Some Basic Questions About Body Scanner Procurement
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,160
Some Basic Questions About Body Scanner Procurement
I haven't had the chance to dig through various publication (GAO, DHS, or press), nor have I had the time to do a historical search on FedBizzOpps to understand the procurement history of the Strip Search Machines. So, I thought I would throw out some questions that perhaps some other of you have thought about and researched.
1. Why are there two completely different types of machines? Clearly, there was one set of specifications. But, they went with two different manufactures, two completely different designs using two completely different technologies.
2. Did they down-select from more than two different types of technologies? Are there other types of scanners that could have satisfied their requirements?
3. Why didn't they down-select to just one type of machine? Two machines require two sets of operations and maintenance manuals and spare parts. There are two types of training programs required. There are two completely different sets of installation and test documentation and two completely different sets of interface control documents and two completely different sets of facility requirements.
4. Did they go with two types because of warp-speed plans to install them as quickly as possible? Was it the case that one manufacturer could not produce them fast enough for the TSA? If this was the case, why not down-select to one type and do a second-source procurement to increase your production rate?
5. How do they decide which airports get which machines? One clearly has a smaller footprint than the other. Perhaps one has a higher floor-loading than the other. Perhaps one draws more power than the other? Perhaps a particular airport director may not want radiation-generating equipment at his airport (if he/she even got a vote).
All of these questions set aside, for the moment, my personal loathing of this equipment at many different levels and the public speculation of Chertoff personally profiting from the acquisition of the Cancer Machine version.
However, this does make for an interesting look from an acquisition strategy perspective. I've got my own theories, but I will wait to read what others have written.
1. Why are there two completely different types of machines? Clearly, there was one set of specifications. But, they went with two different manufactures, two completely different designs using two completely different technologies.
2. Did they down-select from more than two different types of technologies? Are there other types of scanners that could have satisfied their requirements?
3. Why didn't they down-select to just one type of machine? Two machines require two sets of operations and maintenance manuals and spare parts. There are two types of training programs required. There are two completely different sets of installation and test documentation and two completely different sets of interface control documents and two completely different sets of facility requirements.
4. Did they go with two types because of warp-speed plans to install them as quickly as possible? Was it the case that one manufacturer could not produce them fast enough for the TSA? If this was the case, why not down-select to one type and do a second-source procurement to increase your production rate?
5. How do they decide which airports get which machines? One clearly has a smaller footprint than the other. Perhaps one has a higher floor-loading than the other. Perhaps one draws more power than the other? Perhaps a particular airport director may not want radiation-generating equipment at his airport (if he/she even got a vote).
All of these questions set aside, for the moment, my personal loathing of this equipment at many different levels and the public speculation of Chertoff personally profiting from the acquisition of the Cancer Machine version.
However, this does make for an interesting look from an acquisition strategy perspective. I've got my own theories, but I will wait to read what others have written.
#2
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SJC
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,628
First of all, I wasn't previously aware that the funding for the majority of the scanners that are currently deployed came from the 2009 stimulus. I assumed it was some normal allocation of TSA's budget, but I'm even further disgusted to know that money that was intended to get America moving was spent to smack us down.
The only thing I've found so far that's relevant to this is that the Recovery Act specified that the TSA "shall prioritize the award of these funds to accelerate the installations at locations with completed design plans."
5. How do they decide which airports get which machines? One clearly has a smaller footprint than the other. Perhaps one has a higher floor-loading than the other. Perhaps one draws more power than the other? Perhaps a particular airport director may not want radiation-generating equipment at his airport (if he/she even got a vote).
Last edited by SFOSpiff; Jul 20, 2011 at 9:39 pm
#3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
5. How do they decide which airports get which machines? One clearly has a smaller footprint than the other. Perhaps one has a higher floor-loading than the other. Perhaps one draws more power than the other? Perhaps a particular airport director may not want radiation-generating equipment at his airport (if he/she even got a vote).
#4
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 240
First of all, I wasn't previously aware that the funding for the majority of the scanners that are currently deployed came from the 2009 stimulus. I assumed it was some normal allocation of TSA's budget, but I'm even further disgusted to know that money that was intended to get America moving was spent to smack us down.
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,160
First of all, I wasn't previously aware that the funding for the majority of the scanners that are currently deployed came from the 2009 stimulus. I assumed it was some normal allocation of TSA's budget, but I'm even further disgusted to know that money that was intended to get America moving was spent to smack us down.
The only thing I've found so far that's relevant to this is that the Recovery Act specified that the TSA "shall prioritize the award of these funds to accelerate the installations at locations with completed design plans."
The only thing I've found so far that's relevant to this is that the Recovery Act specified that the TSA "shall prioritize the award of these funds to accelerate the installations at locations with completed design plans."
But, the pork $ just paid for copies. All of the original design and acquisition strategy was done before the economy went in the tank -- I want to say as early as 2005-2006. That will be harder to track down.
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,160
Found It...
Recovery.gov
Here are some interesting pages:
Rapiscan non-competitive contracts using stimulus funds
I couldn't find anything for L-3. Perhaps that's why there are far less of them out there?
Here are some interesting pages:
Rapiscan non-competitive contracts using stimulus funds
I couldn't find anything for L-3. Perhaps that's why there are far less of them out there?
#8
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
This has been policy for years, and I am sure there are exceptions allowed. However, as quoted from a March 4, 2009, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Government Contracting", Obama said:
"Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts ... creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. "
Government agencies are encouraged to contract out to different companies. As to whether or not such a policy is actually effective is another story.
#9
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
This is not unique to AIT. TSA employees different types of ETD, x-ray, baggage EDS, and so on. There are multiple reasons for this, but to put plainly, it is the policy of the federal government.
This has been policy for years, and I am sure there are exceptions allowed. However, as quoted from a March 4, 2009, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Government Contracting", Obama said:
"Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts ... creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. "
Government agencies are encouraged to contract out to different companies. As to whether or not such a policy is actually effective is another story.
This has been policy for years, and I am sure there are exceptions allowed. However, as quoted from a March 4, 2009, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Government Contracting", Obama said:
"Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts ... creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. "
Government agencies are encouraged to contract out to different companies. As to whether or not such a policy is actually effective is another story.
The use of multiple contractors permits more competitive bidding and, theoretically, lower cost.
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,160
This is not unique to AIT. TSA employees different types of ETD, x-ray, baggage EDS, and so on. There are multiple reasons for this, but to put plainly, it is the policy of the federal government.
This has been policy for years, and I am sure there are exceptions allowed. However, as quoted from a March 4, 2009, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Government Contracting", Obama said:
"Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts ... creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. "
Government agencies are encouraged to contract out to different companies. As to whether or not such a policy is actually effective is another story.
This has been policy for years, and I am sure there are exceptions allowed. However, as quoted from a March 4, 2009, "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Government Contracting", Obama said:
"Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts ... creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. "
Government agencies are encouraged to contract out to different companies. As to whether or not such a policy is actually effective is another story.
The scanners were procured under a design & development contract before production contracts were issued. There are significant non-recurring engineering and life-cycle cost considerations that don't exist when buying stuff off the GSA schedule. Since the Recovery.gov data clearly shows that the x-ray scanners were bought under sole-source contracts, I'm having a hard time reconciling how anyone could have written a JOFOC that made it through legal approval (Francine) when there was a proven competitor who met all requirements (L-3). FYI, as far as I could tell, there were no L-3 machines bought using stimulus funds.
#12
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
#13
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SJC
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,628
"Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts ... creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer. "
#14
Join Date: Oct 2010
Programs: AA ex-EXP (buh-bye!), HH Gold, SPG Gold, UM Go Blue
Posts: 543
First of all, I wasn't previously aware that the funding for the majority of the scanners that are currently deployed came from the 2009 stimulus. I assumed it was some normal allocation of TSA's budget, but I'm even further disgusted to know that money that was intended to get America moving was spent to smack us down.
I knew that it came from stimulus, and asked my representatives in Congress multiple times about the stimulus-spending angle last year, and not one responded to that part of the question.
How much decaying infrastructure could we have repaired with those tens of millions of dollars, providing jobs for low-income manual laborers who are otherwise completely screwed? It is disgusting on so many levels.
#15
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SJC
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,628
That takes it from disgusting to vomitous.