Aviation Security: TSA's Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening

0.69 MB·English

by  Government Accountability Office

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

January 9, 2009
The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren
Ranking Republican Member
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Infrastructure Protection
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable John L. Mica
Ranking Republican Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
Subject: Aviation Security: TSA’s Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport
Screening
This report formally transmits the enclosed briefing in response to your request that we
review the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Screening Partnership Program
(SPP). In accordance with the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, TSA created the SPP
to allow commercial airports an opportunity to apply to TSA to use private sector screeners
through qualified private-screening contractors approved by TSA. In February 2008, TSA
issued a report on its study comparing the cost and performance of screening services at SPP
and non-SPP airports. Our briefing addresses the following questions: (1) To what extent did
the design of TSA’s study of the cost and performance of passenger and checked baggage
screening services at selected SPP and non-SPP airports affect the usefulness of the study?
(2) To what extent has TSA taken actions to identify and eliminate any unnecessary
overhead/supervisory redundancies at SPP airports between TSA and contractor personnel?
(3) What factors do airport operators cite as having contributed to airports’ decisions about
whether to participate in the SPP? We are recommending that if TSA plans to rely on its
comparison of costs and performance of SPP and non-SPP airports for future decision
making, the agency update its study to address the limitations we identified, for example, by
including various cost elements that were excluded and conducting statistical tests to
determine the level of confidence in any observed differences in screening performance. TSA
generally agreed with our findings and recommendation.
- - - - -
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no
further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time, we
will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and other interested
parties. This report will also be available at no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Page 1 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at
[phone] or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to
this report were Glenn Davis, Assistant Director; Chuck Bausell, Jr.; Katherine Davis; Stanley
Kostyla; Thomas Lombardi; Frederick Lyles, Jr.; Deborah Ortega; and John Warner.
Cathleen A. Berrick
Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Enclosures - 2
Page 2 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
EnclosEnuclosruree I: BIrie:fi ngB Slidresi efing Slides

Aviation Security: TSA’s Cost and Performance
Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening
Briefing for Congressional Requesters
November 12, 2008
1

Page 3 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Contents
• Introduction
(cid:127) Objectives
(cid:127) Scope and Methodology
(cid:127) Results in Brief
(cid:127) Background
(cid:127) Findings
(cid:127) Conclusions
(cid:127) Recommendation for Executive Action
(cid:127) GAO Contacts
(cid:127) Appendixes
(cid:127) Related GAO Products
2

Page 4 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Introduction
(cid:127) Passenger screening is a critical component of the security of our nation’s commercial aviation
system. Passenger screeners,1both federal and private, use metal detectors, X-ray and other
detection machines and systems, and physical searches to examinepassengers and their
baggage to identify threat objects.
(cid:127) On November 19, 2002, in accordance with the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA),
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began a 2-year pilot program at five airports
using private screening companies to screen passengers andchecked baggage.2 ATSA further
mandates that TSA allow airports to request that the screening of airline passengers and
baggage be conducted by private screeners in lieu of federal screeners.3
(cid:127) In November 2004 and in accordance with ATSA,TSA created the Screening Partnership
Program (SPP) to allow all commercial airports an opportunity toapply to TSA to use private-
sector screeners through private screening contractors approved by TSA. TSA remains
responsible for funding all passenger and baggage screening activities at SPP airports as well as
airports with federal screeners.
1Federal screeners are employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and are referred to as transportation security officers; private screeners are employed by
qua1lified private screening companies under contract to TSA. 3
2See Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 108, 115 Stat. 597, 611-13 (2001) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 44919).
3See Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 108, 115 Stat. at 611-13 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 44920).

Page 5 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Introduction (cont’d)
(cid:127) In May 2007, TSA awarded a contract to Catapult Consultants, in the amount of $442,521, to
conduct a cost and performance analysis of airports with privatescreeners versus airports with
federal screeners. This analysis would be used to assist senior TSA leadership with strategic
decisions regarding the degree to which TSA should leverage public/private partnerships in the
area of screening services. The contractor issued a report on its analysis to TSA in December
2007.1
(cid:127) In February 2008, TSA issued a report on a study TSA conducted comparing the cost and
performance of screening at SPP and non-SPP airports.2 The agency initiated this work in
anticipation that more airports would apply to participate in the SPP, and, because of this, it
wanted to obtain information regarding how such participation would impact the agency’s budget.
In addition, TSA also wanted to obtain information about how theexisting SPP airports compared
to non-SPP airports.
(cid:127) TSA officials stated that although they used the study prepared by Catapult Consultants to
conduct their comparison of screening at SPP and non-SPP airports, they consider the TSA
study to be the official agency study. In conducting the study,TSA compared the cost of
operating screening at SPP airports with the cost that would be incurred in the agency’s budget if
these airports were run as fully federal or non-SPP airports. TSA used 2007 invoice data
submitted by the following six SPP airports and determined what the cost would be if these
airports were instead staffed with federal transportation security officers (TSO) (see app. I for
additional details about TSA’s approach and methodology).
1. Greater Rochester International Airport, Rochester, New York
2. Jackson Hole Airport, Jackson, Wyoming
3. Joe Foss Field, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
4. Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, Missouri
5. San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California
6. Tupelo Regional Airport, Tupelo, Mississippi
1Catapult Consultants, Private Screening Operations: Business Case Analysis, Transportation Security Administration, Screening Partnership Program, December 14, 2007.
4
2Transportation Security Administration, A Report on SPP Airport Cost and Performance Analysis and Comparison to Business Case Analysis Finding, February 1, 2008.

Page 6 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Introduction (cont’d)
(cid:127) TSA compared the performance measures of SPP airports to non-SPP airports in the
same airport category (category X, I,II, III, and IV).1 Specifically, TSA analyzed 2007
performance data for five performance measures:threat image projection detection
rates,2 recertification,3passenger waiting, peak wait times, and checkpoint capacity
utilization. An airport was considered an average performer if the results for these
measures fell within one standard deviation from the airport category average(the
middle 68.2 percent of the category).
(cid:127) TSA found that screening at SPP airports currently costs approximately 17.4 percent
more to operate than at airports with federal screeners, and that SPP airports fell
within the “average performer” category for the performance measures included in its
analysis. Although the TSA contractor used a different methodological approach for
comparing the cost and performance of SPP and non-SPP airports, the contractor
concluded that passenger screening at the SPP airports has historically cost from 9 to
17 percent more than at non-SPP airports, and private screeners performed at a level
that was equal to or greater than that of federal TSOs. (Additional information about
the methodology and findings of the TSA contractor’s study is contained in app. II and
app. III, respectively.)
1TSA classifies the commercial airports in the United States intoone of five security risk categories (X, I, II, III, and IV) based on various factors, such as the total number of
takeoffs and landings annually, and other special security considerations. In general, category X airports have the largest number of passenger boardings, and category IV
airports have the smallest. 5
2The Threat Image Projection system is designed to test TSOs’ andprivate screeners’ detection capabilities by projecting threat images, including images of guns and explosives,
into bags as they are screened. TSOs and private screeners are responsible for positively identifying the threat image and calling for the bag to be searched.
3TSOs and private screeners must pass an annual standardized recertification test composed of image, job knowledge, and Standard Operating Procedures tests.

Page 7 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Introduction (cont’d)
(cid:127) In presenting its findings, TSA also statedin its report that the current SPP model is
constrained by the law1and TSA policy and allows for little variance in the inputs for
staffing, compensation, and operations at SPP airports. Therefore, the outputs of such a
constrained model produce similar performance results with an anticipated costs premium
due to an additional layer of contractor management.
(cid:127) The Ranking Republican Member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Ranking Republican Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation
and Infrastructure Protection, House Committee on Homeland Security, requested that we
provide information on TSA’s cost and performance study of SPP airports, any actions that
TSA has taken to identify and prevent redundancies between TSA and contractor
personnel, and factors that have contributed to an airport operator’s decision about whether
to participate in the SPP.
1See, e.g., § 44920(c) (providing that private screening companies selected by TSA must provide its screening personnel compensation and other benefits at a level not less
than the compensation and other benefits provided to federal government personnel). 6

Page 8 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Objectives
Our objectives were to determine:
(cid:127) To what extent did the design of TSA’s study of the cost and performance of passenger and
checked-baggage screening services at selected SPP and non-SPP airports affect the
usefulness of the study’s results?
(cid:127) To what extent has TSA taken actions to identify and eliminate any unnecessary
redundancies at SPP airports between TSA administrative staff, including supervisory
positions, and contractor personnel?
(cid:127) What factors did airport operators cite as having contributed totheir decisions about whether
to participate in the SPP?
7

Page 9 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Scope and Methodology
To determine the extent to which the design of TSA’s study of the cost and performance of passenger
and checked-baggage screening services at selected SPP and non-SPP airports affected the
usefulness of the study’s results, we
(cid:127) analyzed TSA’s study and available documentation, such as calculations used in developing
the cost estimates, to determine what costs were included in thecomparisons, whether the
comparisons accounted for possible performance differences amongscreeners at selected
SPP and comparable non-SPP airports, whether the comparisons were supported by a
workforce analysis to identify any unnecessary redundancies at SPP airports, and whether the
study accounted explicitly for uncertainty;
(cid:127) compared TSA’s study methodology as described by TSA officials to criteria in GAO’s
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,1federal accounting standards for
managerial cost accounting,2GAO3 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)4 guidance for
estimating and managing program costs, and OMB’s guidance for statistical surveys, data
quality, and performance assessments,5 and assessed whether TSA and contractor officials
took actions to ensure that the data used in the studies were reliable;
1GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-AIMD-00-21.3-1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
2Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. 8
3GAO, Cost Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating and Managing Program Costs, GAO-07-1134SP (Washington, D.C.: July 2007).
4OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, and OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.
5OMB, Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys, September 2006; Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by Federal Agencies, October 1, 2001; and Program Assessment Rating Tool Guidance, No. 2008-01, January 29, 2008.

Page 10 GAO-09-27R Airport Screening