[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DRIVING AWAY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS: DHS'S FAILURE TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE
THE FPS VEHICLE FLEET

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND
MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

DECEMBER 3, 2015

__________

Serial No. 114-46

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

21-156 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Curt Clawson, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Katko, New York Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Will Hurd, Texas Norma J. Torres, California
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia
Mark Walker, North Carolina
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia
Martha McSally, Arizona
John Ratcliffe, Texas
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan V. O'Hara, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY

Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Curt Clawson, Florida Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia Norma J. Torres, California
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Ryan Consaul, Subcommittee Staff Director
Dennis Terry, Subcommittee Clerk
Cedric C. Haynes, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

Statements

The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Oversight and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 6

Witnesses

Mr. John Roth, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Mr. L. Eric Patterson, Director, Federal Protective Service, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Mr. Thomas Chaleki, Deputy Chief Readiness Support Officer,
Management Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 24

Appendix

Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for John Roth... 43
Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for L. Eric Patterson........ 46
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for L. Eric
Patterson...................................................... 48
Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Thomas Chaleki........... 52
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Thomas
Chaleki........................................................ 56

DRIVING AWAY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS: DHS'S FAILURE TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE
THE FPS VEHICLE FLEET

----------

Thursday, December 3, 2015

U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:22 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Perry, Clawson, Loudermilk, Watson
Coleman, and Torres.
Mr. Perry. The Committee on Homeland Security's
Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency will come
to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine
mismanagement of the Federal Protective Service's vehicle
fleet.
The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
Before that, just on an administrative note, my counterpart,
the Ranking Member, Ms. Watson Coleman, is on her way. We have
been told that no one will object to the opening statement. So
we are just going to proceed. If she does make it in time, she
may make an opening statement. If she does not, we may adjourn
at that point so that I can go vote. As soon as votes are
complete, we will come back and re-adjourn the hearing and move
forward from there. That is just to give you an idea. You can
plan your bathroom breaks accordingly. All right.
The Federal Protective Service has a vitally important
mission to protect Federal facilities, including Federal
employees, contractors, and visitors at those facilities. FPS
secures approximately 9,500 facilities Nation-wide. Watchdogs
have released numerous reports in recent years criticizing how
FPS has managed its contract guard program and conducted
facility security assessments. In October, the inspector
general released a scathing report titled ``The FPS Vehicle
Fleet is Not Managed Effectively.'' The report reads like a
laundry list of poor--and this is my editorial--what seems to
me gratuitous management decisions. According to the inspector
general, the FPS wasted over $2.5 million in fiscal year 2014
on its vehicle fleet due to numerous management failures.
Specifically, FPS management did not justify the need for more
vehicles than officers, use of larger sport utility vehicles,
officers' authorization to drive from home to work in the
Washington, DC, area, and discretionary equipment added to
vehicles.
FPS leased over 100 vehicles more than it had officers.
That is after every single FPS officer was assigned a vehicle.
I am sure sheriffs and chiefs of police back home in
Pennsylvania would love to have such a budget and such
latitude. I can tell you, as a service member--and, gentlemen,
I will thank you in advance for your service--but as a service
member who has served downrange and had to hoof it 8 miles from
where I was sleeping to where I was operating because I didn't
have a vehicle, we sure would have loved to have vehicles to
complete our mission.
In addition, FPS chose to lease more expensive sport
utility vehicles even though 2013 component guidance stated
that a sedan was preferred. FPS could have saved over $1
million had it used sedans as opposed to SUVs. FPS officials
explained that the larger capacity was needed to store officer
equipment. However, the IG found that most officers did not
have a majority of the equipment stored in their vehicles. In
fact, some of the equipment wasn't even issued.
Another management failure was the lack of justification in
allowing officers in the National Capital Region, the NCR, to
drive from home to work. Officers in the NCR drove more miles
in their Government-issued SUVs commuting than actually
performing their assigned duties and failed to accurately
report whether their mileage was justified.
I find that quite telling, gentlemen.
The IG found that in certain instances, on-duty activities
were reported as after-hours responses. The report also found
that FPS overpaid an estimated $35,000 in monthly charges--
monthly--for equipment packages that added extras, such as bike
racks and wireless security systems for the vehicles. The IG
stated that FPS made ad hoc undocumented decisions regarding
its vehicle fleet and was not in compliance with Federal and
Departmental requirements. FPS failed to put rigorous controls
in place to prevent waste. The limited safeguards that were in
place were not followed. Officers did not appropriately
document their mileage. Almost all of FPS' records did not
match records in the General Services Administration's system.
In 25 cases in particular, FPS reported vehicles having
negative mileage, which I would hope would get somebody's
attention. You know, from my standpoint, at some point, I would
like DHS and FPS to explain to the Members how a vehicle has
negative miles on it. Director Patterson has signed a new
policy to address some of the IG's findings and intends to put
new systems in place to better oversee the use of FPS vehicles.
I will tell you, Director, in my opinion, in this one
humble opinion, one individual's humble opinion, new policies
aren't, you know, without changing some of the core standards
and requirements here, is just not going to be good enough. But
the American taxpayer deserves much better. Washington
bureaucrats may wonder why this subcommittee is holding a
hearing on an area that is such a small part of DHS's overall
budget. The management failures and outright abuse outlined in
the IG's report demonstrate a culture of waste by DHS regarding
taxpayer--taxpayer, this is your neighbors'--taxpayer money.
That is reprehensible. It is unacceptable.
Since the IG only reviewed 1 year of data, it is safe to
say FPS wasted millions more in previous years. Listen, I don't
use the term ``wasted'' lightly. I would rather say ``spent.''
But, in my opinion, and based on this report, I can assume and
I think America can assume it has been wasted, maybe even tens
of millions, because we don't how long, I don't know how long
this has been going on like this. Putting a new policy in place
does not cut it. DHS must hold employees that waste taxpayer
dollars accountable. Every dollar wasted on mismanagement is
one less that goes to actually protecting the public. The
American people will not stand for such management malpractice.
The point is that we must hold ourselves as employees of
the Federal Government, whether elected, whether appointed,
whether hired, we must hold ourselves accountable and seek the
best for the taxpayers that we are beholden to. We all must do
that. Whether or not there is a directive to do it from up
above, we must take it upon ourselves, the oath that we took
when we signed up for this mission to do the best we can,
regardless, regardless of what somebody above us is telling us.
We know better. We must do better.
Every dollar wasted on mismanagement is one less that goes
to actually protecting the public. I am just thinking about
events in the last 24 hours. I know it didn't happen at a
Federal facility. But God help us when one does and somebody
comes to the committee and says, ``Well, we need more money to
protect these facilities and these people,'' we can look at
ourselves--and, look, if I had a mirror in front of me, I am
telling you I would be looking at myself too, but I know I am
looking at you two gentlemen in particular. But this is part of
that. That is what we are talking about when these things
happen. So we need to make sure that our dollars are spent most
wisely. The American people will not stand for such
mismanagement practice.
[The statement of Mr. Perry follows:]
Statement of Chairman Scott Perry
December 3, 2015
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) has an important mission to
protect Federal facilities including Federal employees, contractors,
and visitors at those facilities. FPS secures approximately 9,500
facilities Nation-wide. Watchdogs have released numerous reports in
recent years criticizing how FPS has managed its contract guard program
and conducted facility security assessments. In October, the inspector
general released a scathing report titled ``The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is
Not Managed Effectively.'' The report reads like a laundry list of poor
management decisions.
According to the inspector general, FPS wasted over $2.5 million
dollars in fiscal year 2014 on its vehicle fleet due to numerous
management failures. Specifically, FPS management did not justify the
need for more vehicles than officers; use of larger sport utility
vehicles; officers' authorization to drive from home to work in the
Washington, DC area; and discretionary equipment added to vehicles. FPS
leased over 100 vehicles more than it had officers. And that's after
every single FPS officer was assigned a vehicle. I'm sure sheriffs and
chiefs of police back home in Pennsylvania would love to have such a
budget.
In addition, FPS chose to lease more expensive sport utility
vehicles even though 2013 component guidance stated that a sedan was
preferred. FPS could have saved over $1 million dollars had it used
sedans as opposed to SUVs. FPS officials explained that the larger
capacity was needed to store officer equipment. However, the IG found
that most officers did not have a majority of the equipment stored in
their vehicles. In fact, some of the equipment wasn't even issued.
Another management failure was the lack of justification in
allowing officers in the National Capital Region (NCR) to drive from
home to work. Officers in the NCR drove more miles in their Government-
issued SUVs commuting than actually performing their assigned duties
and failed to accurately report whether their mileage was justified.
The IG found that, in certain instances, on-duty activities were
reported as after-hours responses. The report also found that FPS
overpaid an estimated $35,000 in monthly charges for equipment packages
that added extras, such as bike racks and wireless security systems,
for the vehicles.
The IG stated that FPS made ``ad hoc, undocumented decisions''
regarding its vehicle fleet and was ``not in compliance with Federal
and departmental requirements.'' FPS failed to put rigorous controls in
place to prevent waste and the limited safeguards that were in place
were not followed. Officers did not appropriately document their
mileage and almost all of FPS's records did not match records in the
General Services Administration's (GSA) system. In 25 cases, FPS
reported vehicles having negative mileage. I'd like DHS and FPS to
explain to the Members how a vehicle has negative miles. Director
Patterson has signed a new policy to address some of the IG's findings
and intends to put new systems in place to better oversee the use of
FPS vehicles.
But the American taxpayer deserves much better. Washington
bureaucrats may wonder why this subcommittee is holding a hearing on an
area that is such a small part of DHS's overall budget. The management
failures outlined in the IG's report demonstrate a culture of waste by
DHS regarding taxpayer money. That is reprehensible and unacceptable.
Since the IG only reviewed 1 year of data, it's safe to say FPS wasted
millions more in previous years; maybe even tens of millions. Putting a
new policy in place doesn't cut it. DHS must hold employees that waste
taxpayer dollars accountable. Every dollar wasted on mismanagement is
one less that goes to actually protecting the public. The American
people will not stand for such management malpractice.

Mr. Perry. Votes have been called on the House floor. So,
without objection, the subcommittee stands in recess subject to
the call of the Chair. We will reconvene following the vote
series. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
[Recess.]
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority
Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from New Jersey,
Mrs. Watson Coleman, for her statement.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Chairman Perry, for holding
today's hearing.
Thank you, Inspector General Roth, Director Patterson, and
Mr. Chaleki, for your testimony today.
The Federal Protective Service, a subcomponent of the
National Protection and Programs Directorate, provides
integrated security and law enforcement services to more than
9,500 Federal facilities Nation-wide. FPS fulfils a critical
mission, one rooted in protecting essential infrastructure,
Federal buildings, and its occupants. While the presence of FPS
is imperative to the protection of Federal facilities, it is
equally important that FPS performs its everyday functions in
an efficient manner with appropriate management oversight.
Currently, FPS manages a fleet of approximately 1,100
vehicles at a cost of $10.7 million. These vehicles assist FPS
Officers in their coverage of Federal facilities and allows
them to store and carry their essential law enforcement
equipment.
The Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector
General recently investigated FPS' management of its vehicle
fleet and concluded that FPS is not managing its vehicle fleet
effectively, specifically citing expensive equipment packages,
the overuse of sport utility vehicles, and a lack of consistent
Department oversight in fleet management. Even though FPS has
more than 100 enforcement vehicles than full-time officers, FPS
was unable to provide the inspector general with a
justification for neither the surplus nor its overall
methodology in ordering vehicles for the fleet. In the D.C.
region, 57 percent of the fleet vehicles' overall mileage that
was given was considered home-to-work mileage, yet FPS could
not provide sufficient justification to the inspector general
for the approximately 1.2 million home-to-work miles driven in
fiscal year 2014.
The inspector general further observed some FPS vehicles
did not contain the necessary equipment to fulfil its daily
mission, including gas masks, protective suits, and rioting
gear. In response to this particular finding, FPS stated that
oftentimes equipment is unavailable and it sometimes takes
several months for an officer to be fully stocked. Even more
troubling is the inspector general's conclusion that the
Department of Homeland Security does not sufficiently oversee
FPS fleet management to ensure FPS complies with all Federal
and Department guidelines. Neither the Department's fleet
manager nor NPPD consistently review FPS' use of the GSA
vehicle allocation methodology, nor do they review the
justification for having additional law enforcement
administrative vehicles, retaining underutilized vehicles, and
adding discretionary upgrades. This lack of management resulted
in FPS' overpaying GSA for law enforcement equipment packages.
There is a critical linkage between the Department's
operational effectiveness and critical National security
missions, on the one hand, and the effective management of
resources and requirements by DHS on the other. These findings
demonstrate a culture--did demonstrate a culture of lack of
management and disregard for resources that FPS grounded, in
collection of fees from agencies occupying the Government's
facilities. These lapses in oversight, accountability, and
preparedness must be addressed and corrected.
I look forward to hearing from each of you--as to Mr. Roth,
your findings; and to Mr. Patterson and Mr. Chaleki, those
improvement mechanisms and systems and accountability measures
that put--you have in place. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
[The statement of Mrs. Watson Coleman follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bonnie Watson Coleman
December 3, 2015
The Federal Protective Service, a subcomponent of the National
Protection and Programs Directorate, provides integrated security and
law enforcement services to more than 9,500 Federal facilities Nation-
wide.
FPS fulfills a critical mission, one rooted in protecting essential
infrastructure, Federal buildings, and its occupants.
While the presence of FPS is imperative to the protection of
Federal facilities, it is equally important that FPS performs its
everyday functions in an efficient manner, with appropriate management
oversight.
Currently, FPS manages a vehicle fleet of approximately 1,100
vehicles at a cost of $10.7 million dollars.
These vehicles assist FPS officers in their coverage of Federal
facilities and allow them to store and carry their essential law
enforcement equipment.
The Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General
recently investigated FPS' management of its vehicle fleet and
concluded that FPS is not managing its vehicle fleet effectively,
specifically citing expensive equipment packages, the overuse of sports
utility vehicles, and a lack of consistent Department oversight and
fleet management.
Even though FPS has 100 more law enforcement vehicles than full-
time officers, FPS was unable to provide the inspector general with
justifications for neither the surplus nor its overall methodology in
ordering vehicles for the fleet.
In the DC region, 57 percent of the vehicle fleet's overall miles
driven are considered ``home-to-work'' mileage, yet FPS could not
provide sufficient justification to the inspector general for the
proximately 1.2 million home-to-work miles driven in fiscal year 2014.
The inspector general further observed some FPS vehicles did not
contain the necessary equipment to fulfill its daily mission, including
gas masks, protective suits, and rioting gear.
In response to this particular finding, FPS stated that oftentimes,
equipment is unavailable and it sometimes takes several months for an
officer to be fully stocked with all necessary equipment.
Even more troubling is the inspector general's conclusion that the
Department of Homeland Security does not sufficiently oversee FPS fleet
management to ensure FPS complies with all Federal and Departmental
guidelines.
Neither the Department's Fleet Manager nor NPPD consistently review
FPS' use of the GSA Vehicle Allocation Methodology nor do they review
its justifications for having additional law enforcement administrative
vehicles, retaining under-utilized vehicles, and adding discretionary
upgrades to the vehicles.
This lack of management resulted in FPS overpaying GSA for law
enforcement equipment packages in error.
There is a critical linkage between the Department's operational
effectiveness in critical National security missions on the one hand,
and effective management of resources and requirements by DHS leader on
the other.
These findings demonstrate a culture of lax management and
disregard for resources at FPS, one grounded in the collection of fees
from agencies occupying the Government facilities FPS protects.
These lapses in oversight, accountability, and preparedness must be
addressed and corrected.
Director Patterson and Mr. Chaleki, I look forward to hearing from
each of you today what the Department and FPS plans on doing to address
the inspector general's findings, particularly as it relates to
effective management of FPS resources.

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
December 3, 2015
After the 1995 domestic terrorist attacks on the Alfred P. Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, there was broad recognition that
Federal buildings, which are symbols of our democracy, must be
protected against terrorist attacks while remaining accessible to
citizens. In recent years, the increasing number of terrorist plots
against diverse U.S. Government facilities in Illinois, Washington
State, and New York City, as well as attacks on Government buildings in
other Western democracies, such as Canada and Norway, has brought into
focus the need to strengthen U.S. Federal building security.
Unfortunately, the primary agency responsible for providing such
security--the Federal Protective Service--has a range of long-standing
administrative challenges that, to my mind, raise questions about its
ability to provide adequate Federal building security. During my time
on this committee, I have recognized the critical mission of the
Federal Protective Service and have ensured that the committee has
developed oversight and legislative mechanisms, such as the ``Federal
Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2015,'' which
is also cosponsored by the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, to
address the some of the challenges FPS faces.
At the center of today's hearing is another challenge at FPS--the
management of the law enforcement agency's vehicle fleet. FPS currently
has a fleet of 1,100 vehicles at a cost of $10.7 million. These
vehicles are provided to FPS to allow the officers and investigators to
store and carry equipment and other necessary protective gear.
This October, the Department of Homeland Security Office of
Inspector General found that FPS is not managing its vehicle fleet
effectively. According to the IG, FPS has too many vehicles, they pay
too much for the vehicles they lease, and FPS officers within the
National Capital Region use their vehicles to commute without proper
justification. The IG concluded that DHS does not sufficiently oversee
FPS fleet management to ensure FPS complies with all Federal and
Departmental guidelines.
It is very disappointing to know that in certain instances, neither
FPS nor DHS were keeping proper records of vehicle data such as mileage
reports. Unfortunately, this is something we have heard one too many
times from the Department. There is money being spent, resources being
allocated, and needs purportedly being met, but little to no record-
keeping being in place. Director Patterson and Mr. Chaleki, when there
is no record of where funds are going, it increases the likelihood of
questions of waste, fraud, and abuse.
While I understand that FPS and DHS have both concurred with the
recommendations of the inspector general, I would like to hear more
from both of you about how these recommendations are being implemented.
Furthermore, since October 2014, when terrorists attacked
government sites in Canada, FPS has been operating at an enhanced
level, at the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. FPS also
increased its operations to protect Federal buildings during the trial
of the Boston Marathon Bomber and during the recent Papal visit to the
United States.
I am also curious to know the impact of the increased tempo FPS's
ability to address the fleet management issues raised in the inspector
general's report. Each time FPS is directed to heighten security
operations, new costs are incurred. FPS has no choice but to absorb
those costs, often, I suspect, at the expense of addressing long-
standing administrative challenges, including vehicle fleet management.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today on how FPS can
move forward in this heightened threat environment and still address
lapses in oversight and accountability.

Mr. Perry. We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of
witnesses before us today. The witnesses' entire written
statements will appear in the record. The Chair will introduce
all of the witnesses first and then recognize each of you for
your testimony.
I just simply must note at this time--and, again, apologize
for--I find it fascinating and somewhat ironic that we are here
in a position of oversight to make sure that you maintain the
standards, and we couldn't seem to maintain the standard of not
wasting your time today. For that, and the rest of my
colleagues, I do apologize.
With that, the Honorable John Roth assumed the post of
inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security in
March 2014. Previously, Mr. Roth served as the director of the
Office of Criminal Investigations at the Food and Drug
Administration and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Michigan.
Welcome, Mr. Roth.
Mr. L. Eric Patterson was appointed the director of Federal
Protective Service, a subcomponent of the National Protection
and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security
in September 2010. Mr. Patterson previously served as the
deputy director of the Defense Counterintelligence and HUMINT,
Human Intelligence, Center at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Patterson is a retired United States Air Force brigadier
general with 30 years of service.
Sir, we acknowledge and thank you for your service.
Mr. Thomas Chaleki is the deputy chief readiness support
officer at the Department of Homeland Security. His office is
responsible for integrating mission support functions, such as
logistics, real property, and transportation among other areas
across DHS components. Prior to his current position, Mr.
Chaleki oversaw the integration of mission support functions at
the U.S. Coast Guard. He recently retired from the Air Force
Reserve with the rank of colonel.
Sir, we also acknowledge and thank you for your service.
Thank you for all being here today.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Roth for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROTH, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Roth. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
Watson Coleman, and other Members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me here to today to discuss our work on FPS.
In February of this year, I testified before you and
highlighted the significant challenges that the Department
faces in attempting to exert some oversight over components
within DHS. I stated that sometimes components simply disregard
DHS policies, which hampers operations and leads to wasteful
spending. I urged that DHS must strengthen its efforts to
integrate management operations under a governing structure
capable of effectively overseeing and managing programs that
cross component lines. We have seen this in acquisition
management, in radio interoperability, in DHS aircraft
management, and in the DHS vehicle fleet.
Our most recent audit is a perfect example of the problem.
We identified significant issues regarding the management of
the FPS vehicle fleet. As a result, FPS missed cost savings of
more than $2.5 million out of a total expenditure of $10.7
million. First, our audit found that FPS has more vehicles than
justified. In fiscal year 2014, FPS had 100 more law
enforcement vehicles than full-time law enforcement positions.
This actually understates the issue because at the time, they
had fewer officers employed than positions. The actual number
of excess vehicles was about 260. FPS has not conducted an
analysis to determine the number of spare vehicles it needs for
the size of its fleet.
In addition, FPS leased 32 administrative vehicles for
mission support functions but has not justified leasing these
vehicles as the most cost-effective option. FPS has not
justified leasing vehicles larger and more expensive than
necessary to support its mission. Ninety-three percent of FPS'
total fleet were SUVs. SUVs, according to our analysis, cost
about 15 percent more than sedans and are more expensive to
operate. Contrary to Department policy, FPS did not formally
validate its need for larger vehicles to meet mission
requirements.
Additionally, FPS officers appeared to use the vehicles to
commute to and from work without justification. Nearly 57
percent of the fleet's overall miles that are driven are
commuting miles. In the National Capital Region, most officers
are not required to respond to after-hours incidents because
this region employs rotational shifts that are on duty 24 hours
a day. Additionally, we found that officers erroneously
reported on-duty activities as after-hour responses. This
provided an inaccurate picture of actual after-hour responses
and resulted in FPS using inaccurate and unreliable data to
support its home-to-work reauthorization requests.
Additionally, FPS did not accurately record the miles
driven by their fleet. We compared FPS' internal records
against those reported to the General Services Administration
from which those vehicles were leased and found significant
inaccuracies or incomplete information pertaining to total
miles driven and home-to-work mileage. In fact, of the 192
records, the sample that we collected, 189 of them had
inaccurate or missing information, a 98 percent error rate. FPS
has not properly justified the number, type, and use of its
current fleet is necessary to carry out its mission and,
therefore, is not in compliance with Federal law and Department
requirements. We determined that 49 percent of FPS' leased
vehicles showed fewer than 12,000 miles in fiscal year 2014,
therefore, not meeting DHS' utilization policy. There is no
documented justification for retaining them. Sadly, in June of
this year, we notified FPS and the Department of a lack of
justification for FPS' current vehicle fleet operation.
Nevertheless, a little over a month after that notification,
DHS proceeded with an order with GSA to replace about 16
percent of FPS' vehicles, the majority of which were SUVs.
We recognize that the Department has made significant
improvements to fleet management and home-to-work
transportation authorizations in particular. We commend the
Department for taking these steps to address the need for
rightsizing. But we believe additional actions may be necessary
to improve its effectiveness. Without policies that afford
fleet managers definitive and forceful authority, components
will continue to operate as a business-as-usual mentality with
no assurances that they are operating optimal fleets.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statements. I
welcome any questions you or the other Members of the committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roth follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Roth
December 3, 2015
Good morning Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and
other distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss our work on the
Federal Protective Service (FPS), a component of the National
Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) fleet management. Our most recent audit,\1\ as well as
two previous audits, identified challenges with fleet management that
DHS must improve to ensure FPS--and all other DHS components--use motor
vehicle fleet compositions that most effectively and efficiently meet
mission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is Not Managed Effectively, OIG-16-02,
October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our most recent audit identified the following issues:
FPS has too many vehicles, based on their workforce;
FPS pays too much for vehicles that they do have; and
FPS officers in the National Capital Region used their
vehicles to commute to and from home without proper
justification.
As a result, FPS potentially missed cost savings of more than $2.5
million out of a total expenditure of approximately $10.7 million.
Although my testimony today will focus on our recent report on the
FPS fleet, I will also discuss the Department's and NPPD's challenges
in managing motor vehicle fleet operations.
Within the Department, the DHS fleet manager is responsible for the
primary, Department-level fleet management activities. However, the DHS
fleet manager has provided insufficient oversight to ensure compliance
with Federal and Departmental requirements for Home-to-Work vehicle use
\2\ and annual Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM) reporting. Agencies
use VAM to determine the correct allocation of vehicles for its staff,
reduce fuel, and determine excess. This is partly because the DHS fleet
manager does not have enforcement authority to influence component
vehicle purchases. Since components receive funding for vehicle fleets
in their individual operational budgets, they make independent
decisions about the amount and type of vehicles needed to support their
missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Home-to-Work transportation is the use of Government passenger
carriers (such as motor vehicles) to transport employees between their
homes and places of work; it is a tool to meet mission requirements and
enhance responsiveness to emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fps had more vehicles than officers
We reported that FPS had more vehicles than justified. In fiscal
year 2014, FPS had 101 more law enforcement vehicles than full-time
equivalent law enforcement positions. In addition to providing each law
enforcement officer with a vehicle, FPS also provides spare vehicles to
each region in the event that a vehicle is in need of repair or
requires maintenance. FPS had not conducted an analysis to determine
the number of spare vehicles needed for the size of its fleet.
In addition, FPS did not have adequate justification for its
administrative vehicles. FPS leased 32 administrative vehicles for
mission support functions. The DHS Motor Vehicle Fleet Program Manual
requires fleet managers to conduct an analysis of the feasibility and
economy of using public transportation, taxicabs, car rental, dispatch
or shared vehicle usage, or privately-owned vehicles in lieu of
acquiring additional vehicles. However, we determined that FPS had not
performed an analysis to ensure that leasing these administrative
vehicles was the most cost-effective option. If FPS reduced its fleet
by these spare law enforcement and administrative vehicles, it could
potentially save more than $1 million annually.
fps did not justify the use of larger vehicles
FPS has not justified leasing vehicles larger than necessary to
support its mission. In fiscal year 2014, the standard law enforcement
vehicle FPS issued was an SUV. FPS' fleet consists of 1,059 SUVs--93
percent of its total fleet. The NPPD Fleet Manual states that the class
III midsize sedan is the preferred vehicle type, but allows exceptions
when necessary to meet mission requirements. Although the Department
allows exceptions, FPS did not formally validate its need for the
larger vehicles to meet mission requirements.
FPS management explained the decision to lease a larger vehicle was
based on the assumption that SUVs provided a capability to store and
carry the required law enforcement equipment such as a rifle, riot
gear, and biochemical protective suit. However, we tested the storage
capacity of a sedan and determined that it could also store the
standard issued law enforcement equipment. Figure 1 shows the midsize
sedan and SUV equipment capacity.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Additionally, we noted that FPS officers did not always store the
equipment in their vehicles. Our test of 46 judgmentally-selected
vehicles during normal duty hours found that most FPS officers did not
have the majority of the equipment in their vehicles. If FPS had
replaced all of its law enforcement SUVs with sedans, it could have
potentially saved more than $1.1 million in fiscal year 2014.
fps did not justify adding discretionary equipment to vehicles
DHS policy requires fleet managers to consider the need, cost, and
potential benefits for all non-standard equipment added to the vehicles
such as lights, sirens, and prisoner cages. However, FPS added
discretionary items such as a bike rack hitch, rechargeable flashlight,
and premium wireless security system without documenting how the
additional items would enhance FPS' ability to meet its mission
requirements. Depending upon the discretionary equipment package
selected, vehicle costs increased by anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000.
fps did not justify the national capital region home-to-work
transportation
FPS cannot justify 1.2 million Home-to-Work miles self-reported by
142 officers in fiscal year 2014 as essential for carrying out its
mission. Nearly 57 percent of the fleet's overall miles driven are
Home-to-Work and costs the National Capital Region on average about
$300,000 per year. U.S. Code \3\ grants each Federal agency head the
authority to determine which job positions are eligible to use Home-to-
Work transportation. The statute provides the DHS Secretary with the
ability to authorize Home-to-Work for employees engaged in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Title 31 U.S.C. 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fieldwork;
intelligence, counterintelligence, protective services, and
criminal law enforcement duties;
an emergency;
compelling operational consideration; and
clear and present danger.
However, most officers in the region are not required to respond to
after-hours incidents because this region employs rotational shifts for
on-duty officers 24 hours a day. Additionally, we found that officers
erroneously reported on-duty activities as after-hours responses. This
provided an inaccurate picture of actual after-hours' responses and
resulted in FPS using unreliable data to support its Home-to-Work
reauthorization request.
fps did not ensure vehicle data was complete and accurate
FPS inputs monthly mileage into the GSA Mileage Express Drive-thru
system to track and manage its fleet operations and monitor fleet
costs, mileage, and fuel use. Additionally, FPS developed Vehicle
Operations Reports (VOR) to capture monthly vehicle mileage, including
Home-to-Work. FPS uses the VOR information together with the GSA Fleet
Drive-thru system information to oversee its fleet program. However,
based on our analysis of 192 VORs and corresponding GSA's Fleet Drive-
thru Express system data, we identified significant instances of
inaccurate or incomplete information pertaining to total miles driven
and Home-to-Work mileage.
fps may be retaining nonessential vehicles
FPS has not implemented a tool to properly justify that the number,
type, and use of its current fleet is necessary to carry out its
mission. GSA created the VAM to assist agencies in determining the
right number and type of vehicles and eliminating unnecessary or
nonessential vehicles. However, FPS did not complete its part of NPPD's
overall VAM and therefore is not in compliance with Federal and
Departmental requirements. We determined that 49 percent of FPS' leased
vehicles showed fewer than 12,000 miles in fiscal year 2014, therefore
not meeting DHS' utilization policy.
According to DHS policy, if utilization guidelines are not met but
users still request vehicles, a vehicle justification process should be
in place and enforced as part of the component's VAM. However, we noted
that FPS made undocumented, ad hoc fleet management decisions to
determine vehicle needs. At the time of our audit, NPPD had not
formally conducted a retention justification for under-utilized FPS
vehicles.
On June 9, 2015, we notified FPS, NPPD, and the Department of the
lack of justification for FPS' current vehicle fleet composition.
Nevertheless, on July 29, 2015, DHS proceeded with an order with GSA to
replace approximately 16% of FPS vehicles--the majority of which are
SUVs.
In fact, our concerns about the lack of justification were
justified. In an effort to comply with Federal requirements regarding
identifying underutilized vehicles, DHS and NPPD administered a
Utilization Retention Analysis Methodology in August 2015. The analysis
identified that 19% of FPS vehicles are underutilized. Unfortunately,
this information was not available in time to reinforce the OIG's
concerns that renewing the lease for SUVs may not have been necessary.
fps did not have standard operating procedures for fleet management
FPS did not develop standard operating procedures requiring fleet
managers to document and justify fleet management decisions. The NPPD
Motor Vehicle Fleet Program Manual allows subcomponents such as FPS to
establish additional requirements and internal controls specific to the
agency. At the time of our review, FPS provided the OIG with a draft
fleet management policy; however, it was not finalized and did not
address the issues identified in our report. The FPS draft policy did
not specify the standard vehicle type for law enforcement officers and
did not include requirements for fleet managers to verify the accuracy
of cost and vehicle usage data.
departmental action
In recent years, we have made numerous recommendations for the
Department to improve data reliability and strengthen oversight for
fleet management. Specifically, we recommended the Under Secretary for
Management, DHS:
implement a centralized system of record for fleet data;
develop policies to collect reliable data;
revise its Home-to-Work guidance; and
improve authority over component fleet managers' efforts to
acquire vehicles, right-size \4\ their fleets, and eliminate
underused vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Right-sizing refers to the agency's efforts to maintaining the
smallest, most efficient fleet to accomplish an agency's mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our latest report we again identified that the Department and
NPPD fleet managers did not exercise proper oversight and authority
over FPS fleet decisions. Without proper collaboration and oversight,
the DHS Fleet Manager cannot manage the DHS fleet effectively,
determine whether vehicles are needed and justified, and ensure that
components remove underused vehicles from their fleets--and thereby
operate the most cost-efficient fleet.
We recognize that the Department has made significant improvements
to fleet management and Home-to-Work transportation authorizations in
particular. The Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer (CRSO)
issued interim guidance that provides clear definitions and guidelines
for when Home-to-Work is authorized. In addition, the guidance
increases oversight by requiring the Department to periodically review
all existing, component-approved Home-to-Work transportation
authorizations. CRSO also established, beginning in the first quarter
of fiscal year 2015, a quarterly Home-to-Work transportation reporting
process. The office collects data from the components and uploads it
into the new Consolidated Asset Portfolio Sustainability Information
System (CAPSIS). CAPSIS is a business intelligence tool used to
aggregate asset management data for analysis and reporting.
DHS and its components should continue to work together to ensure
compliance with all Federal and Department requirements for managing
fleets and Home-to-Work transportation. The Department's fleet manager,
although not responsible for the day-to-day management of individual
vehicle fleet programs, currently serves as the last level of review of
fleet management decisions. According to the draft, updated DHS Motor
Vehicle Fleet Program Manual, all vehicle acquisitions and lease
agreements will be reviewed by CRSO.
conclusion
The Department and NPPD fleet managers' challenges--including
limited management and oversight, inaccurate data for decision making,
and insufficient authority--have hindered their ability to right-size
fleets as required. We reported that FPS does not have adequate fleet
management policies and procedures, documented justifications for fleet
size and composition, effective monitoring of $10.6 million in lease
agreements to avoid overpayments, and accurate fleet data for decision
making. As a result, FPS cannot ensure it is operating the most cost-
efficient fleet and potentially missed opportunities to save more than
$2.5 million in fiscal year 2014. While we commend the Department for
taking steps to address the need for right-sizing, we believe
additional actions may be necessary to improve its effectiveness.
Our recent review of FPS is merely one more example of the
consequences that limited Departmental oversight and authority can have
on a component's ability to manage its own vehicle fleet operation
effectively. Without policies that afford fleet managers with
definitive, enforceable authority, components will continue to operate
with a ``business as usual'' mentality with no assurance that they are
operating optimal fleets.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I welcome any
questions you or other Members of the subcommittee may have.
Appendix A.--Recent OIG Reports on DHS Fleet Management
DHS Home-to-Work Transportation, OIG-14-21, December 2013.
DHS Does Not Adequately Manage or Have Enforcement Authority Over
Its Components' Vehicle Fleet Operations, OIG-14-126, August 2014.
The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is Not Managed Effectively, OIG-16-02,
October 2015.

APPENDIX B.--STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OIG REPORTS ON DHS FLEET MANAGEMENT AS OF NOVEMBER 18, 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report No. Report Title Date Issued Recommendation Current Status Mgmt. Response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG 14-21........................ DHS Home-to-Work 12/20/13 We recommend that the Under Closed............. Agreed.
Transportation. Secretary for Management
strengthen the DHS Manual
112-05-001 Home-to-Work
Transportation with clear
definitions and guidelines
for eligibility to
participate and establishing
guidance for periodic
reauthorization of all
approved Home-to-Work
authorizations.
OIG 14-21........................ DHS Home-to-Work 12/20/13 We recommend that the Under Closed............. Agreed.
Transportation. Secretary for Management
implement policies to ensure
components collect reliable
information necessary to
track, monitor, analyze, and
report on Home-to-Work
transportation use and costs.
OIG 14-21........................ DHS Home-to-Work 12/20/13 We recommend that the Under Closed............. Agreed.
Transportation. Secretary for Management
enforce the DHS Manual 112-
05-001 Home-to-Work
Transportation annual
reporting requirement.
OIG 14-21........................ DHS Home-to-Work 12/20/13 We recommend that the Under Closed............. Agreed.
Transportation. Secretary for Management
perform a thorough
assessment of the Home-to-
Work transportation program
annually to validate the
accuracy and completeness of
the information reported,
component monitoring
efforts, compliance with DHS
guidance, and Home-to-Work
transportation participant
eligibility.
OIG 14-21........................ DHS Home-to-Work 12/20/13 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Transportation. Secretary for Management
implement a centralized,
Department-wide, Home-to-
Work data system, accessible
by headquarters and
component personnel, to
collect, track, and monitor
Home-to-Work transportation-
related information, such as
authorizations, costs,
vehicle use, and number of
users.
OIG-14-126....................... DHS Does Not Adequately 8/21/14 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Manage or Have Secretary for Management
Enforcement Authority ensure that the DHS Fleet
Over Its Components' Manager has adequate
Vehicle Fleet Operations. oversight and the necessary
enforcement authority over
component fleet managers'
efforts to acquire vehicles,
right-size their fleets, and
eliminate underused
vehicles. We estimate that,
in fiscal year 2012,
underused vehicles cost CBP,
ICE, and NPPD between $35.3
million and $48.6 million,
which are funds that could
be put to better use in
future fiscal years.
OIG-14-126....................... DHS Does Not Adequately 8/21/14 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Manage or Have Secretary for Management
Enforcement Authority implement a single,
Over Its Components' centralized system of record
Vehicle Fleet Operations. for the Department's motor
vehicle fleet to improve
visibility, identify data
gaps and inconsistencies,
and facilitate collection of
vehicle inventory, cost, and
usage data.
OIG-16-02........................ The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is 10/21/15 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Not Managed Effectively. Secretary for Management
require NPPD Fleet Manager
to review and revise NPPD's
Fleet Manual and ensure it
outlines specific procedures
for: (1) FPS to monitor and
document fleet acquisition
and leasing decisions and
regularly report fleet
expenditures to NPPD; and
(2) NPPD's process for
verifying the completeness
and accuracy of motor
vehicle records.
OIG-16-02........................ The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is 10/21/15 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Not Managed Effectively. Secretary for Management
require DHS Office of the
Chief Readiness Support
Officer (CRSO) to develop
and administer a
standardized Vehicle
Allocation Methodology for
all components annually, as
required by Federal laws,
regulations, and Executive
Orders, including FMR B-30,
Vehicle Allocation
Methodology for Agency
Fleets. As part of this
recommendation, component
results should be reviewed
and approved by CRSO to
ensure DHS maintains an
optimal fleet.
OIG-16-02........................ The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is 10/21/15 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Not Managed Effectively. Secretary for Management, in
coordination with the DHS
Office of the Chief
Readiness Support Officer
(CRSO), provide additional
oversight and review
component vehicle
acquisitions, to identify
future potential savings of
about $2,519,077, that
include:
- all lease submissions
- mission need and
justifications for vehicle
types
- Home-to-Work use of
vehicles
- CRSO approval authority
prior to final submissions
OIG-16-02........................ The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is 10/21/15 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Not Managed Effectively. Secretary for Management
ensures FPS formally
documents and validates
fleet management decisions
regarding their planned
fiscal year 2016 lease
agreement.
OIG-16-02........................ The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is 10/21/15 We recommend that the Under Open............... Agreed.
Not Managed Effectively. Secretary for Management
requires FPS to review GSA
lease agreements for all
vehicles replaced from
fiscal year 2012 to present
and determine whether FPS
overpaid $35,031 for law
enforcement upgrades, and as
appropriate, request GSA
refund overpayments for all
law enforcement upgrades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks Mr. Roth.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Patterson for your statement.

STATEMENT OF L. ERIC PATTERSON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PROTECTIVE
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Patterson. Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Watson Coleman
and distinguished Members of the committee. My name is Eric
Patterson. I am the director of the Federal Protective Service.
I am honored to testify today regarding the management and
operations of the FPS vehicle fleet. FPS is charged with
protecting and delivering integrated law enforcement and
security services to more than 9,500 Federal facilities Nation-
wide and safeguarding more than 1.4 million daily occupants and
visitors. As the committee is undoubtedly aware, 2015 has been
a very operationally active year for our organization,
necessitating heavy use of our fleet. On October 28, 2014, in
response to continued calls for attacks on the homeland,
military, and law enforcement personnel and other Government
officials from ISIS and other terrorist organizations,
Secretary Johnson initiated Operation Blue Surge, directing the
Federal Protective Service to enhance its presence and security
at Federal facilities Nation-wide. FPS has sustained and
enhanced operational tempo ever since. Additionally, FPS
responded to other sensitive events and incidents throughout
the year, including civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, and
Baltimore, Maryland, and the trial of the Boston Marathon
bomber, shootings at military recruiting stations in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the active-shooter incidents in
Suitland, Maryland, and Lower Manhattan where two FPS contract
protective security officers lost their lives in the line of
duty.
The Federal Protective Service appreciates the recent work
of the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector
General in conducting a review of the administration of the FPS
vehicle fleet and for recommending additional steps we take to
manage our fleet more effectively. While at the conclusion of
the review, the IG did not issue any recommendations to FPS
directly or direct FPS to make changes to the total number of
or vehicle types in its inventory, the report did conclude that
FPS could and should improve its vehicle fleet management
program. Specifically, the report recommended that DHS and NPPD
work with FPS to review an existing vehicle lease agreement
with GSA, formally document and validate fleet management
decisions regarding an upcoming lease agreement, and ensure
compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and asset management
best practices. We take the recommendations of this report very
seriously and are working with DHS and NPPD fleet managers to
help develop policies to control associated fleet costs while
meeting our law enforcement mission requirements. In fact, new
procedural updates have already been developed to address the
recommendations identified in the recent OIG report and will
help to ensure robust oversight of the Department's vehicle
fleet going forward.
Specifically in response to the IG's recommendation, FPS
implemented a comprehensive fleet management directive on
August 27, 2015. The directive provides for an effective and
efficient fleet management program and establishes standard
methodology for fleet acquisition, leasing, and management
oversight. Additionally, FPS has finalized a methodology for
spare vehicle management to better document and validate that
the number and type of spare vehicles on hand at any given time
are appropriate given mission needs. FPS will continue to work
with NPPD to develop and implement a formal process to document
and validate fleet management decisions to ensure alignment
with NPPD and DHS values.
The Department is also modernizing its vehicle allocation
methodology, which will help to validate the efficient use of
vehicles Department-wide in order to better meet the essential
mission of protecting and securing our homeland in an ever-
evolving and complex threat environment. Further, the
Department is revising its motor vehicle fleet management
instruction in order to enhance Department-level oversight of
its motor vehicle program, for example, by requiring mandatory
reviews of all motor vehicle acquisitions.
Finally, in order to resolve the IG's concerns regarding
potential overpayments, FPS and GSA are working together to
ensure a common understanding of leasing arrangements and
billing processes so that future decisions provide the best
value to the American people. I am confident that our
collective efforts will result in improved documentation,
decision making, and management oversight of the FPS vehicle
fleet. In closing, I would like to acknowledge and thank the
distinguished Members of this committee for the opportunity to
testify today. The Federal Protective Service remains committed
to utilizing sound management practices in support of its
mission to provide safety, security, and a sense of well-being
to the thousands of visitors and Federal employees who work and
conduct business in our facilities every day.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of L. Eric Patterson
December 3, 2015
Thank you Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and the
distinguished Members of the committee. I am honored to testify today
regarding the management and operations of the Federal Protective
Service (FPS) vehicle fleet.
mission
FPS is charged with protecting and delivering integrated law
enforcement and security services to more than 9,500 Federal facilities
Nation-wide and safeguarding their more than 1.4 million daily
occupants and visitors.
fps authorities
In performing this mission, FPS relies on the law enforcement and
security authorities found in Title 40 United States Code 1315,
agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies for purposes
of protecting Federal property, Federal regulations pertinent to
conduct on Federal property, and our responsibility as the recognized
``first responder'' for all crimes and suspicious activity occurring on
GSA owned or leased property.
fps law enforcement personnel
FPS directly employs more than 1,000 officers, inspectors, and
special agents who are trained physical security experts and sworn
Federal law enforcement officers. FPS law enforcement personnel perform
a variety of critical functions, including conducting comprehensive
security assessments to identify vulnerabilities at facilities,
developing and implementing protective countermeasures, providing
uniformed police response and investigative follow-up to crimes and
threats, and other law enforcement activities in support of our
protection mission.
fps vehicle fleet operations
One of the most important tools our law enforcement officers have
in performing their duties is their law enforcement vehicle. In fact,
in 2015, FPS law enforcement officers drove over 9.5 million miles to
respond to over 80,000 incidents and events and provide protective
services to our tenant agencies. It should also be noted that FPS K-9
teams are routinely requested to assist State, local, and other
jurisdictions with sweeps for suspicious packages and potential
explosive devices.
FPS mission requirements, as well as our unwavering commitment to
officer safety, drive decisions regarding the number, type, assignment
location, and up-fitting of the vehicles in our fleet.
We are tasked with protecting Federal facilities in all 50 States
and U.S. Territories, including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa. Accordingly, FPS must
operate in environments ranging from the rural Mountain West, where an
officer might be required to travel alone for hours in exigent weather
and road conditions, to urban Philadelphia, where our officers
regularly utilize their vehicles to help redirect the flow of traffic
around active crime scenes or high-profile National Special Security
Events (NSSEs), such as the recent Papal visit.
In order for FPS to meet its mission requirements for the security
of 9,500 geographically-dispersed Federal facilities, FPS assigns 1
vehicle to each of its approximately 1,000 law enforcement officers to
facilitate timely and effective response to incidents or other
emergency situations, such as NSSEs and crimes at Federal facilities.
Each vehicle is appropriately equipped to assure officer and public
safety, and the capability to transport mission critical gear,
including a gun vault, rifles and other firearms, a first aid kit, and
a biochemical protective suit, for use in diverse and exigent
circumstances.
Additionally, because FPS law enforcement responds to emergencies
at all hours, and given that areas of responsibility are geographically
vast and duty stations of record are not necessarily centrally located,
the Secretary has also authorized home-to-work transportation authority
for FPS law enforcement officers. This authority helps ensure that FPS
law enforcement personnel are ready and properly equipped to respond to
emergency incidents during off-duty hours.
Finally, the number of spare vehicles is based on a variety of
factors, including on-boarding of new law enforcement officers,
geography, the need for special purpose vehicles such as K-9 units,
scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance and repairs, and
unscheduled replacements.
For example, 4 FPS law enforcement officers secure 50 Federal
facilities in the State of Hawaii. However, given challenges related to
vehicle maintenance, repair, and replacement on the Hawaiian islands,
FPS has assigned 5 vehicles to the State. As is the case with all law
enforcement agencies with first responder responsibilities, in the
event that a law enforcement vehicle breaks down and cannot be quickly
placed back into service, a spare vehicle is required to assure mission
readiness.
fps operations
As the committee is undoubtedly aware, 2015 has been a very
operationally active year for our organization, necessitating heavy use
of our fleet.
On October 28, 2014, in response to continued calls for attacks on
the homeland, military, and law enforcement personnel, and other
Government officials by ISIS and other terrorist organizations,
Secretary Johnson initiated Operation Blue Surge, directing the Federal
Protective Service to enhance its presence and security at Federal
facilities Nation-wide. FPS has sustained an enhanced operational tempo
since.
Additionally, FPS responded to other sensitive events and incidents
throughout the year, including the civil unrest in Ferguson, MO and
Baltimore, MD, the trial of ``Boston Marathon Bomber'' Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev, shootings at military recruiting stations in Chattanooga, TN,
and the active-shooter incidents in Suitland, MD and lower Manhattan,
where two FPS contract Protective Security Officers lost their lives in
the line of duty.
fps vehicle fleet management
Today, the FPS fleet consists of 1,180 vehicles, including 981 law
enforcement sport utility vehicles (SUVs), 82 specialized K-9 vehicles,
56 law enforcement sedans, and 29 administrative vehicles. Ninety-seven
percent of vehicles in the FPS fleet are leased through an agreement
with the General Services Administration (GSA). Prior to leasing, all
FPS fleet requirements must be validated by DHS and the National
Protection and Programs Directorate and the make and model selected
annually from the law enforcement vehicles available in the GSA Federal
Supply Schedule.
FPS pays GSA an average monthly base rate for vehicles, and the
overall monthly cost per vehicles is determined by the base rate, the
monthly mileage charge, and costs associated with law enforcement
equipment up-fit.
The FPS Administrative Services Division is responsible for
ensuring that FPS is equipped with the number and type of vehicles
necessary to meet the requirements of the FPS mission. Additionally,
this team ensures that the FPS fleet is managed in accordance with the
FPS Fleet Management Directive, the NPPD Motor Vehicle Fleet Program
Manual, the DHS Motor Vehicle Fleet Program Manual, and sound law
enforcement operations and asset management principles.
dhs oig findings
The Federal Protective Service appreciates the recent work of the
Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General in
conducting a review of the administration of the FPS vehicle fleet and
for recommending additional steps we can take to manage our fleet more
effectively.
While at the conclusion of the review, the IG did not issue any
recommendations to FPS directly or direct FPS to make changes to the
total number or type of vehicles in its inventory, the report did
conclude that FPS could, and should, improve its vehicle fleet
management program.
Specifically, the report recommended that DHS and NPPD work with
FPS to review an existing vehicle lease agreement with GSA, formally
document and validate fleet management decisions regarding an upcoming
lease agreement, and ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations,
and Executive Orders related to Federal asset management and asset
management best practices.
We take the recommendations seriously and are working with the DHS
and NPPD fleet managers to help develop policies to control associated
fleet costs while meeting mission requirements.
addressing oig findings
New procedural updates have already been developed to address the
recommendations identified in the recent OIG report and will help to
ensure the robust oversight of Department's vehicle fleet going
forward.
In response to the IG's recommendations, FPS implemented a
comprehensive fleet management directive on August 27, 2015. This
directive provides for an effective and efficient fleet management
program and has established standard methodology for fleet acquisition,
leasing, and management oversight.
In response to the IG's recommendation to eliminate SUVs in favor
of a sedan-based fleet, FPS conducted a cost analysis of the two
options. Because sedan up-fit costs are amortized over a 36-month lease
and an SUV up-fit is amortized over a 60-month lease, the analysis
showed a sedan would cost more than an SUV.
Additionally, FPS has finalized a methodology for spare vehicle
management to better document and validate that the number and type of
spare vehicles on hand at any given time are appropriate given mission
needs. FPS will continue to work with NPPD to develop and implement a
formal process to document and validate fleet management decisions to
ensure alignment with NPPD and DHS guidance. FPS is working to
incorporate capability requirements documentation for all vehicle fleet
assets by the end of this calendar year.
The Department is also modernizing its Vehicle Allocation
Methodology which will help validate efficient use of vehicles
Department-wide in order to better meet the essential mission of
protecting and securing our homeland in an ever-evolving and complex
threat environment. The DHS chief readiness support officer expects to
implement the results of this cooperative endeavor by early fiscal year
2017. In the interim, FPS will utilize recently-developed NPPD use and
retention methodology, which was approved on October 31, 2015, to
review and validate vehicle replacement acquisition orders.
Further, the Department is revising its Motor Vehicle Fleet
Management Instruction in order to enhance Department-level oversight
of its motor vehicle program--for example, by requiring mandatory
reviews of all motor vehicle acquisitions. The Department expects to
issue interim guidance regarding these changes this calendar year.
Finally, in order to substantiate the IG's concerns regarding
potential overpayments, FPS conducted a thorough review of our lease
agreements with GSA dating back to 2007. FPS and GSA are working
together to ensure a common understanding of leasing arrangements and
billing processes so that future decisions provide the best value to
the American people.
I am confident our collective efforts will result in improved
documentation, decision making, and management oversight, and we
anticipate submitting 4 of the 5 recommendations to the IG for closure
within the next 3 to 4 weeks.
commitment to securing federal facilities
In closing, I would like to acknowledge and thank the distinguished
Members of this committee for the opportunity to testify today. The
Federal Protective Service remains committed to utilizing sound
management practices in support of its mission to provide safety,
security, and a sense of well-being to the thousands of visitors and
Federal employees who work and conduct business in our facilities every
day.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have

Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Chaleki for his opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS CHALEKI, DEPUTY CHIEF READINESS SUPPORT
OFFICER, MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY

Mr. Chaleki. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
Watson Coleman, and Members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Tom Chaleki. I have been the deputy chief readiness
support officer for almost 4 years. Our office is responsible
for policy and oversight of all DHS real property, mission
support operations within the National Capital Region,
environment and sustainability, personal property, and mobile
assets, to include aviation and marine assets and the motor
vehicle fleet. I assumed control of the vehicle program almost
a year ago when we established the Office of Assets and
Logistics.
I take a Department-wide view of mission support and
oversight of the DHS vehicle fleet. For a law enforcement
agency like DHS, properly maintained and equipped vehicles
provided in sufficient numbers are the tools of the trade. DHS
has the second-largest Cabinet-level fleet, with over 56,000
vehicles at its peak in 2011. Only the Department of Defense
fleet is larger. From its peak, the fleet has been steadily
reduced every year to where it is today at 52,000. This 8
percent reduction is largely attributed to the development and
implementation of a Department-wide vehicle allocation
methodology, or VAM, in 2012. This helped established a vehicle
fleet baseline and started us on the process of rightsizing the
fleet.
Upon assuming overall responsibility of the fleet program,
it was clear to me we needed to strengthen our policies and
improve oversight of the DHS fleet program. To accomplish this,
we first needed a clear picture of how many and what types of
vehicle we have, how they were being used, and how they support
the DHS mission. This required us to focus on three things:
First, timely, reliable, transparent data; second, strengthened
policy guidance; and, finally, clear business processes for the
roles, responsibilities, and authorities of each level of the
Department are understood.
Regarding improved data collection, our office has
implemented a single, centralized system of record for the
Department's vehicle fleet to our Consolidated Asset Portfolio
and Sustainment Information System, or CAPSIS. This system,
which is essentially a data warehouse, consolidates information
directly from existing component information systems and
provides the fleet management team with important information,
such as vehicle inventory, cost, and utilization. Each
component is required to summit updated information monthly.
The Chief Readiness Support Office is responsible for
developing and distributing fleet policy to the components, who
have the delegated authority to administer their motor vehicle
fleet programs subject to the direction, oversight, and
policies issued by the Department. To clarify and strengthen
the DHS fleet manager's authority and ability to ensure
compliance with Departmental guidance, we substantially revised
both the DHS Fleet Instruction Manual and the Home-to-Work
Instruction Manual. Improvements include more frequent and more
accurate data collection; review and approval by our office of
all vehicle leases and purchases; and stronger justifications
for home-to-work authorizations. These revised instructions
form the foundation to improve and clarify the roles,
responsibilities, and authorities throughout the vehicle
program. In addition, we will carry out a new Vehicle
Allocation Methodology in 2017 which, when coupled with our
improved data collection, will allow us to further right-size
the DHS fleet and better control costs. We have also collected
a year of quarterly home-to-work data which enables the
Department to better implement, monitor, and improve the fair
and efficient use of home-to-work transportation throughout the
enterprise.
As we go forward with oversight for the DHS vehicle fleet,
there are two challenges to consider. First, each component has
a unique mission and, therefore, employs and operates their
respective fleets differently. A Border Patrol Agent monitoring
the Southwest Border uses his or her vehicle very differently
than an ICE agent performing an undercover operation or an FPS
agent responding to an incident at a Federal facility. I am
charged with the responsible oversight of the DHS vehicle fleet
at an enterprise level but must always be cognizant of the
mission needs at the component and unit level.
Second, we cannot allow ourselves to focus exclusively on
fleet reductions as an end in themselves. Our attention has to
be on right-sizing the fleet; that is, providing the minimum
number and appropriate type of vehicles needed to perform the
mission. This relies on first understanding and then meeting
component mission requirements.
With those challenges in mind, we continue to look forward
and improve the management of the DHS vehicle fleet in a number
of ways. For example, I see tremendous opportunity in our
vehicle telematics initiative on the Southwest Border where,
beginning this year, we will start automatically receiving
timely, accurate vehicle diagnostic information, fuel
consumption data, and utilization on over 17,000 vehicles. This
information will be sent every time one of our vehicles fuels
at one of our 68 upgraded fueling stations on the Southwest
Border. While it is clear we still have work to do, by working
together and identifying and collaborating on best practices, I
am confident we are headed in the right direction. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaleki follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Chaleki
December 3, 2015
Thank you Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and
Members of the committee for the opportunity to provide an update on
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) motor vehicle fleet program
and the progress we've made towards improving the management and
oversight of this important program.
I have been the deputy chief readiness support officer for almost 4
years and assumed control of the vehicle program almost a year ago when
we established the Office of Assets and Logistics. Prior to my time at
DHS headquarters, I served in various mission support roles with the
Coast Guard Headquarters, and recently-retired as a civil engineer in
the U.S. Air Force Reserve. Today, I will discuss the Department's
efforts to improve the management of our motor vehicle fleet, and
provide an overview of the DHS motor vehicle inventory and initiatives
to right-size the fleet. I will also address the progress to date in
improving our management and oversight of the motor vehicle program and
show how we are responding to the DHS Inspector General's findings and
recommendations from three separate reports related to the DHS vehicle
fleet. DHS concurred with each of the recommendations in these reports
and is actively working towards their resolution.
DHS was established as a cabinet-level agency over 13 years ago and
motor vehicles are an important tool in supporting the Department's
missions. Whether it's a Border Patrol agent protecting the Southwest
Border, an ICE agent conducting an investigation or an FPS agent
responding to an incident at a Federal facility, they each rely on a
properly-equipped motor vehicle to successfully carry out their
responsibilities. In 2005, DHS components were operating approximately
38,000 motor vehicles. As the DHS mission and related responsibilities
expanded, the motor vehicle fleet also experienced significant growth
of over 45 percent, peaking at just over 56,000 motor vehicles in 2011.
The chief readiness support officer is delegated the authority to
oversee and manage the DHS motor vehicle program. In 2012, GSA issued
guidance requiring Federal agencies to develop and implement a Vehicle
Allocation Methodology (VAM). The VAM is a tool used to help agencies
determine their optimal fleet size. The Office of the Chief Readiness
Support Officer (OCRSO) successfully completed its first VAM in 2012
which allowed the Department to establish an overall vehicle fleet
baseline. The Department then started the process of right-sizing the
motor vehicle fleet either through the elimination of unnecessary
vehicles or ensuring that new vehicle acquisitions were of the proper
type for the required mission.
The DHS motor vehicle fleet is the second-largest civilian motor
vehicle fleet in the Federal Government but has been reduced nearly 8
percent since the fleet inventory numbers peaked in 2011. The current
DHS fleet consists of Government-owned and leased vehicles. Of the
Department's vehicles, 84 percent are Government-owned and 16 percent
are leased. In addition to decreasing the number of motor vehicles by 8
percent, DHS has increased the percentage of alternative fueled
vehicles from 25 percent in 2010 to 39 percent in 2014.
DHS has a decentralized approach to fleet management. OCRSO
develops and distributes fleet policy through the ``DHS Motor Vehicle
Fleet Program Manual'' to components, who all have delegated authority
to administer their motor vehicle fleet programs subject to the
direction, oversight, and policies issued by the Department. OCRSO
issued motor vehicle program policy to components in 2011. To further
clarify and improve the DHS fleet manager's authority and ability to
ensure compliance with Departmental guidance, as well as meet a
recommendation of the inspector general, OCRSO recently rewrote both
the DHS Fleet Instruction and the Home-to-Work Instruction. These
instructions are currently in the Department's review and clearance
process. These revised documents help strengthen the Department's
oversight responsibilities and increase components' requirements to
collaborate and gain Departmental approval for all vehicle
acquisitions. Additionally, the draft instructions include requirements
that will ensure compliance with the latest Executive Orders, the most
recent being Executive Order 13693, ``Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade,'' issued in March 2015.
Since 2012, OCRSO has developed and fielded a Department-wide fleet
management data system to ensure visibility of each components motor
vehicle data. This data system consolidates component motor vehicle
inventory, cost, and usage data into a single database which is then
incorporated into the Consolidated Asset Portfolio and Sustainment
Information System (CAPSIS). Each component provides monthly data
updates. The availability of this data provides the DHS fleet
management team greater visibility into each component's fleet and
makes right-sizing more transparent. Further, the system also
facilitates collection of vehicle inventory, cost, and usage data.
This fiscal year the Department plans to implement policy that
requires mandatory OCRSO review of all component motor vehicle
acquisitions prior to order submission. Currently, OCRSO does review
and approve all component GSA lease submissions but does not have
visibility of component direct vehicle purchases. Additionally,
beginning in fiscal year 2017 OCRSO will develop and administer a
standardized Vehicle Allocation Methodology (VAM) for all components
annually.
Home-to-Work transportation is a flexible and powerful tool for
meeting mission requirements and enhancing the overall responsiveness
to emergency situations and is an area where the Department has acted
on the inspector general's recommendations--for example, in fiscal year
2015 OCRSO conducted a review of all component home-to-work
authorizations resulting in Secretary approval, CRSO established a
system that now collects quarterly component home-to-work data and the
Home-to-Work Manual was revised and strengthened. 31 U.S.C 1344
allows Government passenger carrier usage for transportation between
residence and place of employment for senior officials such as the
President, Vice President, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and other
officials designated by the President, which includes the Secretary of
Homeland Security. The statute also allows the heads of certain
agencies listed in 5 U.S.C. 5312, which includes the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to authorize Home-to-Work transportation for a
principal deputy. Home-to Work transportation may also be authorized by
the Secretary when transportation between the residence of an employee
and various locations is essential for the safe and efficient
performance of intelligence, counterintelligence, protective services,
or criminal law enforcement duties, and when it is required for the
performance of field work and which will substantially increase the
efficiency and economy of the Government, or when there exists a clear
and present danger, an emergency, or a compelling operational
consideration.
The under secretary for management directed all components to
conduct a thorough review of their home-to-work programs from a risk-
based methodology standpoint and following that analysis, submit a
request for Secretarial approval of their home-to-work requirements.
Each component submission was then subsequently reviewed by the DHS
home-to-work program manager, OCRSO and management senior staff, and
the Office of the General Counsel. The result is that each home-to-work
authorization was justified and approved for only 1 year instead of the
normal 2 years to allow the Department to analyze a full year of
vehicle data.
In addition to this enterprise-wide review and analysis of the
Department's use of home-to-work, OCRSO developed and fielded a
centralized home-to-work database that is now used to collect component
home-to-work data, which is submitted to OCRSO on a quarterly basis.
This requirement was implemented on October 1, 2014.
After thorough analysis of each component's home-to-work submission
and analysis of 1 year's worth of quarterly home-to-work data provided
by each component, the Department now has, for the first time, specific
knowledge of home-to-work use within DHS. This data enables DHS to
better implement, monitor, and improve the fair and efficient use of
home-to-work throughout the enterprise. For example, of our approximate
220,000 employees, a total of 17,118 individuals at DHS are authorized
to use home-to-work transportation. Component data indicates that on
average, only 88 percent of these authorized individuals are regularly
utilizing home-to-work transportation, indicating that components are
evaluating usage to ensure that home-to-work transportation is utilized
when it is essential to our mission.
Having recently visited the Brownfield Border Station on the
Southwest Border, our stations in the Northwest Region, and component
operations in the Boston area, I've learned that components execute a
diverse set of missions in an all threats-all hazards environment.
There isn't a single standard motor vehicle solution that fits every
component in every region. DHS will continue to be strategic about
reductions in the fleet size to ensure that we are not hampering our
ability to operate, but preserving safe and efficient use of these
vehicles in order to complete our mission. Our data is, and will
continue to be, a critical element for fleet decisions.
As a result, the Department's motor vehicle fleet size has steadily
decreased each year since its peak in 2011, and the Department will
continue to improve how components procure the right vehicle for the
right job based on mission requirements. Finally, the revised
instructions for both motor vehicles and home-to-work transportation
provide the framework for better oversight and compliance. While there
is still work to do, DHS has made significant progress in improving its
vehicle fleet management, and remains committed to sustaining this
momentum.
Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to appear before you.

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Chaleki.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
questioning for maybe as much time as I may consume. Our
subcommittee staff analyzed data on DHS's vehicle fleet by
component and found that FPS had far, far more vehicles to
officers than other components as well as more vehicles to
officers with authorization to commute from home to work in
fiscal year 2014. In particular, we found that FPS provided
more than twice, more than twice, as many vehicles per officer
than the Border Patrol, who is charged with securing over 6,000
miles of border. Even more telling is the number of vehicles
for every officer provided with home-to-work privileges, where
FPS provided 1\1/2\ vehicles per officer or 3 vehicles for
every 2 officers with home-to-work privileges compared with
Border Patrol's 12 vehicles for every officer; 12 for every
officer compared to 1\1/2\ to every officer.
Mr. Patterson, quite honestly, I understand that maybe this
is how it was when you showed up and you are working your way
through it. But I find it hard to believe that you can justify
having twice as many vehicles for every officer than U.S.
Border Patrol, that has a ratio of 12 vehicles for every
officer with home-to-work privileges. How does FPS' mission
literally require more vehicles than Border Patrol's mission?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. First of all, I have about 1,000
law enforcement officers, a little over 1,000 law enforcement
offices in all 50 States as well as U.S. territories. The total
landscape of Federal facilities that we have to protect is
vast. I have some of my officers who have to transit places
like the Midwest that take 3 to 6 hours one way to go conduct
business at the facilities that they are responsible for.
According to the IG, we are about 2 vehicles, well, 100
vehicles over the--excess vehicles, as has been stated. That is
about 2 vehicles per State, 2 excess vehicles per State, given
the vast mission that my folks have in serving those 9,000
facilities. We travel; we do a lot of traveling between
facilities, trying to get the work done of ensuring the
oversight of our protective security officers in those
facilities, conducting training, active-shooter training in
those facilities, doing physical security assessments in those
facilities. So our folks are on the road a lot getting that
work done.
So vehicles break down. We must have vehicles as a back-up
if, in fact, these particular vehicles break down. They do
break down. I have a pipeline of about 150 folks waiting to go
to FLETC, that when they arrive at their home station, we have
to provide them with a vehicle. I think, given that dynamic,
100 vehicles, excess vehicles, is not excessive.
Mr. Perry. So let's just talk through this a little bit
because I think it is appropriate, I understand you have very
mission-specific requirements. We all get that. In my opening
statement, I outlined the vast number of buildings and
properties that you must deal with and how vital, and I used
the work ``vital,'' your mission is. I mean that sincerely.
That having been said, are we to believe somehow that
people that work in the District of Columbia should have the
same requirements as the person that might be driving 3 hours
one way in, I don't know, pick any State in the Midwest where
what you just kind of laid out anecdotally for us might be
true, should it be the same standard that that person gets--
because of position, regardless of mission--sir, you are a
senior executive, and you have served as a senior executive in
the military. So we are counting on you to make decisions that
might not necessarily be proper but would be appropriate for
mission completion and in keeping with what we think is
appropriate for taxpayer expenditure. I find no way to justify
what you have laid out for me, quite honestly.
Mr. Patterson. So here is the challenge, sir. Let's talk
about the Washington, DC, area. I have 640 facilities that we
service in the D.C. area. During a day shift, a regular day
shift, there are about 70 law enforcement folks who are on
duty. In the afternoon, that drops to about 12. At night, that
drops to five. All right. So let me take the example of the
shooting and death of our protective security officer at night,
in the evening, at the Federal, at the Suitland Federal
facility in Suitland, Maryland, at the beginning of this year.
I think it was January or February of this year. When that
happened, I couldn't call on just those 5. I had to call out
every available inspector--law enforcement person that we had
to respond to that incident, along with the Prince George's
County Police Department because that is our responsibility. So
folks had to be ready to do that. They were. We responded
appropriately. Not only did my folks have to respond, but my
deputy director for operations had to respond.
Mr. Perry. So, listen, I get that. I understand that
completely. I appreciate your diligence and those individuals'
sacrifices, which should be highlighted.
That having been said, you as a military commander also
know that you have steady-state operations where everybody goes
about their business as appropriate day in and day out. But
when there is an event and you must surge, people are going to
have to be asked to go above and beyond. But that is not the
norm. But on those occasions and in those times, you do what
must be done.
But that is an acute issue at an acute time. You can't tell
me, maybe you can, but have you looked at the cost of surging
your force at that time, as opposed to providing the access to
the vehicles and use of the vehicles continuously, every single
year in the case, in the happenstance that in one State at one
moment for 1 day, there might be an incident, you know, in
light of the fact that 49 percent of your vehicles have fewer
than 12,000 miles on them?
Then keeping with the other line of questioning or at least
your testimony, when you say vehicles break down, God, don't I
know it. My car is going to have 300,000 on it by the time I
get rid of it. All right. They break down. Have you looked at
the cost--have you looked at how often the incidents of
breakdowns has caused you not to complete your mission, and has
that been formulated into your calculation about how many
vehicles you should have and how they should be utilized?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. We look at that continually. That
is all a part of how we allocate vehicles. We have a formula
that we use. We look at days in use, the annual downtime.
Mr. Perry. What is your mission readiness rate?
Mr. Patterson. I would have to get with our folks to give
you that.
Mr. Perry. You look at it all the time, sir. You came here.
You knew I was going to ask you that question. You are a
military guy.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. Army lives on its belly. So does the Air Force.
Right? You got to have stuff to do your work.
Mr. Patterson. Right.
Mr. Perry. You would come here without knowing your
operational readiness rate, knowing I am going to ask you
because you are going to say we need these because things break
down, understanding that 49 percent, half of your fleet, has
less than 12,000 miles on it. This is a new vehicle to most of
America. You are coming in and telling me that you calculated
in you need 100 or whatever more vehicles per, plus what you
have for each individual, you don't have an answer for me, sir?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. I am
sorry, it is--you can't come here and make your case without
that. I suspect if you came with that information, my case
would be made.
Mr. Roth, do you have anything to say?
Mr. Roth. Simply that during the course of our audits, we
did not see the kind of data collection we had hoped to see. As
we noted, there was a 98 percent error rate in the kinds of
mileage when you compared the GSA drive-through data with FPS'
own data. So to be able to say that there was an understanding
of exactly what the vehicle fleet looked like, how often it was
used, I think is not entirely accurate.
Mr. Perry. Listen, I am way over time here, and I want to
give my colleagues a chance. But I do want to get to some
things here.
Mr. Chaleki, you mentioned your increased operational
tempo, and then you mentioned some changes that you are looking
at to the vehicle fleet management system and how you are going
to do things. Do those proposed changes include a view of the
use of personal--the personal use of vehicles--those structural
changes? I have got to ask you, sir, you have served as well. I
am assuming you guys have lived in the real world. I drive my
car to work. My wife drives her car to work. We, most people,
they take transportation. They handle their transportation
themselves. They don't get a vehicle provided to them that then
people have to call us and say, ``Hey, I saw this vehicle with
GSA plates''--and you guys, you two both know this well because
you have served, and I have dealt with the same thing at your
level--``they are the cleaners, they are at the grocery store,
why are my taxpayer dollars paying for these guys and gals to
drive all over God's creation, why don't they use their own
car?''
So I am asking you, does the personal use of vehicles, is
that included in your calculation moving forward on how you are
going to manage your fleet?
Mr. Chaleki. Chairman, on the home-to-work program, we
don't allow for the personal use of vehicles. The vehicle is
home to work. We don't buy designated home-to-work vehicles. We
buy vehicles. Home-to-work enables them to do their response
mission. We have stringent rules about who gets home-to-work.
We have a stringent process that we went through this year----
Mr. Perry. Sir, how stringent can it be when every officer
has a vehicle?
Mr. Chaleki. Sir, we rely on the components because they
manage their own risks. So because they have the operational
requirements, the mission requirements, we look at those
requirements. We bump them up against our standards. But,
again, they ask for these vehicles----
Mr. Perry. The American public, the taxpayer, is relying on
you as senior-level executive to look at those risks and make
sure they are managed correctly. When you think that we have
got to patrol the border, who has got 12 to 1, you got guys and
gals down-range fighting the enemy who can't get a vehicle--
they just can't get one--you have been there. They can't get
one. You are hoofing it. You are telling me, we are counting on
you, and you are saying, ``Well, they told us that is what we
needed,'' so we accepted it. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Chaleki. No, sir. They put in the request based upon
their mission. This year, we insisted that each component had
sign-off that these are the vehicles that they need.
Mr. Perry. What happens when they sign off and you find out
it isn't what they need? What happens to them?
Mr. Chaleki. Well, we go through the process, we look at:
What do you need the vehicle for? Where is the operational
environment? What is the requirement that you are requesting
this vehicle? How is it used?
Mr. Perry. You are satisfied with all the answers?
Mr. Chaleki. We did reduce the home-to-work by over 500
vehicles this past year.
Mr. Perry. Well, sir, at this point, that is not, I don't
think that anybody in the public is going to think that is
enough, with all due respect. Right. We are counting on you. We
are counting on you. This is your purview. It is your
responsibility. Have you looked at, in your calculation, paying
the Federal rate for people that work in the District of
Columbia to drive to work as opposed to having the vehicle on
taxpayer dime, 50 percent of the fleet of which has less than
12,000 miles, essentially a new vehicle? Have you looked at
that as part of your determination, as part of your study, as
part of your improvement plan moving forward?
Mr. Chaleki. No, Chairman.
Mr. Perry. Are you going to?
Mr. Chaleki. Yes.
Mr. Perry. I will tell you this--and I am going to yield to
the gentlelady--we are counting--you are individuals with high
experience, right, and high responsibility. We are counting on
you to do the right thing even if you don't have to do the
right thing. We are counting on you. If you want Congress to
get involved in your business, just keep doing what you are
doing, and we will because we will have to since, apparently,
you won't. That is kind of where we are.
With that, I yield to the gentlelady from New Jersey.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your generosity in taking the time to ask
these questions and going over our 5-minute limit.
But I would like to yield at this moment to my colleague,
Mrs. Torres.
Mr. Perry. So ordered.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Mr. Roth, can you please describe the process you completed
in investigating FPS vehicle mileage where you identified
significant instances of inaccurate or incomplete total miles
driven? How is it possible for a vehicle to register negative
mileage? What steps can FPS take to better monitor or oversee
the mileage tracking process?
Mr. Roth. Thank you for that question. One of the things
that we did was looked at two different data sets for the
number of miles each individual car would drive. One is called
the GSA, General Services Administration, drive-through. Every
time a Federal vehicle comes up to the gas pump, they are
required to key in the mileage of that vehicle. That is
automatically transmitted to GSA. So we were able to access
that information.
There is a second data set for FPS in which each officer
would have to record their mileage, including their home-to-
work mileage and the sort of mission mileage. We compared those
two. What we found out as a result of that comparison was that
there was a 98 percent error rate between what FPS thought
their mileage was and what GSA thought their mileage was.
With regard to the negative mileage, I am as stumped as you
would be with regard to that. My assumption is that something
got keyed in incorrectly at the gas pump for the GSA drive-
through data. But what it shows is that should have been a red
flag, that somebody who was managing the vehicle fleet should
have taken a look at that and said: You know, we need better
data collection. We need a better understanding of what it is
exactly our vehicle fleet is doing.
That didn't occur in this case, which was somewhat
troublesome.
Mrs. Torres. On the issue of sedans, are they sufficiently-
sized vehicles to house the necessary FPS officer equipment,
particularly in the trunk space? Do you believe that it would--
that an officer would have difficulty reaching for, say, a mask
or storing mobile field force equipment, or whatever other type
of equipment that that officer may need to do their job?
Mr. Roth. Well, certainly that was the justification that
FPS gave us during the course of the audit when we asked why
you needed 97 percent of your fleet to be SUV. They said they
had equipment, and it was required to have an SUV to do so. One
of the things our auditors did was they did a representative
sample to see whether or not the officers, in fact, had all
their equipment. They did not. In fact, we have a chart within
our audit that shows exactly how much equipment was missing.
Some of that equipment was never even issued. So the idea that
all this equipment was necessary was not belied by the facts
that we saw. So that was the first issue.
But the second issue is then our auditors actually did a
real-world test and were able to put all the equipment into an
averaged-sized sedan. Now, there are instances, of course, K-
9s, for example, and other types of operations that would
require an SUV. But one of the things I would do, frankly, is
walk outside the doors here and look at the Capitol Police. The
Capitol Police have a very similar mission to this in a very
similar threat environment as to this. What you see from the
Capitol Police are tons of sedans. They do not rely exclusively
on SUVs. So I would say that the proffered reason for the large
cars simply was not justified by the facts.
Mrs. Torres. So where are the areas where we could achieve
some real savings, whether it is mileage, types of vehicles?
Certainly equipment that hasn't been issued to an officer
sounds like a very dangerous place for us to be.
Mr. Roth. I think the Department itself has taken great
strides since we have issued--this is our third audit report
with regard to the DHS auto fleet. The Department has done a
lot of work to try to gain some oversight. But at the end of
the day, it requires each component head to act in good faith
and be stewards of taxpayer dollars and make sure that, in
fact, they have the minimum-sized fleet necessary for them to
accomplish their mission. I have some doubts whether that is
occurring throughout DHS. That is one of the things that we are
certainly going to be looking at as we move forward.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
I yield back to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from California.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate all you being here.
Mr. Roth, you are quite busy. We see you a good bit.
Mr. Patterson, the Office of Inspector General reported
that FPS provides a vehicle to every law enforcement officer in
FPS so they can respond to after-hours incidents. First
question, are specific officers assigned to respond after-
hours? Or is this something that is expected of all officers at
any time?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. It is expected of all officers at
any time. Each officer is assigned a portfolio of Federal
facilities. Okay. So when there is a problem at one of those
Federal facilities, they are the first to be notified that
there is a problem at that facility, and they need to respond
as they feel necessary to that event.
Mr. Loudermilk. Can you give me an example of a couple of
Federal facilities? Would it maybe be a Federal courthouse?
Mr. Patterson. Oh, yes, sir. We have got Federal
courthouses across the country, Social Security facilities, IRS
facilities, any number of facilities.
Mr. Loudermilk. So every officer that works there will have
a vehicle, even if they are just manning the front entrances?
The Federal courthouse that one of my colleagues has a
Congressional office in, there may be three officers up front
that are there manning the entrance that you go through the
metal detector. Each one of these would have a vehicle?
Mr. Patterson. Let me explain that. The folks that you see
at the Federal courthouse are--inside the courthouse--are court
security officers. They work for the U.S. Marshal Service. We
don't have, our officers, our law enforcement folks don't stand
post at any of these. They don't stand post anywhere. Okay. Our
job is to oversight those folks that do stand post. Okay. So
what we do is we hire a number of folks through contract
agencies that provide security services at IRS, Social
Security, and other facilities across the Nation.
So our job is to ensure that, No. 1, those folks are doing
what they need to do. Second, we have a responsibility to every
facility that we protect to ensure that we mitigate the threat
at those facilities. So we do a security assessment at each one
of those facilities. It is on a time line when we have to do
it. So every one of our inspectors has to go out and do that.
We also have a requirement to do what we call post inspections.
So every facility that has a guard, a protective security
officer--and they may have a physical checkpoint, you know,
where you have to go through the magnetometer--well, we have a
responsibility to ensure that, No. 1, they are doing their job
and that the equipment there is working appropriate. So our
folks are on the go quite a bit. That is what they are doing.
They are moving from one facility to another to ensure that
what is operating is operating effectively.
Mr. Loudermilk. So I envision that 1 officer may have 3 or
4 facilities in his portfolio?
Mr. Patterson. I have some officers that have as many as 20
or 30 facilities in their portfolio.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you have facilities that have more than
1 officer assigned to it?
Mr. Patterson. No, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. On average, how often do you get calls for
off-duty incidents?
Mr. Patterson. Every day, every night, every night, an
alarm goes off somewhere in the Nation at a facility. Every
night there is some vagrant who is trying to do something at
one of our Federal facilities. We get calls all the time. I
can't predict where we are going to get calls. To give you an
example, when the incident happened in Baltimore and there was
a riot, we responded to that because the Federal facilities
were at risk. Our folks out of Philadelphia could not get down
in a timely manner. So we pulled folks out of Washington, DC,
which would normally have been directed here to go up there. So
we got them out of bed, go up there and help with the
protection of those facilities there. So at any given time, we
may find ourselves anywhere. Just as when the Secretary said
that he started Operation Blue Surge right after the incident
in Canada, that he wanted to ensure that there was a higher
profile around certain Federal facilities in the Nation. We
pulled folks from all over the country to do that. Many of
those folks drove to those facilities. They didn't fly. They
drove.
Mr. Loudermilk. Are these vehicles fully emergency
vehicles, lights, sirens?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. That is another thing. We have to
ensure that these vehicles meet the standards across 50 States
because we never know where these vehicles are going to be. So
what we do is we ensure that they meet the National standards
for lights and equipment. But the most important thing, as far
as I am concerned, every day is officer safety. Officer safety
is paramount. So we have to make sure that they have the right
equipment and whatever it is that they need in those vehicles
to ensure that they get there safely, are able to do their job,
and return home.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you.
Mr. Roth, do you concur with your investigation with the
answer to the question?
Mr. Roth. The issue we had was with region 11, which is the
National Capital Region. They operate a 24/7 sort-of shift.
They have three shifts of officers, unlike, you know, a typical
Federal response facility. So one of the things I would say is
for region 11 we had real concerns because their policies
within region 11 said you were not going to be called out after
hours. Yet, they were issued home-to-work. We asked about that
justification. The answer we got is: Well, we need to change
the policy with regard to region 11 to ensure that would be the
case.
The second thing I would say with regard to the travel,
again, all we can go on is the data. The data says that 47
percent, I think 49 percent of all the FPS vehicles have fewer
than 12,000 miles a year. So I have no doubt that, in fact,
there are many officers who are on the road constantly and
putting miles on their cars, but there are a significant number
of cars that do not. In fact, we had 234 cars that had fewer
than 5,000 miles per year on the car. So we can only go by the
data. The data shows they are vastly underused. As I indicated
before, there are about 250 more cars than there are actual
officers on duty.
Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Chairman, I know I have exceeded my
time, but if I could be extended or if someone else, I would
like to hear Mr. Patterson respond to the issue that was
brought up by Mr. Roth is region 11 having a policy of not
responding after hours, if that is appropriate.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. There is no policy that region 11
will not respond. There was a standard operating procedure that
was in--we have a dispatch facility in Suitland, Maryland.
Someone had issued to that dispatch facility that we have 5
folks who are on duty after hours versus the 60 who are on duty
during the day. What they were trying to achieve there was that
if you are going to call someone out for a response in the
metropolitan area, please try to call one of those first before
you--now, we have done away with that policy. You will call--
whoever is responsible for that facility, they will be called.
But that was what that was about. It wasn't ``don't call
anybody.'' It was that if you are going to call someone, try to
call one of those 5 first before you call others.
[Further clarification follows:]
Letter Submitted by L. Eric Patterson
January 14, 2016.
The Honorable Scott Perry,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 20515.
Dear Chairman Perry: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
December 3, 2015, on the management and operations of the Federal
Protective Service (FPS) Fleet Program. I want you to know that we are
actively working on the Questions for the Record from the hearing. In
the interim I want to provide you with further information on the FPS
Fleet Program and ensure there is no misunderstanding of my testimony.
Overall, the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)
and FPS have made progress in addressing the recommendations issued in
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General Final
Report (OIG-16-02), The FPS Vehicle Fleet Is Not Managed Effectively. I
am committed to maintaining a vehicle fleet that allows FPS to gain
efficiencies while ensuring mission readiness. While I believe the
existing vehicle fleet supports the FPS mission, we are currently
conducting a more in-depth review to determine the optimal mix of
vehicles within large metropolitan areas and are considering the
inspector general's recent recommendations as part of this analysis.
Regarding vehicle orders, I stated in my testimony that 16 SUVs and
33 sedans were delivered in 2015. To clarify, these vehicles, delivered
in 2015, were part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 order in which FPS
turned in 75 vehicles and requested 16 SUVs and 33 sedans. The FY 2015
vehicle order pending at the time of the hearing was for 122 SUVs, 59
sedans, and 1 van. This order is on hold in order to further review and
document the vehicle selection criteria against the mission need.
Future fleet orders will use these findings as the basis for the fleet
order instead of a like-for-like replacement strategy.
I would also like to provide additional information with regard to
my testimony that FPS is in compliance with the Vehicle Allocation
Methodology (VAM). I stated that ``we are now completely in line with''
[the VAM]. My intention in so stating was to say that FPS has complied
with the FY 2012 VAM survey, as required by DHS policy. The DHS IG has
stated that DHS should make improvements to the VAM policy and ensure
it meets the full scope of requirements of General Services
Administration (GSA) Bulletin B-30. We are actively participating in
the effort to update the DHS VAM policy, and all Departmental fleet
policies, and ensure we continue to meet all requirements. As recently
as January 12, 2016, my team met with NPPD, DHS Management Directorate,
and the DHS Inspector General teams to discuss specific shortfalls and
identified the need to work with GSA to refine the guidance and
requirements that they are using to train agencies on VAM.
In 2015, NPPD conducted an annual fleet utilization and retention
analysis. The 2015 analysis identified 217 FPS vehicles that did not
meet utilization (i.e. GSA mileage) standards and these vehicles are
undergoing further review against the mission requirements to determine
vehicle disposition.
I am confident that our collective efforts will result in improved
documentation, decision making, and management oversight of the FPS
Fleet Program. I am committed to working with you in support of the FPS
mission to provide safety, security, and a sense of well-being to the
millions of visitors and Federal employees who work and conduct
business on our facilities on a daily basis.
Sincerely,
L. Eric Patterson,
Director.

Mr. Loudermilk. I thank both the gentlemen.
I yield back the time I have already exceeded.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Roth, how long did your investigation take place?
Mr. Roth. I would have to get at the exact audit period,
but what we looked at was fiscal year 2014.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. How many people were on that
investigation? How many people actually work for you?
Mr. Roth. How many people work for me?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes.
Mr. Roth. About 650, including law enforcement agents, as
well as auditors.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So how many people were on this
investigation?
Mr. Roth. Let me look real quick. It is actually in the
report.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. While you are doing that, Mr.
Patterson, this whole question of sort of--let me know when
you----
Mr. Roth. I have it. It is about 6 people and then, of
course, supervisors.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Patterson, this
issue of utilization of the vehicles with less than 12,000
miles, 2 questions I think. No. 1 is, does it impede your
response time if a person has to go to a facility to pick up a
car to then go respond to a place that is an active area?
Mr. Patterson. It absolutely does. Let me give you an
example.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. The other question is, from a policy
perspective, if you have this sort of vast differential in the
utilization miles, should you be thinking of a rotation policy
where you rotate some of those cars with the lowest mileage out
for some of the ones with the highest mileage and bring the
other ones--do you know what I mean?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. To answer your first question,
would it be a challenge for our folks if they had to park their
vehicles, then be called out to respond, go back to the office,
pick up the vehicles, and then go to the facility? Yes, it
would.
Just to give you an example, when the shooting happened up
at the Suitland Federal center in January or February, our
folks were called out. My deputy director for operations was
called out. He has, he has a home-to-work vehicle as well
because I expect him to be out there when there is an issue in
the city that must be taken care of. I have a home-to-work
vehicle, but I don't use it. All right. However, on that night,
my deputy called me out. He said: You probably need to come out
here because we just had one of our officers killed.
Okay. I came out in my private vehicle, and it took me 30
minutes just to try to get through the county roadblocks
because they were wondering, ``Well, okay, who are you, why are
you here?'' because I did not have an official vehicle. Now, I
finally got through, but it took time. All right. When we are
responding to an emergency, time is of the essence.
So to answer your first question, I believe that, yes, it
would be a considerable challenge if, in fact, our folks had to
go back to work and pick up a car and then try to get to
wherever it is they have to go.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So there has been this discussion
about 250 excess or surplus vehicles which were characterized
as being excessive.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Beyond your need. First of all, was
there a point in time when there were 250 vehicles that could
be characterized of this nature? No. 2, did it have anything to
do with your staffing at that time?
Mr. Patterson. Well, you know, on any given day, that
number is going to change. We have folks who come into, that we
assess into the organization. We have folks. We have vehicles.
People retire. So that number, I don't know of any time that
that number has been up to 250, but it may have been. I can't
say for sure. All right. We do have excess vehicles. I will
grant you that. We have them for a particular reason because
our vehicles do break down. I have an expectation that our
folks will be able to respond and get to work and do the things
that they need to do that the American people, I believe,
expect of them.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Chaleki, do you have any input in the validity of the
request for the additional vehicles? So do you--is there some
sort of methodology that is employed to determine how many
vehicles you need to have in ready that may not be used?
Mr. Chaleki. When we do the vehicle allocation methodology
that we did in 2012, it asks all those questions. Really what
the VAM is, is a Department-wide survey. So it would ask, in
this case, FPS to explain the vehicle use, how you use it, what
is your response, what is the remoteness of the location?--
Those kinds of questions, which would help drive the actual
number of vehicles.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So it seems to me that there is a
methodology that is used to make a number of decisions
regarding vehicles, who gets them, what type of vehicle, where
they are located, et cetera.
But there was serious questions with regard to Mr. Roth's
findings with regard to your ability to justify their findings
of certain omissions or flawed information or whatever. What
have you done that responds to the--particularly the 5
recommendations that were made that I thought had more to do
with accountability than whether or not you should have a
sedan--I want to ask you about that question, a sedan versus an
SUV--but all the other issues regarding vehicle use, underuse,
misuse, whatever?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. I will begin the answer.
Clearly, we probably, we didn't do a good job in that we have a
completely--we had a completely manual process, first of all.
We didn't have the--we just completed a fleet management
directive. All right. We are now completely in line with the
vehicle allocation methodology.* All right. We are also going
towards the telematics program, which really it takes all the
guesswork out of this. It means that any time an inspector or
one of our law enforcement individuals moves that vehicle, it
is being tracked. Okay. So there is not going to be a question
as to when and where and how; we are going to know
specifically. So this will help to help us better understand
what the overall utilization is in that vehicle and how they
are being used and, quite frankly, will help me make better
decisions in how we deploy those vehicles and employ these
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See previous insert, letter dated January 14, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do you have a justification for
choosing or desiring or needing a sedan versus an SUV or an SUV
versus a sedan?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. You know, 80 percent of the SUVs
that are currently in the fleet of the Federal Protective
Service were bought in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
That means they were ordered a year before that, all right,
So, during part of that time, we were under the management
of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service. So what we
bought was whatever that was offered to us, all right? It was
either sedans, at that time, or SUVs. At that time, we believed
that SUVs were the best choice because SUVs gave us a 6-year
life. So that meant that we could upfit the vehicle. We would
buy the vehicle. For 6 years, we would have that vehicle and
not have to turn it in and not have to replace it.
GSA's requirement for replacing sedans is on a 3-year
cycle. So that means, every 3 years, we would have to replace
that vehicle and upfit that vehicle. We actually believe that
there is a savings associated with these vehicles over time.
Now, it is my understanding that GSA is going to a 5-year
life cycle for SUVs, so that has changed.
But just to give you an example, this year, we ordered SUVs
and S sedans. For 2015, 16 SUVs were delivered; 33 sedans were
delivered. So we are going through this process. We are looking
and evaluating, okay? But we came out of a system before that,
really, we bought what we were offered. GSA says: This is the
package. At that time, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
says: Okay, this is what you can buy. This is what we did. So--
--
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So my last question has to do with the
fact that you were overpaying for equipment----
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Watson Coleman [continuing]. That you had already paid
for.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. My question is, have you established a
mechanism to make sure that that doesn't happen?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. We have.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. What is it?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, ma'am. What it is, is that we were
still paying the lease fees on the upfitting equipment for
vehicles that were purchased in 2007. Okay? It was an
accounting--we just missed it. We just missed it, and it was
pointed out to us. We have corrected those accounting processes
to ensure--and working with GSA because GSA recognized
immediately that they had been overcharging us. So we are
working that out now.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, Mr. Roth, do you believe that the
FPS is moving in the right direction considering your findings?
Mr. Roth. We have an audit resolution process. We are
certainly going to be taking a look at some of the assertions
that we have heard since the audit has come out. I will have to
say that I was a bit disappointed to learn in preparation for
this hearing about the episode that happened this summer in
which we gave the findings to FPS and the Department, saying
that there was an excess vehicle fleet. So they had a
significant number of vehicles that had, you know, fewer than
5,000 miles. Notwithstanding that, they refreshed 16 percent of
their fleet. That happened in August. So perhaps since that
time, there has been some change. But, you know, as a
professional auditor, we will remain skeptical.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Clawson.
Mr. Clawson. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Roth, we see a lot of you. Thanks for what you do.
So if I understand correctly, you all get your fees by
charging 74 cents per rentable square foot, right? Am I right
about that?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clawson. You all are doing a good job managing, so that
fee is going down on a year-to-year basis, correct?
Mr. Patterson. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Clawson. I am assuming 2 or 3 years ago, that would
have been 78 cents going to see--I mean, you are managers. You
are all over your business. You are all over your cars. So your
customer costs would be going down; 74 cents is probably less
than it was a few years ago. That is how we all run our
businesses.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. Effective management would drive
our costs down. However, we are increasing in personnel for the
increased number of threats that are across the country. So our
personnel numbers have gone up as a result of that.
Mr. Clawson. But your square foot would go up as your
customer base goes up. This is a variable----
Mr. Patterson. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Clawson. Your price is a variable price.
Mr. Patterson. Well, we are tied to GSA lease. Yes.
Mr. Clawson. What is that?
Mr. Patterson. We are tied to GSA lease square footage.
Mr. Clawson. Right. So, as that goes up, you get more
money.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. But when that goes up, that means
we have more accountability to whoever the customer is.
Mr. Clawson. Right. But your costs per square foot
shouldn't be going up. It should be going down.
Mr. Patterson. No. It can't go down if we are bringing on
more folks in order to accomplish the mission.
Mr. Clawson. The variable expenses should match the
variable costs.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir. But how----
Mr. Clawson. Your fixed costs should stay the same.
Mr. Patterson. Well, yeah. But----
Mr. Clawson. Mr. Roth, am I missing something there? I
mean, I have been running businesses my whole life. I have
never seen where we didn't get mileage on fixed cost extension
by adding customer square footage.
Am I wrong? Am I missing something here?
Mr. Roth. Not that I am aware of, Congressman.
Mr. Clawson. Okay. So, given that, if your costs are not
coming down, particularly as your square footage goes up--
because you are not going to have fixed expenses at the home
office, please.
Mr. Patterson. Yeah. I don't know. I would have to talk----
Mr. Clawson. Let me finish my point.
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clawson. In that environment, you are going to get hit
by things like cars. You just do. That is life.
I go down to one of my factories, and it is not performing,
and they have got extra cars sitting around, that is a symbol.
If this number was going down every year, like the median
income for my constituents goes down every year, then the cars
don't bother me as much because you are making headway on your
other costs.
Your variable costs should be going down as your rentable
square foot goes up because you are getting billed--you are
getting added revenue. Now, that is the world we live in.
So when I looked at this, I said to myself: Well, they have
got too many cars. They are refreshing their fleet. They must
be making it up somewhere else because certainly they wouldn't
be coming to me saying: Our costs are going up to the
taxpayers, and we want more cars.
There is no world that I have lived in where you get away
with that.
So I don't know the ins and outs of how you are doing on
the vehicles. But if that 74 cents was going down to 72 cents
and 71 cents because you are making headway on your cost
structure on a variable basis, Mr. Patterson, then what is
going on with the vehicles seems a lot less sensitive.
Mr. Roth, is anything about my math incorrect? Because if
it is, tell me. I don't want to get on a limb if my math is
wrong.
Mr. Roth. I don't believe it is, sir.
Mr. Clawson. Fixed cost leverage means something as your
business grows.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Patterson, I just want to revisit the home-to-work
transportation in region 11.
It seems hard to justify the 1.2 million in self-reported
home-to-work miles driven in fiscal year 2014 by 142 officers
as essential for carrying out its mission.
FPS region 11 has rotational shifts for on-duty officers 24
hours a day as protocol states that off-duty officers in this
region should not--it doesn't say ``will not'' but it says
``should not''--be dispatched to after-hour incidents.
I understand you had one. They couldn't get here from
Philly--this is your testimony--so you pulled them out of
Washington, which is presumably region 11, correct?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. But that is one incident. That is one incident.
That is not every single day. So it is hard to justify 1.2
million self-reported miles.
Hopefully, they are correct. But that is an awful lot of
miles.
It says: Nearly 57 percent of the fleet's overall miles
driven are home-to-work and cost region 11 an average of about
$300,000 per year.
Almost 60 per percent of your miles are driven getting to
work, not doing--that is how people see this. I don't know how
else to say that. I just don't know how else to say that. That
is how I see it. That is how people see it.
Now, I understand it is inefficient when you are trying to
get to the site, as an official, and you have got to be stopped
by the police and so on and so forth. I truly get that. But you
are in charge of this operation, right? So, to me, you know, we
have been through this--especially you guys, as military guys.
You are managers. So if it is not working the way it is now, to
do the mission and complete the mission and save the taxpayers
the money or at least charge them the minimum, then you have
got to change how you operate your mission.
Maybe you should have a quick-reaction force in region 11
so that when that happens, you don't get detained because they
are in the vehicle. But not every single person is driving so
that 57 percent of your miles and your cost in region 11 are
going to drive to work.
You understand how that looks out in the real world? Mr.
Clawson, this is a guy who made the bottom line, who ran
businesses. That is how it looks to his constituents,
taxpayers. When he talks about the square footage price, and
when the Secretary comes in for Homeland and says, ``We need
more money to protect the American people,'' and we get a
report like this, what am I supposed to think? How do I go into
a town hall meeting and tell my constituents that we are doing
the best we can? They know we are not. They see this stuff too.
The reason probably Mr. Roth--one of the reasons Mr. Roth
took a look at your organization is because people call in and
say: This organization is wasting taxpayer money.
That is why they do it, because they see it. They count on
you, senior-level executives, SES guys, making a lot of money
compared to average working people--just like me--making a lot
of money. They expect accountability, and they expect results.
If you are not getting it under the current paradigm----
I get it that when you showed up, these vehicles were
already coming. I get that. We are not holding you accountable
for that. That is the way it is.
But moving forward, when I hear that you guys aren't going
to look at this, this home-to-work program as one of the
improvements you want to look at, when you are not bringing in
your operational readiness rate, when you are telling my
counterpart here from New Jersey that vehicles break down--
meanwhile, you have got vehicles--what is it?--49, 47 percent
of your fleet with less than 12,000 miles. Tell me what
American driving today, other than they bought a new car, is
driving a car that has got less than 12,000 miles or 5,000
miles. That is not happening in the real world.
So when you tell me they are breaking down, you need to
tell me how many incidents you didn't make it to because your
vehicle broke down. Can you tell me that?
Mr. Patterson. No, sir.
Mr. Perry. So you can't defend yourself, and I am not going
to defend you. All right? If you are going to come and make a
claim like that, you had better bring something, but you are
not bringing anything.
I don't mean to be up here being a curmudgeon, but our job
is oversight for the taxpayer: To make sure you are getting
your mission complete and you are doing it at the least cost.
Quite honestly, it doesn't look like you are doing it. You
might be getting your mission done, but everybody can get their
mission done when they have unlimited resources, which is what
you have right now. You have unlimited resources. That is the
appearance here. Then the Secretary is going to come and say:
We need more.
No, we don't need more. We need to do it correctly.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Chaleki. The subcommittee staff
analyzed fleet data from several components and found that
while FPS has over 100 extra vehicles in its fleet, other
components do not have--do not have--spare vehicles in their
fleet. Specifically, neither Customs and Border Protection--you
would admit and agree that is a pretty important and visible
topic at this moment, right?--or the TSA, the face of the
Department of Homeland Security, neither one of those two very
critical agencies have spare vehicles, and neither assigns
vehicles directly to personnel.
What makes you folks any different? Why is your mission
different? What are we missing here? I mean, am I missing
something?
Mr. Chaleki, am I missing something?
Mr. Patterson has been on the hot seat here. Why don't you
take some of the heat?
Mr. Chaleki. I appreciate that, Chairman.
No, the other components don't have spares. Again, the FPS
mission requirements said that because of the remote locations
that they are operating from, they can't afford to have a
breakdown of a particular vehicle. In this case, the LE-1s.
These are the pursuit vehicles. But you can't just go downtown
and rent a new one. If it breaks down and you only have a
couple of agents, those agents aren't able to do their job.
That is why they have a sparing methodology at NPPD that they
use to justify that.
I think it has reduced slightly down to 92 vehicles. But
that is their methodology that they are using here.
Mr. Perry. So just a couple thoughts here. Not to just be
critical for the sake of being critical, when Border Patrol--
and I don't know how many miles their vehicles have on them. I
don't know what their maintenance condition is. When they have
got to chase somebody and the vehicle breaks down, that is not
good, right? We wouldn't want that to happen to them either. So
they could come and say: Look, we need 100 percent all the
time. But somehow, they are able to get their mission
accomplished at the 12:1 ratio. So I just beseech you: You must
take a look at this because if you don't, we will.
We understand you have got to complete your mission, and
vehicles break down. But I think Mrs. Watson Coleman made a
very common-sense statement: If your vehicles--if half of them
are less than 12,000 miles, and you have got some out there
that are being driven every day because somebody is driving 3
hours one way, from this place to that place, you guys are
managers. You should be looking at this and saying: Well, holy
smokes here. One has 5,000 miles on it and is sitting downtown
all the time with leaves around the tires, and this guy is
driving 300,000 miles on it. Why don't we move this one over
there? You are going to say: Well, they have got different
State requirements.
Let me ask you this: Does your data include the different
State requirements that disallows you to move vehicles from
State to State? Because if you don't have that, you can't come
here to make that claim to either me or Mr. Roth. If you have
got it, bring it.
Do you have it?
Mr. Chaleki. No.
Mr. Patterson. No.
Mr. Perry. So we don't mean to be overly harsh here. But
understand that we are the stewards of the taxpayers' money.
You, you are right there. You are going to charge other
agencies taxpayer money to pay you for the business you do to
protect them, as you should.
But we required you to use your best judgment, not just--
well, this is the way it was done, and it is a little too
difficult, and well, I don't want to be the bad news guy, so I
guess I will let Congress be the bad news guy to tell every
agent he doesn't get his own or she doesn't get her own
vehicle.
If you want to take it that far, I guarantee you, somebody
here will do that for you. We don't want to tell you how to do
your business. We don't. We don't want to have this meeting
again. We don't want to be here again. You don't want to be.
We would rather you be out there managing these people that
are protecting us. But if this continues, if Mr. Roth brings
this report again to us next year and it is not substantially
different, we are going to do the same dance, and there is
probably going to be legislation that gets in your business
that is going to be bad for all Americans. It is going to be
bad for all of us.
I appreciate your time.
Let's see if we can end this thing so you can get out of
here because we have wasted a lot of your time here today just
waiting on us.
The Chair thanks the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions. Members may have some
additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to
respond to these in writing.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(e), the hearing record will
remain open for 10 days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for John Roth
Question 1. Inspector General Roth, according to your testimony
this recent review of the FPS vehicle fleet is ``merely one example of
the consequences that limited Departmental oversight and authority can
have on a component's ability to manage its own vehicle fleet operation
effectively.'' You also state that without policies that afford fleet
managers with definitive authority components will operate with a
``business as usual'' mentality. Inspector General Roth, are you saying
that it is likely that there is little assurance that other components
are operating their fleet effectively? What can DHS do to ensure that
each component is effectively managing its fleet?
Answer. We identified multiple, systematic oversight deficiencies
during our audits of FPS' vehicle fleet, DHS's home-to-work program,
and DHS's management of components' fleet operations. Based on these
audits, it is likely that other components also need to improve vehicle
fleet management practices.
To help ensure that each component is effectively managing its
fleet, DHS can improve oversight by:
Strengthening the DHS Manual 112 05-001 Home-to-Work
Transportation and establishing guidance for periodic
reauthorization of all approved home-to-work authorizations.
Finalizing its draft Motor Vehicle Fleet Management
Instruction.
Reviewing component vehicle acquisitions and leases.
Implementing a centralized, Department-wide inventory
tracking system.
Implementing policies to ensure components collect reliable
information to track, monitor, analyze and report vehicle fleet
use and costs.
Providing Department motor vehicle fleet management staff
with definitive authority over component fleet management
decisions.
Developing and administering a standardized annual vehicle
allocation methodology for all components.
Additionally, after our report was final, FPS determined its
leasing terms or business model regarding discretionary Law Enforcement
equipment did not align with GSA's business model. The Department
should review the GSA/FPS MOU and update as needed prior to future FPS
vehicle fleet obligations. Furthermore, DHS should review all GSA MOUs
to ensure they align with other components' business models.
Question 2. In your final report, you reference the lack of
efficient and effective oversight of the FPS vehicle fleet from the
Department of Homeland Security. What can the Department be doing
better to ensure the appropriate vehicles, at the appropriate costs,
are being utilized by FPS?
Answer. The Department is updating its Motor Vehicle Fleet
Management Instruction to include additional controls. Based on our
review of the draft instruction, these new controls should help ensure
FPS uses appropriate vehicles with the appropriate cost structure.
To address issues of appropriate cost, the guidance must:
Require a formal justification regarding the type of vehicle
approved by the NPPD fleet manager for each replacement vehicle
purchased or leased that is larger than class III midsize
sedan.
Require the NPPD fleet manager approve annually each GSA/FPS
Law Enforcement equipment package. Each discretionary item
should align with an FPS mission requirement. For example, if
FPS determines a bike hitch in its Law Enforcement package is
necessary, the officer assigned that vehicle should have a
mission requirement which entails using a bicycle to conduct
regular patrols.
Additionally, the guidance should require NPPD to complete an
annual Utilization Retention Analysis Methodology of its entire vehicle
fleet. Any vehicle identified that is under the utilization threshold
should require an approved justification from NPPD annually.
Question 3. During a random search, you observed approximately 46
vehicles that were not equipped with necessary officer equipment
including gas masks and protective suits. Were the officers aware that
they were missing essential equipment in their Government-issued
vehicle? Why did you decide to not address the missing equipment in
your recommendations to FPS?
Answer. The officers were not aware because they were never given
criteria that told them what equipment was considered essential.
The scope of our audit was limited to determining whether FPS'
vehicle fleet was appropriate for its operational mission. Making a
formal recommendation regarding the missing equipment would have
required a significant amount of additional audit work, which in turn,
would have delayed the audit report. Nevertheless, we briefed the
finding to FPS and as a result, FPS issued interim guidance outlining
the minimum equipment requirements for law enforcement vehicles and
required quarterly inspections of every vehicle. Although we did not
issue specific recommendations concerning the missing equipment, we
will address this issue through the resolution process of
recommendations No. 1 and No. 3. These recommendations require
additional oversight and updating of both the DHS and NPPD Vehicle
Fleet Manuals. We will review the updated guidance to ensure equipment
inspections are included.
Question 4. In your report, you recommend that DHS Under Secretary
for Management require the NPPD Fleet Manager review and revise FPS's
Fleet Manual. FPS developed a fleet management policy to address this
recommendation, but your office only considers the recommendation
partially resolved. What other information or steps are needed from FPS
to fulfill your recommendation?
Answer. The recommendation will remain partially resolved until DHS
provides the results of the NPPD Fleet Manager's review of FPS' revised
policy, issues the revised policy, and incorporates it into NPPD's
Vehicle Fleet Manual.
Question 5. Inspector General Roth, according to your testimony,
you state that FPS is just one example of the consequences that the
Department's limited oversight can have on a component's ability to
manage its own fleet effectively. Please explain how the Department can
have better oversight over all DHS component vehicle fleets. Do you see
the Department doing that now?
Answer. The Department can improve oversight of its components'
vehicle fleets by:
Strengthening the DHS Manual 112 05-001 Home-to-Work
Transportation and establishing guidance for periodic
reauthorization of all approved home-to-work authorizations.
Finalizing its draft Motor Vehicle Fleet Management
Instruction.
Reviewing component vehicle acquisitions and leases.
Implementing a centralized, Department-wide inventory
tracking system.
Implementing policies to ensure components collect reliable
information to track, monitor, analyze, and report vehicle
fleet use and costs.
Providing Department motor vehicle fleet management staff
with definitive authority over component fleet management
decisions.
Developing and administering a standardized annual vehicle
allocation methodology for all components.
The Department is taking steps to improve fleet oversight and has
drafted several policies and manuals. These steps include:
Revising DHS Manual 112-05-001 Home-to-Work Transportation
to include standard definitions, policies, and procedures for
home-to-work transportation data collection.
Requiring each component to review its home-to-work programs
and submit requests for their home-to-work reauthorization to
the DHS Secretary for approval.
Creating a motor vehicle and home-to-work transportation
reporting module within its Consolidated Asset Portfolio &
Sustainability Information System (CAPSIS), and implementing
phase II in fiscal year 2016 to improve the accuracy of data.
CAPSIS is a business intelligence tool created to aggregate
asset management data.
Drafting an update to the DHS Motor Vehicle Fleet Management
Instruction, incorporating additional Departmental-level
oversight of component fleet management. We are currently
reviewing the instruction and will provide formal comments to
DHS by January 7, 2016.
Developing and implementing a Departmental vehicle
allocation methodology.
We will continue to work with the Department through the
recommendation resolution process to improve oversight of components'
vehicle fleets.
Question 6. Inspector General Roth, in your audit you noted that
FPS made ad hoc justifications about its fleet decisions. Through my
oversight, I have also seen administrative lapses at FPS. Do you see
the lack of oversight and justifications as a systemic problem at FPS?
Answer. Our review focused solely on FPS' management of its vehicle
fleet operations; thus, we cannot comment on whether the lack of
oversight and ad hoc justifications are a systemic problem at FPS.
Question 7. Inspector General Roth, you state in your testimony
that there was a 98% error rate between what FPS thought its vehicle
fleet mileage was and what GSA recorded as the vehicle fleet mileage.
What do you believe contributed to such a substantial error range? What
can management do to ensure this error range does not continue?
Answer. There was a substantial error rate because FPS officers did
not always input accurate mileage at the fuel pump when they refueled
their vehicles or accurately complete the manual, monthly Vehicle
Operation Report (VOR). At the time of our review, VOR processing was a
monthly administrative task with limited officer accountability and
supervisory oversight.
As a result of our review, FPS immediately issued a policy
requiring officers' supervisors to review and certify the accuracy and
completeness of the VORs. We believe this policy will help ensure this
error range does not continue.
Question 8. Inspector General Roth, you state in your testimony
that the Department has made strides in its vehicle management and
``done a lot of work to gain oversight.'' Please describe what steps
the Department has taken to better oversee vehicle fleet management and
any new policies or procedures in place.
Answer. As we noted in question 5, the Department is taking steps
to improve oversight. For example, DHS is:
Revising DHS Manual 112-05-001 Home-to-Work Transportation
to include standard definitions, policies, and procedures for
home-to-work transportation data collection.
Requiring each component to review its home-to-work programs
and submit requests for their home-to-work reauthorization to
the DHS Secretary for approval.
Creating a motor vehicle and home-to-work transportation
reporting module within its Consolidated Asset Portfolio &
Sustainability Information System (CAPSIS), and implementing
phase II in fiscal year 2016 to improve the accuracy of data.
CAPSIS is a business intelligence tool created to aggregate
asset management data.
Drafting an update to the DHS Motor Vehicle Fleet Management
Instruction, incorporating additional Departmental-level
oversight of component fleet management.
Developing and implementing a Departmental vehicle
allocation methodology.
Question 9. Inspector General Roth, you state in your report that
it's FPS policy to not dispatch off-duty officers to after-hour
incidents. Director Patterson stated in his testimony that off-duty
officers are frequently dispatched to after-hour incidents. Please
describe your understanding of this policy and the discrepancy in
understanding.
Answer. We understand the importance of the FPS mission, which
requires 24/7 readiness for building security. At the hearing, Director
Patterson made a general statement about FPS frequently dispatching
officers to after-hour incidents. During our review, however, FPS could
not provide accurate data on the number of times officers are
dispatched to after-hour incidents.
We believe the data FPS used to support reauthorizing the home-to-
work program for its officers is inaccurate and incomplete.
Specifically, our analysis revealed two issues:
(1) The Suitland MegaCenter dispatches officers to FPS' Region 11.
According to its policies, ``Region 11 has FPS Officers on-duty
24/7, therefore the MegaCenter should not dispatch off-duty FPS
Officers to an incident in Region 11 (this does not include the
On-Call Special Agent).'' We understand there are certain ``On-
Call Special Agents'' and extenuating circumstances in which
FPS Officers in Region 11 are called at home after hours to
respond to emergencies. However, this may not justify allowing
142 Region 11 Officers to use the home-to-work program 100
percent of the time. For example, 8 Region 11 Officers live at
least 60 miles from their duty station and drive an estimated
28,800 miles per year from home to work; they are authorized to
use the home-to-work program because they ``may'' get called
into work.
(2) FPS does not keep accurate records of monthly officer call-
outs, so we could not determine the number of times officers
are actually called back to work. At the time of our review,
FPS was just beginning to capture call-out data in its VORs,
and we did not review them for accuracy. The MegaCenters tracks
call-outs, but cannot track whether officers are called out
when at home after completing their scheduled work day. Region
11 was also incorrectly annotating call-outs during scheduled
work days. Finally, an FPS MegaCenter official said that FPS
officers are not always required to respond to after-hours
incidents. The MegaCenter dispatcher calls the FPS officer
listed for a particular building; if the officer is busy or
does not answer, the MegaCenter continues calling officers
until someone can respond. According to the MegaCenter
official, depending on the incident, on-site contracted guards
or local police or fire departments may respond.
The DHS OCRSO has taken steps to improve tracking of Home-to-Work
usage through its revised DHS Home-to-Work Transportation Manual, and
the fielding of CAPSIS. The data in the system relies on the components
to ensure accuracy. DHS OCRSO is just now beginning the second phase of
the system roll-out and will start testing the accuracy of the data. We
believe there are still additional actions necessary for FPS to
accurately capture after-hour incident data. We will ensure that prior
to resolving Recommendations No. 1 and No. 3 a DHS and NPPD oversight
process is implemented.
Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for L. Eric Patterson
Question 1. There have been reports of instances, particularly in
the National Capital Region, where local police departments are called
to respond to incidents or emergency situations at FPS-protected
facilities. In particular, our staff has heard reports of FPS officers
refusing to respond to an incident at all, knowing that the local
police department will respond on their behalf. To what extent is FPS
aware of this occurring? How often do local police respond to incidents
in FPS facilities instead of FPS officials?
Answer. In fiscal year 2015, there were 1,004 on-duty FPS law
enforcement officers assigned to protect 9,600 Federal facilities
nationally and these officers responded to 91,850 calls for service.
Coordinated response with other law enforcement jurisdictions may be
appropriate when the facility is either proprietary or concurrent
jurisdiction.\1\ In some situations, local police were contacted for
response first by civilians. FPS is not aware of any situation where a
FPS law enforcement officer refused to respond. Occasionally, FPS may
not have personnel close to an incident and assistance from local
police is utilized in the interest of public safety. In these
situations, FPS coordinates with law enforcement partners to determine
the most appropriate response based upon the assessed threat of the
incident. This cooperation on responses is anticipated and is captured
in documents like the interagency agreement between FPS and the
Metropolitan Police Department. Region 11, which is the National
Capital Region, experienced a total of 18,377 responses in fiscal year
2015, of which 338 were responded to solely by local police,
representing less than 2% of the total responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proprietary jurisdiction is where the United States has
acquired some right of title to an area within a State's borders (such
as a Federal building), but has not acquired any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In essence, the United States has rights
equivalent to a private landlord and what that means simply is State
law applies within the proprietary area to the same extent that it does
throughout the remainder of the State. The Government therefore has
taken over none of the State's obligations for law enforcement.
Concurrent jurisdiction is applied in those instances wherein the
United States is granted authority which would otherwise amount to
exclusive jurisdiction over an area. However, the State concerned has
reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United
States, all the same authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. The OIG reported that FPS was not in compliance with
Federal and Departmental requirements because it did not complete its
part of NPPD's overall vehicle allocation methodology. What is FPS's
rationale for not being in compliance with these requirements?
Answer. FPS has complied with the Fiscal Year 2012 Vehical
Allocation Methodology (VAM) survey as required by DHS policy. In 2015,
NPPD conducted an annual fleet utilization and retention analysis. The
2015 analysis identified 217 FPS vehicles that did not meet utilization
(i.e. GSA mileage) standards and these vehicles are undergoing further
review against the mission requirements to determine vehicle
disposition. The estimated completion date for this effort is April 1,
2016. This process is part of the VAM compliance process. FPS is
confident that these collective efforts will result in improved
documentation, decision making, and management oversight of the FPS
Fleet Program. The DHS IG stated that DHS should make improvements to
the VAM policy and ensure it meets the full scope of requirements of
the GSA Bulletin B-30. FPS is actively participating in the effort to
update the DHS VAM policy. As recently as January 12, 2016, FPS met
with NPPD, DHS Management Directorate and the DHS IG to discuss VAM-
specific shortfalls and identified the need to work with GSA to refine
the guidance and requirements that they are using to train agencies on
the VAM.
Question 3. Executive branch guidance directs Federal agencies to
determine the optimum size of their fleets and eliminate non-essential
vehicles. That guidance states that ``the Federal fleet should operate
only as many vehicles as needed to work efficiently.'' To what extent
has FPS determined the optimum size of its fleet and eliminated non-
essential vehicles? How can FPS be certain that all 1,169 vehicles,
which cost almost $11 million, are all essential?
Answer. FPS conducted the VAM survey in 2012 to determine the
optimum fleet and has reduced its fleet size by over 100 vehicles since
this time while increasing the law enforcement officer cadre and
responding to surge operations across the Nation. The FPS fleet of
1,152 leased vehicles currently meets the operational requirements and
is currently undergoing an annual utilization retention analysis to
determine if there are any changes required to the vehicle disposition
to ensure the optimum fleet size.
Question 4. According to DHS's fleet program manual, components
must consider the need for vehicles driven less than 3,000 miles per
quarter or 12,000 miles per year. Vehicles below that threshold are to
be disposed of or reassigned. However, the OIG found that 49% of FPS's
leased vehicles had fewer than 12,000 miles in fiscal year 2014, and
some of them even had negative miles. How does FPS ensure officers are
noting the correct mileage for its vehicles? Considering that half of
FPS's vehicles fall under the Department's definition of underutilized,
why does FPS still have these vehicles?
Answer. FPS continues to collaborate with NPPD and DHS to implement
best practices regarding reporting requirements of law enforcement
vehicles that operate in varied geographical and operational settings.
FPS currently tracks vehicle usage through a manual process. We have a
monthly reporting system that collects all vehicle operating records
and receipts from the operators and validates cost and mileage. FPS is
aware that errors, such as negative mileage, may occur as a result of
inaccurate reporting through our manual reporting processes. To address
this issue in the short-term, FPS has changed its document monitoring
from 10% sampling per month from the regions to 100% review monthly to
help reduce errors.
OCRSO is currently developing implementation instructions for
Executive Order 13693, ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the
Next Decade'', which requires the use of motor vehicle telematics
systems. These systems, when implemented, will automate the majority of
all vehicle maintenance and mileage tracking while eliminating most, if
not all human error. FPS is engaged with NPPD and DHS on this
initiative.
According to the current DHS Fleet Program Manual, utilization
guidelines for GSA Fleet passenger-carrying vehicles are a minimum of
3,000 miles per quarter or 12,000 miles per year. However, the manual
further stipulates that where utilization guidelines are not met,
components should have a vehicle justification process in place as a
part of their VAM.
FPS vehicle utilization and mission requirements are not based
solely on mileage requirements, as provided for in the VAM for all Law
Enforcement 1 and Law Enforcement 2 vehicles. There are a number of
reasons that many vehicles do not meet the mileage standards but one of
the primary reasons is that these vehicles are in densely populated
metropolitan areas where time in the vehicle rather than mileage use
dictates utilization.
Question 5. Mr. Patterson testified that FPS continually looks at
the how often vehicle maintenance issues resulted in a failure to
complete mission requirements as part of its vehicle allocation
process. However, the OIG reported that FPS had not completed a vehicle
allocation methodology. What specific factors does FPS consider when
allocating vehicles? Why is this process not part of a formal vehicle
allocation methodology?
Answer. FPS followed the guidance of DHS and NPPD vehicle
allocation methodology and was in compliance with the Fiscal Year 2012
VAM survey as required by DHS policy. FPS allocates vehicles based on
the 1:1 law enforcement-to-vehicle ratio and the pool vehicle
methodology for necessary operational rotation of vehicles. This ratio
is necessary due to the requirement of its current law enforcement
force of 1,004 officers, responsible to protect 9,600 geographically-
dispersed Federal facilities throughout all CONUS States and all
American territories, to meet the FPS mission.
This has been the model for FPS fleet sizing and is supplemented by
the FPS Pool Vehicle Methodology for Operational Rotational vehicles
which uses all scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activity,
accident, and repair down time, location remoteness, and force size and
mission requirements to ensure an adequate number of pooled vehicles
are available so mission failure is not a result of vehicle
availability. NPPD Fleet Management and FPS Fleet Management are
working in concert to formulate analytics that will best represent the
FPS fleet requirements and ensure it remains in compliance with the
VAM.
Question 6. According to DHS's fleet program manual, components
must consider the need for vehicles driven less than 3,000 miles per
quarter or 12,000 miles per year. Vehicles below that threshold are to
be disposed of or reassigned. How many vehicles has FPS disposed of or
reassigned over the last 5 fiscal years?
Answer. FPS has reduced its fleet by over 100 vehicles since 2012
and has reassigned Operational Rotational pooled vehicles based on
need, but has not reassigned any mission vehicles.
FPS currently has 1,004 law enforcement officers on-board with more
than 200 in the pipeline to on-board with the agency. Upon completion
of training, each law enforcement officer is assigned a portfolio of
Federal facilities to protect, which are often geographically
dispersed. It is counterproductive for the officers to share vehicles
as it jeopardizes the agency's essential mission to protect the
Nation's Federal facilities, tenants, and visitors therein. FPS will
assign a vehicle from the existing fleet pool to each approved law
enforcement full-time employee position in the fiscal year.
Question 7. Mr. Patterson testified that while effective management
would drive down costs, FPS's costs are actually increasing due to the
need for more personnel to address the increased number of threats
across the country. Does FPS intend increase its fees? If so, which
specific fees will be increased? How will these new revenues be used?
How many incidents have occurred over the last 5 fiscal years? Please
provide data by fiscal year.
Answer. The FPS reviewed various options for responding to a
heightened threat environment to ensure that the safety and security of
Federal facilities and personnel was maintained. The FPS has relied on
overtime to support extended workdays for FPS law enforcement personnel
and the deployment of additional officers to higher-threat locations,
increasing costs and stretching FPS law enforcement personnel. Using
the FPS Strategic Human Capital Plan and staffing model, DHS/FPS has
developed a number of staffing options for responding to the increasing
numbers of threat situations. The estimated costs and appropriate fee
levels for each option have been developed using the FPS Activity-Based
Cost (ABC) Model. Any changes in FPS fees and how those revenues will
be used will be presented in future budget submissions.
With regard to the question of how many ``incidents'' have occurred
over the last 5 fiscal years it should be noted that not all law
enforcement responses result in an incident or offense. In fiscal year
2011, FPS responded to 47,135 calls for service; 43,573 in fiscal year
2012: 52,079 in fiscal year 2013; 55,693 in fiscal year 2014; and
59,815 in fiscal year 2015. Additionally, in fiscal year 2015, FPS
began collecting activity data associated with Operation Blue Surge,
such as vehicle inspections and pre-operational surveillance detection,
which accounted for 323,565 responses and activities that is not
reflected in Offense/Incident reports.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for L. Eric Patterson
Question 1. Director Patterson, over the past 2 years, Secretary
Johnson has ordered several surges in operations due to heightened
threat environments. Also, FPS has been called upon to increase its
building security during protests in Ferguson and Baltimore, and it is
reported FPS spent $2.3 million to secure Federal buildings during the
Boston Bombing trial. Can you please tell me how these surges in
operation affect your resources? Do you have enough money from the fees
you collect to cover the costs of securing these buildings during the
surges in operations?
Answer. During fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the FPS is
relying on prior year carryover and recoveries to sustain surges in
operations driven by the heightened threat. These costs were not built
into the FPS basic security rate and administrative charge for building
or agency-specific requirements to sustain long-term, and DHS and OMB
are looking at various methods to identify the most appropriate and
sustainable solution to address the funding requirements for the
increased surge operations.
Question 2. Director Patterson, even though I was disappointed to
hear that FPS was not keeping adequate data regarding vehicle mileage,
I was not surprised, given the history of administrative lapses the law
enforcement agency has had over the years. How do you plan on keeping
up with vehicle mileage for home-to-work employees going forward? I am
sure that technology will be better than a paper log, so what type of
technology do you plan on procuring and do you have adequate funds to
procure this technology?
Answer. FPS Administrative Services Division has increased
screening of monthly Vehicle Operations Reports (VOR) from a 10%
sampling to a monthly 100% review. The DHS Office of Chief Readiness
Support Officer is currently developing implementation instructions for
Executive Order 13693, ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the
Next Decade'', which requires the use of motor vehicle telematics
systems. These systems, when implemented, will automate the majority of
all vehicle maintenance and mileage tracking while eliminating most, if
not all, human error. FPS is engaged with NPPD and DHS on this
initiative.
Question 3. During a random search, the inspector general found
that most FPS officers did not have equipment in their vehicles to
accomplish their required daily mission, including gas masks, riot
gear, and protective suits. Please explain this lapse and what FPS is
doing to ensure all agents have the necessary equipment.
Answer. The process of equipment inventory was not formalized and
standardized. To ensure that FPS officers and agents have the necessary
equipment in their vehicles to accomplish their daily mission, FPS has
clarified the list of mandatory equipment and required that quarterly
vehicle inspections be conducted and documented with supervisory
oversight.
Question 4. Inspector General Roth stated in his testimony that
some of the necessary equipment for each FPS officer was not even
issued, and therefore not stored in each vehicle. Have steps been taken
to ensure each officer is equipped with all the necessary items for the
FPS mission? What steps are being taken to shorten the length of time
it takes for an officer to receive all necessary equipment?
Answer. To ensure each officer is equipped with necessary items for
the FPS mission, FPS has clarified the list of mandatory equipment and
required that monthly checks be conducted and documented with
supervisory oversight. To shorten the length of time it takes for an
officer to receive all necessary equipment, some equipment (such as
personal protective equipment) is issued upon an officer's completion
of training allowing its immediate use upon assignment, and other
equipment will be assigned to vehicles and provided as part of the law
enforcement vehicle upfit.
Question 5. After the release of the inspector general's report,
FPS finalized its formal fleet management policy. Please describe new
policies implemented that directly address concerns highlighted in the
inspector general's report.
Answer. FPS developed FPS Directive 15.2.9.2, Fleet Management
Directive (August 27, 2015). The Fleet Directive outlined procedures
for FPS to monitor and document fleet acquisition and leasing
decisions; directed the regular reporting of fleet expenditures;
defined FPS fleet program standards in accordance with mission
requirements and established authorized uses of fleet vehicles. It also
defined FPS' process for verifying the completeness and accuracy of
motor vehicle records, in compliance with Federal standards, to improve
operational readiness reporting. In addition to the implementation of
the August 2015 Fleet Management Directive, FPS is working directly
with NPPD, DHS Management Directorate, and the DHS IG to discuss ways
to improve VAM policy and reporting requirements.
Question 6. According to the NPPD Fleet Manual, a class III midsize
sedan is the preferred vehicle type, yet 93% of the FPS fleet is
comprised of sports utility vehicles (SUVs). Please explain the FPS'
decision to not utilize the preferred vehicle type.
Answer. GSA published FMR Bulletin B-33, which provides guidance to
Executive Agencies regarding the acquisition of alternative fuel
vehicles for law enforcement (L/E) and emergency vehicle fleets. LE
vehicles fall into three classifications; FPS's fleet is in the first
tier or LE 1:
L/E 1.--An L/E 1 tiered vehicle is configured for
apprehensions, arrests, law enforcement, police activities or
dignitary protection, and is assigned to pursuit, protection,
or off-road duties. An L/E 1 vehicle must be equipped with
heavy-duty components to handle the stress of extreme maneuvers
and have the horsepower required achieving the speeds necessary
to perform these functions.
FPS orders all its vehicles through GSA.--FPS is limited in
vehicle availability based on what GSA offers for L/E rated
vehicles. FPS was the security element for FEMA at the time and
provided security for disaster areas like Katrina, tornado, and
other natural disasters like the Iowa flooding. The higher
wheel base of the SUV makes them more maneuverable in extreme
weather conditions; less likely to flood out; provides a more
elevated view of road or terrain features and is able to
perform tow requirements. Vehicles purchased during the 2007-
2011 time were leased for 84 months to maximize the
amortization of the upfit cost.
GSA began offering a fully developed L/E rated sedan in 2013
that would meet the requirements of the L/E 1 tiered
configuration.--FPS completed no vehicle order in 2013 but
ordered in the fiscal year 2014 cycle. FPS turned in 75
vehicles and received 16 SUVs and 33 class II compact sedans in
fiscal year 2015 as part of the fiscal year 2014 order. FPS is
evaluating the effectiveness of these vehicles against
operational requirements and will base future replacement
vehicle recommendations will base future replacement vehicle
recommendation based on the analysis.
Question 7. In the inspector general's report, he highlights
discretionary equipment added to FPS vehicles, including bike rack
hitches, rechargeable flashlights, and premium wireless security
systems, increasing costs of each vehicle up to $20,000. According to
the inspector general's testimony, this equipment, which increased
vehicle costs up to $20,000, was not justified. Mr. Patterson, do you
agree with Mr. Roth's assessment that this discretionary equipment is
not justified? Mr. Patterson, please explain the need for this
discretionary equipment.
Answer. FPS believes the discretionary equipment cited by the
inspector general is justified for mission requirements and situations
related to officer safety:
Bike racks are essential for efficiently and safely transporting
bicycles assigned to bicycle patrol officers. The hitch receiver (bike
rack hitch) was standard equipment on the previously utilized vehicles,
but is not included as standard equipment on the current vehicle model.
The new bike rack does not require the hitch receiver.
Rechargeable flashlights are important to insure that the officer's
flashlight is always charged and ready to use. When an officer's
flashlight starts to dim during an emergency, it's too late to change
the batteries.
Wireless security systems help to insure the security of valuable
and accountable equipment, including weapons systems, ammunition, and
body armor, while the vehicle is unattended and generally provide
better protection than the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)
system. From time to time, FPS tries different systems to determine
which one(s) provide the best protection for selected FPS vehicles and
recently rejected an expensive after-market security system.
Also, it should be noted that the $20,000 cost cited by the
inspector general includes other law enforcement-required equipment
such as vehicle radios, emergency visual and audible warning devices,
gun racks/vaults, and prisoner partitions.
Question 8. Under current law, agencies have wide flexibility in
identify the criteria by which they will justify the acquisition of
vehicles and ensure their full utilization. However, this flexibility
must be supported with proper procedures and internal controls. What
utilization criteria does FPS use to determine the number of vehicles
needed, and how does FPS monitor vehicle utilization? The IG found that
49 percent of FPS leased vehicles were driven less than 12,000 miles in
2014. Does FPS consider vehicles that travel under 12,000 miles per
year to be underutilized?
Answer. FPS is assessing whether specific vehicles with travel
under 12,000 miles per year are to be considered underutilized. Many of
these vehicles are located in remote, isolated, or inner-city areas
where facilities are measured by city blocks apart instead of miles
apart. FPS vehicle utilization and mission requirements are not based
solely on mileage requirements, as provided for in the VAM for all Law
Enforcement 1 and Law Enforcement 2 vehicles. There are a number of
reasons that many vehicles do not meet the mileage standards but one of
the primary reason is that these vehicles are in densely-populated
metropolitan areas where time in the vehicle rather than mileage use
dictates utilization.
FPS follows the DHS Fleet Program Manual VAM survey requirements
and utilization considerations. Through the annual utilization
retention analysis, FPS assesses all vehicles with few than 12,000
miles per year and documents additional justification for retention.
The retention justification for the most of the vehicles with fewer
than 12,000 miles driven is driven by location, as they are in remote,
isolated, or inner city/urban areas where facilities are measured by
city blocks apart instead of miles apart. FPS and NPPD Program
management offices are working, in concert, to validate 2015 annual
retention analysis and estimates that this will be completed by April
1, 2016.
Question 9. In fiscal year 2013, FPS identified 44 under-utilized
or nonessential vehicles in its fleet, however FPS retained 40 (91%) of
these vehicles. Please provide the reasoning for retaining under-
utilized vehicles in the fleet. Please also explain to the committee
how these vehicles were used after the fiscal year 2013 audit.
Answer. FPS vehicle utilization and mission requirements are not
based solely on mileage requirements, as provided for in the VAM for
all Law Enforcement 1 and Law Enforcement 2 vehicles. There are a
number of reasons that these vehicles do not meet the mileage standards
but one of the primary reasons is that many vehicles are in densely-
populated metropolitan areas where time in the vehicle rather than
mileage use dictates utilization.
FPS did turn in 4 vehicles that utilization data or Operational
Rotation vehicle methodology could not sustain. FPS retained the
remaining law enforcement vehicles based on the mileage threshold
because they were located in densely-populated metropolitan areas but
are still required to meet operational requirements. In 2015, NPPD
established a vehicle utilization retention process that better
documents the decision on vehicle dispositions.
Question 10. After the release of the inspector general's report,
FPS ordered additional vehicles and refreshed 16% of its fleet. Please
describe the need and justification for these additional vehicles. Does
FPS still have an access of over 100 vehicles in the fleet as of today?
Answer. Since the 2012 VAM survey FPS has reduced its fleet size by
100 vehicles. The FPS fleet is leased and these orders are for
replacement vehicles. The FPS fiscal year 2014 vehicle order was a one-
to-one replacement order--49 leased vehicles turned in with expiring
leases and 49 replacement leased vehicles ordered. The fiscal year 2015
replacement order has been rescinded pending further review and
analysis on the type of vehicle required.
FPS maintains a readiness pool of vehicles for situations when a
primary issued vehicle is taken out of operations for repair,
maintenance, rotation, or an accident. In order to determine the
optimal number of operational readiness vehicles, FPS has developed and
documented a methodology. Since FPS has different types of vehicles
such as canine vehicles, the pool vehicle methodology must provide pool
requirements for each vehicle type. The updated pool vehicle
methodology calculation results in a goal of maintaining 91 vehicles to
cover 236 FPS locations. Although FPS currently has approximately 110
readiness vehicles in the readiness pool, this number fluctuates daily
due to attrition (which could cause a temporary increase in size) and
issuing vehicles out to new hires, accidents, or unscheduled
maintenance (that will cause that number to decrease).
Question 11. Director Patterson, Inspector General Roth was unable
to determine how a vehicle within the FPS fleet could register
``negative'' mileage. Have you evaluated the cause of this
miscalculation? What practices have been implemented at the management
level to ensure this error does not continue in the future?
Answer. FPS continues to collaborate with NPPD and DHS to determine
best practices regarding reporting requirements of law enforcement
vehicles that operate in varied geographical and operational settings.
FPS currently tracks vehicle usage through a manual process and has
identified the negative vehicle mileage reporting to be entry error
when entering vehicle mileage at the fuel pump. We have a monthly
reporting system that collects all vehicle operating records and
receipts from the operators and validates cost and mileage. To address
these issues in the short-term, FPS has changed its document monitoring
from 10% sampling per month from the regions to 100% review monthly to
help reduce errors. FPS has implemented a pump entry review process
within the regions that since corrected this issue.
OCRSO is currently developing implementation instructions for
Executive Order 13693, ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the
Next Decade'', which requires the use of motor vehicle telematics
systems. These systems, when implemented, will automate the majority of
all vehicle maintenance and mileage tracking while eliminating most, if
not all, human error. FPS is engaged with NPPD and DHS on this
initiative.
Question 12. Unlike other DHS components, FPS leases almost all of
its vehicles. What type of life-cycle analysis has FPS performed to
determine that this is most efficient to lease vehicles? Given that
fact that FPS spends money to specially equip these vehicles, would it
be cheaper to purchase fewer vehicles than leasing the current number
of vehicles?
Answer. The GSA-leased fleet accounts for 97% of FPS vehicles and
represents the lowest possible cost to acquire vehicle systems capable
of meeting FPS law enforcement mission requirements. The exception is
specialty vehicles (i.e., mobile command vehicles, X-ray vehicles,
motorcycles) which are purchased because they aren't available to lease
through GSA. Vehicle leasing includes all operations and maintenance
costs and has been an effective alternative to vehicle purchasing. FPS
ensures that all vehicles are maintained in accordance with the GSA
prescribed vehicle maintenance schedules. The vehicle maintenance
records are validated with the GSA Maintenance Control Center. This
process provides for rapid repair or unscheduled maintenance actions
and vehicles are routinely replaced at the expiration of the lease
period. All vehicle disposals or vehicle valuations are processed by
GSA. FPS uses a staff of two full-time employees and 1 contractor to
manage the entire current FPS fleet. An owned fleet would require much
more extensive staffing and management which is additional cost. FPS
would also be constrained fiscally to provide the up-front funds
required to begin replacing leased vehicles with owned vehicles. The
replacement cost for one-fifth of the current fleet with up-fit costs
included is approximately $12 million. This would relieve approximately
$2 million of current lease cost and increase the FPS fleet operating
cost from the current $13 million to approximately $25 million the
first year and reducing that amount by approximately $2 million per
year over the next 4 additional years. Year 6 would be the first year
of no major vehicle purchases unless vehicle maintenance to maintain
the first year of owned vehicles became excessive. FPS would not have
the ability to maintain its own vehicles as many larger DHS entities do
because of FPS vehicle distribution. Other DHS entities have large
pools of vehicles which lend themselves to garages, maintenance
activities, mechanics, and spare item inventories. FPS distribution
would require a National maintenance contract or a series of
maintenance agreements around the entire United States and its
territories. FPS would need to sign a vehicle maintenance contract with
GSA to help track and perform the maintenance on FPS-owned vehicles.
Question 13. The inspector general's report highlights Region 11,
which is the D.C. region, and its high home-to-work miles, specifically
stating that home-to-work costs approximately $300,000 per year in the
District of Columbia. Does every officer in Region 11 have home-to-work
privileges? Have you examined the need for every officer in the D.C.
region to commute to and from work in his or her official vehicle?
Answer. Currently, every officer assigned to the National Capitol
Region (NCR), Region 11, is authorized and utilizes home-to-work. FPS
intends to transition to a rotating roster of personnel to be on call
for response efforts based on a continuous assessment of operating
requirements and the dynamic threat environment. FPS is currently
pursuing measures to reduce the home-to-work utilization from 100% of
Region 11 officers to a 35% target baseline level. This measure is
being implemented in phases to provide time for proper evaluation of
mission impact. FPS estimates completion of this evaluation before the
end of fiscal year 2016. After the initial assessment in the NCR, FPS
will evaluate the required home-to-work authorization and utilization
target baseline levels for all its regions to safely and efficiently
perform the FPS law enforcement mission.
Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Thomas Chaleki
Question 1. The OIG reported in 2013 that 64 NPPD employees should
not have been eligible for home-to-work because DHS policy requires
that employees live no farther than 50 miles from work. How many
Department employees with home-to-work authorization live farther than
50 miles away? Please provide information by component, with FPS broken
out separately from NPPD. What is the average mileage for the vehicles
used by employees with home-to-work authorization who live farther than
50 miles from work?
Answer. The following table details the number of employees, within
each component, whose residence is located beyond 50 miles from their
official duty station. As requested, the Federal Protective Service
(FPS) is broken out separately from NPPD. The number for NPPD reflects
the component as a whole, including FPS. Approximately 98.5 percent of
the home-to-work transportation authorizations listed was approved
under the law enforcement provision; the remaining authorizations were
approved under the field work provision.
For those employees whose residence is located more than 50 miles
from their official duty station, the average monthly home-to-work
transportation mileage is 1,035 miles, based on data submitted for 4th
quarter, fiscal year 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Employees
Component Name Beyond 50
Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customs and Border Protection........................... 194
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement................ 177
National Protection and Programs Directorate (total).... 59
Federal Protective Service.............................. 50
Transportation Security Administration.................. 3
U.S. Secret Service..................................... 211
---------------
Total............................................. 726
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 2. According to Mr. Chaleki's statement, the Office of the
Chief Readiness Support Officer (OCRSO) reviewed each component's home-
to-work requirements, which resulted in a justification for each
authorization. What did this review entail? To what extent has the
OCRSO determined whether each authorization's justification is
sufficient rather than simply on file?
Answer. On December 17, 2014, the deputy under secretary for
management directed all components to submit only home-to-work
transportation authorization requests necessary to meet mission
requirements. The chief readiness support officer (CRSO) followed with
a memo to all components on December 19, 2014 that provided additional
guidance on the submission requirements and to make clear that all
submissions must follow the format outlined in the DHS Home-to-Work
Transportation manual and to include all the elements listed as
follows:
(1) A listing of the component's most critical home-to-work mission
priorities that comply with statutory, regulatory, and policy
requirements;
(2) A risk-based assessment for home-to-work authorization
reductions within the component's operational mission;
(3) A listing that prioritizes home-to-work requests by category
from lowest to highest risk;
(4) Specific examples of duties being performed after hours;
(5) Clear justification for requests where a low number of after-
hours call-outs was reported;
(6) A detailed explanation on whether or not the component used a
duty roster for on-call personnel, and if not, what method is
or will be used to ensure only mission essential usage of home-
to-work vehicles; and,
(7) A certified listing of all home-to-work users by category as
outlined in the memo.
The Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer (OCRSO) fleet
manager met with all component fleet managers and law enforcement
personnel on December 18, 2014, to further discuss and clarify the
submission requirements.
Upon receipt of a component's home-to-work transportation
authorization request that was reviewed, approved, and signed by each
component head, OCRSO reviewed the entire request package to ensure
that each required document was included, and then reviewed each
document in detail to ensure that it complied with the requirements set
forth in the aforementioned memos, DHS policy, and Federal regulation.
Based on the review, OCRSO responded to each component with a series of
questions and comments or to request additional documentation, clarify
assertions within the request, and/or request additional justification
when necessary. OCRSO collaborated with the Office of General Counsel
in this review. Once the review was complete, the analysis of each
request was documented and forwarded to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for consideration.
The Department's current home-to-work transportation authorizations
were approved through June 2016. This was an approval for a 1-year
period versus the standard 2-year approval.
Question 3. What steps has the OCRSO taken to ensure that FPS
complies with Federal and Departmental requirements to complete a
vehicle allocation methodology?
Answer. OCRSO rewrote the DHS Fleet Manual Instruction to include a
definition of the vehicle allocation methodology (VAM) and updated
Departmental requirements for conducting a VAM to include frequency and
outputs. Components may conduct their own VAM but if they choose to do
so, the method and statistical outputs are submitted to and approved by
OCRSO. Exclusions or exemptions from completing a VAM, or retention of
vehicles that do not currently meet utilization standards, are approved
by OCRSO.
Question 4. What are the most significant barriers that currently
stand in the OCRSO's way in ensuring effective oversight of component
vehicle fleets?
Answer. Many of the barriers that hampered OCRSO's ability to
provide effective oversight of component vehicle fleets have been, or
are quickly being addressed. For example, DHS Delegation 00500,
Delegation for Administrative Services, provides the Chief Readiness
Support Officer with the authority to provide oversight of the DHS
fleet programs. Recent progress in the development of the Consolidated
Asset Portfolio and Sustainability Information System (CAPSIS) is
providing fleet personnel insight and analysis capabilities not
previously possible, and the update of the DHS Fleet Management
Instruction will provide stronger policy that will enable OCRSO to
ensure component fleets are managed effectively. OCRSO is working
through budget and personnel processes to ensure sufficient resources
are in place to oversee vehicle programs.
Question 5. GAO reported in 2014 that agencies may choose to have
devices installed on GSA-leased vehicles that provide information, such
as vehicle location, idling, and speed, that fleet managers can use to
manage and reduce costs of fleet operations. To what extent is DHS
pursuing this technology? What challenges, if any, does DHS face in
obtaining this technology?
Answer. In 2013, OCRSO began pursuing fleet technology for vehicles
participating in the Southwest Border Fuel Savings Initiative. OCRSO
partnered with CBP and ICE to develop requirements for a system that
would capture fuel consumption, utilization, and vehicle diagnostics.
Since that time, this initiative has expanded to eventually outfit over
17,000 owned vehicles operated by CBP, ICE, and FLETC with telematics
hardware. Efforts are currently underway to upgrade 68 fueling sites
along the Southwest Border with the required infrastructure. This
initiative is expected to become operational in August 2016.
OCRSO is continuing to work with components to determine the
feasibility of expanding this telematics program, or similar
technology, across the entire DHS motor vehicle fleet. OCRSO is looking
to identify a single solution that can be deployed DHS-wide and is
compatible with our existing data systems. OCRSO will evaluate the
systems currently being offered by GSA. There is no dedicated funding
for vehicle telematics beyond the Southwest Border Initiative.
Beginning in March 2017, all leased vehicles will be outfitted with
telematics as they are exchanged on the normal refresh cycle with the
cost added to the overall lease. Owned vehicles will be outfitted as
component funding becomes available.
Fleet telematics is a new field for DHS fleet managers. OCRSO is
working with component fleet managers to develop a telematics policy
that addresses emerging concerns about the collection and use of
sensitive law enforcement vehicle location information as well as cyber
concerns regarding information security. Further, DHS is engaged with
the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, as well as other Federal agencies and automotive
industry representatives, to identify risks and determine mitigation
strategies related to motor vehicle cybersecurity threats and
vulnerabilities.
Question 6. In 2014, the OIG reported that DHS and its Fleet
Manager did not have the authority necessary to oversee components'
fleet operations. DHS responded that it would strengthen this
official's authority. To what extent has the CRSO improved the Fleet
Manager's ability to exercise authority over components fleet
operations?
Answer. The inspector general recommended that DHS ensure that the
DHS Fleet Manager has adequate oversight and necessary enforcement
authority over Component Fleet Managers' efforts to acquire vehicles,
right-size their fleets, and eliminate underused vehicles. DHS
concurred with the OIG recommendation. To strengthen the DHS Fleet
Manager's oversight role, OCRSO has reviewed and updated the DHS Fleet
Manual Instruction strengthening the DHS Fleet Manager's ability to
provide proper oversight.
Additionally, the DHS Fleet Manager's ability to provide adequate
oversight of Component Fleet Programs has been strengthened as a result
of OCRSO's implementation of a single, Department-wide fleet management
data system that provides more visibility into the components' fleets,
resulting in more transparency into component right-sizing efforts.
CAPSIS consolidates Department-wide fleet data into a single portfolio
management system. The system has already given OCRSO the ability to
conduct in-depth analysis of each component's fleet management in ways
not previously possible. Over the past 2 months, OCRSO has begun
extensive analysis of component fleet data by comparing their
aggregated data in CAPSIS against the FAST data being reported to GSA
in the 2015 annual FAST report, as well as developing a Fleet Data
Scorecard that will identify data anomalies and inconsistencies to
components on a monthly basis.
Question 7. In March 2015, the President issued an Executive Order
that mandated Federal departments to determine the optimal vehicle
fleet size. Under this Executive Order, the Secretary of a Department
is allowed to exempt ``law enforcement, protective, emergency response,
or military tactical vehicle fleets of that agency.'' In order to
implement the Executive Order, DHS has modified its fleet vehicle
manual, including its vehicle allocation methodology. How many vehicles
in DHS's overall fleet will be exempted under this provision? What
methodology is used to determine which vehicles in the fleet should be
exempted? Will FPS be exempted from this requirement?
Answer. It is expected that some law enforcement vehicles that are
specifically built for, and used for, protection activities, off-road
and pursuit activities may be granted exemptions from the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Section 141, and Executive Order
13693 pertaining to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, increased
alternative fuel use, and the acquisition and use of low greenhouse
gas-emitting vehicles. These vehicles will still be evaluated according
to VAM requirements. This will be necessary to ensure that each vehicle
acquisition is a valid requirement and is the right size and type for
the mission.
Question 8. According to Title 40 of the United States Code, the
head of each executive agency is required to have a centralized system
to manage their vehicle fleets and to provide oversight of those
operations. What is the status of such a centralized system at DHS?
Answer. OCRSO completed the development of CAPSIS, which was
designed to consolidate Departmental real and personal property, mobile
assets, and sustainability management information. Within CAPSIS, the
Asset Management Data Warehouse consolidates Department-wide fleet data
into a single portfolio management system to include performance
management modules. It also integrates operational information from
fleet card systems for Government-owned vehicles and applicable GSA
reports for leased vehicles.
The CAPSIS fleet management information system now contains fleet
data from all DHS components. OCRSO is currently developing a fleet
data scorecard that will ensure components are reporting quality data
by providing component fleet managers with a monthly report that
identifies data anomalies and/or inconsistencies. OCRSO expects to
implement fleet data scorecard reporting during fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, OCRSO will begin submitting the annual Department-wide
FAST report utilizing the CAPSIS fleet management information system
beginning with the fiscal year 2016 FAST submission which is due in
December 2016. OCRSO provided the DHS OIG with a demonstration of the
CAPSIS fleet management information system on November 18, 2015. The
OIG indicated that they were pleased with the system developments, and
they look forward to another demonstration once the fleet data
scorecard has been implemented.
Question 9. In response to the OIG's 2014 recommendations on DHS
management of fleet operations, DHS stated that it would charter a
working group to, among other things, benchmark component
accomplishments and processes put in place since fiscal year 2012. DHS
stated that this effort would be completed by September 30, 2015. Did
this occur and, if so, what were the outcomes? Please provide the
information compiled, or any report that compiles, the benchmarked
information on components.
Answer. OCRSO established a working group to review the DHS Fleet
Instruction Manual following the release of the inspector general's
report OIG-14-126. The working group was comprised of OCRSO fleet staff
as well as component fleet managers. The group reviewed the DHS Fleet
Instruction Manual and made recommendations to strengthen the manual,
adopting best practices from component fleet practices. The changes to
the manual are summarized below.
DHS Motor Vehicle Fleet Program Instruction Summary of Change
Major Changes
Establishes CRSO as responsible for management and oversight
of the DHS Motor Vehicle Fleet Program;
Establishes CRSO as responsible for assessing component
fleet programs to evaluate compliance with laws, regulations,
policies, directives, and sustainability mandates;
Strengthens vehicle acquisition justification guidelines;
Provides guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13693
and Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) 141;
Changes formatting throughout to increase clarity and
standardize appearance in line with existing DHS Instructions;
and
Reduces the citation of Federal Management Regulation
language throughout, and aligned instruction content with DHS
strategy, policy, and existing regulations.
Summary of Change Details
Vehicle Use
Provides new definition and guidelines for Official Use;
Provides additional guidance on the transport of non-
Government personnel;
Provides guidance on alcohol use and operation/use of DHS
vehicles;
Provides additional guidance for crash/accident reporting;
Provides additional guidance on Vehicle Operator
responsibilities; and
Reduces home-to-work program guidance in favor of cross-
referencing the revised DHS Home-to-Work Instruction.
Vehicle Acquisition
Provides additional guidance on the execution of the VAM,
and
Establishes CRSO as having review and approval authority for
component acquisition and replacement plans.
Sustainability
Provides guidance on the implementation of telematics motor
vehicle information technology systems per Executive Order
13693, and
Implements new EISA guidelines and sustainability targets.
Records and reporting
Provides further guidance for the retention of Fleet Program
records, and
Provides additional appendices to include references and
contacts for Federal Management Regulation and DHS Reporting
Requirements.
Question 10. Mr. Roth testified that FPS refreshed 16% of its fleet
despite the OIG informing FPS and the Department that 234 vehicles in
its fleet had fewer than 5,000 miles. Moreover, Mr. Chaleki noted in
his statement that that OCRSO reviews and approves all component GSA
lease submissions. In light of this, please explain why OCRSO approved
this lease submission.
Answer. In fiscal year 2015, FPS processed a request through NPPD
to replace 182 vehicles on a 1-for-1 basis to refresh the FPS fleet.
This order was for 152 SUVs and 30 sedans. This request represented a
zero growth acquisition. After analysis by NPPD and the DHS Fleet
Manager, FPS reduced their original fiscal year 2015 GSA vehicle order
from 152 SUV's down to 98; a 36 percent reduction. The revised order
contained 44 Interceptor Sedans including right-sizing of 15 Criminal
Investigator vehicles from Interceptor SUVs to Interceptor Sedans. The
DHS Fleet Manager initially approved this order.
Subsequent to this order being approved, OCRSO became aware of a
utilization retention analysis conducted by NPPD that identified 217
FPS vehicles as underutilized. Following OCRSO consultation with NPPD,
the FPS fiscal year 2015 vehicle replacement order was rescinded by the
NPPD Fleet Manager on November 11, 2015. OCRSO is currently working
with NPPD to determine their vehicle requirements prior to submitting a
revised order, if required, in the fiscal year 2016 GSA cycle.
Question 11. Mr. Chaleki, according to the draft, updated DHS Motor
Vehicle Fleet Program Manual, all vehicle acquisitions and lease
agreements are to be reviewed by the CRSO. Since the implementation of
the updated vehicle fleet program manual, have all components submitted
their lease agreements to your office? How many lease agreements has
your office reviewed?
Answer. The updated DHS Fleet Management Instruction Manual is
currently being reviewed by components and has not been officially
implemented. However, all vehicle leases are reviewed by OCRSO. The
fiscal year 2016 GSA replacement cycle has just begun and runs through
March 2016. To date, OCRSO has received approximately 700 vehicle lease
requests, which does not include any requests from FPS. OCRSO will
begin reviewing all requests in January.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Thomas Chaleki
Question 1. Mr. Chaleki, according to the draft, updated DHS Motor
Vehicle Fleet Program Manual, all vehicle acquisitions and lease
agreements are to be reviewed by the CRSO. Since the implementation of
the updated vehicle fleet program manual, how many lease agreements
have been reviewed by your office? How many were not approved or
required modification by your office?
Answer. The updated DHS Fleet Management Instruction Manual is
currently being reviewed by components and has not been officially
implemented. However, all vehicle leases are reviewed by OCRSO. The
fiscal year 2016 GSA replacement cycle has just begun and runs through
March 2016. To date, OCRSO has received approximately 700 vehicle lease
requests, which to date does not include any requests from FPS. OCRSO
will begin reviewing all requests in January.
Question 2. The inspector general's report states that DHS did not
provide sufficient oversight to ensure FPS complied with all Federal
and departmental guidance. Do you agree with this assessment? What is
the Department doing to better oversee fleet management at FPS?
Answer. OCRSO does not provide direct oversight of the FPS fleet.
FPS is a sub-component of NPPD. The DHS fleet manager works directly
with the NPPD fleet manager on all fleet requirements for NPPD sub-
components. NPPD is responsible for ensuring that FPS complies with all
Federal, DHS, and NPPD fleet management guidance and for ensuring that
all information from the NPPD fleet and by extension, the FPS fleet, is
accurately reported to the DHS fleet manager in a timely manner. To
improve oversight of the DHS fleet, OCRSO is updating the DHS Fleet
Management Instruction Manual and has improved its fleet data
collection capabilities through improvements to the CAPSIS data system.
Question 3. The inspector general's report recommends that you
develop and administer a standardized vehicle methodology for all
components annually. The Department concurred with this recommendation.
Please explain what steps you are taking to fulfill this
recommendation. Please also explain why a standard vehicle methodology
was not being utilized previously.
Answer. OCRSO is currently developing requirements documentation to
conduct a Department-wide VAM in fiscal year 2017. No vehicles will be
exempt from participating. OCRSO conducted the Department's first VAM
survey in 2012 for all DHS components. ICE and USSS did not participate
in this initial VAM survey. ICE completed a partial VAM that same year
to include mileage and fuel consumption, but was unclear about the
vehicle usage requirement in the survey and the possible security
implications. Once the security concerns were addressed, ICE conducted
a full VAM in fiscal year 2014. USSS also cited security concerns as
the reason for not participating in the initial VAM survey. In 2013,
OCRSO conducted a follow-up VAM and continued to track progress towards
vehicle reduction targets. As a direct result of the efforts taken
through the VAM between 2012 and 2015, the Department has experienced
an 8.3 percent reduction in its motor vehicle fleet.
Question 4. The Department's Fleet Manager serves as the last
review of fleet management decisions. The inspector general found that
DHS did not always ensure FPS completed the Vehicle Allocation
Methodology (VAM) or provide sufficient documentation justification for
having additional vehicles. Please explain the Department's lapse in
oversight and future plans to better ensure FPS is operating the most
cost-efficient fleet.
Answer. In 2012, DHS conducted its first VAM to assess the fleet.
As a sub-component of NPPD, the entire FPS fleet was subject to the VAM
assessment. In fiscal year 2012, the FPS total vehicle inventory was
1,307. As a result of the VAM conducted by NPPD, the FPS fleet
eliminated 129 vehicles reducing the fleet to a total of 1,178
vehicles.
The lack of a centralized fleet management information system
hampered OCRSO's ability to provide proper oversight of component fleet
operations. The development of CAPSIS and the consolidation of
Department-wide fleet data into a single portfolio management system
have given OCRSO the ability to conduct more in-depth analysis of each
component's fleet management in a way not possible earlier.
Over the past 2 months, OCRSO has begun extensive analysis of
component fleet data by comparing their aggregated data with CAPSIS
against the FAST data being reported to GSA in the 2015 annual FAST
report, as well as developing the Fleet Data Scorecard. Additionally,
OCRSO consolidated Department-wide home-to-work data and has begun
extensive analysis of this data, as well as development of the Home-to-
Work Data Scorecard. These initiatives will provide OCRSO with
oversight opportunities previously not available.
As a result of these two developments, OCRSO is currently
conducting in-depth analysis of the NPPD Fleet Program, including FPS.
We are meeting regularly with the NPPD Fleet Manager to address
inconsistencies in their fleet and home-to-work program.
Question 5. As Fleet Manager, do you oversee FPS' use of the
Vehicle Allocation Methodology or VAM? Please explain the inspector
general's finding that FPS did not use the VAM as intended and has not
implemented an allocation tool to properly justify the number, type,
and use of the current fleet. What steps are in place to develop an
appropriate allocation methodology and/or to better utilize VAM?
Answer. NPPD provides direct oversight of the FPS fleet. The DHS
Fleet Manager works directly with the NPPD Fleet Manager on all fleet
requirements for NPPD sub-components. OCRSO is currently conducting an
in-depth analysis of the NPPD Fleet Program, including FPS. We are
meeting regularly with the NPPD Fleet Manager to address
inconsistencies in their fleet and home-to-work program.
As recommended in the inspector general's report, OIG-16-02, OCRSO
is conducting analysis of VAM technology available in the private
sector that can be procured and implemented in fiscal year 2017 and
sustained in subsequent years.
Question 6. What incentives or penalties does DHS have that would
ensure FPS and other components within DHS run efficient fleet
operations?
Answer. DHS does not have or utilize any incentives or penalties to
ensure the efficiency of fleet operations by components. DHS Delegation
00500, Delegation for Administrative Services, delegates to the Chief
Administrative Office (now the Chief Readiness Support Officer) DHS-
wide authority and responsibility for administrative services, to
include the motor vehicle fleet. Further, the CRSO is empowered to
rescind component authority to lease or acquire vehicles if personnel
demonstrate a lack of capability to carry out the appropriate
functions.
As analysis of newly-acquired fleet data and home-to-work
utilization data are analyzed, and strengthened Fleet and Home-to-Work
Instructions are issued, the CRSO is empowered to take action where
deficiencies in fleet management are identified.
Question 7. Your office is responsible for FPS fleet management at
the Department. Please explain to the committee the office's daily
responsibilities with overseeing the FPS fleet, including monitoring
purchase decisions, equipment upgrade decisions, and overall fleet
management.
Answer. Subject to the oversight, direction, and guidance of the
under secretary for management, DHS Delegation 00500, Delegation for
Administrative Services, delegates to the chief administrative office
(now the chief readiness support officer) DHS-wide authority and
responsibility for administrative services, including the motor fleet,
which is overseen through life-cycle management and other mission
support functions. Life-cycle management may include capital planning,
requirements development, operations and maintenance, supply chain
functions, acquisition and disposal, and other similar functions.
Further, DHS Delegation 00500 delegates to component heads the
authority to administer the administrative services programs for their
components, subject to the direction, oversight, and DHS policies
issued by the chief administrative officer (now the chief readiness
support officer). The delegation also empowers the CRSO to rescind such
authority if component personnel demonstrate a lack of capability to
carry out the appropriate functions. FPS is not a DHS component; rather
it is a sub-component of NPPD. As such, the FPS fleet is subject to the
management and oversight of NPPD. OCRSO provides oversight to the NPPD
fleet manager and requires all FPS issues be vetted by NPPD leadership
before being forwarded to the DHS fleet manager.
OCRSO has begun extensive analysis of component fleet data by
comparing their aggregated data with CAPSIS against the FAST data being
reported to GSA in the 2015 annual FAST report, as well as developing
the Fleet Data Scorecard. Additionally, OCRSO has consolidated
Department-wide home-to-work data and has begun extensive analysis of
this data, as well as development of the Home-to-Work Data Scorecard.
These initiatives will provide OCRSO with oversight opportunities
previously not available.
As a result of these two developments, OCRSO is currently
conducting in-depth analysis of the NPPD Fleet Program, including FPS.
We are meeting regularly with the NPPD Fleet Manager to address
inconsistencies in their fleet and home-to-work program.
Question 8. The Department was recently subject to an inspector
general report, OIG-14-126, that questioned the Department's fleet
management policy. Please describe what changes have been made in
oversight in response to the inspector general's findings.
Answer. The inspector general recommended that DHS ensure that the
DHS fleet manager have adequate oversight and necessary enforcement
authority over component fleet managers' efforts to acquire vehicles,
right-size their fleets, and eliminate underused vehicles. DHS
concurred with the OIG recommendation. To strengthen the DHS fleet
manager's oversight, OCRSO reviewed and updated the DHS Fleet
Management Instruction strengthening the DHS fleet manager's ability to
provide proper oversight.
The inspector general also recommended that the Department
implement a single, Department-wide fleet management data system that
would give the DHS fleet manager more visibility into components'
fleets and make right-sizing efforts more transparent. DHS concurred
with the OIG recommendation and developed CAPSIS. CAPSIS consolidates
Department-wide fleet data into a single portfolio management system.
The system has already given OCRSO the ability to conduct in-depth
analysis of each component's fleet management in a way not previously
possible. Over the past 2 months, OCRSO has begun extensive analysis of
component fleet data by comparing their aggregated data in CAPSIS
against the FAST data being reported to GSA in the 2015 annual FAST
report, as well as developing a Fleet Data Scorecard that will identify
data anomalies and inconsistencies to components on a monthly basis.

[all]