After a series of delays in its ongoing procurement plans for the next-generation of explosives detection systems (EDS) to screen checked baggage at the nation’s airports, the Transportation Security Administration’s latest schedule is holding with contract awards still planned for next July.
In July 2011 the agency plans to establish the qualified product list (QPL) and base contract awards under the Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (CBIS) program, Jenel Cline, TSA’s program manager for the project, says at an Industry Day this month hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In September TSA slipped the program by two months and original plans called for the initial CBIS awards this December (TR2, Sept. 15).
Currently a number of companies have their respective EDS systems in various stages of testing with DHS. Some systems are at the Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) where they are undergoing certification testing of their algorithms to meet TSA’s explosives detection requirements, Cline says.
Other systems are at TSA’s Transportation Security Integration Facility (TSIF) where the agency is making sure they can integrate into an airport baggage handling system and can handle the stresses of an airport environment, Cline says.
Live Airport Testing
In January TSA expects testing at the TSL and TSIF will be complete and for those EDS systems that clear those hurdles the next step will be an integration phase at live airport sites for operational test and evaluation, Cline says.
Currently TSA purchases EDS systems from L-3 Communications [LLL], Science Applications International Corp. [SAI] and Safran Group‘s Morpho Detection. L-3, OSI Systems’ [OSIS] Rapiscan division, and SureScan Corp. are all developing systems based on fixed- gantries that have fewer moving parts and higher baggage throughputs.
The CBIS procurement is a long-term effort and is divided into separate “windows,” with the program currently in the first window, Level A. Each level, and there are three in Window 1, allows TSA to acquire EDS systems with greater capabilities, including higher explosive detection requirements.
Window 1, Level A has a higher level of explosive detection than currently exists, Cline says. At the end of this level is when the QPL will be established for the base contracts. In Level B additional threats will be added to TSA’s requirements and there will be another set of testing followed by another delivery order competition, Cline says. The same sequence will follow in Level C, which will also include added requirements, she says.
TSA does not have schedules available for Levels B and C or for successive windows, Cline says.
“This competitive procurement is the first step in positioning us to meet our long-term goals to more efficiently get to higher levels of detection without having to physically touch our equipment every time we do that,” Cline says. “So we’re looking to drive more modularity of our equipment [and] hopefully get to the point where we can segregate our algorithms from hardware so we can push out upgrades to our equipment moving forward.”
One of the goals of the CBIS effort is more standardization, which fits with the idea of modularity, enabling equipment to be swapped out without having to do a lot of redesign work of the baggage handling system that an in-line EDS system is integrated with. In the near-term, the CBIS effort will move toward this goal by having a standard baggage handling system interface for EDS systems, Cline says.
“Today most of our baggage handling systems are designed for a specific manufacturer’s piece of equipment,” Cline says. “In the future we want to be able to design or systems so that we can choose the best piece of equipment for that airport, or in some cases, if a piece of equipment is unavailable, we’ll be able to swap that out with something that meets our requirements without having to do a lot of programming or design work.”
Those faster switch outs of equipment will also enable TSA to respond more quickly to new threats, Cline says.
Longer-term TSA wants the EDS systems it purchases to have a common graphic user interface so that no matter whose manufacturer’s machines are used, the training package for screening officers will be standard. Today training packages are different based on each manufacturer’s design.
The current procurement takes initial steps in regard to the standard GUI but this capability won’t be delivered until later, Cline says. Moreover, a common GUI will likely help reduce the false alarm rate for clearing bags as well, she says.
Another goal of the program is to increase the life-cycle of EDS equipment, which is currently pegged at about 10 years. On the other hand, baggage handling systems last for 20 years, so increased longevity of EDS machines would mean “we’re going into these baggage handling systems and pulling our equipment out fewer times,” Cline says. “The ideal is going in and replacing everything at the same time.”
Cline says that about two-thirds of the EDS machines deployed in U.S. airports were purchased at roughly the same time shortly after 9/11, which means this equipment is fast nearing the end of its life.