Proposal from DHS May Improve Diplomatic Security in a More Effective, Efficient, and Timely Manner

Washington, D.C. – This week, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, called on Secretary of State John Kerry to put on hold the Department’s current plans to construct a costly new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FAST-C) while their requested Government Accountability Office (GAO) review is completed.

In order to ensure critically important improvements to embassy and diplomatic security are completed in the most effective, efficient, and timely manner, Royce, McCaul, and Duncan have requested a GAO review of the State Department’s pending proposal to construct the new FAST-C in Blackstone, Virginia and the Homeland Security Department’s proposal to expand its own Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia to meet the State Department’s needs.  The Homeland Security Department estimates that its proposal would save U.S. taxpayers nearly $1 billion over ten years.

While there is an urgent need to increase and improve diplomatic security training following the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, and the rising anti-American militancy in North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere, the State Department’s proposed brand new FASTC would not be completed for at least 5 years at a cost of $450-$900 million.  The GAO review will determine whether DHS’s FLETC is an already operating suitable alternative.      

In their letter to Secretary Kerry, Royce, McCaul, and Duncan wrote:  “By leveraging existing facilities to meet State’s training needs, FLETC estimates its proposal could save the U.S. government almost $1 billion over 10 years.  With such a substantial amount of projected cost savings, we believe it is critical that FLETC’s estimate receive thorough consideration and a full, independent analysis…. It is critical that an independent and unbiased analysis be conducted to determine which agency’s proposal offers the required training at the best value to the American taxpayer.”

The signed letter to Kerry is HERE.  The signed letter to U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro is HERE.

The text of the two letters follows:

The Honorable John F. Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We are writing to express our concerns regarding the Department’s plan to move forward with construction of the new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (“FAST-C”) at Fort Pickett in Blackstone, Virginia.  Our Committees have asked the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) to review the proposals put forward by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of State (“State”) to determine which proposal meets the State’s security training requirements in the most effective, efficient, and timely manner.  Our Committees request that State not move forward and expend any funding for development at the Fort Pickett site until the GAO review is complete.

Embassy security and the safety of U.S. personnel abroad are areas of great concern to us.  Over the past two years, our Committees have conducted oversight through full Committee hearings and staff briefings, and we assess that the State Department’s existing Diplomatic Security (“DS”) training facilities may be insufficient to meet recommendations put forward by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) that was convened following the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi.  Specifically, we are concerned about the implementation of the ARB’s recommendations that State develop courses for DS agents and other State personnel integrating high-threat training and risk-management decision processes and provide Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) training for all personnel assigned to high-risk, high-threat posts.

We understand that State, in an effort to comply with these ARB recommendations, has proposed that the General Services Administration (GSA) construct a new FASTC at Fort Pickett, an Army National Guard facility in Blackstone, VA. This proposal aims to consolidate State’s eleven security training facilities, improve instructional efficiency, and provide training to an estimated 9,000-10,000 DS and other State personnel.  The initial cost for this project was over $950 million, but a reduction in scope lowered that estimate to approximately $907 million and then to $460 million, including a commensurate reduction in projected capabilities. We understand from State that the cost could change further.

We are mindful, however, that DHS already operates FLETC, which provides security training for DHS and 91 law enforcement and military partner agencies and organizations including DS. FLETC currently possesses extensive existing infrastructure that could be expanded and upgraded – including construction of new buildings, weapon ranges, and driving tracks – to meet the requirements in State’s original plan at a cost of $272 million.  By leveraging existing facilities to meet State’s training needs, FLETC estimates its proposal could save the U.S. government almost $1 billion over 10 years.  With such a substantial amount of projected cost savings, we believe it is critical that FLETC’s estimate receive thorough consideration and a full, independent analysis.

We are further concerned by the widely differing cost estimates provided by State and DHS to satisfy State’s security training needs.  Our Committees have received varying information about which requirements are critical to improving the safety of personnel and facilities overseas and how each proposal would satisfy those requirements.  It is critical that an independent and unbiased analysis be conducted to determine which agency’s proposal offers the required training at the best value to the American taxpayer.

Last year, in the annual State Reauthorization legislation (H.R. 2848) the House conveyed its bipartisan desire to see an independent analysis precede any expenditure of funding.  It is our understanding that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has reviewed both State and DHS proposals and our Committees have repeatedly requested access to any documentation related to the OMB review.  Unfortunately, the Administration has not responded to those requests. Instead, the General Services Administration (GSA) recently posted a notice for a supplemental environmental impact statement to be conducted on State’s Fort Pickett site. This indicates State’s intent to expend existing funds to move forward with FASTC without additional analysis of alternative sites, including FLETC, which the GAO study would provide.

We look forward to seeing the results of the GAO review and trust that the Department will not embark on such an expensive undertaking without allowing for the completion of a thorough, transparent, and unbiased review process.

The Honorable Gene Dodaro
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Dodaro:

We understand that the Department of State (“State”) is moving forward with plans to construct a new Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (“FAST-C”) in Blackstone, Virginia.  The selection of the Fort Pickett site comes after more than a decade of failed proposals to develop property at other sites in the Washington-Metro area and the inability to expand current use at the Bill Scott Raceway in Summit Point, West Virginia.  The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has submitted a proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to retrofit an existing law enforcement training center in Glynco, GA (the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center or “FLETC”) to service the Department of State’s needs.  The FAST-C and FLETC proposals vary considerably in cost, scope, and projected completion time, which we believe warrant an impartial review before the Administration moves forward with either.   

It is our understanding that State has proposed that the General Services Administration (GSA) construct a new FAST-C at Fort Pickett, an Army National Guard facility in Blackstone, VA. This proposal aims to consolidate State’s eleven security training facilities, improve instructional efficiency, and provide training to an estimated 9,000-10,000 Diplomatic Security (“DS”) and other State personnel.  The initial cost for this project was over $950 million, but a reduction in scope lowered that estimate to approximately $907 million and then to $460 million. We understand from State that the cost could change further.

DHS already operates FLETC in Glynco, GA, which provides security training for DHS and 91 law enforcement and military partner agencies and organizations.  DHS has proposed to expand and upgrade the current FLETC facility – including construction of new buildings, weapon ranges, and driving tracks – to meet the requirements in State’s original plan at a cost of $272 million.  By leveraging its existing facilities to meet State’s training needs, FLETC estimates its proposal could save the U.S. government almost $1 billion over 10 years.  With such a substantial amount of projected cost savings, we believe it is critical that FLETC’s estimate receive thorough consideration and a full, independent analysis.

We thereby request that the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) review both the Department of State’s FAST-C proposal and the DHS proposal to expand the existing FLETC site to meet State’s requirements.  A review should consider the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each agency’s existing capabilities, proposed new infrastructure, and any other relevant tangible factors.

In order to ensure the highest quality security training is provided at the best price to the American taxpayer, we request that GAO address the following questions during its review:
1.      Does the State Department have a strategic capital planning process and, if so, how does it conform to leading practices and how do its plans for a new DS training center fit into it?

2.      What requirements has the State Department established for a new DS training center, and how do the different proposals, such as the status quo, FAST-C, FLETC, and others fulfill those requirements?

3.      To what extent do the cost estimates for the project conform to leading practices?

4.      What are the potential consequences of any changes in scope being considered for the project on the effectiveness of State Department training and for meeting project requirements?
 

###