ACRP-Problem-No-10-10-13.pdf

ACRP Problem No. 10-10-13 Recommended: No Modeling Approach for Rapid Assessment of Alternative Passenger/Baggage/Cargo Screening Technologies TRB Aviation Group Aviation Security further exacerbating space and cost impacts. With the injection of infrastructure stimulus funding, many new approaches to passenger, baggage, and cargo screening will be offered and many airport managers will be faced with opportunities to upgrade/modernized their systems. A tool that facilitates quick evaluation of offerings before Summit Engineering Group Page of 3 10 April 2009 2 starting detailed design activities will result in focused analysis and design that accomplishes the goal of enhancing airport security in a cost-effective manner. III. Objectives The objectives of this research program will be to: (1) Determine a common context for representing screening technologies (e.g., system throughput, breadth of threats detected, false alarm rate, probability of detection, etc.), and (2) Develop an analytical tool that will allow airport planners and managers to readily evaluate screening technology offerings relative to their fiscal and space constraints. IV. Research Proposed The focus of this research project will be an extensive review of current and near to mid-term screening technologies available to airport managers. The work will identify categories of variables that are common among the offerings and the employment constraints associated with each. The study must also produce a computer model that allows airport managers to evaluate new offerings and focus their airport design activities on cost-effective alternatives. To accomplish the objectives, the following tasks must be accomplished: (1) Determine a common context for representing screening technologies (e.g., system throughput, breadth of threats detected, false alarm rate, probability of detection, etc.), (2) Research installation/integration costs and cost drivers to allow rapid estimation and inclusion in the cost-effectiveness trades, (3) Develop common deployment/employment constraints (e.g., manning, volume, installation cost, etc.), and (4) Prepare an interim brief which will: (a) provide an overview of the research and model constructs to be employed; (b) highlight minimum input requirements for representing new technologies, airport demands, and airport constraints and; (c) review a test case to which the approach will be applied. (5) After review of the interim brief, formulate and implement a math programming model that will allow airport planners and managers to readily evaluate screening technology offerings relative to their fiscal and space constraints. (6) Develop a model users manual that details the basic model and data and describes how to add/modify system representations, constraints, and demand functions. The users manual will also describe the strengths and limitations of the approach. (7) Develop a final report that describes the baseline model constructs and data included in the model as well as results for the test case. V. Estimate of Funding and Research Period (1) Estimated time for the project is eighteen (15) months. (2) Estimated cost is $270,000 which includes ancillary costs and expenses. VI. Urgency and Payoff Potential There will be extensive pressure to find effective ways to invest in airport infrastructure stimulus package funding. Without rapid assessment tools, very good investment opportunities may be overlooked, while less effective alternatives may be funded. Summit Engineering Group Page of 3 10 April 2009 3 By providing a comprehensive assessment tool, airport planners will be able to rapidly evaluate investment alternatives that are the most cost-effective use of technology recapitalization funding. VII. Related Research The use of math modeling (including optimization) has been used extensively by the Department of Defense (DoD) as a rapid screening tool for evaluation of alternatives prior to the expenditure of time and resources on detailed simulations. This approach minimizes the descriptive data needed early in the analysis and focuses the detailed data gathering for simulation on the most beneficial options. VIII. Person Developing the Problem Statement Kurt Willstatter, Senior Principal Summit Engineering Group 102 Paul Mellon Court, Suite 1 Waldorf, MD 20602 Phone: (301) 645-3535 Fax: (301) 645-3950 E-mail: kurt.willstattersummit-group.com IX. Process Used to Develop the Problem Statement This proposal was developed by Summit Engineering Group based on its experience with mathematical programming on DoD analyses and its experience with DHS/S&T Next Generation Baggage Screening initiatives. X. Date and Submitted By April 10, 2009 Kirk L. Hoy, President Summit Engineering Group 102 Paul Mellon Court, Suite 1 Waldorf, MD 20602 Phone: (301) 645-3535 Fax: (301) 645-3950 E-mail: khoysummit-group.com