WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

The Department of State is legally responsible for protecting its employees, facilities, and sensitive information at locations around the world. Federal law and departmental security requirements obligate the government to maintain physical security at its properties.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

U.S. government buildings, embassies, and offices face real security threats, including theft, vandalism, unauthorized access, and in some overseas locations, more serious dangers. Without professional guard services, these facilities and the people who work in them would be at greater risk.

WHO BENEFITS?

U.S. government employees and diplomats working at State Department facilities benefit from improved safety and security. Security workers employed by Inter-Con Security Systems also benefit through jobs created or sustained by this contract.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

A contract of this size and duration carries risks related to oversight, including ensuring guards meet performance standards and that taxpayer money is not wasted on ineffective or redundant services. The contract type is listed as unknown, which limits public visibility into how costs and performance are being managed.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

Without this contract, State Department facilities in the U.S. and abroad could face staffing gaps in physical security, potentially leaving buildings, employees, and sensitive materials less protected. The government would need to quickly find alternative security providers or use federal personnel to fill those roles.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •Protecting U.S. diplomats and government employees worldwide is a core government responsibility, and professional guard services help fulfill that duty.
• •Contracting with a private security firm can be more cost-effective and flexible than hiring and training a large number of full-time federal security employees.
• •Consistent, professional security presence at State Department facilities helps deter threats and supports the safe conduct of U.S. foreign policy operations.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •At $650.3 million over roughly five and a half years, this is a very large contract, and without a clear contract type on record, it is harder for the public to assess whether pricing is competitive or fair.
• •Relying heavily on private contractors for security at sensitive government facilities raises questions about accountability, training standards, and oversight compared to using government employees.
• •Long-term contracts with a single vendor can reduce competition over time, potentially leading to higher costs or lower performance as the contract period extends.