DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR OFFICIAL USE ON Y

Office of Inspector General 

The Transportation Security Administration’s 

National Deployment Force 

OIG-08-49 April 2008 
 

 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General 

Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our 

oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This review addresses when, where, and why the Transportation Security Administration’s National 

Deployment Force has been deployed and the expenses incurred related to the maintenance and 

deployment of the program. In addition, we evaluated TSA oversight activities, the adequacy of 

standard operating procedures, and whether the overall intent of the National Deployment Force 

program is being met. The review is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant 

agencies and institutions, direct observations, quantitative analysis, and a review of applicable 

documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and 

have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is our hope that this 

report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our 

appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Washington, DC 20528

 April 30, 2008

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations
 

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................1 

Background............................................................................................................................................2 

Results of Review ..................................................................................................................................4 

Internal Controls Over National Deployment Force Operations .....................................................4 

Recommendations............................................................................................................................7 

Reliance on NDF to Offset Local Hiring ........................................................................................7 

Recommendations............................................................................................................................9 

Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................................................9 

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................10 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................................................11 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology .......................................................................14 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................................15 

Appendix C: Congressional Letter.............................................................................................22 

Appendix D: FY 2007 NDO Deployment Summary of Personnel by Pay Period and NDF 

Deployment Costs ................................................................................................24 

Appendix E: Estimated FY 2007 Deployment Costs for Local Hiring by Pay Period..............25 

Appendix F: NDO – NetHub Message Archive: 400.3 – NDF Support for Local Hiring........26 

Appendix G: Major Contributors to this Report ........................................................................27 

Appendix H: Report Distribution...............................................................................................28 

Abbreviations 

ATSA Aviation and Transportation Security Act 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FSD Federal Security Director 

MSF Mobile Screening Force 

NSF National Screening Force 

NDF National Deployment Force 

NDO National Deployment Office 

OHC Office of Human Capital 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSO Office of Security Operations 

TEEP Training Exercise Execution Plan 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

TSO Transportation Security Officer 
 

OIG 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

deploys Transportation Security Officers to support airport screening 

operations during emergencies, seasonal demands, or other circumstances 

requiring more staffing resources than are regularly available. Our review of 

National Deployment Force Program costs responds to concerns raised by 

Congressman John Mica regarding the Transportation Security 

Administration’s possible reliance on this program in ways not originally 

intended. In his letter of June 30, 2006, Congressman Mica requested 

information on when, where, and why the National Deployment Force had 

been deployed since the inception of the program, along with a breakdown of 

deployment expenses to include travel, per diem, hotel, and overtime costs for 

Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

The Transportation Security Administration implemented their deployment 

program without developing a process to determine the criteria and priority 

for deployment decisions, or ensuring the appropriateness of resource 

allocations. From the establishment of a deployment program in November 

2003 until January 2007, they did not have financial systems to track and 

document program-related costs; adequate documentation to support 

deployment decisionmaking; or internal controls and standard operating 

procedures over key deployment functions. In addition, they were overly 

reliant on the deployment force to fill chronic staffing shortages at specific 

airports in lieu of more cost effective strategies and solutions to handle 

screening demands. 

We recommended that the Transportation Security Administration establish 

systems to collect, track, and report deployment costs; develop 

decisionmaking procedures for deployment requests and document results; 

and develop and disseminate standard operating procedures for key program 

functions to increase program efficiency and effectiveness. TSA officials 

generally agreed with our findings, and have initiated corrective actions to 

address recommendations in this report. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 1
 
 

 

Background 

Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 1

 (ATSA) 

following the attacks of September 2001. The Act created the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation to 

protect the Nation’s transportation systems. On March 1, 2003, TSA was 

integrated into the Department of Homeland Security. As part of its mission, 

TSA has responsibility for passenger and checked baggage screening 

operations at more than 400 commercial airports. Federal Security Directors 

(FSD) and their staff manage passenger and baggage screening operations, 

including management of the screener workforce, at one or more airports 

under their jurisdiction. 

ATSA tasked TSA with building a federal agency and meeting a 1-year 

mandate to federalize aviation security for passenger screening by November 

19, 2002. To meet this requirement, TSA recruited, hired, trained, and 

deployed approximately 55,000 federal full-time Transportation Security 

Officers (TSOs) to more than 400 airports by the mandated timeframe. In 

August 2002, following congressional concern over the size of the federalized 

TSO workforce, Congress imposed a cap prohibiting TSA from exceeding 

45,000 TSO positions. 

In November 2002, TSA’s Office of Aviations Operations established a 

regionally based Mobile Screening Force (MSF) to support the initial 

deployment of federal screeners to each commercial airport and respond to 

other short-term operational needs. The MSF was composed of screening 

staff who were detailed from their permanent duty station and assigned 

temporarily to airports as part of the transition from private to federalized 

screening operations. 

To determine the initial airport TSO staffing requirements, TSA used the same 

number of screeners that were in place before the airports were federalized. 

However, within the first year of operation, TSA identified imbalances in 

TSO resources, airport overstaffing, and hiring and retention issues that 

resulted in continued use of MSF staff by airports. TSA also needed the MSF 

at airports to support planned growth, assist while equipment is upgraded, and 

for other special operations such as enhanced airport employee screening. 

In October 2003, as required by TSA Directive AVO 5200-1, the MSF was 

transitioned into a centrally managed National Screening Force (NSF) as a 

permanent mobile screening entity. The NSF was responsible for providing 

support to all airports during emergencies, to cope with seasonal demands, or 

under other special circumstances that require labor assets not regularly 

1 Public Law No 107-71, 115 Stat.597 (2001). 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 2
 
available to the FSDs. Examples of these circumstances include severe 

weather conditions, heightened security requirements, natural disasters such as 

Hurricane Katrina, and increased passenger activity due to special occasions. 

The creation of the NSF was in response to TSA’s legal requirement to screen 

100% of baggage and passengers at all commercial airports at a time when 

TSO resources were below required levels. 

The NSF functioned as an independent operation where staff reported directly 

to the NSF Operations Center at TSA headquarters. When not deployed, 

members of the NSF were assigned to duty at their airport of record. NSF 

deployment costs were charged to the NSF operating budget. TSO salary and 

benefits costs were charged to a central account, with pay computations based 

on the location of their home airport. 

TSA officials described its centralized management process under the NSF as 

inefficient and costly because airports were not fiscally responsible. In 

November 2006, the NSF Operations Center transitioned into the National 

Deployment Office (NDO), located within the Office of Security Operations 

(OSO). TSOs serving in the program were renamed the National Deployment 

Force (NDF). TSA officials said that this transition focused primarily on the 

decentralization of TSO administrative responsibilities. The aim was to move 

the non-operational NDF functions back to the employees’ airport of record, 

with the intention of redistributing responsibility and costs. 

In April 2007, TSA transferred TSO administrative support functions such as 

processing payroll, training certifications, and performance appraisals for 

NDF personnel to the airport of record or deployment. The NDO retained 

responsibility for overall program management, processing and approval of 

requests for deployment, and support functions related to travel and lodging. 

As of December 2007, there were 480 TSOs assigned to the National 

Deployment Force. Since its inception in 2003, the program has had an 

annual operating budget of $35 million. For FY 2007, $32 million was 

earmarked for NDF deployment-related costs for travel, lodging, and per 

diem; and $3 million was budgeted for contractors who provide administrative 

support and travel-related services. The NDF budget is not inclusive of 

compensation and benefits costs for headquarters staff, or for the NDF staff 

assigned to the program. NDF salary and benefits costs are supported by the 

TSO’s airport of record. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 3
 
Results of Review 

Internal Controls Over National Deployment Force Operations 

According to OMB Circular A-123, “Management Responsibility for Internal 

Control,” management is responsible for developing and maintaining effective 

internal controls to ensure that programs operate and resources are used 

consistent with agency missions. This should be accomplished with minimal 

potential for waste, fraud, and mismanagement. In addition, internal controls 

must be established that reasonably ensure that funds and other assets are 

safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation. 

Since November 2003, TSA has maintained a deployment force program to 

support the temporary deployment of federal screeners to commercial airports 

that require screening resources not routinely available. However, neither 

procedures to ensure the integrity and accountability over deployment 

resources, nor a decisionmaking process that defines the criteria and priority 

for handling requests for screener assistance had been established. Program 

managers responsible for overall NDF operations said that during the 

inception of the deployment program, there was no way to track employees 

who had been deployed, and screeners could slip through the cracks and even 

overstay their deployment. In the absence of internal controls to track and 

document the use of NDF resources, we were unable to determine deployment 

cost and the rationale for deployment decisions for Fiscal Years 2004 through 

2006. 

Deployment Costs 

We requested financial data on all deployments from November 2003 to 

March 2007, including a breakdown of salaries, per diem, transportation, and 

other travel-related expenses. Also, due to concerns regarding events 

surrounding specific deployments to Washington-Dulles International Airport, 

Los Angeles International Airport, and Joe Foss Field in Sioux Falls, South 

Dakota, we requested additional information for these deployments. 

After several requests for deployment cost data, NDO program managers said 

that they could not provide such information for each airport that received 

NDF support in FYs 2004, 2005, and 2006. In addition, they were unable to 

provide deployment cost data for Washington-Dulles International Airport, 

Los Angeles International Airport, and Joe Foss Field in Sioux Falls. NDO 

officials said that deployments to Los Angeles International Airport for 

approximately 90 to 120 days during 2006 were required due to local hiring 

shortfalls. Also, Dulles International Airport experienced local hiring 

shortfalls throughout FYs 2005 and 2006, which resulted in continuous NDF 

support. NDF deployments to Sioux Falls, SD, were in response to a 12-week 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 4
 
seasonal surge in passengers from October to December 2005 and extended 

until February 2006 when a private contractor assumed responsibility for 

screening operations. 

TSA officials said that airport deployment costs were not tracked during FYs 

2004 through 2006. Because the objective of the NSF was to provide 

assistance to the FSDs who did not have sufficient TSO resources, project 

managers were provided funds to support airport screening operations as 

needed. They also said that the budget process consisted of taking the $33 

million allocated annually for per diem, rental cars, airfare, and hotels, along 

with the $2 million allocated for contractor support costs, and dividing it to 

spend among four quarters. OSO Budget and Finance officials said that they 

reviewed the NDO status of funds simply to ensure that they were not 

deficient, but were not responsible for producing financial reports of NDF 

deployment costs. 

We obtained documentation that showed FY 2004 to FY 2006 NDF program 

costs for TSO airfare, per diem, and lodging that totaled $24.7 million, $26.3 

million, and $27.9 million, respectively. We also received information that 

showed the average number of TSOs deployed per week by calendar year for 

2005 and 2006, which totaled 412 and 408, respectively. Due to the limited 

information provided, we are unable to determine actual deployment costs, 

inclusive of TSO salary and benefits. TSA officials said that salary and 

benefit costs, while part of the cost of deployment, are not additive costs to an 

NDO deployment because TSO salary and benefits are paid regardless of 

location. 

Information obtained from the Office of Human Capital showed that the 

average annual salary and benefit costs for a locally hired TSO is $56,900, or 

$219 per day. NDO program managers said that the daily cost for one 

deployed TSO including salary, benefits, travel, lodging, per diem, over-time, 

and related expenses totals $511 per day. Based on information provided by 

NDO officials for calendar year 2005 and 2006 weekly deployments, and the 

average daily expense to deploy one TSO, we estimate total deployment costs 

of $76.7 million for 2005, and $76 million for 2006. Costs for all NDO 

deployments in 2007 totaled $65.8 million, which included $33.5 million for 

operational expenses and $32.3 million for pay, compensation, and benefit 

expenses (see Appendix D). 

NDF officials said that their financial analyst was responsible for tracking 

deployment costs. A financial analyst was temporarily detailed to NDO from 

mid-November 2006 to mid-February 2007. The financial analyst said that 

responsibilities included conducting comprehensive examinations of all 

deployment expenditures. This examination included a review of operational 

costs and nonpayroll data, ensuring the accuracy of contracts, and a review of 

financial records to measure burn rates and other data. However, tracking 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 5
 
deployment costs was not an assigned duty, and NDF continued to manage 

their own budget. NDO officials said that the NDO financial analyst position 

was permanently filled in December 2007, and includes responsibility for 

monitoring and tracking deployment costs. 

Deployment Decisions 

We were unable to determine the rationale for TSO deployment decisions 

made during FYs 2004, 2005, and 2006. NDO officials said from 2003 to 

2007 there was no formal process to manage deployment decisions. They 

referred to this time period as “the wild west” since there were no operational 

directives for the NDF, and deployment decisions were largely based on 

individual relationships between NDF staff and the requesting FSD. NDF 

staff said that requests for screener assistance were rarely denied since it was 

assumed that FSDs would not exaggerate their need for screener assistance, 

and NSF staff did not possess the experience to make denial decisions. In 

addition, there were no methods to validate the need for additional assistance, 

and no means to determine what airport management was doing to remedy 

staffing issues. NDO officials also said that FSDs were able to use the NDF 

program as a cost-saving tool since the additional temporary staff did not 

affect the receiving airport’s operating budget. 

In the absence of a deployment decisionmaking process during this period, 

TSOs at airports we visited also expressed opinions about a process that 

resulted in favored TSOs being given assignments to the more desirable 

deployment locations. TSOs believed that favoritism was a result of 

friendships between NDF staff and TSOs. Many TSOs said this favoritism 

had a negative effect on their morale. 

NDO officials confirmed this perception of favoritism in deployment 

decisions and believed that it occurred because the assignment process was 

not transparent. Also, there was a comfort factor where FSDs requested TSOs 

who had previously been deployed to their location and were already familiar 

with the operations. 

Beginning in FY 2007, information regarding the rationale for each 

deployment was documented on a form developed for FSDs requesting NDF 

assistance. This information included total deployments by pay period and the 

reason for deployment. For FY 2007, there were a total of 9,197 

deployments, as shown in Appendix D. 

To address deficiencies in the NDF deployment decisionmaking process, TSA 

created the Training Exercise Execution Plan (TEEP) committee. The TEEP 

was created in January 2007, and is responsible for assessing NDF 

deployments. Previously, deployment requests were approved with limited 

consultation with other offices. In January 2007, the deployment assessment 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 6
 
 

 

and approval process was expanded to include participation from the Office of 

Human Capital (OHC), Workforce Utilization Office, and Field Operations 

Offices. According to NDO officials, guidance from these offices has 

enhanced the TEEP assessment process by including current airport 

performance, overtime utilization, new hire status, and TSOs who are already 

being recruited or trained. 

NDO program managers said that for FY 2007, the number of TSOs requested 

for deployment continued to be inflated. To support the deployment analysis 

and approval process, NDO staff developed a database with information on 

each airport’s deployment requests, the deployment duration, the number of 

TSOs required, and all projected costs. Following an analysis of all available 

information, TEEP determines whether the deployment request is supportable 

or whether other strategies or solutions would be more appropriate. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary, TSA: 

Recommendation 1: Implement a financial management system capable of 

tracking and reporting on all costs related to National Deployment Force 

operations. At a minimum, the financial management system should include 

the number of TSOs requested, salary and benefit costs, travel and per diem 

costs for each TSO, and the deployment duration. 

Recommendation 2: Establish procedures to ensure that (1) all guidance 

provided by Office of Human Capital, the Workforce Utilization Office, 

Office of Security Operations, and other offices is validated and incorporated 

into the deployment analysis process; (2) a cost-benefit analysis is conducted 

and documented for all requests for deployment; and (3) the final disposition 

of the request is documented and communicated to appropriate staff. 

Recommendation 3: To improve transparency in the process for making 

deployment assignments, develop and communicate the selection criteria to 

TSOs and other staff as appropriate. 

Reliance on NDF to Offset Local Hiring 

According to TSA Directive AVO 5200-1, the NSF provides support to all 

airports during emergencies, seasonal demands, or under other special 

circumstances that require more TSOs than would be regularly available to the 

FSDs. However, TSA officials confirmed that airports with chronic problems 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 7
 
hiring or retaining TSOs became overly reliant on the NDF to make up for 

their staffing shortfalls. 

TSA officials said that for FY 2007, the primary reason NDF TSOs were 

deployed to airports was staffing shortfalls caused by local hiring problems. 

For FY 2007 deployments, NDO documented TSO deployments and related 

deployment costs by pay period. Based on information obtained from NDO, 

we determined that for FY 2007, local hiring difficulties accounted for 4,401 

of 9,197, or about 48% of deployments, at a cost of $31.5 million (see 

Appendices D and E). 

In a March 20, 2007, memorandum to FSDs, the Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Security Operations, expressed concern regarding the continued high 

percentage of all NDF deployments being made in response to local hiring 

shortfalls. He said that this was not what the program was designed to do. 

According to the memorandum, FSDs were instructed to seek ways to reduce 

requests made due to local hiring problems, and that future approvals to 

deploy NDF resources would occur only for unique situations beyond the 

ability of the airport to support. 

Program managers estimated that for FY 2007, approximately 30 airports 

continued to experience local hiring problems. We reviewed FY 2005 

through FY 2007 deployment data for six of these airports, and learned that: 

•	 All six airports received NDF TSOs continuously for periods of up to 

1 year. 

•	 Two of the airports had received screener support continuously since 

November 2002. 

•	 The largest airport in this group, with an authorization of more than 

600 TSOs, received NDF support for 21 consecutive months from FY 

2005 to FY 2006. This airport averaged 99 NDF TSOs per week, or 

16% of its authorized TSO workforce. 

From the establishment of a deployment force until July 2007, FSDs had an 

incentive to prolong deployments at their airport because the receiving airport 

incurred no costs from its own budget for the NDF deployment. The costs 

associated with the deployment—overtime, per diem, and travel—were 

absorbed within the NSF operations budget. The costs for TSO salaries and 

benefits were centrally budgeted. 

According to the June 28, 2007, NDO NetHub Message Archive: 400.3, titled 

“NDF Support for Local Hiring, as of July 22, 2007,” airports that are 

authorized NDF deployments due to local hiring shortfalls are directly 

charged the TSO salary and related benefits costs for the period of deployment 

(see Appendix F). However, the NDO budget continues to fund all other 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 8
 
 

deployment costs for TSOs deployed due to local hiring shortfalls, including 

per diem, lodging, and travel, and all deployment costs for reasons other than 

local hiring shortfalls. 

We recognize that TSA must support airports that do not have sufficient 

personnel to satisfy passenger and baggage screening requirements. However, 

long-term NDF deployments to airports with local hiring problems created a 

sense of permanency in NDF support. Additionally, long-term NDF 

deployment creates the appearance that the program is a costly band-aid in 

lieu of applying more cost effective solutions to local hiring problems. 

TSA officials said that the TEEP Committee is addressing this issue by taking 

into account an airport’s authorized TSO level, and closely tracking local 

hiring initiatives at airports experiencing chronic hiring problems. In October 

2006, 292 TSOs were deployed in support of local hiring shortfalls. By 

September 2007, 76 TSOs were deployed due to local hiring shortfalls. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary, TSA: 

Recommendation 4: Develop, implement, and document a decisionmaking 

process for local hiring deployment requests that includes, at a minimum, an 

assessment of actions taken by the FSD to resolve staffing shortfalls, 

estimated NDF costs for the deployment, and an assessment of alternative 

solutions. 

Standard Operating Procedures 

From FY 2003 to FY 2006, standard operating procedures for key aspects of 

the NDF program had either not been established or effectively communicated 

to staff. For areas where procedures were developed, management 

communicated the information verbally or through management directives 

that provided no assurance that all staff received the information. For 

example, scheduling officers who were unaware of TSO leave policies 

approved leave for TSOs serving in their first 60 days of deployment, even 

though the policy does not authorize such leave. As a result, there were 

inconsistencies in carrying out duties and responsibilities related to NDF 

program operations. 

In 2007, TSA officials initiated efforts to develop standard operating 

procedures for key functions of the program and improve communications 

between headquarters and field staff personnel. An NDO website was 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 9
 
 

established in March 2007 to transmit information regarding the program 

through bulletins, guidelines, and standard operating procedures. A National 

Deployment Office Handbook was developed in July 2007 to provide 

information on program operations. In addition, an interactive website was 

created to post questions, concerns, and documents to support and facilitate 

the transition of TSO administrative duties to the airports. 

While the handbook and NDO website represent improvements, field staff 

said that the availability of these additional resources or how to gain access 

had not been communicated to them. 

Procedures for the following key NDO operations still had either not been 

established or were not included in the NDO Handbook: 

•	 The deployment assignment process; 

•	 The Performance Accountability and Standards System process to 

fully document TSO performance during multiple deployments in the 

performance period; 

•	 TSO training procedures to ensure that requirements for recertification 

can be achieved while on deployment; and 

•	 Availability and selection of TSOs to participate in the Drug-Free 

Workplace Program to ensure that TSOs have an equal chance of 

selection for periodic random drug and alcohol testing. 

To provide consistency in the performance of NDO operations, NDO 

management officials need to ensure that the NDO Handbook represents a 

comprehensive source for current policies, procedures, and guidelines for 

NDO operations. In addition, a process needs to be developed to ensure that 

all NDO and airport staff are informed of available resources to assist in 

effectively accomplishing their duties and responsibilities. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary, TSA: 

Recommendation 5: Provide all FSDs with standard operating procedures, 

NDO Handbooks, and all available Internet resources. 

Recommendation 6: Establish a process to ensure that the NDO Handbook 

includes current policies, procedures, and guidelines for all NDO operations. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 10
 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We evaluated TSA’s written comments to our report. Below is a summary of 

TSA’s written response to the report’s recommendations and our analysis of 

the response. A copy of TSA’s response, in its entirety, is included as 

Appendix B. 

In its written comments, TSA said that OIG’s draft report, for the most part, 

accurately assesses many of the NDF Program challenges experienced prior to 

January 2007. However, management officials expressed concerns that the 

report did not adequately reflect significant improvements made to the NDF 

program since January 2007. 

To address issues identified by Congressman Mica, our review focused on 

NDF activities from its inception in October 2003 through Fiscal Year 2006. 

The report does recognize efforts taken by management officials during 2007 

to address deficiencies in the deployment process. However, we did not 

assess the effectiveness of these actions since some programmatic changes 

have not yet been finalized and incorporated into NDO Operations Directives, 

as confirmed in TSA’s written response. 

Recommendation 1: Implement a financial management system capable of 

tracking and reporting on all costs related to National Deployment Force 

operations. At a minimum, the financial management system should include 

the number of TSOs requested, salary and benefit costs, travel and per diem 

costs for each TSO, and the deployment duration. 

TSA Response: TSA concurred with our recommendation. In its response, 

TSA noted that the NDO has developed, and is now using, a financial 

management tracking and reporting system that captures all costs, including 

salary and benefits, travel, per diem, and deployment duration, associated with 

TSOs requested for each deployment. 

OIG Analysis: Based on our review of documentation generated from TSA’s 

financial management tracking and reporting system, we consider the 

recommendation resolved and closed. 

Recommendation 2: Establish procedures to ensure that (1) all guidance 

provided by Office of Human Capital, the Workforce Utilization Office, 

Office of Security Operations, and other offices is validated and incorporated 

into the deployment analysis process; (2) a cost-benefit analysis is conducted 

and documented for all requests for deployment; and (3) the final disposition 

of the request is documented and communicated to appropriate staff. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 11
 
 

TSA Response: TSA concurred with our recommendation. In its response, 

TSA describes a deployment analysis process initiated during 2007 that: (1) 

engages stakeholders; (2) incorporates cost considerations and relevant 

guidance from other offices; and, (3) documents and communicates final 

deployment decisions. The deployment analysis process requires that all NDF 

requests be evaluated by the Office of Human Capital and Office of Security 

Operation’s Workforce Utilization team. Procedures have been 

communicated to FSDs, and are documented in TSA NDO’s draft Operations 

Directive, expected to become final in late April 2008. 

OIG Analysis: We consider TSA’s comments responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain resolved and open until TSA provides documentation that these 

procedures have been incorporated into the final NDO Operations Directive. 

Recommendation 3: To improve transparency in the process for making 

deployment assignments, develop and communicate the selection criteria to 

TSOs and other staff as appropriate. 

TSA Response: TSA agreed with our recommendation, and said it has 

communicated assignment selection criteria to NDF TSOs, FSDs, and other 

staff. The NDF Handbook published in July 2007 describes the criteria used 

to determine assignments of NDF Officers to deployments. Also, they plan to 

(1) include the assignment selection criteria in the NDO Operations Directive, 

expected to become final in April 2008, and (2) post the selection criteria to 

the NDF SharePoint site, and announce the posting to NDF TSOs. 

OIG Analysis: We consider TSA’s comments responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain resolved and open until TSA provides documentation that selection 

criteria has been included in the NDO Operations Directive and posted to the 

NDF SharePoint site. 

Recommendation 4: Develop, implement, and document a decision-making 

process for local hiring deployment requests that includes, at a minimum, an 

assessment of actions taken by the FSD to resolve staffing shortfalls, 

estimated NDF costs for the deployment, and an assessment of alternative 

solutions. 

TSA Response: TSA concurred with our recommendation, and has 

implemented a comprehensive deployment analysis and decision-making 

process that engages stakeholders, considers actions already taken by the FSD, 

estimates deployment costs, and assesses alternative solutions. TSA 

distributed the deployment analysis and decision-making procedure to FSDs 

via the NetHub broadcast system in January 2007, and will also include the 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 12
 
 

procedure in the NDO Operations Directive, expected to become final in late 

April 2008. 

OIG Analysis: We consider TSA’s comment responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain resolved and open until TSA provides documentation that this 

decision-making process for local hiring requests has been included in the 

NDO Operations Directive. 

Recommendation 5: Provide all FSDs with standard operating procedures, 

NDO Handbooks, and all available Internet resources. 

TSA Response: TSA concurred with our recommendation, and described 

steps taken to provide FSDs, NDF TSOs, and other stakeholders with access 

to the NDF Handbook, TSO assignment selection guidelines, and NDF 

decision-making criteria. TSA plans to finalize and distribute the NDO 

Operations Directive to all FSDs and stakeholders in April 2008, and will 

emphasize the availability of NDO/NDF information at the NDF SharePoint 

site. 

OIG Analysis: We consider TSA’s comment responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain resolved and open pending our receipt of documentation that the NDO 

Operations Directive has been finalized and provided to all FSDs and 

stakeholders. 

Recommendation 6: Establish a process to ensure that the NDO Handbook 

includes current policies, procedures, and guidelines for all NDO operations. 

TSA Response: TSA concurred with the recommendation, and said it will 

document in the upcoming NDO Operations Directive their process for 

reviewing the NDF Handbook to ensure it contains current and relevant 

guidance. 

OIG Analysis: We consider TSA’s comment responsive to the 

recommendation, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain resolved and open pending our receipt of documentation that the NDO 

Operations Directive has been finalized and includes the process for ensuring 

that the NDF Handbook contains current and relevant guidance for all NDO 

operations. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 13
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our objectives were to determine when, where, and why the Transportation 

Security Administration National Deployment Force had been deployed since 

its inception in October 2003, including expenses for related maintenance and 

deployment. In addition, we examined TSA oversight activities, and whether 

the overall intent of the NDF was being met. We also reviewed future plans 

for the program. 

We examined data and documents related to the NDF program from 

November 2003 to December 2007. Through interviews and document 

reviews, we evaluated the process established by TSA to request, approve, and 

track NDF deployments and resources. We reviewed management directives, 

standard operating procedures, program status reports, recruitment documents, 

and TSO handbooks. We interviewed staff and contractors at the NDF 

headquarters office, the Office of Security Operations, the Workforce 

Utilization Office, and Office of Human Capital. We conducted telephone 

interviews with FSDs and their staffs from 12 airports that we selected based 

on their participation in the NDF program. We also conducted field visits to 

three airports where NDF program TSOs had been deployed to observe 

passenger and screening operations. 

We conducted our review between January and September 2007 under the 

authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 

the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 14
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 15
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 16
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 17
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 18
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 19
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 20
 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 21
 
Appendix C 

Congressional Letter 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 22
 
Appendix C 

Congressional Letter 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 23
 
Appendix D 

FY 2007 NDO Deployment Summary of Personnel by Pay Period and NDF Deployment Costs 

Pay Period Local Hiring 

Seasonal 

Support 

Screening 

Partnership 

Program 

Support 

Risk 

Mitigation 

Equipment 

Support 

Other 

Personnel 

Shortfalls 

Total 

Deployed 

1-Oct 14-Oct 292 8 0 0 0 104 404 

15-Oct 28-Oct 243 0 0 0 0 124 367 

29-Oct 11-Nov 242 11 0 0 0 130 383 

12-Nov 25-Nov 255 34 0 0 58 25 372 

26-Nov 9-Dec 253 36 0 0 49 28 366 

10-Dec 23-Dec 228 148 0 0 62 18 456 

24-Dec 6-Jan 177 191 0 0 53 18 439 

7-Jan 20-Jan 229 200 0 0 25 21 475 

21-Jan 3-Feb 235 214 0 0 43 16 508 

4-Feb 17-Feb 205 226 0 0 29 12 472 

18-Feb 2-Mar 191 223 0 0 18 9 441 

3-Mar 16-Mar 142 204 0 0 9 67 422 

17-Mar 30-Mar 136 200 0 0 11 8 355 

31-Mar 13-Apr 116 126 0 49 29 10 330 

14-Apr 27-Apr 116 88 0 0 3 7 214 

28-Apr 11-May 106 14 0 0 4 6 130 

12-May 25-May 110 82 0 0 20 0 212 

26-May 8-Jun 131 143 0 0 32 0 306 

9-Jun 22-Jun 177 172 0 0 26 0 375 

23-Jun 6-Jul 166 160 12 0 0 1 339 

7-Jul 20-Jul 134 157 26 11 33 1 362 

21-Jul 3-Aug 114 153 26 33 26 1 353 

4-Aug 17-Aug 116 146 21 11 32 1 327 

18-Aug 31-Aug 116 140 16 10 30 1 313 

1-Sep 14-Sep 100 116 6 20 48 1 291 

15-Sep 28-Sep 76 68 7 0 51 0 202 

Total 4,401 3,257 113 133 686 609 9,214 

NDF Deployment Costs 

Deployment Justification Total Cost 

Local Hiring $31,493,498 

Seasonal Support $23,306,119 

Screening Partnership Program Transition $808,718 

Risk Mitigation $948,276 

Equipment Support $4,909,564 

Other Personnel Shortfalls $4,354,912 

Total Deployment Costs $65,821,087 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 24
 
Appendix E 

Estimated FY 2007 Deployment Costs for Local Hiring by Pay Period 

Pay Period Operational 

Pay, 

Compensation 

and Benefits 

Total Local Hiring 

Deployment Costs 

1-Oct 14-Oct $1,062,880 $1,026,906 $2,089,786 

15-Oct 28-Oct $884,520 $854,582 $1,739,102 

29-Oct 11-Nov $880,880 $851,066 $1,731,946 

12-Nov 25-Nov $928,200 $896,784 $1,824,984 

26-Nov 9-Dec $920,920 $889,750 $1,810,670 

10-Dec 23-Dec $828,100 $800,072 $1,628,172 

24-Dec 6-Jan $644,280 $622,474 $1,266,754 

7-Jan 20-Jan $833,560 $805,347 $1,638,907 

21-Jan 3-Feb $853,580 $824,690 $1,678,270 

4-Feb 17-Feb $746,200 $720,944 $1,467,144 

18-Feb 2-Mar $693,420 $669,950 $1,363,370 

3-Mar 16-Mar $515,060 $497,627 $1,012,687 

17-Mar 30-Mar $493,220 $476,526 $969,746 

31-Mar 13-Apr $420,420 $406,190 $826,610 

14-Apr 27-Apr $422,240 $407,949 $830,189 

28-Apr 11-May $384,020 $371,022 $755,042 

12-May 25-May $400,400 $386,848 $787,248 

26-May 8-Jun $475,020 $458,942 $933,962 

9-Jun 22-Jun $644,280 $622,474 $1,266,754 

23-Jun 6-Jul $604,240 $583,789 $1,188,029 

7-Jul 20-Jul $485,940 $469,493 $955,433 

21-Jul 3-Aug $413,140 $399,157 $812,297 

4-Aug 17-Aug $422,240 $407,949 $830,189 

18-Aug 31-Aug $420,420 $406,190 $826,610 

1-Sep 14-Sep $364,000 $351,680 $715,680 

15-Sep 28-Sep $276,640 $267,277 $543,917 

Total Cost $16,017,820 $15,475,678 $31,493,498 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 25
 
Appendix F 

NDO – NetHub Message Archive: 400.3- Routine – NDF Support for Local Hiring 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 26
 
Appendix G 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Deborah Outten-Mills, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections 

Jim O’Keefe, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections 

Lawrence Anderson, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections 

McKay Smith, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 27
 
 

Appendix H 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 

Assistant Secretary, Transportation Security Administration 

Audit Liaison, Transportation Security Administration 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

The Transportation Security Administration’s National Deployment Force 

Page 28
 
Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202) 254-4199, fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web 

site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of 

criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or 

operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

•	 Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, Attention: 

Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.