SCREENING 

PARTNERSHIP 

PROGRAM

TSA Should Issue 

More Guidance to 

Airports and Monitor 

Private versus Federal 

Screener Performance

Report to the Chairman of the 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives

December 2012

GAO-13-208

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-208, a report to the 

Chairman of the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

December 2012

SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

TSA Should Issue More Guidance to Airports and 

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 also oversees a workforce 

of private screeners at airports who 

participate in the SPP. The SPP allows 

commercial airports to use private 

screeners, provided that the level of 

screening matches 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. 

GAO was asked to examine the (1) 

status of SPP applications and airport 

operators’, aviation stakeholders’, and 

TSA’s reported advantages and 

disadvantages of participating in the 

SPP; (2) extent to which TSA has 

provided airports guidance to govern 

the SPP application process; and (3) 

extent to which TSA assesses and 

monitors the performance of private 

and federal screeners. GAO surveyed 

28 airport operators that had applied to 

the SPP as of April 2012, and 

interviewed 5 airport operators who 

have not applied and 1 airport operator 

who applied to the SPP after GAO’s 

survey. Although not generalizable, 

these interviews provided insights. 

GAO also analyzed screener 

performance data from fiscal years 

2009-2011. This is a public version of a 

sensitive report that GAO issued in 

November 2012. Information that TSA 

deemed sensitive has been redacted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the TSA 

Administrator develop guidance for 

SPP applicants and a mechanism to 

monitor private versus federal screener 

performance. TSA concurred with the 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Since implementation of the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) in 2004, 29 

airports have applied to the program, citing various advantages and relatively few 

disadvantages. Of the 25 approved, 16 are participating in the program, 6 are 

currently in the contractor procurement process, and the remainder withdrew 

from participation because their commercial airline services were discontinued. In 

2011, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied applications for 6 

airports because, according to TSA officials, the airports did not demonstrate that 

participation in the program would “provide a clear and substantial advantage to 

TSA security operations.” After enactment of the Federal Aviation Administration 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FAA Modernization Act) in February 

2012, TSA revised its SPP application, removing the “clear and substantial 

advantage” question. Four of the 6 airports that had been denied in 2011 later 

reapplied and were approved. In GAO’s survey and in interviews with airport 

operators (of SPP and non-SPP airports) and aviation stakeholders, improved 

customer service and increased staffing flexibilities were most commonly cited as 

advantages or potential advantages of the SPP. Individual Federal Security 

Directors we interviewed cited reduced involvement in human resource 

management as an advantage; however, TSA generally remains neutral 

regarding the SPP. Few disadvantages were cited; however, some airport 

operators cited satisfaction with federal screeners and concerns with potential 

disruption from the transition to private screening services. 

TSA has developed some resources to assist SPP applicants; however, it has 

not provided guidance to assist airports applying to the program. Consistent with 

the FAA Modernization Act, TSA’s revised SPP application requested that 

applicants provide information to assist TSA in determining if their participation in 

the SPP would compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or 

screening effectiveness of passengers and property at their airport. TSA also 

developed responses to frequently asked questions and has expressed a 

willingness to assist airports that need it. However, TSA has not issued guidance 

to assist airports with completing applications and information on how the agency 

will assess them. Three of five airport operators who applied using the current 

application stated that additional guidance is needed to better understand how to 

respond to the new application questions. Developing guidance could better 

position airports to evaluate whether they are good candidates for the SPP.

TSA recently improved its screener performance measures, but could benefit 

from monitoring private versus federal screener performance. In April 2012, TSA 

added measures to ensure that the set of measures it uses to assess screener 

performance at private and federal airports better addresses its airport screening 

strategic goals and mission. However, TSA does not monitor private screener 

performance separately from federal screener performance. Instead, TSA 

conducts efforts to monitor screener performance at individual SPP airports, but 

these efforts do not provide information on SPP performance as a whole or 

across years, which makes it difficult to identify program trends. A mechanism to 

consistently monitor SPP versus non-SPP performance would better position 

TSA to ensure that the level of screening services and protection provided at 

SPP airports continues to match or exceed the level provided at non-SPP 

airports, thereby ensuring that SPP airports are operating as intended.

View GAO-13-208. For more information, 

contact Steve Lord at (202) 512-4379 or 

lords@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Letter 1 

Background 7

TSA Has Approved 25 SPP Applications; Enhanced Customer 

Service Was the Most Commonly Cited Advantage of the SPP 12

TSA Has Developed Application Resources, but Could Provide 

Guidance for SPP Applicants 22

TSA Has Measures to Assess Screener Performance, but Enhanced 

Processes for Evaluating Screener Performance Could Be 

Beneficial 26

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix II TSA’s Screening Partnership Program Application History 43

Appendix III Map of Screening Partnership Program Airports 45

Appendix IV Other Measures to Assess Screener Performance 47

Appendix V GAO’s Assessment of Screener Performance Measures 49

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 51

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Tables

Table 1: Performance Measures GAO Used to Compare Screener 

Performance at SPP and Non-SPP airports 27

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Table 2: Management Objective Report and Scorecard Performance 

Measures 31

Table 3: SPP Application History 43

Table 4: Airports Participating in or Recently Approved for 

Participation in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) 46

Table 5: GAO’s Analysis of the Management Objective Report and 

Executive Scorecard against the Key Attributes of 

Successful Performance Measures 50

Figures

Figure 1: TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP) Application 

Process 10

Figure 2: TSA Screening Partnership Program Application History 13

Figure 3: 22 Airports Participating in or Approved for Participation 

in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), as of 

October 2012 16

Figure 4: Airports Participating in or Recently Approved for 

Participation in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) 45
Page iii GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Abbreviations

ACI-NA Airport Council International-North America

AIT advanced imaging technology

ASAP Aviation Security Assessment Program

ATSA Aviation Transportation Security Act

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EDS explosives detection system

ETD explosives trace detection machine

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAQ frequently asked question

FSD Federal Security Director

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

IPT Integrated Project Team

MOR Management Objective Report

NDF National Deployment Force

OSO Office of Security Operations

PACE Presence, Advisement, Communication, and Execution

PMO Program Management Office

PMR performance management review

SAC chair SPP Application Chair

SPP Screening Partnership Program

TIP threat image protection

TSA Transportation Security Administration

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.
Page 1 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 6, 2012

The Honorable John Mica

Chairman

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Mica:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 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 

Screening Partnership Program (hereafter referred to as the SPP, or the 

Program).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-sector screeners perform the screening function.2

 

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. 

Federal screeners employed by TSA are also known as Transportation Security Officers. 

For the purposes of this report, we refer to screeners at airports that participate in the 

Screening Partnership Program as “private screeners” and screeners at airports not 

participating in the Screening Partnership Program as “federal screeners.” 

At 

private screening airports, TSA continues to be responsible for 

overseeing airport screening operations and ensuring that the contractors 

provide effective and efficient security operations in a manner consistent 

with law and other TSA requirements; however, the screening of 

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 five commercial airports (one contractor served two airports). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

passengers and baggage at these airports is performed by private 

screening contractors selected and approved by the TSA.3

Questions about the cost-effectiveness and screening efficiency of private 

screeners compared with that of federal screeners have increased 

scrutiny of the SPP. Some representatives of the aviation industry and 

certain airport operators contend that the SPP capitalizes on the private 

sector’s innovation and flexibility to provide screening services more 

efficiently and with enhanced customer service. However, the SPP model 

allows for little variance in screening operations at SPP airports. For 

example, in accordance with ATSA, private screeners must meet the 

same standards and requirements for hiring and training that apply to 

federal screeners, abide by the same standard operating procedures, and 

be provided compensation and benefits at a level not less than their 

federal counterparts.4

As of January 2011, 16 airports were participating in the SPP.5

 

3

Private screening airports are airports that are participating in the SPP, also referred to 

as SPP airports.

In January 

2011, the TSA Administrator announced his decision not to expand the 

SPP beyond the 16 participating airports “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, highperforming 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 that were evaluated 

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

application of 1 airport, West Yellowstone Airport, and denied the 

applications of the other 5 airports. According to TSA officials, however, 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 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 

4

See 49 U.S.C. § 44920(c), (f). See also § 44935 (requiring the Administrator to prescribe 

employment standards and training requirements for, among others, airport security 

personnel).

5

In addition to the 16 airports, TSA approved the applications of 3 other airports (including 

one heliport) prior to January 2011 that are not participating in the program because 

commercial airline services at these airports were terminated. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

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.6

Citing the recent SPP airport approvals, the Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives, recommended approximately 

$160 million for privatized screening for fiscal year 2013, which 

represents $15 million above the amount requested in the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) budget request and about $14 million above 

the enacted fiscal year 2012 level.7 The report noted that the funding was 

increased to ensure adequate resources to support potential new SPP 

participants and to encourage TSA to make greater use of the program. 

The report of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, however, 

recommended approximately $143 million for privatized screening for 

fiscal year 2013, the same amount requested in the budget and 

approximately $1 million below the enacted fiscal year 2012 level.8

We reported in January 2009, among other things, that TSA had 

underestimated costs to the government for screeners at non-SPP 

airports because the agency did not include all of the costs associated 

with passenger and baggage screening services at these airports.

In its 

report, the Senate Committee explained that it expects TSA to not 

approve any new contract application for privatized screening if the 

annual cost of the contract exceeds the annual cost to TSA of providing 

federal screening services at that airport.

9

 

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

44920(b)).

The 

omission of some cost factors reduced the reliability of TSA’s 2009 cost 

estimate by increasing the costs for private-contractor screeners relative 

to federal screeners. We recommended that if TSA planned to rely on its 

comparison of cost and performance of SPP and non-SPP airports for 

future decision making, the agency should update its analysis to address 

7

See H.R. Rpt. No. 112-492, at 64-65 (May 23, 2012) (accompanying H.R. 5855, 112th 

Cong. (2d Sess. 2012)).

8

See S. Rpt. No. 112-169, at 60 (May 22, 2012) (accompanying S. 3216, 112th Cong. (2d 

Sess. 2012)).

9

GAO, Aviation Security: TSA’s Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport 

Screening, GAO-09-27R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 2009). 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

the limitations we identified. TSA generally concurred with our 

recommendation, and in March 2011, we reported that TSA has made 

progress in addressing the limitations related to costs and estimated that 

SPP airports would cost 3 percent more to operate in 2011 than airports 

using federal screeners.10

This report addresses the (1) status of airport applications made to the 

SPP, and airport operator, other stakeholders, and TSA views on the 

advantages and disadvantages of participating in the SPP; (2) extent to 

which TSA has provided guidance to govern the SPP application process; 

and (3) extent to which TSA assesses and monitors the performance of 

private and federal screeners.

This report is a public version of the prior sensitive report that we 

provided to you. DHS deemed some of the information in the prior report 

as Sensitive Security Information (SSI), which must be protected from 

public disclosure.11

To address all three of these objectives, we interviewed Federal Security 

Directors (FSD); airport operators; screeners; and where applicable, SPP 

contractors at 10 airports. We selected the 10 airports by matching an 

SPP to a non-SPP airport, in each of the five airport categories (category 

X, I, II, III, and IV), based primarily on (1) annual passenger and baggage 

volumes, (2) screener staffing model full-time equivalent allocation, and 

(3) number of check-points and screening lanes.

Therefore, this report omits information about the 

specific results of our comparison of SPP screener performance with 

performance of federal screeners across four performance measures we 

analyzed. Although the information provided in this report is more limited 

in scope, it addresses the same questions as the sensitive report. Also, 

the overall methodology used for both reports is the same.

12

 

10GAO, Aviation Security: TSA’S Revised Cost Comparison Provides a More Reasonable 

Basis for Comparing the Costs of Private-Sector and TSA Screeners, 

Additionally, on the 

basis of available travel resources, we visited 7 of the 10 airports to 

GAO-11-375R

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 2011).

11 See 49 C.F.R. pt. 1520.

12TSA 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 5 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

observe airport screening operations, including any unique challenges 

faced by these airports. Our observations from these airport visits and 

interviews are illustrative and provide insights about private and federal 

screening operations but are not generalizable to all airports across the 

country.

To determine the status of SPP applications, and airport operators’, other 

stakeholders’, and TSA’s views on the advantages and disadvantages of 

participating in the SPP, we interviewed officials of TSA’s SPP Program 

Management Office (PMO) and reviewed the 15 SPP applications that 

had been submitted since fiscal year 2009, as well as TSA’s available 

decision memos on the applications.13 Further, we surveyed the 28 airport 

operators who have applied to the SPP since its inception through April 

2012 (when the survey was implemented) to solicit their views on 

advantages and disadvantages for airports for participating in the SPP.14

A 29th airport, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, applied to the 

SPP for the first time in June 2012 and, therefore, was not included in our 

survey. However, we interviewed this airport, as well as the 5 non-SPP 

airports we visited or interviewed, to obtain their perspectives on the 

potential advantages and disadvantages of participating in the SPP. We 

also interviewed representatives of three aviation industry associations to 

identify the advantages and disadvantages of using federal and 

nonfederal screeners.15

 

13TSA officials stated that decision memos were not available for all SPP applicants 

because, for example, they were not prepared or were lost when TSA transferred to a new 

file share program.

We selected the three associations because they 

represent the majority of aviation industry stakeholders, including airport 

operators.

14The 28 airports whose airport operators we surveyed include 16 from airports that were 

participating in the SPP at the time of the survey, 2 airports that withdrew their 

applications before TSA made a decision, 3 airports that were approved but never 

transitioned to the SPP because commercial airline service was discontinued at the 

airport, and 7 airports that initially applied from March 2009 through April 2012 (when the 

survey was implemented).

15The three aviation industry associations we interviewed are International Air Transport 

Association, Airports Council International—North America, and the American Association 

of Airport Executives. Because we selected a nongeneralizable sample of aviation

organizations, the information we gathered from our interviews with these organizations 

cannot be used to make inferences about all aviation organizations. However, we believe 

that the information we obtained was useful in learning about how such organizations view 

the SPP and their perspectives on how screener performance is assessed.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

To determine the extent to which TSA has provided guidance to govern 

the SPP application process, we analyzed past and current SPP 

application forms and instructions, as well as interviewed TSA 

headquarters officials to identify the requirements and process for 

applying to the SPP. We surveyed operators of all approved SPP airports 

as well as operators of airports that have applied but are currently not 

participating in the SPP because TSA denied their application, or their 

participation is pending the procurement of a contractor, to determine 

their perspectives on the SPP application process. To determine if any 

improvements are needed to the SPP application process, we compared 

TSA’s application process and requirements with Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government.

16

To determine the extent to which TSA assesses and monitors the 

performance of private and federal screeners, we interviewed TSA 

headquarters officials knowledgeable about TSA’s performance 

management process to identify current screener performance measures. 

At the airports we visited, we observed screening operations to identify 

areas where screener performance could be assessed and interviewed 

contractor, airport, and TSA officials to obtain their perspectives on the 

current set of performance measures. We evaluated TSA’s process for 

assessing and monitoring the performance of private and federal 

screeners against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government and best practices for performance management.17

 

16GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

To 

determine how screener performance compares at SPP and non-SPP 

airports, we compared screener performance for the 16 currently 

participating SPP airports to the average performance of other airports in 

their category, as well as nationally, from fiscal year 2009 through 2011. 

To ensure the reliability of the performance measure data we analyzed, 

we (1) interviewed TSA officials who use and maintain the data; (2) 

checked the data for missing information, outliers, and obvious errors; 

and (3) reviewed documentation on the relevant data systems to ensure 

the data’s integrity. On the basis of the steps we took, we found the data 

reliable for the purpose of providing summary statistics of screener 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

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

17GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the 

Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 

1996); and Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: November 2002).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

performance for the four performance measures we analyzed. However, 

as we note later, because there are many factors that may account for 

differences in screener performance, some of which cannot be controlled 

for, any difference we found in screener performance at SPP and nonSPP airports cannot be entirely attributed to the use of either federal or 

private screeners.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to November 

2012, 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. More details about the 

scope and methodology of our work are presented in appendix I.

ATSA established TSA and charged it with responsibility for securing all 

modes of transportation, including civil aviation. Prior to ATSA and the 

establishment of TSA, passenger and baggage screening had generally 

been performed by private screening companies under contract to airlines 

and in accordance with FAA regulations. In accordance with ATSA, TSA 

currently employs personnel who screen passengers at the vast majority 

of TSA-regulated (also referred to as commercial) airports nationwide. 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.18

 

18See 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. 

In 2004, at the completion of the 

pilot program, and in accordance with ATSA, TSA established a 

permanent program known as the Screening Partnership Program 

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

request a transition from federal screeners to private, contracted 

screeners. Each of the 5 pilot airports applied and was approved to 

continue as part of the SPP, and since its establishment, 20 additional 

airport applications have been accepted by the SPP. Once an airport is 

Background 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

approved for SPP participation and a private screening contractor has 

been selected, the contract screening workforce assumes responsibility 

for screening passengers and their property and must adhere to the same 

security regulations, standard operating procedures, and other TSA 

security requirements followed by federal screeners at commercial 

airports.

TSA’s SPP PMO, located within TSA’s Office of Security Operations 

(OSO), coordinates with local TSA officials to support an airport’s 

transition from federal to private screening operations and supports the 

day-to-day management of the SPP. The PMO facilitates the SPP 

application process by reviewing SPP applications, organizing SPP 

application review meetings with other relevant TSA offices, and 

preparing and routing relevant application documentation to these offices 

and the TSA Administrator.19

TSA’s FSDs provide day-to-day operational direction for security 

operations at the airports within their jurisdiction, including those 

participating in the SPP. However, FSD management responsibilities 

differ at airports using federal versus private screeners. For example, at 

airports with a federal workforce, the FSD directly supervises and controls 

the screening workforce. However, at SPP airports, the FSD has 

responsibility for overall security but does not have direct control over 

workforce management; rather the SPP contractor is contractually 

obligated to effectively and efficiently manage its screening workforce. 

Along with the TSA Office of Acquisition, the 

office plays a significant role in contract oversight and administration, as 

well as actively participates in contract source selection processes.

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, 

through the FSDs, to help ensure they meet the terms and conditions of 

the contract. In addition, SPP contractors are rewarded for identifying and 

 

19Relevant offices include, but are not limited to, the Office of Information Technology, the 

Office of Human Capital, and other TSA offices that affect airport operations and which 

together make up an Integrated Project Team (IPT) responsible for collecting, 

consolidating and reviewing SPP application data and preparing findings for the SPP 

Application Chair (SAC chair).

Federal and Private 

Screening Roles and 

Responsibilities 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

proposing ideas that TSA accepts for possible innovations in recruiting, 

training, and security procedures, such as the practice of conducting prehire orientations to inform prospective screener candidates of the position 

requirements, which is 1 of over 200 ideas submitted to TSA by SPP 

contractors to date.

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

of the FAA Modernization Act enacted in February 2012.20

• 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. 

• The airport operator shall include as part of its application 

submission a recommendation as to which private screening 

company would best serve the security screening and passenger 

needs of 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 U.S. House of Representatives, a written report 

that sets forth the findings that 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 PMO, as well as to the airport FSD, by mail, fax, or e-mail. As 

required by the FAA Modernization Act, not later than 120 days after the

application is received by TSA, the Administrator must make a final 

decision on the application. Figure 1 illustrates the SPP application 

process.

 

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

Overview of the SPP 

Application Process
 

Page 10 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Figure 1: TSA’s 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 impact on the workload of the Office of 

Information Technology and the potential impact of any upcoming 

projects at the airport are considered. SPP PMO officials said that by 

considering all relevant factors, they do not expect to identify a specific 

piece of information that would definitively deny an application’s approval 

based on the standards in the FAA Modernization Act. However, in doing 

so, they hope to ensure that the Administrator has the complete picture 

and could therefore make a decision using all factors in combination, 

consistent with the FAA Modernization Act. Nonetheless, factors found to 

be cost-prohibitive are likely to result in the airport being denied 

participation in the program.

In May 2007, TSA awarded a contract to Catapult Consultants to conduct 

a cost and performance analysis of airports with private screeners versus 

airports with federal screeners.21

 

21TSA previously commissioned Bearing Point Consultants to conduct a similar study 

comparing the cost and performance of private and federal screeners, the results of which 

were published in 2004.

This analysis would be used to assist 

senior TSA leadership with strategic decisions regarding the degree to 

which TSA should leverage public/private partnerships in the area of 

screening services. According to the December 2007 report the 

TSA Implemented Prior 

Efforts Comparing Private 

and Federal Screening
 

Page 11 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

contractor issued on its analysis, SPP airports performed at a level equal 

to or better than non-SPP airports for the four performance measures 

included in the analysis.22 Following this study, in February 2008, TSA 

issued a report on a study TSA conducted comparing the cost and 

performance of screening at SPP and non-SPP airports.23 The study 

compared performance measures at each of six SPP airports to the nonSPP airports in the same airport category and found that SPP airports 

generally performed consistently with non-SPP airports in their category 

for the performance measures included in its analysis.24

 

22Catapult Consultants, LLC, Private Screening Operations: Business Case Analysis, 

Transportation Security Administration, Screening Partnership Program (Arlington: VA: 

Dec.14, 2007). The performance measures used in this analysis were threat image 

projection (TIP) detection rate, recertification pass rate, wait time, and the results of a TSA 

sponsored customer satisfaction survey. We describe TIP detection rates and 

recertification pass rate later in this report. 

23Transportation Security Administration, A Report on SPP Airport Cost and Performance 

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

2008).

24In conducting the study, TSA compared the cost of operating screening at the six SPP 

airports in its study with the cost that would be incurred in the agency’s budget if these 

airports were run as fully federal or non-SPP airports. TSA found that screening at SPP 

airports at the time cost approximately 17.4 percent more to operate than at airports with 

federal screeners. In its report, TSA considered an airport to be an “average” performer if 

the results of the performance measure fell within one standard deviation from the airport 

category average (the middle 68.2 percent of the category). On the basis of results for the 

six airports it included in its analysis, TSA found that the majority of the SPP airports fell 

within the average performer category for the five performance measures it included in its 

analysis. The measures TSA used in its study were TIP detection rates; screener 

recertification pass rates; the percentage of passengers that experienced a wait time 

under 10 minutes; the length of time of the peak wait time; and the checkpoint capacity 

utilization rate, which is the average of the percentage of lanes utilized and the percentage 

of throughput compared with full capacity.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Since the inception of the SPP in 2004, 29 airports have applied for 

participation in the program; 25 airports have been approved, and as we 

noted earlier in this report, 16 airports are participating in the SPP as of 

October 2012.25 A detailed timeline and status of each airport application 

are provided in figure 2 and appendix II. 

 

25 Four of the 29 airports applied to the SPP more than once because TSA either denied 

their initial application or requested that they re-submit their application using a revised 

SPP application form. The 5 airports participating in the pilot program were required to 

submit applications to continue private screening operations under the SPP.

TSA Has Approved 25 

SPP Applications; 

Enhanced Customer 

Service Was the Most 

Commonly Cited 

Advantage of the SPP

SPP Applicants and 

Participating Airports
Figure 2: Screening Partnership Program (SPP) Application History

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Elko Municipal, NV

Kansas City International, MO 

Greater Rochester International, NY

San Francisco International, CA 

Tupelo Regional, MS 

Joe Foss Field, SD 

Key West International, FL 

Florida Keys Marathon, FL

Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, CA 

E. 34th Street Heliport, NY

Roswell International, NM

Gallup Municipal, NM 

Dawson Community, MT

Frank Wiley Field, MT

Lewistown Municipal, MT

Havre City-County, MT

Glasgow International/Wokal Field, MT 

L. M. Clayton/Wolf Point, MT 

Sidney-Richland Municipal, MT 

Jackson Hole, WY 

Airport 



Events

Applied 

Withdrew 

Approved

Denied 

Branson, MO 

Sacramento International, CA

Bozeman Yellowstone International, MT 

Bert Mooney, MT 

West Yellowstone, MT

Glacier Park International, MT

Missoula International, MT

Springfield Branson National, MO

Orlando Sanford International, FL

Key

Interactive Graphic Directions: Place mouse over each symbol for SPP status, date, and airport category.

Note: Sacramento International Airport submitted its first application to the SPP approximately 1 week before the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 was enacted. In March 2012, TSA revised the SPP application to facilitate compliance with provisions of the act and 

requested that Sacramento International Airport resubmit its application using the new application form. While the airport submitted its 

new application form in April 2012, TSA considers the date of receipt to still be February 2012.

Source: GAO analysis of TSA information.

Page 13 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program
 

Page 14 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Nine airports were approved but are not currently participating in the 

program because they are either (1) in the process of having an SPP 

contractor procured, (2) were once part of the SPP but ceased screening 

services when commercial airline service placing the airport under TSA

regulation was discontinued, or (3) never transitioned to the SPP because 

commercial airline service bringing the airport under TSA regulation to 

these airports was discontinued before private screening services began. 

Specifically, 6 airports—West Yellowstone Airport, Montana; Orlando 

Sanford International Airport, Florida; Glacier Park International Airport, 

Montana; Sacramento International Airport, California; Bert Mooney 

Airport, Montana; and Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, 

Montana—have been approved but are not yet currently participating in 

the SPP pending TSA’s selection of the screening contractor to provide 

services at each airport. Two airports—the East 34th Street Heliport, New 

York, and Gallup Municipal Airport, New Mexico were participating in the 

SPP, but according to TSA officials, the air carriers servicing these 

airports discontinued service after the contract was awarded, and thus 

these airports no longer required TSA screening services. Additionally, 

Florida Keys Marathon Airport, Florida, was approved for participation in 

the SPP, but the air carrier servicing the airport discontinued services 

prior to the start of the screening contract, and accordingly screening 

services were no longer required.

TSA denied applications from 6 airports—submitted from March 2009 

through December 2011. Five of these applications were submitted to 

TSA before the Administrator announced in January 2011 that the agency 

would not expand the SPP beyond the then current 16 airports “unless a 

clear and substantial advantage to do so emerges in the future.” The sixth 

application was submitted for consideration approximately 1 week after 

the Administrator’s announcement. Prior to the enactment of the FAA 

Modernization Act in February 2012, 1 of the 6 airports whose application 

TSA denied re-applied under TSA’s “clear and substantial advantage” 

standard and was approved.26

 

26According to TSA officials, TSA’s decision to approve the 1 airport that reapplied under 

the agency’s “clear and substantial advantage” standard was based on a more detailed 

cost analysis the agency conducted that showed that because of the airport’s reliance on 

TSA’s National Deployment Force, it would indeed be cheaper for a screening contractor 

to provide screening services at this airport. The National Deployment Force is composed 

of a team of federal screeners who assist when there are event or crisis-related situations 

that require additional security-related screening support.

Following enactment of the FAA 

Modernization Act, which provided that TSA shall approve an application 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

if approval would not compromise security or detrimentally affect the costefficiency or the effectiveness of the screening of passengers or property 

at the airport, TSA approved the applications of 3 other airports who 

reapplied. Two of the 6 airports that had been denied never reapplied for

participation in the SPP (see fig. 2 for additional details). Figure 3 and 

appendix III show the locations of the 16 airports currently participating in 

the SPP as well as the 6 airports that TSA recently approved for 

participation.
Interactive Graphic Directions: Place mouse over each symbol for airport category and SPP status

Source: GAO analysis of TSA information. 

Note; 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

Category X

Category I

Category II

Category III

Category IV

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

Va.

W.

Va.

Ky.

S.C.

Tenn.

Page 16 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program
 

Page 17 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

As figure 3 shows, 10 of 16 of the airports currently participating in the 

SPP are smaller, category III and IV airports, with 9 of those located in 

the western region of the United States.

In recent years, the number of airports applying for participation in the 

SPP has generally declined. Specifically, from 2004 through 2008, 21 

airports applied to the SPP, including the 5 airports that participated in 

TSA’s SPP pilot program. Since 2009, TSA has received SPP 

applications from 8 airports.

Airport operators we surveyed and interviewed, as well as aviation 

industry stakeholders (i.e., aviation associations) and TSA officials we 

interviewed, most commonly cited customer service and staffing flexibility 

as advantages of participating in the SPP, but also expressed concerns 

about the SPP transition process and satisfaction with existing TSA 

screening services as potential disadvantages of participating in the 

program.27

Our 2012 survey and interviews of airport operators include the following 

highlights:

We surveyed 28 airport operators who had applied to the SPP 

from its inception in 2004 through April 2012. Twenty-six operators 

responded. Because all 26 survey respondents were airport operators 

who have applied to the SPP, these airport operators may be more likely 

to present positive views of, or what they perceived of, the SPP. In 

addition, perspectives may also be influenced by whether or not the

operators were approved for participation in the SPP at the time the 

survey was conducted. We also interviewed 6 airport operators that were 

not included in our survey. Five of these airport operators have not 

applied for participation in the SPP, and 1 airport operator had applied for 

participation after our survey was conducted, and therefore was not 

included as part of our survey.

The advantages most frequently identified by the airport operators that 

had applied to the SPP and responded to our survey and those we 

interviewed (including those that had not applied to the SPP) were related 

 

27Similarly, in 2009 we reported that airport operators we interviewed cited customer 

service and the ability to alleviate TSA staffing concerns as a reason for deciding to 

participate in the SPP, and satisfaction with TSA’s screening workforce as the primary 

disadvantage of participating in the SPP. See GAO-09-27R. 

Reported Advantages and 

Disadvantages of Joining 

the SPP

Advantages to SPP
 

Page 18 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

to providing better customer service and obtaining flexibility assigning 

staff. The airport associations most commonly cited obtaining flexibility in 

assigning staff as an advantage. Because TSA generally remains neutral 

regarding the SPP, the views of TSA officials expressed are attributed to 

the individual FSDs we interviewed and do not reflect the views of the 

agency. 

• Customer service. Sixteen airport operators we surveyed and 

interviewed reported customer service as an advantage—15 had 

applied to the SPP and 1 had not.28 Specifically, 14 of 26 airport 

operators responding to the survey indicated this was a realized or 

potential advantage to a great or very great extent.29

 

28We surveyed and interviewed a total of 32 airport operators regarding the advantages 

and disadvantages of participating in the SPP. 

In addition, 2 

of the 6 airport operators we interviewed, 1 of which applied to the 

SPP, stated that the level of customer service provided by security 

screeners is particularly important for smaller community-based 

airports. These airports constitute the majority of the airports 

participating in the SPP, because passengers who have negative 

encounters with the screening process generally associate their 

experiences with the specific airport. Thus, airport officials stated 

that this might increase the likelihood that the passengers involved 

will seek alternative modes of transportation or different airports 

for future travel. Representatives from the three airport 

associations we interviewed did not identify customer service as 

an advantage of the SPP. TSA officials stated that federal 

screeners can and do provide similar levels of customer service 

and that most commercial airports are content to have a TSA 

workforce at their airports. TSA also stated that customer service 

is an important aspect of their work, and that the agency is taking 

steps to improve customer service in a way that does not 

jeopardize the agency’s core mission, which is to ensure the 

security of the traveling public. Specifically, TSA officials said that 

they have enhanced their performance management processes to 

29Our survey population included 28 airports that have applied for participation in the SPP. 

Of these 28, 26 airports responded to the survey. Survey respondents were asked to rate 

the extent to which various factors presented in the survey were an advantage, or 

disadvantage, of participating in the SPP. We use the terms “great extent” and “very great 

extent” to determine the extent to which airport operators identified a primary advantage or 

disadvantage of participating in the SPP. 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

better gauge customer service, such as tracking negative contacts 

received at airports.

• Staffing flexibility. Fifteen airport operators we surveyed and 

interviewed—14 had applied to the SPP and 1 had not—and 

representatives from two aviation industry associations reported 

that private screening contractors are generally more responsive 

and flexible than TSA to increasing staffing needs in response to 

fluctuations in passenger volume at the airport. Specifically, 13 of 

26 airport operators responding to our survey cited flexibility in 

assigning staff as a realized or potential advantage to a great or 

very great extent of participating in the SPP. Two of the 6 airport 

operators we interviewed, 1 of which had applied to the SPP, also 

cited staffing flexibility as an advantage. For example, an airport 

operator highlighted challenges the airport has faced in adjusting 

the number of screening staff to accommodate the seasonal 

changes in passenger volume at his airport. Specifically, the 

airport operator, a current SPP participant, commented that unlike 

TSA screeners, private screening contractors are able to staff 

screeners in split shifts—a work period divided into two or more 

periods of time, such as morning and evening, with a break of 

several hours between—thereby enabling them to adjust to the 

airport’s flight schedule and changes in passenger volume.30 TSA 

officials disagreed with this view and stated that TSA provides 

FSDs with discretion to utilize federal screeners in split shifts 

during the course of the workday, provided that such discretion is 

exercised as the direct result of operational need. Furthermore, 

TSA officials stated that all category IV and many category III 

airports use split shifts. Four of six FSDs we interviewed cited a 

reduced involvement in human resource management as an 

advantage to the federal government for participating in the SPP. 

For example, one FSD said that because TSA oversees the 

screening operations of SPP airports and FSDs are not involved 

with deploying and managing screening staff, they are better able 

to focus on their security oversight functions, including ensuring 

that proper standard operating procedures are being followed.

 

30According to TSA, split shifts are likely to be used at smaller airports which generally 

have fewer and less frequent flights a day, and consequently experience significant 

fluctuations in passenger volume. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

• Cost savings. During our follow-up interviews with survey 

respondents, 4 airport operators said that participating in the SPP 

could help alleviate TSA resource constraints and result in cost 

savings to the federal government because some airports that are 

currently participating in or applied for participation in the SPP are 

located in certain rural or high-cost communities where the federal 

government has difficulty hiring screeners and must utilize federal 

personnel deployed for temporary assignments, which results in 

increased costs. An FSD of an SPP airport located in a small, 

high-cost community we interviewed agreed that the salary offered 

by TSA made it difficult to fill screening positions at the airport, 

stating that prior to the airport’s transition to the SPP, TSA had 

difficulty hiring screeners from the local area, and as a result had 

to use screeners from its National Deployment Force (NDF), a 

deployable federal screening workforce, because of the high cost 

of living in the area.31 To maintain the requisite level of screening 

services at airports in environments where it is hard to recruit, 

TSA often uses screeners from its NDF, which TSA stated can be 

more expensive than SPP screeners because the NDF screeners 

are compensated on a per diem basis when deployed and incur 

other costs such as temporary housing expenses.

Airport operators generally cited few realized or potential disadvantages 

of participating in the SPP. Six airport operators we surveyed and 

interviewed cited the discontinuation of federal screening services as a 

potential disadvantage of participating in the SPP. Specifically, the 4 of 25 

survey respondents who had applied to the SPP program cited the 

discontinuation of federal screening services as a potential disadvantage 

of participating in the SPP.32

 

31According to this airport official, private screening contractors may be able to offer 

higher wages to make screening positions more competitive in environments where it is 

otherwise hard to recruit. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 44920(d), screening contractors 

must provide compensation and other benefits at a level not less than the compensation 

and other benefits provided to TSA screeners, but are not prohibited from offering 

compensation and benefits at a higher level.

In addition, 2 airport operators who have not 

applied to the SPP expressed concerns about the potential disruption 

32All 26 survey respondents applied to the SPP. We use the terms “great extent” and “very 

great extent” to determine the extent to which airport operators identified a primary 

advantage or disadvantage of participating in the SPP. One survey respondent did not 

provide a response to this question, therefore the total number of respondents for this 

question is 25.

Disadvantages 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

associated with the transition from TSA screeners to private screeners at 

their airports, and the associated risk of doing so if the process does not 

proceed as smoothly as intended.33 One of these airport operators stated 

that concerns about the transition process—going from federal screeners 

to private screeners—is the primary reason the airport has not submitted 

an application. Further, this airport operator also cited concerns about 

maintaining screener morale, and hence security, as a major reason for 

the airport’s decision to not apply to the SPP.34

Additionally, airport operators from 3 airports that have not applied to the 

SPP expressed no interest in the SPP, and stated that they are generally 

satisfied with the level of screening service provided by TSA. Similarly, an 

Airport Council International-North America (ACI-NA) March 2007 study 

found that 71 percent of 31 survey respondents were not interested in the 

SPP, and cited satisfaction with TSA screening services, among other 

things, for not having any interest in the SPP.

Officials from the aviation 

industry associations we interviewed did not cite any realized or potential 

disadvantages. As noted earlier, TSA generally remains neutral regarding 

the SPP, and accordingly did not cite disadvantages of participating in the 

SPP.

35 When asked, 

representatives from all three aviation industry associations we 

interviewed either expressed no opinion on the SPP or cited no 

disadvantages to participating in the SPP. Two of these industry 

representatives added that the majority of the airports they represent are 

generally satisfied with the screening services provided by TSA.

 

33As part of our review, we obtained perspectives from airport operators who have not 

applied for participation to the SPP. 

34The remaining airport operators cited disadvantages; however, there were no common 

themes among the disadvantages cited with the exceptions of those identified 

disadvantages noted above. 

35Airports Council International-North America, Screening Partnership Program: Interest 

and Considerations, March 12, 2007. ACI-NA received a total of 31 survey responses. 

Because of the low response rate to the survey, the views reported in the survey reflect 

the views of the 31 who responded to the survey and not necessarily the views of the 

membership as a whole. 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

TSA has developed some resources to assist applicants; however, it has 

not provided guidance on its application and approval process to assist 

airports with applying to the program. As the application process was 

originally implemented, TSA required that an airport operator interested in 

applying to the program submit an application stating its intention to opt

out of federal screening as well as its reason(s) for wanting to do so. 

However, 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.36

In March 2012, TSA again revised the SPP application in accordance with 

provisions of the FAA Modernization Act enacted in February 2012. 

Among other things, the revised application no longer includes the “clear 

and substantial advantage” question, but instead includes questions that 

request applicants to discuss how participating in the SPP would not 

compromise security at the airport and to identify potential areas where 

At the 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 

established that opting out would present a clear and substantial 

advantage to TSA security operations. TSA officials told us that they did 

not issue guidance at the time in conjunction with the new standard 

because the agency desired to maintain a neutral position on the SPP 

and did not want to influence an airport’s decision to participate in the 

program. In the absence of such guidance, SPP officials told us that they 

were available to provide assistance, if requested, to airports that sought 

assistance or information on completing their application.

 

36The question in the application stated: “TSA has determined that the best way to 

maximize its effectiveness as a Federal counterterrorism security agency is to expand the 

Screening Partnership Program only where there would be a clear and substantial 

advantage to do so. However, the Agency is open to new and innovative ideas and 

opportunities to manage TSA’s operations more efficiently, while maintaining our high 

standards and meeting the threats of today and the future. Please explain how private 

screening at your airport would provide a clear and substantial advantage to TSA’s 

security operations (attach all supporting documentation).” 

TSA Has Developed 

Application 

Resources, but Could 

Provide Guidance for 

SPP Applicants
 

Page 23 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

cost savings or efficiencies may be realized.37

We interviewed 4 of the 5 airport operators that applied to the SPP since 

TSA revised its application in the wake of the FAA Modernization Act. 

Three of the 5 told us that they 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 said that she did not need additional information or guidance to 

respond to the question. One of the 4 airport operators stated that he 

needed the 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 

believes not presenting this information would be detrimental to his 

airport’s application. However, TSA officials said that the cost information 

Additionally, in accordance 

with the FAA Modernization Act, applicants must recommend a contractor 

that would best serve the security screening and passenger needs of the 

airport. TSA officials told us that the agency offers potential applicants 

numerous points of contact and methods with which the applicants can 

discuss the program before applying to participate. Specifically, 

applicants can discuss the program with their FSD, the SPP program 

manager, or their recommended screening contractor. Further, according 

to TSA officials, once an airport operator submits an application, TSA 

assigns a program official as a point of contact for the application, and 

works with the applicant to ensure the application is complete and to keep 

the applicant informed. TSA also provides general instructions for filling 

out the SPP application as well as responses to frequently asked 

questions (FAQ). However, TSA has not issued guidance to assist 

airports with completing the new application and has not explained to 

airports how it will evaluate applications given the changes brought about 

by the new law. Neither the current application instructions nor the FAQs 

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

determining whether an airport’s entry into SPP would compromise 

security or affect cost-efficiency and effectiveness.

 

37The questions relate to a provision of the FAA Modernization Act stating that the TSA 

Administrator “shall approve an 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.” See 49 U.S.C. § 44920(b)(2). Although responses to these questions are 

optional, some SPP applicants reported that because the questions relate to specific 

provisions in the law, they thought not responding to the questions would be detrimental to 

their applications.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

required to answer the questions is basic cost information that airports 

should already maintain and that airports do not need to provide this 

information to TSA because, as part of the application evaluation process, 

TSA conducts a more detailed cost analysis using historical cost data 

from SPP and non-SPP airports. TSA officials added that the SPP 

application and the cost information requested only serve to alert TSA of 

things it may not be already aware of about the airport. 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.

Three of the 4 airport operators we interviewed, and whose applications 

TSA subsequently approved after enactment of the FAA Modernization 

Act, said that additional guidance would have been helpful in completing 

the application and determining how TSA evaluates the applications. A 

representative from 1 of the 3 airports stated that while TSA officials have 

been more responsive and accessible since enactment of the FAA 

Modernization Act, the agency has not necessarily been helpful with the 

application process. Moreover, all 4 airport operators we interviewed told 

us that TSA did not specifically assign a point of contact when they 

applied to the program. Rather, all 4 airport operators reported consulting 

the SPP PMO, their FSD, or their recommended contractor because they 

needed information on such issues as screening cost, the list of current 

SPP contractors, TSA screener staffing levels, and examples of additional 

information they should provide TSA because they could not answer 

some of the application questions without this information. Specifically, 1 

of the 4 airport operators reported contacting the FSD to request 

assistance with completing the application, while 2 of the four said they 

did not because FSDs generally are not knowledgeable about the 

program or are able to provide only general as opposed to detailed 

information about the application process. Instead of contacting their 

FSDs, these 2 airport operators told us that they contacted the SPP PMO 

and stated that the office were helpful in providing general information, 

such as a list of current SPP contractors, but not screening cost or other 

specific application information that would help the airports demonstrate 

whether the use of private screeners would compromise security or 

detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or effectiveness of the screening of 

passengers or property at the airport. Another airport operator who 

reported contacting the SPP PMO stated that she learned about TSA’s 

SPP selection criteria and processes in the course of her discussions with 

one of the SPP managers with whom she had developed a working 

relationship over the years, and added that had she not contacted this 

particular manager, she would not have obtained this information 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

because TSA does not publish the information for other airports that may 

be interested in obtaining the information. Three of the 4 airport operators 

who told us they sought information to complete their application from 

their recommended contractor as advised by TSA stated that the 

contractors told them they did not have the necessary cost information to 

assist the airports with responding to the application questions related to 

the cost-efficiency of converting to the SPP.

Following enactment of the FAA Modernization Act, TSA officials initially 

stated that application guidance is not needed because the “clear and 

substantial” basis for joining the SPP has been eliminated and responses 

to the two new application questions related to cost-efficiency and 

effectiveness are optional responses. However, the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Security Operations now agrees that 

providing additional high-level guidance on the kind of information TSA 

considers during the application review phase would be helpful to SPP 

applicants. TSA SPP officials also stated that they routinely talk about the 

SPP at industry briefings and that they have done a good job of 

explaining the new application to industry. However, as of September 

2012, representatives of all three aviation industry associations we 

interviewed told us that TSA has not provided any information on the SPP 

to their association since enactment of the FAA Modernization Act in 

February 2012. Additionally, representatives of two of the three aviation 

industry associations said that providing guidance or information on the 

criteria TSA uses to evaluate applications would be helpful to their 

members, while a representative from the third aviation association that 

represents domestic and international airline carriers said that its 

members would appreciate any basic information on the SPP. In 

interviews we conducted prior to the enactment of the FAA Modernization 

Act, these same aviation industry representatives told us that the absence 

of guidance provided by TSA is a barrier to applying to the program. They 

added that most airports do not want to invest in preparing an application 

when they are unsure as to how it would be evaluated by TSA.

TSA has approved all applications submitted since enactment of the FAA 

Modernization Act; however, it is 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. In the absence of such application guidance and 

information, it will be difficult for more 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, 

airports may be missing opportunities to provide TSA with cost and other 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

information that TSA would find useful in reviewing airport applications. 

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

internal control and all transactions and other significant events need to 

be clearly documented, and the documentation should be readily 

available for examination.38 The documentation should appear in 

management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals and 

may be in paper or electronic form. Clear guidance for applying to the 

SPP could improve the transparency of the SPP application process and 

help ensure that the existing application process is implemented in a 

consistent and uniform manner.

TSA improved its set of screener performance measures in 2012 by 

adding measures that address passenger satisfaction, thereby ensuring 

that the measures address all aspects of the agency’s airport screening 

strategic goals and mission. However, a mechanism to monitor private 

versus federal screener performance could help TSA to routinely ensure 

that the level of screening services and protection provided at SPP 

airports continues to be conducted at acceptable levels provided at nonSPP airports, and could help inform TSA managers when making 

decisions regarding the future of the SPP, such as whether to expand the 

program to more non-SPP airports. While we found differences in 

screener performance between SPP and non-SPP airports, those 

differences cannot be entirely attributed to the use of either private or 

federal screeners. 

We analyzed screener performance data for four measures and found 

that while there are differences in performance between SPP and nonSPP airports, those differences cannot be exclusively attributed to the use 

of either federal or private screeners. We selected these measures 

primarily based on our review of previous studies that compared screener 

performance of SPP and non-SPP airports as well as on our interviews 

with aviation security subject matter experts, including TSA’s FSDs, SPP 

contractors, and airport and aviation industry stakeholders. We also 

selected performance measures for which TSA has, for the most part, 

consistently and systematically collected data from fiscal year 2009 

 

38GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

TSA Has Measures to 

Assess Screener 

Performance, but 

Enhanced Processes 

for Evaluating 

Screener Performance 

Could Be Beneficial

Performance between SPP 

and Non-SPP Airports 

Varies for Some Measures, 

but Differences Cannot Be 

Entirely Attributed to the 

Use of Private or Federal 

Screeners
 

Page 27 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

through 2011.39

Table 1: Performance Measures GAO Used to Compare Screener Performance at SPP and Non-SPP airports

The measures we selected to compare screener 

performance at SPP and non-SPP airports are 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 SPP airports 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.

Performance measure Description

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. The TIP detection rate is 

the number of TIPs correctly identified by screeners divided by the total number of TIPs that were 

presented. 

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.a 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, pat downs, and 

screening passengers with disabilities. The recertification pass rate is the total number of required 

tests passed on the first attempt divided by the total number of tests taken at a given airport. 

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. ASAP tests are designed to 

determine screener compliance with screening standard operating procedures. Unlike covert “red 

team” tests that are used to identify system-wide vulnerabilities, ASAP tests are designed to determine 

screener compliance with screening standard operating procedures. TSA began standardizing ASAP 

tests in fiscal year 2011 such that airports are required to take the same tests instead of picking their 

own tests.

b 

 

39Some of the measures we selected, such as PACE evaluation data, were not available 

for all 3 years or all airports; nonetheless, we selected these measures because they 

represent integral aspects of screener performance. 

The ASAP test pass rate is the number of tests passed divided by the total number of tests 

taken.
 

Page 28 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Performance measure Description

PACE evaluations PACE evaluations, which began in fiscal year 2011, are used to assess screener performance on 

various elements that may affect security and a passenger’s overall travelling experience. Specifically, 

the evaluations assess the level of standardization across airports in the following four areas: 

presence (i.e., command presence), advisement (i.e., telling passengers what to do), communication, 

and execution. 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 have only been implemented 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.c

Source: GAO analysis of TSA information. 

 

Notes: ASAP tests and PACE evaluations have not been used in the past to compare private and 

federal screener performance, but TSA officials noted that they would consider using them in the 

future.

a

Federal and private screeners take initial certification tests after they are hired and do not take 

recertification tests until the next annual performance cycle.

b

In addition to ASAP tests, TSA’s Office of Inspections also conducts covert tests, commonly referred 

to as “red team tests” that are designed to assess TSA’s screening operations for potential 

vulnerabilities. 

c

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 on their PACE 

evaluations.

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). 

40 For TIP detection rates, SPP airports performed above 

their respective airport category averages in about half of the instances. 

DHS 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 report.41

 

40 For 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. 

 

41Details of our analyses of recertification pass rates, PACE evaluations, and TIP 

detection rates can be found in the sensitive security version of this report; however, 

ASAP test results were omitted from that report because ASAP results are classified. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

The differences we observed in private and federal screener performance 

cannot be entirely attributed to the type of screeners (private or federal) at 

an airport, because, according to TSA officials and other subject matter 

experts we interviewed, 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. For example, TSA officials told us that the 

type of traveler experienced by an airport can affect the average wait time 

at an airport. Airports located in areas near tourist locations, for example, 

may experience higher volumes of first-time and infrequent travelers, as 

opposed to business travelers that fly more frequently. Infrequent 

travelers are more likely to bring prohibited items through the checkpoint 

because they are unfamiliar with TSA’s security protocols, a fact that can 

result in more bags needing to be searched and, consequently, longer 

wait times. Accordingly, while there may be differences in performance 

between an airport near a tourist location and an airport not located near 

a tourist location, those differences may be attributed to the type of 

passenger and not the use of either federal or private screeners at these 

airports. However, while differences in performance cannot be entirely 

attributed to the type of screener, differences and changes over time may 

still be of interest to TSA managers and may inform decision making 

regarding the future use of private contractor screeners, which we discuss 

later. 

TSA collects data on several other performance measures but, for various 

reasons, they cannot be used to compare private and federal screener 

performance for the purposes of our review. For example, we do not 

present passenger wait time data 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. We also 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. While the contractors collect and report this information to 

TSA, 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, TSA cannot guarantee 

that a comparison of SPP and non-SPP airports on these human capital 

metrics would be an equal comparison. In appendix IV, we discuss these 

two variables as well as two other variables occasionally cited by the 

airport officials and aviation stakeholders we interviewed as possible

measures for comparing federal and private screening and the reasons 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

we did not use them to compare private and federal screener 

performance.

Beginning in April 2012, TSA introduced a new set of performance 

measures to assess screener performance at both SPP and non-SPP 

airports in its OSO Executive Scorecard (Scorecard). OSO officials told 

us that they provide 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 

compares with national averages. According to TSA, the 10 measures 

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

regional directors on the performance measures that most adequately 

reflect screener and airport performance. Prior 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 (see table 2). Further, TSA improved upon the set of 

measures it uses to assess screener performance by adding measures to 

the Scorecard that addressed other non-security-related TSA priorities, 

such as passenger satisfaction. Specifically, the Scorecard includes 

passenger satisfaction measures, such as the number of negative and 

positive customer contacts made to the TSA Contact Center through emails or phone calls per 100,000 passengers screened through the 

airport, which were not previously included in the MOR.42

 

42The TSA Contact Center handles these customer contacts for all of TSA, not only those 

related to passenger and baggage screening. The passenger satisfaction metrics in the 

Scorecard do not include other types of customer contacts made by passengers, such as 

via comment cards at local airports or letters written to the TSA Administrator.

By adding 

measures related to passenger satisfaction to the Scorecard, TSA helped 

to ensure balance—that is, addressing a variety of agency goals—in the 

set of performance measures the agency uses to assess screener 

performance, which helps to ensure that performance measurement 

efforts are not overemphasizing one or two priorities at the expense of 

others. Details on our assessment of the MOR and Scorecard are 

provided in appendix V. While many of the measures used to assess 

screener performance are included in the Scorecard, several are not, but 

are available to TSA officials through other reports and databases. For 

example, TSA officials are able to review reports on their passenger 

throughput, wait times, and covert test results—information that is not 

included in the Scorecard.

TSA Recently Improved Its 

Screener Performance 

Measures to Ensure the 

Measures Address 

Strategic Goals and 

Mission 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Table 2: Management Objective Report and Scorecard Performance Measures

MOR performance measures Scorecard performance measures 

TIP detection rate TIP detection rate

Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) checkpoint 

utilization

Percentage of passengers screened with an AIT machine a

Layered security effectiveness Selectee miss rate b c

Recertification pass rated

Number of checkpoint closures less than 10 minutes

Number of checkpoint closures greater than 10 minutes

Negative customer contacts per 100,000 customers

Positive customer contacts per 100,000 customers

Percentage of passengers waiting between 20 and 30 minutes

Percentage of passengers waiting greater than 30 minutes

Source: GAO analysis of TSA information.

Note: Both the MOR and Scorecard contain measures that are used to assess other aspects of 

airport performance besides screener performance, such as safety. We only consider screener 

performance measures to be only those that are most directly related to screener performance, which 

we list in the table above.

a

TSA began deploying AITs in 2007. As of September 2012, there are approximately 700 AITs at 

more than 180 airports. AIT checkpoint utilization is percentage of hours during which at least one 

AIT machine was open. b

Layered security effectiveness is a composite score of two components: (1) an airport’s adherence to 

budgeted full-time equivalent staffing levels and (2) the percentage of passengers and employees 

exposed to layered security techniques. Layered security includes duties in addition to passenger, 

carry-on and checked baggage screening that may be required, such as use of the screening of 

passengers by observation technique.

c

Selectee miss rate is the percentage of selectees that are not initially screened at the checkpoint. 

For example, selectees include individuals on TSA’s Selectee List, who are designated to receive 

additional screening prior to boarding an aircraft.

d

For the Scorecard, the recertification pass rate includes only the results of the role playing scenarios 

conducted to assess various job functions, including physical bag searches, pat downs, and 

screening passengers with disabilities, and does not include the results of the assessments of a 

screener’s threat detection skills on carry-on and checked baggage X-ray machines. 

TSA does not currently monitor private screener performance separately 

from federal screener performance or conduct regular reviews comparing 

the performance of SPP and non-SPP airports. As previously noted, TSA 

has 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 

Mechanisms to Monitor 

Private Screener 

Performance Separately 

from Federal Screeners 

Could Benefit TSA
 

Page 32 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

SPP and non-SPP airports.43 Generally, these reports found that SPP 

airports performed at a level equal to or better than non-SPP airports.44

In addition to using the Scorecard, TSA conducts monthly contractor 

performance management reviews (PMR) at each SPP airport to assess 

the SPP contractor’s performance against the standards set in each SPP 

contract.

However, TSA officials stated that they do not plan to conduct similar 

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

mechanisms of both private and federal screeners, such as the 

Scorecard, to assess screener performance across all commercial 

airports.

45 The PMRs include 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.46

 

43In our 2009 report, we identified three limitations related to TSA’s 2008 methodology for 

comparing screening performance at SPP and non-SPP airports. Specifically, we noted 

that TSA’s methodology did not (1) document the rationale for including the five 

performance measures it reviewed; (2) control or otherwise account for other possible 

factors, such as airport configuration or size; and (3) provide any statistical analyses to 

indicate the level of confidence in the observed differences. We recommended that TSA 

address the limitations if it planned to use the methodology to compare performance at 

SPP and non-SPP airports. While TSA officials stated that they do not plan to conduct 

studies comparing private and federal screener performance, they stated that they would 

provide GAO with a description of how they would address these limitations if TSA 

conducts such studies in the future. As of October 2012, we have not yet received this 

document. See 

Failure to meet the acceptable quality 

levels of performance can result in corrective actions or termination of the 

GAO-09-27R. 

44The 2004 Bearing Point report found that the contract screening operations at the five 

commercial airports under the pilot program performed at the same level or better than 

federally screened operations. The 2007 Catapult Consultant Report found that the SPP 

airports in its sample performed at a level equal to or better than non-SPP airports for the 

four performance measures included in the analysis. The 2009 TSA study found that SPP 

airports in its review generally performed consistently with non-SPP in their category for 

the performance measures included in its analysis.

45The seven SPP airports in Montana are under a single contract and are, therefore, 

assessed together in the PMRs.

46The acceptable quality levels of performance vary by each airport and can be based on, 

for example, program policy or airport category averages for the previous year. According 

to agency officials, not all 10 of the performance measures in the PMRs are assessed at 

each of the SPP airports. For example, SPP airports that are not required to conduct 

layered security hours are not assessed on this performance measure.
 

Page 33 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

contract.47

However, the Scorecard and PMR do not provide a complete picture of 

screener performance at SPP airports because, while both mechanisms 

provide a snapshot of private screener performance at each SPP airport, 

this information on screener performance is not summarized for the SPP 

as a whole or across years, which makes it difficult to identify changes in 

private screener performance. For example, an airport’s Scorecard shows 

the performance of that airport during a 2-week reporting period, as well 

as for the year to date, in comparison with the airport’s goal for each of 

the performance measures. However, it does not show that airport’s 

performance in comparison with that of others in its airport category, 

which TSA officials explained is important when assessing screener 

performance. Likewise, the PMRs present information on an SPP 

contractor’s performance against the standards in their contract during a 

particular month. With the exception of TIP detection rates and 

recertification pass rates, the PMRs do not compare an SPP airport’s 

performance against other airports or, for example, its airport category 

average, which TSA officials stated is important when assessing screener 

performance.

For example, according to TSA officials, TSA developed 

reports for several of the airports that included corrective actions related 

to the protection of sensitive security information.

48

 

47For SPP contractors whose contract allows for an award fee, TSA conducts a semiannual evaluation to determine the amount of the award fee earned during that 6-month 

period. The formula for the award fee is based on a subset of the measures used in the 

PMRs. According to TSA officials, contracts that allow for award fees enable TSA to 

reward contractors for exceeding the conditions set forth in their contract and are available 

only at the larger SPP airports. As of August 2012, San Francisco International Airport 

(category X) and Kansas City International Airport (category I) are the only SPP airports 

whose contracts allow for award fees.

TSA stores paper copies of the results from the 

performance reviews, but it does not transfer the information into an 

electronic system or format that would allow the agency to easily review 

SPP performance over time. During the course of our audit work, TSA 

officials informed us that they have identified this as an area needing 

improvement and plan to introduce a new tool to collect and consolidate 

this information in fiscal year 2013, but were unable to provide specific 

48While it is useful for TSA managers to compare an SPP airport’s performance against its 

airport category for TIP detection rate and recertification pass rate in the PMRs, it is also 

important that the set of measures used to compare screener performance at SPP and 

non-SPP airports address a variety of agency priorities, such as passenger satisfaction. 

For more on the key attributes of successful performance measures, see appendix V. 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

information on the format of this tool and how it will be used. Further, 

neither the Scorecard nor the PMR provides information on performance 

in prior years nor controls for variables that TSA officials explained to us 

are important when comparing private and federal screener performance, 

such as the type of X-ray machine used for TIP detection rates.

Monitoring private screener performance in comparison with federal 

screener performance is 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.49 Further, according to TSA 

guidance on the SPP, one of TSA’s major goals for the SPP is that 

private screeners must perform at the same or better level as federal 

screeners. A mechanism to monitor private versus federal screener 

performance would better position TSA 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 non-SPP airports. TSA 

officials stated that it is not TSA’s goal to ensure that SPP airports 

continue to perform at levels equal to or greater than non-SPP airports, 

but to ensure that all airports operate at their optimal level, which they 

monitor using across-the-board mechanisms, such as the Scorecard. 

However, monitoring private versus federal screener performance could 

also help TSA to identify positive or negative trends in SPP performance 

that could lead to improvements in the program and TSA’s monitoring of 

SPP airports in general, and inform decision-making regarding potential 

future expansion of the SPP.

TSA faces a daunting task in ensuring that a screening workforce is in 

place to consistently implement security protocols across the nation’s 

commercial airports while facilitating passenger travel. Questions about 

the performance of private screeners compared with federal screeners, 

recently enacted statutory provisions, and changes to the program’s 

application and approval process underscore the need for TSA to ensure 

that the program’s application requirements are clearly defined and 

 

49See 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).

Conclusions 
 

Page 35 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

consistently applied so that aviation stakeholders have a full and fair 

opportunity to participate in the program. Thus, a well-defined and clearly 

documented application guideline that states (1) the criteria and process 

that TSA is using to assess airport’s participation in the SPP, (2) how TSA 

will obtain and analyze cost information regarding screening costefficiency and effectiveness and the implications of not responding to 

related application questions, and (3) specific examples of additional 

information airports should consider providing to TSA to help assess 

airports’ suitability for SPP could benefit TSA. Specifically, guidelines 

could help alleviate airports’ uncertainty about the application process 

and better inform TSA to determine whether to approve an airport’s SPP 

application.

It is also incumbent on TSA to be capable of determining if airports 

participating in the program are performing at a level that is equal to or 

greater than the level of security that would be provided by federal 

screeners at the airports through regular monitoring and reporting. 

Although not a prerequisite for approving an application for participation in 

the SPP, TSA must certify to Congress that the level of screening 

services and protection provided by a private screening contractor will be 

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

federal government personnel before entering into a contract with a 

private screening company. While TSA regularly tracks screener 

performance at all airports and reevaluates the measures it uses to 

assess this performance, TSA has not conducted regular reviews 

comparing private and federal screener performance and does not have 

plans to do so. Regular comparison reviews would enable TSA to know 

whether the level of screening services provided by private screening 

contractors is equal to or greater than the level provided at non-SPP 

airports. These reviews 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.

To improve TSA’s SPP application process and to inform decisions 

regarding the future of the SPP, we recommend that the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security direct the Administrator of TSA to take 

the following two actions:

• 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 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 36 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

property at the airport; (2) states how TSA will obtain and analyze 

cost information 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 SPP, and

• develop a mechanism to regularly monitor private versus federal 

screener performance.

We requested comments on a draft of the sensitive version of this report 

from TSA. On November 7, 2012, DHS provided written comments, which 

are reprinted in appendix VI and provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. DHS generally concurred with our two 

recommendations and described actions planned to address them. 

Specifically, 

• DHS stated that TSA will provide as much information as is 

prudent on how the agency would evaluate if an airport’s 

participation in the SPP would compromise security or 

detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of the 

screening of passengers or property at the airport. Further, DHS 

stated that TSA will provide general categories of information in 

the SPP application guidance it plans to issue and will continually 

review the guidance to ensure that airports are comfortable with 

the SPP application process and understand how all the 

information provided will be used to evaluate their application. 

TSA expects to post an overview of the SPP application process 

to the agency’s website by November 30, 2012, that would specify 

details on the data it will use to assess applications and discuss its 

cost-estimating methodology and definition of cost efficiency. We 

believe that these are beneficial steps that would address our 

recommendation once adopted, and help address stakeholder 

concerns about the transparency of the SPP application process.

• DHS stated that starting in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013, 

TSA will produce semi-annual reports that will include an 

evaluation of SPP airport performance against the performance of 

TSA airports as a whole, as well as performance against each 

SPP airport category. Additionally, DHS noted that TSA is in the 

initial planning phase of deploying an electronic data collection 

system to facilitate systematic collection and reporting of SPP 

data, as well as TSA oversight of SPP contractor activities. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 37 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Deployment of the electronic data collection system is targeted for 

the latter part of fiscal year 2013. Once implemented, these new 

reporting mechanisms will address our recommendation by 

facilitating TSA’s efforts to assess private versus federal screener 

performance.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the TSA Administrator, the House Infrastructure and 

Transportation Committee, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO web-site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-4379 or at lords@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

that last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VII.

Sincerely Yours,

Stephen M. Lord

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

This appendix describes how we did our work to address (1) the status of 

Screening Partnership Program (SPP) applications, and airport operator, 

other stakeholder, and the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) 

views on the advantages and disadvantages of participating in the SPP; 

(2) the extent to which TSA has provided guidance to govern the SPP 

application process; and (3) the extent to which TSA assesses and 

monitors the performance of private and federal screeners.

To address all three of these objectives, we interviewed Federal Security 

Directors (FSD); airport operators; screeners; and where applicable, SPP 

contractors at 10 airports. We selected the 10 airports by matching an 

SPP to a non-SPP airport, in each of the five airport categories (category 

X, I, II, III, and IV), based primarily on (1) annual passenger and baggage 

volumes, (2) screener staffing model full-time equivalent allocation, and 

(3) number of check-points and screening lanes.1 Additionally, on the 

basis of available travel resources, we visited 7 of the 10 airports to 

observe airport screening operations, including any unique challenges 

faced by these airports. We surveyed the 28 airport operators who have 

applied to the SPP since its inception up until April 2012 to obtain their 

perspectives on the SPP application process, the advantages and 

disadvantages of participating in private or federal screening, and 

performance measures TSA uses to assess screeners. The 28 airports 

whose airport operators we surveyed include 16 from airports that were 

participating in the SPP at the time of the survey, 2 airports that withdrew 

their applications before TSA made a decision, 3 airports that were 

approved but never transitioned to the SPP because commercial airline 

service was discontinued at the airport, and 7 airports that initially applied 

from March 2009 through April 2012 (when we implemented our survey).2

 

1

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.

A 29th airport, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, applied to the 

SPP for the first time in June 2012 and therefore was not included in our 

survey. Two airport operators did not respond to our survey. One of the 2 

2

Of the 7 airports that applied to the SPP for the first time from March 2009 through April 

2012, 6 were evaluated under TSA’s “clear and substantial advantage” standard and the 

seventh was evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the FAA Modernization Act. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Objectives

Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

was an airport that had withdrawn its application to the SPP before a 

decision was made and a second an airport whose application was 

denied in January 2011 while the “clear and substantial advantage” 

application standard was in effect. We conducted two expert reviews of 

the survey with major aviation associations, and three survey pretests 

with airport operators. In addition to the 28 airport operators in our survey, 

we also interviewed the airport operators of Bozeman Yellowstone 

International Airport and the 5 non-SPP airports we visited to obtain their 

perspectives on the potential advantages and disadvantages of 

participating in the SPP. For this study, our focus is on assessing airport 

screening performance as opposed to individual screener performance. 

We assessed the aggregate of individual screener performance 

measures only to the extent that they reflect overall screening 

performance at airports.

To determine the status of SPP applications, and airport operator, other 

stakeholders’, and TSA’s views on the advantages and disadvantages of 

participating in the SPP, we interviewed officials of TSA’s SPP Program 

Management Office (PMO) and reviewed the 15 SPP applications that 

had been submitted since fiscal year 2009, as well as TSA’s available 

decision memos on the applications.3

To determine the extent to which TSA has provided guidance to govern 

the SPP application process, we reviewed key statutes and policies to 

identify requirements related to the SPP. We also analyzed past and 

current SPP application forms and instructions, as well as interviewed 

TSA headquarters officials, to identify the requirements and process for 

applying to the SPP. As previously noted, we surveyed airport operators, 

which included operators of all 16 SPP airports and the 6 airports whose 

applications TSA denied for not establishing that transitioning to the SPP 

would provide a “clear and substantial advantage to TSA security 

We also analyzed the results of our 

survey of SPP airport operators and operators of airports that have 

applied to the SPP. We also conducted semistructured interviews with 

TSA, contractor, and airport officials during our airport site visit interviews 

as well as interviewed aviation industry stakeholders to identify the 

advantages and disadvantages of using federal and nonfederal 

screeners.

 

3

Decision memos were not available for all SPP applicants because, for example, they 

were not prepared or were lost when TSA transferred to a new file share program.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

operations,” to determine their perspectives on the SPP application 

process. Further, we interviewed airport officials at the 8 airports that 

have applied to the SPP since 2009, which includes the 6 airports that 

applied under TSA’s “clear and substantial advantage” standard, to obtain 

their perspectives on the clarity of the SPP application process. We also 

compared TSA’s application process and requirements against standards 

in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government which calls 

for an agency’s transactions and other significant events to be clearly 

documented and well defined.4

To determine the extent to which TSA assesses and monitors the 

performance of private and federal screeners, we reviewed TSA’s 

screener performance measurement documents, reports, and data 

systems. We also interviewed TSA headquarters officials knowledgeable 

about TSA’s performance management process to identify current 

screener performance measures. At the airports we visited, we observed 

screening operations to identify areas where screener performance could 

be assessed, and interviewed contractor, airport, and TSA officials to 

obtain their perspectives on the current set of performance measures. We 

reviewed TSA’s most recent set of performance measures in the Office of 

Security Operations Executive Scorecard as well as its previous set in the 

Management Objective Report to determine what, if any, improvements 

had been made. To do so, we evaluated the sets of measures against the 

nine key attributes of successful performance measures, which we 

developed in prior reports based on GAO’s prior efforts to examine 

agencies that were successful in implementing the performance 

measurement aspects of the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA).5 We also evaluated TSA’s process for assessing and monitoring 

the performance of federal and private screeners against standards in 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and best 

practices for performance management.6

To determine how screener performance compares at SPP and non-SPP 

airports, we compared screener performance for all 16 SPP airports with 

the average performance of airports in their category, as well as 

 

4

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

5

GAO-03-143. 

6

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, GAO/GGD-96-118, and GAO-03-143. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

nationally, from fiscal year 2009 through 2011. For our comparison, we 

focused on four performance measures: threat image projection (TIP) 

detection rates;

7 recertification pass rates;8 aviation screening 

assessment program (ASAP) covert test results;

9 and presence, 

advisement, communication, and execution (PACE) evaluation results.10

 

7

The TIP system is designed to test private and federal screeners’ detection capabilities 

by projecting threat images, including images of guns and explosives, into bags as they 

are screened. Private and federal screeners are responsible for positively identifying the 

threat image and calling for the bag to be searched. 

We selected these measures primarily based on our review of previous 

studies that compared screener performance of SPP and non-SPP 

airports as well as on our interviews with aviation security subject matter 

experts, including TSA’s FSD, SPP contractors, and airport and aviation 

industry stakeholders. We also selected performance measures for which 

TSA has, for the most part, consistently and systematically collected data 

for our study years. For some of the measures we selected, such as 

PACE evaluations, data were not available for all 3 years or all airports; 

nonetheless, we selected these measures because they represent 

integral aspects of screener performance. We explain these 

circumstances further when we present the data. To ensure the reliability 

of the performance measures data, we (1) interviewed TSA officials who 

use and maintain the data; (2) checked the data for missing information, 

outliers, and obvious errors; and (3) reviewed documentation for the 

relevant data systems to ensure the data’s integrity. On the basis of the 

steps we took, we found the data reliable for the purpose of providing 

summary statistics of screener performance for the four performance 

measures we analyzed. However, as noted earlier in this report, there are 

8

Private and federal screeners must pass annual standardized recertification tests 

composed of image, job knowledge, and standard operating procedures tests. 

9

ASAP tests are covert tests conducted by TSA at both screening checkpoints and 

checked baggage screening areas. ASAP tests are implemented locally by 

unrecognizable role players who attempt to pass threat objects, such as knives, guns, or 

simulated improvised explosive devices, through the screening checkpoints or onto the 

plane in their checked baggage. The tests are designed to assess the operational 

effectiveness of screeners.

10PACE evaluations assess the level of standardization across airports in the following 

four areas: presence (i.e., command presence), advisement (i.e., telling passengers what 

to do), communication, and execution. 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.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

many factors, some of which cannot be controlled for, that may account 

for differences in screener performance; therefore, the differences we 

found in screener performance at SPP and non-SPP airports may not be 

attributed entirely to the use of either federal or private screeners.
Appendix II: TSA’s Screening Partnership 

Program Application History

Page 43 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

As of October 2012, 29 airports have applied for participation in the SPP 

since the inception of the program in 2004 (see table 3).

Table 3: SPP Application History

Airport Airport Code Category Application history

Elko Municipal, NV EKO IV Applied 11/04, withdrew 10/05

Jackson Hole, WY JAC II Applied 1/05, approved 5/05

Kansas City International, MO MCI I Applied 4/05, approved 5/05

Greater Rochester International, NY ROC I Applied 4/05, approved 5/05

San Francisco International, CA SFO X Applied 4/05, approved 5/05

Tupelo Regional, MS TUP IV Applied 4/05, approved 5/05

Joe Foss Field, SD FSD II Applied 4/05, approved 12/07

Key West International, FL EYW II Applied 10/06, approved 5/07

Florida Keys Marathon, FL MTH IV Applied 10/06, approved 5/07

Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, CA STS III Applied 11/06, approved 6/07

E. 34th Street Heliport, NY 6N5 IV Applied 1/07, approved 1/07

Gallup Municipal, NM GUP IV Applied 5/07, approved 10/07

Roswell International, NM ROW IV Applied 6/07, approved 10/07

L.M. Clayton/Wolf Point, MT OLF IV Applied 12/07, approved 8/09

Sidney-Richland Municipal, MT SDY IV Applied 12/07, approved 8/09

Glasgow International/Wokal Field, MT GGW IV Applied 1/08, approved 8/09

Dawson Community, MT GDV IV Applied 1/08, approved 8/09

Frank Wiley Field, MT MLS IV Applied 1/08, approved 8/09

Lewistown Municipal, MT LWT IV Applied 1/08, approved 8/09

Havre City-County, MT HVR IV Applied 1/08, approved 8/09

Branson, MO BBG III Applied 10/08, withdrew 3/09

Bert Mooney, MT BTM III Applied 3/09, denied 1/11, applied 7/11, denied 1/12, 

applied 6/12, approved 8/12

West Yellowstone, MT WYS IV Applied 9/09, denied 1/11, applied 7/11, approved 

1/12

Glacier Park International, MT GPI III Applied 10/09, denied 1/11, applied 3/12, approved 

6/12

Missoula International, MT MSO II Applied 5/10, denied 1/11

Springfield/Branson National, MO SGF II Applied 12/10, denied 1/11

Orlando Sanford International, FL SFB II Applied 2/11, denied 6/11, applied 12/11, denied 2/12, 

applied 2/12, approved 6/12

Sacramento International, CA SMF I Applied 2/12a

Bozeman Yellowstone International, MT

, approved 7/12

BZN II Applied 6/12, approved 8/12

Source: GAO analysis of TSA information

Appendix II: TSA’s Screening Partnership 

Program Application History
Appendix II: TSA’s Screening Partnership 

Program Application History

Page 44 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Notes: The SPP was launched in 2004. The “clear and substantial advantage” standard was 

announced in January 2011 and was used to evaluate applications submitted from March 2009 

through February 2011. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 803, 

126 Stat. 11, 135-36, was enacted in February 2012. San Francisco International Airport, Kansas City 

International Airport, Greater Rochester International Airport, Jackson Hole Airport, and Tupelo 

Regional Airport participated in TSA’s 2-year pilot program using private screening companies to 

screen passengers and checked baggage. See 49 U.S.C. § 44919. Upon completion of the pilot 

program, TSA established a permanent program named the Screening Partnership Program to which 

all five of these airports then applied. See 49 U.S.C. § 44920.

a

Sacramento International Airport submitted its first application to the SPP approximately 1 week 

before the FAA Modernization Act was enacted. In March 2012, TSA revised the SPP application to 

facilitate compliance with provisions of the act and requested that Sacramento International Airport 

resubmit its application using the new application form. While the airport submitted its new application 

form in April 2012, TSA considers the date of receipt to still be February 2012.
Appendix III: Map of Screening Partnership 

Program Airports

Page 45 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

As of October 2012, 16 airports are participating in the SPP and 6 airports 

were recently approved for participation (see figure 4 and table 4).

Figure 4: Airports Participating in or Recently Approved for Participation in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP)

Note: 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.

Appendix III: Map of Screening Partnership 

Program Airports
Appendix III: Map of Screening Partnership 

Program Airports

Page 46 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Table 4: Airports Participating in or Recently Approved for Participation in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP)

Airport Airport Code Category Status 

Jackson Hole, WY JAC II Currently participating

Kansas City International, MO MCI I Currently participating

Greater Rochester International, NY ROC I Currently participating

San Francisco International, CA SFO X Currently participating

Tupelo Regional, MS TUP IV Currently participating

Joe Foss Field, SD FSD II Currently participating

Key West International, FL EYW II Currently participating

Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County, CA STS III Currently participating

Roswell International, NM ROW IV Currently participating

L.M. Clayton/Wolf Point, MT OLF IV Currently participating

Sidney-Richland Municipal, MT SDY IV Currently participating

Glasgow International/Wokal Field, MT GGW IV Currently participating

Dawson Community, MT GDV IV Currently participating

Frank Wiley Field, MT MLS IV Currently participating

Lewistown Municipal, MT LWT IV Currently participating

Havre City-County, MT HVR IV Currently participating

Bert Mooney, MT BTM III Approved pending contract

West Yellowstone, MT WYS IV Approved pending contract

Glacier Park International, MT GPI III Approved pending contract

Orlando Sanford International, FL SFB II Approved pending contract

Sacramento International, CA SMF I Approved pending contract

Bozeman Yellowstone International, MT BZN II Approved pending contract

Source: GAO Analysis of TSA information.
Appendix IV: Other Measures to Assess 

Screener Performance

Page 47 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

TSA collects data on several other performance measures, but, for 

various reasons, they cannot be used to compare private and federal 

screener performance for the purposes of our review. Below, we discuss 

four variables occasionally cited by the airport officials and aviation 

stakeholders we interviewed as possible measures for comparing federal 

and private screening and the reasons we did not use them to compare 

private and federal screener performance.

• Wait times: A wait time is the total cycle time for a passenger to

reach the advanced imaging technology (AIT) machine or walkthrough 

metal detector (whichever is available) from entering the queue. TSA 

officials at some airports collect these data by passing out a card to a 

passenger at the end of the line. We do not present passenger wait 

time data 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.1 Further, 

TSA officials noted that wait times are affected by a number of 

variables that TSA cannot control, such as airline flight schedules.

• Passenger throughput: Passenger throughput is the number of 

passengers screened in each of the screening lanes per hour. These 

data are collected automatically by the screening machines. TSA 

officials stated that they review this measure to ensure that 

passengers are not being screened too quickly, which may mean that 

screeners are not being thorough, or are screened too slowly, which 

may mean that screeners could be more efficient. According to TSA 

officials, passenger throughput is affected by a number of factors that 

are unique to individual airports, including technology, capacity and 

configuration of the checkpoint, type of traveler, and various factors 

related to the flight schedules. While officials noted that there is a goal 

for how many passengers should be screened per hour, a rate below 

this goal is not necessarily indicative of a problem, but could be due to 

a reduced passenger volume, as is likely during nonpeak travel hours. 

For example, at one of the airports we visited, there are few flights 

 

1

TSA’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, 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 AIT.

Appendix IV: Other Measures to Assess 

Screener Performance
Appendix IV: Other Measures to Assess 

Screener Performance

Page 48 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

scheduled for the morning and evening, at which point passenger 

throughput is very low, and several flights scheduled around lunchtime, at which point the passenger throughput is relatively high.

• Human capital measures: We also considered reviewing human 

capital measures such as attrition, absenteeism, and injury rates. 

However, TSA’s Office of Human Capital does not collect these data 

for SPP airports because, according to these officials, maintaining 

information on human capital measures is the sole responsibility of 

the contractor. While the contractors collect and report this information 

to TSA, TSA does not validate the accuracy of the self-reported data. 

Further, TSA does not require that the contractors 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, TSA cannot guarantee that a comparison of SPP and nonSPP airports on these human capital metrics would be an equal 

comparison. TSA officials also stated that they do not use human 

capital measures to compare SPP and non-SPP airports because 

these measures are affected by variables that are not within the 

control of TSA or the contractor. For example, some airports are 

located in areas that have a high cost of living, and as a result, it can 

be difficult to hire screeners because the screener salary may not be 

competitive there.

• “Red team” covert tests: In addition to ASAP tests, TSA’s Office of 

Inspections also conducts covert tests, the results of which are also 

classified. These covert tests are commonly referred to as red team 

tests, and are designed to identify potential vulnerabilities in TSA’s 

screening operations, as opposed to test screeners’ compliance with 

standard operating procedures. We have previously reported that an 

airport’s red team test results represent a snapshot in time and should 

not be considered a comprehensive measurement of any one airport’s 

performance or any individual airport’s performance. Further, while 

GAO analyzed red team tests in these reports, we determined, for 

reasons we cannot report here due to the sensitive security nature of 

the information, that it would not be appropriate to analyze the tests 

for the purpose of comparing screener performance at SPP and nonSPP airports.
Appendix V: GAO’s Assessment of Screener 

Performance Measures

Page 49 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

By adding measures to the Scorecard that addressed other non-securityrelated TSA priorities, TSA improved the set of performance measures it 

uses to asses screener performance. In the past, we have examined 

agencies that were successful in implementing the performance 

measurement aspects of the Government Performance and Results Act 

and concluded that these agencies exhibit certain key characteristics that

it characterized as the nine key attributes of successful performance 

measures.1 While the Management Objective Report (MOR) addressed 

eight of the key attributes, it did not address balance because the set of 

performance measures did not address a variety of agency priorities. 

Balance among a set of performance measures is important because it 

helps to ensure that performance measurement efforts are not 

overemphasizing one or two priorities at the expense of others, which 

may keep managers from understanding the effectiveness of their 

program in supporting the agency’s overall missions and goals. 

Specifically, the MOR did not contain measures related to passenger 

satisfaction which, according to TSA’s Strategic Plan, is part of the 

agency’s mission.2 However, the Office of Security Operations (OSO) 

Executive Scorecard (Scorecard) includes passenger satisfaction 

measures, such as 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 through the airport, which were not 

previously included in the MOR.3

 

1

According to the GPRA, as amended, federal agencies should set program goals, 

measure performance against those goals, and report publicly on their progress. See 31 

U.S.C. § 1115. While GPRA focuses on the agency level, performance goals and 

measures are important management tools for all levels of an agency, such as the 

program or activity level, and accordingly, GAO’s key attributes are applicable at those 

levels as well. For more on the key attributes, see 

By adding measures related to 

passenger satisfaction to the Scorecard, TSA ensured balance in the set 

of performance measures the agency uses to assess screener 

performance and thereby ensured that its assessment of screening 

operation performance would be representative of a variety of program 

and agency goals (see table 5).

GAO-04-143. 

2

According to TSA’s fiscal year 2005-2009 Strategic Plan, the agency’s most recent 

strategic plan as of July 2012, TSA strives to balance security with customer service. 

3

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

related to passenger and baggage screening. The passenger satisfaction metrics in the 

Scorecard do not include other types of customer contacts made by passengers, such as

via comment cards at local airports or letters written to the TSA Administrator.

Appendix V: GAO’s Assessment of Screener 

Performance Measures
Appendix V: GAO’s Assessment of Screener 

Performance Measures

Page 50 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Table 5: GAO’s Analysis of the Management Objective Report and Executive Scorecard against the Key Attributes of 

Successful Performance Measures

Attribute Definition

GAO’s assessment

MOR Scorecard

Linkage Performance goals and measures should align with an agency’s 

or program’s goals and mission. √ √

Clarity Performance measures have clarity when they are clearly stated 

and do not contain extraneous elements. √ √

Measurable Target Where appropriate, performance measures should have 

quantifiable targets to facilitate comparisons between projected 

performance and actual results and be reasonable predictors of 

desired outcomes.

√ √

Objectivity Measures should be reasonably free of significant bias that 

would distort the accurate assessment of performance. √ √

Reliability Measures should be amenable to applying standard procedures 

for collecting data or calculating results so that they would likely 

produce the same results if repeated. 

√ √

Core Program 

Activities 

Performance measures should be scoped to evaluate the 

activities that an entity is expected to perform to support the 

program.

√ √

Limited Overlap Measures overlap when the results of multiple measures provide 

basically the same information, which does provide any benefit to 

program management.

√ √

Balance Balance exists when a suite of measures ensures that an 

organization’s various priorities are addressed.

X 

Does not address 

customer service

√

Government- wide 

Priorities 

Performance measures should cover a range of related 

performance measures to address government wide priorities, 

such as quality, timeliness, and efficiency.

This attribute is not applicable because 

TSA and DHS may address governmentwide priorities through its other missions.

Key: √ = Addressed, X= Not addressed

Source: GAO Analysis of TSA documents

Note: Both the MOR and the Scorecard contain measures that are used to assess other aspects of 

airport performance besides screener performance, such as safety. For this analysis, we selected the 

measures most directly related to screener performance.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 51 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 52 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 53 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 54 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Error! No text of specified style in document.

Page 55 GAO-13-208 Screening Partnership Program

Stephen M. Lord, (202) 512-4379 or lords@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Glenn Davis, Assistant Director, 

and Edith Sohna, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Erin 

O’Brien and Michelle Woods made significant contributions to the work. 

Carl Barden, Stuart Kaufman, Stanley Kostyla, and Minette Richardson 

assisted with design and methodology. Tom Lombardi provided legal 

support. Linda Miller provided assistance in report preparation, and Lydia 

Araya made contributions to the graphics presented in the report.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(441121)
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.