Transportation Security Administration: After Oversight Lapses, Compliance with Policy Governing Special Authority Has Been Strengthened

TSA is responsible for securing the nation's transportation systems and uses security technologies to screen airline passengers and their luggage to prevent prohibited items from being carried on commercial aircraft. TSA has special authority for using OTAs, which are not subject to certain federal contract laws and requirements. OTAs provide flexibility to help meet mission needs, but potentially carry the risk of reduced accountability and transparency.

GAO was asked to examine TSA's use of OTAs. This report addresses: (1) the extent and purposes of TSA's use of OTAs, and (2) how TSA ensures prices are reasonable and how it oversees OTAs.

To address TSA's use of OTAs, GAO analyzed data on OTA awards and obligations from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation from fiscal years 2012 to 2016 (the most recent years for which data were available). GAO determined that data were sufficiently reliable to report on TSA's minimum use of OTAs. To examine how TSA prices and oversees OTAs, GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of 29 OTAs from the 8 TSA programs that awarded them based on program size and OTA value. GAO reviewed relevant documentation, and interviewed contracting and program officials.

During fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) awarded at least 1,039 other transaction agreements (OTA) and obligated at least $1.4 billion on them. These agreements, which are neither traditional contracts nor grants, were primarily used to reimburse airports and law enforcement agencies for the costs associated with TSA security programs. For example,

TSA awarded at least 109 OTAs and obligated at least $783 million from fiscal years 2012 through 2016 to reimburse airports for the allowable design and construction costs associated with installing, updating, or replacing checked baggage screening systems.

TSA also used OTAs for intelligence analysis and to offset the costs of providing canines for explosives detection, among other things.

TSA Used Other Transaction Agreements to Reimburse Airports for Design and Construction Costs Associated with Checked Baggage Screening Systems

For the selected 29 OTAs GAO reviewed, GAO found that the methods TSA used to determine price reasonableness varied depending on the complexity of the requirement. For example,

For complex design and construction projects, TSA compared independent government cost estimates with contractor bids. Certified program managers monitored project schedule and scope through site visits and status reports.

In contrast, TSA independently verified the rates set by the local power authority when reimbursing some airports for electricity costs to operate TSA screening equipment.

GAO also found that TSA has taken action to address prior lapses in oversight, resulting in improved compliance. In 2015, TSA identified significant gaps in OTA file documentation and data reported in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation. TSA took action to address these deficiencies by (1) updating its policy, (2) requiring additional training for contracting officers, (3) instituting monthly data verification, and (4) monitoring compliance through quarterly reviews. GAO's analysis confirmed that the quality of the data had improved between fiscal year 2012 and 2016. Moreover, the 29 OTAs generally met key requirements of TSA's policy that GAO identified.

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible for  securing the nation’s transportation systems while facilitating the  movement of passengers and commerce using security-related  technologies. To fulfill this mission, TSA must ensure that all airline  passengers and their carry-on and checked baggage are screened to  deter, detect, and prevent the carriage of prohibited and other dangerous  items, such as explosives, on board commercial aircraft. As one of the  largest components of the Department of Homeland Security, TSA  obligated more than $1.4 billion through instruments called other  transaction agreements (OTA) from fiscal years 2012 to 2016. Congress  granted TSA other transaction authority in 2001, allowing it to enter into  agreements other than standard government contracts or other traditional  mechanisms. OTAs entered into under this authority are generally not  subject to certain federal laws and regulations related to federal contracts  such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), allowing TSA to  customize them to help meet project requirements and mission needs. As  we and others have previously reported, the use of OTAs provides  flexibility but carries the risk of reduced accountability and transparency,  in part because such agreements are exempt from the FAR and the  related controls and oversight mechanisms that apply to contracts.

You asked us to review TSA’s use of OTAs. This report addresses (1) the  extent and purposes of TSA’s use of OTAs and (2) how TSA ensures  prices are reasonable and how it oversees OTAs.

To address the extent to which TSA uses OTAs, we analyzed data from  the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) on  obligations through contracts and OTAs from fiscal year 2012 to 2016.  We assessed the reliability of the OTA data in FPDS-NG by performing  electronic testing and comparing it to data from TSA’s financial  management and accounting systems. We found that over this timeframe  the data in all three systems were incomplete and we therefore excluded  OTAs that did not match in two or more systems. As a result of this step,  we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to report on TSA’s  minimum use of OTAs; however, we were not able to independently verify  TSA’s total OTA obligations during this timeframe.

To address the purposes of TSA’s use of OTAs and how TSA prices and  oversees them, we reviewed relevant TSA policy and guidance and  selected a nongeneralizable sample of 29 OTAs from the eight TSA  programs that awarded them from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. Table 1  shows a breakdown by TSA program of the OTAs we reviewed.

The number of OTAs we reviewed varied by program based on total  obligations through the programs, OTA values, and the extent to which  OTAs awarded under a program were similar. For example, we reviewed  a larger percentage of OTAs awarded by the Electronic Baggage  Screening Program and Advanced Surveillance Program because these  programs accounted for about 79 percent of TSA’s overall obligations  through OTAs from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. By contrast, we reviewed a  smaller percentage of OTAs from the Law Enforcement Officer  Reimbursement Program, National Explosives Detection Canine Team  Program, and Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities Program because OTAs  under these programs were generally for a similar purpose. We reviewed  all of the OTAs awarded by the Office of Security Policy and Industry  Engagement and the Office of Global Strategies because each of the  OTAs awarded by these offices was unique. For each OTA, we requested  information from TSA on the total period of performance, including  unexercised options and obligations as of the end of fiscal year 2017. We  also reviewed file documents including the determination and findings,  business clearance memoranda, and acquisition plans as applicable and  interviewed contracting and program officials. Our review focused on five  key areas: rationale for using an OTA instead of a traditional contract,  method of selecting OTA recipients, OTA type, determination of price  reasonableness, and contracting officer’s representative (COR)  monitoring. We also reviewed COR files for a sample of OTAs awarded  by the top three programs that awarded cost reimbursable OTAs and one  that awarded fixed-price OTAs to provide greater insight into monitoring  methods. In addition, we reviewed TSA OTA compliance reviews from  fiscal years 2015 and 2016 and interviewed officials responsible for OTA  policy and oversight. Appendix I summarizes information on the 8  programs and 29 OTAs in our review based on documentation provided  by TSA.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to December  2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed  the Aviation and Transportation Security Act which created TSA as the  federal agency responsible for security in all modes of transportation,  including civil aviation. Among its responsibilities, TSA must generally  ensure that all passengers and property are screened before being  transported on a commercial passenger aircraft. This statute also  provided TSA the authority to enter into OTAs. TSA defines an OTA as a  set of legally enforceable promises between TSA and another party that  is other than a procurement contract, grant, cooperative agreement,  lease, or loan.

Every agency has inherent authority to enter into contracts to procure  goods or services for its own use; however, agencies must receive  specific authority to award OTAs. Under these authorities, agencies may  develop agreements that do not follow a standard format or include terms  and conditions that are typically required when using traditional  mechanisms such as FAR-based contracts. Agreements entered into  using other transaction authority are not generally subject to certain  statutory and regulatory requirements related to government contracting  such as the FAR and the terms and conditions of each individual OTA  may be tailored to meet the specific situation. For example, OTAs may be  fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, or provide that each party bear the costs of  their participation. In addition, the length of an OTA is negotiable, with  some agreements lasting a few days and others for years.

As we reported in 2016, Congress has granted other transaction authority  to 11 federal agencies. The statutory authorities for most agencies,  however, include some limitations on the use of the agreements, although  the extent and type of limitations vary. We found that most of the 11  agencies used OTAs for two purposes: (1) research, development, and  demonstration; and (2) prototype development. Three agencies—the  Federal Aviation Administration, TSA, and the National Aeronautics and  Space Administration—used OTAs for different activities, such as airport  security and education and outreach. Only a few agencies, including TSA  and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have  unrestricted authority to award OTAs. We also found that 9 of the 11  agencies had fewer than 90 active OTAs per fiscal year, but that, in  contrast, TSA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration  had hundreds, and thousands, respectively.

TSA’s Office of Contracting and Procurement established policy and  procedures for the use, award, and oversight of OTAs in 2011. Prior to  2011, TSA had no governing policy for OTAs. According to TSA’s policy,  which has been revised several times since its inception, OTAs are best  suited for situations where: an entity is not a traditional contracting partner, for example, airlines,  airport authorities, trade associations, quasi-governmental entities, or  research and development organizations;  there are cost sharing mechanisms that require the recipient to  contribute to the overall cost of the effort; or  the recipient must recoup all costs through third-party user-fees.

Further, the policy states that OTAs may not be used when the principal  purpose of the agreement is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter)  property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States  government. Table 2 identifies some of the key provisions of TSA’s OTA  policy.

This framework for awarding and overseeing OTAs is similar to those for  contracts. Further, according to TSA’s OTA policy, contracting officers  who award OTAs must be certified at Federal Acquisition Certification in  Contracting Level III and demonstrate possession of a level of  experience, responsibility, business acumen, and judgment that enables  them to operate in the relatively unstructured business environment of the  OTA.

TSA Obligates Millions Annually through OTAs, Primarily to Reimburse for Costs Associated with TSA Security Programs

From fiscal years 2012 through 2016, TSA reported obligating millions  annually through OTAs, which amounted to at least $1.4 billion, or about  13 percent of its overall obligations during this time. Five TSA  reimbursement programs used OTAs to partially or fully reimburse  airports and law enforcement agencies for the allowable costs associated  with TSA security programs such as the design and construction of  checked baggage inline systems. These five reimbursement programs  accounted for about 99 percent of the $1.1 billion that TSA obligated on  OTAs that were awarded during this period. The remaining three non- reimbursement programs accounted for a small amount of obligations and  awarded a low number of OTAs for services including intelligence  analysis and the development of aviation standards.

TSA Obligates Millions Annually through OTAs

From fiscal year 2012 to 2016, TSA reported obligating millions annually  through OTAs, amounting to at least $1.4 billion, or about 13 percent of  its overall obligations through contracts and OTAs. Annual OTA  obligations remained fairly stable over this period, except for fiscal year  2013 when obligations spiked and then sharply declined in fiscal year  2014. This spike was driven in large part by the Electronic Baggage  Screening Program, which obligated $519 million on 54 OTAs in fiscal  year 2013 but obligated only $4 million on one OTA in fiscal year 2014.  See table 3 for TSA’s obligations on contracts and OTAs.

TSA Primarily Uses OTAs to Reimburse Airports and Law Enforcement Agencies for the Costs Associated with Security Programs

From fiscal year 2012 to 2016 eight TSA programs used OTAs to meet a  variety of mission requirements. Five reimbursement programs used  OTAs to partially or fully reimburse airports and law enforcement  agencies for the allowable costs associated with TSA security programs.  This accounted for about 99 percent of all OTA awards and obligations  from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. The remaining three non-reimbursement  programs accounted for a small amount of obligations and awarded a low  number of OTAs for services including intelligence analysis and the  development of aviation standards. See table 4 for the number of OTA  awards and obligations by program. For more information on the  programs and OTAs we reviewed, see appendix I.

The five reimbursement programs awarded numerous OTAs to different  airports and law enforcement agencies for similar requirements. These  programs each used a class determination and findings that describes the  general requirement and other parameters such as a range of possible  award amounts or periods of performance. TSA has an OTA template  with standard provisions. Terms tailored to the specific airport or law  enforcement agency are then provided in the individual OTAs. The  following examples illustrate some of the ways TSA has used OTAs to  reimburse airports and law enforcement agencies for the costs associated  with TSA security programs.

The Electronic Baggage Screening Program is an acquisition  program that tests, procures, deploys, and maintains checked  baggage screening equipment at federalized airports. TSA uses  FAR-based contracts to buy things like explosives detection machines  and engineering support services. TSA uses OTAs to reimburse  airports for the allowable design and construction costs associated  with facility modifications needed for installing, updating, or replacing  in-line checked baggage screening systems. These systems use  conveyor belts to route checked luggage through an explosives  detection machine which captures an image of the checked bag to  determine if the bag contains any type of threat item including  explosives. Agreements generally range in value from $50,000 to  $150 million, and the anticipated period of performance can range  from 6 months to 3 years, depending on the size and complexity of  the project. In one example, TSA entered into an OTA to reimburse  the City of Cleveland about $24 million for work at Cleveland Hopkins  International Airport for installation of explosive detection systems  within the checked baggage screening area.

The Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program provides  partial salary reimbursement to approximately 325 airports to offset  the costs of carrying out aviation law enforcement responsibilities in  support of passenger screening activities. Reimbursement is based  on an established “not-to-exceed” hourly rate or the actual cost per  hour, whichever is lower. Agreements range in value depending on  the airport category, the number of checkpoints and law enforcement  officers, hours of operation, and availability of funds. The period of  performance for these agreements is generally 3 to 5 years. For  example, TSA entered into an agreement with the Dallas/Fort Worth  International Airport Board that lasted from October 2012 to March  2016 to reimburse the airport about $5.5 million.

While the five reimbursement programs awarded numerous OTAs for the  same purpose to different airports and law enforcement agencies, the  remaining three non-reimbursement programs awarded few OTAs and  their use was more varied. Specifically, the Office of Security Policy and  Industry Engagement, the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal  Service, and the Office of Global Strategies used OTAs for a range of  services including intelligence analysis and the development of aviation  standards. For example:

The Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement is  responsible for developing security policies to reduce the risk of  catastrophic terrorist attacks. From fiscal year 2012 to 2016, the office  awarded four OTAs. These included two awards to the American  Public Transportation Association to meet ongoing requirements for  intelligence gathering, public transit information sharing and analysis,  and the development of mass transit and passenger rail security  practices.

The Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service  awarded 13 OTAs to pay for parking for federal air marshals and  authorized Law Enforcement Office employees at airports including  John F. Kennedy International and Washington Dulles International.  However, in September 2016, TSA competitively awarded a contract  to manage parking expenses at numerous airports. According to  officials, parking requirements for the Office of Law  Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service will be met through the  contract and as a result, existing OTAs for this requirement are being  phased out.

Other than the parking OTAs, TSA officials noted that the requirements  for the seven remaining programs that used OTAs from fiscal year 2012  to 2016 are ongoing and that TSA will continue to use OTAs for the same  purposes in fiscal year 2017 and beyond, contingent on available funding.  They also noted that they do not anticipate any new uses of OTAs.

Methods to Price and Monitor Selected OTAs Reviewed Varied, and TSA Has Taken Action to Strengthen Oversight

Our review of 29 OTAs awarded by 8 TSA programs from fiscal years  2012 through 2016 found that the methods used to determine price  reasonableness and monitor these OTAs varied based on the complexity  of the requirement. Further, for the key areas we reviewed, the OTAs  generally met the requirements of TSA’s policy. Nonetheless, TSA’s own  2015 internal compliance review found significant gaps in OTA  documentation and reporting. In response to these deficiencies, TSA has  taken action to strengthen oversight and compliance with its policy.

Methods to Determine Price Reasonableness and Monitor OTAs Varied by Program

TSA’s OTA policy requires contracting officers to determine that the price  negotiated under the OTA is reasonable and to appoint a COR to provide  monitoring and a range of administration tasks to ensure that  requirements are satisfactorily delivered. For the 29 OTAs we reviewed,  we found that the methods used to determine price reasonableness and  provide monitoring varied based on the complexity of the requirement.

Approaches to determining price reasonableness ranged from instances  where TSA extensively evaluated proposed costs to more straightforward  analysis. For OTAs awarded by the Electronic Baggage Screening  Program where the requirements for infrastructure design and  construction can be complex, the program produces an independent  government cost estimate based on design drawings and specifications  from the airports which are required to follow TSA’s detailed guidance.  The program compares the estimate with the airport authority’s  independent bid for the design and construction. Any discrepancies are  noted in the technical evaluation, which the contracting officer reviews  and documents in the business clearance memorandum. For example, in  fiscal year 2016, TSA awarded an OTA for $23 million to the City of  Chicago for the recapitalization of the checked baggage resolution area at  O’Hare International Airport. Certain proposed costs in the contractor’s  bid were higher than TSA’s independent government cost estimate. The  contracting officer performed an evaluation of the costs and determined  that they were reasonable and that the difference was, in part, the result  of the airport having greater familiarity with the existing conditions at the  site than TSA’s cost estimators.

By contrast, some programs took a more straightforward approach to  determining price reasonableness, including cases where the costs were  predetermined or not negotiable. For example, the Checkpoint Janitorial  and Utilities Program used OTAs as a vehicle for reimbursing airport  authorities for the costs of electricity to operate TSA screening equipment  and for janitorial services in checkpoint areas. TSA had independently  verified electricity prices set by the local power authority. Prices for  janitorial services were verified based on the airport’s competitively- awarded janitorial contracts. In one case, TSA entered into an OTA to  reimburse the Massachusetts Port Authority for $678,000 for one year.  TSA performed price analysis on historical data from agreements dating  back to 2008 and reviewed changes to the checkpoint square footage  and changes in electrical consumption based on use of new TSA  equipment. The airport authority provided documentation verifying  electrical rates set by the local power authority that TSA’s contracting  officer used to determine fair and reasonable pricing. Janitorial costs were  based on TSA’s pro-rated share of the airport’s competitively-awarded  janitorial contract and considered to be fair and reasonable based on  adequate competition in the commercial market-place. TSA verified the  rates each year prior to executing options.

COR monitoring similarly varied depending on the complexity of the  requirement. For the more complex design and construction projects  under the Electronic Baggage Screening Program, COR monitoring was  more rigorous than for programs with less complex requirements.  According to 2016 guidance, the COR is the primary interface between  TSA and the airport and is responsible for performing stakeholder  coordination functions. During the design phase, the COR is to review the  airport’s design documentation to ensure compliance with TSA’s  guidelines and standards in collaboration with TSA subject matter  experts. During the construction phase, the COR is responsible for  performing ongoing oversight including reviewing invoices prior to  payment. For an OTA awarded to the Miami Dade Aviation Department  the COR reviews monthly milestone progress status reports as well as  weekly status reports prepared by TSA’s site integration contractor  highlighting work completed, ongoing activities, and program risks. A  contracting official noted that schedule slippage is a big risk for cost  reimbursement projects which is mitigated by COR oversight, as well as  the ongoing oversight of the site leads. A contracting official also noted  that most CORs for these OTAs have DHS certification for program and  project management providing them with greater technical and  administrative expertise to monitor more complex projects.

In one instance on another project with complex requirements under the  Advanced Surveillance Program, project monitoring resulted in TSA and  the airport working together to contain costs when a project did not go as  expected. In fiscal year 2012, TSA awarded an OTA for $7.2 million to the  Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the design, installation  and maintenance of a security system, including closed-circuit television  cameras and associated software, at John F. Kennedy International  Airport. In fiscal year 2013, TSA modified the OTA to add more cameras,  thereby increasing the cost of the project to $21 million. However, during  installation, the Port Authority experienced several unforeseen issues with  the project, including reduced work hours available for unionized labor  and asbestos abatement costs. As a result, the Port Authority reassessed  its original cost estimate and determined that it was not sustainable. In  fiscal year 2017, TSA and the Port Authority agreed to decrease the  scope of the project from 751 cameras to 389 cameras to stay within the  original $21 million estimate.

TSA Found Improved Compliance in Its Reviews of OTAs after Taking Action to Address Lapses in Oversight

Starting in fiscal year 2015, four years after it issued its 2011 OTA policy,  TSA began to include OTAs in its contract compliance review program.  Compliance reviews are conducted quarterly based on a selection of  contracts and OTAs awarded in the previous quarter and intended to  improve contracting operations, ensure compliance with applicable  standards and policies, and identify best practices. Based on the number  of findings identified in its review of six OTA actions included in a 2015  quarterly review, TSA commissioned an OTA-specific compliance review  in June 2015. The OTA-specific review covered 30 actions with a total  value of about $82 million and identified significant gaps in documentation  and reporting. For example, 18 of 27 OTAs awarded after TSA’s 2011  policy was issued did not include a determination and findings approving  the action. As noted above, this is a key document that describes the  rationale for using an OTA instead of a traditional contract and the  determination of price reasonableness. The review also found that 18 of  30 files did not document the assignment of a COR to perform oversight  and that 20 of 30 FPDS-NG records were incorrect.

In response to the findings of the OTA-specific compliance review, TSA  implemented a number of actions and has subsequently found  improvement in OTAs meeting documentation and reporting  requirements. We found that TSA revised the OTA policy to clarify  requirements and increased training for contracting officers with OTA  warrants. Specifically, to obtain the OTA warrant, contracting officers  must complete webinar training and 3 days of classroom training. To  maintain the warrant, contracting officers must retake the webinar training  every two years. According to TSA contracting officials, all of the 56  contracting officers had completed the new training requirements as of  May 2017. In addition, TSA has continued to include OTAs in its quarterly  compliance review process. Based on our analysis of TSA’s fiscal year  2016 compliance reviews, we found that TSA reviewed 16 OTAs with a  total value of $62 million. In those reviews, 12 of the 16 findings were  determined to be low risk. For example, several of the files did not include  documentation of COR certification. The remaining four OTAs had  findings that were determined to be medium risk. This includes, for  example, one case where the OTA period of performance started 5  months before the OTA was signed. None of the OTAs, however, was  missing a determination and findings and three had missing or incorrect  FPDS-NG entries. Officials noted that their efforts to increase training,  oversight, and enforcement of OTA policies and procedures have resulted  in increased awareness of reporting requirements and greater  compliance.

In addition, TSA also recently increased oversight of the COR program to  support efficient OTA and contract oversight and administration. A TSA  official responsible for the COR program reported that in fiscal year 2017,  TSA began to conduct quarterly compliance reviews of the COR program  to ensure greater consistency in oversight practices across the agency.  According to COR compliance review guidance issued in 2016, the  reviews are intended to highlight positive practices, effective management  techniques, and identify areas of improvements.

Our analysis of data in FPDS-NG showed that issues with incomplete  data have been corrected over time, in part due to increased oversight.  We compared data reported in TSA’s financial management and  accounting systems with data reported in FPDS-NG and found that the  percentage of new OTAs reported in FPDS-NG increased from 37  percent in 2012 to 95 percent in 2016. TSA’s policy requires that OTAs be  reported in the OTA module within FPDS-NG. The awarding contracting  officer has responsibility for accurately entering OTA information,  including the value of the award and the period of performance. TSA  contracting officials attributed gaps in data in part to the fact that the  process for entering OTA data into FPDS-NG is manual, whereas FPDS- NG automatically pulls data for contracts from TSA’s contract writing  system. According to officials, OTAs are excluded from the contract  writing system due to system limitations and this additional step increases  the chance that a contracting officer may forget to enter the data into  FPDS-NG or enter it into the system incorrectly. TSA officials noted that  they have taken steps to improve the accuracy of the data reported in  FPDS-NG by reviewing and verifying entries on a monthly basis in  accordance with TSA’s policy.

Our review of 29 OTAs also demonstrated that the OTAs generally met  the requirements for the key areas of TSA policy that we reviewed. For  example, TSA’s policy states that if the OTA will be awarded without  competition, the determination and findings must include a discussion of  the method for selecting the OTA recipient. None of the OTAs we  reviewed was competed because TSA determined that competition was  not applicable due to the nature of the requirements. Nonetheless, all the  determination and findings included a discussion of the method for  selecting OTA recipients, a process that varied by program. For example,  the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program posts a solicitation  and selects eligible applicants based on review criteria. By contrast, the  Advanced Surveillance Program prioritizes projects using a risk-based  matrix that assesses threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences populated  with data from 449 airports.

Despite improvements, TSA officials acknowledged the need for  continued vigilance based on several issues we identified. For example,  TSA entered into a “no funding” OTA in 2013 with Signature Flight  Support, a commercial fixed-base operator at Ronald Reagan  Washington National Airport. A fixed-base operator is an organization  granted the right by an airport to provide aeronautical services such as  fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft  maintenance, flight instruction, and similar services. Under the  agreement, Signature Flight Support collects and remits special security  screening and threat assessment fees from airline operators on behalf of  TSA, fees that are required due to the airport’s location within a flight  restricted zone and special flight rules area. TSA does not obligate funds  through the OTA, which primarily establishes the responsibilities and  procedures for the fee collection and remittal. Our review found that TSA  did not take any action to extend or renew the agreement after it expired  in December 2014. However, TSA program officials told us that Signature  Flight Support continued to provide the service although an agreement  was not in place. When we brought this issue to TSA’s attention, officials  agreed the OTA period of performance should have been extended each  year. Officials told us that as of October 2017 they anticipate awarding a  new OTA for this requirement in the second quarter of fiscal year 2018,  more than three years after the OTA expired. In addition to the steps TSA  has taken to improve OTA oversight, such as revising its OTA policy and  increasing training requirements, TSA officials told us that they will  continue to conduct quarterly compliance reviews and monthly data  verification in accordance with their policy.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security  for comment. The Department provided only technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Senate Committee on  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Secretary of the  Department of Homeland Security. The report is also available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Summary of Key Areas for the Other Transaction Agreements GAO Reviewed

Purpose: Reimburses airports for the allowable costs related to various  airport checked baggage screening projects including the design and  construction of checked baggage inline systems and the recapitalization  of existing inline systems. Agreements generally range in value from  $50,000 to $150 million, and the anticipated period of performance can  range from 6 months to 3 years, depending on the size of airport and  complexity of the project.

TSA rationale for using Other Transaction Agreement (OTA): Airports  are owned and operated either by city or county municipalities, airport  boards or trusts, or, in some cases as not-for-profit entities. Given that the  program requires modifications to airport terminals that are owned by an  entity other than the federal government, it is more practical for the airport  to oversee and monitor the construction or modifications required for their  facilities.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Airports submit applications  through the airport’s Federal Security Director—a TSA employee  responsible for security operations at federalized airports—including a  description of the requirement, schematic design, budgetary cost  estimate, and data relating to number of bags processed and airlines  served. TSA prioritizes applications using a risk-based model and by  considering several factors such as the cost share the airport is willing to  assume and the readiness of the airport to begin the project.

OTA type: Partial cost share/reimbursement. Depending on the airport’s  size, TSA will reimburse 90 or 95 percent of the allowable, allocable and  reasonable cost of certain projects. In other types of projects, TSA  provides 100 percent reimbursement—for example, for existing systems  requiring the correction of security or safety deficiencies.

Method of determining price reasonableness: TSA produces an  independent government cost estimate based on design drawings and  specifications received from the airport and approved by TSA. The  estimate is developed using industry standards and is used for evaluating  total project cost. When bids are received from the airport, TSA compares  the bid amount with the estimate. TSA may conduct further analysis and  discussion to ensure that the estimate correctly reflects the scope  included in the bid documents.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) monitoring: The COR is  the primary interface between TSA and the airport and is responsible for  performing stakeholder coordination functions. During the design phase,  the COR is to review the airport’s design documentation to ensure  compliance with TSAs guidelines and standards in collaboration with TSA  subject matter experts. During the construction phase, the COR is to  monitor project schedule and scope through processes such as weekly  and monthly reporting.

Purpose: Provides partial reimbursement to approximately 325 airports  to offset the allowable costs of carrying out aviation law enforcement  responsibilities in support of passenger screening activities.

TSA rationale for using OTA: Participants are not traditional contracting  partners; most participants must contribute to the cost of providing law  enforcement officer support at the checkpoints; and the agreements do  not acquire property or services for the direct benefit or use of the  government.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: The program posts a solicitation to  FedBizOpps.gov with eligibility requirements, application process, review  criteria, and selection process. Airports as well as state, local, or other  public institutions/organizations responsible for commercial airport  operations that have incurred law enforcement service costs due to TSA  security mandates are eligible. The Federal Security Director—a TSA  employee responsible for security operations at federalized airports— along with the Law Enforcement Officer Program Office, Office of Chief  Counsel, and the contracting officer, participate in selecting eligible  applicants.

Method of determining price reasonableness: OTAs are negotiated to  provide reimbursement for law enforcement officer support at an  established “not-to-exceed” hourly rate or the actual cost per hour,  whichever is lower. The amount of partial reimbursement is based on  airport category, the number of checkpoints, hours of operation, and  availability of funds.

COR monitoring: CORs provide technical direction and day-to-day  oversight of the program, work with the airport Federal Security Director  to make sure that requirements are being satisfied, and approve invoices  prior to payment.

Purpose: Provides reimbursement for the allowable costs incurred to  design, install, or expand surveillance systems to meet the required views  of the local TSA. Project costs generally range from $200,000 to $21  million with an anticipated period of performance ranging from 6 months  to 3 years depending on the complexity of the system and facility size.

TSA rationale for using OTA: The primary beneficiary of the  surveillance equipment is the facility that will take ownership of the  system and be solely responsible for its operation. The use of an OTA  provides for the facility to manage and perform the work but allows TSA  oversight and control over the expenditure of TSA funds. TSA will not  benefit directly from the purchase, installation, and operation of the  system, so a traditional contract would not be appropriate.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: The program prioritizes projects  based on a risk-based matrix that assesses threats, vulnerabilities, and  consequences based on data from 449 airports. Airports must be willing  to complete the project within the required timeframe.

Method of determining price reasonableness: The program uses a  pre-award systems engineering process which culminates in a project  evaluation and plan, a comprehensive surveillance assessment of TSA  managed areas, and an independent government cost estimate. TSA  reviews the cost elements to, for example, validate labor categories, labor  hours, materials, and other direct costs based on industry standards and  comparison with other projects. The program also uses market research  and historical data to inform price analysis.

COR monitoring: The COR works with project coordinators to monitor  OTA performance and maintains direct contact with the transportation  facility and the local TSA representatives. The COR reviews invoices to  ensure that the transportation facility (via its contractor) has met all  acceptance criteria prior to approval and payment of each invoice. Upon  completion of installation and testing, TSA obtains an acceptance report  to be signed by the transportation facility authority and major stakeholders  including facility representatives, and the responsible TSA Federal  Security Director, contracting officer, and COR.

Purpose: Provides partial reimbursement to airports, mass transit  systems, and state and local law enforcement participants for the  allowable costs incurred associated with the operation of the authorized  canine teams and explosives storage magazines. Allowable costs that will  be reimbursed include handlers' salaries and care for the canines. In turn,  the local jurisdiction agrees to a set of responsibilities including using TSA  trained canine teams at least 80 percent of their on-duty time in the  transportation environment and to maintain a minimum of three certified  teams available for around-the-clock incident response. The program  reimburses participants up to $50,500 per canine team for allowable costs  incurred. The period of performance for these OTAs is up to 5 years.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A standard procurement contract is not  suitable because the airports, mass transit, and maritime facilities are not  owned by TSA, but by airport authorities, and state and local agencies.  These entities have the responsibility for the control and oversight of  security operations at a specific location, either by having their own law  enforcement officers, or using the state or local law enforcement officers.  Since TSA does not own the airport or have primary law enforcement  responsibility and only provides participants partial reimbursement for the  operating costs of the teams, an OTA is warranted.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Transportation authorities and/or  local law enforcement entities submit a written request outlining their  desire to join the program in which they outline the need for the canine  teams within their respective transportation system/s. TSA selects  recipients based on a review of the transportation system’s risk profile  and the program’s available team openings.

Method of determining price reasonableness: The $50,500 per team  stipend only covers a portion of the cost to the participant. There are  instances after award that require an additional price reasonableness  determination, such as when a participant requests reimbursement for a  supply or service that is either unknown to the program or inconsistent  with program historical prices for the given supply/service. If the program  determines that the item is allocable the program will determine whether it  was procured competitively and any facts that may support it being higher  than historical prices paid. If the item was not procured competitively, the  program will look at current price lists and catalogs for a same or similar  item and consult program subject matter experts on their personal  knowledge of the item(s) being purchased.

COR monitoring: The program assigns a Field Canine Coordinator who  is responsible for overseeing the participant’s compliance with the  agreement through periodic reporting and assessments. Reimbursement  is to be made upon receipt and review of summited expenses by the COR  and contracting officer.

Purpose: The Checkpoint Janitorial and Utilities program uses OTAs to  define the terms and conditions for TSA’s use of checkpoint space in  mandated non-leased space at airports and to provide a vehicle for  reimbursing the cost of electrical consumption and janitorial services.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable  since the airport is a governmental entity, not a commercial vendor.  Additionally, airports often contract directly with a utility provider or  janitorial company.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Airports request reimbursement for  utility costs and janitorial services in mandated non-leased space at TSA  security checkpoints. TSA Federal Security Directors who are responsible  for security operations at federalized airports confirm the need for  reimbursing the cost of utilities and janitorial services at the checkpoint  space. These OTAs are not available for competition as the only available  source is the airport authority.

Method of determining price reasonableness: TSA reimburses airports  at cost for the costs of electrical consumption by TSA screening  equipment located in the checkpoint space based on a cost allocation  methodology. TSA reimburses airports for its pro-rata share of the  airports janitorial costs per square foot also based on a cost allocation  methodology. In the files we reviewed, prices were considered to be fair  and reasonable based on documentation verifying the rates set by the  local power authority. Costs were considered to be fair and reasonable  based on the airports’ competitively-awarded janitorial contracts and rates  established by the local utility authority.

COR monitoring: Provides technical direction, contractor oversight, and  certification of payments.

Purpose: The office has an ongoing requirement for intelligence  gathering, public transit information sharing and analysis, and  development of mass transit and passenger rail recommended security  practices.

TSA rationale for using OTA: The American Public Transportation  Association is a not-for-profit trade association which therefore may not  currently have the experience, knowledge, or past performance to support  a FAR type contract.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Through market research, TSA  determined that the American Public Transportation Association was  uniquely capable of meeting requirements.

Method of determining price reasonableness: In 2014, price was  determined to be fair and reasonable based primarily on historical data  and prices consistent with the preceding interagency agreement and the  office’s independent government cost estimate. In 2016, the program  updated the independent government cost estimate based on a quote  from the American Public Transportation Association which provided for  greater clarity, insight, and definition to the actual costs. Additional market  research is planned to determine the best way to fulfill this requirement in  the future.

COR monitoring: The COR developed a contract management plan  which identifies a detailed list of work products and delivery schedule.  The expected deliverables are also detailed in the OTA statement of  work. Responsibilities of the contractor include developing and managing  a project plan; updating the plan as the project evolves; reporting project  progress and status via monthly reports; and, participating in TSA- scheduled conference calls, if necessary, to review project progress,  identify and discuss issues, and discuss corrective action.

Purpose: The Surface Division of the Office of Security Policy and  Industry Engagement has a need to maintain railroad police personnel  involvement and a liaison relationship with the FBI’s National Joint  Terrorism Task Force. The requirement entails the direct employment of  intelligence gathering focused on preventing terrorist acts affecting the  nation’s passenger and freight-rail infrastructure to facilitate the continuity  of communications, liaison, intelligence analysis and information sharing  among federal, state, local and railroad industry police/security agencies.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable for  this requirement, as the purpose of the action is to not acquire property or  services for the direct benefit or use of the United States government.  Rather, the requirement entails the direct employment of intelligence  gathering focused on preventing terrorist acts affecting the nation’s  passenger and freight-rail infrastructure.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: Since 2003, the Association of  American Railroads has provided the TSA with a railroad police officer  charged with collecting and analyzing intelligence information. Market  research reveals the Association of American Railroads to be one of two  major railway representation groups in the U.S. counting among its  membership the seven largest freight and passenger rail carriers in North  America. A follow-on agreement with the Association of American  Railroads maintains an uninterrupted flow of the critical intelligence  necessary in monitoring the safety and security of the nation’s railway  infrastructure.

Method of determining price reasonableness: The program developed  an independent government cost estimate based on prices paid under a  previous agreement which allows for an inflationary cost adjustment of 3  percent per year and determined the annual funding cost to be fair and  reasonable in meeting this requirement.

COR monitoring: The COR is responsible for the technical  administration and liaison of the agreement and is to review and certify  invoices for completeness and accuracy before approving them for  payment. As authorized by the FBI, the assigned railroad police officer is  to provide a monthly written report that summarizes the activities and  accomplishments related to the tasks outlined in the agreement.

Purpose: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is located within  the Flight Restricted Zone and Special Flight Rules Area. As such, the  Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement developed a security  program for approved general aviation aircraft operators which requires  stringent security measures including requirements for background  checks, physical screening of passengers and baggage. Aircraft  operators are responsible for reimbursing TSA for the cost of the security  screening. TSA requires the use of the airport facility to perform the  screening function and a mechanism for the collection of security  screening and threat assessment fees from aircraft operators and  remittance of those fees to TSA.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable for  this requirement because TSA is not acquiring, purchasing, or leasing any  product or service. The OTA primarily establishes the responsibilities of  the parties and the fee collection and remittal procedures.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: TSA determined that Signature  Flight Support, as the sole commercial fixed base operator granted the  right to operate at Reagan National Airport to provide aeronautical  services such as fueling, hangaring, parking, aircraft rental, aircraft  maintenance, flight instruction, and similar services—is therefore the only  entity capable of providing the facilities and services required to  implement this program.

Method of determining price reasonableness: Not applicable.

COR monitoring: The COR is responsible for providing technical  direction and administration.

Purpose: The Office of Global Strategies is directed to encourage the  development of civil aviation security, and is authorized to furnish to  international organizations certain technical expertise and assistance.  The office awarded an OTA to the International Civil Aviation  Organization—a specialized agency of the United Nations committed to  preventing and deterring unlawful interference with international civil  aviation—to cover the salaries and benefits for three TSA employees  assigned to the organization as senior security advisors. TSA actively  participates in the organization’s Aviation Security Panel of Experts,  which is responsible for promulgating international security standards.

TSA rationale for using OTA: An OTA is best suited for this requirement  since the International Civil Aviation Organization is a United Nations  specialized agency and TSA is not acquiring any property or services for  the direct benefit or use of the United States government.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: There are no known alternative  sources.

Method of determining a fair and reasonable price: Both the Program  Office and the Contracting Officer solely relied upon historical salaries as  previously used with the International Civil Aviation Organization.

COR monitoring: The COR reviews and the contracting officer approves  all invoices prior to payment.

Purpose: TSA has a requirement to obtain parking spaces/permits for  Federal Air Marshals during their mission flights for various airports.

TSA rationale for using OTA: A procurement contract is not suitable for  this requirement as airport parking is not considered a commercial  item/service to the public; it is only available to business partners. An  OTA allows TSA to participate in an airport’s business partner category.  Further OTAs provide a practical vehicle because the airport authority is  considered a U.S. state government entity.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: TSA conducted market research  which found that an OTA with the airport provides a significant cost  savings to the government compared with other alternatives. TSA  compared the costs of parking as a business partner with the cost of  parking at the typical rates at the airport.

Method of determining a fair and reasonable price: TSA prepared an  independent government cost estimate based upon commercial market  pricing for airport parking.

COR monitoring: TSA will pay the airport the variable fixed rate on a  monthly basis. All costs will be invoiced based on actual costs incurred,  but not to exceed the OTA amount. To receive payment from TSA, the  airport submits one-page invoice to include the quantity used, unit price,  and extended prices of the monthly deliverable. The invoice will be  reviewed and approved by the COR and contracting officer prior to  payment.

Purpose: TSA has a need for parking for authorized Office of Law  Enforcement Employees at Washington Dulles International Airport.

TSA rationale for using OTA: Need for parking can be met more  economically with mechanism to directly reimburse Metropolitan  Washington Airports Authority.

Method of selecting OTA recipient: TSA conducted market research  which found that an OTA with the Metropolitan Washington Area Airport  authority provides a significant cost savings to the government compared  with other alternatives.

Method of determining a fair and reasonable price: TSA conducted  price analysis and found that other available lots are all more expensive,  farther away from the airport, and lack the capacity to service 400 people.

COR monitoring: Perform surveillance to assure performance and  compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Certify  invoices to the contracting officer for payment.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Tatiana Winger (Assistant  Director), Angie Nichols-Friedman (Analyst in Charge), Peter Anderson,  Lorraine Ettaro, Julia Kennon, Carol Petersen, Lindsay Taylor, Westley  Tsou, Alyssa Weir, and Robin Wilson made key contributions to this  report.

TSA is responsible for securing the nation's transportation systems. To carry out this mission, Congress gave it special authority to use "other transaction agreements." These agreements are not subject to federal contract laws, so they are more flexible than traditional contracts or grants. However, they also carry the risk of reduced accountability and transparency.

We found that TSA awarded 1,039 of these agreements between 2012-2016—largely for reimbursing airports for installing, updating, or replacing checked baggage screening systems. We also found that TSA has improved how it oversees these agreements.


This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's September 2017 report, entitled Low-Dose Radiation: Interagency Collaboration on Planning Research Could Improve Information on Health Effects ( GAO-17-546 ).

The Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration generally used the advice of scientific advisory bodies to develop and apply radiation protection requirements and guidance for workers and the public in the radiation exposure settings that GAO reviewed. These settings were: (1) the operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants; (2) the cleanup of sites with radiological contamination; (3) the use of medical equipment that produces radiation; and (4) accidental or terrorism-related exposure to radiation. Specifically, the agencies relied on the advice of three scientific advisory bodies that supported the use of a model that assumes the risk of cancer increases with every incremental radiation exposure. Accordingly, the agencies have set regulatory dose limits and issued guidance to confine exposure to levels that reduce the risk of cancer, while recognizing that scientific uncertainties occur in estimating cancer risks from low-dose radiation. For example, NRC requires nuclear power plants to consider measures for limiting workers' exposure below NRC's regulatory dose limit, such as by using robots for maintenance work in radiation areas.

GAO identified seven federal agencies that funded research on low-dose radiation's health effects. In fiscal years 2012 to 2016, DOE, NRC, EPA, and four other federal agencies obligated about $210 million for such research . Although the agencies have collaborated on individual projects on radiation's health effects, they have not established a collaborative mechanism to set research priorities. GAO's previous work has shown that federal agencies can use such mechanisms to implement interagency collaboration to develop and coordinate sound science policies. In the past, DOE took a leading role in this area because DOE provided stable funding and advocated for greater coordination on research on low-dose radiation's health effects. However, since fiscal year 2012, DOE has phased out funding for one of its main research programs in this area. This has created a void in coordination efforts among federal agencies, and no other agency has stepped forward to fill this void. Because of DOE's prior experience as a leader in this area of research and its research responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it could play an important role in helping federal agencies establish a coordinating mechanism for low-dose radiation research.

Dollars are in millions and have not been adjusted for inflation

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO-17-546

I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal agencies’ requirements  and guidance for protecting workers and the public from the harmful  effects of ionizing radiation and agencies’ support for research on the  health effects of radiation at low doses. Radiation comes from natural  sources as well medical, commercial, and industrial activities. It has  beneficial uses, such as treating cancer, but a large amount of exposure  can cause sickness or even death within days, according to the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In contrast, low levels of  exposure are not known to cause acute health effects but may increase a  person’s risk of developing cancer.

To protect against cancer and other harmful effects associated with  exposure to radiation, EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),  and other federal agencies have established requirements and issued  guidance that apply to a wide range of settings in which such exposure  can occur. For example, these requirements include limits on  occupational dose, such as for workers in nuclear power plants, and limits  on the dose that a facility, such as an industrial site with radiological  contamination, can cause to members of the public.

The Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal agencies have also  funded research to determine the health effects of exposure to low levels  of radiation. However, uncertainties remain about these effects, as DOE’s  Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee recognized  in 2016, when it issued a report stating that further research on the  cancer risk from low-dose radiation could decrease uncertainty in cancer  risk estimates.

My statement today summarizes our September 2017 report on low-dose  radiation, which examined (1) how selected federal agencies have developed and applied radiation protection requirements and guidance for  workers and the public and (2) the extent to which federal agencies have  funded and collaborated on research on the health effects of low-dose  radiation. For our report, we reviewed agency documentation and  interviewed agency officials on the development of their radiation  protection requirements and guidance. In particular, we identified four  federal agencies—EPA, NRC, DOE, and the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) within the Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS)—that have developed requirements or guidance for four  settings in which radiation exposure can occur: operation and  decommissioning of nuclear power plants, cleanup of sites with  radiological contamination, use of medical equipment that produces  radiation, and accidental or terrorism-related exposure to radiation.  Findings from our reviews of these four agencies in the four settings we  selected cannot be generalized to all agencies and settings in which  radiation exposure can occur but provide illustrative examples. We also  collected and examined data on support for low-dose radiation research  from seven federal agencies that fund this research—the Centers for  Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within HHS, the Department of  Defense (DOD), DOE, EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within HHS,  and NRC. In particular, we requested these seven agencies to provide  data on obligations for low-dose radiation research for fiscal years 2012  through 2016 and information on the type of research funded.

More detailed information on the scope and methodology of our work can  be found in our September 2017 report. We conducted the work on which  this statement is based in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In summary, we found that EPA, NRC, DOE, and FDA have generally  used the advice of scientific advisory bodies to develop and apply  radiation protection requirements and guidance for workers and the public  for the four radiation settings in our review. Specifically, the agencies  relied on the advice of three scientific advisory bodies that supported the  use of the linear no-threshold model for such requirements and guidance.  This model assumes that the risk of cancer increases with every  incremental increase in radiation exposure. Accordingly, the agencies  have set regulatory dose limits and issued guidance to confine exposure  to levels that reduce the risk of cancer, while recognizing that scientific  uncertainties occur in estimating cancer risks from low-dose radiation.

We also found that, for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, seven federal  agencies—CDC, DOD, DOE, EPA, NASA, NIH, and NRC—obligated  about $210 million for research on the health effects of low-dose  radiation, but annual funding decreased by 48 percent. During the period  we reviewed, the seven federal agencies that funded this research  collaborated on particular projects, but they did not use a collaborative  mechanism to address overall research priorities, such as research needs  that advisory bodies identified regarding health effects of low-dose  radiation. In the past, DOE provided leadership in this area and  advocated for greater coordination on research on low-dose radiation’s  health effects. However, since fiscal year 2012, its leadership role and  funding have decreased because it has phased out funding for its main  research program in this area, and no other agency stepped forward to fill  this role. We recommended that DOE lead development of a mechanism  for interagency collaboration on research on low-dose radiation’s health  effects. DOE disagreed with our recommendation, stating that agencies  set their own research priorities. We continue to believe that DOE is in the  best position to lead such an effort.

According to NRC’s website, the higher the radiation dose, the sooner the  effects of radiation will appear, and the higher the probability of death.  Radiation doses such as those received by survivors of the atomic bombs  in Japan can cause cancers such as leukemia and colon cancer and, if  levels are high enough, acute radiation syndrome. The symptoms of this  syndrome range from nausea, fatigue, and vomiting to death within days  or weeks. In contrast, the effects of low-dose radiation are more difficult to  detect. In particular, below about 100 millisieverts (mSv) (10 rem)—the  level below which the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and  Medicine’s (National Academies) 2006 report on radiation and human  health considered radiation to be low dose—data do not definitively  establish the dose-response relationship between cancer and radiation  exposure.

Selected Agencies Generally Used Advice from Scientific Advisory Bodies to Develop and Apply Radiation-Protection Requirements and Guidance

In developing and applying radiation protection requirements and  guidance for workers and the public—specifically, limits on dose or  increased health risk and guidance levels on exposure—EPA, NRC,  DOE, and FDA have generally taken the advice of scientific advisory  bodies. In particular, they have relied on the advice of the International  Commission on Radiological Protection, the National Council on  Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the National Academies’  Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board. This advice includes the use of  the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that the risk of cancer  increases with every incremental increase in radiation exposure. For  example, the National Academies published a report in 2006 stating that  the balance of evidence from various types of studies tends to favor a  simple proportionate relationship between radiation at low doses and  cancer risk. According to the National Academies, the availability of new  and more extensive data since the publication of its previous report in  1990 strengthened confidence in the 2006 report’s estimates of cancer  risk.

The advisory bodies have recognized challenges in accurately estimating  cancer risks from very low doses of radiation exposure when using the  linear no-threshold model. For example, much of the data on health  effects of radiation exposure come from non-U.S. populations, such as  Japanese atomic bomb survivors. These individuals received a large  exposure to radiation over a short period of time (an acute exposure), and  there is uncertainty about the extent to which the health effects for these  populations can be extrapolated to a U.S. population that is regularly  (chronically) exposed to low-dose radiation.

Nevertheless, NRC officials told us that, in the absence of convincing  evidence that there is a dose threshold below which low levels of  radiation are beneficial or not harmful, NRC will continue to follow the  recommendations of scientific advisory bodies to use the linear no- threshold model. Similarly, officials from EPA told us that they would  consider changing the use of the linear no-threshold model as the basis  of their requirements and guidance only if there were a strong  recommendation from scientific advisory bodies on radiation protection as  well as an endorsement of the change by the National Academies.

Under this model, federal regulations set dose limits for radiation  exposure that are below the level in the National Academies’ 2006 report  on radiation and human health for defining low-dose radiation. For  example, NRC’s annual dose limit for members of the public (excluding  natural, or background, sources of radiation) from operation of nuclear  power plants is a hundredth of the level the National Academies  considers low dose. NRC based the dose limit on an advisory body  recommendation that the cancer risk to the general public from exposure  to radiation should be comparable to the public’s risk from everyday  activities, such as taking public transportation.

The low-dose radiation limits and guidance that federal agencies have  developed and applied vary depending on the settings in which exposure  can occur. For example, NRC has established limits on occupational dose  that apply to nuclear power-plant workers; these limits are higher than  NRC’s annual dose limit for members of the public but are still below the  level the National Academies considers low dose. In keeping with  advisory body recommendations, NRC also applies the principle that  doses should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). NRC  defines ALARA to mean making every reasonable effort to maintain  exposures to radiation as far below dose limits as is practical. At a  nuclear power plant we visited as part of our work, representatives told us  that under their ALARA plan, the plant set its own dose limit for workers at  40 percent of the NRC’s regulatory limit. Moreover, officials at the plant  told us that they have been able to keep exposures below the plant’s own  limit by continuously seeking opportunities to reduce unnecessary worker  exposure to radiation, such as using robots to perform maintenance work  in radiation areas.

In contrast to radiation exposure received from nuclear power plants, FDA  officials stated that the agency regulates the maximum radiation output of  medical equipment, instead of setting limits on the total amount of  radiation exposure to patients. According to FDA officials, FDA does not  generally have the authority to regulate the total amount of radiation  exposure a patient receives from medical imaging equipment. However,  in keeping with the principle that radiation exposure should be kept as low  as reasonably achievable, FDA encourages voluntary measures by health  care providers, such as to investigate and determine whether it is  possible to reduce radiation exposure to patients from the use of medical- imaging equipment.

Seven Agencies Have Funded Research on the Health Effects of Low-Dose Radiation but Have Not Collaborated on Overall Research Priorities

From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2016, seven federal agencies  obligated $209.6 million for research on the health effects of low-dose  radiation, but they did not use a collaborative mechanism to address  overall research priorities in this area. DOE and NIH accounted for most  of the funding, with DOE obligating $116.3 million and NIH obligating  $88.6 million, or about 56 percent and 42 percent of the total,  respectively. The five other agencies—NRC, NASA, DOD, EPA, and  CDC—obligated the remaining $4.7 million, or about 2 percent of the  total.

DOE has two offices that have funded research on the health effects of  low-dose radiation—the Office of Science and the Office of Environment,  Health, Safety and Security—according to funding information DOE  provided. The Office of Science established the Low Dose Radiation  Research Program in 1998 and funded it through fiscal year 2016. A  primary focus of this program was radiobiological research, which  examines molecular and cellular responses to radiation exposure.  According to DOE’s website for the program, the program provided data  and information about the low-dose range of exposure, producing 737  peer-reviewed publications as of March 2012. The Office of Environment,  Health, Safety and Security provided funding for epidemiological studies,  including studies involving Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

NIH has funded and conducted both epidemiological and radiobiological  studies on low-dose radiation, according to NIH officials. The officials  stated that the studies are conducted through the National Cancer  Institute’s internal research program for radiation epidemiology, as well as  through NIH’s research programs for external funding of investigator- initiated research. Other institutes of NIH, including the National Institute  of Environmental Health Sciences, also fund research related to the  health effects of radiation exposure as part of NIH’s overall mission to  fund medical research.

Among the other agencies that provided some funding to low-dose  radiation studies, several provided funding to the Epidemiological Study  of One Million U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans (Million Person  Study)—an ongoing study headed by the National Council on Radiation  Protection and Measurements. DOE also provided funding for this study.

In fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the seven agencies who provided  funding for research on health effects of low-dose radiation collectively  decreased their annual funding obligations in this area by 48 percent,  from $57.9 million in fiscal year 2012 to $30.4 million in fiscal year 2016.  DOE accounted for a large portion of this overall decrease in annual  funding. Specifically, over this 5-year period, DOE reduced its annual  funding obligations for this area of research by 45 percent—from $32.6  million in fiscal year 2012 to $18.0 million in fiscal year 2016. According to  DOE, the decrease was primarily due to DOE’s reduction in funding for its  Low Dose Radiation Research Program. According to DOE officials,  decreases in funding for the program reflected a shift toward bioenergy  and environmental research. Similarly, over the 5-year period, NIH’s  funding for low-dose radiation research decreased by 48 percent—from  $23.1 million in fiscal year 2012 to $12.0 million in fiscal year 2016. NIH  officials explained that funding levels for a particular disease or research  area can fluctuate depending on several factors, including the number  and quality of research proposals submitted and the outcome of NIH’s  peer reviews of the proposals, as well as the overall research budget.

The seven agencies that funded research on health effects of low-dose  radiation for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 collaborated on particular  research projects through various mechanisms, including joint funding of  individual projects, but they did not use a collaborative mechanism to  address overall research priorities. As previously noted, the 2016 report  of DOE’s Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee  provided information about research needs in low-dose radiation and  found that further research could decrease uncertainty in predicting  cancer risk from low-dose radiation. The report stated that other  agencies—including NRC, NIH, EPA, DOD, and NASA—could benefit  from the reduction in uncertainty that could be obtained by this research.

In our September 2017 report, we recommended that the Secretary of  Energy lead the development of a mechanism for interagency  collaboration to determine roles and responsibilities for addressing  priorities related to research on the health effects of low-dose radiation.  We made this recommendation because our previous work has shown  that collaborative mechanisms can serve multiple purposes, such as  leading interagency efforts to develop and coordinate sound science and  technology policies across the federal government. Although collaborative  mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain  key features, such as leadership.

We directed this recommendation to DOE for several reasons. In the  past, DOE took a leading role in advocating for greater communication  and coordination between the fields of radiation biology and  epidemiology. In addition, DOE is the federal agency that currently has  primary responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for research  related to the protection of health during activities that can result in  exposure to radiation. DOE is well positioned to lead an effort to ensure  that federal agencies have a mechanism for interagency collaboration to  address overall research priorities related to low-dose radiation health  effects because of the agency’s past experience as a leader in this area  of research. Such an effort could help DOE and the collaborating  agencies determine roles and responsibilities, including leadership when  addressing shared research priorities.

DOE did not agree with our recommendation. In particular, DOE stated  that EPA and NRC also have legal mandates to research low-dose  radiation exposure and that these agencies establish their research  priorities in accordance with their respective budget authorities and  recommendations from independent advisory bodies. DOE stated that as  a result, it would not be appropriate for DOE to lead the development of a  mechanism for interagency collaboration.

We believe that DOE’s concerns stem from a misinterpretation of our  recommendation, and we made several changes to our report and our  recommendation to clarify DOE’s role. We noted that we did not  recommend that a mechanism for interagency collaboration serve as a  replacement for agencies’ legal mandates, budget authorities, and  recommendations from independent advisory bodies. Instead, this  mechanism would help agencies address shared research priorities. In  making our recommendation, we did not specify the coordinating  mechanism that agencies should use and instead left it to DOE to lead  the development of an appropriate mechanism. We continue to believe  that an interagency coordination mechanism for low-dose research is  needed and that DOE is in the best position to lead agencies in  developing the most appropriate mechanism.

Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please  contact John Neumann at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. In  addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and  Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals  who made key contributions to the report on which this testimony is based  include Allen Chan, Kendall Childers, Joseph Cook, Richard Johnson,  Cynthia Norris, Josie Ostrander, Amber Sinclair, and Jack Wang.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Federal agencies have established requirements to protect workers and the public against cancer and other harmful effects associated with low doses of radiation exposure. We testified that federal agencies have generally used the advice of scientific advisory bodies to develop and apply these requirements.

Additionally, for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the Department of Energy and other federal agencies obligated about $210 million for research on the health effects of radiation. In the report on which this testimony is based, we recommended that Energy lead efforts to enhance interagency collaboration on this research.