RE D A CT ED FOR PUB L IC REL EAS E

L IM ITE D O F F IC IA L U SE - P RO P RI ETA RY I NF O RMA TI O N

Audit of the United States Marshals Service’s
Contract Awarded to The GEO Group, Incorporated
to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility,
Lovejoy, Georgia

***

AUDIT DIVISION
20-085

JULY 2020

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A redaction was made to the full version of this report for reasons of commercial non-promotion. The
redaction is contained in Appendix 3, The GEO Group’s Response to the Draft Audit Report, and is of the
name of a commercial company.

RE D A CT ED FOR PUB L IC REL EAS E

Executive Summary
Audit of the United States Marshals Service’s Contract Awarded to The GEO
Group, Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility,
Lovejoy, Georgia

Objective

Audit Results

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector
General conducted an audit of the United States
Marshals Service’s (USMS) Contract Number
ODT-8-C-0005 with The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), valued
at about $650 million, to provide detention services at
the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility (Deyton Facility)
in Lovejoy, Georgia. The audit assessed the USMS’s
administration of the contract, and GEO’s performance
and compliance with the terms, conditions, laws, and
regulations applicable to the contract. The assessment
of contractor performance included financial
management, monitoring, reporting, and progress
toward meeting the contract goals and objectives.

Our audit focused on Contract Number ODT-8-C-0005,
which is a firm-fixed price contract between the USMS
and GEO for about $650 million. The contract period of
performance is February 2008 to February 2028, if all
option years are exercised.
Staffing Requirements – The USMS did not hold GEO
accountable for its failure to staff facilities as required
by the contract from January 2018 to March 2019. The
contract includes a staffing plan and requires that GEO
maintain a minimum of 90 percent of the plan for
detention security services and 85 percent of the plan
for all other staff categories. The contract permits the
USMS to apply staffing-related invoice deductions. We
found that GEO did not consistently maintain the
90 percent staffing level for detention security services
during the time period of our audit, did not consistently
fill essential positions listed in the contract, and had
numerous positions that were vacant for more than the
120 days specified in the contract. Despite the facility’s
failure to meet these staffing requirements, the USMS
did not issue any invoice deductions during the period
we audited. We estimated that, for the period
January 2018 through December 2019, the USMS could
have taken invoice deductions of more than $3.1 million
for positions that were vacant for more than the
120 days specified in the contract.

Results in Brief
We found that the USMS needs to improve contract
oversight procedures, particularly regarding unmet
staffing levels, processing invoice deductions, and
contract price reduction proposals and the use of
commissary funds. As a result of these weaknesses,
the USMS paid GEO an estimated $3.1 million for staff
services not provided between January 2018 and
December 2019. We also identified weaknesses in the
USMS’s contract with GEO related to defining contract
requirements and establishing staffing requirements.
We found that GEO generally complied with the terms
and conditions of the contract applicable to contract
management, oversight, and monitoring. However,
GEO’s performance did not comply with the contract
terms and law pertaining to mandatory training for
officers transporting detainees. Additionally, we
identified an area of needed improvement related to
detainee safety in the use of bunk beds.

Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals –
The USMS did not prepare contract price reduction
proposals for the GEO contract in accordance with the
process outlined in the USMS Detention Services
Contract Reduction Manual. In addition, the
Contracting Officer’s Representative did not accurately
calculate the proposed reductions. As a result, the
USMS’s processing of reduction proposals was delayed,
and as of March 24, 2020, USMS did not make decisions
on reductions proposed between May 2019 and
October 2019.

Recommendations
Our report contains 10 recommendations to assist the
USMS in establishing controls to prevent and detect
GEO’s non-compliance with terms and conditions of the
contract.

Transportation Officer Training – The USMS did not
ensure that all of GEO’s transportation officers had
completed training courses as required by federal law
for employees of private prisoner transport companies.
Consequently, transportation officers were not fully

i

Executive Summary
Audit of the United States Marshals Service’s Contract Awarded to The GEO
Group, Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy,
Georgia

trained, increasing the risk of delays or that a major
accident or other event could occur during detainee
transportation for which the officer is not prepared.
Commissary Fund – The USMS does not have a
procedure for ensuring that substantial excess
commissary funds, as existed at the Deyton Facility, are
used solely to benefit detainees, consistent with the
terms of the contract. Based on the persistent and
significant balance in the facility’s commissary fund
during the period of our audit, we believe that GEO
should have either reduced the price that it charged
detainees for commissary items or more promptly used
the excess funds to purchase items for the benefit of
detainees. The contract also does not specify how
accumulated excess commissary funds will be disposed
at the end of the contract.
Detainee Bunk Beds – The USMS does not have a
policy or standard for the appropriate use of ladders in
facilities that contain bunk beds, and only one of the
four housing units at the Deyton Facility had ladders
installed on bunk beds at the time of our audit. We
further determined that only 2 of the USMS’s 13 private
contract facilities have ladders or steps installed for
bunk beds. As a result, there is an increased risk of
detainee injuries.
Infectious Disease Prevention and Control – At the
conclusion of our audit work, GEO had begun taking
steps in response to the coronavirus pandemic by
implementing policy guidance and changing procedures
at the Deyton Facility. Because these actions occurred
at the conclusion of our audit work, we did not perform
testing sufficient to verify implementation of either the
new policy guidance or the assertions of the Deyton
Facility Administrator regarding the pandemic
preparations and conditions at the facility. On April 29,
2020, the Office of the Inspector General initiated an
oversight review of the USMS response to the
pandemic.

ii

AUDIT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE’S
CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED TO
OPERATE THE ROBERT A. DEYTON DETENTION FACILITY,
LOVEJOY, GEORGIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
Background ....................................................................................... 1
United States Marshals Service .................................................... 1
The GEO Group, Incorporated...................................................... 2
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility .............................................. 2
Prior OIG Audit of USMS Oversight of a Contract Facility ........................... 3
OIG Audit Approach ............................................................................ 3
AUDIT RESULTS .......................................................................................... 4
The USMS Did Not Hold the Contractor Accountable for Staffing Shortages .. 4
Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals ..................................... 7
Preparation of Contract Price Reduction Proposals ........................... 8
Accuracy of Contract Price Reduction Proposals .............................. 9
Oversight of Commissary Fund ........................................................... 11
Prisoner Transport Compliance with Applicable Regulations ..................... 13
Detainee Bunk Bed Safety Concern ..................................................... 14
Infectious Disease Prevention and Control ............................................ 16
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 19
APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................ 21
APPENDIX 2: THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE RESPONSE TO
THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ................................................................ 23
APPENDIX 3: THE GEO GROUP’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT....... 27
APPENDIX 4: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ................... 30

AUDIT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE’S
CONTRACT AWARDED TO THE GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED TO
OPERATE THE ROBERT A. DEYTON DETENTION FACILITY,
LOVEJOY, GEORGIA
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has
completed an audit of the United States Marshals Service’s (USMS) Contract
Number ODT-8-C-0005 with The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) to provide comprehensive
detention services at the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility (Deyton Facility) in
Lovejoy, Georgia. This fixed-price contract has a 5-year base period and three 5year options. 1 If each of the three available 5-year options is exercised, the
contract will end February 19, 2028 and have an estimated value of $650 million.
On December 20, 2017, the USMS exercised the second option for the period of
performance from February 20, 2018 to February 19, 2023. As of April 13, 2020,
USMS payments to GEO totaled approximately $369 million or about 57 percent of
the potential contract value.
Background
United States Marshals Service
The USMS manages the housing, transportation, and care of federal
detainees. The USMS does not own or operate detention facilities but houses
prisoners in: state and local government facilities using intergovernmental
agreements (IGA); Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities; and 13 privately
managed detention facilities, including the Deyton Facility. The Deyton Facility
contract was awarded to GEO in early 2008. The facility accommodates 768
detainees, 32 female and 736 male. The USMS contract provides for a fixed
monthly operating price for an average daily population of 614 beds or 80 percent
occupancy. The contract also provides an incremental per diem rate charge if the
number of occupied beds exceeds 614.
In fiscal year (FY) 2019, the USMS Prisoner Operations Division (POD)
managed an average daily detention population of 61,489 detainees of which over
10,000 were housed in the 13 privately managed detention facilities. According to
USMS prisoner operations data for FY 2019, the total average daily detention
population was 41,511 at state and local facilities, 9,575 at BOP facilities, and
10,403 at private detention facilities.
The POD’s mission is to preserve the integrity of the federal judicial process
by establishing national detention policy, national strategies, and programs that
1 A requirements contract provides for filling all actual purchase requirements of designated
government activities for supplies or services during a specified contract period (from one contractor),
with deliveries or performance to be scheduled by placing orders with the contractor. See FAR
Subpart 16.503, Requirements contracts.

1

provide for processing, housing, transportation, and care of federal detainees in a
safe, secure, and cost effective manner. Two POD offices play key roles in
managing detention contracts such as that with the Deyton Facility. The Office of
Detention Services staff include contracting officers who are responsible for
awarding and administering the private detention contracts. The Office of
Detention Standards and Compliance is responsible for monitoring compliance with
federal detention standards.
The Deyton Facility contract is administered by a Contracting Officer (CO)
located at USMS Headquarters within the POD. The CO directs or negotiates any
changes in contract terms and has authority to increase or decrease the contract
amount, modify or extend the period of performance, authorize payment under the
contract, and take formal action for unsatisfactory contractor performance. A
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) was designated to assist the CO with
technical monitoring and administration. The COR is a Detention Contract
Administrator located on-site at the facility and is responsible for the continuous,
day-to-day monitoring of the contractor.
The GEO Group, Incorporated
GEO is a Florida-based corporation that specializes in the ownership, leasing
and management of correctional, detention and re-entry facilities; and the provision
of community-based services and youth services in the United States, Australia,
South Africa, and the United Kingdom. GEO’s U.S. Secure Services oversees the
operation and management of approximately 74,500 beds in 65 secure facilities for
the USMS, the BOP, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as
well as nine state correctional clients and various county and city jurisdictions. The
USMS contracts with GEO for the management of six detention facilities. According
to GEO’s 2019 annual report, USMS alone accounted for approximately
$273 million, or 11 percent, of GEO’s revenue in 2019. In 2019, GEO earned
$2.48 billion in total revenue.
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility
The Deyton Facility is a private detention facility owned by Clayton County, a
political subdivision of the State of Georgia, and leased to The GEO Group, Inc. for
a 20-year period beginning April 23, 2007. The detainee population consists of
individuals charged with federal offenses and who are detained while awaiting
hearing, trial, or sentencing. The Deyton Facility contract is a sole-source contract
for comprehensive detention services including: receiving and discharging
detainees, facility security, transportation and outside guard services, healthcare
services, and food services. The contract allows other Department of Justice
components, such as the BOP, and non-Department entities such as ICE, to house
detainees at the facility. As of August 2019, 704 beds were assigned to the USMS
and 64 beds were assigned to ICE. According to GEO, the average length of stay
for a detainee at the Deyton Facility was 28.20 days for the period January 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019. For USMS detainees, the average length of stay was
34.33 days and for ICE detainees, the average length of stay was 9.76 days.

2

Prior OIG Audit of USMS Oversight of a Contract Facility
In April 2017, the OIG issued an audit report on the USMS’s contract for the
operation of the Leavenworth Detention Center (Leavenworth Center) in
Leavenworth, Kansas. 2 The report noted that from March 2006 through January 2017,
despite identifying failures to meet certain contract performance requirements, the
USMS had not proposed or issued any contract price reductions for any of the
15 contract detention facilities in operation at that time. The report concluded that
the USMS had failed to provide sufficient oversight at these detention facilities and
that this resulted in several significant operational issues going unaddressed for an
extended period at the Leavenworth Detention Center. Of particular concern, the
USMS COR was located offsite, had no previous contract oversight experience, and
received no formal guidance and negligible detention-related training. The COR
maintained an infrequent on-site presence at the Leavenworth Center, did not
document the inspection activities performed, and did not develop an inspection
program or monitoring procedures. In response to the OIG’s audit report, the
USMS established an on-site detention contract monitoring program at all private
detention facilities. This resulted in the creation of the Detention Contract
Administrator position.
OIG Audit Approach
The objectives of the audit were to assess the USMS’s administration of the
contract, and GEO’s compliance with the terms, conditions, laws and regulations
applicable to this contract in the areas of contractor performance, and contract
management, oversight, and monitoring. The scope of this audit, unless otherwise
indicated, is the period of contract performance from January 1, 2016, through
December 31, 2019.
To determine whether the USMS adhered to federal regulations during the
administration processes, we reviewed the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
identify compliance requirements that were relevant to the audit objectives. We
reviewed the USMS’s procurement files and monitoring reports to determine
whether the USMS’s process for contract oversight met the requirements of the
FAR. We also conducted interviews with key contract personnel from the USMS to
understand the USMS’s contract award and administration processes. To determine
if the USMS and GEO followed staffing requirements, we: evaluated GEO’s
budgeted and actual staffing figures, shift rosters, and the USMS’s contract staffing
provisions; and interviewed facility staff to gain an understanding of the facility’s
staffing levels and conditions.

2 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the United States
Marshals Service Contract No. DJJODT7C0002 with CoreCivic, Inc., to Operate the
Leavenworth Detention Center Leavenworth, Kansas, Audit Report 17-22 (April 2017),
(accessed April 1, 2020).

3

AUDIT RESULTS
We found that the USMS needs to improve its contract oversight procedures,
particularly regarding unmet staffing levels, processing contract price reduction
proposals, and the use of commissary funds. As a result of these weaknesses, the
USMS paid GEO what we estimate to be more than $3.1 million for staff services
not provided between January 2018 and December 2019. We also identified
weaknesses in the USMS’s contract with GEO related to the definition of contract
requirements and the establishment of staffing requirements. With regard to
contract management, oversight, and monitoring, GEO generally complied with the
terms and conditions of the contract. However, GEO did not comply with contract
terms and law pertaining to the training of officers transporting detainees.
Additionally, we identified a potential area of improvement related to detainee
safety in the use of bunk beds.
The USMS Did Not Hold the Contractor Accountable for Staffing Shortages
The contract requires that throughout its term GEO maintain the number,
type, and distribution of staff as described in the contract staffing plan. Inadequate
staffing increases risks to inmate safety and facility security. We found that the
USMS did not hold GEO accountable for unmet staffing levels required by the
contract and for vacancies from January 2018 to March 2019. The contract
specifies that staffing levels at the facility shall not fall below a monthly average of
90 percent of full staffing for Detention Security Services, 85 percent for Medical
Services, and 85 percent for all other departments. However, the contract does not
state whether or how a deduction should be calculated when staffing falls below the
required minimum, and we found that the USMS did not seek deductions even
though Detection Security Services fell below the 90 percent staffing level on
multiple occasions during the period covered by our audit. The contract, on the
other hand, does provide that the “failure to fill any individual position within
120 days of the vacancy may result in a deduction from the monthly invoice.”
Despite this provision, we found that the USMS did not issue any invoice deductions
during the period we audited, even though GEO failed to timely fill vacancies. We
determined that, for the period January 2018 through December 2019, the USMS
could have taken invoice deductions of an estimated $3,113,091 for positions that
were vacant for more than 120 days.
As shown below in Figure 1, GEO did not consistently maintain staffing levels
at or above the required 90 percent monthly average for Detention Security
Services from January 2018 to December 2019. We found that GEO did
consistently maintain the required staffing levels for Medical Services and all other
departments.

4

Figure 1
Detention Security Services Monthly Average Staffing
Actual

-

Required

Nov-19

Oct-19

Sep-19

Aug-19

Jul-19

Jun-19

Apr-19

May-19

Mar-19

Jan-19

Feb-19

Dec-18

Nov-18

Oct-18

Sep-18

Aug-18

Jul-18

Jun-18

May-18

Apr-18

Feb-18

Mar-18

Jan-18

r-- <::......r""
______,
-.........,__~

-

Dec-19

-

100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%

Note: We began the vertical axis at 50 percent rather than 0 to better illustrate the
variance between the actual and required staffing level percentages.
Source: OIG Analysis of the Monthly Staffing Reports for the period from January 2018
through December 2019.

In addition to not consistently maintaining the required minimum staffing,
from January 2018 through December 2019, GEO had 90 positions that were
vacant for more than 120 days, which accounted for what we estimate to be
$3,113,091 in possible invoice deductions. 3 However, the USMS took no deductions
from GEO’s monthly invoices for its failure to comply with the staffing requirements.
Although GEO had not consistently met the monthly staffing requirements at
the Deyton Facility during January 2018 through March 2019, the language of the
contract does not explicitly state how the USMS should take deductions from
invoice payments based on the staffing deficiencies. To assess the extent of this
problem with other USMS detention contracts, we discussed such contract
requirements with USMS officials and reviewed documents pertaining to more
recent detention contracts. We determined that the USMS had made efforts in
more recent contracts to strengthen the language pertaining to penalties for
staffing deficiencies. For two recent contracts, the strengthened language was
included in contracts awarded to GEO. However, after GEO expressed concerns
regarding the language, the contracts were modified to remove the language.
We discussed the contract staffing requirements concerns with a senior POD
official. The senior POD official told us the determination of appropriate contract
language was tied to a concern regarding automatic invoice deductions. The USMS
3

To calculate the invoice deduction amount we reviewed all monthly staffing reports, from
January 2018 to December 2019, and identified the individual positions that were vacant for more
than 120 days. We then multiplied the total length of vacancy by the lowest applicable pay rate for
each position that was vacant for more than 120 days and totaled those results.

5

official’s position was that such deductions were necessary only when the noncompliance contributed to a performance deficiency at a facility, such as when
essential positions are not being filled.
The contract staffing plan for the Deyton Facility identifies 106 essential
positions that must be consistently filled each day. Examples of essential positions
include facility manager, case managers, and correctional officers. We selected a
judgmental sample of 147 of the 2,190 security shift rosters at the Deyton Facility
from January 2018 through December 2019 to determine if the essential positions
identified in the staffing plan were filled. The sample was selected to represent the
various shifts and encompass the entire audit period. We found that GEO did not
consistently staff the essential security positions identified in the staffing plan. We
discussed the contract staffing concerns with GEO officials. GEO officials told us
that while it sought to achieve the minimum staffing levels for security, it used
overtime to ensure that essential security posts or locations were covered.
Although the contract provided for the USMS to take price reductions when
essential security positions were not consistently filled, the USMS had completed no
price reductions for the Deyton Facility. While neither the previous nor current
CORs identified for us any specific security incidents at the facility that resulted
from this failure to consistently staff the essential security positions, we note that
inadequate staffing of these essential security positions increases risks to inmate
safety and facility security. We believe it is precisely because of these risks that
the USMS deems these positions to be essential and why the USMS requires that
they be filled. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the required essential security
positions and the actual essential security positions that were staffed for the shift
rosters reviewed from 2018 to 2019.

6

Figure 2
Essential Security Positions Staffed at the Deyton Facility
90

Number of Positions

85
80
75
70
65
60
55

Actual

12/6/2019

11/6/2019

10/6/2019

9/6/2019

8/6/2019

7/6/2019

6/6/2019

5/6/2019

4/6/2019

3/6/2019

2/6/2019

1/6/2019

12/6/2018

11/6/2018

10/6/2018

9/6/2018

8/6/2018

7/6/2018

6/6/2018

5/6/2018

4/6/2018

3/6/2018

2/6/2018

1/6/2018

50

Required

Note: We began the vertical axis at 50 positions rather than 0 to better illustrate the variance
between the actual and required positions. This analysis is based on a sample of 147 shift rosters
from January 2018 through December 2019. Shift rosters are documents prepared by GEO to
document the number of employees working on each shift.
Source: OIG Analysis of Security Shift Rosters for the period from January 2018 through
December 2019.

We found that the essential security positions shown in Figure 2 more
consistently tended to be staffed fully when the total facility staffing shown in
Figure 1 approached the required level. Adequate staffing levels are fundamental
to providing a safe and secure environment. The contract also requires that
vacancies be kept to a minimum and be filled timely. We believe that absent
specific contract requirements regarding when invoice deductions should be taken
for non-compliance, GEO may lack incentive to make timely efforts to fill positions.
We recommend that USMS modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify
when invoice deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related
contract requirements.
Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals
While the Deyton Facility contract does not specifically provide for unilateral
price deductions based on unmet staffing requirements, it provides for contract
price reductions based on failure to meet certain performance requirements through
the use of contract modifications. The OIG’s audit of a similar USMS contract for a
detention center in Leavenworth, Kansas found that USMS did not make use of
contract price reductions to hold its contractors accountable. The prior audit
attributed this condition to a lack of continuous USMS monitoring of contract
performance and the COR’s lack of knowledge regarding the USMS Detention
Services Contract Reduction Manual (the Manual). Following the Leavenworth
7

audit, the USMS created the Detention Contract Administrator position at all of its
contract detention facilities to serve as an on-site Contracting Officer’s
Representative (COR). 4 Having an on-site COR is intended to provide a consistent
presence and continuous monitoring of contractor performance. The COR is
responsible for preparing contract price reduction proposals in accordance with the
Manual. The Manual provides procedures for determining when a price reduction is
warranted and for preparing reduction proposals.
During the period of our audit, the Deyton Facility COR submitted two
reduction proposals for performance and safety issues related to the facility
correctional staff. We reviewed the preparation and processing of reduction
proposals. As discussed below, the two reduction proposals were not prepared in
accordance with the process outlined in the Manual. In addition, the COR did not
accurately calculate the proposed reductions. Consequently, the processing was
delayed for the two reduction proposals, and decision on the proposals had not
been made as of March 24, 2020.
Preparation of Contract Price Reduction Proposals
The Manual provides guidance for identifying contractor performance issues.
The COR is responsible for identifying contractor performance issues and
immediately notifying the Contracting Officer (CO) of any performance deficiency.
The CO uses the COR’s description of the performance issue to determine if a
contract price reduction is warranted. If the CO determines a reduction in contract
price is warranted, the COR is responsible for preparing a proposal for the reduction
based on the methodology described in the Manual. The COR then submits the
reduction proposal to the CO for final review and processing.
The Deyton Facility COR prepared and provided price reduction proposals to
the supervisor in the POD Office of Detention and Standards Compliance (ODSC)
before informing the CO of the performance issue or obtaining a determination that
the contract price reductions were warranted. CORs were instructed by senior
ODSC officials that, if the COR thought a contract price reduction was warranted,
the COR should prepare a price reduction proposal and provide it to their ODSC
supervisor for review and processing. As a result, the intended coordination with
the CO as specified in the Manual did not occur. Consequently, as explained below,
the processing of the reduction proposals was delayed because the supervisory
review and processing had to be duplicated by the CO.
The ODSC senior official explained to us that the intent behind processing the
reduction proposal in this manner is to ensure that the support for the proposed
reduction is sufficient. However, this procedure resulted in as much as 12
additional months ODSC spent in processing price reduction proposals. The delay
was caused by the lack of preliminary communication between the COR and the CO
regarding the performance issues, which necessitated additional time for the CO to
determine if a reduction was warranted. Both the COR and CO told us that the lack
Throughout the remainder of this discussion, we refer to the Detention Contract
Administrator as the COR.
4

8

of communication resulted from the USMS organizational structure. The
organizational structure placed the COR within the ODSC. The COR was required to
report issues to the ODSC supervisor instead of the CO, who works in the POD
Office of Detention Services. However, the COR designation letter obligates the
COR to notify the CO immediately of performance issues so that corrective action
can be taken immediately. 5 Without effective communication between the COR and
CO regarding performance issues, the CO cannot take timely corrective action on
unsatisfactory performance.
We discussed the communication issues between the CO and COR with a
senior POD official who told us that POD management was aware of the problem
and that POD is considering making changes in how the CO and COR relationship
should function. The senior POD official also told us that POD is in the process of
hiring additional COs to help with the workload and improve the communication.
We recommend that USMS develop and implement a process by which the COR
immediately notifies the CO of any performance failure and, when the CO
determines a reduction in contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction
proposal based on the CO’s determination in accordance with the Manual.
Accuracy of Contract Price Reduction Proposals
We determined that the COR did not calculate the reduction amounts in
accordance with the Manual. We also found that the COR was not trained on the
requirements for preparing contract price reduction proposals in accordance with
the Manual. As a result, the reduction amounts proposed in contract price
reduction proposals were inaccurate and overstated, resulting in a further delay in
the processing of the reduction proposals by the CO.
The Manual provides guidance for making appropriate adjustments to the
contractor’s billings. The contract establishes the following performance areas and
specifies the percentage of the total monthly invoice amount each area represents.
•

Health Care – 20 Percent

•

Security and Control – 20 Percent

•

Food Service – 15 Percent

•

Administration and Management – 10 Percent

•

Safety and Sanitation – 10 Percent

•

Staff and Detainee Communication – 5 Percent

•

Workforce Integrity – 2.5 Percent

•

Detainee Discrimination – 2.5 Percent

The designation letter, issued by the USMS contracting officer in accordance with the FAR,
assigns COR responsibilities and authorizes and requires the performance of duties associated with
contract administration and monitoring contractor performance. The USMS Detention Services
Contract Reduction Manual provides guidance to CORs and other USMS officials in carrying out
responsibilities related to contract reductions.
5

9

For each area, the contract establishes specific performance-based detention
standards that must be met to ensure detainees are housed in a safe, secure, and
humane environment. Within each performance area, the standards represent a
portion of the total value of the performance area. Failure to comply with a
performance area standard is considered a deficiency in the operation of a
correctional facility.
The Manual includes a method for calculating the reduction amount for a
failed performance area standard. Based on discussions with an ODSC senior
official, we understand that the intent of the methodology was to first equally
distribute the assigned performance area value among the standards within that
area. The standard value is then multiplied by the number of standards that were
not met during the month. The resulting percentage is then used to calculate the
reduction from the monthly invoice amount as shown in the following formula.
Performance Area Percentage
X

# Standards within the Performance Area

# Failed Standards

X

Invoice Amount

At times, a single performance area standard may be failed for multiple
reasons. Based on our interpretation of the Manual, when that occurs during a
single invoice period, a reduction can be taken only once for any standard even if
multiple failures for that standard occur. While we confirmed our interpretation of
the Manual with the Chief of the Office of Detention Standards and Compliance, the
Manual does not clearly present these instructions. As a result, the COR did not
calculate the reduction amounts correctly. For example, for one reduction proposal
we reviewed, the COR calculated the reduction amount based on five identified
deficiencies instead of the two failed standards related to those deficiencies.
Consequently, the proposed reduction amount was overstated. We believe this
error occurred because the Manual does not provide clear instruction regarding
reduction calculations. 6
To assess the extent of this problem, we reviewed 11 reduction proposals
from several USMS contract facilities that had been submitted but were still in
processing as of January 8, 2020. The 11 proposals included 2 reduction proposals
for the Deyton Facility prepared by 1 COR and 9 reduction proposals pertaining to
other USMS detention contracts prepared by 6 other CORs. The 11 proposals were
prepared from May 2019 to October 2019. We found that for 10 of the 11
reduction proposals, the reduction amounts as calculated by the COR were
overstated. Table 1 shows a comparison of the COR-calculated reduction amounts
and reduction amounts that we re-calculated based on our understanding of the

For example, the Manual states that reduction calculations are to be made only on single
base functional area findings that are relative to the performance failures. However, the Manual does
not define functional area findings or performance failures. Consequently, performance failures were
sometimes considered as functional area findings that were duplicated in the calculations of
reductions.
6

10

Manual, which, as noted above, we confirmed with the Chief of the Office of
Detention Standards and Compliance.
Table 1
Comparison of the Reduction Amounts
Contract Number
ODT-8-C-0005
ODT-8-C-0005
ODT-7-C-0002
ODT-7-C-0002
15M40019DA3500003
15M40019DA3500003
ODT-9-C-0003
ODT-9-C-0003
ODT-10-C-0001
ODT-8-C-0001
ODT-5-C-0003

Original
Amount

Location
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility
Leavenworth Detention Center
Leavenworth Detention Center
Queens Private Detention Facility
Queens Private Detention Facility
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center
West Tennessee Detention Facility
Nevada Southern Detention Center
Otay Mesa Detention Center

Source: USMS Prisoner Operations Division

Total:

$

666,083
840,260
3,898,752
5,745,554
385,011
720,597
9,973
148,507
149,026
254,784
299,966

$13,118,513

Corrected
Amount

Overstated
Amount

$

$

121,688
177,517
148,198
578,580
144,379
40,033
9,973
66,728
129,535
84,928
47,138

$1,548,697

544,395
662,743
3,750,554
5,166,974
240,632
680,564
0
81,779
19,491
169,856
252,828

$11,569,816

We discussed the miscalculations for the Deyton Facility with the COR who
submitted the reduction proposals, the COR supervisor, and an ODSC senior official.
They all agreed that the proposed reduction amounts were not calculated in
accordance with the Manual. The COR supervisor told us that the calculation errors
were missed because the supervisor’s review focused on whether the proposal
sufficiently supported the existence of a performance issue requiring a price
reduction and did not focus on the calculation or the methodology used to
determine the reduction amount. The ODSC senior official told us that other ODSC
staff were responsible for reviewing the reduction amounts in all of the outstanding
reduction proposals to verify that the amounts were calculated in accordance with
the Manual. The ODSC senior official further told us that all of the outstanding
reduction proposals that included amounts that were not calculated in accordance
with the Manual will be corrected and resubmitted. The COR at the Deyton Facility
told us that none of the CORs received training on how to calculate the reduction
amounts associated with the performance failures identified. We recommend that
the USMS confirm that all of the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have
been corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Manual. We also recommend
that the USMS clarify the instructions in the Manual and provide training to both the
CORs and their supervisors on the procedures for calculating the reduction amounts
in accordance with the guidance in the Manual.
Oversight of Commissary Fund
There is no physical commissary at the Deyton Facility, but detainees can
order items that are delivered twice a week to their housing unit. Under this
commissary arrangement, the Deyton Facility sells detainees items such as food,
11

candy, snacks, clothing, and personal care items. The contract requires GEO to
operate the commissary as a privilege to detainees who will have the opportunity to
purchase commissary items at least weekly. Payments by detainees for items that
they purchase fund the commissary account.
According to the contract, revenues earned in excess of those needed for
commissary operations are to be used solely to benefit the detainees at the facility.
The excess revenue accumulates in the commissary fund until GEO identifies
appropriate uses of the funds for the benefit of detainees. The contract does not
specify what those appropriate uses are, but GEO’s policy states that expenditures
of commissary funds require approval by the USMS COR or CO. A POD official told
us that the COR reviews purchases by GEO using the excess revenues to confirm
that they are being used solely to benefit detainees at the facility. A GEO official
told us that the top five items purchased for the benefit of the detainees are:
recreation supplies including board games, puzzles, and basketballs; AM/FM radios;
satellite programming; awards for achievement in cleaning or recreation; and new
movie subscriptions. We reviewed a sample of the commissary account
transactions and verified that the COR reviewed the use of the commissary funds
and that the commissary funds were used for the benefit of detainees at the facility.
As of February 29, 2020, the balance in Deyton’s commissary funds was
approximately $454,075. We reviewed the account balances and level of
expenditures from January 2017 through December 2019 and found that the ending
balances were substantial each year. Table 2 presents the annual deposits and
expenditures during January 2017 through December 2019.
Table 2
Commissary Fund
Year

Beginning
Balance

Deposits &
Credits

Expenditures

Ending
Balance

2017

$ 977,007

$ 132,069

$ 720,799

$ 388,277

2018

388,277

134,306

120,259

402,324

2019

402,324

136,132

101,511

436,945

$402,507

$942,569

Total

Note: The expenditures in 2017 were significantly higher because, the USMS was reimbursed
$651,906 to correct an error related to commissary staff payroll that should have been paid
from the commissary fund. In 2018, 47 new televisions were purchased for $57,289,
including installation in housing units for the use of all detainees.
Source: GEO Monthly Inmate Welfare Bank Reconciliation

Based on the persistent and significant balance in the commissary fund, we
believe that GEO should have either reduced the price it charges detainees for
commissary items or more promptly used excess funds to purchase items for the
benefit of the detainees. We therefore recommend that the USMS evaluate how it
can best ensure that excess commissary funds are used to benefit detainees and
that the funds do not accumulate unreasonably.

12

In addition, the Deyton Facility contract does not specify how accumulated
excess commissary funds will be handled at the end of the contract. Thus, it is
unclear whether GEO could seek to retain any excess funds at the end of the
contract. Moreover, if that were the case, such a situation could incentivize GEO to
accumulate the excess commissary funds rather than spend them for the benefit of
detainees. We noted that, on March 29, 2019, the USMS awarded a contract to
GEO for a detention center in Queens, New York. That contract included the
following provision for final disposition of commissary funds at the end of the
contract period: “the accumulated excess commissary revenues will be applied to
the final contract invoice payment.” Under this arrangement, GEO will keep any
excess commissary funds at the end of the contract and reduce the amount of its
invoice to the USMS by a corresponding amount. We found this provision
concerning for three reasons. First, it allows excess commissary funds to be used
to benefit the USMS rather than inmates. Second, it potentially incentivizes the
USMS to allow excessive commissary funds to accumulate rather than ensuring that
GEO is spending them in a timely manner for the benefit of detainees. Third, the
use of excess commissary funds at the end of the contract to fund the cost of USMS
detention operations could potentially raise Anti-Deficiency Act issues. Given these
concerns, we recommend that the USMS include in all of its detention contracts a
legally-appropriate mechanism by which, upon termination of each contract, excess
commissary funds will be used in a manner that is solely for the benefit of
detainees.
Prisoner Transport Compliance with Applicable Regulations
The contract provides that GEO will provide armed guards and transportation
services as required by the USMS to transport detainees to and from the
courthouse, hospitals, medical appointments, other detention and BOP facilities,
and Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System sites. Federal law includes
minimum standards for the length and type of training that employees of private
prisoner transport companies must undergo before they can transport prisoners. 7
Pre-service training is required by federal law in the areas of use of restraints,
searches of prisoners, use of force, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, map reading,
and defensive driving.
We reviewed transportation officer training records and found that not all of
GEO’s transportation officers had completed training programs in map reading or
defensive driving. Of the 26 officers whose records we reviewed, 19 did not have
evidence of completing map reading training and 11 did not have evidence of
completing defensive driving training. When transportation officers are not properly
trained, there is increased risk that detainee transportation could be delayed or that
an accident or other event could occur and the transportation officer would not be
prepared to handle the situation. We discussed the missing training evidence with
a GEO official who told us map reading training was not included in the training
curriculum at the Deyton Facility. A GEO official also told us that, since 2012, GEO
has used a detention and transportation management system that provides real7 42 U.S.C. § 13726b Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport Companies, December 21,
2000. 28 CFR Part 97 Standards for Private Entities Providing Prisoner or Detainee Services.

13

time information necessary for safe and secure operation and tracking of GEO’s
transport missions. A GEO official told us that, because of advances in technology
since 2000, it relies on the Global Positioning System (GPS) ability in each of its
fleet vehicles and the tracking capability of its transportation management system
rather than map reading skills. The GEO official did not provide us any records of
training in the use of GPS or procedures for use in the event of system outages.
We recommend that the USMS ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its
employees involved in the transportation of detainees, completes all training
required by 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete
training records including the curriculum and student attendance records. We
further recommend that the USMS put in place adequate controls to ensure that
employees involved in detainee transportation at USMS contract detention facilities
have completed the training required by federal law.
Detainee Bunk Bed Safety Concern
We reviewed detainee grievances for the period of January 2017 through
May 2019 and interviewed detainees to identify any concerns related to safety and
security. During our detainee interviews, we were told about the absence of
ladders for bunk beds and how a detainee had fallen and been injured.
We asked the USMS about the availability of ladders for bunk beds, and the
USMS Audit Liaison told us that the USMS does not have a specific policy or
standard regarding the use of ladders for bunk beds. We also requested data from
the USMS regarding bunk-bed safety and the existence of ladders for other private
detention facilities under contract with the USMS. The USMS provided data
showing that only 2 of the 13 facilities have ladders or steps installed for the bunk
beds.
We observed the bunk beds at the Deyton Facility and found that only one of
the four housing units had ladders installed on the bunk beds. The COR told us that
detainees used makeshift ladders to climb into the top bunks. The COR provided a
photograph that showed an improvised ladder. Figure 3 shows a makeshift ladder
made from a bed sheet tied to the bunk bed along with a telephone book to create
a step.

14

Figure 3
Ladder Made by a Detainee

Source: USMS photograph taken on September 11, 2019

We asked GEO about injury data regarding the use of bunk beds, but the
GEO Health Services Administrator told us that GEO does not track injuries related
to detainees getting in and out of the top bunk beds. Consequently, we were
unable to identify the number of detainees who had been injured. Our review of
grievances at the Deyton Facility found that 15 of 610 detainee complaints filed in
2018 requested that a ladder be installed for the bunk beds to address safety
concerns. In September 2019, we discussed the safety concerns associated with
the lack of ladders with the then-Facility Administrator who agreed with our concern
and took action to resolve the problem by ordering ladders. As of May 21, 2020, a
GEO official told us that the ladder project was complete. Figure 4 shows a new
ladder installed.

15

Figure 4
New Ladder Installed

Source: USMS photograph taken on December 23, 2019

We believe that the absence of ladders for bunk beds creates safety concerns
that the USMS should assess and address. We therefore recommend that the
USMS evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that do not
have ladders. We also recommend that the USMS create a standard or other
requirement regarding the appropriate use of ladders in contract facilities that
contain bunk beds.
Infectious Disease Prevention and Control
Near the end of our audit the 2019-2020 coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic
became an area of significant concern, particularly regarding prevention and control
of the pandemic in correction settings. Consequently, we questioned GEO about its
prevention and control efforts in response to the pandemic, and we noted the
following.
Section C.6.8 of the contract, regarding an Infectious Disease Prevention and
Control Program, states: “The Contractor shall have comprehensive infectious
disease prevention and control program in place in accordance with the most recent
CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines.” The contract also
states: “The infectious disease program shall be responsive to all current emerging
infectious diseases.” We requested from the USMS documents pertaining to GEO’s
infectious disease prevention and control program. The USMS provided
documentary support, which an official said was provided by the Deyton Facility
Administrator, for the items discussed below.

16

On February 14, 2020, GEO Health Service issued an Interim Reference
Sheet on 2019-Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) providing GEO’s procedures and links
to CDC reference materials regarding intake medical screening, monitoring of
patients with exposure risk, assessment of patient’s with potential COVID-19
symptoms, isolation of at-risk patients, and infectious disease public health actions.
On February 26, 2020, GEO’s Chief Medical Officer issued to various GEO
managerial officials, including Facility Administrators, a memorandum providing
COVID-19 educational guidance consisting largely of CDC materials.
On February 28, 2020, GEO issued an updated management procedure on
infection control pertaining to COVID-19 and provided information on treatment,
infection control, housing, general prevention recommendations, housekeeping,
notification of staff, transfer and movement of detainees, investigation of contacts,
reporting of cases within GEO, staff issues such as exposure and return to work,
management of visitors, and procurement of personal protective equipment.
Also on February 28, 2020, GEO’s Chief Medical Officer issued a technical
direction memorandum to various GEO managerial officials, including Facility
Administrators. The memorandum relayed COVID-19 guidance from the CDC and
World Health Organization and relayed a GEO patient screening tool required for
use on arriving detainees. Screening consisted primarily of interviewing detainees
regarding contact with infected persons and travel to outbreak areas. Detainees
with such contact or travel were then assessed for fever and other possible
symptoms of COVID-19.
Also on February 28, 2020, GEO implemented a requirement for a COVID-19
emergency plan at each facility and provided each facility with an emergency plan
template. The facilities were given a deadline of March 6, 2020 to complete the
plans.
On February 28, 2020, GEO adopted an updated management policy
regarding COVID-19. The policy stated: “The identification, monitoring, and
treatment of COVID-19 Coronavirus signs and symptoms shall be handled in
accordance with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.” It also referred to American Correctional Association and National
Commission on Correctional Health Care materials.
We discussed with the Deyton Facility Administrator the effect of the
pandemic at the Deyton Facility. The Administrator told us that four GEO staff
members and one detainee had been tested for COVID-19 as of April 23, 2020,
with two staff members and the detainee testing positive for the virus. In response
to the positive tests, the facility implemented a 2-week pause of detainee
movement within the facility. The only detainee movement allowed during the
pause was acceptance of new arrestees. The GEO Facility Administrator stated that
they planned to remain in contact with GEO’s human resource office and comply
with CDC guidelines prior to loosening restrictions at the facility. The Administrator
told us the facility has taken steps to protect detainees at higher risk of infection.
These steps included modification of intake procedures to include virus protocols
17

and use of medical housing for any detainees with COVID-19 related symptoms.
Further, staff screening procedures have been modified so that before entering the
facility staff must answer a questionnaire, have their temperature checked, and
sanitize their hands. The Administrator said that the facility had a stock of medical
supplies with which it could cope initially with an outbreak of the virus. The facility
also had a stock of sanitizing supplies, although the supply of disinfectant wipes
was limited. The Administrator said that the facility had increased its cleaning in all
areas and departments utilizing “clean teams.” Finally, the Administrator said that
the following modifications had been made to Deyton Facility rules:
•

The intake process provides for a separate unit where arriving detainees
receive a 14-day observation before being moved to regular housing units.

•

Detainees in separate units are not allowed to mix.

•

Detainee social visiting is canceled.

•

Attorney visits continue, but attorneys are screened via a questionnaire and
temperature check. The legal visiting room configuration is changed to
improve social distancing.

•

Detainees have attended town hall meetings regarding sanitation,
coronavirus, and programming alterations.

•

The facility issued social distancing recommendations.

We did not perform testing sufficient to verify either implementation of the
policy guidance issued by GEO or the assertions of the Facility Administrator
regarding the pandemic preparations and conditions at the Deyton Facility. On
March 23, 2020, the CDC issued Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities. Because this
guidance was issued after the conclusion of our audit work, we did not inquire of
USMS or GEO regarding the steps taken to implement the guidance.
On April 29, 2020, the Office of the Inspector General notified the USMS that
we were beginning an oversight review of the USMS response to the COVID-19
pandemic.

18

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The USMS needs to improve its administration of the contract, particularly
regarding unmet staffing levels, processing contract price reduction proposals, and
the use of commissary funds. Also, the USMS needs to clearly develop and define
contract terms particularly for pricing methodology and enhancements. We further
found that, while GEO generally complied with the terms and conditions of the
contract applicable to contract management, oversight, and monitoring, it did not
comply with the terms and conditions of the contract applicable to transportation
officer training requirements.
We recommend that USMS:
1.

Modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify when invoice
deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related contract
requirements.

2.

Develop and implement a process by which the COR immediately notifies the
CO of any performance failure and, when the CO determines a reduction in
contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction proposal based on
the CO’s determination in accordance with the Detention Services Contract
Reduction Manual.

3.

Confirm that all of the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have been
corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract
Reduction Manual.

4.

Clarify the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual
and provide training to both the CORs and their supervisors on the
procedures for calculating the reduction amounts in accordance with the
guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual.

5.

Evaluate how it can best ensure that excess commissary funds are used to
benefit detainees and that the funds do not accumulate unreasonably.

6.

Include in all of its detention contracts a legally-appropriate mechanism by
which, upon termination of each contract, excess commissary funds will be
used in a manner that is solely for the benefit of detainees.

7.

Ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its employees involved in the
transportation of detainees, completes all training required by 42 U.S.C. §
13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete training records
including the curriculum and student attendance records.

8.

Put in place adequate controls to ensure that employees involved in detainee
transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have completed the
training required by federal law.

9.

Evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that do not
have ladders.
19

10.

Create a standard or other requirement regarding the appropriate use of
ladders in contract facilities that contain bunk beds.

20

APPENDIX 1
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives
The objectives of the audit were to assess the U.S. Marshals Service’s
(USMS) administration of the contract, and The GEO Group, Inc.’s (GEO)
compliance with the terms, conditions, laws, and regulations applicable to this
contract in the areas of contractor performance, and financial management,
monitoring, and oversight.
Scope and Methodology
This was an audit of the USMS contract ODT-8-C-0005 with GEO. The scope
of this audit, unless otherwise indicated, is the period of contract performance from
January 2016 through December 2019, and included activities of both the USMS
and GEO. We interviewed USMS and GEO personnel, assessed internal control
procedures, and examined contract award and administration records.
Statement on Compliance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
Internal Controls
In this audit, we performed testing of internal controls significant within the
context of our audit objectives. We did not evaluate the internal controls of USMS
and GEO to provide assurance on its internal control structure as a whole. USMS
and GEO’s management are responsible for the establishment and maintenance of
internal controls in accordance with OMB Circular A-123. Because we do not
express an opinion on the USMS and GEO internal control structures as a whole, we
offer this statement solely for the information and use of the USMS and GEO.
Through this testing, we did not identify any deficiencies in USMS’s or GEO’s
internal controls that are significant within the context of the audit objectives and
based upon the audit work performed that we believe would affect USMS’s or GEO’s
ability to effectively and efficiently operate, to correctly state financial and
performance information, and to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
In this audit we tested, as appropriate given our audit objectives and scope,
selected transactions, records, procedures, and practices, to obtain reasonable
assurance that USMS and GEO management complied with federal laws and
21

regulations for which non-compliance, in our judgment, could have a material effect
on the results of our audit. Our audit included examining, on a test basis, USMS
and GEO compliance with the following laws and regulations that could have a
material effect on USMS or GEO operations:
•

FAR Subpart 37.603, Performance Standards,

•

FAR Subpart 1.602-2, Responsibilities,

•

FAR Subpart 42.15, Contractor Performance Information,

•

FAR Subpart 46.4, Government Contract Quality Assurance,

•

FAR Subpart 52.246-4, Inspection of Services – Fixed Price, and

•

42 U.S.C. § 13726b Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport
Companies.

This testing included interviewing USMS and GEO personnel and inspection of
training records, labor rates, and oversight procedures. As noted in the Audit
Results section of this report, we found that GEO did not comply with 42 U.S.C. §
13726b Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport Companies.
Sample-Based Testing
To accomplish our audit objectives, we performed sample-based testing to
determine if essential security positions were consistently filled for each shift
identified in the staffing plan. In this effort, we employed a judgmental sampling
design to obtain broad exposure to numerous facets of the areas we reviewed. This
non-statistical sample design did not allow projection of the test results to the
universe from which the samples were selected.
Computer-Processed Data
During our audit, we obtained information from the Kronos timekeeping
system and the Learning Management System. We did not test the reliability of
those systems as a whole, therefore any findings identified involving information
from those systems were verified with documentation from other sources.

22

APPENDIX 2
THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Marshals Service

Office of Professional Responsibility
Washington, DC 20530-000/

June 25, 2020
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Jason R. Malmstrom
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Office of the Insp:ctor Ge;1al (
Ronald Carter ( ~
Acting Assistant Director

Y'

~

Audit Report: Audit of the United States Marshals Service's
Contract Awarded to the GEO Group, Incorporated to Operate the
Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy, Georgia

In response to recent correspondence fro m the Office of the Inspector General regarding
the subject report, attached is the United States Marshals Service's response to the Formal Draft
Audit report.
Should you have any questions, please contact Krista Eck, External Audit Liaison, at

202-819-43 71.
Attachments
cc:

Ferris Polk
Regional Audi t Manager
Office of the Inspector General
Bradley Weinsheimer
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
David Metcalf
Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General
Department of Just ice
Louise Duhamel
Acting Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group
Internal Review and Evaluation Office
Justice Management Di vision
John Kilgallon
Chief of Staff
Uni ted States Marshals Service

23

States Marshals Service
Audit of the United States Marshals Service's Contract Awarded to the GEO Group,
Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy, Georgia

Recommendation 1: Modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify when invoice
deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related contract requirements.
USMS Response (Concur): The United States Marshals Service (USMS) will work with its
existing detention facility contractors to establish mutual agreement on changes to the existing
contract language to specify when staffing-related invoice deductions should be taken. Further,
the USMS will ensure future contract language specifies when such invoice deductions should
occur.
Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a process by which the COR immediately
notifies the CO of any performance failure, and when the CO determines a reduction in
contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction proposal based on the CO's
determination in accordance with the Detention Service Contract Reduction Manual.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will review and update the Standard Operating

Procedures provided to CORs to ensure the processes for communicating and responding to
performance deficiencies are clearly articulated. The USMS will conduct joint training with the
COs and CORs to further ensure all employees understand their responsibilities as they pertain to
the contract reduction process.
Recommendation 3: Confirm that all the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have
been corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract
Reduction Manual.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will review all outstanding proposed reduction amounts
for adherence to the calculation guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual
and make corrections as necessary.
Recommendation 4: Clarify the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Manual
and provide training to both the CORs and their supervisors on the procedures for
calculating the reduction amounts in accordance with the guidance in the Detention
Services Contract Reduction Manual.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will conduct training on the procedures for calculating

the reduction amount with all COs and CORs assigned to detention contracts, as well as their
immediate supervisors. Further, the USMS will review the Detention Services Contract Manual
to determine if additional clarifications or examples are necessary.
Recommendation S: Evaluate how it can best ensure that excess commissary funds are
used to benefit detainees and that the funds do not accumulate unreasonably.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will ensure that the detention facility contractors are
appropriately managing the Detainee Welfare and Commissary Fund. Accordingly, existing
Standard Operating Procedures for the COR will be updated to include procedures for providing
oversight ofcommissary fund accumulation and usage.

24

6: Include in all of its detention contracts a legally-appropriate
mechanism by which, upon termination of each contract, excess commissary funds will be
used in a manner that is solely for the benefit of detainees.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will work with the detention facility contractors to make
changes to the existing contract language to specifically address the disposition of the excess
commissary funds. Any changes will result in a material change to the existing contracts which
will need to be agreed to by the contractor(s). Future detention and detention services contracts
will specifically address the disposition of excess comrniss<l!Y funds.
Recommendation 7: Ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its employees involved in
the transportation of detainees, completes all training required by 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and
28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete training records including the curriculum and
student attendance records.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will continue to monitor and evaluate contractor
compliance with the performance work statement, Federal Performance-Based Detention
Standards, and all applicable local, state and federal laws.
The USMS will add to its monthly vendor performance documentation submission requirement a
training roster request and lesson plan associated with the training to ensure the lessons plans and
training include the requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97. The
USMS has the right to inspect and test all services called for by the contract, to the extent
practicable at all times and places during the term of the contract. To ensure compliance is met,
the COR already observes on-site court and hospital transportation, detainee inpatient outposts at
a care facility, as well as observing onsite firearm qualification and first aid training for
transportation and correctional staff.

Recommendation 8: Put in place adequate controls to ensure that employees involved in
transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have completed the training required
by federal law.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will continue to monitor compliance with the
performance work statement, Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, USMS policy,
and all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The USMS will continue to evaluate compliance
by assessing facility policy to ensure staff involved in transportation operations are receiving the
appropriate training to meet all required mandates. These reviews will be conducted by the
COR. The USMS will add to its monthly vendor performance documentation submission
requirement a training roster request and lesson plan associated with the training to ensure the
lessons plans and training include the requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR
Part 97.
Recommendation 9: Evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that do
not have ladders.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will evaluate and assess bunk bed safety concerns and
incorporate changes, as necessary, to its private detention facility contract performance work
statements as well as to the appropriate functions under the Federal Performance Based
Detention Standards.

25

10: Create a standard or other requirement regarding the appropriate
use of ladders in contract facilities that contain bunk beds.
USMS Response (Concur): The USMS will assess the layout of the detention facilities with

Which it has an existing contract to ensure compliance with ACA accreditation requirements,
detainee capacity and applicable local, state and federal safety laws. The USMS will evaluate
and assess bunk bed safety concerns and incorporate changes, as necessary, to its private
detention facility contract performance work statements as well as to the appropriate functions
under the Federal Performance Based Detention Standards. The USMS will update the Federal
Performance Based Detention Standards to reference current OSHA guidelines for ladder use
which include guidelines for ascent, descent, composition, and load bearing.

26

APPENDIX 3
THE GEO GROUP’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT

The GEO Group, Inc.®

18, 2020

Corporate Headquarters
4955 Technology Way

Boca RolOO, Fbrida 33431
Toi: 561 893 0101

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Atlanta Regional Audit Office
75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W ., Suite 1130
Atlanta, GA 30303

006 301 4436

Fox: 561 999 7635
¼)Wi grog mm com

Dear Regional Officer Manager Polle
I write to provide the GEO Group, Inc. 's (GEO) comments to your draft report titled
"Audit of the United States Marshals Service's Contract Awarded to the GEO
Group, Incorporated to Operate the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, Lovejoy,
Georgia" dated May 11, 2020. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide
comments to the draft report and providing us with an exit conference on May 13,
2020. As discussed during the telephonic exit conference, we have summarized the
fo llowing areas where we respectfully submit comments. We also respectfully
enclosed a red-lined version of the most recent draft report. We did this for your
ease of reference, to quickly identify or highlight the areas where we added
comments, and to help further explain our responses to these enumerated areas
below, particularly "Staffing Requirements" and "Transportation Officer Training."
I.

Staffing Requirements

GEO acknowledges that during the time period reviewed by the Office oflnspector
General (OIG), January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019, there were periods that
the "on board" staff at the Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility (RADDF) fell below
the contractual requirement of 90%. However, at all times, all essential posts were
staffed by existing RADDF staff through the use of oveitime and temporary staffing
assignments. For the period of January 2018 to March 2019, the salary and benefits
attributed to the expenditure of these staffing resources pending permenant hire of
the"on board" staff was approximately $500,000. Thus, GEO's inability to maintain
the contracted staffing levels did not result in a $3.1 Million windfall. Rather, GEO
incmred substantial ove1time costs and over 70,000 in ove1time hours as a result of
these vacancies. Given the extra expense and potential to lead to prospective
turnover from existing staff, GEO had every incentive to timely fill these staffing
vacancies.

27

J 8, 2020
Page 2

II.

Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals

As noted in the "Processing of Contract Price Reduction Proposals" section of the
draft report, " ... the contract does not specifically provide for unilateral price
deductions based on unmet staffing requirements, it does provide for contract price
reductions based upon failure to meet certain performance requirements through the
use of contract modifications." As discussed during the exit conference, the GEO
Group and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) routinely engage in
discussions regarding GEO's support to the USMS at the RADDF. As noted above,
despite having vacant positions, all essential posts are staffed through the use of
overtime. We believe a process for a "unilateral price deduction" would not be an
optimal process for an agency 's contracting officer and a government service
provider to resolve a contract price reduction. While we fully acknowledge the
USMS authority for a contracting officer to propose and adjudicate a price reduction,
we respectfully suggest the OIG's report should reflect that any proposed price
reduction, authored by a contracting officer's representative (COR), will be
reviewed by a USMS contracting officer, and that the contracting officer will
provide the govennnent-services provider an opportunity to review and provide a
response to the proposed reduction before a final decision is made.
III.

Transportation Officer Training

Although the facility training manager misspoke when initially asked about the
training curriculum and student attendance records, GEO' s regional and facility
managers confirmed that the training cun-icultun and certificates of
completion incorporate defensive driving through classroom instruction and actual
driving skills evaluation. Subsequent to OIG's visit, GEO provided documents
reflecting the inclusion of defensive driving in the overall training curriculum. In
addition, since 2012, GEO uses a detention and transportation management
system that provides real-time infonnation necessary for safe and secure operation
and tracking of GEO's transport missions. Due to advances in technology,
GEO relies on the Global Positioning System (GPS) ability in each of its
fleet vehicles and the tracking capability of its transportation management
system rather than map reading ski11s. GEO provided OIG with printed map copies containing " tum by tum" directions that are provided to the
transport team with step-by-step navigation to their assigned location as well as
for all potential routes for use in the event of system outages. In light of the
docwnentation and responses provided regarding defensive driving, GEO
respectfully submits that this sub-finding be withdrawn, and the sub-finding
related to map reading be identified as an area that is largely obsolete.

2

28

18, 2020
Page2

Further, as it relates to "map reading," GEO further submits that the up-to-date
procedures cuITently in place far exceed the Government Guidelines of 2000.
IV.

Commissary Fund

GEO agrees with the OIG' s finding that a more robust contractual process should be
created for executing existing balances of the detainee welfare fund before the
expiration of a contract. GEO notes however, that there is no circumstance where
any amount of detainee welfare funds are retained by GEO. At the end of a contract,
even if the agreement between GEO and the USMS is silent, all detainee welfare
funds are returned to the USMS.
V.

Detainee Bunk Beds

As discussed during the exit conference, GEO, at its expense, has acted upon a local
recommendation from the USMS's COR, to install ladders to improve egress to the
top of each bunk bed at the RADDF. This project commenced in late 2019, and was
completed in May 2020 at GEO' s expense of approximately $20,000 (excluding
labor and installation). It is also important to note that while GEO acknowledges
that the bunk bed ladders are an improvement, there is no contractual requirement,
USMS detention standard, or accreditation standard, that requires these ladders.
Instead, the ladders are being installed as "above and beyond" the contract's
requirements or "best practice."
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your draft audit report. We respect
and appreciate your office's commitment to factual accuracy and careful analysis.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our comments.
Sincerely,

DAA/r:/0-- MfSD//Lc
Daniel Ragsdale
Executive Vice President - Contract Compliance
The GEO Group, Inc.

Cc:

Blake Davis, SVP GEO
Amber Martin, EVP GEO

29

APPENDIX 4
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT
The OIG provided a draft of this audit report to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
and The GEO Group Inc. (GEO). The USMS’s response is incorporated in Appendix 2
and GEO’s response is included as Appendix 3 of this final report. In response to
our audit report, the USMS agreed with our recommendations, and discussed the
actions it will implement in response to our findings. As a result, the status of the
audit report is resolved. GEO did not specifically address our recommendations but
commented on several aspects of the presentation of our report. The following
provides the OIG analysis of the responses and summary of actions necessary to
close the report.
Analysis of The GEO Group Response
While GEO did not address our recommendations specifically, it responded to
our findings in the areas of staffing requirements, processing price reduction
proposals, transportation officer training, the commissary fund, and detainee bunk
beds. We discuss most of GEO’s response when discussing the related
recommendations in the following section. One area of GEO’s response that did not
relate to a recommendation concerned GEO’s discussion of staffing requirements.
Specifically, GEO acknowledged in its response that staffing levels fell below the
contractual requirement but emphasized that essential posts were staffed using
overtime and temporary staffing. As previously discussed in the report, our review
of shift rosters found that the posts were not always fully staffed with the full
complement of essential staff positions. GEO further asserted that salary and
benefit costs amounting to approximately $500,000 related to the use of overtime
and temporary staffing incentivized the timely filling of vacancies. However, as
discussed in the report, we identified 90 individual positions that were vacant for
more than 120 days and calculated an estimated $3.1 million in deductions that the
contract allowed but the USMS did not take. Any extra expenses incurred by GEO
to partially fill essential posts using overtime in lieu of employing the required
personnel are included in the risk accepted under a fixed-price contract. Our report
makes no recommendation regarding the billing deductions not taken.
Recommendations for the USMS:
1.

Modify the GEO and other detention contracts to specify when invoice
deductions should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related
contract requirements.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will work with its detention facility contractors to establish
mutual agreement on changes to the existing contract language to specify
when staffing-related invoice deductions should be taken. Further, the USMS
30

will ensure future contract language specifies when such invoice deductions
should occur.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that USMS contracts have been modified to specify when invoice deductions
should be taken for not achieving the staffing-related contract requirements.
2.

Develop and implement a process by which the COR immediately
notifies the CO of any performance failure and, when the CO
determines a reduction in contract price is warranted, the COR
prepares a reduction proposal based on the CO’s determination in
accordance with the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will review and update the Standard Operating Procedures
provided to CORs to ensure the processes for communicating and responding
to performance deficiencies are clearly articulated. The USMS stated that it
will conduct joint training with the COs and CORs to further ensure all
employees understand their responsibilities as those pertain to the contract
reduction process.
GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its
response, GEO stated that a process for a unilateral price deduction would
not be an optimal method to resolve a price reduction. GEO asserted that
any proposed price reduction should be presented for discussion with the
contractor prior to any final decision. The report differentiates between the
unilateral billing deductions for non-compliance with staffing-related contract
provisions, and price reductions processed in accordance with the USMS
Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual, which provides for discussion
with the contractor. Our Recommendation 1 addresses the need for specific
contract language to identify when billing deductions should be taken.
Recommendation 2 addresses internal USMS procedures to accomplish the
preparation of price reductions and does not suggest that those reductions
should be made unilaterally.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the USMS has implemented a process by which the COR immediately notifies
the CO of any performance failure and, when the CO determines a reduction
in contract price is warranted, the COR prepares a reduction proposal based
on the CO’s determination in accordance with the Detention Services
Contract Reduction Manual.

3.

Confirm that all of the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have
been corrected in accordance with the guidance in the Detention
Services Contract Reduction Manual.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will review all outstanding proposed reduction amounts

31

for adherence to the calculation guidance in the Detention Services Contract
Reduction Manual and make corrections as necessary.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the outstanding proposed reduction amounts have been corrected in
accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction
Manual.
4.

Clarify the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Reduction
Manual and provide training to both the CORs and their supervisors
on the procedures for calculating the reduction amounts in
accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract
Reduction Manual.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will conduct training on the procedures for calculating the
reduction amount with all COs and CORs assigned to detention contracts, as
well as their immediate supervisors. Further, the USMS will review the
Detention Services Contract Manual to determine if additional clarifications or
examples are necessary.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
that the instructions in the Detention Services Contract Reduction Manual
have been clarified and that training has been provided to both the CORs and
their supervisors on the procedures for calculating the reduction amounts in
accordance with the guidance in the Detention Services Contract Reduction
Manual.

5.

Evaluate how it can best ensure that excess commissary funds are
used to benefit detainees and that the funds do not accumulate
unreasonably.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will ensure that the detention facility contractors are
appropriately managing the Detainee Welfare and Commissary Fund.
Accordingly, existing Standard Operating Procedures for the COR will be
updated to include procedures for providing oversight of commissary fund
accumulation and usage.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the Standard Operating Procedures for the COR have been updated to
include procedures for providing oversight of commissary fund accumulation
and usage.

32

6.

Include in all of its detention contracts a legally-appropriate
mechanism by which, upon termination of each contract, excess
commissary funds will be used in a manner that is solely for the
benefit of detainees.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will work with the detention facility contractors to make
changes to the existing contract language to specifically address the
disposition of the excess commissary funds. Any changes will result in a
material change to the existing contracts which will need to be agreed to by
the contractor(s). Future detention and detention services contracts will
specifically address the disposition of excess commissary funds.
GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its
response, GEO stated that it agreed that a more robust contractual process
should specify how accumulated excess commissary funds will be handled at
the end of the contract. GEO noted that it would not retain any of the
commissary funds. Our finding and recommendation do not suggest that
either GEO or the USMS have any intent to misuse the remaining
commissary funds. Instead, our discussion addresses the risk presented by
the lack of any provision in the contract to specify the disposition of the
remaining commissary funds.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
detention contracts have been modified to specifically address the disposition
of the excess commissary funds and ensure that upon termination of each
contract, excess commissary funds will be used in a manner that is solely for
the benefit of detainees.

7.

Ensure that GEO has properly trained all of its employees involved in
the transportation of detainees, completes all training required by
42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97, and maintains complete
training records including the curriculum and student attendance
records.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will continue to monitor and evaluate contractor
compliance with the performance work statement, Federal PerformanceBased Detention Standards, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
The USMS also stated that it will add to its required monthly submission of
vendor performance documentation a training roster request and lesson plan
associated with the training to ensure the training includes the requirements
contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97.
GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. Our draft
report contained a statement on page 13 that: “We discussed the missing
training evidence with a GEO official who told us map reading and defensive
driving training were not included in the training curriculum at the Deyton
Facility.” In its response, GEO stated that its training manager was mistaken
33

in telling us that defensive driving was not included in the training
curriculum. GEO provided documentation that defensive driving was included
in the overall curriculum. However, GEO did not provide any documentation
of completion of the defensive driving training for the 11 transportation
officers identified in our review of training records. We edited the final report
to state that only the map reading training was omitted from the training
curriculum. Our recommendation emphasizes the need for the USMS to
ensure that employees involved in detainee transportation at USMS contract
detention facilities have completed the training required by federal law.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the USMS has implemented a procedure to ensure that GEO has properly
trained all of its employees involved in the transportation of detainees,
completes all training required by 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and 28 CFR Part 97,
and maintains complete training records including the curriculum and student
attendance records.
8.

Put in place adequate controls to ensure that employees involved in
detainee transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have
completed the training required by federal law.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will continue to monitor compliance with the performance
work statement, Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, USMS
policy, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The USMS stated that
it will continue to evaluate compliance by assessing facility policy to ensure
staff involved in transportation operations are receiving the appropriate
training to meet all required mandates. The USMS also stated that it will add
to its required monthly submission of vendor performance documentation a
training roster request and lesson plan associated with the training to ensure
the training includes the requirements contained in 42 U.S.C. § 13726b and
28 CFR Part 97.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the USMS has implemented adequate controls to ensure that employees
involved in detainee transportation at USMS contract detention facilities have
completed the training required by federal law.

9.

Evaluate bunk bed safety concerns at the 11 detention facilities that
do not have ladders.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will evaluate and assess bunk bed safety concerns and
incorporate changes, as necessary, to its private detention facility contract
performance work statements as well as to the appropriate functions under
the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the USMS has evaluated bunk bed safety concerns and incorporated changes,
34

as necessary, to its private detention facility contract performance work
statements.
10.

Create a standard or other requirement regarding the appropriate
use of ladders in contract facilities that contain bunk beds.
Resolved. The USMS agreed with our recommendation. The USMS stated in
its response that it will assess the layout of the detention facilities with which
it has an existing contract to ensure compliance with the American
Correctional Association accreditation requirements, detainee capacity and
applicable local, state and federal safety laws. The USMS stated it will
evaluate and assess bunk-bed safety concerns and incorporate changes, as
necessary, to its private detention facility contract performance work
statements as well as to the appropriate functions under the Federal
Performance-Based Detention Standards. The USMS also stated that it will
update the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards to reference
current Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines for ladder
use, which include guidelines for ascent, descent, composition, and load
bearing.
GEO neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. In its
response, GEO noted that it installed ladders to improve access to the top of
each bunk bed at an expense of approximately $20,000. GEO stated that
there was no contractual requirement, detention standard or accreditation
standard that requires ladders and that ladders were “above and beyond” the
contract’s requirements. While we recognize there is no explicit contract
requirement for ladders, there is also no requirement for bunk beds. We
believe that the contract requirements to eliminate safety hazards and
ensure that detainees are housed in a safe, secure and humane manner are
sufficient to support our recommendation for the development of a specific
standard regarding the appropriate use of ladders for bunk beds. Notably,
our recommendation does not relate to the Deyton Facility but addresses the
need for the USMS to evaluate the need for ladders in other facilities.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing
the USMS has evaluated bunk-bed safety concerns and incorporated changes
regarding the appropriate use of ladders to its private detention facility
contract performance work statements as well as to the appropriate functions
under the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards.

35