Free Cross Motion [Dispositive] - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 108

Confidential-Subject to Protective Order MOR-3713

A129

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 108

Confidential-Subject to Protective Order MOR-3710

A130

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 108

Confidential Subject to Protective Order MOR-3711

A131

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 4 of 108

Confidential Subject to Protective Order MOR-3716

A132

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 5 of 108

Confidential Subject to Protective Order MOR-3717

A133

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 6 of 108

Confidential-Subject to Protective Order MOR-3714

A134

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 7 of 108

Confidential-Subject to Protective Order MOR-3715

A135

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 8 of 108

A136
MOR 3718

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF Document 120-5 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 9 of 108 United States General Accounting Office

GAO
July 2003

Report to Congressional Requesters

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER Capacity Planning and Management Oversight Need Improvement

A137
GAO-03-736

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5
July 2003

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 10 of 108

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Highlights of GAO-03-736, a report to Congressional Requesters

Capacity Planning and Management Oversight Need Improvement

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) provides federal law enforcement training for 75 Partner Organizations (agencies) primarily at four domestic facilities located at Glynco, Ga; Artesia, N. Mex.; Charleston, S.C.; and Cheltenham, Md.. Given the post-terrorist attack security environment, coupled with the increased demand for training, concerns have been raised about FLETC's continued ability to meet this training demand. The visual below demonstrates the sharp increase since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Because of these concerns, GAO was asked to issue a report on (1) how FLETC plans to meet the projected demand for training; (2) FLETC's ability to efficiently coordinate and schedule training activities; and (3) whether oversight and governance structures provide the guidance it needs to address its capacity and planning challenges.

FLETC's overall capacity to provide training at the Glynco and Charleston campuses is currently strained, while Artesia has been underutilized, and Cheltenham is being upgraded and cannot operate at full capacity. FLETC is developing a Master Plan to address how to overcome the long-term capacity challenges, but questions exist regarding the assumptions and methodologies used, contingency planning, cost estimation and budgeting, and the need to address capacity shortfalls sooner than planned. Department of Homeland Security officials intend to review the new department's training needs and capacities, and update the plan to reflect its vision for law enforcement training. Within the context of its strained training capacity, FLETC uses a predominantly manual scheduling process that does not ensure the efficient use of training resources and poses internal control risks due to potential loss of scheduling materials and the lack of backup documentation. Although FLETC has begun the process to acquire a fully automated scheduling system, FLETC officials have yet completed important risk management activities and are not using recognized best practices for acquiring commercial off-the-shelf-based systems associated with this type of acquisition. Furthermore, FLETC's solicitation activities have not adequately addressed security requirements. FLETC faces additional challenges regarding its governance structure in that the status of FLETC's Board of Directors is unclear, and its membership, roles and responsibilities, and past practices are not fully consistent with prevailing governance best practices.
Partner Organization Training Projections Compared to Current Optimum Combined Campus Capacity (in student weeks)
PO - Projected student weeks 300,000 Demand surge
283,106 265,848

GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security improve capacity planning, periodically assess the condition of training facilities and infrastructure, improve the acquisition process for an automated scheduling system, and enhance the governance and oversight capabilities of FLETC's Board of Directors. The department and FLETC generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-736. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact Richard M. Stana, 202-512-8777, [email protected].

250,000 6-day/8-hour capacity = 238,000
Overcapacity zone

232,221

230,089

228,142

224,385

200,000

5-day/8-hour capacity = 199,000
160,871

154,362 132,470

150,355

150,000
130,069

140,322

100,000

0 1997 1998 Fiscal year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Pre 9-11-01
Source: GAO analysis of FLETC data.

9-11-01 Terrorist attacks

Post 9-11 01

A138

Note: A "student week" is defined as 5 days of training for 1 student.

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 11 of 108

Contents

Letter
Results in Brief Background FLETC's Training Capacity is Strained, and Its Planning for Adding Capacity Raises Concerns FLETC's Current Scheduling System Is at Risk and Its Acquisition of an Automated System Raises Concerns The Status of FLETC's Board of Directors Is Unclear, and DHS Has Begun to Provide Oversight and Guidance Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 4 7 12 24 34 39 41 43 47 48 49 50 52

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Capacity, Planning, and Coordination Scheduling and Coordination of Training Activities Governance and Oversight Structure and Guidance

Appendix II

FLETC's 75 Partner Organizations

Appendix III

Training Programs and Seminars Provided by FLETC

57

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

59

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgements

71 71 71

Tables
Table 1: Capacity and Demand at the FLETC Campuses (in student weeks) 13

A139
Page i GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 12 of 108

Table 2: Potential Campus Capacities Following Completion of Phase I Master Plan Projects (in student weeks)

21

Figures
Figure 1: Various FLETC Training Activities Figure 2: FLETC Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Enactment and Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request Figure 3: Partner Organization Training Projections Compared to Current Combined Campus Optimum Capacity (in student weeks) Figure 4: FLETC Campus at Artesia, New Mexico Abbreviations ACMS ATF COTS DHS FAM FCI FLETC FTE INS IT MOU O&M OMB PO RFP SASS SEI TSA Academy Class Management System Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives commercial off-the-shelf-based systems Department of Homeland Security Federal Air Marshals Facility Condition Index Federal Law Enforcement Training Center full-time equivalent Immigration and Naturalization Service information technology memorandum of understanding operation and maintenance Office of Management and Budget Partner Organization request for proposals student administration and scheduling system Software Engineering Institute Transportation Security Administration 8 9

15 17

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. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted materials separately from GAO's product.

A140
Page ii GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 13 of 108

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

July 24, 2003 The Honorable Harold Rogers Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The Honorable Jack Kingston The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr. House of Representatives Since its inception in the early 1970s, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), now a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),1 has played a vital role in training personnel from federal, state and local, and foreign law enforcement agencies. FLETC is responsible for providing basic, advanced, specialized, and refresher training for law enforcement officers from 75 federal law enforcement agencies.2 Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, FLETC's role and continued ability to provide law enforcement training in a timely manner is critical in the war against terrorism. For fiscal year 2003, according to the Director of FLETC, 65 percent of its projected training workload will come from 9 agencies transferred to DHS. The sudden influx of the large numbers of law enforcement personnel to FLETC, coupled with the post-terrorist attack security environment, has revived past concerns about the strain placed on its capacity to meet the training demand.3 Most recently beginning in the mid-1990s, these influxes

1 FLETC transferred to DHS on March 1, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135). Previously, FLETC was part of the Enforcement Division of the Department of the Treasury.

It should be noted that not all federal law enforcement agencies receive their training at FLETC. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration have their own training facilities in Quantico, Va.
3 For this report, capacity is defined as the resources required, such as instructors, facilities, and equipment, to achieve the optimum level of training. Its measurement depends upon the following factors: type of operation schedule (e.g., 5-day/8-hour schedule), the campus (e.g., Glynco), the time frame (e.g., a given fiscal year), and special considerations (e.g., changes in training priority, mission, or policy).

2

A141
Page 1 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 14 of 108

were the result of increases in the personnel levels of the U.S. Border Patrol;4 the increases were a function of initiatives to control illegal immigration along U.S. borders. FLETC, in cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), established a separate, temporary campus in Charleston, South Carolina, in fiscal year 1996 to handle the demand for training Border Patrol agents because the main FLETC campus at Glynco, Georgia, could not accommodate this influx. The current influx has raised concerns also about the relevance, quality, and timeliness of training provided by FLETC. These concerns, in turn, have prompted some federal law enforcement agencies that use FLETC for their basic training to periodically consider establishing their own facilities, tailored to their unique training needs and philosophy. At the same time, however, Treasury and FLETC officials have said that the consolidated approach to federal law enforcement training has provided economy-of-scale savings annually, although these officials could not establish the actual amount of recent savings. According to the FLETC officials, most of the savings accrued from (1) achieving economies of scale that enabled them to charge training participants lower per diem rates at FLETC facilities than those participants would have incurred at their own training facilities and (2) avoiding the need for maintaining redundant or duplicate training facilities elsewhere. The issue of consolidated federal law enforcement training is of particular interest to you and the Appropriations Committee, which is on record as being fully committed to the principle of such training. This report responds to an April 2002 request by Representatives Istook and Kingston; the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security joined the request when it assumed jurisdiction over FLETC in Spring 2003. On the basis of discussions with your offices, we are addressing the following objectives:
·

Determine the extent to which FLETC is able to meet the current and projected demand for training, how FLETC is planning to meet the demand, and the associated costs; and the extent to which FLETC coordinates or uses existing, non-FLETC government training assets, and any associated costs.

4 On March 1, 2003, the border protection functions of the Border Patrol, and the border protection responsibilities of certain other agencies, such as the U.S. Customs Service and INS, were transferred to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection within DHS. Since they each have their own training programs and academies at FLETC campuses, we use the terms Border Patrol, Customs, and INS to identify these agencies throughout this report.

A142
Page 2 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 15 of 108

·

Examine FLETC's current organizational structures and processes for coordinating and scheduling training activities and whether FLETC plans any changes to these structures and processes. Review FLETC's oversight and governance structures and the extent to which these structures are providing guidance to FLETC as it addresses its capacity and planning challenges during a period of transformational change. You also asked us to review the final version of FLETC's Master Plan. However, DHS did not give us the final plan for FLETC in time to be included in this report, citing its need to review the plan. Accordingly, we based our analysis of FLETC's planning for future facilities on the final draft version of the plan, submitted to us in April 2003, and the analyses of the other issues on the most recent information available. As agreed with your offices, once the final version of the Master Plan is provided to us (DHS estimated that it might provide the plan in late summer 2003), and the status of the training projections, system acquisition, and FLETC governance becomes more apparent, we will complete our analyses and brief you on any additional observations. To develop our information, we visited the FLETC campuses in Glynn County, Ga. (commonly referred to as "Glynco"); Charleston, S.C.; Artesia, N. Mex.; and Cheltenham, Md. At the campuses, we observed training activities; met with FLETC managers and officials in charge of training, scheduling, information technology support, and infrastructure facilities, and held meetings with officials from various agencies, known as Partner Organizations (PO)--such as the Border Patrol and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)--that use these campuses. We reviewed relevant documents, including the 1970 memorandum of understanding (MOU) that established FLETC's roles and responsibilities in providing training to law enforcement agencies that are signatories to the MOU; FLETC budget requests and related justifications; PO and FLETC historical training statistics and projections for future training; FLETC's 1989 Master Plan, the 1996 Master Plan update; the 2003 draft final Master Plan for facilities assessment, construction, and renovation; and best practices related to facilities and information technology acquisition and governance and internal and management control. In addition to those we interviewed at the FLETC campuses, we met with headquarters officials at DHS; and the Departments of the Treasury, Justice, and Transportation and their components; and with staff from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We also met with a

·

A143
Page 3 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 16 of 108

representative of the architectural and engineering firm in Norfolk, Virginia, retained by FLETC to help with its future planning.5 We conducted our work from May 2002 through June 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides more detailed information about the scope and methodology of our work.

Results in Brief

Fueled initially by the growth in Border Patrol personnel that began in the mid-1990s, and currently by the surge in overall federal law enforcement personnel levels in response to the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the overall 5-day/8-hour capacity to provide training at the Glynco and Charleston campuses is strained, while the Artesia campus has been underutilized, and the Cheltenham campus is being upgraded and is not fully operational (e.g., the U.S. Capitol Police is conducting limited training using classrooms and several physical venues). FLETC has been able to generally meet POs' needs for basic training (the training provided to new recruits) by, among other things, operating a 6-day schedule at the Glynco campus and deferring POs' advanced classes (those provided to experienced personnel). POs offered a variety of views about the effect of the strained capacity on the training of their personnel--for example, former Justice POs6 noted that the quality of the training had suffered; other POs said that although their students and instructors were fatigued and stressed, the quality of the training was still good. FLETC officials disputed the view that capacity constraints had a negative impact on PO training--these officials said that based on FLETC's own data, student scores, for example, had not declined. The strained capacity has had an adverse effect on the condition of FLETC facilities and the infrastructure that supports them. Continued use of these facilities at an accelerated rate without maintenance and renovation would likely lead to further deterioration and exacerbate capacity challenges. FLETC has worked with an architectural and engineering firm to develop a Master Plan to help address long-term capacity challenges. The planning process raises several concerns about the assumptions and methodologies

5

The firm, Clark Nexsen, Architecture and Engineering, was retained to develop an updated Master Plan and assist in establishing a strategy to analyze existing facilities and programs and handle future growth.

6 The POs who expressed their opinions to us about the impact of the capacity constraints on their personnel were, at the time of our meetings, still part of the Department of Justice. On March 1, 2003, most of these POs moved to DHS.

A144
Page 4 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 17 of 108

used to develop the plan's recommendations, and the extent to which they allow for contingencies, such as potential future surges or declines in demand for training; cost estimating and budgeting; and the extent to which the plan's recommendations would be implemented in time to help alleviate the capacity constraints. DHS officials told us they intend to review the plan, but might not adopt substantial parts of it, as the department is formulating its vision for federal law enforcement training in general and FLETC in particular--these officials said that while useful in some respects (e.g., it contains a comprehensive inventory of the condition of FLETC training facilities), the plan was essentially dated in its assumptions. FLETC does not have a formal contingency plan for addressing its capacity challenges during the period up to when facilities recommended by the Master Plan begin coming on line and, as a practice, has not routinely utilized alternative training assets (e.g., off-site training and e-learning) to provide basic training for POs. In addition to strained training capacity challenges, FLETC faces a challenge to automate the scheduling of training for its POs. Specifically, FLETC's scheduling process uses a predominantly manual scheduling process that does not ensure the efficient use of training resources and poses internal control risks due to potential loss of scheduling materials and the lack of backup documentation. FLETC has recognized these risks and is in the process of acquiring an automated student administration and scheduling system (SASS) to address them. Although FLETC's plans and activities for acquiring the SASS generally include performance of certain key acquisition management functions, FLETC has yet to address important risk management issues associated with its SASS acquisition.7 Moreover, with the exception of its SASS solicitation, FLETC's plans and activities do not incorporate recognized best practices for acquiring commercial off-the-shelf-based systems (COTS). Furthermore, FLETC's solicitation activities have not adequately addressed SASS security requirements. Taken as a whole, this means that FLETC's SASS acquisition is currently at risk of not delivering a system solution to best meet its needs. Although FLETC continues to develop documentation for the SASS proposal, at our urging, it is also working with the Border Patrol to determine whether its existing Academy Class Management System (ACMS), which is being enhanced with a scheduling module, can be used

7 Managing project risk means proactively identifying facts and circumstances that increase the probability of failing to meet project commitments and taking steps to prevent this from occurring.

A145
Page 5 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 18 of 108

instead of acquiring SASS. According to FLETC officials, if it chooses ACMS, FLETC could save the cost of the SASS solicitation and the system's estimated $10 million cost over 5 years, while spending considerably less to adopt the ACMS scheduling module. FLETC faces challenges in its governance structure because (1) the status of its Board of Directors is unclear as FLETC, its individual board members, and DHS consider the Board's future; and (2) the Board's membership, roles and responsibilities, and past practices are not fully consistent with prevailing governance and internal and management control best practices. For example, according to a FLETC official the Board did not meet for a period of 3-½ years, prior to its most recent meeting in November 2002, even though it is required by its own charter to meet at least quarterly; and, according to governance best practices, the "typical" board of directors meets about eight times a year.8 A DHS official said that DHS has recently assumed responsibility for FLETC and recognizes the need to provide guidance and oversight to FLETC; DHS has begun to work with FLETC to provide guidance related to its demand and capacity challenges. In addition, DHS recognizes the role an effective FLETC board could play in enhancing governance. Without effective internal and external governance and oversight, FLETC could be at risk of not effectively addressing the transformational challenges it faces. Because of the importance to FLETC's ability to meet its considerable challenges, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of DHS to improve capacity planning, periodically assess the condition of training facilities and associated infrastructure through the use of performance measures, improve the acquisition process for an automated scheduling system, and enhance the governance and oversight capabilities of FLETC's Board of Directors. We provided a draft of this report to DHS and to the Department of Justice for comment. In its response, from the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, DHS generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendations and outlined actions it either had taken or was planning to take to implement the recommendations. DHS also provided technical comments and clarifications, including updated information on FLETC's SASS acquisition; we have incorporated them in this report where

However, according to our review of Board minutes, the Board did not meet for a period of 5 years (from November 1997 to November 2002).

8

A146
Page 6 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 19 of 108

appropriate. Justice did not submit formal written comments; the Associate Assistant Attorney General for Federal Law Enforcement Training submitted an email with two general comments related to the issues of FLETC training capacity and governance, respectively.

Background

The September 2001 attacks spurred a significant surge in the numbers of federal law enforcement personnel to respond to the threat posed by terrorism. This surge, in turn, resulted in an influx of a large number of law enforcement personnel into FLETC's campuses around the country, over and above their historical enrollment. Preceding the attacks, in fiscal year 2001, over 21,000 students spent over 101,000 student weeks9 training at FLETC's domestic campuses. In fiscal year 2002, primarily as a result of the post-attack surge, over 28,000 students spent about 157,000 weeks training at these campuses. Placing the training statistics in historical context, the weeks spent by students at FLETC in fiscal year 2002, for example, represented a 267-percent increase over the level in fiscal year 1983 (the earliest year for which complete data were available) and a 72-percent increase from the level of as recently as fiscal year 1999. FLETC's most recent adjusted domestic student training projections for fiscal year 2003 call for about 49,000 students to train for about 259,000 student weeks, with PO projections rising to all-time highs of over 57,000 students and about 283,000 student weeks in fiscal year 2004. FLETC was established as a consolidated interagency training facility in the Department of the Treasury by a Treasury order dated March 2, 1970. Subsequent to the Treasury order, an MOU between FLETC and its POs was established in September 1970. As of June 2003, FLETC was working to revise its MOU with its POs to reflect the move to DHS, which occurred in March 2003, according to a FLETC official. The original MOU, which was revised in 1977 and again in 1984, states that FLETC is responsible for, among other things, providing recruit (basic), advanced, specialized, and refresher training for designated criminal law enforcement personnel; specialized law enforcement training for state and local government personnel if space is available; facilities and student support services necessary for specialized training conducted at FLETC by a PO; updated

9 "Student week" is the statistical measure of capacity for training; FLETC has defined a student week as 5 days of training for one student. For example, if 100 students receive training during a fiscal year, of which 25 receive 3 weeks of training, 40 receive 6 weeks of training, and the remaining 35 receive 8 weeks of training, the campus would be providing 595 student weeks of training during that fiscal year [(25 X 3) + (40 X 6) + (35 X 8) = 595].

A147
Page 7 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 20 of 108

training methods and curriculum content in response to the common needs of the participating law enforcement agencies; and dormitory space, food service, travel, and support services; and facilities for students trained at FLETC. The original POs were the Departments of the Interior, Justice, State, and Treasury; OMB; the U.S. Civil Service Commission-- now the Office of Personnel Management; the U.S. Postal Service; and the Smithsonian Institution. FLETC's original MOU was expanded over time to currently include the training of law enforcement personnel from 75 POs. A list of these 75 POs appears in appendix II.
Figure 1: Various FLETC Training Activities

As shown in figure 2, for fiscal year 2003, FLETC had an enacted budget of about $172 million, about 79 percent of which was for salaries and expenses and 21 percent for acquisition, construction, improvements, and

A148

Page 8

GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 21 of 108

related expenses. That year, FLETC had 878 full-time equivalent (FTE) permanent staff authorized. For fiscal year 2004, the budget request totaled about $146 million, of which about 84 percent was for operating expenses (formerly classified as "salaries and expenses") and about 16 percent for capital acquisition (formerly classified as "acquisition, construction, improvements, and related expenses"). For fiscal year 2004, the budget request calls for 754 FTE permanent staff.
Figure 2: FLETC Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Enactment and Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request
FLETC Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Enactment (in thousands) FLETC Fiscal Year 2004 President's Request (in thousands)

21%

$35,766 Facilitiesa

16%

$23,679 Facilitiesa

79%

$136,109 Human Capitalb Total $171,875

84%

$122,379 Human Capitalb
Total $146,058

Source: GAO analysis of FLETC data.
a

"Facilities" refers to "acquisition, construction, improvements and related expenses" in fiscal year 2003 and "capital acquisition" in fiscal year 2004. No funding was requested for major construction in fiscal year 2004.

b

"Human capital" refers to "salaries and expenses" in fiscal year 2003 and "operating expenses" in fiscal year 2004.

FLETC provides training at four domestic campuses.10 Specifically, FLETC's largest campus, which also serves as its headquarters, is located in Glynn County, Georgia (referred to as "Glynco"), and was established in 1975. Most of FLETC's POs conduct their law enforcement basic training at the Glynco campus. FLETC's second campus, established in 1989, is located in Artesia, New Mexico. The resident agencies at Artesia are the Border Patrol (for advanced training only), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Police Academy (basic and advanced), the INS Officers Academy, the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Federal Air Marshals

10

FLETC also has oversight responsibility on behalf of DHS for the International Law Enforcement Academy at Gabarone, Botswana.

A149
Page 9 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 22 of 108

(FAM), and the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division. FLETC's third campus is a former naval base in Cheltenham, Maryland, that was transferred to FLETC in May 2001. FLETC intends to use the Cheltenham campus primarily as a driving and firearm re-qualification center for POs based in Washington, D.C., and its metropolitan area. At the time of our review, the campus was being upgraded and was not fully operational. According to FLETC officials, the Cheltenham campus will have, among other things, an indoor, 108-point, state-of-the-art firing range, and a multiuse, topographically varied driving course. Currently, over 12 federal, including the U.S. Capitol Police, and state and local law enforcement agencies are using the campus. FLETC officials at Cheltenham anticipate that approximately 61POs will use the campus' firearms and driving re-qualification center. The fourth domestic campus is the Border Patrol Academy in Charleston, South Carolina. FLETC officials said that to date, this academy has not been placed under FLETC's authority; however, FLETC provides technical support to the campus for the Border Patrol training. The campus was established in 1996 at a former naval base as a temporary facility to handle the surge in the number of Border Patrol agent recruits that were the result of a hiring initiative to control illegal immigration along U.S. borders. The existing FLETC campuses could not accommodate the Border Patrol's surge in the resulting demand for training. In October 2002, Public Law 107-248 directed that the Secretary of the Navy transfer administrative jurisdiction of Charleston, in effect, to DHS, although it is not clear whether FLETC would control the facilities.11 In February 2003, Public Law 108-7 established the Charleston "law enforcement training facility" as a permanent training facility.12 The campus has been extensively remodeled and outfitted to provide basic training to the Border Patrol's agent recruits; while it was originally scheduled to close in fiscal year 2004, if control of the Charleston facility transfers to FLETC, it intends to keep the campus open to help provide training capacity, regardless of who receives training there. In addition to the training provided directly by FLETC, a number of POs, such as the former Customs and INS, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Internal Revenue Service, maintain their own "academies" at the FLETC campuses to provide agency-specific instruction to their recruits. FLETC offers predominantly four types of training programs--recruit (basic), specialized, advanced, and refresher training. Appendix III

11 12

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L 107-248, 116 Stat. 1519 (2002)). Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. (2003)).

A150
Page 10 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 23 of 108

provides a detailed description of the variations of training programs and seminars FLETC offers. Basic training (i.e., training provided to new recruits) has represented the greatest demand for FLETC's resources of all four types of programs given the increase in Border Patrol and the surge in federal law enforcement hiring since the September 11 attacks. Basic training is mandatory for entry-level federal law enforcement personnel, such as those hired by the Border Patrol, and is usually provided during the first year of employment to familiarize recruits with law enforcement skills and operations. Basic training also extensively uses FLETC's training facilities, including firearm and driver training facilities, in addition to classrooms and other physical education facilities. For specialized training programs, such as agency-specific basic training programs (i.e., training provided by agencies immediately following FLETC's basic training), FLETC has the responsibility for providing instructors for the parts of the program that are standard to FLETC's curriculum, while the agency provides the part of the curriculum more specific to its mission. For example, FLETC provides the instructors for the Courtroom Testimony Lecture and shares responsibility with the Border Patrol for the Courtroom Testimony Laboratory. ATF and the Environmental Protection Agency, in addition to the Border Patrol are examples of agencies requiring specific programs as part of their basic training program. For the sections of the program that are not designated as a FLETC responsibility, the PO must provide instructors. FLETC also evaluates these programs to ensure that PO training objectives are being met. Advanced training is usually provided to junior and senior-level law enforcement personnel as part of their continuing professional development. An agency that maintains its own academy at a FLETC campus, such as the Border Patrol, will typically use its own instructors for advanced training. If it has instructors available, FLETC may sometimes assist an academy with advanced training. Advanced training includes (1) training of inspectors or agents to be instructors; (2) "followon basic" training, where skills particular to an agency mission are taught; and (3) in-service training, which is typically an intensive seminar on a current issue or the development of a law enforcement or management skill. FLETC also provides refresher training for its POs. For example, law enforcement personnel in the Washington, D.C., area will be able to receive refresher training in firearms and vehicle operation re-qualification at FLETC's Cheltenham campus.

A151

Page 11

GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 24 of 108

FLETC's Training Capacity is Strained, and Its Planning for Adding Capacity Raises Concerns

FLETC's overall 5-day/8-hour capacity to provide training at the Glynco and Charleston campuses is currently strained, while the Artesia campus has been underutilized. The Cheltenham campus is being upgraded and is not fully operational, thus its contribution to FLETC's overall capacity is limited. POs offered a variety of views about the effect of the strained capacity on the training of their personnel--for example, former Justice POs now in DHS believed that the quality of the training had suffered, while other POs said that although their students and instructors were fatigued and stressed, they believed that the quality of the training was still good. The strained capacity has had an adverse effect also on the condition of FLETC facilities and the infrastructure that supports them; further deterioration could exacerbate capacity challenges. FLETC has worked with an architectural and engineering firm to develop a Master Plan to help overcome the long-term capacity challenges, although DHS officials said that the plan might no longer be germane to the department's vision for law enforcement training. The planning process raises several concerns about the assumptions and methodologies used to develop the plan's recommendations, and the extent to which they allow for contingencies, such as future surges or declines in demand; cost estimating and budgeting; and the extent to which the plan's recommendations would be implemented in time to help alleviate the capacity constraints. FLETC does not have a formal contingency plan for addressing its capacity challenges during the period up to when facilities recommended by the Master Plan begin coming on line and, as a practice, has not routinely utilized alternative training assets to provide basic training for POs.

FLETC's Training Capacity Is Strained at the Glynco and Charleston Campuses

Primarily as the collective result of the surge in Border Patrol personnel levels begun in the mid-1990s and the surge in overall federal law enforcement personnel following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the overall capacity to provide basic training at Glynco and Charleston is strained. As shown in table 1, the latest available PO-projected demand13 exceeds the 5-day/8-hour capacity for fiscal year 2003, at these two training campuses. The combined capacity for a 5-day/8-hour workweek at

13

FLETC uses PO projections of demand for training as part of its capacity planning. In March/April of each year, POs submit to FLETC their projections for training. These projections are generally a function of the need for personnel and expected funding levels. In June of each year, FLETC, in consultation with POs, adjusts the projections, in recent years by less than 5 percent. In addition to the projections they submit, throughout the year, POs may submit requests to add, defer, or cancel classes.

A152
Page 12 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 25 of 108

the three FLETC campuses is about 67,000 student weeks short of projected demand, and for a 6-day/8-hour workweek about 28,000 student weeks short of the projected demand.
Table 1: Capacity and Demand at the FLETC Campuses (in student weeks) Difference between projected demand and estimated attendance 44,183

Campus Glynco November 2002 March 2003 (temporary increase in capacity) Charleston Artesia Total
Source: GAO analysis of FLETC data.

Optimum 5-day/8- Optimum 6-day/8hour capacity hour capacity 120,000 135,000 37,000 27,000 199,000 144,000 162,000 44,000 32,000 238,000

Fiscal year 2003 FLETC estimated projected actual attendance demand (as of 4/30/03) 192,494 148,311

41,259 32,095 265,848

33,816 18,556 200,683

7,443 13,539 65,165

However, also as shown in table 1, FLETC is estimating (as of April 30, 2003) that the actual number of student weeks spent at the three campuses will total 200,683 student weeks, or 25 percent less than the fiscal year 2003 projected levels. A FLETC official said that it is not unusual for actual attendance to fall short of projections because of factors such as recruiting shortfalls, funding reallocations, and classes that begin with less than their full complement. In fact, actual attendance (in student weeks) fell short of projections as recently as fiscal year 2001, when attendance was about 76 percent of the projected level. In fiscal year 2002, actual attendance was about 112 percent of the projected level. The FLETC official attributed the difference in fiscal year 2003 to three principal factors. First, changes in TSA's projections--TSA originally projected about 49,000 student weeks of training primarily for airport security officers, and for "flight deck officers" (i.e., airline pilots trained to carry firearms in cockpits) and FAMs. However, the TSA projections have not materialized to date, with the estimated actual attendance totaling about 10,000 student weeks. Second, changes to the Border Patrol's projections--the Border Patrol originally projected about 46,000 student weeks of training for agents. However, the estimated actual attendance totals about 33,000 student weeks. Third, changes to the former INS's projections--INS originally projected about 50,000 student weeks of training for inspectors and agents. However, the estimated actual

A153

Page 13

GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 26 of 108

attendance totals about 40,000 student weeks. A FLETC official cautioned that the final actual attendance for fiscal year 2003 might be different than the estimates based on additional requests, DHS reorganization training guidelines, attrition, and additional hiring budgets. For example, there is a possibility that if funding is restored, TSA may yet end up needing a number of the student weeks it originally projected. Even if the fiscal year 2003 projections do not ultimately materialize, FLETC's 5-day/8-hour capacity would still be strained. Specifically, the total estimated actual attendance of 200,683 student weeks will exceed the combined 5-day/8-hour capacity of 199,000 student weeks by about 1,700 student weeks. In discussing the capacity strains facing FLETC, we note that "student weeks" provides FLETC with a statistical measure of optimum throughput, or best case, training capacity (see footnote 3). This measure assumes that all of the requisite facilities, instructors, and equipment will be available to provide training when needed. However, capacity is ultimately a function of facilities, instructors, and equipment that are actually available to provide training at a point in time. Accordingly, while a number of student weeks may appear to be "available" (for example, as in the case of the Charleston campus, where estimated actual attendance is about 3,000 student weeks below the campus's 5-day/8-hour capacity); at any given time, a number of physical and human "choke points," or training obstacles, either individually or collectively result in capacity constraints. Thus, the choke points essentially reduce the number of available student weeks from the bestcase level. In this regard, a number of choke points are causing the capacity strains that the Glynco and Charleston campuses are experiencing. Specifically, according to FLETC, the principal choke points that are collectively causing the capacity strain at Glynco are the firearms ranges, driving ranges, practical exercise facilities, the dining hall, classrooms, dormitories, and a shortage of instructors and support staff. At Charleston, the choke points include the firearms ranges, driving ranges, and a shortage of instructors--illustrating the effect of choke points on capacity at Charleston, during fiscal year 2003, the Border Patrol had to defer 3 classes of agent training because the campus's emergency response driving range had to be taken off-line for resurfacing. According to FLETC officials, had these classes actually taken place, Charleston's 5-day/8-hour capacity would have been met or exceeded. On the basis of the latest PO projections for training demand, FLETC's overall capacity strain is expected to continue for fiscal year 2004.

A154

Page 14

GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 27 of 108

However, for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, PO projections show a relatively stable decrease in demand from fiscal year 2004 peak levels, but projected demand still exceeds FLETC's fiscal year 2003 5-day/8-hour capacity and is approaching the current 6-day/8-hour capacity. Figure 3 shows the difference between combined projected demand and combined current capacity of FLETC facilities for fiscal years 1997 through 2008.
Figure 3: Partner Organization Training Projections Compared to Current Combined Campus Optimum Capacity (in student weeks)
PO - Projected student weeks 300,000 Demand surge
283,106 265,848

250,000 6-day/8-hour capacity = 238,000
Overcapacity zone

232,221

230,089

228,142

224,385

200,000

5-day/8-hour capacity = 199,000
160,871

154,362 132,470

150,355

150,000
130,069

140,322

100,000

0 1997 1998 Fiscal year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Pre 9-11-01
Source: GAO analysis of FLETC data.

9-11-01 Terrorist attacks

Post 9-11-01

Note: This graph includes the Glynco, Artesia, and Charleston campuses.

Artesia Campus Has Been Underutilized

While capacity at the Glynco and Charleston campuses has been strained, the Artesia campus has been underutilized following the completion of FAM's ramped-up training during fiscal year 2002. In this regard, as shown in table 1, Artesia has an annual capacity of 27,000 student weeks for a 5-day/8-hour schedule and 32,000 student weeks for a 6-day/8-hour schedule. In fiscal year 2002, PO trainees spent 19,188 student weeks at Artesia, well short of capacity. Although PO demand projections of 32,095 student weeks initially suggested that the Artesia campus would experience some minor capacity strains in fiscal year 2003, it is not clear that the campus will be fully utilized. Specifically, based on year-to-date attendance data through April 2003, FLETC estimated that 18,556 student

A155
Page 15 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 28 of 108

weeks will actually be spent at Artesia, well short of the levels originally projected by POs. As discussed earlier, according to FLETC officials, the shortfall is primarily caused by TSA's original projections for training not materializing--part of this training was to be held at the Artesia campus. FLETC officials cautioned, however, that the final actual attendance might be different than the April 2003 estimate, and could be somewhat closer to the original projection based on additional PO requests, DHS reorganization training guidelines, attrition, and additional hiring budgets. In addition to Artesia's underutilized housing and firearms ranges, the live-fire shoot houses and three Boeing 727s, specially configured for terrorism training, have not been used since the FAMs completed their training (see figure 4). A FLETC official indicated that it is conducting marketing and other types of activities to attract a number of additional users to the campus. In this regard, several POs told us that they considered Artesia to be too remote of a location to send their recruits and, especially, their instructors for training. The FLETC officials stressed that the Artesia campus could not, as currently configured, and discussed later, handle the transfer of the Border Patrol's basic training from the Charleston campus to Artesia, as proposed in the Master Plan. If the transfer were to occur, the Border Patrol's projected fiscal year 2003 demand for training would exceed Artesia's 5-day/8-hour capacity by at least 6,000 student weeks and up to 14,000 student weeks, depending on the schedule adopted.

A156
Page 16 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 29 of 108

Figure 4: FLETC Campus at Artesia, New Mexico

FLETC Has Generally Met PO Needs for Basic Training
· ·

Despite its strained capacity, FLETC has nevertheless been able to generally meet its POs' demand for basic training principally by, among other things, operating on a 6-day, multiple-shift training week at its Glynco campus to overcome constrained resources; deferring some training programs for certain POs that were not originally projected and that were made late in the year--for example, the Secret Service, Customs, and the General Services Administration's Federal Protective Service made such requests; canceling or deferring some of the POs' advanced training classes following the September 2001 attacks--FLETC rescheduled about 5 percent of these classes within the fiscal year; continuing to schedule and conduct Border Patrol's basic training at the Charleston campus, in cooperation with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection/Border Patrol; rotating instructors to most needed areas of work; and converting buildings and trailers that had been previously utilized for office space into training facilities such as raid houses, mat rooms, classrooms, and firearms simulations.

·

·

· ·

A157
Page 17 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 30 of 108

We note that while this approach may have helped mitigate the capacity constraints in the short term, deferring or canceling training may exacerbate any potential future strains on FLETC capacity--this training would likely need to be made up sometime in the future--and result in law enforcement personnel not being available for duty when needed.

PO Views about the Effect of the Capacity Strains on Their Personnel

POs offered a variety of views about the effect of FLETC's strained capacity on their training, in terms of, among other things, trainee attrition, the quality and timeliness of instruction, and instructor morale and retention. For example, representing the views of Justice POs (prior to their transition to DHS), a senior Justice official said that the strained capacity--and especially the need to train 6 days a week at Glynco--had resulted in higher attrition rates for trainees and fatigue, burnout, and low morale for instructors. In addition, according to this official, the quality of instruction, and thus that of the training received, had suffered. Further, a May 2002 internal Justice report on FLETC training issues noted that one of its component agencies had to cancel all of its "badly needed" advanced training due to the lack of space at FLETC. In commenting on a draft of this report, FLETC said that the PO was actually asked to shift its training within the fiscal year but declined to do so. The Justice report also noted that the 6-day training arrangement caused additional problems for Justice POs, including having to pay overtime and having difficulty in attracting and retaining instructors. Separately, a former Treasury PO reported that FLETC had to defer basic training for 168 agent recruits because of capacity constraints--since they could not be trained, and thus not deployed, these recruits were assigned nonagent, desk work. Basic training for recruits hired by September 2002 was to be completed in about 11 weeks. However, capacity strains caused FLETC to train the recruits in stages, with some not completing their training until February 2003. FLETC officials disputed the POs views that capacity constraints had had a negative impact on training. These officials said that based on FLETC's own data for the period of the capacity constraints, overall student test scores had not declined in a statistically significant manner over time, and student surveys continued to show a high level of satisfaction with FLETC's training services. Regarding the aforementioned example of the Treasury PO deferral, FLETC said that the PO's request was for 240 students and was not initially projected. FLETC also said that it was actually able to accommodate immediately 72 of the students. Other POs indicated that while their instructors and students generally experienced greater fatigue and stress as a result of FLETC's capacity constraints, the quality of the training had not suffered significantly. For

A158

Page 18

GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 31 of 108

example, one PO said that although there was a slight decline in student test scores, it was unclear whether this decline could be attributed exclusively to the capacity strain. The same PO reported that the extended hours resulting from the constraints actually allowed its trainees to complete their training in 9 weeks instead of 11, allowing them to be deployed to duty assignments sooner.

Capacity Strains Have Impacted the Condition of Facilities and Supporting Infrastructure

FLETC's implementation of 6-day, multiple-shift training at Glynco to help alleviate the capacity constraints at that campus has led to the intensive scheduling of its facilities. Such above-average usage of facilities places additional loads and strains on their systems and components, increasing the need for maintenance and repair.14 Maintenance programs and renovation projects are often deferred, according to FLETC officials, due to the lack of funding or an ability to only schedule facility "down time" for maintenance in the evenings and on Sundays. Cheltenham, for example, has an electrical system that is subject to failure at any time and a chlorination system that has failed, resulting in the need to provide bottled water for drinking. At the time of our site visits, utility upgrades were needed at Glynco, Cheltenham, and Artesia, and road and parking upgrades were needed at Glynco and Cheltenham; many facilities at Glynco are now only available for maintenance during evening hours or on Sundays. Although not quantifiable at this point, continued deterioration of facilities would likely lead to increased capital requirements in the future and adversely affect employee working conditions and retention.15 FLETC has considered the degradation issue in some of its internal reports; however, FLETC does not have any immediate contingency plans to address facility degradation. Such planning would be vital to help address the potential impact of facility degradation on FLETC's already strained capacity. Many organizations use periodic facility condition assessments to establish baseline facility data and to aid in planning for short- and long-range facility maintenance and repair needs. Currently, FLETC does not have detailed information about the condition of its facilities. A "Facility Condition Index" (FCI) would help to address the degradation issue by giving measurable performance data about its facilities rather than relying on anecdotal information. An FCI is the ratio

14

National Research Council, "Stewardship of Federal Facilities--A Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation's Public Assets," (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998). Ibid.

15

A159
Page 19 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 32 of 108

of the cost of maintenance and repair deficiencies to the facility's current replacement value. A FCI value of less than 0.05 is generally considered to represent a "good" facility condition. The draft final version of the Master Plan concluded that although FLETC had done a commendable job in handling the ever-increasing demand for training, it had done so at a price. Part of this price has been the degradation of its facilities--funding has been focused on building new facilities to alleviate choke points, while maintenance and renovation have been continuously deferred due to the lack of funding. Echoing our own concerns about this issue, the firm that developed the plan concluded that continuation of this cycle will eventually result in building element or critical infrastructure failures and made recommendations for renovations and expansion as part of its broader three-phase approach for improving and expanding FLETC's capacity.

FLETC Master Plan Intended to Help Alleviate Capacity Constraints

The Master Plan's recommendations for renovation and expansion of existing, and the construction of new facilities are arrayed in three, partly overlapping, 5-7 year construction phases for each of the campuses (except Charleston, which FLETC had, at the time the Master Plan was being developed, assumed would close by 2004). The first phase of construction extends at maximum from 2006 to 2011, the second from 2009 to 2015, and the third from 2013 to 2019. Each phase includes a mix of renovation and expansion projects, as well as the construction of new facilities. According to FLETC, the extent of additional capacity, in terms of student weeks, would depend on the completion of the construction projects, the programmatic mix, and other factors (e.g., the requisite staffing being available). As shown in table 2, if the plan's prioritized list of construction projects for phase 1 were to be completed, and the programmatic mix and other factors did not change, the capacities of Glynco and Artesia would increase as follows: for Glynco, 193,500 student weeks for the 5-day/8-hour schedule, 232,000 student weeks for the 6-day/8-hour schedule, and 278,000 student weeks for the 6-day/12-hour schedule; for Artesia, 55,000 student weeks for the 5-day/8-hour schedule, 66,000 student weeks for the 6-day/8-hour schedule, and 79,000 student weeks for the 6-day/12-hour schedule. The Cheltenham campus is not included since it is being upgraded and FLETC currently does not intend to use the campus as a residential facility.

A160
Page 20 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 33 of 108

Table 2: Potential Campus Capacities Following Completion of Phase I Master Plan Projects (in student weeks) Campus Glynco Artesia Total
Source: GAO analysis of FLETC data.

5-day/8-hour 193,500 55,000 248,500

6-day/8-hour 232,000 66,000 298,000

6-day/12-hour 278,000 79,000 357,000

The April 2003 final draft of the plan estimates the combined cost of the three phases to be about $907 million; the estimate includes costs for construction and furnishings and fixtures but excludes operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. O&M costs are estimated separately for the period of 2008 through 2040 from the project costs and total about $269 million.

FLETC's Planning to Address Its Capacity Constraints Raises Concerns

The FLETC Master Plan's assumptions and methodologies in particular, and FLETC's plan to address its capacity constraints in general, raise a number of concerns. First, the plan assumes that the Border Patrol will shift its basic training from the Charleston campus to the Artesia campus and that the Charleston campus will close.16 However, as indicated earlier, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), established the Charleston "law enforcement training facility" as a permanent training facility. While the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248) directed the Secretary of the Navy to transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Charleston law enforcement training facility to, in effect, the DHS, it is not clear whether FLETC will be the entity within the department to assume responsibility of the facility, and which FLETC POs, if any, will receive training there.

16

There were, in the past, some congressional committee expectations that the temporary training facility at Charleston would close. In 1998, for example, a House Appropriations Committee report, citing a commitment to the principle of consolidated federal law enforcement training through FLETC, expressed an expectation that the administration would strive to close the temporary training facility at Charleston. H.R. Rep. No. 105-592 (1998). In March 2000, the then Director of FLETC testified before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and General Government Subcommittee, that plans, at that time, called for Charleston to be closed by the fiscal year 2004 time frame, once the training requirements for the new Border Patrol hires were completed and/or new facilities became available to accommodate the training at FLETC's permanent locations. S.Hrg. 106-712 at 152 (March 30, 2000).

A161
Page 21 GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 34 of 108

Second, the Master Plan assumes that the training schedule at Glynco will return to a 5-day/8-hour week, but a FLETC official acknowledged that a return to such a shift for basic training is unlikely in at least fiscal year 2004, given the current and projected demands for training at the campus. Third, the plan assumes a set of baseline projections of future demand for training for each of the campuses from which future facility needs are generated. These Master Plan projections are lower than the latest projected attendance levels that FLETC is currently facing. Specifically, while several baseline workload scenarios were originally considered, only one was actually utilized to estimate the future need for facilities. Using a single baseline is questionable because it excludes accounting for possible future increases or decreases in the demand for training that would render the original baseline obsolete. Fourth, the plan assumes constant (or straight-line) growth rates in projecting the need for additional facilities at each FLETC campus. However, these growth rates are based on historical precedent and do not fully take into account recent events such as today's new security environment and the resulting surge in the demand for training of law enforcement personnel, and do not take into account future events such as potential further surges, or declines, in training demand, or changes in the attrition of federal law enforcement personnel. Finally, the plan does not assume potential efficiencies that might result from FLETC's planned automation of its system for scheduling training (discussed below). Use of such an automated system could result in more efficient scheduling of facilities. The firm that developed the plan acknowledges that if efficiencies were to be achieved through the automation of scheduling, the plan would need to be revised. Concerns about FLETC's planning also involve the Master Plan's cost estimates and future budget requests for construction and the extent to which the plan's phase 1 recommendations would be implemented in time to begin alleviating the capacity constraints. Regarding the cost estimates, the Master Plan's estimates should be treated with considerable caution. Specifically, although we did not analyze the plan's estimates in detail, we note two broad concerns. First, because the plan's recommendations have not proceeded beyond the conceptual or early design stage, the cost estimates are likely to be very "soft," with considerable potential upside tendency--at the conceptual stage; costs are likely to vary by as much as 50 percent. Second, the plan's recommendations and their design may be altered by DHS as part of its ongoing review of the plan (discussed later), thus changing the estimated costs. Further, a FLETC official said he identified a number of cost errors as part of his review of the April 2003

A162

Page 22

GAO-03-736 Federal Law Enforcement Training

Case 1:05-cv-00142-NBF

Document 120-5

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 35 of 108

version of the final draft of the plan--these errors involved life cycle-costs, O&M costs, and architectural and engineering fees. We also found, and brought to FLETC's attention, cost discrepancies between the 90-percent and final draft versions of the plan's phase 1 construction totaling over $100 million. For the entire plan, the discrepancies totaled over $200 million. A FLETC official concurred that there were discrepancies and told us that FLETC was working to resolve them. In terms of future budget requests for construction, the estimated costs for the first phase of the Master Plan are more than five times the total appropriated amounts for new facilities and renovations for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and the request for fiscal year 2004. A FLETC budget official said that in terms of lead time to fund the plan's recommendations, FLETC, in keeping with its past practice, would likely request the entire amount up front for all approved projects. Based on capital acquisition best practices, this approach is not unusual in the construction field. In this regard, a DHS official said that a request for construction expenditures for training facilities was not expected until the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle. In terms of the timely implementation of the Master Plan's recommendations, construction of the projects recommended i