ABSTRACT

Driving Away with Taxpayer Dollars: DHS's Failure to Effectively Manage the FPS Vehicle Fleet, Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, December 3, 2015   [open pdf - 1MB]

This is a testimony compilation of the December 3, 2015 hearing "Driving Away with Taxpayer Dollars: DHS's Failure to Effectively Manage the FPS Vehicle Fleet" held before the House Committee on Homeland Security. From the testimony of subcommittee chairman Scott Perry: "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 nationwide. 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 [IG] 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 D.C. 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 [SUV] 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." Statements, letters, and other materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John Roth, L. Eric Patterson, and Thomas Chaleki.

Publisher:
Date:
2015-12-03
Copyright:
Public Domain
Retrieved From:
House Committee on Homeland Security: https://homeland.house.gov/
Format:
pdf
Media Type:
application/pdf
URL:
Help with citations