SCREENING 

PARTNERSHIP 

PROGRAM

TSA Issued Application 

Guidance and Developed a 

Mechanism to Monitor 

Private versus Federal 

Screener Performance

Statement of Jennifer Grover, Acting Director,

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

GAO-14-269T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-269T, testimony before

the Subcommittee on Government Operations, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

January 2014

SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

TSA Issued Application Guidance and Developed a 

Mechanism to Monitor Private versus Federal 

Screener Performance

Why GAO Did This Study

TSA maintains a federal workforce to 

screen passengers and baggage at the 

majority of the nation’s commercial 

airports, but it also oversees a 

workforce of private screeners at 

airports who participate in the SPP. 

The SPP allows commercial airports to 

apply to have screening performed by 

private screeners, who are to provide a 

level of screening services and 

protection that equals or exceeds that 

of federal screeners. In recent years, 

TSA’s SPP has evolved to incorporate 

changes in policy and federal law, 

prompting enhanced interest in 

measuring screener performance. 

This testimony addresses the extent to 

which TSA (1) has provided guidance 

to airport operators for the SPP 

application process and (2) assesses 

and monitors the performance of 

private and federal screeners. This 

statement is based on a report GAO 

issued in December 2012 and selected 

updates conducted in January 2014. 

To conduct the selected updates, GAO 

reviewed documentation, such as the 

SPP Annual Report issued in January 

2013, and interviewed agency officials 

on the status of implementing GAO’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making no new 

recommendations in this statement. 

What GAO Found

Since GAO reported on this issue in December 2012, the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) has developed application guidance for airport operators 

applying to the Screening Partnership Program (SPP). In December 2012, GAO 

reported that TSA had not provided guidance to airport operators on its 

application and approval process, which had been revised to reflect requirements 

in the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Further, airport operators GAO interviewed at the time generally stated that they 

faced difficulties completing the revised application, such as how to obtain cost 

information. Therefore, GAO recommended that TSA develop application 

guidance, and TSA concurred. To address GAO’s recommendation, TSA 

updated its SPP website in December 2012 by providing general application 

guidance and a description of the criteria and process the agency uses to assess 

airports’ SPP applications. The guidance provides examples of information that 

airports could consider providing to TSA to help assess their suitability for the 

program and also outlines how the agency will analyze cost information. The new 

guidance addresses the intent of GAO’s recommendation and should help 

improve transparency of the SPP application process as well as help airport 

operators determine whether their airports are good candidates for the SPP.

TSA has also developed a mechanism to regularly monitor private versus federal 

screener performance. In December 2012, GAO found differences in 

performance between SPP and non-SPP airports based on its analysis of 

screener performance data. However, while TSA had conducted or 

commissioned prior reports comparing the performance of SPP and non-SPP 

airports, TSA officials stated at the time that they did not plan to conduct similar 

analyses in the future, and instead stated that they were using across-the-board 

mechanisms to assess screener performance across all commercial airports. In 

December 2012, GAO found that these across-the-board mechanisms did not 

summarize information for the SPP as a whole or across years, which made it 

difficult to identify changes in private screener performance. GAO concluded that 

monitoring private screener performance in comparison with federal screener 

performance was consistent with the statutory provision authorizing TSA to enter 

into contracts with private screening companies and recommended that TSA 

develop a mechanism to regularly monitor private versus federal screener 

performance. TSA concurred with the recommendation. To address GAO’s 

recommendation, in January 2013, TSA issued its first SPP Annual Report, 

which provides an analysis of private versus federal screener performance. 

Further, in September 2013, a TSA Assistant Administrator signed an operations 

directive that provides internal guidance for preparing the SPP Annual Report, 

including the requirement that the report annually verify that the level of 

screening services and protection provided at SPP airports is equal to or greater 

than the level that would be provided by federal screeners. These actions 

address the intent of GAO’s recommendation and could assist TSA in identifying 

performance changes that could lead to improvements in the program. 

View GAO-14-269T. For more information, 

contact Jennifer Grover at (202) 512-7141 or 

GroverJ@gao.gov.
 

Page 1 GAO-14-269T 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work on the Transportation 

Security Administration’s (TSA) Screening Partnership Program (SPP). 

TSA, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is 

responsible for ensuring the security of the traveling public through, 

among other things, screening passengers traveling by aircraft for 

explosives and other prohibited items. To fulfill this responsibility, TSA 

maintains a federal workforce of screeners at a majority of the nation’s 

commercial airports, but also oversees a smaller workforce of private 

screeners employed by companies under contract to TSA at airports that 

participate in TSA’s SPP.1 The SPP, established in 2004 in accordance 

with provisions of the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA), allows 

commercial airports an opportunity to “opt out” of federal screening by 

applying to TSA to have private screeners perform the screening 

function.2 At airports with private screeners, TSA continues to be 

responsible for overseeing airport screening operations and ensuring that 

the private contractors provide effective and efficient security operations 

in a manner consistent with law and other TSA requirements; however, 

the screening of passengers and baggage at these airports is performed 

by private screening contractors selected and approved by TSA.3

 

1

For purposes of this report, a “commercial airport” is any airport in the United States that 

operates pursuant to a TSA-approved security program in accordance with 49 C.F.R. pt. 

1542 and at which TSA performs or oversees the performance of screening services, of 

which there are approximately 450 as of November 2013. We refer to airports that are 

participating in the SPP as SPP airports and the screeners in those airports as private 

screeners. We refer to airports not participating in the SPP as non-SPP airports and the 

screeners in those airports as federal screeners. 

As of 

January 2014, there are 14 airports participating in the SPP, as well as 6 

2

See Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 108, 115 Stat. 597, 611-13 (2001) (codified as amended at 49 

U.S.C. §§ 44919-20). TSA established the SPP in 2004 after concluding a 2-year pilot 

program through which four private screening companies performed screening operations 

at 5 commercial airports (one contractor served 2 airports). 

3

The SPP contractor’s responsibilities include recruiting, assessing, and training screening 

personnel to provide security screening functions in accordance with TSA regulations, 

policies, and procedures. SPP contractors are also expected to take operational direction 

from TSA to help ensure they meet the terms and conditions of the contract.
 

Page 2 GAO-14-269T 

airports approved for participation and awaiting the selection of a 

screening contractor.4

The standard by which TSA evaluates airport applications for participation 

in the SPP has changed since the program’s inception in 2004. First, in 

January 2011, the TSA Administrator announced his decision not to 

expand the SPP beyond the 16 airports that were participating in the 

program at that time “unless a clear and substantial advantage to do so 

emerges in the future.” In so doing, the Administrator cited his interest in 

helping the agency evolve into a “more agile, high-performing 

organization that can meet the security threats of today and the future” as 

the reason for his decision. Of the 6 airports that submitted applications 

from March 2009 through January 2012 and that were evaluated under 

the “clear and substantial advantage” standard, TSA approved the 

application of 1 airport and denied the applications of the other 5. Second, 

according to TSA officials, the Federal Aviation Administration 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FAA Modernization Act), enacted 

in February 2012, prompted TSA to change the standard by which it 

evaluates SPP applications and requires, among other things, that the 

TSA Administrator approve an SPP application submitted by an airport 

operator if the Administrator determines that the approval would not 

compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or the 

effectiveness of the screening of passengers or property at the airport.5

My testimony today addresses the extent to which TSA (1) has provided 

guidance to airport operators for the SPP application process and (2) 

assesses and monitors the performance of private and federal screeners. 

This statement is based on our December 2012 report and selected 

 

4

According to TSA, in July 2013, the Department of Transportation ended the Essential Air 

Service subsidy to two of the SPP airports in eastern Montana. The loss of the subsidy 

resulted in the discontinuation of air service to and from those airports that required the 

implementation of TSA-required screening measures. Therefore, the total number of 

airports in the SPP was reduced from 16 to 14. Between January and August 2012, TSA 

approved the applications of six airports. One of these airports, Sacramento International 

Airport, CA, withdrew its application in January 2013. Sarasota-Bradenton International 

Airport, FL submitted its application for participation to the SPP in February 2013 and was 

approved for participation in May 2013, bringing the total number of airports approved for 

participation and awaiting selection of a screening contractor back to six. 

5

See Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 830(a), 126 Stat. 11, 135 (2012) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 

44920(b)). The term airport operator means a person that operates a “commercial airport,” 

as that term is used in this report. See also 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 (defining the term “airport 

operator”). 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-269T 

updates on the status of recommendations made in our December 2012 

report.

6 For our December 2012 report, we analyzed past and current 

SPP application forms and instructions and interviewed airport operators, 

screeners, SPP contractors, SPP applicants, TSA headquarters officials, 

and Federal Security Directors (FSD).7 We also compared TSA’s process 

for reviewing applications and monitoring performance of private and 

federal screeners against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government to determine if any improvements were needed.8 To 

determine how screener performance compares at SPP and non-SPP 

airports, we compared screener performance for the 16 SPP airports that 

were participating in the SPP at that time to the average performance of 

other airports in their category, as well as nationally, from fiscal year 2009 

through 2011.9 More detailed information on the scope and methodology 

appears in our December 2012 report. To update our work, we obtained 

related documentation, such as the SPP Annual Report issued in January 

2013, and interviewed agency officials in January 2014 on progress made 

to implement the recommendations from our December 2012 report 

related to application guidance and monitoring of private versus federal 

screener performance. We conducted the work on which this statement is 

based in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

6

GAO, Screening Partnership Program: TSA Should Issue More Guidance to Airports and 

Monitor Private versus Federal Screener Performance, GAO-13-208 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 6, 2012).

7

FSDs are TSA officials that provide day-to-day operational direction for security 

operations at the airports within their jurisdiction, including those participating in the SPP.

8

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 

9

TSA classifies commercial airports in the United States into one 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.
 

Page 4 GAO-14-269T 

On November 19, 2002, pursuant to ATSA, TSA began a 2-year pilot 

program at 5 airports using private screening companies to screen 

passengers and checked baggage.10 In 2004, at the completion of the 

pilot program, and in accordance with ATSA, TSA established the SPP, 

whereby any airport authority, whether involved in the pilot or not, could 

request a transition from federal screeners to private, contracted 

screeners. All of the 5 pilot airports that applied were approved to 

continue as part of the SPP, and since its establishment, 21 additional 

airport applications have been accepted by the SPP.11

In March 2012, TSA revised the SPP application to reflect requirements 

of the FAA Modernization Act, enacted in February 2012.12

• Not later than 120 days after the date of receipt of an SPP application 

submitted by an airport operator, the TSA Administrator must approve 

or deny the application.

Among other 

provisions, the act provides that

• The TSA Administrator shall approve an application if approval would 

not (1) compromise security, (2) detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency 

of the screening of passengers or property at the airport, or (3) 

detrimentally affect the effectiveness of the screening of passengers 

or property at the airport.

• Within 60 days of a denial, TSA must provide the airport operator, as 

well as the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 

the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 

Representatives, a written report that sets forth the findings that 

 

10See 49 U.S.C. § 44919. The pilot program was to assess the feasibility of having 

qualified private screening companies provide airport security screening services in lieu of 

federal screeners. The following airports from each security risk category were selected to 

participate: (1) San Francisco International Airport—category X, (2) Kansas City 

International Airport—category I, (3) Greater Rochester International Airport—category II 

(now a category I airport), (4) Jackson Hole Airport—category III, and (5) Tupelo Regional 

Airport—category IV.

11A total of 26 airports have been approved to the SPP since its inception in 2004, 

including the 14 airports currently participating in the SPP and the 6 airports approved for 

participation and awaiting the selection of a screening contractor. Of the remaining 6 

approved airports, 4 airports had participated in the SPP but left the program after 

commercial air service was discontinued at the airport and 2 withdrew their applications 

after being approved. For more information on the history of application to the SPP, see 

GAO-13-208. 

12See generally Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 803, 126 Stat. at 135-36.

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-14-269T 

served as the basis of the denial, the results of any cost or security 

analysis conducted in considering the application, and 

recommendations on how the airport operator can address the 

reasons for denial.

All commercial airports are eligible to apply to the SPP. To apply, an 

airport operator must complete the SPP application and submit it to the 

SPP Program Management Office (PMO), as well as to the FSD for its 

airport, by mail, fax, or e-mail. Figure 1 illustrates the SPP application 

process.

Figure 1: Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Screening Partnership Program (SPP) Application Process

Note: The IPT is made up of TSA staff from various offices across TSA, including offices related to 

human capital, information technology, security capabilities, and acquisitions.

Although TSA provides all airports with the opportunity to apply for 

participation in the SPP, authority to approve or deny the application 

resides in the discretion of the TSA Administrator. According to TSA 

officials, in addition to the cost-efficiency and effectiveness considerations 

mandated by FAA Modernization Act, there are many other factors that 

are weighed in considering an airport’s application for SPP participation. 

For example, the potential impacts of any upcoming projects at the airport 

are considered. Once an airport is approved for SPP participation and a 

private screening contractor has been selected by TSA, the contract 

screening workforce assumes responsibility for screening passengers 

and their property and is required to adhere to the same security 

regulations, standard operating procedures, and other TSA security 

requirements followed by federal screeners at non-SPP airports.
 

Page 6 GAO-14-269T 

Since our December 2012 report, TSA has developed guidance to assist 

airport operators in completing their SPP applications, as we 

recommended. In December 2012, we reported that TSA had developed 

some resources to assist SPP applicants, but it had not provided 

guidance on its application and approval process to assist airports. As the 

application process was originally implemented in 2004, the SPP 

application process required only that an interested airport operator 

submit an application stating its intention to opt out of federal screening 

as well as its reasons for wanting to do so. In 2011, TSA revised its SPP 

application to reflect the “clear and substantial advantage” standard 

announced by the Administrator in January 2011. Specifically, TSA 

requested that the applicant explain how private screening at the airport 

would provide a clear and substantial advantage to TSA’s security 

operations.13

As previously noted, in March 2012 TSA again revised the SPP 

application in accordance with provisions of the FAA Modernization Act, 

which became law in February 2012. Among other things, the revised 

application no longer included the “clear and substantial advantage” 

question, but instead included questions that requested applicants to 

discuss how participating in the SPP would not compromise security at 

the airport and to identify potential areas where cost savings or 

efficiencies may be realized. In December 2012, we reported that while 

TSA provided general instructions for filling out the SPP application as 

well as responses to frequently asked questions (FAQ), the agency had 

not issued guidance to assist airports with completing the revised 

application nor explained to airports how it would evaluate applications 

given the changes brought about by the FAA Modernization Act. For 

example, neither the application instructions or the FAQs addressed 

TSA’s SPP application evaluation process or its basis for determining 

whether an airport’s entry into the SPP would compromise security or 

affect cost-efficiency and effectiveness.

At that time, TSA did not provide written guidance to airports 

to assist them in understanding what would constitute a “clear and 

substantial advantage to TSA security operations” or TSA’s basis for 

determining whether an airport had met that standard.

 

13For more on the specific wording of this and other questions from the application, see 

GAO-13-208. 

TSA Has Developed 

Program Application 

Guidance to Help 

Improve 

Transparency of Its 

Process and Assist 

Airports in 

Completing their 

Applications
 

Page 7 GAO-14-269T 

Further, we found that airport operators who completed the applications 

generally stated that they faced difficulties in doing so and that additional 

guidance would have been helpful.14

Therefore, we reported in December 2012 that while TSA had approved 

all applications submitted since enactment of the FAA Modernization Act, 

it was hard to determine how many more airports, if any, would have 

applied to the program had TSA provided application guidance and 

information to improve transparency of the SPP application process. 

Specifically, we reported that in the absence of such application guidance 

and information, it may be difficult for airport officials to evaluate whether 

their airports are good candidates for the SPP or determine what criteria 

TSA uses to accept and approve airports’ SPP applications. Further, we 

concluded that clear guidance for applying to the SPP could improve the 

transparency of the application process and help ensure that the existing 

application process is implemented in a consistent and uniform manner. 

Thus, we recommended that TSA develop guidance that clearly (1) states 

the criteria and process that TSA is using to assess whether participation 

in the SPP would compromise security or detrimentally affect the costefficiency or the effectiveness of the screening of passengers or property 

at the airport, (2) states how TSA will obtain and analyze cost information 

For example, one operator stated 

that he needed cost information to help demonstrate that his airport’s 

participation in the SPP would not detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency 

of the screening of passengers or property at the airport and that he 

believed not presenting this information would be detrimental to his 

airport’s application. However, TSA officials at the time said that airports 

do not need to provide this information to TSA because, as part of the 

application evaluation process, TSA conducts a detailed cost analysis 

using historical cost data from SPP and non-SPP airports. The absence 

of cost and other information in an individual airport’s application, TSA 

officials noted, would not materially affect the TSA Administrator’s 

decision on an SPP application.

 

14For our December 2012 report, we interviewed 4 of the 5 airport operators that applied 

to the SPP since TSA revised its application after enactment of the FAA Modernization 

Act. All 5 of the applications were subsequently approved by TSA. We reported that 3 of 

the 4 operators we interviewed struggled to answer the application questions related to 

the cost-efficiency of converting to the SPP because they did not have data on federal 

screening costs, while the fourth airport operator did not need additional information or 

guidance to respond to the question. Further, 3 of the 4 airport operators we interviewed 

said that additional guidance would have been helpful in completing the application and 

determining how TSA evaluates the applications. See GAO-13-208 for more information.
 

Page 8 GAO-14-269T 

regarding screening cost-efficiency and effectiveness and the implications 

of not responding to the related application questions, and (3) provides 

specific examples of additional information airports should consider 

providing to TSA to help assess an airport’s suitability for the SPP.

TSA concurred with our recommendation and has taken actions to 

address it. Specifically, TSA updated its SPP website in December 2012 

by providing (1) general guidance to assist airports with completing the 

SPP application and (2) a description of the criteria and process the 

agency will use to assess airports’ applications to participate in the SPP. 

While the guidance states that TSA has no specific expectations of the 

information an airport could provide that may be pertinent to its 

application, it provides some examples of information TSA has found 

useful and that airports could consider providing to TSA to help assess 

their suitability for the program. Further, the guidance, in combination with 

the description of the SPP application evaluation process, outlines how 

TSA plans to analyze and use cost information regarding screening costefficiency and effectiveness. The guidance also states that providing cost 

information is optional and that not providing such information will not 

affect the application decision. We believe that these actions address the 

intent of our recommendation and should help improve transparency of 

the SPP application process as well as help airport officials determine 

whether their airports are good candidates for the SPP.

Performance between 

SPP and Non-SPP 

Airports Varied; TSA 

Recently Developed a 

Mechanism to 

Monitor Private 

versus Federal 

Screener 

Performance
 

Page 9 GAO-14-269T 

In our December 2012 report, we analyzed screener performance data for 

four measures and found that there were differences in performance 

between SPP and non-SPP airports, and those differences could not be 

exclusively attributed to the use of either federal or private screeners. The 

four measures we selected to compare screener performance at SPP and 

non-SPP airports were Threat Image Projection (TIP) detection rates, 

recertification pass rates, Aviation Security Assessment Program (ASAP) 

test results, and Presence, Advisement, Communication, and Execution 

(PACE) evaluation results (see table 1). For each of these four measures, 

we compared the performance of each of the 16 airports then 

participating in the SPP with the average performance for each airport’s 

category (X, I, II, III, or IV), as well as the national performance averages 

for all airports for fiscal years 2009 through 2011.15

Table 1: Performance Measures Used to Compare Screener Performance at Screening Partnership Program (SPP) and NonSPP Airports, December 2012

 

Performance measure Description

Threat Image Projection (TIP) 

detection rates

TIPs are fictional threat images (guns, knives, improvised explosive devices, etc.) superimposed 

onto carry-on baggage as it passes through the X-ray machine. While screening carry-on baggage, 

screeners identify that a potential threat has been spotted by selecting a “threat” button. If the 

identified image is a TIP, the X-ray machine informs the screener that the threat was fictional. 

Otherwise, a screener will search the bag, as the threat object may be real. 

Recertification pass rates In order to maintain their certification to screen passengers and baggage, all screeners (at both SPP 

and non-SPP airports) must pass several recertification tests on an annual basis. These tests 

include assessments of threat detection skills on carry-on and checked baggage X-ray machines as 

well as role-playing scenarios to assess other job functions, such as physical bag searches, patdowns, and screening passengers with disabilities. 

Aviation Security Assessment 

Program (ASAP) tests results

ASAP tests are covert performance assessments conducted at both screening checkpoints and 

checked baggage screening areas. Tests are implemented locally by unrecognizable role players 

who attempt to pass standard test items, such as knives, guns, or simulated improvised explosive 

devices, through the screening checkpoints or checked baggage screening areas. 

Presence, Advisement, 

Communications, and Execution 

(PACE) evaluations

PACE evaluations are used to assess screener performance on various elements that may affect 

security and a passenger’s overall traveling experience. PACE evaluators visit a checkpoint covertly 

and assess the screening personnel on a variety of elements, such as whether the officers provide 

comprehensive instruction and engage passengers in a calm and respectful manner when 

screening. Because PACE evaluations began as a baseline assessment program in fiscal year 2011 

and had only been implemented only at category X, I, and II airports, our analysis for this measure 

was limited to the 6 SPP airports in those categories during fiscal year 2011.a

Source: GAO analysis of TSA information.

 

 

15 Additional information on these performance measures and how we selected them can 

be found in our December 2012 report. See GAO-13-208.

Performance Varied 

between SPP and NonSPP Airports for Some 

Measures, but Differences 

Cannot Be Entirely 

Attributed to the Use of 

Private or Federal 

Screeners
 

Page 10 GAO-14-269T 

a

As we reported in December 2012, on the basis of our analyses, we 

found that, generally, certain SPP airports performed slightly above the 

airport category and national averages for some measures, while others 

performed slightly below. For example, SPP airports performed above 

their respective airport category averages for recertification pass rates in 

the majority of instances, while the majority of SPP airports that took 

PACE evaluations in 2011 performed below their airport category 

averages.

The six category X, I, and II SPP airports in fiscal year 2011 are San Francisco International Airport 

(X), Kansas City International Airport (I), Greater Rochester International Airport (I), Key West 

International Airport (II), Joe Foss Field (II), and Jackson Hole Airport (II).

16 For TIP detection rates, SPP airports performed above their 

respective airport category averages in about half of the instances. 

However, we also reported in December 2012 that the differences we 

observed in private and federal screener performance cannot be entirely 

attributed to the type of screeners at an airport, because, according to 

TSA officials and other subject matter experts, many factors, some of 

which cannot be controlled for, affect screener performance. These 

factors include, but are not limited to, checkpoint layout, airline schedules, 

seasonal changes in travel volume, and type of traveler.17

We also reported in December 2012 that TSA collects data on several 

other performance measures but, for various reasons, the data cannot be 

used to compare private and federal screener performance for the 

purposes of our review. For example, passenger wait time data could not 

be used because we found that TSA’s policy for collecting wait times 

changed during the time period of our analyses and that these data were 

not collected in a consistent manner across all airports.18

 

16For recertification pass rates, the term “instance” means performance by an airport 

during a particular year or fiscal year, while for TIP detection rates, the term means 

performance by an airport during a particular fiscal year for a specific type of screening 

machine. 

We also 

17DHS deemed the details of our analyses of the four performance measures we used for 

comparing SPP with non-SPP screener performance as classified or sensitive security 

information; thus, these details are not included in this testimony.

18TSA’s policy for measuring wait time changed in March 2010. Instead of collecting 

precise wait times every hour, TSA began only recording instances in which the wait time 

was more than 20 or 30 minutes. Further, through our site visits conducted for the 

December 2012 report, we learned that airports collect wait time data in different ways. 

For example, some airports calculate the wait time from the end of the queue until the 

passenger reaches the travel document checker podium; other airports calculate the time 

from the end of the line until the passenger passes through the walkthrough metal 

detector after being screened or the advanced imaging technology. See GAO-13-208. 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-269T 

considered reviewing human capital measures such as attrition, 

absenteeism, and injury rates, but did not analyze these data because 

TSA’s Office of Human Capital does not collect these data for SPP 

airports. We reported that while the contractors collect and report this 

information to the SPP PMO, TSA does not validate the accuracy of the 

self-reported data nor does it require contractors to use the same human 

capital measures as TSA, and accordingly, differences may exist in how 

the metrics are defined and how the data are collected. Therefore, we 

found that TSA could not guarantee that a comparison of SPP and nonSPP airports on these human capital metrics would be an equal 

comparison.

Since our December 2012 report, TSA has developed a mechanism to 

regularly monitor private versus federal screener performance, as we 

recommended. In December 2012, we reported that while TSA monitored 

screener performance at all airports, the agency did not monitor private 

screener performance separately from federal screener performance or 

conduct regular reviews comparing the performance of SPP and non-SPP 

airports. Beginning in April 2012, TSA introduced a new set of 

performance measures to assess screener performance at all airports 

(both SPP and non-SPP) in its Office of Security Operations Executive 

Scorecard (the Scorecard). Officials told us at the time of our December 

2012 review that they provided the Scorecard to FSDs every 2 weeks to 

assist the FSDs with tracking performance against stated goals and with 

determining how performance of the airports under their jurisdiction 

compared with national averages.19 According to TSA, the 10 measures 

used in the Scorecard were selected based on input from FSDs and 

regional directors on the performance measures that most adequately 

reflected screener and airport performance.20

 

19Although FSDs provide day-to-day operational direction for security operations at the 

airports within their jurisdiction, including those participating in the SPP; FSDs have 

responsibility for overall security at SPP airports but do not have direct control over 

workforce management. Rather, the SPP contractor is contractually obligated to 

effectively and efficiently manage its screening workforce.

Performance measures in 

20Prior to the Scorecard, from 2006 through April 2012, FSDs used three performance 

measures in the Management Objective Report (MOR) to assess screener and airport 

performance. The MOR included three measures that assessed screener performance, 

including TIP detection rates, Advanced Imaging Technology checkpoint utilization, and 

layered security effectiveness. For more on these performance measures, see 

GAO-13-208. 

TSA Has Developed a 

Mechanism to Monitor 

Private Screener 

Performance Separately 

from the Performance of 

Federal Screeners
 

Page 12 GAO-14-269T 

the Scorecard included the TIP detection rate, and the number of 

negative and positive customer contacts made to the TSA Contact Center 

through e-mails or phone calls per 100,000 passengers screened, among 

others.21

We also reported in December 2012 that TSA had conducted or 

commissioned prior reports comparing the cost and performance of SPP 

and non-SPP airports. For example, in 2004 and 2007, TSA 

commissioned reports prepared by private consultants, while in 2008 the 

agency issued its own report comparing the performance of SPP and 

non-SPP airports.22

In addition to using the Scorecard, we found that TSA conducted monthly 

contractor performance management reviews (PMR) at each SPP airport 

to assess the contractor’s performance against the standards set in each 

SPP contract. The PMRs included 10 performance measures, including 

some of the same measures included in the Scorecard, such as TIP 

detection rates and recertification pass rates, for which TSA establishes 

acceptable quality levels of performance. Failure to meet the acceptable 

quality levels of performance could result in corrective actions or 

termination of the contract.

Generally, these reports found that SPP airports 

performed at a level equal to or better than non-SPP airports. However, 

TSA officials stated at the time that they did not plan to conduct similar 

analyses in the future, and instead, they were using across-the-board 

mechanisms of both private and federal screeners, such as the 

Scorecard, to assess screener performance across all commercial 

airports.

However, as we reported in December 2012, the Scorecard and PMR did

not provide a complete picture of screener performance at SPP airports 

because, while both mechanisms provided a snapshot of private screener 

 

21The TSA Contact Center handles these customer contacts for all of TSA, not only those 

related to passenger and baggage screening. For more on the Scorecard performance 

measures, see GAO-13-208. 

22Bearing Point, Inc, Private Screening Operations Performance Evaluation Report (Apr. 

16, 2004); Catapult Consultants, LLC, Private Screening Operations: Business Case 

Analysis, Transportation Security Administration, Screening Partnership Program 

(Arlington: VA: Dec.14, 2007); and TSA, A Report on SPP Airport Cost and Performance 

Analysis and Comparison to Business Case Analysis Finding (Arlington, VA: Feb. 1, 

2008).
 

Page 13 GAO-14-269T 

performance at each SPP airport, this information was not summarized 

for the SPP as a whole or across years, which made it difficult to identify 

changes in performance. Further, neither the Scorecard nor the PMR 

provided information on performance in prior years or controlled for 

variables that TSA officials explained to us were important when 

comparing private and federal screener performance, such as the type of 

X-ray machine used for TIP detection rates. We concluded that 

monitoring private screener performance in comparison with federal 

screener performance was consistent with the statutory requirement that 

TSA enter into a contract with a private screening company only if the 

Administrator determines and certifies to Congress that the level of 

screening services and protection provided at an airport under a contract 

will be equal to or greater than the level that would be provided at the 

airport by federal government personnel.23

TSA concurred with our recommendation, and has taken actions to 

address it. Specifically, in January 2013, TSA issued its first SPP Annual 

Report. The report highlights the accomplishments of the SPP during 

fiscal year 2012 and provides an overview and discussion of private 

versus federal screener cost and performance. The report also describes 

the criteria TSA used to select certain performance measures and 

reasons why other measures were not selected for its comparison of 

private and federal screener performance. The report compares the 

performance of SPP airports with the average performance of airports in 

their respective category, as well as the average performance for all 

airports, for three performance measures: TIP detection rates, 

recertification pass rates, and PACE evaluation results. Further, in 

September 2013, the TSA Assistant Administrator for Security Operations 

signed an operations directive that provides internal guidance for 

preparing the SPP Annual Report, including the requirement that the SPP 

PMO must annually verify that the level of screening services and 

protection provided at SPP airports is equal to or greater than the level

Therefore, we recommended 

that TSA develop a mechanism to regularly monitor private versus federal 

screener performance, which would better position the agency to know 

whether the level of screening services and protection provided at SPP 

airports continues to be equal to or greater than the level provided at nonSPP airports. 

 

23See 49 U.S.C. § 44920(d) (providing further that private screening companies must be 

owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States, subject to a waiver of this 

requirement by the TSA Administrator in certain circumstances).
 

Page 14 GAO-14-269T 

that would be provided by federal screeners. We believe that these 

actions address the intent of our recommendation and should better 

position TSA to determine whether the level of screening services and 

protection provided at SPP airports continues to be equal to or greater 

than the level provided at non-SPP airports. Further, these actions could 

also assist TSA in identifying performance changes that could lead to 

improvements in the program and inform decision making regarding 

potential expansion of the SPP.

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

For questions about this statement, please contact Jennifer Grover at 

(202) 512-7141 or GroverJ@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Glenn Davis (Assistant Director), Stanley Kostyla, Brendan 

Kretzschmar, Thomas Lombardi, Erin O’Brien, and Jessica Orr. Key 

contributors for the previous work that this testimony is based on are 

listed in the product.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441203)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.