A federal watchdog has found that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is responsible for overseeing airport security procedures, has mistakes in their evaluations of applications for private screeners at airports, according to USA Today. However, the agency says the flaws in procedure have been remedied.
The overview was conducted by the general for the Department of Homeland Security and found that the TSA files from five different airports that applied for permission to hire screeners under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) had documents that hadn't been finalized and also contained inaccuracies.
"Without improving aspects of its administration of SPP, TSA increases the risk of not selecting the best contractor for the screening process," Anne Richards, the assistant inspector general for audits, wrote in the report obtained by USA Today, dated June 20.
Some documents were mislabeled, but according to John Halinski, the deputy administrator of the TSA, that didn't negatively impact the agency's review of the applications.
"TSA believes the SPP is a robust, effective and well-run program, and the [inspector general's] recommendations will help improve it," Halinski wrote.
The effort provides the most effective security in the most effective manner, according to the TSA, who released a statement on Monday agreeing with the inspector general's recommendations.
"In fact, TSA has already revised its SPP application process to ensure application decisions are fully documented and updated the formula for analyzing cost efficiency in the procurement process," the agency said in the statement.
The report brought a previous disagreement, about whether private security screeners can be as efficient as the TSA, back to the forefront. Congress created the agency after 9/11 to create a federal program for passenger and baggage screening to prevent another terrorist attack.
The agency has approved 16 airports to contract out private screening. Airports that use private screeners say they are better able to move screeners around where needed and that additional private workers are easier to find than federal workers.
The inspector general found that more than half the documents the TSA used to evaluate applications for screeners were incomplete. They also found errors, such as an overestimation of the cost of private screeners by $162,057. A different document overestimated the savings of using private screeners by $423,572.
"Although in these two cases, TSA correctly approved the applications, there is still a risk that inaccurate estimates could lead to incorrect decisions," the report stated.
The inaccurate figures weren't actually inaccurate, but just mislabeled, according to Halinski.
"Although the mislabeling is regrettable, these errors did not lead TSA to miss 'opportunities to save funds,'" Halinski wrote.
"This report proves that TSA still uses its faulty cost methodology to justify its political agenda at the expense of airports, travelers and taxpayers," Representative John Mica, a Republican from Florida, told USA Today.
The TSA "continues to struggle with developing a consistent and reliable model for conducting cost assessments," Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who is also the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said. He has proposed legislation to overhaul the private-screening program.
This article is copyrighted by Travelers Today, the travel news leader
