Newsstand - Airport screeners' trainers stay at luxury hotels

http://24hour.startribune.com/login/?goto=http%3A//www.startribune.com/stories/484/3989983.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Here's one without having to login to read the article courtesy of cnn.com. Click on link to read full article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/07/16/tsa.spending.ap/index.html

Senators probe TSA contractor's luxury hotel stays

WASHINGTON (AP) --Skeptics in Congress and elsewhere want to know why private recruiters retained to hire thousands of airport security screeners found it necessary to work out of lush resort hotels with golf courses, pools and spas.

The Department of Homeland Security's inspector general is trying to find out who made that decision and why.

The inquiry comes amid rising criticism by lawmakers who say the Transportation Security Administration is not forthcoming enough about how it spends money on a variety of things.

The inspector general is auditing bills submitted by NCS Pearson -- now called Pearson Government Solutions -- which was hired by the TSA to recruit security screeners.

The inquiry was prompted by a letter from Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon, who questioned a seven-week stay by 20 Pearson recruiters at the Wyndham Peaks Resort and Golden Door Spa in Telluride, Colorado. The resort boasts an 18-hole golf course, spectacular views, an indoor pool and fluffy robes.

Dorgan and Wyden said they demanded the investigation after an earlier inquiry was brushed off by TSA chief James Loy.

Not too much of substance in the CNN story and still a lot of questions to be answered. The story said they paid negotiated rates between $50-something and $208. They weren't paying $500-a-night here.

When my husband travels on the government dime and is by himself he gets the best hotels he can for his per diem. Often that's Hyatts and resorts. When he's in a group that's a little more high profile they often end up paying more than the majors - Hilton, Hyatt, Starwood - to stay Holiday Inns and the like just so the public doesn't get the idea they're abusing their tax dollars. It's crazy - stay in a dump, but pay more just to avoid the often-misleading stories such as this one.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
Not too much of substance in the CNN story and still a lot of questions to be answered. The story said they paid negotiated rates between $50-something and $208. They weren't paying $500-a-night here.
</font>

This has been discussed here in several threads. Regardless of the rate they paid, their reasons for setting up in Teluride to hire potential screeners were absolutely rediculous. They claimed it was most centrally located and easy to get to and had higer tech equipment available. Pure BS.

NCS Pearson exceeded their $104 million contract by $600 million.

Do a search for Teluride in this forum and you'll find more about it.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

So were the 18 year old females interviewed in a room with a double bed?

tazi: I've read the stories and they are all very weak. What was the actual rate they paid per night? It says parking was $21. In San Francisco you'll pay as much as $40; $20 at a dumpy Travellodge. The resort has a golf course, but did they use it? Did they pay for it themselves or bill the government? None of the stories answers these questions.

I do wonder why they needed 20 people to hire 50 and why they had to stay there so many weeks. But in seems premature to criticize the choice of places to stay when nothing I've read says the nightly rate they paid. And if a private contractor went over budget, the excess should in no way be paid for by the government.

I would like to see a far better researched story on this matter. Stories that hype "fluffy robes" and the price of room service items and mini-bar items that we don't even know if ordered are weak and do a great disservice. Give us facts.


[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 07-16-2003).]

facts? from CNN? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
Best regards,
Dairenn Lombard
Los Angeles, CA

I think the travel expenses probably pale in comparison to the other ways primes (and their subs) have screwed the TSA since it's launch. As an employee of a company that was a sub to Lockheed Martin, I was consistently amazed at their gross incompetence in managing the rollout of checkpoint "enhancements," ("um, your proposed checkpoint design takes up the entire terminal for this small Alaskan airport, Mr. Lockheed") which contrasted with their proven ability to screw the dipsh*t project managers at the TSA. The six months I worked with those idiots were some of the most painful in my life. Sound like I have a lot of love for Lockheed and the TSA? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif


[This message has been edited by snorkmaster (edited 07-18-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
Not too much of substance in the CNN story and still a lot of questions to be answered. The story said they paid negotiated rates between $50-something and $208. They weren't paying $500-a-night here.

When my husband travels on the government dime and is by himself he gets the best hotels he can for his per diem. Often that's Hyatts and resorts. When he's in a group that's a little more high profile they often end up paying more than the majors - Hilton, Hyatt, Starwood - to stay Holiday Inns and the like just so the public doesn't get the idea they're abusing their tax dollars. It's crazy - stay in a dump, but pay more just to avoid the often-misleading stories such as this one.</font>

Call me crazy but are you saying Holiday Inn doesn't have a government rate? I'm not saying anything went wrong here yet but come on, many middle range hotels can handle the recruitment process and would be more than happy to have the business. NO government worker should be staying at resorts with my tax money. They are not spending their hard earned money, they are spending MINE and YOURS. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
Not too much of substance in the CNN story and still a lot of questions to be answered. The story said they paid negotiated rates between $50-something and $208. They weren't paying $500-a-night here.

When my husband travels on the government dime and is by himself he gets the best hotels he can for his per diem. Often that's Hyatts and resorts. When he's in a group that's a little more high profile they often end up paying more than the majors - Hilton, Hyatt, Starwood - to stay Holiday Inns and the like just so the public doesn't get the idea they're abusing their tax dollars. It's crazy - stay in a dump, but pay more just to avoid the often-misleading stories such as this one.</font>

P.S. Maybe his per diem shouldn't be able to get him into a "Hyatt or resort". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

fireworksboys: I kid you not. There are times when a Hyatt will offer a government rate that's say $80 and the Holiday Inn is charging $85. (Usually Hiltons and Hyatts will match government per diem rates, especially if they're not full.) Because of public perception, they will go with the Holiday Inn and spend more taxpayer money when there's a bunch of them together. You can also do a google search and find out the government's per diem rates for each city. They really pretty accurately reflect the cost of each city. It's then up to the worker to find a hotel that will match the rate. BTW, if my husband stays at a Hilton he gets free breakfast. That also costs the taxpayer less.

Basically, the public's perception and half-baked media stories, often get people riled up, but in the end cost us more.

[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 07-19-2003).]

Forget the rates. Forget the robes.

Is this really the place you should be looking to hire someone? Wouldn't somewhere near an AIRPORT make just a bit more sense?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NoStressHere:
Forget the rates. Forget the robes.

Is this really the place you should be looking to hire someone? Wouldn't somewhere near an AIRPORT make just a bit more sense?</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ideasmilie.gif

Fox 5 here in DC ran the story last night citing the Colorado junket and one other place I don't recall. They then had an interview with TSA Public Affairs guru and apologist Robert Johnson.

I vividly remember from my government days that perception was just as bad as reality. I really don't care if they got a government rate at any resort hotel within per diem. The perception that the TSA and its contractors sent the public and Congress stinks. This whole incident sure doesn't pass the "Washington Post Test."

Remember -- the US Regime Change occurs on November 2, 2004.

Thank God we don't get our money's worth from the TSA.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
tazi: I've read the stories and they are all very weak. What was the actual rate they paid per night? It says parking was $21. In San Francisco you'll pay as much as $40; $20 at a dumpy Travellodge. The resort has a golf course, but did they use it? Did they pay for it themselves or bill the government? None of the stories answers these questions.

I do wonder why they needed 20 people to hire 50 and why they had to stay there so many weeks. But in seems premature to criticize the choice of places to stay when nothing I've read says the nightly rate they paid. And if a private contractor went over budget, the excess should in no way be paid for by the government.

I would like to see a far better researched story on this matter. Stories that hype "fluffy robes" and the price of room service items and mini-bar items that we don't even know if ordered are weak and do a great disservice. Give us facts.</font>

There was a Congressional hearing held in February and, as I said, there were many other stories about this earlier in the year and they are discussed here in the forum. And yes, the government did pay NCS Peason all but $90 million of $600 million they went over budget. Here's a couple links I found:

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2003/03132003_tsa.html

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/17_24/federal/20354-1.html
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The resort "is so isolated from working population centers, and the effort was so poorly publicized, that in some cases only one or two potential recruits came in per day," the senators wrote.
</font>

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/07/18/news/national/9dbd f0ae8c6b7b2b994ed6514124df47.txt (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/07/18/news/national/9dbdf0ae8c6b7b2b994ed6514124df47.txt)
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"TSA recruiters put staying at posh resorts ahead of their mission to enhance security at America's airports," the senators wrote in a June 27 letter to Loy.

The query about the Colorado hotel raised questions about other luxury hotels where contractors stayed, sometimes for months: the Waldorf Astoria in New York, the Manele Bay Hotel in Hawaii, the Hawk's Cay Resort in the Florida Keys and the Wyndham Sugar Bay Resort in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.
</font>


Do a search on Yahoo or Google for Telluride TSA

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 07-22-2003).]