DTIC ADA596259: Security Guard Services Contract at Naval Weapons Station Earle

2.1 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Report No. D-2009-045 January 23, 2009
Security Guard Services Contract at
Naval Weapons Station Earle
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
23 JAN 2009 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Security Guard Services Contract at Naval Weapons Station Earle
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Department of Defense Inspector General,4800 Mark Center REPORT NUMBER
Drive,Alexandria,VA,22350-1500
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 48
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Additional Information and Copies
To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of Defense
Inspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports
Distribution Unit at [phone] (DSN 664-8937) or fax [phone].
Suggestions for Audits
To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector
General for Auditing at [phone] (DSN 664-9142) or fax [phone]. Ideas
and requests can also be mailed to:

ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions)
Department of Defense Inspector General
400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)
Arlington, VA 22202-4704

Acronyms and Abbreviations
CDR Contract Discrepancy Report
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FSCM Facilities Support Contract Manager
IG Inspector General
MO Maintenance and Operation Manual
NAC National Agency Check
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NWS Naval Weapons Station
OPNAVINST Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction
QA Quality Assurance
QAE Quality Assurance Evaluator
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704
January 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION,
TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS
NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL
SUBJECT: Security Guard Services Contract at Naval Weapons Station Earle
(Report No. D-2009-045)
We are providing this report for review and comment. We considered comments from the
Commander, Navy Installations Command; Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic;
and the Commander, Naval Weapons Station Earle when preparing the final report.
DoD Directive 7650.3 requires that all recommendations be resolved promptly. The comments
from the Commander, Navy Installations Command were responsive. However, the comments
from Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic were only partially responsive.
Therefore, we request additional comments from Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid
Atlantic on Recommendations B.2.b. and B.2.c. by March 23, 2009.
Please provide conun.ents that conform to the requirements of DoD Directive 7650.3. If possible,
send your comments in electronic format (Adobe Acrobat file onJy) to [email protected].
Copies of your comments must have the actual signature of the authorizing official for your
organization. We are unable to accept the I Signed I symbol in place of the actual signature. If
you arrange to send classified conunents electronically, you must send them over the SECRET
Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET).
We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Questions should be directed to me at (703)
604-9201 (DSN 664-9201). ..
~ & ,
Richard B. Jolliffe
Assistant Inspector General
Acquisition and Contract Management

Report No. D-2009-045 (Project No. D2008-D000CG-0116.000)
January 23, 2009
Results in Brief: Security Guard Services
Contract at Naval Weapons Station Earle

 The Navy did not perform quality assurance
What We Did according to Navy guidance.
 The Navy did not adequately document
This report responds to Congressman
contractor performance.
Christopher H. Smith’s request that the DoD
Inspector General review the security guard
What We Recommend
services contract at Naval Weapons Station
Earle, New Jersey, in light of the Navy’s plan to  The Navy should maintain a record of when
open base housing to the public. The contractor employees complete criminal
congressional request included allegations that background checks and National Agency
Myers Investigative and Security Service, Inc., Checks.
violated its contract with the Navy.
 The Navy should implement procedures to

document that contractor security guards
We reviewed contract administration and
have completed Navy required training.
contractor performance for the security guard
 The Navy should revise the quality
services contract to determine whether the Navy
assurance plan to comply with Navy
properly administered the contract and whether
requirements, and implement an appropriate
the contractor performed according to contract
surveillance plan.
requirements. We also addressed the following
 The Navy should provide the required
specific allegations contained in the
training to quality assurance personnel.
congressional request.
 The contractor did not conduct background
Corrective Actions
checks on prospective contractor employees.
The Navy provided draft comments in
 The contractor did not properly staff security
January 2009 stating that they modified the
shifts.
contract for processing National Agency
 The contractor did not properly train
Checks. In addition, the Navy revised the
security guards and falsified training
quality assurance plan to include random
documentation.
sampling.
 A security exercise identified security flaws.
Navy Comments and Our
What We Found
Response
 The Navy was not able to provide documen-
tation showing that all contractor security The Commander, Navy Installations Command;
guards had completed a background check. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-
Atlantic; and the Commander, Naval Weapons
 With few exceptions, the contractor was
Station Earle concurred with our
properly staffing security posts.
recommendations. However, the Naval
 The contractor did not document whether
Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic
security guards completed all training
comments on one recommendation were only
required by the contract.
partially responsive and on another
 Navy security assessments did not identify
recommendation were nonresponsive. Please
any significant security concerns about the
see the recommendations table on the back of
contractor security guards.
this page.
i
Report No. D-2009-045 (Project No. D2008-D000CG-0116.000)
January 23, 2009
Recommendations Table
Navy Recommendations No Additional Comments
Requiring Comment Required
Commander, Navy B.1.
Installations Command

Commander, Naval Facilities B.2.b., B.2.c. A.1.a., A.1.b., B.2.a.
Engineering Command, Mid-
Atlantic

Commander, Naval Weapons A.2., B.3.a., B.3.b.
Station Earle

Please provide comments by March 23, 2009.

i i
Table of Contents

Results in Brief i

Introduction 1

Objectives 1
Background 1
Review of Internal Controls 2

Finding A. Security Concerns: Allegations and Responses 5

Navy Planned Corrective Actions 14
Recommendations, Navy Comments, and Our Response 14

Finding B. Improved Quality Assurance Needed for Security
Guard Services Contract 17

Navy Corrective Actions 27
Recommendations, Navy Comments, and Our Response 27

Appendix

Scope and Methodology 31
Prior Coverage 32

Department of the Navy Comments 33

Introduction
Objectives
The audit objective was to determine whether the Navy properly administered the
contract and whether the contractor performed according to contract requirements. In
addition, the audit addressed specific allegations raised in the congressional request.
Please see the appendix for scope and methodology and prior audit coverage.
Background
Congressman Christopher H. Smith, who represents New Jersey’s fourth district,
requested that the DoD Office of Inspector General (IG) review the security guard
services contract at Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Earle, New Jersey, following
complaints from a former contractor employee about security procedures.

A former employee for Myers Security and Investigative Services, Inc. (Myers) contacted
Congressman Smith about alleged lapses in the security procedures at NWS Earle. The
allegations were as follows.
 Myers was not conducting background checks on prospective contractor
employees.
 Myers was not properly staffing the security posts at NWS Earle.
 Myers did not properly train security guards and falsified training records.
 A security exercise identified security flaws at NWS Earle.
See finding A for a discussion of the allegations and DoD IG responses.

The DoD Office of Inspector General issued DoD IG Report No. D-2008-116, “DoD
Section 801 On-Base Housing,” on August 12, 2008, concerning the proposed leasing of
300 section 801 housing units located on base at NWS Earle by Laurelwood, Inc. The
audit determined that NWS Earle officials were acting within the terms and conditions of
the 1988 Section 801 housing agreement with Laurelwood, Inc., and the Navy will
review security considerations for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Statement.
NWS Earle
NWS Earle is located in Colts Neck, New Jersey, and is one of three naval weapons
stations on the East Coast. The station occupies 11,851 acres and comprises two separate
land-holdings connected by a 14-mile highway and rail line. NWS Earle’s mission
includes:
 receiving, renovating, maintaining, storing, and issuing ammunition, explosives,
expendable ordnance items, and weapons and technical ordnance materiel;
 providing logistics and administrative support to home-ported ships; and

1