GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: FEATURES Unwatched

• 75933
  

  Let's talk turkey here. Fps defends (nominally) 9,000 owned and leased spaces throughout the country. Guard costs are roughly 750,000,000 per year. Assuming an fte level of 1,000 employees (with an average salary of 70,000 per year (not including benefits). (Call it 70,000,000 per year.). Add in rent, utilities, equipment and ancillary costs and we're pretty close to a billion dollars. Let's call it 900,000,000 per year to make the math simple. This means it costs an average of 100,000 per year per building to provide a level of security which, by virtue of numerous IG and congressional reviews, we are lead (as taxpayers) to believe is simply not happening. The President has asked that federal employees identify areas where the government can eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs. I would suggest that Fps is a good place to start.

  Cicero Posted April 28, 2009 7:10 AM
• 63872
  

  Recently teaching in lower Manhattan, my new SmartID did not provide me with easier entry, since it did not include an access code. I still had to go throught the metal detector. Male employees attending class, even with a SmartID card, still had to remove their belts and shoes at the metal detector. This seems to defeat the purpose of the new ID system.

  Joanne W Steiner Posted December 1, 2008 11:18 AM
• 63868
  

  I welcome the relaxed security. Think about the unit costs in terms of dollars spent for lives saved...and compare with other life-safety issues. For example, hospital infections of MRSA (staff infections) across the country are estimated at 18,000 for 2007. MRSA is easily prevented with testing, disinfectants, and quarentine rooms. Yet there is no national effort by feds or congress to act . Where would you spend your money? I just wish we would do something that saves lives rather than create a public mood of war and whip support for it.

  G. Smith Posted December 1, 2008 10:55 AM
• 63862
  

  FPS is another example of creating an image instead of real security. A handful of guards and scanners cover the entrances of buildings holding thousands of people, including offices open to the public. Flimsy gates to loading docks will not stop medium to large vans and tractor trailer rigs. Dogs are not part of the security, so explosives and flammable liquids gain easy entry. Drugs are another form of contraband that finds a safe home in federal sites. They don't need fancy ID's. Just lock the doors at 11 AM and bring in drug sniffing dogs. The FPS takes the hit because Congress and Homeland Security will not do the detail work and fund proper security.

  Anthony Weishar Posted December 1, 2008 10:20 AM
• 63842
  

  I would stipulate that the problem is not that there is no overarching security criterion (there is- the Interagency Security Criteria), but rather the issue is FPS' ability to manage funding and resources to meet the requirement. This being the case, discussions of, yet another, basic security fee increase appear to be premature. FPS needs to account for the funding it has already received via building specific security charges. They should also provide a detailed and comprehensive budgetary analysis (which puts everything on the table) to the customers BEFORE any additional changes in the fee structure are approved or implemented. This analysis should include a comparison of the true costs for running FPS (including command vans, megacenters, and any other white elephants) under ICE vice running the agency under GSA. The questions that need to be answered here are whether the true cost has increased, or if, perhaps, the issue has been a failure to properly control costs (including salary costs) following the transition to DHS.

  This analysis should also include the cost of having some (or all) of these services performed by other entities.

  Finally, FPS needs to account for the Building Specific Security funds, already received, which were intended for the repair and maintenance of these non-functional security systems in various federal buildings (in prior fiscal years). Until this is done, there is no rational reason to believe that FPS' level of funding is insufficient or that their performance or cost containment will measurably improve.

  Cicero Posted December 1, 2008 7:05 AM
• 63829
  

  I agree with the others that there is a huge waste of $$ in Federal building security. I've never felt threatened.

  More offensive to me is the way we are blockading our government from the public we serve. Everyone who approaches a building is viewed with suspicion, and presumed a threat until proven otherwise. What happened to open and accessible government? Don't even think of trying to get into the new DoT building. It's almost like a prison.

  In D.C., security has become a status symbol - greater security equals greater status.

  blackis Posted November 30, 2008 2:43 PM
• 63814
  

  I must respectfully disagree with one and all. The issue isn't just that FPS has been enmired in the ICE budget wars. The issue is that they have, in some cases, received the funding for repairing and maintaing these systems and STILL didn't do it. While budgetary shortfalls, within the agency, are lamentable the question becomes who is really watching these guys to make sure that the customer gets what he is paying for. The answer appears to be no one is doing so, and thus the real question that customers should be asking is WHAT are we REALLY getting for the money we are paying FPS? Where has the money we have paid in (in Building Specific Costs and other security charges) in prior years gone? Why should we pay and pay and pay and get little for it? That is the scandal no one wants to talk about.

  concerned citizen Posted November 29, 2008 3:31 PM
• 63457
  

  What is needed is some kind of consistent, basic, baseline for facility security. I have worked in three agencies in five years and the facility security, access and personell control is vastly different in scope and quality. More coordination is needed.

  John Posted November 21, 2008 10:09 AM
• 63091
  

  I agree, the new ID cards are useless, I still have to carry four different ID's to get into buildings. I was told by a guard in one building, that I still needed the old badge, because everyone has the same kind of ID, so a separate building pass is required for each building. HSD needs to get up to speed with FPS, they should be a separate entity of their own, not under ICE, they have nothing to do with building security. This should be a top priority.

  WWW Posted November 17, 2008 7:52 AM
• 62601
  

  Yep - they spent a fortune on these ridiculous new IDs that are useless for most of us & just invasive - why do they need our fingerprints on a chip? Why such a poor quality ID that you can't even put in a case or it shorts out? I'd rather have a guard at the door. I'm in a commercial building - we can't even use it to get in the builidng anyway! Another boondoggle just sucking money.

  ritgar Posted November 7, 2008 8:18 AM
• 62508
  

  Hmmm that's FPS for you more worried about stupid building assessment vs law enforcement

  Colister Slater Posted November 6, 2008 9:24 AM