A12 AGONY AT THE AIRPORT Audits fault TSA for not properly evaluating technology tsa from A1
tempt at improving electronic screening in airport security
lines.Designed to dislodge explo- sive particles by shooting air blasts at passengers, the detec- tors turned out to be unreliable and expensive to operate. But they were deployed in many air- ports before the TSA had fully tested them, according to the Government Accountability Of- fice. The puffers were “deployed
even though TSA officials were aware that tests conducted dur- ing 2004 and 2005 on earlier [puffer] models suggested they did not demonstrate reliable per- formance in an airport environ- ment,” according to aGAOreport fromOctober 2009. TSA officials told the GAOthat
they had deployed the puffers to “respond quickly to the threat posed by a suicide bomber” after incidents on Russian airliners in 2004. The agency stopped buying
and deploying the puffer ma- chines to airports in June 2006. TheGAOsaid in itsOctober 2009 report that 116 puffers were in storage. A TSA spokesman said the agency had “since disposed of” the machines or transferred themto other agencies.
Analyzing risks, benefits The government auditors also
expressed concerns that the TSA hasn’t done good assessments of the risks, cost benefits or perfor- mances of other new technolo- gies for screening at checkpoints. TheGAOhas said that the TSA
has “not conducted a risk assess- ment or cost-benefit analysis, or established quantifiable perfor- mance measures” on its new technologies. “As a result, TSA does not have assurance that its efforts are focused on the highest priority security needs.” In other cases, equipment to
trace explosives and other devic- es for screening passengers have had technical problems and pro- jected cost overruns, according to a recent GAO report. The full-body scanners that
have made headlines in recent weeks for their revealing images of passengers were tested more thoroughly than the puffer ma- chines before being deployed, the GAO has found. But the auditors faulted the agency for not fully justifying their cost, saying that the agency’s plan to double the number of body scanners in com- ing years will require more per- sonnel to run andmaintain them — an expense of as much as $2.4 billion. “They’re adding layers of secu-
rity and technology, but they need to do a cost-benefit analysis to make sure this is worthwhile,” said Steve Lord of the GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team,who has reviewed the TSA’s purchases. “They need to look at
Where TSA money has gone Since its creation aſter the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration has doled out nearly $14 billion to contractors for products and services ranging from telecommunications and computer networking to advanced passenger-screening technology. Here are the top five recipients, listed by the amount of money they contracted with the TSA for over the past nine years, as ranked by
usaspending.gov:
Top five TSA contractors Company
What did the TSA buy?
Unisys Computer technology firm based in Blue Bell, Pa.
Amount of TSA contracts since 2001
What company sells to the TSA
$1.83 billion
Multiyear contracts to provide computer hardware and soſtware, plus a range of informa- tion technology work and computer support.
Total employees, worldwide
Annual company revenue in 2009
23,000 $4.6 billion Lockheed Martin
Largest defense contractor in the United States, based in Bethesda.
$1.13 billion
Multiple contracts: human resource services, training transportation security personnel, information technology system for credentialing maritime workers at ports.
133,000 $44 billion
Safran
Multinational corporation based in France. Owns Morpho Detection.
$1.08 billion
Safran’s subsidiary, Morpho Detection of Newark, Calif., sells TSA devices and equipment for screening baggage, passengers and air cargo.
800 employees (Morpho Detection)
$13.7 billion (Safran) Boeing
World’s biggest aircraſt manufacturer, based in Chicago.
$1.05 billion
Installation of explosive detection equipment at airports. Upgrades of passenger-screening equipment and installa- tion of body scanners at airports.
159,000 $68.3 billion
L-3 Communications
Sixth-largest defense contractor in the United States, based in New York.
$862.38 million*
Variety of equipment for cargo and baggage, including X-ray machine scanners that look for explosives. Advanced imaging technology, also known as body scanners.
65,000 $15.6 billion
Top five products or services that contractors sold to the TSA from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2010:
Airport security devices and other equipment: $3.03 billion
Administrative services such as accounting and human resources: $1.14 billion
Research services, including testing screening equipment: $854.53 million
Guard services: $852.50 million
Telecommunications and computer services: $786.91 million
*L-3 says it has done $1.3 billion worth of contract work with the TSA from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2010. Te difference in the number from
usaspending.gov involves two contracts from the TSA’s early years. Tose two deals for airport screening equipment were worth about $524 million.
whether there is other technolo- gy to deploy at checkpoints. Are we getting the best technology for the given pot of money? Is there a cheaper way to provide the same level of security through other technology?” John Huey, an airport security
expert, said the TSA’s contracts with vendors to buy more equip- ment and devices often aren’t done in a “systematic way.” “TSA has an obsession of find-
ing a single box that will solve all its problems,” Huey said. “They’ve spent and wasted mon- ey looking for that one box, and there is no such solution. . . . They respond to congressional mandates and the latest head- lines of attempted terrorist at- tackswithout any thought to risk management or separating out the threats in a logical way.” TSA officials disagree. They
say there are responsible process- es in place to research, develop and fund new technologies for airport security. And they point out that some gee-whiz equip- ment that vendors have pitched has taken too long to develop or has been too expensive to pro- duce. “We have to be predictive and
acquire the best technology to- day to address the known threats by being informed of the latest intelligence and be proactive in working on what could be the next threats,” said TSA Adminis- trator John Pistole. “It is a tall order.” He said that technology isn’t
the only security effort under- way. The TSA uses a combination of tactics, including terrorist watch lists, intelligence gather-
ing and training security officers, to look for suspicious behavior.
Art and science The billions of dollars the TSA
has spent on technology has been “a good investment,” Pistole said, buthe said that developing devic- es is full of risk. “It is a lot of art with the science. We’re always competing for the best technolo- gy at the best price. It is just a constantly changing dynamic en- vironment.” After 9/11, there was talk of
cargo containers that couldwith- stand explosions, for example, but airport security experts said they never came to fruition, in part because they were too heavy and airlines didn’t want to pay for the extra fuel to carry them. Another much talked-about device, a shoe scanner thatwould
About this series
The United States created the Transportation Security Administration in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, to improve security for all travelers. Billions of dollars later, the changes are most apparent at airports. Passengers walk a gantlet of surveillance: They surrender sharp objects and slip off their shoes. They submit to revealing body scans or intrusive pat-downs. Canine units sniff for explosives, and plainclothes officers watch the unaware. This occasional series from TheWashington Post examines the new world of travel security. Despite the changes, transportation experts, government auditors and lawmakers question the effectiveness of some specific methods and say vulnerabilities in the system still put travelers at risk.
6
Agony at the airport: For complete coverage of air security issues, visit
washingtonpost.com/transportation.
allow passengers to keep their shoes on while going through a checkpoint, has not been fully deployed to airports. Twelve companies are vying to provide shoe scanners to U.S. airports, but the TSA has not chosen one. Contractors said they were re-
sponding to the requests the agency puts out for new ways to prevent terrorists in a world that has an ever-changing threat. Ex- ecutives at airport security com- panies say they find that the TSA often buys its screening equip- ment and technologies to face the most recent threat rather than anticipating what might come next. “We don’t always see awell-de-
fined roadmap of what they want,” said Tom Ripp, president of the Security and Detection Systems division of L-3 Commu-
nications, a major security con- tractor. Part of the problem is that
experts disagree about what con- stitutes an effective airport secu- rity system, and policy makers are reluctant to embrace some techniques—such as profiling— that American society finds ob- jectionable. “Since the introductionofmet-
al detectors in the 1970s, technol- ogies have been bought and cob- bled together in a somewhat piecemeal approach,” said Tom LaTourrette, a security expert at RAND Corp., a nonprofit re- search institute. “No one has been able to
provide a satisfactory answer to the question of how to best structure aviation security,” he said.
‘Big money’ with TSA The rush to improve security
and quickly protect the public has also led to some shortcuts in contracting procedures, accord- ing to government reports. A March audit from the De-
partment ofHomeland Security’s inspector general looked at 29 support service contracts that the TSA had issued to buy new technologies for baggage and passenger screening equipment, worth a total of $662 million. It found that the agency “did not provide adequate management and oversight” on the contracts. It concluded that the TSA “did
not have reasonable assurance that contractors were perform- ing as required, that it contracted for the services it needed, that it received the services it paid for, or that taxpayers were receiving
SOURCE:
usaspending.gov THE WASHINGTON POST
the best value.” The TSA said it has made improvements in its contracting process and over- sight efforts. Although big companies have
been quick to respond to the new government market for air secu- rity, smaller firms — which often are incubators for cutting-edge technologies — say they have faced frustrations. Clint Seward of Acton,Mass., started trying in the late 1980s to sell the govern- ment a device about the size of a laptop called a BCT (bottle con- tent tester) that would detect hazardous liquids in bottles and allow people to carry water bot- tles or sodas on planes. “We were trying to convince
them this made sense, but you couldn’t get a consensus to get them to roll it out,” Seward said. Then 9/11 happened. “The day after they said, ‘Can
you give us a quote for 1,500 of these?’ ” Seward said. “I’mthink- ing, ‘Sure.’ ”He did the quote, but he said that the TSA didn’t have the money to fund it at first, and then he faced competition on the idea. “By the time TSA got themon-
ey for it, the big guys took over,” Seward said. “They realized it was big money to be made with TSA. They pushed their way in.” Last year, the TSA bought 500
bottled-liquid scanners in a $22 million contract with Smiths De- tection. It has deployed more than 600 of the scanners to airports nationwide and expects to deploymore next year.
hedgpethd@washpost.com
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
EZ RE
KLMNO
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56