[Stamp] amw107
#23clipboard
Statement of
Mark VanLoh Director of Aviation
City of Kansas City, Missouri
Before the Subcommittee on Transportation Security of the
House Committee on Homeland Security
"Examining TSA's Management of the Screening Partnership Program"
July 29, 2014

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Transportation
Security Subcommittee. My name is Mark VanLoh and I am the Director of
Aviation for the City of Kansas City, Missouri. Thank you for inviting me to
appear before you today to discuss the Airport Screener Partnership
Program.
First, I want to describe Kansas City International Airport. It is
one the country's major medium hub airports and serves
approximately 10 million annual passengers. Designed in the late
1960's, it has three separate semi-circular passenger terminals that
are not connected. The lack of a central concourse also creates the
need for multiple security screening locations and does not allow for
central security screening that is common with more modern airports.
Several hundred screeners at several checkpoints are employed to
perform passenger screening.
My testimony today addresses the Screener Partnership
Program based upon Kansas City's nearly 12 years of experience

1

under the program since it began in 2002.
Kansas City was selected by TSA in 2002 under the "pilot program"
along with 4 other airports -- San Francisco, Rochester, Tupelo, and
Jackson Hole.
It is a partnership that has worked extremely well at Kansas
City. I have been an airport operator for 30 years, and in my view the
Screening Partnership Program has provided a level of screening
services and security protection at least as good as, we think better
than, the levels that TSA would have provided using Federal
personnel. And, it has done so with operational efficiency and high
levels of customer satisfaction. My counterparts at other airports are
often envious of our record of service and security. I am always
pleased to brag about it.
Often I am asked by the public what an airport director does and
on what issue we spend the most time during a normal day. It is not
security or safety or airline negotiations but employee issues. With
500 employees, a considerable portion of the day consists of
employee performance reviews, labor relations/grievance hearings,
disciplinary actions, family medical leaves, random drug screening
reviews and other personnel issues. I cannot imagine what amount
of time is consumed by TSA with over 50,000 employees. In my

2

opinion, the majority of efforts by the TSA should be focused on
intelligence gathering to reduce the threat against aviation and then
issuing policy and procedures to protect our industry not on
personnel issues. At Kansas City, the SPP provider handles all the
personnel issues leaving TSA to oversee security. The operator and
overseer are different entities. This results in built-in accountability
and allows each do what they can and should do best.
The advantages of the Screening Partnership Program can be
summarized as follows:
enhanced flexibility and efficiencies in personnel
use and deployment.
greater flexibility to respond to increased or
decreased service requirements.
greater flexibility to cross train and cross utilize
personnel.
not subject to federal employee "hiring freezes" and
employment caps. As an aside, during the recent
sequestration, while other airports with federal staff were
subjected to federal restrictions, we at Kansas City operated
normally with no disruptions.
More effective in dealing with non-performers. This may
sound a bit insensitive but we all know that the job requires
an inordinate amount of attention and personal skills.
Occasionally an employee may be hired that probably 

3

shouldn't be in that position. We can all tell the screeners
that enjoy their job and want to be there. The SPP provider
is able to make changes with minimal disruption to the
mission. A high degree of customer service awareness is
critical. We all want our passengers to enjoy their airport
experience.
The private screening company has greater flexibility than the
Federal Government to re-deploy screeners on short notice, to
reschedule screener shifts to and from off-hours, and to add or delete
screening checkpoints on short notice.
Based on our nearly twelve years of experience under the
private screening program, I can report that the Screening
Partnership Program has been very effective in providing high quality
service to our passengers at a level of security equal to, if not better
than, the level that would be provided at the airport using Federal
Government employees.
The SPP has been great for Kansas City from the beginning, but
has caused me great concern lately given the issues surrounding the
rebid of the contract. We are now almost four years outside the
expiration of the most recent contract. Even through the uncertainty
of not knowing if they will have a job after each holiday season, our
screeners have maintained their high level of service and dedication.
It is my understanding that this solicitation is now in the Court of

4

Federal Claims for the third time. The low bidder selected by TSA
included across the board pay cuts as well as cuts in hours to all
screeners now working at the airport. Meanwhile TSA recently
announced pay raises for federal screeners at other airports but
selected this low bidder in Kansas City based on this treatment of our
existing workforce.
Even with the contract award issues, I firmly believe the
program has worked well for Kansas City; there are a number of areas
in which the program could be improved.
First, TSA needs to be more flexible in its supervision of private
screening companies so as to better foster improvements and innovation.
TSA should set minimum levels of security standards and operational
procedures, but give the private screeners the flexibility to provide the
security in new, different, innovative and creative ways. However, as we
understand it, TSA requires federal and private screeners to operate under
the same procedures, including centralized procedures for screener hiring
and assessments, and coordination or hiring through TSA headquarters. I
do not believe that the law requires a one size fits all approach.
Second, TSA should develop staffing resources based on the
operational requirements for each airport, not on arbitrary system-wide
staffing caps based on the national models it uses for the Federal

5

workforce. Such an approach would more effectively account for the
unique requirements of each airport, including part-time and efficient full
time screener schedules. Again, one size doesn't fit all. For example,
staffing requirements for Kansas City International Airport, which does not
have a single central security location, will be markedly different than the
requirements for airports that have centralized security screening facilities.
Third, there needs to be greater coordination with the airport
operator. More can be done to get the airport operator's input in the
operational procedures, staffing, and other critical activities. For example
in TSA's contested contract award that I mentioned above, TSA recently
chose to replace Kansas City's longtime private screening company
through the bid process, yet never asked Kansas City for our input on the
incumbent's prior performance.
Fourth, the choice of screening companies should be based largely
on technical capabilities and performance, not on cost. Basing selection
primarily on cost considerations we will return us to the poorly performing
system that existed pre-9/11 where contracts were generally awarded to
the lowest cost bidder, manned by screeners who lacked experience,
critical skills and performance incentives. TSA needs to ensure that
the selection is truly a "best value".


6

In conclusion, the Screening Partnership Program has worked well at
Kansas City International Airport. It has shown that private screeners
under the direct oversight of the TSA will perform excellent security and
customer service and at reasonable costs. Mr. Chairman, this concludes
my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to address any questions you
and the members of the Subcommittee may have.













7