Office of Acquisition Management [18' 11.5. Departmentof Homeland Security and Customs am 1 511ch NW Suite 910 January 28, 2016 Town of Farmville 116 N. Main Street PO. Box 363 Farmville VA 23901 Attn:? Town Manager Re: Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) Number HQ-FY16-001, dated October 26, 2015, Contract Number This letter is in reSponse to the letter, dated November 4, 2015, ?om ICA Farmville (vendor) requesting the Government retract the ?ndings and proposed reductions contained in the Contract De?ciency Report (CDR) dated October 26, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), through the Of?ce of Acquisition Management (OAQ) noti?ed the vendor via CDR of four separate suspected violations that, based on language contained in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and if acted upon by ICE, would be grounds for a deduction to the vendor's invoice. The violations are based on a June 2015 compliance inspection performed by ERO Custody Management as well as a facility review by the Department of Homeland Security, Of?ce for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; an independent civil rights and civil liberties oversight arm of the Department. On November 4, 2015, the vendor responded to the CDR with a request that ICE retract each speci?ed violation. In its letter, the vendor provided additional narrative and supporting information as a rebuttal to each violation. Below is a summary of the four suspected violations, the vendor?s rebuttal, and the Govemment?s decision: Speci?cation 1 Use of Force (January 20-23, 2015). This suspected violation is based on a use of force undertaken at the facility against a detainee from January 20-23, 2015. The use of force included the use of verbal commands, oleoresin capsicum (0C) spray, and placement on a four-point restraint bed for approximately two days. The CDR concluded that the use of two bursts of 0C spray on the detainee while he was in full restraints and con?ned to a medical isolation cell was a violation of several requirements of the ICE 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standard (2011 titled Use of Force and Restraints. Speci?cally, section of the 2011 states ?[s]taff shall use only that amount of force necessary and reasonable to gain control of a detainee? and section WE), which states ?[t]he following acts and techniques are generally prohibited, unless both necessary and reasonable in the circumstances: 1. Striking a detainee when grasping or pushing himfher 2019-ICLI-00028 615 would achieve the desired result; [and] 2. Using force against a detainee offering no resistance. . The vendor?s rebuttal states that the does not prohibit the actions that facility staff took, and that based on the totality of the evidence, they acted appropriately and in the best interest of the detainee in preventing harm to himself and getting the best treatment possible under the circumstances. The 2011 Use of Force and Restraints Standard provides facilities with the expected outcomes when force is applied to a detainee. Expected outcomes identi?ed in the Standard is the facility endorsement of (1) ?confrontation avoidance? as the preferred method for resolving situations; and (2) ?calculated use of force? as a method by which to avoid confrontation and minimize the risk of injury to staff and the detainee. The vendor argues to treat this entire incident as an immediate use of force, meaning force needed as the behavior of the detainee constitutes a threat to self, staff, another detainee, property, or the security and orderly operation of the facility. Based on the information received by the government and provided by the vendor, the detainee in question appeared to be attempting to strangulate his own genitalia with the irons he was restrained with. If this were the perception of the of?cers during this incident, then based on language in the standards, this meets the actions where the facility should have responded with an immediate use of force. Following the initial 0C spray burst, the vendor argues that the detainee was still a threat to staff because the detainee was unresponsive to verbal commands despite the detainee being in full restraints, placed within a padded cell behind a locked door, and laying on the cell ?oor in a prone position for several seconds. While those facts may be correct, it is the assessment of the risk of this threat that is important. Based on information provided to the government, following the initial 0C spray burst, the risk of a threat to staff appears to have been signi?cantly minimized, especially when considering the above factors. Even with the minimal risk, the facility elected to spray the detainee with a second burst of OC spray to solicit compliance as opposed to authorizing a calculated use of force. ICE generally defers to facility operators to determine which use of force technique is most appropriate given the circumstances on the ground. As with many instances of use of force, arguments can be made on both sides as to why, in retrospect, a particular action should or should not have been taken, hence the importance of the facility after-action-review. It should also be noted, and to its credit, the vendor candidly admits that it failed to perform an after-action review of this use of force incident as stipulated in the 2011 Decision In response to Speci?cation 1, the Government will retract the proposed deduction outlined in the CDR. Although the govemment will not impose a sanction, it will closely monitor the vendor?s compliance with the 2011 Use of Force detention standard as well as the requirement to conduct after-action?reviews following both immediate and calculated use of force incidents. Future failures to perform after-action reviews or other aspects of the Use of Force detention standard may result in monetary sanctions. Speci?cation 2 Use of Force (March 12-16, 2015) This suspected violation is based on the use of restraint chair and restraint bed on a detainee from March 12-16, 2015 without suf?cient justi?cation. The CDR concluded that the use of the 2019-ICLI-00028 616 restraint chair and restraint bed over a four day period was not in compliance with ICE 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards (2011 titled Use of Force and Restraints and Medical Care. Speci?cally, section of the 2.15 2011 states ?Restraints shall be applied for the least amount of time necessary to achieve the desired behavioral objectives,? and Standard 4.3, Medical Care, Section states, ?Restraints for medical or mental health purposes may be authorized only by the facility?s CMA or designee, after determining that less restrictive measures are not appropriate. In the absence of the CMA, quali?ed medical personnel may apply restraints upon declaring a medical emergency. Within one-hour of initiation of emergency restraints or seclusion, quali?ed medical staff shall notify and obtain an order from the CMA or designee.? Decision For very similar reasons as outlined above in response to Speci?cation 1, the Government will retract the proposed deduction for Speci?cation 2. Speci?cation 3 Food Service lncidentl'Disciplinary System This suspected violation is based on an alleged contamination of food by detainee food service workers based on a report of white worms being found during the evening meal service on February 21, 2015. In response to the incident, on February 25, 2015, the vendor posted a memorandum to all detainees at the facility of the rami?cations for individual detainees found to have been contaminating a meal. It was later learned that the contamination stemmed from either a distributor or manufacturer defect and not by way of food tampering by detainees. The CDR concluded that the issuance of a memorandum to ICE detainees is a violation of section of the 2011 standard titled Disciplinary System, which states ?[d]isciplinary action may not be capricious or retaliatory nor based on race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or political beliefs.? The vendor argues that the memorandum was not a disciplinary action and there were no actions taken against any detainee for the events that transpired. The speci?cations set forth in the 2011 standard titled Disciplinary Standard is clear in its requirements that a facility disciplinary system must provide progressive levels, appeals, etc. with policies and procedures that clearly define detainee rights. Additionally, disciplinary action may not be capricious or retaliatory. The vendor?s memorandum threatened detainees with discipline if they tampered with food, attempted to degrade the reputation of, attempted to tarnish the facility?s name, control or intimidate the operations or personnel of the facility, or who engaged in disruptive behavior. Speci?cally, the memorandum stated detainees will face consequences that are ?severe, swift, and will most likely impact the outcome of [a detainee?s] immigration proceedings.? This memorandum can be construed as a threat to detainees who attempt to ?le legitimate grievances or complaints against the facility. The vendor?s actions should not create a chilling effect where detainees are fearful of lodging a complaint or grieving a matter within the facility. Additionally, to claim that actions ?will most likely impact the outcome of [a detainee?s] immigration proceedings,? is beyond the pale. In no contract or agreement with the vendor is the vendor authorized to interpret what actions, or violations of rules, regulations, or crimes, would affect an individual?s immigration proceedings. Decision In response to Speci?cation 3, the Government will continue with the proposed deduction as outlined in the CDR. 2019-ICLI-00028 61 Speci?cation 4 Grievance Process This suspected violation is based on a ?nding by ERO that the vendor did not provide the local ERO Field Of?ce and the Of?ce of Professional Responsibility with detainee grievances related to facility employee misconduct. The CDR concluded that a failure to refer allegations of staff misconduct is in violation of section of the 2011 standard titled Grievance System, which states ?[u]pon receipt, facility staff must forward all detainee grievances containing allegations of staff misconduct to a supervisor or higher-level of?cial in the chain of command. While such grievances are to be processed through the facility?s established grievance system, CDFs and IGSA facilities must also forward a copy of any grievances alleging staff misconduct to ICEXERO in a timely manner with a copy going to Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Joint Intake Center andr'or local OPR office for appropriate action.? The vendor argues that while the grievances are categorized as ?employee misconduct? the substance of the allegations against staff did not violate the ?Facility Staff Conduct? policy. Additionally, the vendor argues that the Grievance System standard does not specify what is or is not to be considered staff misconduct and is therefore up to interpretation by the facility. The fact is that the standard does mandate that copies of any grievance alleging staff misconduct are to be referred to BRO and CPR Joint Intake Center; however, the allegations in this particular grievance are not the type that OPR would review. Decision By word-for-word articulation of 201 l, a detainee allegation of staff misconduct must be provided to both ERO and however, due to the nature of the misconduct allegations, the Govermnent will retract the deduction related to Specification 4. Global Recommendation Based on a review of all the suspected violations that led to the issuance of CDR No. 001 and the vendor?s response, the Government has decided to impose a deduction of $25,000. In accordance with Section 2 of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for IGSA Number ICAfFarmville is subject to a deduction in an amount determined by ICE to be appropriate. Two and one half percent is the maximum percentage of total withholding from an invoice attributable to functional category ?Staff and Detainee Communication. The maximum withholding based on average invoice would be approximately $50,000. The Government has determined that, given the nature of the violation and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and QASP, a one-time deduction of $25,000 will be applied to the next housing invoice received. The deduction is not retrievable by the Service Provider. 201 618 Should you have any questions, please feet free to contact - at (202) 732- or Sincercl Immigration Contars of?Amcrica, Farmvillc Field Of?ce core 2019-ICLI-00028 619 FARMVILLE DETENTION CENTER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR SUB WATERWORKS ROAD VIRGINIA 23901 February 16, 2016 Acting Deputy Assistant Director Detention, Compliance Removals Of?ce of Acquisition Management U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12th St, SW Washington, DC. 20536 ICA Farmville is in receipt of the deduction letter outlining the Government?s ?nal decision regarding Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) Thank you for your positive response to the detailed answers and rebuttals to the CDR we submitted on November 4th, 2015. We appreciate your letter and remain dedicated to providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with facilities and an operational environment that are wholly consistent with (and exceed) the U.S. Department of Homeland Security?s (DHS) ongoing and long-term immigration detention reform efforts. We share the Department?s goals to enhance the security and ef?ciency of nationwide detention system while also prioritizing detainee health, safety and well-being. We are happy to learn of the Government?s decision to retract three of the four ?ndings and proposed reductions contained in the CDR dated October 26?, 2015. We continue to maintain that a more accurate, thorough analysis/investigation during the original inspection in June of 2015 would have led to fewer misleading conclusions and factual inaccuracies. Some discrepancies in the record and reports were also noted. With regard to Speci?cation we still believe that the posted memorandum to ICE detainees was appropriate and should not be considered a disciplinary action under Section of the 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards. Indeed, there were no actions taken against any detainee for the events that transpired. It is our assertion that every rule and the spirit of every applicable rule was followed in this instance. The fact that the ?nding regarding Specification #3 was nonetheless promulgated by individuals outside of the announced decision making chain is also problematic. 201 620 Regardless, we remain prepared to comply with any and all ICE requirements going forward. It is our desire to take any and all steps to avoid a repeat of the occurrence which resulted in the release of this recent CDR. Due to the costs to both parties in time and related expenses, we accept this settlement in order to avoid a continuation ofthe matter. We remain dedicated to the ICE mission of detention reform and to helping ICE achieve its1 long and short-term goals. We are proud of our strong record of achievement and remain focused on providing exemplary services designed to meet the ICE mission. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. We look forward to our continued partnership. Sincerely, Director of Detention ICA-Farmville Detention Facility Chairman ofthe Board ICA-Farmville, LLC c- Assistant Director, Custody Management Division, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, Washington Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement -Contracting Officer Representative, Washington Field Of?ce, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2019-ICLI-00028 621 Lujr'trwumn mid lit-amen! Ufa-mumm- Department of Homeland Security HITS Prosperity Avenue i'airtitx. 1.1-1. 105'?; e" ?a US. Immigration and CuStoms Enforcement Cf: ?If, DATE: May IS. 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR: Aettng l'teld Utltce Director Washington l-?ield Ut'tiee FROM: Supervisory Det' ?ion ii'rfd UEponation Officer Washington Id orna- SUBJECT: Management Referral Findings Class IV: Case Number 201703093 and 20170353?) Executive Summary: On January 4. 201?. the Joint Intake Center received a report from immigration and Customs Enforcement (lCli) Supervisor}- Detention and Deportation Of?cer (SDIJED Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Richmond. Virginia. who reported an immediate use of force incident on use non-compliant detainees who were in ICE casted},r at Immigration Centers ol'Atnerica Farmville. On January 24. 2017. Assistant Field Of?ce Director assigned the above management referral to SDDO (Exhibit 1) A second management referral was assigned relating to the same incident. {Exhibit 2) Allegation: Immediate Use of Force incident involving ICA Of?cer on non-compliant detainees. Finding: Referred. The allegation will be referred for further action. Details of Inquiry: . in her report to the MC. reported that Oleoresin Capsicum (DC) Spray was deployed on two detainees identi?ed as and verbal commands and refused to return to their banks while in custody at Fat-ravine. relayed that 0C Spray was deployed to gain compliance after verbal commands were given to reported that after 0C deployment. compiled and were moved to medical for de-contaminatinn and evaluation. {Exhibit 1 and 2! who were not obeying 2019-ICLI-00028 622 in! Management Referral 201703093 and 201703539 Page 2 On January 24, 2017. provided the arrnville incident report, ?ndings memo, CA Guard Statements, medical evaluations, and video of the incident. A review of the incident report by on that same date revealed that was the of?cer who deployed the 0C spray on an On or about February 10. 2017. reviewed _3 to the current detention location of to set up an interview. it was discovered that was released on bond on January I l, 2017. It was discovered that was still in custody at Farmville. coordinated with . Chief of Security. Farmville to interview and all involved parties on February 27, 2017. On February 22, 20W, reviewed the surveillance footage (video only, no sound). At 21 :43 :22, it can be seen that a large group of detainees are congregating near the frontfof?cer station of the dorm. At 21:47:45. OFC is walking item the front of the dorm to the rear and released a l-2 second burst of 0C spray at a large group of detainees. At 2 :48: 15. all detainees appear to be complying with verbal commands and returning to their bunks. At 2! :53: 12. exposed detainees appear to be escorted from the dorm to medical for decontamination and of?cers set up an exhaust fan. (Exhibit 3) in OFC written statement he relayed on January 3, 2017 at approximately 2145, he encountered a large crowd in Donn 4 that were cursing and yelling at the officers. OFC and Of?cer :ave multiple verbal commands to ?Get in your bunks or you will be sprayed." OFC stated that the detainees continued to congregate and refused to comply. Assistant Shift Commander and the overhead broadcast system continued to repeat the verbal command of ?Get in your bunks or you will be sprayed.? After several more commands OFC . stated that he deployed OC spray at . Following the deployment of OC Spray, complied with commands and were escorted to medical for decontamination. (Exhibit 4) On February 27, 201?, interviewed OFC at Farmville. OFC remembered the incident and fully cooperated with the investigation. He stated that everything in his statement was hue and accurate. OFC stated that the detainees were upset about a previous decision to move other detainees from Dorm 4. OFC stated that the detainees were given multiple verbal commands to return to their banks and that no detainees were complying with the verbal commands. OFC stated that be deployed 0C Spray in the direction of the faces of for approximately 1 second. OFC stated that they are instructedfnained to engage one individual at a time with DC spray. (Exhibit 5 and 6) On February 27. 201?, interviewed detainee at ICA Farmville. Of?cer was used to translate beaveen and . stated that he was making food at the nearby microwave when he heard the verbal commands to return to his bank. stated that he understood the commands and stood near his bunk, not getting in it. stated than he was directly exposed to the 2019-ICLI-00028 623 lav var' Management Referral 201703093 and 201703539 Page 3 OC spray. stated that once the situation was under control he was escorted to medical for decontamination. (Exhibit 5) On March 14, 20W, Deportation Of?cer (DO) . an ICEIERO certified Defensive Tactics instructor (DTI). viewed the video at the Richmond BRO Of?ce. DO opined that OFC deployed the DC in the correct 3 second burst manner. However, he had concerns relating to the non-compliance of the detainees. DO noted from the video that the detainees seemed to be compliant and that OFC did not address a speci?c threat but rather a large group. (Exhibit 7) opines that OFC was not within the scope of the Use of Force and Restraint Policy," in that he did not use ?a level of force that is necessary and reasonable to gain control of a detainee." (Exhibit 8). UPC did not identify a speci?c threatldetainee, he addressed an entire crowd with the use of the OC spray. OFC was not within the scope ofthc Use of Force Policy," in that he did not comply with the speci?c statement of a ?chemical agent may be used as an intermediate force option to temporarily incapacitate an assailant." (Exhibit 9) On May 10, 2017, received information from. that on January 8. 2017, Fannville conducted an a?er action review and ran-training for of?cers involved in the January 3, 2017 use of force in dorm room 4. UPC was in attendance per his signature on the training form. (Exhibit 10) On May 10, 2017, received information that the ERO WAS Contracting Of?cer Technical Representative sent a contract discrepancy report (CDR) to Farmville. The CDR recommended a $10,000 ?ne. (Exhibit ll) Findings: Based on Of?cer statements, Of?cer interview. detainee interview. a review of surveillance video. and the opinion of a certified Defensive Tactics instructor, it appears that OFC was not within in the scope of the ICE or Farmville use of force policy. The situation seemed to be tense. but the detainees were not being overly aggressive and appeared to be slowly complying with verbal commands. The After Action Report completed by ICA highlights that there was ?poor threat management,? and that OF addressed 2 aliens and continued to move through the dorm to restore order. (Exhibit 12) The allegation be referred for further action. 2019-ICLI-00023 624 RuI?urI'n] 201703093 and 2017035?? PM: 4 lixhihils um: UHF It)! I EL f. 5-H. I . . I: u' Jr! hr! pz'r ude m) rm ?um: LIN- 3.33 .w Mn; r: Thu: fl? . A .. ?Irv-n . ..rrv 'rm its ?u'nr'x?lh'diw l: 1. ?w 2019-ICLI-00028 625 From: Sent: 21 Jul 2017 16:30:30 0400 To: Cc: Subject: RE: Deduction Request WAS S10K for FARMVILLE Attachments: OPR Case No.? Hi I Please see attached requested document. Have a great weekend! Sincerely, Administrative Inquiry Unit PCN 500 12th St, SW, Washin ton, DC 205% marsh} 202.4 c) From: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 ?:15 PM To: Subject: RE: Deduction Request WAS for FARMVILLE Thanks Fro- Se 20, 2017 6:5? PM Su . . on Request WAS for FARMVILLE H- Let me look into this and get back to you. Sent with BlackBerry Work From? Date: Thursda Jul 20, 2017, 6:44 PM To: Subject: FW: Deduction Request WAS for FARMVILLE Can I get a copy of this report? 201 626 Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 5:19 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: Deduction Request WAS for FARMVILLE Good afternoon. The ?ndings behind the rational are contained within the AIU case denoted below. I suggest OAQ or someone on your team reach out to AIU to obtain the final report which resulted in a substantiated ?nding. Please let me know ifthere is anything ERO WAS can do to facilitate this action. Acting Deputy Field Of?ce Director Washington Field Of?ce 8209 Terminal Road Lorton, VA 220?) 571-64 202?49 Outlo HSD WARNING: This document has been designated DHS Law Enforcement Sensitive and is to be controlled, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS and ICE policy relating to Law Enforcement Sensitive information. This information can be distributed further within DHS on a need-to-know basis; however. it may not be distributed outside DHS without authorization from the originating of?ce. Fro? Date: Thursday. .lul 2t]. 2017. 5:07 PM To 2019-lCLl-00028 627 Subject: RE: Deduction Request WAS for FARMVILLE Sent with BlackBerry Work Subject: Deduction Request WAS I UK for FARMVILLE Per the QASP, requests for deductions or witholdings should be send to OAQ by ERD, so I am forwarding this information to you for review and recommendation on witholding. 2019-ICLI-00028 628 I?ll await your recommendation. Detention, Compliance 8: Removals (DER) Section Chief Hoagement DHS ICE Office ofAcquis . 0535-5750 ., Room Mail Stop Washington, . Phone: {202) 73 Cell: (202} 380- Email: 2019-ICLI-00028 629 1. CONTRACT NUMBER DROIGSA-08-0021 Date:05i08i2017 3. FROM: {Name of OOTR) CONTRACT DISCREPAN CY REPORT Report Number: 2. TO: (Contractor and Manager Name] Director ManagementiProgram Analyst Fannville Detention Center ield Office Tea-23 DATES CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE csioaizm 7 DUE BY 05:1 CONTRACTOR 4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM (Describe in Oetaii: inciude reference in Directive: Attach continuation sheet if necessary.) ICE ERO WAS conducted a review of the events that occurred on January 3. 201? at ICA Farrnvilie. Farmville. VA. Based on ICA Of?cer statements. ICA Oflicm interviews. detainee interviews. a review of surveillance video. and the opinion of a certi?ed Defensive Tactics instructor. it was determined that ICA OFC - was not within the scope of the ICE or ICA Farmville use of force policy for his use of OC spray on an ICE detainee. On 01i04i201?. at approximately 015C. WAS CC received a ca re ardin a Use of Force incident involvin detaineeW an sistant Shift Command stated that last night at approximately 2145 hours. ICA Fan'nville Office deployed OC spray to ensure compliance with orders. The two detainees were attempting to start a group demonstration out in the common area. ICA Farrnville Of?cers ordered the two detainees to return to their bunks. The detainees did not listen to verbal commands. Office deployed OC spray in order to ensure compliance. The detainees were decontaminated and pieced into restrict housing un' sited whether the Use of Force incident was immediate or calculated in nature. Assistant Shift Commander?a stated that he considers the incident to be immediate in nature. S. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE 7. FROM: (Contamtj S. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. (Cite appiicahle program procedures or new A. W. procedures.) 9. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE 11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PLAN: [Acceptable responserpian. partial acceptance otresponserpian. rejection: attach continuation street it necessanr) 12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Payment withhoidingr. cure notice. show cause. other.) A ?ne of 510.000.00 is recommended by ICE. cLosg ouT' SIGNATURE DATE CONTRACTOR osmacmr NOTIFIED orr24r1'r COTR 1. CONTRACT NUMBER DROIGSA-08-0021 Date:11i28i201? CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT Report Number: 2. TO: lContractor and Manager Name} il ii?Hl lHimi if COTR) Director ManagementiProgram Analyst (COTR) Farmville Detention Center 'elcl Office 703-2 DATES CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE: DUE BY: 12i5i2017 by CONTRACTOR: 11f23f2017 . EST 4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM {Describe in Detaii: include reference in PWS Directive: Attach continuation sheet if necessary. ,1 On i?i3i201i?. Detaine_scaped custody from ICE Transportation Services as describe ow: Two transportation officers from the Immigration Centers of America (ICAI reported that shortly after de artin the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center for the ERO Washington Field Office in Fairfax. Virginia with began complaining that his handcuffs were cutting off his circulation. One of the ICA Officers decided to stop on 267 {Dulles Toll Road} near Exit 9A and toll booth 6 to loosen the detainee?s handcuffs. ICA Policy states that officers are only able to stop at secure locations. No other location is acceptable. Additionally, per ICA policy, detainees are to be transported in full restraints. During this transport. -as transported in handcuffs with a belly chain. After stopping, one of the ICA officers secured his assigned weapon and proceeded to loosen the detainee's handcuffs. When the officer opened the door and loosened one of the detainee?s handcuffs, the detainee struck the officer and forced his way out of the vehicle. The other ICA Officer, who was seated in the front passenger seat. exited the vehicle to assist the officer who was being assaulted. The detai foot towards a wooded area and the officers gave chase; however. they were unable to regain custody or? ICA Officeer -were not within the scope of the Transportation by Land Policy.? in that they did not tran ea in full restraints defines this as handcuffs. belly chain. and leg irons). ICA Offi nc-were not within the scope of the Transportation by Land Policy as an armed officer was no presen enever a detainee enters or exits a vehicle outside a secure area. Although the officers followed the ICA Policy of ?officers will check the fit of restraining devices immediately after a lication. at every relay point. and any time the detainee complains." The Officers failed to er restraints on #rior to the departure from LCADC. The ICA Officers could have prevented the escapew was placed in restraints and practiced proper contact and cover techniques. 5. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) FROM: (Contractor) 8. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. {Cite appiicabie (114. program procedures or new AW. procedures.) Please see the attached. 9. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10, DATE 12f4r?201 7 2019-lCLl-00028 631 1. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR RESPONSEIRESOLUTION PLAN: {Acceptabfe rasponsafpran, partia! I 2. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS {Payment withholding. Cure mute. show cause, other.) CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED CLOSE OUT NAME AND TITLE SIGNATURE DATE COTR CONTRACTING OFFICER 201 632 IMMIGRATION CENTERS OF AMERICA 7113 THREE CHOPT ROAD RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23226 December 4, 2017' Analyst (COTR) Washington Field Office 2675 Prosperity Avenue Fairfax, Virginia 20598 After the escape. there was a full investigation of the incident and the officer?s actions. A review of their training records reveals that they had been thoroughly trained to standard in accordance with company policy and the Performance-Based National Detention Standards During the investigation, both officers were able to verbally articulate from memory what the Use of Restraints Policy. and the Transportation by Land Policy require. They acknowledged not following policy intentionally. The investigation further revealed that certain ICE Supervisory personnel of the Fairfax Field Office had given directives to ICA Transportation officers about not using restraints in contrast to the requirements of the At the end of the investigation, ICA concluded that regardless of the con?icting directives by ICE supervisors. ICA policy and procedure bind ICA employees, and those employees have a duty to report con?icts in policy to an ICA supervisor. These two officers made no such attempt. Thus, taking responsibility into their own hands by making their own decisions to violate policy caused them to be primarily responsible for the escape. Based on the outcome of the investigation, both officers involved were terminated from employment. In an effort to prevent another incident, the Transportation Manager made a trip to the ICE Fairfax Office and personally reinforced the policies on the Use of Restraints and Transportation by Land with all ICA staff. The areas of training that were covered included how to apply restraints, when and where to check restraints, and who could authorize the removal of restraints during a transport. It was further reinforced that ICE Supervisory personnel do not have the authority to override the requirements or company policy requirements. ICA officers are to follow the and company policy at all costs and must notify a supervisor immediately if 2019-ICLI-00028 633 they receive contradictory instructions. Additionally, training on proper unifonn and equipment use, to include wearing of the protective vest, was reinforced. Finally, the officers signed a memo stating they had received additional training on the policies and procedures mentioned above and that they understood that failure to follow these policies could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. A copy of the memorandums was placed in each of?cer?s personnel file. We apologize that the actions of our officers resulted in this event. As unfortunate as it was, it provides us with a real?world example for our current and future staff about why complacency and intentional violation of policy is never acceptable. We will continue to train all ICA staff to operate at a high level and to set the expectation that anything less is unacceptable and will be met with severe consequences. Respectfully, CEO 201 634 From: Sent: 5 Dec 201? 15:19:18 43500 To: Cc: Subject: RE: CDR Response Attachments: CDR Responsepdf I have reviewed that attached response by ICA to the escape of Detaine? At no time did I, nor do have knowledge of another supervisor who directed any ICA with officer to transport a detainee contrary to that which is required by EEO Policy, or any other authority that ICA officers would be responsible for. To the contrary, I have on multiple occasions directed ICE trained Defensive Tactics Instructors to train ICA officers in the proper ICE techniques. Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operationss TDY Folkston ICE Processing Center Confidentiality Notice: This fax/e?mail transmission, with accompanying records, is inten- - a unly for the use 0 2 'ndividual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain co - tial andy?or privileged informatio n_ing to the sender, including individuall . tifiable health information subject to the privacy and securi - isions of HIPAA. ormation may be protected by pertinent privilege(s), attorney?client, doctor?pati- A etc., which will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. If you are not the intende - ?rent, you are - . notified that any examination, analysis, disclosure, copying, dissemi -. n, distribution, sharing, or use oft - mation in this transmission is strictly prohibite -u have received this message and associated documents - or please notify the sen- mediately for instructions. lfthis message was received by e?mail, please dele - 1 -. ginal message. From? Se ber 05, 2017 12:21 PM To Cc Subject: FW: CDR Response Can you take a look at this ICA/Farmville response and let me know what if it represents the facts of the situation. Thanks Management/Program Analyst WAS Field Office 2675 Prosperity Ave, Fairfax VA 22031 635 .7'03-285 ?03-?98 5) 703-285-6236 Fax) Se - ember 5, 2017 12:15 PM To: Cc: Subject: RE: CDR Response Please review their response and determine if it is acceptable and adequate. Thank you,- From: Sent: Moncla December 04 2017 11:32 AM 2019-ICLI-00028 636 1. CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT Date:11t28l201tl Report Number: 2. TO: (Contractor and Manager Name} Name of COTR) ManagemendProgram Analyst (COTR) Farmville Detention Center WAS Field Office 703-235-5- DATES CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE: DUE BY: 12f5f2017 by CONTRACTOR: 11i23r?2017 . EST 4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM {Describe in Detail: include reference in PWS Directive: Attach continuation sheet if necessary. ,1 On rraram Detainee_scaped custody from ICE Transportation Services as described . Two transportation officers from the Immigration Centers of America reported that shortly after Loudoun County Adult Detention Center for the ERO Washington Field Office in Fairfax. Virginia wit began complaining that his handcuffs were cutting off his circulation. One of the ICA Officers decided to stop on 237 {Dulles Toll Road} near Exit 9A and toll booth 6 to loosen the detainee?s handcuffs. ICA Policy states that officers are only able to stop at secure locations. No other location is acceptable. Additionally, per ICA policy, detainees are to be transported in full restraints. During this transp(_was transported in handcuffs with a belly chain. After stopping, one of the ICA officers secured his assigned weapon and proceeded to loosen the detainees handcuffs. When the officer opened the door and loosened one of the detainee?s handcuffs, the detainee struck the officer and forced his way out of the vehicle. The other ICA Officer, who was seated in the front passenger seat, exited the vehicle to assist the officer who was being assaulted. The detai oot towards a wooded area and the officers gave chase; however, they were unable to regain custody (W ICA Offi?were not within the scope of the Transportation by Land Policy.? in that they did not transportt etainee "1 restraints defines this as handcuffs. belly chain, and leg ironsjr ICA Officer?were not within the scope of the Transportation by Land Policy as an armed officer was not present whenever a detainee enters or exits a vehicle outside a secure area. Although the officers followed the ICA Policy of ?officers will check the fit of restraining devices immediately after a lication. at every relay point, and any time the detainee complains." The Officers failed to Westraints on ?nder to the departure from LCADC. The ICA Officers could have prevented the escap placed in full restraints and practiced proper contact and cover techniques. 5. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) 7'03?285- 434"395- 8. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. {Cite applicable (1A. program procedures or new AW. procedures.) Please see the attached. 9. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10, DATE 12f4r?201 7 2019-lCLl-00028 637 1. CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT DROIGSA-US-0021 Report Number; Date:10l'27f2015 ?1 Manager Name} of COTR) gram Analvst Farmville Detention Center WAS Field Of?ce 703- DATES CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE DUE BY 03t10t15 CONTRACTOR 4. OR PROBLEM (Descn'be I'n Deteit: Include reference In PWS I On October 23rd, 2015, ICAfFarmville Act' nformed the Washington Field Office (WAS FO) AFOD emoving 18 detainees from the Common Fare Meal program for violations within the ordering of Non Approved food from the Commissary. This is against the April 3rd, 2014 bulletin ICA Farmville received stating that 2011 standards revising the process that is required for the removal of a detainee from the Common Fare Meals. Concurrence from the Washington Field Of?ce (WAS F0) is required for the removal of any detainee from the Common Fare meals. ICA did not provide letter or get approval from the WAS F0 to remove any of the detainees from the meals. eet if necessary.) CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) 7. FROM: (Contractor) 434-395- 3. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE As TO CAUSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. {Cite appticabte OA. program procedures or new Aw. procedures.) No Contractor response is required. 9. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE 11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PLAN: [Acceptable responsefptan, partial acceptance of responsefptan, rejection: attach continuation sheet if necessary} ISSUES With Larva were corrected and new procedures are in place TO prevent another outbreak. 12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS {Payment withhotding. cure notice, show cause, other.) NO Financial Penalties are recommended Ell this time. CLoss OUT NAME AND TITLE SIGNATURE DATE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED COTR CONTRACTING OFFICER 201 ICLI 00028 638 CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT 33331333035? Date: 1012012015 Report Number: HQ -FY16-001 2. TO: 3. FROM: lCNl-?annvilie Detention Center Headquarters Custody Management 503 Watenvorks Road US. Immigration Customs Enforcement Farmville. va . son 12?" 51' sw 'l'own Manager Washington, DC 20054 DA TES CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE CONTRACTOR 1012619015 DUE 11/132015 DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM (Describe liftoff.? fm?i?urr?e reference in xli?mr'h continuation .nlie'ef rfnetsenmy.) Speci?cation 1 Use of Force (January 20-23, 2015} Factual Background On Janua 21 2015 ata roximatel 15:02 Immigration and Customs Enforcement detaineW was placed in handcuffs and leg-irons an move to pa ce . ocate Int health services area tion Centers of America Farmville Farmville}. At 15:10. medical staff noted that had been removed from the restraint chair and placed in a padded cell in his un enmean Video recording provided to ICE begins at approximately 15:50 on January 21. 2015. The detainee is seen standing in the middle of a cell by himself, in handcuffs and leg?irons. He is naked; his underwear is caught in his leg-irons and a suicide smock is folded on the ?oor at his feet. While standing in shackles in the middle of the cell. he was moving his hands in the area of his genitals. but his exact actions and intent are not clear on the video. At approximately 15:52:11 he dropped to his knees. While the detainee was in the padded cell. ICA Fannviile staff deployed a burst of oleoresin capsicum (CC) spray through the slot of the cell door. According to the video ICE reviewed. the ?rst burst of 0C spray occurred at 15:52:48. After the initial burst. at approximately 15:53:02. the ICE detainee stood up and faced the wall. At 15:53:12. he lay on the floor with his head to the door. and laid prone in what appeared from the video to be a passive posture. At approximately 15:53:45. the detainee. after being given verbal commands through the slot in the door (so it appears). moved away from the cell door on his hands and knees to the center of the cell facing the door. While the detainee was on his hands and knees in what appeared to be a passive posture at approximately 15:54:20. ICA Farmville staff deployed a second burst of OC spray which appeared to hit the detainee in his face and upper torso area. The detainee remained in the cell until 15:57:40 when ICA Farmville staff entered the cell and dragged the detainee out. across the hall. and into a different cell. Following a medical assessment. the detainee was placed onto a 4-point restraint bed in cell The detainee remained in 4-point restraint bed until 10:52 am. January 23. 2015. Analysis: The use of two bursts of OC spray o_vhile he was in full restraints and con?ned to a medical isolation cell was a violation 0 severa requirements of the ICE 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards 2011) Standard 2.15. Use of Force 201 639 and Restraints. These include Section which states that staff shall use only that amount of force ?necessary and reasonable to gain control of a detainee"; and Section which states "The following acts and techniques are generally prohibited. unless both necessary and reasonable in the circumstances: 1. Striking a detainee when grasping or pushing hinv'her would achieve the desired result; 2. Using force against a detainee offering no resistance. When ICA Fannville staff first deployed OC spray ?on January 21. he was kneeling naked on the floor in an empty cell in handcu an eg-Irons. and appeared calm. The facility administrator later explained to ICE that ??was harming himself by wrapping the chain of his hand irons around his genitalia." and in response. the administrator ?made the determination that a delay in controlling the situation could seriously endanger the detainee and cause irreparable harm.? However. medical staff subsequently noted no injury to the detainee?s genitalia when they examined him so cident. There is no indication in the records ICA Farmville provided to ICE mamas ever violent or assaultive toward staff before the initial 00 spray. and in fa had cooperated with several moves (from GP cell to RHU cell. from RHU cell to a restraint chair. and from the restraint chair to the padded cell) in the previous two days. Even if the ?rst spray itimate use of force. the second spray was not. By the time of the second spray as entirely subdued and had in fact been lying prone on the floor for several seconds before rising to his hands and knees and backing away from the cell door. He was not engaging in any conduct that might have been interpreted as ?self?harm." He was still in full restraints and in a passive posture. Yet the facility pursued a second immediate use of force, and the facility administrator has offered no plausible justi?cation for the determination that staff could not safely enter the cell and extract the detainee without the second use of OC spray. Speci?cation 2 - Use of Force (March 12-16. 2015} Factual Back round: On Thursda . March 12. 2015. video footage shows ICE detainee unirting soap on the ?oor of the cell. He then nk and sprayed the floor. and for approximately the next fifteen minutes. he slid on the soapy floor. Facility staff members are visible through the window in the cell door a number of times during this behavior. At around 07:34. the detainee began to use his socks to wipe down the floor. toilet. and sink. At times. it appeared that the detainee was speaking to facility staff through the cell door. Finally. at approximately 07:44:30. after again wiping the floor, he approached the cell door. turned around. willingly put his hands through the slot. and was handcuffed by facility staff. About a minute later. he was escorted from his cell without incident. A video recording fro amera that begins at 07:52 the same day captures several Fannville staff placinmn a restraint chair. A nurse checked him. and he is wheeled back into the cell in the restraint chair at around 0?:59. A moment later. a few facility staff members also enter the cell. exit. and then close the door at approximately 03:01. A third vi g. this time from a handheld camera. provides a closer view of facility staff strappin into the restraint chair. He was calm and compliant. and his eyes were closed. throughout the restraint process. When the of?ce im back into the cell. ?shifted the chair around with his team entered the cell and moved the chair so it faced the back wall and was blocke ed from moving in the direction he had been shifting it. Then the video ended. The facility's mental health staff was notified of the decision to place the detainee in a restraint chair between 08:00 and 09: ning of March 12. Medical records during this period noted no injury at the time lacement in, the restraint chair. and revealed that he 201 640 was cooperative. Medical checks were then documented eve two hours until around 18:30 on the evening of March 12. At that point facility staff moveh from the restraint chair in the residential housing unit to a restraint bed in the medical unit. From 23:00 on Thursday, March 12, to 08:50 on Friday, March 13, no checks are documented, but documentation resumes from that point and continues every two to four hours until the detainee was removed from the restraint bed at 11:0? on Monday, March 16, 2015. Analysis: ICA Farmv' the restraint chair and restraint bed (four- and five-point restraints) on detaineemor over four days was not sufficiently justified and was not in compliance with the Standard 2.15. Use of Force and Restraints, Section V.B.1, titled- ?Principles Governing the Use of Force and Application of Restraints,? which states. "Restraints shall be applied for the least amount of time necessary to achieve the desired behavioral objectives," or in compliance with Standard 4.3, Medical Care, Section V.V, which states, ?Restraints for medical or mental health purposes may be authorized only by the facility's CMA or designee. after determining that less restrictive measures are not appropriate. In the absence of the CMA, qualified medical personnel may apply restraints upon declaring a medical emergency. Within one-hour of initiation of emergency restraints or seclusion, quali?ed medical staff shall notify and obtain an order from the CMA or designee." As noted in a report that resulted from an ERO site visit, ?[t]here is no documentation or video recordings depicting the detainee's negative or noncompliant behavior, to justify the continuation of restraints beyond March 12th." In a subsequent written justification for the use submitted to ICE on September 18, 2015, the facility administrator asserts that ?stopped taking his medicine and over the course of four days slowly decompensated." In fact, medical records indicate that he was weaned off medication in mid-February. The facility administrator also wrote that, following* placement in the SMU cell, ?it was not long before [the detainee] became violent, punc mg an kicking the walls and doors of his cell." However. during the ensuing four days, the detainee was apparently not viewed by facility staff as being "a highly assaultive and aggressive detainee,? (citing 2.15 VM.) considering that his restraints were removed by staff every two hours, apparently without serious incident. For extensive periods during the four days, staff documented that the detainee was ?compliant during exercise." including, for example. between 08:43 on Friday, March 13 until 06:34 on Saturday 14 March. Although the detainee?s behavior is not clearly described in the instances when the logs record that he was "non- compliant with exercise". there is no indication that he was assaultive on those occasions. Finally, in his subsequent written justification for the ongoing use of restraints, the facility administrator wrote: ?Managing a detainee in this condition is a significant drain on staff resources and the quality of care. Considering the detainee was not taking medication, and his behavior was a repeat of the episode in January, there was substantial reason to believe the detainee would be combative.? Four-point restraints should not have been used for this extensive length of time in anticipation of how the detainee might have behaved in the future, or because the detainee's behavior, precipitated by mental illness, resulted in a drain on facility resources. Speci?cation 3 - Food Service Incident! Disciplinary System Factual Background: On Saturday. February 21, 2015, detainees reported white worms on their evening meal trays. The next day, the general district manager for the food service provider visited ICA Farmville to investigate these complaints. He could not find evidence of a problematic food product and incorrectly ?surmised" (citing an ICE Field Office COR) that a kitchen worker had sabotaged the meal, without any specific evidence of sabotage. On February 25, 2015, ICA Farmville issued a memorandum to ICE detainees in response to the food service incident. The memorandum advised ICE detainees that the investigation of the food service incident had revealed evidence of tampering by detainees who worked in the kitchen and that all kitchen workers who were on duty at the time of incident had been released from working in the kitchen. In this memo, ICA Farmville accused "a few detainees within the 201 641 population? of "trying to degrade the reputation" of the facility and ?making attempts to tarnish our good name in the community.? The author then wrote will not be manipulated or intimidated by liars and those within the population looking to stir up trouble." ICA Farmville also offered incentives and rewards for any information regarding the incident or information regarding "other attempts to manipulate the operations." In the memo. ICA Farmville informed detainees that upon completion of their investigation. those ICE detainees responsible will be criminally charged and immediately transferred to a local regional jail to await prosecution. The memo goes on to state that ICA Farmville will not tolerate tampering with food. attempts to control or intimidate the operations or personnel of the facility. or disruptive behavior; and that consequences for those detainees who engage in these activities ?will be severe. swift. and will most likely impact the outcome of their immigration proceedings.? At dinner on Monday. March 2. 2015. detainees again reported white worms on their meal trays. Following a more thorough inspection of the kitchen and various meal preparation products, ICE and facility staff found weevil larva in a container of beef base. Accordingly, the facility found that the food incident was n_ot the result of tampering by the detainee food service workers but that of a defect that derived from either the distributor or manufacturer of the food product. Analysis: Issuance of this memorandum to ICE detainees in response to a food service incident is in violation of 2011 Standard 3.1. Disciplinary System. Section which states ?[d]isciplinary action may not be capricious or retaliatory nor based on race. religion. national origin. gender. sexual orientation. disability or political beliefs". Detainees were removed from the kitchen work detail without due process. Detainees were also threatened with swift and severe consequences. including criminal prosecution. that would likely impact a detainee?s immigration proceedings. Specification 4 - Grievance Process Factual Background: In June 2015. the ICE Detention Management Unit (DMU) reviewed 68 grievances ?led at ICA Farmville between January and April 2015. Twenty-one of these alleged staff misconduct. According to the facility's grievance officer. and as corroborated by Dl'le through a review of facility grievance records. none of these resulted in notifications to the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Of?ce or to Of?ce of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Anaiysis: The failure to refer allegations of staff misconduct violation of 2011 Standard 6.2. Grievance System. Section V.F. titled "Allegations of Staff Misconduct." This section states. ?Upon receipt. facility staff must forward all detainee grievances containing allegations of staff misconduct to a supervisor or higher-level of?cial in the chain of command. While such grievances are to be processed through the facility?s established grievance system. CDFs and IGSA facilities must also forward a copy of any grievances alleging staff misconduct to in a timely manner with a copy going to ICE's Of?ce of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Joint Intake Center andior local OPR office for appropriate action." ICA Farmville did not comply with this section of Standard 6.2 in at least 21 cases between January and April 2015. Summary: The Performance Requirements Summary as a part of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (OASP) indicates the possible deductions and withholdings that may be taken for violations of specific performance standards 2011). The speci?c maximum deductions that may be taken based on the facts above are as follows: Specification 1 January 2015 2019-ICLI-00028 642 Violations Security (Use of Force and Restraints): 20% TOTAL: 20% (January invoice) Specification 2 - March 2015 Violations Security (Use of Force and Restraints): 20% TOTAL: 20% (March invoice} Specification 3 February 2015 Violations Order (Disciplinary System): 10% TOTAL: 10% (February invoice} Speci?cation 4 - April 2015 Violations Justice (Grievance System}: 10% 10% (April invoice (Note: Although the grievances span a number of months. only one month will be used for the QASP deduction? Per the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. Farmville is subject to a deduction of up to 60% of the invoice for these violations. ICA Farmville is required to submit a full response to the contract discrepancies outlined herein Farmville must also provide a full incident investigation and a corrective action plan to ensure these types of contract violations do not reoccur in the future. 5. 01" CONTRACTING OFFICER (1, TO: (may) s. CUNTR ACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE. ACTION ACTIONS Eli-l EVENT ATTACH CONTINUATION NECESSARY. 'rri' appi'rr'rrhi'r: (lxl, program Fl". 9 10. DATE I GOVERNMENT EVALUATION CONTRACTOR RF. SPINNER-RESOLUTION PLAN: [At t't?pirrhi?r fit?'ptll'l?i't? plrm, of response pl'un, rilluc'h they! 12. ACTIONS U?uymmr ('irr'sr firliltfi.? r'rmser, CLOSE OUT 2019-ICLI-00028 643 1. CONTRACT NUMBER DROIGSA-08-0021 Date:03f01f2018 Report Number: 2. TO: (Contractor and Manager Name) 3. FROM: {Name of Director anagemen rograrn Analyst Immigration Centers ofAmerica (ICAI ield Of?ce Farmyille Detention Center 703-28 I CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE DUE BY Loa?ng; Teooaroen - 4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM (Describe I'n Detatt: tnctud'e reference in PWS I Directive: Attach continuation sheet If necessary.) I On Frida . 02tD9t1B. an ICE De ortation Officer issued an l-203 for the release of detaineeW ICA contract_formed the Deportation Of?cer that sin I me or a possible aliment. he was not medically cleared to be released. As ICE was ordering a release and not a transfer to another facility, the -203 should have been honored immediately. The situation was not resolved until Wednesday. February 2018 when the issue was elevated to ICA Farmyille management. The detainee was released on 02t14t18; five days after his release should have been effected. 5. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICERS TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE 3. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. [Cite appti'cabte QA. program procedures or new A. W. i 9 SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE 11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR RESPONSEIRESOLUTION PLAN: {Acceptable responsefptan. pam'at acoeptance of responsefptan. rejection: attach sheet If necessary} 12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS {Payment cure notice. show cause. other.) A ?ne 0. recommended by the WAS FO. NAME ?u TITLE DATE SIGNATURE CONTRACTOR "-roirector ?catama? NOTIFIED COTR CONTRACTING OFFICER 2019-ICLI-OCICI2B 644 1. CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT Report FY19 93te=04f13f2?19 2. TO: iContractor and Manager Name} 3. FROM: (Name of COTR) Irector Analyst Immigration Centers of America (ICAI Field Office Farmville Detention Center 7'03?285 DATES CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE NOTIFICATION DUE BY 04i23t2019 CONTRACTOR: 04f13i?2019 4. OR PROBLEM in Detail: Include reference in PWS r? Directive: Attach continuation sheet if necessary.) _~is On Monday, March 18 2019 ICA Detentio in the Restricted Housing Unit when asked for a razor to shave. The RHU Guard supplied the razor to ut the RHU Guard failed to record correct name- on the razor log. After the shower. th scorted detainee -back to his cell in medical; however, the RHU Guard failed to retrieve the razor f?r?beformft the RHU. on realizing the razor was missing, the Guards conducted a Shakedown of the I as th cell housir? ICA staff interviewed detainee-who stated that id not have the razor. On Tuesday, March 19. 2019 at around 0221 hours.-jured himself in a suicide attempt with the razor. There are 3 failures in the OASP for this event: Permanent Logs, Control of Contraband, and Security Inspections. The RHU Guard failed to follow ICA procedures by 1) improperly recording the name of the detainee provide the razor in the RHU and 2) not retrieving the razor from the detainee. Furthermore, ICA staff failed to locate the razor following a security inspection of the detainee, the RHU, and the medical cell housing the detainee. As a result of failures, a detainee injured himself in a suicide attempt. 5. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) B. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. [Cite appii'cable OA. program procedures or new AW. procedures. T. FROM: Contractor) On March 19, 2019 Detainee was found to be in possession ofa razor in his cell and had made cuts to his wrist area. An assessment by Mental Health staff later that day concluded that this act would be considered a suicide attempt. The cause of this event has been determined to be due to in-experience of the assigned RHU Officer as well as the RHU Officer failing to read his assigned Post Orders, a failure of the RHU Officer correctly accounting for razors assigned from the RHU to detainees by not annotating the correct detainee In the razor log. and failing to retrieve the razor upon completion of the shower. It was also found that the detainee was issued a razor in the shower, which is contrary to the Post Orders which states that detainees will be issued razors in their cell. Detain was housed in medical, however, he was brought to the RHU for a shower due to his erratic behavior necessitating the use of full restraints during movement. The Medical Of?cer Post Order was changed in 2013 to reflect that detainees housed in medical would only be issues a razor in their cell for a period of 20 minutes. This has resulted in the Of?cer being suspended from duty without pay for 5 working days {60 hours}, a negative counseling filed in his personnel tile, re-training of the Of?cer prior to being allowed to return to duty, and a restriction of the Officer from working RHU duties for a period of 1 year. All security staff have been provided re-trainin of the Post Order online, as well as comm-3t the incident and contributing factors discussed during guard-mount trainin*\lho were escorting detain and from his cell in Medical were verbally cou due to their roles as senIor Icers 0 were assigned to assist Officer ind answer questions he might have due to Of?cer inexperience working duties as the RHU Officer. The Deputy Director of Operations and the Chief of Security have reviewed both the Restricted Housing Unit Officer Post Order and Special Instructions and the Medical Of?cer Post Order and Special Instructions and though both provide adequate instruction to Of?cers for daily operations, have identified areas that will be revised to provide better understanding of special circumstances surrounding detainees who are not on Segregation status, but have security procedures in place due to behavior issues. There is also consideration of change to procedures for better control of razors in controlled housing units by implementing a time limit for detainee housed In the RHU {currently in place for detainee housed in Medical], a designated time for shavingtissuance of razors. or a change to location for issuance. These suggestions will be presented to the Director for consideration prior to implementation. All updates and potential changes, in additional to placement of tray slots in the Medical Housing Unit shower. will provide additional coverage and security for the future. a. SIGNATURE or CONTRACTOR 645 '10. DATE 1. CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT Date: 4l'24f2013 Report Number: m" Detention Center 503 Waterworks Road US. Immigration Sr. Customs Enl'crcemenl Famwille. VA 2675 Prosperity Avenue. 'l'own Manager: tiail't?a. CUR: DATES CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE CONTRACTOR 4/2412013 DUE 5f01i?2013 4. DISCREPANCT OR PROBLEM (Describe in Dwarf: Include reference in PWS v" Directive: Amrch continuation sneer r'f'nec'ex?ujitj Mexico. Admitted to Farmville: 3f20f13 Larceny. Resisting Public Of?cer, DUI Belize, Admitted to Farmville: 4I'10f13 Public Intoxication, ID Theft ?eld. A detainee requested to be let back into the building and as Of?ce was calling for the doorto be opened to let the detainee inside, at the opposite end ofthe recreation yar two subjects ran towards the containment fence and scaled it. Of?ce observed them and immediately sounded his body alarm, called an emergency situation on the radio, and the escaping subjects. Utilizing theirjackets the detainees spread apart the coils of razor wire at the bottom of a perimeter fence gate. The detainees were able to lie on their bellies and get under the gate which was off the ground by approximately 12 inches. Both detainees then ran west into the woods out of sight. The escape took 26 seconds. Responding staff responded to the soccer ?eld. The facility was locked down, a perimeter patrol dispatched and emergency plans implemented. The following is a brief synopsis of the timeline of events: At 1445 hours. Office-as supervising 53 detainees particiiatini in outdoor recreation on the soccer 1445 Escape {25 seconds} 1443 Facility lookdown. perimeter security posted. Farmville PD noti?ed 1450 ICE noti?ed. Director noti?ed. Investigator notified, Entrance gate closed 1453 Farmville PD arrives 1455 Emergency Count started; cleared 1552, Television. Telephone and Radio services turned off, Visitation terminated, Outdoor recreation terminated 1510 Screening of? criptions 1535 ID of escapee scertained; screening officer and perimeter patrol provided updated subject inf 1600 Visitors and off going staff cleared to leave the facility; vehicles searched before departure 1625 ICE Fugitive Apprehension Team arrives 1945 Director arrives, facility returned to normal operations with the exception of outdoor recreation 2015 Perimeter patrol and screening officer stands down Corrective action required. S. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE F. FROM: (Contractor) 6. TO: See Attached Sec Attached 2019-ICLI-00028 646 8. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET NECESSARY. (Cite uppa?r'mhh? 9.21 program pi?nt'eri?m't'r or new See Attached 9. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE Set: Attached I I. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PLAN: res-parim-yin;n. ref rejection: altar}: r'rJJ'm'imtiH'rm HIM-PI r'f'merw.r.rtirji'j The WAS F0 accepts the corrections that are pmvided by as a condition of correction for the escape. [CA-"Feminine has the improvements; for the fence. gateways and placed detention e?ieers in the outdoor perimeter fence area. 12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS [Payment H't'thhm'dr'ng. cure notice. .1'J'm11' came. when} Improvements provided by are suf?cient. L05 OUT NAN-1H ANI) SlfiNA'l'lJRl?i CONTRACTOR Nn'l'l Fl El) ?qua- COTR 5:02 3201 3 CONT OFFICER 201 Q-ICLI-UOOZB 647 1. CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT DROOIGSA-OB- 0021 Report Number: Date:01i04i2012 2. TO: [Contractor and Manager Name) of rarn Analyst Farmville Detention Center ield Office DATES CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE DUE BY CONTRACTOR 01i04i20?l2 4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM {Describe in Deteii: inciude reference in PWS i? Directive: Attach continuation sheet if necessary.) On January 03, 2012 a 203, 216 was issued by the WAS F0 to move 3 detainees to Hampton Roads Regional Jail. lCAiFarmviIle transportation picked up the 3 detainees from the WAS F0 in Fairfax, VA and proceeded to drop 2 detainees off at Hampton Roads, then took 1 detainee with a CLS Code of Level 3, to the Farmville Detention Center which can not house Level 3 Detainees. The facility DSM discovered there were no 203 and 216 for the detainee and notified ICE leadership. The facility administration chose to place the detainee in medical. an questioned ICE about the lack of documents and could not classify the detainee. A quick call would have corrected the situation and we could have informed them that they delivered the detainee to the wrong facility. Instead, they were not up front about the mistake and the detainee had to stay at Farmville overnight before the were Roads. In the same day they delivered a detainee,? Wto Hampton Roads instead of his intended destination, Farmville. This is two mistakes within hours on the same day and is unacceptable. To date, ICA has not acknowledged these mistakes. All forms (203's and 216's) were prepared to standard. 5. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICERS TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE 7. FROM: (Contractor) 434-395- 8. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. (Cite appiicabie QA. program procedures or new AW. or On January 3, 2012 at approximately 2354 hours, ICA officer an rrived at the faciliti and had four detainees on board to include detainee The detainees entered the facility and began in-processing. At some point and time during the processing, the detainee who was transported to lCA?Farmville spoke up and informed the officers that the Fairfax ICE agents had been calling him the wrong name all day. The 216?s were checked against the wrist bands and it was determined that the detainee was wearing the wrong wrist band. The Shift Commander contacted Hampton Roads and found out that the detainee who was scheduled to come to Farmville was actually at Hampton Roads and was also wearing the wrong wrist band. At approximately 1:45 AM, the Transportation Manager contacted the Director and advised him of the situation. Due to the fact that the drivers had already been on duty for several hours and no other drivers were available, the decision was made to finish processing the detainee into Farmville and house him in the medical department until morning. Coordination to transfer the detainee was made with ICE on the morning of January 4, 2012 and the detainee was transported to Hampton Roads at 1113 on January 4, 2012. 9. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE 64B 11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PLAN: [Acceptabie responsei?pien, partiai 1. CONTRACT NUMBER HSCEDM-M-F- IGOSQ CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT Report Number: Date:03i1?i2015 2. TO: iContractor and Manager Name) 3. FROM: {Name of Director MProgram Analyst Farmville Detention Center WAS Field Office 703-235- DATES . CONTRACTOR NOTIFICATION CONTRACTOR RESPONSE RETURNED BY ACTION COMPLETE DUE BY 03i10i15 CONTRACTOR 03i06i2015 4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM {Describe in Detaii: inciude reference in PWS i Directive: Attach continuation sheet if necessary.) On February 21st, 2015, Bug Larva was found in the ?rst served meal of the day approximately 0?15 hours in 3 Dorms at the facility. All meals were con?scated and new replacement meals were served. On March Bug Larva was found in meals served in Dorm 2 and meals were con?scated and new replacement meals were served. Please see Letter Attachments for more details on the situation and the results of the investigation that followed. 5. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM: (Contractor) B. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. Cite appiicabie OA. program procedures or new AW. procedures.) No Contractor response is required. Q. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 10. DATE GOVERNMENT EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PLAN: {Acceptabie responseiptan. partiat acceptance of responsefpian. rejection: attach continuation sheet if necessary) Isa-.ues Larva were corrected and new procedures are in place to prevent another outbreak. 12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS {Payment withhoiding, cure notice, Show cause, other.) No Financial Penalties are recommended at this time. CLOSE NAME AND TITLE SIGNATURE DATE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED COTR CONTRACTING OFFICER 2019-ICLI-00028 64S