(U) What OIG Audited 

(SBU) The Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s (DS) Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) program provides contracted guard, personal protection, and support services at diplomatic locations (redacted). The WPS II contract required that security vendors train their personnel before assignment to Department duties. However, DS found issues with the quality, oversight, and cost of training provided by the security vendors. To address these issues under the subsequent WPS III contract, the Department awarded a contract to Alutiiq Essential Services in 2021 to provide initial training to WPS III security vendor personnel.  (U) The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine whether DS’s efforts to consolidate initial WPS III training enhanced oversight, improved training quality, and achieved envisioned cost savings.  

(U) What OIG Recommends 

(U) OIG made four recommendations to address the deficiencies identified in this report. Based on the Department’s responses to a draft of this report, OIG considers the four recommendations resolved, pending further action. A synopsis of management’s comments to the recommendation offered and OIG’s reply follow each recommendation in the Audit Results section of this report. Responses received from DS and the Bureau of Administration are included in their entirety in Appendices B and C, respectively. 

(U) What OIG Found 

(U) OIG found that DS enhanced oversight of initial WPS III training by consolidating that training; however, OIG was unable to determine whether DS improved training quality or achieved envisioned cost savings. DS took several actions to improve oversight. For example, DS assigned a Government Technical Monitor to continuously oversee training at the King Abdullah II Special Operations Training Center in Amman, Jordan. In addition, OIG found that DS generally conducted oversight in accordance with requirements. However, DS did not ensure that the training contractor submitted several required documents. By not enforcing the requirements set out in its Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, DS did not have all the information necessary to evaluate whether the contractor was fully meeting performance standards.   (U) Furthermore, DS did not use eFiling, the Department’s mandatory contract award management system, to maintain oversight documentation. Instead, DS and the Office of Acquisitions Management agreed to use a DS system. OIG did not identify a waiver process for a bureau to use alternate systems for all oversight documentation. Thus, DS and AQM are not in compliance with Department guidance for maintaining contract administration records.    (U) OIG was unable to determine whether DS improved training quality or achieved cost savings by consolidating initial WPS III training because DS had not collected data; established baseline data or performance indicators; or developed a methodology to monitor, evaluate, and measure training quality improvements or cost savings.     (U) As a result of not establishing data and methods for monitoring and measuring quality improvements and cost savings, DS cannot fully characterize the impact of consolidating initial WPS III training.