TSA ready for private screening, but airports aren't biting

The government is ready to let private contractors take over passenger and baggage screening at the nation's airports, but most air facilities intend to keep federal screeners unless they are given better incentives to switch, according to government and industry officials.

The Transportation Security Administration has designated 34 companies as qualified to provide security screening at airports. But only seven out of about 430 airports across the country have applied to have private companies take over.

"We have a significant number of airports that want no part of it, no way, under no circumstances," said Stephen Van Beek, vice president of policy for Airports Council International-North America, which represents the nation's commercial airports.

Airports are worried about what kind of liability they might have if they opt out, he said, and they also would like greater control over screening operations.

TSA was created in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks as the federal agency responsible for managing and operating screening services at airports. It moved at breakneck speed to create a workforce of about 45,000 federal screeners. Congress, however, required TSA to develop a program that would allow airports to apply to TSA to have private companies take over screening operations.

Under the Screening Partnership Program, or "opt-out program," TSA will sign contracts with private companies and regulate them. According to TSA, private screening companies may only hire employees who meet the same requirements as federal screeners. Like federal screeners, private screeners must be U.S. citizens, have a high school diploma or the equivalent, be proficient in English, and pass a 10-year FBI background check. In addition, all private screeners undergo 40 hours of classroom training and 60 hours of on-the-job training on the same standard operating procedures as federal screeners.

Congress also allowed five airports to use private screening companies as part of a pilot program to see how they would perform. Those airports are in San Francisco; Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Tupelo, Miss.; and Jackson, Wyo.

Although TSA announced almost a year ago that all airports could apply to use private screeners, only seven have done so: Sioux Falls Regional Airport in South Dakota, Elko Regional Airport in Nevada, and the original five pilot-program airports.

Now that TSA has a list of qualified vendors, the agency plans to begin signing contracts in the fall, said Andrew Anderson, director of the Screening Partnership Program. TSA will ask the qualified vendors to submit bids to take over screening at each airport.

Elko airport, however, has asked to become its own vendor. In other words, Elko wants to be considered a business and receive the screening contract. TSA is evaluating that proposal.

In order to make the qualified vendor's list, each company had to prove it is privately owned in the United States and had to submit a detailed plan outlining its management approach, technical expertise, past performance, subcontracting approach and proof of financial stability.

TSA plans to let other companies apply to be part of the qualified vendor's list next summer or fall, Anderson said.

Although TSA is ready to sign private contracts, airports aren't biting.

"No one has been provided a compelling incentive to opt out," Van Beek said. "If you don't solve liability and you don't have more airport control, you're not going to see a program much different than the one we have today."

Private screening companies can apply to the Homeland Security Department for special liability protections under the 2002 Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act. It was designed to encourage anti-terrorism technologies by providing manufacturers or sellers with limited liability risks.

Van Beek said there's a belief in the airport community and among some insurers, however, that the SAFETY Act will not provide adequate legal defense to airports if they opt out.

He said a possible solution is that a private contractor could indemnify an airport through their contact with TSA. "Maybe that's the best solution," he said.

On the issue of control, Van Beek said airports want more say in the day-to-day management of screening operations. He said the opt-out program is "a weird federal program" in that airports are essentially on the sideline as the government contracts with a private company. He predicted that up to 50 airports would choose to opt out if they were given more control.

TSA spokeswoman Deirdre O'Sullivan said the government is not offering airports any incentives or disincentives to opt out. She added that the same amount of funding would go to screening operations at airports regardless of whether they had a private contractor or remained in the federal program.