In May, when TSA published the draft Gold+ contract documents, Against Giants wrote that the price constraint defined the workforce economics of the program. A private operator required to come in at or below what the government currently spends, while turning a profit, has limited options. We said so on May 15. We described the same arithmetic again on May 29, and noted TSA's own procurement language listing reduced checkpoint manpower as a development objective on May 7.
That was our reading of the documents. It was inference, and we said so.
It is not inference anymore. On July 10 and July 14, TSA published its written answers to the companies bidding on Gold+. The bidders asked the staffing question directly. TSA answered.
What the Bidders Asked
Companies preparing bids do not speculate. They ask the contracting officer, in writing, and the answers become part of the record.
One bidder asked whether TSA would assign a required number of full-time employees for each airport, or whether the contractor could staff the checkpoint as it saw fit provided wait time and throughput requirements were maintained.
A second bidder laid out the arithmetic itself. It quoted the ATSA compensation requirement and the Federal Cost Estimate ceiling back to TSA, observed that the two constraints pull against each other, and asked directly whether it could propose reductions in staff, at both the operational and management levels, through more efficient use of technology, in order to achieve the savings required.
A third question asked whether reducing labor costs through better processes and equipment would be viewed favorably.
What This Confirms
Every element of this was already visible in the contract documents. What changed on July 10 and July 14 is that TSA was asked to state its position, and did.
The price ceiling is real and it is statutory. A bid above the Federal Cost Estimate is unacceptable and ineligible for award.
The staffing floor does not exist. Not as a low number. As no number. TSA has now said in writing that it will not set one.
The path from the ceiling to the profit runs through headcount and technology, which TSA has now said in writing is acceptable and can be beneficial.
What This Means for You
You have been told, correctly, that your pay is protected. What that protection covers is the rate. It does not cover the number of positions. Those are different questions, and only one of them has an answer in this contract.
For what the pay floor actually protects and where it stops, see What Private Contractor Screeners Are Actually Paid. For the right of first refusal and what it does and does not guarantee, see What the Gold+ Contract Means for You: An Officer's Guide.
What It Does Not Establish
No contract has been awarded. No airport has been named. What any company proposes inside this structure is a business decision that has not been made, and TSA declining to set a floor is not TSA directing anyone to cut.
We are not telling you your position is going away. We are telling you that the document that would have protected the number of positions does not contain that protection, and that TSA was asked whether it would add one and said it would not.
Why We Want You to Know
For two months we described the workforce economics of Gold+ as what the contract structure implied. Reasonable people could have read it differently.
The companies that would be doing the hiring read it the same way we did. They asked TSA to confirm it. TSA confirmed it. That exchange is now on the public record, one week before bids are due.
If you want to understand how this would apply to your own situation, that is a conversation worth having. It costs you nothing. againstgiantsllc.com/get-help.html or info@againstgiantsllc.com