 
security guard service hours to the Internal Revenue Service in 
response to an attack on an agency facility in Austin, Texas, in 2010. 
FPS contractors may employ part-time personnel so they have sufficient 
numbers to draw upon in the event of a temporary surge in security 
guard needs, according to FPS officials. In the private sector, 
executives representing gaming and theme-park industries reported 
that, while their organizations primarily rely upon an in-house 
security staff for day-to-day security, both industries call upon 
contractors to surge their workforce size to address security risks 
for New Year's Eve celebrations or other events that attract large 
crowds, such as concerts. 

Using a contract security workforce may also reduce some in-house 
human capital administrative duties, such as recruiting security staff 
and addressing performance issues. Several federal agency officials 
reported that the use of an in-house security workforce presents 
personnel responsibility challenges, such as increased administrative 
functions for recruiting and hiring new staff, managing annual or sick 
leave, planning work shifts, and other duties. We have previously 
reported that the federal hiring process can be lengthy and complex 
and is often an impediment to the agencies, managers, and applicants 
it is designed to serve[Footnote 24]. This governmentwide hiring 
challenge also applies to the hiring of in-house security staff. For 
example, officials with one federal agency reported that its personnel 
center was taking from 99 to 120 days to recruit and hire new security 
staff. With a contract workforce, recruitment, hiring, and other 
administrative responsibilities are the responsibility of the 
contractor, and the contractor is obligated to provide the hours of 
service contracted for, regardless of the challenges it might face in 
doing so. Several federal agency and private sector representatives 
also reported that contract security staff offer greater flexibility 
to quickly address poor security guard performance issues than in-
house staff. Although representatives we interviewed did not cite 
specific poor performance issues among in-house staff, several 
reported that poor performing contract staff can be quickly removed 
from a client's site, which is not generally the case for in-house 
staff. It is generally more complex and time consuming to address poor 
performing in-house staff, and the process for federal employees may 
include performance reviews and appeals.[Footnote 25] 

While using contract staff can reduce personnel responsibilities in 
some areas, we have previously reported that it is important for 
federal agencies to have systems in place to oversee and manage the 
performance of contract and in-house security staff. In prior work, we 
have noted that it is critical that agencies implement performance 
management systems that help their security staff maximize their full 
potential, while also providing agencies with the necessary 
information to reward top performers and deal with poor performers, 
among other things.[Footnote 26] We have also noted that it is 
important to monitor contractor performance to ensure that the terms 
of the contract are met. Contractor performance evaluations may 
include daily oversight activities, such as post inspections, or 
annual reviews to ensure that a contractor is meeting all training, 
certification, and suitability requirements.[Footnote 27] Private 
sector executives who we interviewed told us that the performance of 
contract and in-house security guards can be monitored through various 
means, including customer service surveys, officer performance 
scenario tests and observations, security guard attendance, and other 
data. We previously reported that federal agencies can develop 
effective performance management systems by implementing a set of key 
practices that apply to agencies' management of in-house as well as 
contract security workforces.[Footnote 28] Implementing performance 
management practices requires effort across an organization and is a 
critical ingredient to ensure the performance of either an in-house or 
contract workforce model. 

Staff selection. Representatives from both federal agencies and 
private sector organizations reported that in-house security staff 
offer increased control over security staff selection--an important 
benefit to ensure a qualified security workforce. Representatives from 
several organizations favored selecting their own staff when they 
considered the facility or post high risk or when the impact from a 
security breach could pose a high risk of loss to the organization. In 
using a contract security workforce, individual staff selection 
decisions are generally made by the contractor and not by the 
organization in which the staff are placed. Although security staff 
qualifications may be defined in the contract, several officials 
reported that reduced control over security staff selection can result 
in a less-qualified workforce. For example, PFPA officials reported 
that by using an in-house security workforce, it can control the 
selection process to ensure the highest caliber officers are hired to 
protect the Pentagon, a high-risk facility for terrorist attack. In 
the private sector, executives representing two large gaming 
corporations reported that their industry primarily uses in-house 
security staff rather than contract staff to help ensure that large 
amounts of cash circulating on the gaming floor are secure from theft. 
Casinos conduct background investigations on all employees, and 
executives reported that having control of the checks, rather than 
relying on a contractor to vet officers, ensures their thoroughness 
before officers are placed in sensitive security positions. Similarly, 
private sector executives reported concerns with ensuring that 
thorough security guard background investigations were conducted and 
state certifications were kept up-to-date by contractors. 

Staff development. Several private sector and federal agency 
representatives reported that having in-house security staff allows 
for greater control over the training and development that security 
guards receive to tailor staff skills to meet organizational needs. 
Although specialized training can be costly and time consuming, 
executives from two private sector firms and a federal agency told us 
they make training investments for their in-house staff, in part, 
because they tend to be longer tenured than contract officers. For 
example, private sector hospital executives reported that most 
hospitals use in-house security staff who receive training in crisis 
intervention, infection control, emergency preparedness, and other 
issues. VHA officials reported that having in-house security staff is 
preferable to contract staff because it can ensure the workforce 
receives specific training to meet professional standards. VHA 
facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission, an organization 
that accredits health care facilities by maintaining specific 
standards, such as managing security risks. According to VHA 
officials, it is easier to maintain the standards with in-house 
employees rather than relying on contractors whose training 
requirements are different. According to officials, VHA police 
officers are considered to be part of the patient-care team, trained 
to provide security in the VHA psychological and behavioral health 
centers. VHA officers receive basic training at VHA's own law 
enforcement training center, which costs the agency approximately 
$7,800 per officer; VHA also provides facility-specific training and 
management-level supervisory courses. 

Staff retention. Representatives we interviewed commonly cited staff 
retention as a benefit of having in-house security staff. In general, 
federal agency and private sector representatives reported retaining 
security staff was as an important element in building an experienced 
workforce that is familiar with the facility and loyal to the 
organization they are charged to protect. Representatives from several 
private sector organizations reported that turnover rates--or the 
percentage of individuals leaving an organization per year--were 
considered to be higher for contract security guards than those of in- 
house security staff. Several private sector and federal agency 
representatives reported that their organization's in-house security 
staff turnover rates ranged from 10 to 35 percent; contractor turnover 
rates were generally considered to be much higher among the officials 
we interviewed. Two private sector executives further noted that 
higher security guard turnover can result in an inconsistent security 
workforce that may not be as familiar with the organization and the 
facilities they are assigned to protect. 

Although private sector representatives generally considered staff 
retention to be a benefit of in-house staff over contract staff, 
officials from five of the nine federal agencies we interviewed 
reported that their agencies had experienced some staff retention 
challenges. Some federal officials noted that staff retention can be 
more difficult in certain geographic locations where the federal 
government and contractors may be competing for qualified staff. 
Reported challenges included retaining newly hired and trained federal 
officers who tended to move to higher paying positions within the 
federal system. VHA and Smithsonian officials indicated that their 
respective agencies had experienced turnover rates for their in-house 
security workforces of approximately 10 and 13 percent per year, 
respectively. Although such turnover rates were lower than the 
reported turnover rates for contract staff, attrition can be costly 
because agencies expend upfront costs to recruit, conduct background 
investigations, and train new staff. Furthermore, federal officials 
also noted that delays in the federal hiring process can exacerbate 
staff retention challenges, as attritions may not be quickly replaced 
by new hires. The Smithsonian, for example, determined that, in many 
cases, federal security guards hired at the GS-5 level were leaving 
for other agencies that hired their security guards at the GS-6 level. 
To address its staff retention issues, Smithsonian conducted a 
thorough staffing analysis that evaluated security risks and needs at 
each post within 19 museum properties in the Washington, D.C., and New 
York, New York, areas. It developed a staffing plan that promoted some 
GS-5 level security guards to GS-6, with those in-house security 
guards posted at higher-risk facility entrance posts. Smithsonian also 
procured a contractor to fill 70 lower-risk posts in building 
interiors that were previously staffed by federal security guards. In 
doing so, Smithsonian officials reported the agency has addressed its 
staff retention challenges and restructured its security workforce. 

Need for Upfront Planning in Determining Security and Staffing Needs 
and Better Oversight of Workforce Were Key Lessons Learned When 
Changing Staffing Approach: 

Assessing and Determining Security and Staffing Needs Was Cited as a 
Key Lesson Learned When Changing a Security Workforce: 

Officials from the four selected federal agencies (Air Force, Army, 
Smithsonian, and TSA) that had undergone a workforce transition cited 
upfront planning in assessing facility security and staffing needs, 
including administrative support and training requirements, as a key 
lesson learned in facilitating a security workforce transition. These 
officials reported that changing their staffing approach was a 
challenging undertaking and upfront planning to assess and identify 
facility security and staffing requirements was critical to a 
successful transition. Officials further noted that this planning 
should also include an assessment of the organization's administrative 
and training capabilities that are necessary to support the security 
workforce. We have previously reported that assessing and determining 
facility security and staffing needs is a key practice and element in 
a risk management approach for allocating resources in facility 
protection.[Footnote 29] 

Officials from the Smithsonian, which voluntarily changed its staffing 
approach, told us that conducting detailed security and staffing needs 
assessments based on risk management helped the transition to its 
current approach of using both federal and contract security guards. 
Until recently, the Smithsonian had primarily used federal security 
guards to protect its 19 museum facilities and assets. Faced with an 
increasing turnover rate of its federal security workforce, budget 
constraints, and the need to increase security presence at its 
facilities, Smithsonian officials told us they developed the current 
staffing strategy after drawing on several staffing analyses 
undertaken over the years. Components of the multiple facility 
security and staffing needs assessments included an examination of job 
functions of the security guards, security needs and risk level of 
each facility, and actual staffing needs for each post by shift. 
[Footnote 30] The agency also looked at post needs in terms of post 
hours required by shift, rather than the number of people (i.e., FTEs) 
required to staff the post. From these analyses, the agency determined 
that it could change its staffing approach and reduce costs for some 
low-risk posts by using a contract workforce and eliminating some 
posts. Since 2009, the Smithsonian has used contract staff, who are 
generally posted at lower-risk interior areas of some buildings to 
monitor collections, while continuing to use federal security guards 
at higher-risk areas, such as the museum entrance lobbies to screen 
visitors. 

By contrast, the Army and Air Force were temporarily allowed to change 
their staffing approaches, and TSA was required to use an in-house 
security force when the agency was created.[Footnote 31] Officials 
from these agencies stated that, in hindsight, they believe their 
workforce transitions would have benefited from more upfront planning, 
including assessing their security and staffing needs. For instance, 
in 2006, the Army assessed its staffing and post needs and 
requirements, including determining the baseline service hours needed 
at each security post, after transitioning from a federal workforce to 
a contract one in 2002. The Army had originally replaced its in-house 
staff with contract staff on a one-to-one staff exchange without 
assessing its security and staffing needs at its military 
installations and posts. This resulted in what we and its officials 
later determined were higher-than-necessary contract costs.[Footnote 
32] Army officials told us that a facility security and staffing needs 
analysis was not conducted in 2002, when it was originally allowed to 
change its workforce, because of the relatively short time frame it 
had for its workforce transition. 

Some officials also underscored the importance of assessing the 
agency's administrative infrastructure--including its information 
technology, financial systems, and human capital management--to 
identify administrative and training requirements and capacities, and 
to ensure the agency is capable of supporting a change in its staffing 
approach. TSA officials told us that the agency spent about $60 to $70 
million to change and transfer data into a new financial system to 
manage its federal workforce. Because TSA had to transition airport 
screeners from a contract workforce hired by the airlines to a federal 
employee workforce within 1 year, it initially adopted the Department 
of Transportation's (DOT) financial and human resources system. 
However, DOT's system was not originally equipped or intended to take 
on a large influx of federal employees, and it proved difficult to 
use, according to TSA officials. TSA officials told us that, given 
their initial time constraints, the agency did not have the time and 
opportunity to plan and assess whether the system had the capacity to 
handle the increased federal workforce.[Footnote 33] 

These agencies' experiences indicate that taking the time and 
conducting an assessment of facility security and staffing needs prior 
to any security workforce transitions, should such a transition be 
mandated or desired by FPS, would likely prove beneficial.[Footnote 
34] FPS has recently taken some actions to assess its staffing needs 
based on risks, but the outcomes of these efforts are yet to be 
determined. For instance, FPS has developed federal workforce 
requirements and has incorporated workload data and facility risk as 
part of its workforce analysis. However, a final workforce analysis 
plan is under executive review with OMB; and, as the details of the 
plan are not yet known, it is unclear whether or the extent to which 
it will include an assessment of the types and numbers of security 
positions needed, as well as associated job functions, roles, and 
responsibilities.[Footnote 35] Additionally, FPS is in the process of 
developing a Risk Assessment Management Program (RAMP) system, which 
among other things, is designed to improve its ability to manage 
security at federal facilities and allocate resources based on risks. 
[Footnote 36] While these efforts may help provide a foundation for 
assessing its security and staffing needs, it is uncertain how much 
FPS could use them to assess and identify other staffing approaches 
and options that would be beneficial and financially feasible for 
protecting federal facilities.[Footnote 37] When changing their 
staffing approaches, other agencies found it helpful to assess 
security needs and risk level of each facility, identify specific job 
functions of its workforce, and link actual security and staffing 
needs for each post and facility. 

Additionally, an administrative and support capability assessment may 
be particularly important if FPS were to transition to primarily using 
federal employees to staff the current contract security guard 
positions because, as noted earlier, the agency's hiring, personnel, 
and administrative responsibilities would increase. As we previously 
reported, it is important for agencies to be well equipped to recruit 
and retain security professionals; our literature review also 
indicated that whether the security staff are in house or contract, 
the employee selection and training process is critical.[Footnote 38] 
When transitioning to an all-inspector staff, FPS experienced delays 
in its hiring and training process when Congress mandated it to 
increase the number of federal law enforcement employees, which 
affected the agency's ability to bring staff on board and train them 
in a timely manner.[Footnote 39] If a change in workforce approach 
involved hiring a large number of new federal employees, it could 
particularly stretch FPS's existing administrative and support 
functions. Determining whether its training needs could be met through 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), which currently 
provides training for new FPS hires and continues to experience 
backlogs, or through another entity would appear to be the type of 
assessment that could lay the groundwork for a smoother transition. 
[Footnote 40] 

Finally, TSA officials further commented that a pilot program to phase 
in staffing changes could help in planning and assessing security and 
staffing needs. Legislation has recently been introduced in Congress 
calling for the implementation of a pilot program to examine the 
effectiveness of using federal employees to staff the current contract 
security guard positions at selected higher-risk federal facilities. 
[Footnote 41] Pilot programs allow for an alternative staffing 
approach to be vigorously evaluated, shared systematically with 
others, and adjusted, as appropriate, before it receives wider 
application.[Footnote 42] We previously reported that when conducting 
pilot programs, agencies should develop sound evaluation plans before 
program implementation--as part of the design of the pilot program 
itself--to increase confidence in the results and facilitate decision 
making about broader applications of the pilot program. The lack of a 
documented evaluation plan for the pilot program increases the 
likelihood that an agency will not collect appropriate or sufficient 
data, which limits understanding of the pilot program's results. 
[Footnote 43] 

Determining the Appropriate Level of Oversight and Management of 
Workforce Was Cited as Another Lesson Learned: 

Selected federal officials also cited the need to determine the 
appropriate level of oversight and management of its workforce as 
another lesson in adopting a new workforce approach. In the case of 
the Army, officials cited the importance of determining at the outset 
the appropriate level of government oversight needed over its contract 
staff. In its contracts awarded in 2006, the Army established 
additional oversight requirements and mechanisms, including developing 
specific quality assurance plans and requiring full-time contracting 
officer technical representatives to perform two detailed inspections 
every 6 months. This was based on the recognition that government 
oversight requirements in its earlier contract were insufficient. 
[Footnote 44] As we previously reported, if the process is well 
managed, either an in-house or contract approach to staffing a 
security workforce can result in a uniform security workforce that 
provides effective security.[Footnote 45] 

As noted earlier, managing and overseeing more than 14,000 contract 
security guards has proven challenging for FPS, and efforts to 
implement our recommendations to monitor contractors' and contract 
guards' performance are still under way.[Footnote 46] For instance, 
FPS has begun requiring its inspectors to complete two contract 
security guard inspections a week at level IV federal facilities, and 
is in the process of providing additional training to its contract 
security guards. We believe it is important for FPS to continue taking 
steps to improve its oversight and management of its contract security 
guards. Changing the makeup of its contract security guard force to an 
in-house security workforce would continue to require the need for 
management and oversight. Some federal officials indicated that 
oversight and management of a federal workforce is just as important 
in staffing a security workforce. For instance, Army officials 
indicated that the job functions of a federal security guard would be 
no different than those functions performed by contract staff; the 
agency would have to manage its workforce and have the same 
expectations and security responsibilities performed. We previously 
reported that FPS lacks a human capital plan to oversee and manage its 
federal workforce and recommended it develop a strategic human capital 
plan.[Footnote 47] In 2011, we reported that human capital management 
of the federal workforce continues to be a high-risk issue area in the 
federal government and it is essential for agencies to ensure they 
have the talent and skill mix needed to address current and emerging 
human capital challenges.[Footnote 48] Going forward, in the event FPS 
looks to change its staffing approach, it will be important to have a 
strategic human capital plan in place to help manage and guide its 
current and future workforce planning efforts. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, Smithsonian, VA, and the 
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice in order to 
obtain comments from the nine agencies we studied. GSA and DOJ had no 
comments. Smithsonian, VA, DOD, and DHS provided technical comments 
that we incorporated where appropriate. DHS also provided written 
comments that are reprinted in appendix II. 

As agreed upon 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 appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@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, 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines approaches used by selected federal agencies in 
staffing federal facility security workforces. Specifically, the 
objectives of this report were to identify (1) approaches used by 
selected federal agencies in staffing their facility security 
workforces; (2) federal agency and private sector representatives' 
views on the benefits and challenges of using contract or in-house 
security staffing approaches; and (3) lessons that the Federal 
Protective Service (FPS) can learn from other federal agencies that 
have changed their security staffing approaches. To provide 
information on each of these objectives, we reviewed previous GAO 
reports and industry literature on staffing security workforces and 
selected a nonprobability sample of federal agencies and private 
sector companies for our review. Because the selected organizations 
are a nonprobability sample, the information we obtained are not 
generalizable. Our selection criteria included: dispersed location of 
physical facilities and security guard presence, need to balance 
public access and security at facilities, use of a federally or in-
house employed and/or contract security workforce, experience in 
changing the approach used to staff security positions, and 
recommendations by security industry experts. 

Based on these criteria we selected nine federal agencies and three 
private sector industries for our review. The selected federal 
agencies were: (1) FPS, (2) Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA), (3) U.S. Army (Army), (4) Pentagon Force Protection Agency 
(PFPA), (5) U.S. Air Force (Air Force), (6) U.S. Marshals Service 
(USMS), (7) Department of Justice, Justice Protective Service (JPS), 
(8) Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian), and (9) Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA). To gather a range of perspectives from the 
private sector, we selected three industries: (1) commercial real 
estate; (2) entertainment, including gaming operations and theme 
parks; and (3) hospitals. We selected a total of ten companies and 
associations within these industries from which we interviewed 
representatives to gather information to research the objectives 
described below. 

To identify approaches used by selected federal agencies in staffing 
their facility security workforces, we reviewed federal agency 
documents and data on facility workforce staffing approaches used and 
conducted interviews with agency officials. We developed, pretested, 
and had a security expert review a data collection instrument that 
asked the nine selected federal agencies four questions to gather 
information about their facility security workforces: 

1. the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) facility security staff 
employed by the agency in fiscal year 2010 within several Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) job series, including police (GS-0083), 
security guards (GS-0085), and security administration (GS-0080), 
among others; 

2. the primary responsibilities, or job functions, performed by each 
of the different types of facility security positions employed by each 
agency in fiscal year 2010; 

3. the estimated costs per person for training, recruitment, and 
equipment for facility security personnel in fiscal year 2010; 

4. the estimated fiscal year 2010 budget for overtime salary costs for 
facility security personnel; and: 

5. the total number of contract facility security staff hours provided 
in fiscal year 2010. 

To ensure the accuracy of the staffing data collected from the federal 
agencies, we provided each federal agency with data on the number of 
FTE employees for security-related positions in OPM's Central 
Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 2010--the most current 
available data at the time of our review. We asked each agency to 
review and verify its CPDF data and provide updated figures for the 
information requested. We e-mailed this data collection instrument to 
the audit liaisons at each of the agencies, who then forwarded the 
instrument to the appropriate officials to provide responses. We 
contacted agencies, as necessary, to clarify any questions we had on 
the information provided. We received completed data collection 
instruments from eight of nine agencies. PFPA did not provide the 
requested information, but agency officials provided estimated numbers 
of facility security position types and contract staff. We previously 
reported that governmentwide data from CPDF for the key variables 
reported in this report--agency and pay plan or grade--were 96 percent 
or more accurate.[Footnote 49] We determined that the information from 
OPM's CPDF reported here is sufficiently reliable for our needs. To 
determine the distribution of in-house and contract security 
workforce, we used the number of FTE federal employees and the total 
number of contract hours procured in fiscal year 2010 that were 
provided by eight of the nine agencies in the data collection 
instruments. For PFPA, we used estimated data provided by the agency 
officials for the number of FTE federal employees and the estimated 
number of contract staff employed in 2010. We used 1,760 work hours in 
a year to convert the total number of contract hours in fiscal year 
2010 into FTEs. While agencies may use different work hours to convert 
contract hours to FTE, we used 1,760 work hours in a year, which was 
used by FPS for a typical federal employee, and included estimated 
time for annual and sick leave that may be used in a year. 

To describe federal agency and private sector representatives' views 
on the benefits and challenges of using contract or in-house facility 
security staffing approaches, we conducted semistructured interviews 
with officials from each selected federal agency and with executives 
from ten companies and associations within three private sector 
industries: (1) commercial real estate, (2) entertainment (including 
gaming and theme parks), and (3) hospitals. In those interviews, we 
asked federal agency officials and private sector executives open-
ended questions to identify the specific benefits and challenges 
presented in the use of in-house and contract security workforces. To 
determine the prevalence of the specific benefits and challenges 
cited, we completed a content analysis of the interviews. We reviewed 
the responses to open-ended questions and identified a total of six 
categories that represented the benefits or challenges for the use of 
in-house or contract security workforces. We developed a codebook that 
defined each of the six categories which were cost, personnel issues--
which included separate codes for personnel flexibility and personnel 
responsibilities--staff selection, staff development, staff retention, 
and contract management. An analyst reviewed each response and 
assigned a code, then a second analyst reviewed each assigned code. If 
the two analysts disagreed on any of the assigned codes, the two 
analysts discussed any differences in the coding until a consensus was 
reached. We then removed any duplicate responses--instances in which a 
respondent identified the same benefit or challenge more than once for 
either in-house or contract security workforces--to ensure that only 
sole benefits and challenges reported by federal agency officials or 
private sector executives were reported in our analysis. Finally, we 
analyzed the coded responses to determine how many federal officials 
and private sector executives reported each benefit and challenge for 
using in-house and contract security workforces. 

To determine lessons that FPS can learn from other federal agencies 
that have changed their security staffing approaches, we selected four 
agencies that had undergone workforce transitions. The selected 
agencies were the Army, Air Force, TSA, and Smithsonian. We reviewed 
agency documents and conducted semistructured interviews with agency 
officials on the lessons learned in changing and staffing their 
security workforces. To determine how these lessons may apply to FPS, 
we reviewed relevant literature from academic and professional 
organizations and information from prior GAO and agency Inspector 
General reports, and compared the information collected from each 
agency with various efforts undertaken by FPS to address its workforce 
staffing needs. We also interviewed FPS officials regarding an 
internal preliminary staffing analysis on potential changes to its 
staffing approach. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through June 2011 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

June 10, 2011: 

Mark Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-11-601, "Federal Facility Security: Staffing 
Approaches Used By Selected Agencies." 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
Conducting its review. 

The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive recognition of the 
Federal Protective Service's (FPS) role as the primary federal agency 
responsible for security and protecting approximately 9,000 federal 
facilities and the people on those properties nationwide. As you know, 
FPS is undertaking efforts to enhance the management and oversight of 
its in-house and contract security personnel. For example, FPS has 
taken action to assess staffing needs based on risk by developing 
federal workforce requirements and incorporating workload data and 
facility risk as part of this analysis. 

Although the draft report does not contain any recommendations, DHS 
appreciates the lessons learned you have documented. FPS can use these 
lessons as part of its continuous process improvement efforts to 
enable better delivery of its law enforcement, security, and emergency 
response services, which are relied upon by so many others. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments have been provided under separate 
cover. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland Security 
issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GA0/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark Goldstein, (202) 512-2834, goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein, Assistant 
Director; Matt Barranca; Brian Chung; David Hooper; Delwen Jones; 
Jennifer Kim; and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service's Contract 
Guard Program Requires More Oversight and Reassessment of Use of 
Contract Guards, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2010). We have made numerous 
recommendations to help FPS address these challenges, and while DHS 
agreed with our recommendations, the majority of them have not yet 
been fully implemented. See GAO, Homeland Security: Addressing 
Weaknesses with Facility Security Committees Would Enhance Protection 
of Federal Facilities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-901] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 
2010). 

[2] The Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act, 
H.R. 176, 112TH Cong. (2011). 

[3] The five factors were defined by the Interagency Security 
Committee (ISC), which develops standards designed for federal 
security officials responsible for protecting all nonmilitary 
facilities occupied by federal employees. The Facility Security Level 
Determinations Standard has five security risk levels determined by a 
point-scoring matrix. A level I facility is considered the lowest risk 
and has the fewest total points; a level IV facility has the highest 
total points. Level V facilities may be designated by individual 
agencies for "very high" score value for criticality or symbolism, or 
is a one-of-a-kind facility, such as the White House. 

[4] Federal agencies' use of contract personnel is usually subject to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, which 
dictates the federal policy for the competition of commercial 
activities. 

[5] Security officials told us they prefer using the title of security 
officer, instead of security guard, in order to reflect the array of 
security services that may be provided by the security officer. In 
this report, however, we refer to these positions as security guards. 

[6] For the purposes of this report, we refer to property that is 
owned by the federal government and under the control and custody of 
the GSA Administrator as "GSA-owned property". 

[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-901]; [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341]; GAO, Homeland Security: 
Greater Attention to Key Practices Would Improve the Federal 
Protective Service's Approach to Facility Protection, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-142] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 
2009); GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should 
Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 30, 2009). 

[8] There are other federal agencies that were not included in this 
review, such as the Capitol Police, that also exclusively use federal 
security personnel to provide facility security. In addition, while 
VHA typically does not use contract security personnel agency-wide, 
officials estimated that 2 to 3 percent of individual VHA facilities 
may decide on their own to hire contract security personnel for 
limited functions. 

[9] Under 10 U.S.C. § 2465, DOD is generally prohibited from entering 
into a contract for the performance of firefighting or security guard 
functions at any military installation or facility. However, in the 
aftermath of September 11, 2001, attacks, DOD sent numerous active 
duty, U.S.-based personnel overseas to support the global war on 
terror. These deployments depleted the pool of military security 
guards at a time when DOD was faced with increased security functions 
at its domestic military installations. To ease the imbalance, DOD was 
allowed by Congress in 2002 to contract with state and local 
governments and contract security guards for the performance of 
security functions at domestic military installations. In 2008, 
Congress extended the temporary authorization to 2012, but DOD is 
required to discontinue using these contract staff by the end of that 
fiscal year. Additionally, although other DOD entities, such as the 
U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, are also subject to the statute, we 
did not include them in our review. 

[10] In the case of TSA, Congress required hiring federal security 
employees to replace a contract security workforce that had been 
procured independently by the airlines, in an effort to improve 
aviation security. A provision under the Aviation and Transportation 
Security Act of 2001 also allowed some airports to opt out of using 
federal security employees and use a contract security workforce for 
screening passengers at its airports. 

[11] PFPA is not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2465, but under 10 U.S.C. § 
2674, the Secretary of Defense may appoint federal government or 
contract personnel to perform law enforcement and security functions 
for property occupied by, or under the jurisdiction, custody, and 
control of DOD, and located in the National Capital region. 

[12] Federal police officers may also receive additional training in 
accordance with agency-specific requirements. 

[13] Although the Air Force currently uses security guards, officials 
told us they plan to convert security guards to police officers and 
discontinue security guard training. 

[14] ISC has efforts under way to establish minimum standards for 
armed contract security guards in federal facilities. 

[15] Some states have licensing requirements to become a security 
guard and, as such, those states require basic security training for 
licensed security guards. 

[16] GAO, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal 
Protective Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R] (Washington, 
D.C.: June 14, 2010). 

[17] At about 400 federal facilities nationwide, the federal 
government has exclusive jurisdiction of its facilities, whereby the 
federal government has all of the legislative authority within the 
land area in question and the local police have no residual police 
powers. 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R]. 

[19] The General Schedule has 15 grade levels, ranging from GS-1 
(lowest) to GS-15 (highest). Agencies classify the grade level of each 
job based on a determination of difficulty, responsibility, and the 
qualifications required, among other things. 

[20] As we previously reported, generally, the retirement benefits 
received by federal law enforcement officers are greater than those 
provided to most other federal employees, albeit for a shorter period 
of time due to a mandatory retirement age. Under both the Civil 
Service Retirement System and FERS, the law provides for a faster 
accruing pension for law enforcement officers than that provided for 
most other federal employees. For example, under FERS, law enforcement 
officer benefits accrue at 1.7 percent per year for the first 20 years 
compared to 1 percent per year for regular federal employees. Thus, 
for those under FERS, the total defined benefit is 70 percent higher 
for law enforcement officers than for other federal employees at 20 
years of service. See GAO, Federal Law Enforcement Retirement: 
Information on Enhanced Retirement Benefits for Law Enforcement 
Personnel, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-727] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009). 

[21] BLS defines contract security guards as those employed by 
investigation or security service providers. According to BLS data for 
May 2009, the national average annual wage for all security guards, 
armed and unarmed, was $26,430. Among the private sector industries in 
our review, hospital security guards had the highest national average 
wage ($31,150), followed by those employed within the real estate 
industry ($29,110), casino hotels ($27,830), and amusement parks 
($26,340). Compared with unarmed security guards, armed security 
guards usually have higher educational and training requirements, as 
well as higher wages, benefits, and greater job security, according to 
BLS. 

[22] For federal contracts, the U.S. Department of Labor issues wage 
determinations under the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 
using available statistical data on prevailing wages and benefits paid 
in a specific locality. Contractors are responsible for determining 
the appropriate staffing necessary to perform the contract work, and 
for complying with the minimum wage and benefits requirements for each 
classification performing work on the contract. See 41 U.S.C. § 6703 
et. seq. 

[23] See GAO, Commercial Activities Panel: Improving the Sourcing 
Decisions of the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-847T] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2002). 

[24] See GAO, Human Capital: Transforming Federal Recruiting and 
Hiring Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-762T] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008). 

[25] GAO, Issues Related to Poor Performers in the Federal Workplace, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-812R] (Washington, 
D.C.: June 29, 2005). 

[26] GAO, Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate 
Federal Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key 
Practices, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-49] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004). 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341]. 

[28] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between 
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 
2003). 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-49]. 

[30] Officials also noted that as part of its multiple analyses, the 
Smithsonian determined that no industry-accepted standards, 
guidelines, or applicable benchmarks for museum security guard 
staffing existed. 

[31] As previously noted, Congress authorized DOD to use state and 
local government and contract security guards at domestic military 
installations to address the reductions that resulted from federal 
military personnel being deployed overseas. 

[32] GAO, Contract Security Guards: Army's Guard Program Requires 
Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-284] (Washington, D.C.: 
Apr. 3, 2006). 

[33] The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 created TSA 
and required the agency to employ and use federally employed screeners 
at 429 commercial airports nationwide within 1 year of the passage of 
the Act. 

[34] As previously mentioned, there is congressional interest in 
requiring FPS to examine the effectiveness of using federal employees 
to staff the security guard positions at the highest-risk federal 
facilities. H.R. 176, 112TH Cong. (2011). 

[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R]. 

[36] At your request, we are currently reviewing RAMP and will provide 
you with a report in July 2011. 

[37] In 2010, we recommended, among other things, that FPS identify 
alternative approaches and options that would be beneficial and 
financially feasible for protecting federal facilities. See GAO-10-341. 

[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-49]; Herring, 
Paul, "Meeting Management's Expectations," Security Management 
(Washington, D.C., September 2004). 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749]. The Fiscal 
Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act required FPS to have at 
least 1,200 full-time employees on board by July 31, 2008. This same 
requirement for FPS was included in DHS's fiscal year 2009 
appropriations act, and FPS met this staffing level in April 2009 with 
1,239 employees on board. However, according to officials, FPS was not 
able to meet the July 31, 2008, mandate because of the challenges 
related to shifting its priorities from downsizing its workforce to 
increasing it in order to comply with the mandate, inexperience 
working with DHS's shared service center, and delays in the candidate 
screening process. 

[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-802R]. In addition 
to FLETC, other federal entities provide law enforcement training for 
federal employees, such as the VA Law Enforcement Training Center. 

[41] H.R. 176, 112TH Cong. (2011). 

[42] GAO, High Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and 
Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public 
Management Environment, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-343SP] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 
2004). 

[43] GAO, Telecommunications: FCC's Performance Management Weaknesses 
Could Jeopardize Proposed Reforms of the Rural Health Care Program, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-27] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 17, 2010). 

[44] Contracting officer technical representatives are responsible for 
conducting daily contract oversight; assessing a contractor's 
performance; and ensuring that the contractor is meeting all training, 
certification, and suitability requirements. In 2006, we also reported 
insufficient oversight as contributing to missing or incomplete 
training documents for contract staff tasked with securing military 
installations. 

[45] GAO, Nuclear Security: DOE Needs to Address Protective Forces' 
Personnel Systems Issues, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-275] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 
2010). 

[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-341]. 

[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749]. FPS has not 
yet implemented our recommendation to develop a strategic human 
capital plan. 

[48] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 
2011). 

[49] GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently 
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-98-199] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
30, 1998). Also, in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM 
official confirmed that OPM continues to follow the CPDF data quality 
standards and procedures contained in our 1998 report. 

[End of section] 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: