TSA gives airports initial guidance on using private screeners

The Transportation Security Administration published guidelines Wednesday for airports to use in deciding whether they want to return to using private passenger and baggage screeners for the first time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Under the screening partnership program, the nation's 440 commercial airports can begin applying to TSA starting Nov. 19 to contract with a private company for screening services. The guidance is sure to stoke a contentious debate over whether airports should continue using a federal screening workforce, which Congress set up under TSA in the aftermath of 9/11. Critics of the federal program, such as private screening companies, say TSA is too bureaucratic and unresponsive to airport needs. Advocates of TSA screening, such as federal unions, argue that TSA is capable of adapting to airport needs, and screening should be considered an inherently governmental function.

The initial guidance consists of 20 pages outlining the role that TSA, airports, federal security directors and contractors will play in the initiative, also known as the opt-out program. TSA plans to create a qualified vendors list of private screening companies this year, and will accept applications from airports from Nov. 19 to Dec. 10. Private contractors will be selected, then announced next spring.

Nobody is talking about returning to the system that was in place before 9/11, when airlines hired private screeners, usually with minimal background checks, and provided little training and low wages. Under the opt-out program, TSA will set standards, conduct oversight, and enforce compliance of all screening operations. Airports and private companies, however, will be given greater flexibility in managing the private workforce.

"TSA is interested in encouraging decentralized flexibility to allow for innovation, greater efficiency, and process improvement," the guidance states. "Contractors will have significant discretion in operational and management decisions including, but not necessarily limited to, supervision, overhead, materials, recruiting, compliance and scheduling."

According to TSA's guidelines, security is a "non-negotiable issue." Contract screeners must perform at least as well as their federal counterparts, and must comply with passenger and baggage standard operating procedures as prescribed by the law. Other goals include customer service, competitive costs and creating a partnership that leverages "private sector innovations and efficiencies with government security oversight."

The new guidance has appeared to satisfy at least one TSA critic: Rep. John Mica, R-Fla, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on aviation. Mica has estimated that up to 100 airports will choose to opt out.

"This is a positive, evolutionary step in decentralizing the Soviet-style federal hiring, training and scheduling system that was structured after 9/11," Mica said. "This reform will allow TSA to improve passenger screening operations and, most importantly, performance standards to better detect weapons, explosives and serious risks."

Some airport representatives, however, told Government Executive before the guidance was issued that they do not plan on making a switch.

For example, Boston's Logan International Airport does not plan to convert to private screeners, said Phil Orlandella, the airport's director of media relations. The Sept. 11 terrorists boarded American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 at Logan, then hijacked the aircraft and flew them into the World Trade Center towers.

"We're very pleased with the TSA at this airport, with everything they do," Orlandella said. "They're very professional. They get the job done on a daily basis, and they're willing to talk with all the stakeholders to adjust the system and change the system as needed."

When TSA was created, a pilot program allowed five airports to use private screeners in order to compare the performance of federal and private screeners. Those airports are in Jackson Hole, Wyo.; Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; San Francisco, and Tupelo, Miss.

Representatives from the San Francisco and Kansas City airports said they plan to stay with private screeners.

"We're not hindered by any federal service regulations," said Mike McCarron, director of community affairs for San Francisco International Airport. "We can hire and fire more efficiently and, as a result, we have a more efficient workforce."

However, Terrence Slaybaugh, director of the Rochester International Airport, said airports and airlines might have to consider contributing more resources for screening operations in the future.

"It's not inconceivable that if you want more under this program … you're going to have to provide the resources to make it happen," he said. "I could see down the road we could get in a situation where we're supplementing some of the screening costs."

A study commissioned by TSA concluded in April that the privately screened airports appeared to match the federal program in the areas of security, cost effectiveness and cost. TSA said the opt-out guidance "is based in large part" on operational experiences with contract screeners at the pilot airports, as well as the study.

The General Accounting Office, however, reported in April that little data exists to compare the performance of federal and private screeners, and the data that does exist shows weaknesses in both groups. The Homeland Security Department's Inspector General also reported in April that TSA so tightly controlled the pilot airports that it was not possible to determine conclusively whether private screeners performed at a level equal or greater than that of their federal counterparts. The inspector general also said that limited covert testing of private and federal screeners "suggest they performed about the same, which is to say, equally poorly."

Regardless, TSA said the pilot program provided enough information to develop guidance for opting out.

Under the program, TSA will continue to fund screening operations whether airports use private or federal workers. However, TSA expects that contracts for private screening will not exceed the cost of federal operations.

Airports will participate in the selection of the private contractors. Airports also could apply to be the screening company. The guidance notes that this would give airports the flexibility to use private screeners for nonscreening jobs during non-peak hours.

With regard to labor issues, the guidance says that private screeners must receive pay and benefits that are greater than they were prior to 9/11. Although TSA forbids federal screeners from organizing, the agency will remain neutral if contract employees seek collective bargaining rights, the guidance states. The law as written by Congress, however, prohibits screeners from striking, regardless of whether they are private or federal.

Some screeners and union representatives have been outspoken critics of the way TSA has managed labor issues to date. Still, they believe that screening should remain a government obligation.

"I firmly believe that if TSA manages to survive and stay at the airports that, in a couple of years, the agency will be the place to be as far as federal employment. But right now, it's a real struggle to stay," said one screener who asked to remain anonymous.

Peter Winch, national organizer for the American Federation of Government Employees, said the current structure "sorely lacks" screener input in management decisions.

"TSA's problems with its management of its federal workforce should be addressed by managing its federal workforce better," he said. "There's a lot of criticism of TSA, but we want to see it succeed as a federal agency."

"It's in the public interest that these front-line employees remain federal employees," he added. "Nobody wants to see a patchwork quilt with one kind of training in one place and one kind of screening in another place."

The role of federal security directors also changes under the opt-out program. "With a federal workforce, the FSD has direct supervision and control over the screening workforce and the implementation of administrative policies," the guidance states. "With a contractor providing the workforce, the FSD has responsibility for overall security, but not direct control over the administration of the workforce. The FSD and TSA would look to the contractor to administer effectively and efficiently and provide innovations in this area."

Additionally, the guidance says the experience of current federal screeners should be leveraged, both for security and cost-effectiveness. Federal screeners at airports that opt out will be given priority-hiring status with private screening companies.

TSA notes, however, that the guidance is not complete, particularly with regard to details on how contractors will be selected and how the transition to a private workforce will occur.

"TSA recognizes that there are a significant number of operational issues requiring additional discussion and analysis," the guidance states. "TSA will assess the feedback of interested parties in formulating more detailed guidance as we approach November."

In the end, airports may prefer a hybrid public-private model, says Steve Van Beek, senior vice president for policy and development for the Airports Council International-North America.

"Who says you have to have it all federal or all private," he said. "If we view this thing more flexibly and bigger than it is now, we open up some possibilities. Right now, the program looks fairly stifled so the level of interest really corresponds to that."

Additionally, some observers say the opt-out program may be a gauge of TSA's future, paving the way to a hybrid system that changes the entire mission and composition of the agency.

"No one's been able to hear the administration commit to a long-term future for TSA," Van Beek said, "and I think administratively they are trying to figure out what the best configuration is."