Delta Scientific secures over 110 Federal buildings, including courthouses and FBI locations
Attendees continue to be intrigued with the Delta HD300, available with its fully electric or hydraulic operation

Delta Scientific, the leading manufacturer of counter-terrorist vehicle control systems used in the United States and internationally, recently announced that, on March 5, over 100 security professionals, integrators and contractors came together at Delta's Palmdale home office and manufacturing plant to view anti-terrorism barriers, bollards, crash-rated gates and other equipment, including new products. From 9:00 am until closing at 3:00 pm, the event drew a packed house.

Range of Delta Scientific Vehicle Access Control Equipment:

"Many of the attendees were unaware of the broad spectrum of vehicle access control equipment that Delta Scientific manufactures," reports Garrett Gustason, senior project manager, Delta Scientific. "As a result, we had increased interest in guard booths, from the standard model to the bullet-proof units. Many were also unaware that we made traffic control equipment, our original products.

"Attendees also told us that they really enjoyed being able to meet Delta management in person, especially our founder and president Harry Dickinson, who is a security industry icon," Gustason says. "Many told us that they found the equipment demonstrations so helpful that they suggested that we hold this event at other venues," Gustason adds. "Based on this recommendation, we are already into planning to take the demonstration on the road to locales such as Seattle, Texas, the Great Lakes and the Southeast."

Event Highlights:

Attendees continue to be intrigued with the Delta HD300, available with its fully electric or hydraulic operation. Attendees learned about a new version with an emergency manual operation that ensures deployment even with total power loss. The HD300 will stop a 15,000 pound (66.7 Km) vehicle traveling 50 mph (80 kpm). Upon impact, the barrier remains in its foundation and the opening stays blocked, providing a multiple hit capability. In its M50 crash test, the HD300 completely disabled the test vehicle, causing severe damage to the occupant department and power train.

"Attendees also told us that they really enjoyed being able to meet Delta management in person, especially our founder and president Harry Dickinson, who is a security industry icon"

Another popular product highlight was Delta's DSC7000 K12-rated beam barrier, now with an electro-mechanical control unit. This barrier secures wide roadways from attacking vehicles, providing protection between 12-20 feet wide with options to 30 feet (3.7 to 9.2 m). The 725 pound (328 kg) beam of the vertical life barricade stops a 15,000 pound (66.7 kN) vehicle traveling 50 mph (80 kph) dead in its tracks, equivalent to 1.2 million foot-pounds of kinetic energy.

"It was really exciting to introduce attendees to our new products as well as equipment they didn't realize we made. They were also able to see Delta's expanded

R & D department which will be releasing multiple new products in 2015 to fill the gaps in perimeter security and maintain our place as the industry's leader," summarises Gustason. "This event was more successful for the attendees and Delta than any of us could have imagined."

Market Sectors:

In the United States alone, Delta Scientific secures over 110 Federal buildings, including courthouses and FBI locations. Delta also provides vehicle access control for over 160 U.S. embassies and consulates in 130-plus countries as well as those of the United Kingdom and other nations. Recently, a Delta bullet-proof guard booth in downtown Austin, Texas found itself in a melee when a gunman started shooting up the recently opened federal courthouse, the Mexican consulate and the Austin Police Department headquarters. Although hit repeatedly by gunfire, not one bullet penetrated the booth.

Download PDF version

In case you missed it

Preparing For Cyber-attacks: The Intersection Of Cybersecurity And Physical Security
Preparing For Cyber-attacks: The Intersection Of Cybersecurity And Physical Security

Terry Gold of D6 Research has been giving a variety of “cyber in physical security” presentations at a variety of conferences, including ISC West and the Cyber:Secured Forum. We caught up with him for some insights about the intersection of cybersecurity and physical security. Q: Tell us a little bit about your background, specifically in the context of its relevance to cyber security in physical access. Gold: I started out in information security and then got involved in physical security along the way. I started really focusing on physical from a cyber standpoint about 10 years ago. I got into ethical hacking about 8 years ago, and then worked on putting it all together. There wasn’t a roadmap, so I had to build a methodology which I now share with other hackers, end users and law enforcement. I spend all my time either in the lab building success models, methods, and testing them out in some to the largest customers or agencies in the world for validation and improvement. Also, a chunk of my time is spent re-engineering security assessment and controls for end users or validating vendors on their behalf from a unique viewpoint that’s not (yet) typical in the industry. Q: How well prepared is physical security overall against cyber threats? Gold: Not well at all. While security is imperfect anywhere, much of the practices and designs have critical defects and overlook either best practice or fundamental application security principles. I’d say that the industry is very wide open for exploitation that doesn’t take much sophistication to execute. Breach disclosure laws are focused on mandatory reporting for personally identifiable information (PII) Q: What things stand out to you along your journey regarding the changes that you are seeing on this topic? Gold: Culture. Over the years, the industry (and most end users) have been dismissive of my findings. Industry culture hasn’t been aligned to embrace the topic and make requisite improvements that are needed to achieve “good security.” However, I’m finally starting to see that change – quickly and at scale. It doesn’t mean that we’re close to “good,” but rather reached the inflection point of change – and I’m rather pleased about it.     Breach disclosure laws has resulted in IT getting a lot of media attention in comparison to hacks made against physical security   Q: D6 does a lot of research in this area. What is the analysis behind the recent push for cyber security in physical security? Gold: First, it must be recognized that the threat isn’t new, but rather that the industry is only now coming to the table on it. Industry sentiment has been that breaches in physical security don’t happen or that there’s little impact. It must be recognised that the threat isn’t new, but rather that the industry is only now coming to the table on itBoth are false. Mainly, IT gets all the media attention with breaches for two reasons; 1) breach disclosure laws are focused on mandatory reporting for personally identifiable information (PII), and 2) there is really poor detection (mostly non-existent) against hacks in physical security, so they go unrecognized.  On the other side, as physical security systems increasingly resemble an IT architecture, so does their risk profile. As it expands to mobile, cloud, IOT and intelligence - InfoSec and auditors are taking a look and are alarmed at what they’re seeing. Before you know it, the scrutiny is cutting pretty deep, pressure for alignment becomes intense, and vendors feel the pinch on the sales cycles. It’s not a comfortable position for anyone.  Q: What will be the projected impact? Are practitioners seeing the whole picture? Gold: No, and this area is probably the most important takeaway of this interview. The industry is where InfoSec was about 15 years ago in their journey, except we have an additional headwind to deal with – culture change. This industry tends to rely more on trusted relationships than validating the recommendations are being provided. There are too many prevailing misconceptions, that unless remediated, investments won’t be as effective as expected.   Q: What do you believe are the top misconceptions? Gold: Well, this is a longer topic, but here’s a sampling that cuts across different areas.   Regarding hackers: A misconception is that they’re generally not interested. Hackers are increasingly very interested. When I teach a workshop at a hacker conference, it’s usually the quickest to fill up and go to wait list (within a couple hours). Regarding attacks: A misconception is that attacks are executed directly against the target system. Example, their goal is to get into VMS and attack it directly. The reality is that they’re more commonly dynamic where physical is part of a larger attack and its role is an easier gateway to another system (or vice versa, with many hops).  Regarding protective measures. The most prevalent mistake that the industry is currently making is too much focus and reliance on air-gapping networks or locking ports. This is only a slice of the attack surface and there are various ways to get around it. There’s a heavy price to pay for those that that rely too much on this strategy since its often accompanied by few mechanisms to deal with actors once they do get in (and they definitely will). Regarding the value of exploiting physical security. Too often perceived as low value. In our white paper we review many of the things that hackers can do, what they gain, and how it can impact the overall organization. It’s far broader and deeper than most.At D6, we’ve developed a stepwise methodology from ground up and it’s a huge difference  Q: What are the top things that need to change in the industry? Gold: First, culture. This can be answered by adopting the same principles as InfoSec. From an execution standpoint, the industry needs to change how they perform risk assessments. Industry practices, including certifications, are significantly outdated and don’t reflect a methodology that accurately considers cybersecurity, actors, methods, and proactive remedy. At D6, we’ve developed a stepwise methodology from ground up and it’s a huge difference. End users that don’t re-engineer their practice, will be very limited for meaningful cybersecurity improvement.  One of the changes needed in the industry includes how risk assessments are performed  Q: Generally, what advice do you give to clients on steps to move their cyber security to the next level?  Gold: Don’t operate like a silo anymore. Transition from industry “common practices” to best practices that can be validated. Rely less on previous relationships and more toward domain competence. Collaborate with the CISO to a principled, goal-oriented and metrics-based approach. Embed an InfoSec person on the physical team. Present priorities and risks jointly to the board within an overall risk portfolio. Invite scrutiny from auditors. Get a red team performed once a year. Until you do the last step, you don’t really know where you stand (but don’t do it until the other things are done). Last, set the bar higher with vendors to support these improvements or their products will just end up being weak link.   Q: What type of challenges do you see and any advice on how end user and integrators can overcome them? Lessons learned? Gold: There are too many specific domains across cybersecurity – it’s not just a network security resourceFeedback I get from integrators is that they’re struggling to figure out how to deliver expertise to their clients in their area. They’re somewhat overwhelmed with the complexity, becoming an expert or how expensive it is to hire and maintain those skilled resources. My best advice is not to do either. There are too many specific domains across cybersecurity – it’s not just a network security resource. Not even the large integrators have the right bench, and unfortunately, they’re just further down a doomed path than smaller integrators. Form a partnership with boutique cybersecurity firms that have multiple specialists. Negotiate rates, margins, scope, and call on them when needed. It won’t come out of your bottom line, the results will be better, and the risk will be extremely low. You’ll learn along the way too.  Q: Anything notable that your research is uncovering in this area that might not be on people’s radar yet? Gold: Yes, quite a bit. Our Annual Industry Assessment Report goes through every segment. We’re making pretty bold statements about the future and impact, but we’re confident. One thing that stands out is how intelligence (and the swath of subsets) will impose stringent demands on physical security due to attribute and data collection (for analysis) which will absolutely require privacy compliance, integrity, and controls. It will even shape organizations that might not care about cybersecurity but are prioritizing function.  Q: Where can readers learn more about your perspectives on this topic? Gold: Blogs on the D6research.com website. Our annual report. Val Thomas of Securicon and D6 have collaborated on a three-part cybersecurity in physical white paper series. It goes into all of this in detail, as well as remedy.

Is The Physical Security Industry Doing Enough To Prevent School Shootings?
Is The Physical Security Industry Doing Enough To Prevent School Shootings?

School shootings continue, as does a search for answers. What solutions are there to prevent school shootings and/or to improve the response (and thus minimize the death toll)?  In the physical security industry, we like to think we have solutions that can help, if not “solve”, the problem, but realistically speaking, how effective are they at the end of the day? We like to think we have solutions that can help, if not “solve”, the problem: but how effective are they at the end of the day? The sad answer – even after dozens of school shootings and even in the wrenching aftermath of the latest one – is that we don’t know. There is a gaping lack of knowledge and research when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of preventative measures as they relate to school shootings. Scarce Resources For Preventative Measures The dearth of knowledge on the subject leaves schools at risk of spending scarce resources on measures that don’t have any real impact, or worse, that have a negative effect on education environments. The natural impulse following a school shooting is to do something – anything – to prevent the tragedy from happening again at any school, but especially at my school. But how is money best spent?Successful businesses are a good thing, but not at the expense of misspending education resources on solutions that don’t solve anything Congress has passed the Stop School Violence Act of 2018 to provide $50 million per year to develop programs to train students, teachers and law enforcement to prevent violence, and to create anonymous reporting systems, such as hot lines, for school violence threats. The bill authorizes another $25 million for improvements to school’s physical security infrastructures. Congress also provides $1.1 billion in Title IV block grants, which districts can use to pay for diverse needs such as security systems. Several states are providing additional funding for physical safety measures and campus police, and local districts are also stretching their budgets to address security concerns. But is that money being targeted to measures that will help the situation? What is the role of technology in preventing school violence, and are we as an industry at risk of over-selling our preventative capabilities and diverting money from other measures that might have more impact? Successful businesses are a good thing, but not at the expense of misspending education resources on solutions that don’t solve anything. More metal detectors, armed guards and police officers could cause anxiety in some students and even interfere with the learning process Studies On School Safety And Protection Researchers, advocates and educators gathered this fall at American University to consider the need for better research to inform decision-making on safety, reported Education Week.The field is in desperate need of more evidence on what works, and schools want this information presented to them" A 2016 study by the Rand Corp. points to the problem: Lack of data and research on what works and what doesn’t. “Despite growth in the school safety-technology sector, rigorous research about the effectiveness of these technologies is virtually non-existent,” according to Rand. “The field is in desperate need of more evidence on what works, and schools want this information presented to them in vetted, digestible ways to help them with procurement.” Jeremy Finn, a professor of education at the University of Buffalo, has pointed out the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of measures designed to deter events that likely won’t occur anyway. “How do you know when you have deterred a school shooting?” he asks. “It didn’t happen.” The Effects On Our Students  Might technologies aimed at making schools more secure have an adverse effect on the learning environment? More metal detectors, armed guards and police officers could cause anxiety in some students and even interfere with the learning process. The physical security industry should freely acknowledge that the technologies we offer are only part of the solution to school violence Do security measures aimed at preventing active shooting incidents absorb resources that might better be used to address a more general and/or likely security threat such as vandalism or student discipline? Theoretically, security measures in general should help to prevent the probability of an active shooter at the same time they are addressing a wider range of concerns and threats. But do they? At the very least, we in the physical security market should be aware, and should freely acknowledge, that the technologies we offer are only part of the solution to school violence. Schools should take the broadest possible approach to the range of security challenges, and technology should be one tool among many. Furthermore, better data to measure what works is sorely needed to illuminate the best path forward.

What’s New In U.S. Government Procurement For Security?
What’s New In U.S. Government Procurement For Security?

Last week, the Schedule 84 Suppliers Research Panel participated in reviewing the 2018 contracting year with the GSA Schedule 84 leadership team. Our panel group consists of experienced contractors and consultants meeting for a monthly conference call. Schedule 84 is the GSA Schedules Contract for Total Solutions for Law Enforcement, Security, Facilities Management, Fire and Rescue. Our opinions are part of a research program to provide valuable feedback to the GSA Schedule 84 program and on to the GSA central office. The director of GSA Region 7 Schedules Program, the Schedule 84 Branch Chief and the Category Manager Subject Matter Expert who manages our suppliers' panel gave us their full attention as we discussed the successes of the program, hot topics, problems and the future. We determined 2018 under the Schedule 84 team to be a year of innovative thoughts, cooperative effort and renewed enthusiasm Innovative Review Team We determined 2018 under the Schedule 84 team to be a year of innovative thoughts, cooperative effort, renewed enthusiasm and productive changes building upon the successes of 2017. There was high praise for the accessibility to the Schedule 84 staff. Their consistent quick response to questions and concerns, thinking outside the box and supporting the program by partnering with their contractors was much appreciated. There has been a renewed spirit of partnering to cooperatively bring the best to agency customers. It seems to be working as per the Center Director sales are growing for GSA Schedule 84. Advocating For The Security Industry In my experience, business development starts with the Administrator from Region 7 in Ft. Worth, TX. As the annual Schedule 84 Industry Day at the SSAC begins he is shaking every hand and passing out his cards looking folks right in the eye asking, “how can I help you?” They have the best practices and most organized paperwork. The SSAC director has chosen well in her staff and is hands-on in every endeavor to direct things along when challenges occur or to improve the program. The new 84 Branch Chief is knowledgeable, innovative, tireless and has been heavily involved in advocating for the security industry It continues with the center’s CASE Manager encouraging the contractors at events, visiting agency customers and promoting the GSA Schedules Program by helping coordinate the partnering. The new 84 Branch Chief is knowledgeable, innovative, tireless and has been heavily involved in advocating for the security industry for adding new technology, meeting with industry associations, understanding the complexity and challenges of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD12) and advocating for the purchasing Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) utilizing the appropriate standards and the GSA Program among other innovations. As far as the supplier panel, we gave our GSA Schedule 84 team and leaders high praise for 2018.   GSA also added new categories or SINs for clearly identifying Physical Access Control Products that appear on GSA’s Approved Product List Changes In The GSA Program Some changes this year in certain GSA programmes included the creation of a new category of products/services Special Item Number (SIN) for Order Level Materials (OLM) developed to assist with solution procurements. This new SIN was added to Schedules 03FAC, 56, 70, 71, 00Corp, 738X and 84. Under Schedule 84 it is SIN 84-500. GSA Schedule 84 consolidated many Special Items Numbers (SINs) to make finding products and services less complex Essentially this SIN allows agencies procuring under the aforementioned GSA Schedules’ programmes to purchase and the contractor to add items and services not known prior to the task as a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) not to exceed 33% of the order. For more information and FAQs on OLMs go to www.gsa.gov/olm. This is not to take the place of “Open Market” items for adding products only that are not listed on a company’s GSA Contract. Physical Access Control Products Previously, GSA Schedule 84 consolidated many Special Items Numbers (SINs) to make finding products and services less complex for the agencies. GSA also added new categories or SINs for clearly identifying Physical Access Control Products that appear on GSA’s Approved Product List according to the standards created under FIPS201. These products appear under SIN 246 35-7 after being tested and approved by GSA. To be qualified to install these products under the GSA Program at least one individual from the GSA Contractor company must complete the class and be CSEIP certified before applying for labor SIN 246 60-5. Additionally, the company must demonstrate certain qualifications and have past performance for this type of work. The Security Technology Alliance offers the training class and certification. Certified individuals and approved products are listed at www.idmanagement.gov. Companies listed with SIN 246-35 7 and SIN 246-60 5 may be found by searching at www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov. Updates To Guidance For Procurement Updates to guidance for procurement of PACS will continue to be posted to the GSA PACS Ordering Guide Updates to guidance for procurement of PACS will continue to be posted to the GSA PACS Ordering Guide. The ordering guide posted at www.gsa.gov/firesecurity is a valuable support tool created to assist agencies with understanding the requirements of FIPS201 and procuring a PACS. The guide includes relevant regulations, FAQs, sample systems designs, sample statements of work, a list of key points of contract for additional help and questions. In partnership with GSA and guided by the GSA Ombudsman group, the Security Industry Association and the Security Technology Alliance members and their contractor companies participated in a GSA Reverse Industry PACS Training Day on September 17, 2018. We presented from an industry perspective important fact on PACS system requirements, procurement planning, providing information on resources and further educating with panel discussions, individual presentations and amusing skits to over 300 Government agency staff and acquisition specialists. You can find some of the unedited recording of the PACS Reverse Industry Day Training on YouTube. Some changes included the creation of a new category of products/services Special Item Number (SIN) for Order Level Materials (OLM) GSA Schedules Program A hot topic about the GSA program for 2018 was also an issue for the prior year. The GSA Schedules Program is a streamlined contracting vehicle incorporating specific Federal Acquisition Regulations for more efficiently purchasing commercial items. Companies may apply per a continuous open season for a 5-year contract with three 5-year options to renew. Contractors are vetted for past performance, corporate experience and financial capability. Products and services are considered for offering to Federal, State and Local customers (for Schedule 84) with pricing that is determined to be fair and reasonable through negotiations with GSA. To make the determination for fair and reasonable pricing GSA carefully reviews the commercial practices of the contractor To make the determination for fair and reasonable pricing GSA carefully reviews the commercial practices of the contractor as well as the competition of identical or similar item pricing. The most vocal complaint of concern from the contractors was regarding the consideration of competitor contractors offering identical items with out-of-date pricing or holding a Letter of Supply not authorized by the manufacturer. GSA Pricing Tool Since the GSA utilizes a pricing tool to determine if the pricing offered is competitive, a rogue competitor can cause a pricing action to possibly be rejected due to out of date information even as the manufacturer offers an update of the product. This is an issue on all GSA Contracts that the supplier panel hopes will be reconsidered by GSA policymakers at the central office. Most of us believe the Letters of Supply should only be issued by the manufacturer or with documented specific permission of the manufacturer to a reseller. Manufacturers may want to have a better understanding of the Letter of Supply, how it is considered by GSA and more carefully choose their Government partners for experience and compliance. Another challenge for the security community is regarding the lack of accessibility of participating dealers to GSA eBuy Overcoming Challenges For The Security Community Contractors may only see RFQs which are posted under the Special items Number(s) that were awarded to their GSA Contract Another challenge for the security community is regarding the lack of accessibility of participating dealers to GSA eBuy. GSA eBuy is an online Request for Quotation (RFQ) program that is for GSA Contract holders only. Agencies will post their requirements by Special Item Number for at a minimum 48 hours. Contractors may only see RFQs which are posted under the Special items Number(s) that were awarded to their GSA Contract. GSA Participating Dealers may take orders on behalf of a manufacturer if they are authorized under the manufacturer’s GSA Contract. They may also have an online PO Portal to receive orders. But they have no access to GSA eBuy to response to RFQs. Usually, under these arrangements, the manufacturers do not respond directly, so there is a problem using GSA eBuy for opportunities as their GSA Participating Dealers have no access to respond. GSA Schedule 84 Leadership In some instances, a contracting officer may allow an emailed quotation. However, with the use of the electronic ordering system, this has become a common problem we hope to bring to the attention of policymakers. Some changes to the programmes may make the presentation of documentation more effective going forward The GSA Schedule 84 leadership has been helpful to explain the challenges to the agencies to try and resolve such issues. So, what’s up for 2019? GSA modernization is coming. There will be improvements to their tools and more consolidations of SINs and more. There have been discussions of a revival of the GSA Expo. The Expo offered training for contracting staff both Government and private industry. Valuable Tools For Vendor Training Equally important is the networking, meetings and the exhibits of the contractors. Expos have been discontinued since 2012 but smaller events have been growing as well as online webinar training. Webinars are valuable tools for GSA and vendor training, but they do not take the place of being able to meet your customers face-to-face. GSA online eOffer and eMod program have made processing actions more efficient. Some changes to the programmes may make the presentation of documentation more effective going forward. The GSA online website for viewing the items on the GSA Contract and for purchasing items, GSA Advantage could definitely use an update as it has been basically the same for 20 years. Keep an eye on GSA Interact for the latest happenings with GSA.