Let’s take a look at the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” passed by the House on January 28 and now under review (with some amendments) by the Senate. In these line items, aviation is currently set to get somewhere in the area of $2.5 billion.
For the TSA:
For an additional amount for ‘Aviation Security’, $1,200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010, for procurement and installation of checked baggage explosives detection systems and checkpoint explosives detection equipment: Provided, That no later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives a plan for the expenditure of these funds.
For the FAA:
For an additional amount for necessary investments in Federal Aviation Administration infrastructure, $200,000,000: Provided, That funding provided under this heading shall be used to make improvements to power systems, air route traffic control centers, air traffic control towers, terminal radar approach control facilities, and navigation and landing equipment: Provided further, That priority be given to such projects or activities that will be completed within 2 years of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That amounts made available under this heading may be provided through grants in addition to the other instruments authorized under section 106(l)(6) of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That the Federal share of the costs for which an expenditure is made under this heading shall be 100 percent: Provided further, That amounts provided under this heading may be used for expenses the agency incurs in administering this program: Provided further, That not more than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a process for applying, reviewing and awarding grants and cooperative and other transaction agreements, including the form and content of an application, and requirements for the maintenance of records that are necessary to facilitate an effective audit of the use of the funding provided: Provided further, That section 50101 of title 49, United States Code, shall apply to funds provided under this heading.
For airports:
For an additional amount for capital expenditures authorized under sections 47102(3) and 47504(c) of title 49, United States Code, and for the procurement, installation and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at airports of such title, $1,100,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation shall distribute funds provided under this heading as discretionary grants to airports, with priority given to those projects that demonstrate to his or her satisfaction their ability to be completed within 2 years of enactment of this Act, and serve to supplement and not supplant planned expenditures from airport-generated revenues or from other State and local sources on such activities: Provided further, That the Federal share payable of the costs for which a grant is made under this heading shall be 100 percent: Provided further, That the amount made available under this heading shall not be subject to any limitation on obligations for the Grants-in-Aid for Airports program set forth in any Act: Provided further, That section 50101 of title 49, United States Code, shall apply to funds provided under this heading: Provided further, That projects conducted using funds provided under this heading must comply with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code: Provided further, That the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may retain and transfer to ‘Federal Aviation Administration, Operations’ up to one-quarter of 1 percent of the funds provided under this heading to fund the award and oversight by the Administrator of grants made under this heading.
More soon on this. The legislation includes language to make sure that these funds to go immediately ready projects, but although that might have some stimulative effect, it’s hardly the optimal use of infrastructure improvement dollars.
Read Full Post »
TSA contracting out: how’s it going?
Posted in Evan's Commentary on February 9, 2009|
There’s a new GAO report out today that’s very, very meta: it’s an evaluation of the Transportation Security Administration’s own report on a study of the effectiveness of the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which allows airports to contract airport security out to TSA-approved security firms.
The TSA study examined security at Greater Rochester International Airport in New York, Jackson Hole Airport in Wyoming, Sioux Falls’ airport in South Dakota, Kansas City International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and Tupelo Regional Airport in Mississippi. TSA found (unsurprisingly) that “screening at SPP airports currently costs approximately 17.4 percent more to operate than at airports with federal screeners, and that SPP airports fell within the ‘average performer’ category for the performance measures included in its analysis. . . . the contractor concluded that passenger screening at the SPP airports has historically cost from 9 to 17 percent more than at non-SPP airports, and private screeners performed at a level that was equal to or greater than that of federal TSOs.” (This is unsurprising because the law requires that “private screening companies selected by TSA must provide its screening personnel compensation and other benefits at a level not less than the compensation and other benefits provided to federal government personnel.” When you add in another layer of management because of the contractor, you get — surprise — higher costs.)
The GAO determined that TSA’s study employed flawed methodology because it failed to “include the impact of potential overlapping administrative staff on the costs of SPP airports,” “account for workers compensation, general liability insurance, and some retirement costs paid by the federal government, as well as the lost corporate income tax revenue from private screening contractors, when replacing private with federal screening,” “call for statistical analyses to determine the level of confidence in observed differences in performance between SPP and non-SPP airports,” among others. Conclusion: “[W]e believe that TSA should not use the study as sole support for major policy decisions regarding the SPP.”
So, why is this study of a study of a study important?
Read Full Post »