A promised answer!
Aug 21, 2008 | 10:20 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
A promised answer!
...Kind of.
I don't remember who, exactly, asked the question pertaining to the private security at the airports, nor do I remember where exactly it was asked - the thread is buried now. So, ta-da, I'll just make a new topic and post it here.
The actual old management directives are in archive up in the administrative office, so I wasn't able to go read the from-the-horse's-mouth version of it, but I did a bit of detective work to try to get an answer for your question about liability issues in the privatized airports. Found something on the TSA intranet which linked me to the directives section, whereupon I think I found what you were looking for. Since it's intranet, I can't just link you to the page, but it's not listed as SSI, so I'm going to put in the information from the FAQ that I think you were after.
The only reservation you should know about is that the information seems to be old - possibly as long ago as 2004. Whether that means it's out of date or not (and, therefore, inaccurate), I don't know, but this is the only thing I was able to find.
[post-script: After I had finished proofreading my post, I decided to see if there was any more information on the SPP on the intranet. I clicked the SPP overview link, and was then redirected to the TSA's public page, upon which the Program FAQ appears to have all of the same exact information on it. It can be found here. Again, no date, but it all seems to be the same. Some of it's just worded a little differently, apparently to make it more end-user friendly].
I might be wrong, but this particular question seems to indicate that even though the screening-floor personnel at the airport are contract employees, the budget of the security setup is still made and paid for by the TSA. Apparently, all the rest of the airports who decided to remain with federal screening and not opt-out of it, chose to do so because they prefer it or are indifferent to who actually does the screening, and not because of the fact they'd have to pay for it.
And, just as a bonus:
...And...
Which seems to indicate that even if a given airport were to go to contract private screening, it'd still be the same people in the roles of the screeners and supervisors. They'd just have federal benefits (one of the SPP requirements is that private screeners have benefits and pay equal to or greater than, but not less than, their federal counterparts) without being federal employees.
Hope that answers the question you had! Now if only I could remember who had asked it...
I don't remember who, exactly, asked the question pertaining to the private security at the airports, nor do I remember where exactly it was asked - the thread is buried now. So, ta-da, I'll just make a new topic and post it here.
The actual old management directives are in archive up in the administrative office, so I wasn't able to go read the from-the-horse's-mouth version of it, but I did a bit of detective work to try to get an answer for your question about liability issues in the privatized airports. Found something on the TSA intranet which linked me to the directives section, whereupon I think I found what you were looking for. Since it's intranet, I can't just link you to the page, but it's not listed as SSI, so I'm going to put in the information from the FAQ that I think you were after.
The only reservation you should know about is that the information seems to be old - possibly as long ago as 2004. Whether that means it's out of date or not (and, therefore, inaccurate), I don't know, but this is the only thing I was able to find.
[post-script: After I had finished proofreading my post, I decided to see if there was any more information on the SPP on the intranet. I clicked the SPP overview link, and was then redirected to the TSA's public page, upon which the Program FAQ appears to have all of the same exact information on it. It can be found here. Again, no date, but it all seems to be the same. Some of it's just worded a little differently, apparently to make it more end-user friendly].
28. Q: Who will set security standards for airports once Opt-Out begins?
A: TSA will continue to set the security protocols and standards for commercial airports nationwide.
A: TSA will continue to set the security protocols and standards for commercial airports nationwide.
8. Q: What will happen if an airport participates in the SPP and requires more screening resources due to passenger growth or a new terminal opening?
A: TSA will handle this situation like it would for any other contract that has requirements that evolve. If deemed necessary, a contract modification will be issued.
A: TSA will handle this situation like it would for any other contract that has requirements that evolve. If deemed necessary, a contract modification will be issued.
9. Q: What kind of liability coverage do the contractors now get at the five pilot airports?
A: Previous to the passage of the SAFETY Act, contractors relied on commercially available insurance. The cost of insurance premiums may be an allowable expense to the extent that it is reasonable and allocable to the contract. Currently, individual contractors may apply for SAFETY Act coverage through the Department of Homeland Security.
A: Previous to the passage of the SAFETY Act, contractors relied on commercially available insurance. The cost of insurance premiums may be an allowable expense to the extent that it is reasonable and allocable to the contract. Currently, individual contractors may apply for SAFETY Act coverage through the Department of Homeland Security.
13. Q: Provide, in writing, specific guidance on liability responsibilities and limitations in regards to security breaches and incidents at an SPP (Opt-Out) airport. Does the U.S. Government indemnify contractors against losses due to screening failures?
A: Liability limitations are controlled by the SAFETY Act. In order to obtain protection from liability for terrorist acts, contractors competing for the SPP (Opt-Out) must apply for liability coverage under the SAFETY Act through the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security has prepared a SAFETY Act application kit that can be found at www.safetyact.gov. Security breaches and incidents at SPP (Opt-Out) airports are serious performance issues and may significantly impact the continuation of the contractual relationship between TSA and a private screening company under ATSA. Screening services must be equal to or better than the services offered by federal airports.
A: Liability limitations are controlled by the SAFETY Act. In order to obtain protection from liability for terrorist acts, contractors competing for the SPP (Opt-Out) must apply for liability coverage under the SAFETY Act through the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security has prepared a SAFETY Act application kit that can be found at www.safetyact.gov. Security breaches and incidents at SPP (Opt-Out) airports are serious performance issues and may significantly impact the continuation of the contractual relationship between TSA and a private screening company under ATSA. Screening services must be equal to or better than the services offered by federal airports.
30. Q: Would airport operators be liable in the Screening Partnership Program?
A: The Transportation Security Agency is of the opinion that airport operators who do not perform screening services should not face liability for screening services, whether they are provided by federal TSA screeners or contractor screeners. TSA bases this opinion in part on the fact that airport operators do not control federal screening standards and TSAs federal security directors maintain full security responsibility, whether screening services are provided by federal TSA screeners or contractor screeners. Ultimately, a court of competent jurisdiction would most likely decide the issue of liability depending on the facts of a specific case.
TSA also seeks to address the liability issue through clarification on the applicability of The Support of Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, Subtitle G of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( 861-65), (the SAFETY Act.). The DHS Office of Science and Technology (OST) makes determinations concerning the applicability of the SAFETY Act. Application of the SAFETY Act does not provide blanket indemnification but limits third-party tort suits in the event of a terrorist incident. Significantly, liability protection pursuant to the SAFETY Act for services designated as a qualified anti-terrorism technology will result in limited liability risks for the private screening company and its contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and customers as well as the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors of the customer. TSA, OST, and the Office of General Counsel have been working closely on SAFETY Act determinations. The Department is still reviewing the applicability of the SAFETY Act.
A: The Transportation Security Agency is of the opinion that airport operators who do not perform screening services should not face liability for screening services, whether they are provided by federal TSA screeners or contractor screeners. TSA bases this opinion in part on the fact that airport operators do not control federal screening standards and TSAs federal security directors maintain full security responsibility, whether screening services are provided by federal TSA screeners or contractor screeners. Ultimately, a court of competent jurisdiction would most likely decide the issue of liability depending on the facts of a specific case.
TSA also seeks to address the liability issue through clarification on the applicability of The Support of Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, Subtitle G of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( 861-65), (the SAFETY Act.). The DHS Office of Science and Technology (OST) makes determinations concerning the applicability of the SAFETY Act. Application of the SAFETY Act does not provide blanket indemnification but limits third-party tort suits in the event of a terrorist incident. Significantly, liability protection pursuant to the SAFETY Act for services designated as a qualified anti-terrorism technology will result in limited liability risks for the private screening company and its contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and customers as well as the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors of the customer. TSA, OST, and the Office of General Counsel have been working closely on SAFETY Act determinations. The Department is still reviewing the applicability of the SAFETY Act.
26. Q: If an airport opts-out does this mean that all the screeners and FSD staffs will be let go?
A: No. TSA will strive for a transition process that is fair, cost-effective and seamless. TSA believes that it is in everyones best interest to retain the current screener work force, both from security (TSA has experienced screeners with training investment) and cost-effectiveness perspectives.
TSA is pursuing a program in which screeners (screener, lead, and supervisors) would be given the priority for employment by the contract company. TSA is committed to ensuring a fair, supportive transition program that recognizes the outstanding skills of TSAs current work force. Under ATSA, the FSDs and their staff will remain responsible for security at all airports where screening of passengers and property is required, including Screener Partnership airports. FSDs and their staff will continue to be responsible for overseeing all screening operations at Screener Partnership airports and for ensuring that contract screening companies provide effective and efficient security operations.
A: No. TSA will strive for a transition process that is fair, cost-effective and seamless. TSA believes that it is in everyones best interest to retain the current screener work force, both from security (TSA has experienced screeners with training investment) and cost-effectiveness perspectives.
TSA is pursuing a program in which screeners (screener, lead, and supervisors) would be given the priority for employment by the contract company. TSA is committed to ensuring a fair, supportive transition program that recognizes the outstanding skills of TSAs current work force. Under ATSA, the FSDs and their staff will remain responsible for security at all airports where screening of passengers and property is required, including Screener Partnership airports. FSDs and their staff will continue to be responsible for overseeing all screening operations at Screener Partnership airports and for ensuring that contract screening companies provide effective and efficient security operations.
29. Q: What will happen to federal screeners?
A: TSA will seek and support provisions that assist current federal screeners potentially affected by the transition to an Opt-Out environment, including priority for employment with the private contractor and measures to facilitate movement to other TSA or other Federal positions.
TSAs goal is to provide as considerate and well-managed a transition as possible for the affected work force. Its in everyones best interest to ensure the use of a skilled work force that has the experience and training that comes from working in airports for a few years.
A: TSA will seek and support provisions that assist current federal screeners potentially affected by the transition to an Opt-Out environment, including priority for employment with the private contractor and measures to facilitate movement to other TSA or other Federal positions.
TSAs goal is to provide as considerate and well-managed a transition as possible for the affected work force. Its in everyones best interest to ensure the use of a skilled work force that has the experience and training that comes from working in airports for a few years.
Hope that answers the question you had! Now if only I could remember who had asked it...
Aug 21, 2008 | 10:26 am
#2
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
"Which seems to indicate that even if a given airport were to go to contract private screening, it'd still be the same people in the roles of the screeners and supervisors. They'd just have federal benefits (one of the SPP requirements is that private screeners have benefits and pay equal to or greater than, but not less than, their federal counterparts) without being federal employees."
Thanks for the post.
It just underscores TSA management arrogance and shows why current versions of so-called "private security" like the joke known as "Team SFO" is anything but private and provides just as little security as TSA.
The federal government should get the hell out of the airline and airport security racket. Permanently.
Thanks for the post.
It just underscores TSA management arrogance and shows why current versions of so-called "private security" like the joke known as "Team SFO" is anything but private and provides just as little security as TSA.
The federal government should get the hell out of the airline and airport security racket. Permanently.
Aug 21, 2008 | 6:49 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I found this tidbit interesting in 13A
So with all the terminal dumps, failed tests, and other similar incidents, why isn't TSA's "contract" been terminated or simply just not renewed?
If they're going to hold contractors to this standard then surely they should hold themselves to it.
Security breaches and incidents at SPP (Opt-Out) airports are serious performance issues and may significantly impact the continuation of the contractual relationship between TSA and a private screening company under ATSA.
If they're going to hold contractors to this standard then surely they should hold themselves to it.
Aug 21, 2008 | 7:46 pm
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72,157
I found this tidbit interesting in 13A
So with all the terminal dumps, failed tests, and other similar incidents, why isn't TSA's "contract" been terminated or simply just not renewed?
If they're going to hold contractors to this standard then surely they should hold themselves to it.
So with all the terminal dumps, failed tests, and other similar incidents, why isn't TSA's "contract" been terminated or simply just not renewed?
If they're going to hold contractors to this standard then surely they should hold themselves to it.
Aug 22, 2008 | 12:38 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 2,090
"a fair, supportive transition program that recognizes the outstanding skills of TSAs current work force"
Is this a joke? I have seen a few TSA employees who do a good job (what happened to Bart, anyway?), but I have yet to see "outstanding skills," and certainly not throughout the entire work force. Have I missed something? It has been three weeks since my last trip.
Is this a joke? I have seen a few TSA employees who do a good job (what happened to Bart, anyway?), but I have yet to see "outstanding skills," and certainly not throughout the entire work force. Have I missed something? It has been three weeks since my last trip.
Aug 22, 2008 | 12:41 am
#6
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 2,090
And what about that front page story on USA Today a year or so ago? The one that showed security screening missed 20 - 80% of dangerous weapons loaded into carry on luggage? IIRC the airports that missed "only" 20% were SFO and one other that both use private security contractors.
Aug 22, 2008 | 8:47 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
"a fair, supportive transition program that recognizes the outstanding skills of TSAs current work force"
Is this a joke? I have seen a few TSA employees who do a good job (what happened to Bart, anyway?), but I have yet to see "outstanding skills," and certainly not throughout the entire work force. Have I missed something? It has been three weeks since my last trip.
Is this a joke? I have seen a few TSA employees who do a good job (what happened to Bart, anyway?), but I have yet to see "outstanding skills," and certainly not throughout the entire work force. Have I missed something? It has been three weeks since my last trip.
Apr 1, 2010 | 11:18 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
White House to seek input on roles of private contractors, federal workers
By Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On Wednesday, the Obama administration will begin seeking formal input from stakeholders on a knotty pair of questions: What kind of tasks should be performed by federal workers, and which ones can be handled by contractors?
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy will publish draft guidelines in Wednesday's Federal Register to clarify the definition of "inherently governmental functions," or jobs that should be performed by government workers instead of private contractors. The draft says that such tasks are so directly tied to the public interest that they must be done by government workers.
Those tasks include setting agency policy, hiring workers, awarding contracts and performing other core roles, such as inspectors at the Labor Department or airport security screeners with the Department of Homeland Security.
By Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On Wednesday, the Obama administration will begin seeking formal input from stakeholders on a knotty pair of questions: What kind of tasks should be performed by federal workers, and which ones can be handled by contractors?
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy will publish draft guidelines in Wednesday's Federal Register to clarify the definition of "inherently governmental functions," or jobs that should be performed by government workers instead of private contractors. The draft says that such tasks are so directly tied to the public interest that they must be done by government workers.
Those tasks include setting agency policy, hiring workers, awarding contracts and performing other core roles, such as inspectors at the Labor Department or airport security screeners with the Department of Homeland Security.