The Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) is a low-profile multi-federal-agency program with a highly important mission. Working with a vast array of U.S. government departments and agencies, the TSWG helps to rapidly develop the latest in technological solutions to combat terrorism. “Rapid” is a key word in TSWG’s mission, as it is expected to fund projects that can be ready for use by law enforcement, military, and other government personnel in two years or less from time of first approval.

On October 23, 1983, a large delivery truck drove to the Beirut International Airport in Lebanon where hundreds of U.S. Marines were stationed as part of an international peacekeeping force sent to help stop the ongoing civil war. The truck crashed through a barbed-wire fence and gate and slammed into the lobby of the multistory building serving as barracks for the Marines. The truck exploded with the equivalent of 12,000 pounds of TNT, crumbling the four-story building and killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members.

A year earlier, the administration of President Ronald Reagan had adopted National Security Decision Directive 30 (NSDD 30) in response to growing concerns over terrorist threats. NSDD 30 crafted a new policy for how the federal government should respond to terrorism that resulted in the establishment of the Interdepartmental Group on Terrorism (IG/T), chaired by the State Department. Following the truck bombing in Lebanon, administration officials decided that a new program was needed to help develop the latest in technological solutions to combat all forms of terrorist threats. Thus, the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) was established as a subgroup of IG/T to help federal agencies procure cutting-edge technology. In time TSWG became a stand-alone program.

From the mid-1980s until 2001, the TSWG quietly operated in the background as it funded six-figure projects to help law enforcement, military and other government personnel combat terrorism. But following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the working group suddenly took on greater importance. Its budget increased dramatically, from approximately $8 million at one point in the 1990s to five and even ten times as much to fund research-and-development (R&D) projects. Six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the TSWG published an announcement to private contractors seeking ideas for new antiterrorist technology. The response was unprecedented, as the working group received 12,000 submissions. Of those, about 60 were approved and funded for development.

Prior to 9/11, funding for the TSWG came from the State and Defense Departments, which share in the leadership of the program. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the TSWG began receiving a third source of federal dollars. Currently, its budget ranges from $50-$100 million each year.

Multi-Agency Team Seeks New Tools for War on Terror (by Harold Kennedy, National Defense)

Special Briefing on the Technical Support Working Group (News Release)

History of TSWG (pdf)

Pentagon Seeks Ideas On Combating Terrorism (Press Release)

The Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) is one of three programs overseen by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO), which, itself, operates as a program office under the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC). A low-profile multi-federal-agency program with a highly important mission, TSWG works with a vast array of U.S. government departments and agencies to rapidly develop the latest in technological solutions to combat terrorism. “Rapid” is a key word in the TSWG’s mission, as it is expected to fund projects that can be ready for use by law enforcement, military and other government personnel in two years or less from time of first approval.

The TSWG does not develop new equipment or systems itself, but rather provides funding to private and public contractors with groundbreaking ideas that have anti-terrorism applications. The TSWG issues public notices describing a technological need to solve an anti-terrorist problem, after which contractors submit proposals that are reviewed by the working group. Such problems are compiled after consulting with representatives of over 80 organizations across the federal government that identify and prioritize R&D requirements for combating terrorism. These member organizations include:

Department of Defense

• Defense Intelligence Agency
• Defense Threat Reduction Agency
• DoD Computer Forensics Laboratory
• DoD Polygraph Institute
• National Security Agency
• Special Operations Command
• European Command
• Central Command
• U.S. Air Force  
• Air Combat Command
• Force Protection Battle Laboratory
• Force Protection System Programs Office
• Air Force Office of Special Investigation
• U.S. Army      
• Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases
• Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve
• Special Forces
• Technical Escort Unit
• Consequence Management Integration Office
• U.S. Marine Corps
• U.S. Navy       
• Naval Criminal Investigative Service
• Naval Research Laboratory
• Naval Special Warfare
• Naval Surface Warfare Center (Dahlgren)

Department of State

• Coordinator for Counterterrorism
• Diplomatic Security
• Foreign Building Operations

Department of the Treasury

• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
• U.S. Customs Service
• U.S. Secret Service
• Forensic Services Division
• Technical Security Division
• Special Services Division

Department of Justice

• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Counterterrorism Planning Section
• WMD Operations Unit
• Hostage Rescue Team
• Laboratory Division
• Bomb Data Center
• Computer Analysis and Response Team
• Forensic Science Research and Training Center
• Hazardous Material Response Unit
• National Domestic Preparedness Office
• National Infrastructure Protection Center
• Federal Bureau of Prisons
• National Institute of Justice
• U.S. Marshals Service

Department of Agriculture

• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
• Food Safety and Inspection Service

Department of Energy

• Defense Programs Elements
• National Laboratories
• Office of Safeguards and Security
• Office of Energy Intelligence

Department of Health and Human Services/USPHS

• Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
• Food and Drug Administration
• Office of Emergency Preparedness

Department of Commerce

• National Telecommunications & Information Administration
• National Institute of Standards and Technology
• Office of Security

Department of Transportation

• Intelligence and Security Division
• U.S. Coast Guard
• Federal Aviation Administration
• Office of Civil Aviation Security
• FAA Technical Center
• Office of Emergency Preparedness

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Interior

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Other

• Intelligence Community
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• General Services Administration - Federal Protective Service
• U.S. Postal Inspection Service
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Leadership

The working group is co-managed by officials in the State Department and the Pentagon. Its Executive Steering Committee (ESC) provides oversight for the activities of the TSWG. The State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism maintains policy oversight and provides the chair for the ESC. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SOLIC) is responsible for managing the work of the TSWG. SOLIC provides a technical chair for the steering committee, and other federal departments and agencies provide technical chairs for subgroups.

Subgroups

The TSWG breaks down its work into nine subgroups, each responsible for different subject areas: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures; Explosives Detection; Improvised Device Defeat; Investigative Support & Forensics; Physical Security; Surveillance, Collection, and Operations Support; Tactical Operations Support; Training Technology Development; and Personnel Protection. Each subgroup is chaired or co-chaired by representatives from various federal agencies, such as the FBI, the intelligence community, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S. Secret Service.

Projects

The kinds of projects that are approved range from chemical and biological defense to air-defenses for civilian aircraft to new types of body and vehicular armor to large-scale infrastructure protection. Of all projects the TSWG has funded, about two-thirds have gone on to be used by government departments and agencies, including Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury (Secret Service, Customs and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives); the Intelligence Community; Federal Aviation Administration; and the Public Health Service.

A top priority of the working group has been the funding of projects that will address the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which was the deadliest problem in Iraq for American soldiers. The TSWG was reportedly prepared to spend upward of $100 million for new technology that will reduce the risk of IEDs on U.S. military forces.

Some examples of working group “success stories” include development of new bomb squad equipment. One was a disrupter used to break apart bombs; another was an X-ray device for looking inside packages to review its contents for explosives (the military also is using this). Another TSWG contribution was new special suits to protect bomb squads from not only explosives but also chemical and biological agents.

Other examples of TSWG projects can be found in the transcript of a press briefing that the working group held in 2001.

International Dimension

As a result of a Senate initiative for joint counterterrorism R&D efforts, the TSWG conducts joint projects with NATO and non-NATO allies, such as Israel. One project for Israel involved development of fingerprint recovery techniques that allowed Israeli investigators to recover prints off of evidence left at a scene. In one case the technology identified an assassin, and in another case identified an individual who had stolen materials that were going to be used in an attack on civil aviation. The attack was prevented.

Special Briefing on the Technical Support Working Group (News Release)

Working Group PPT (pdf)

TSWG Project Bids

Small Biz vs. the Terrorists: The Pentagon picks the brains of U.S. entrepreneurs (by Paul Magnusson, Business Week)

From the Web Site of the Technical Support Working Group

Advanced Analytic Capabilities (AAC)

Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO)

Contact Information (CTTSO)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Low-Intensity Conflict (EOD/LIC)

Explosives Detection

Irregular Warfare Support (IWS)

Organization Structure

Publications, Training Support Packages, and Software

Technology Transition

The Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) spent more than $342.3 million on more than 5,000 contractor transactions between FY 2002 and FY 2012, according to USASpending.gov. The top five types of products or services purchased by the TSWG were engineering and technical services ($77,168,457), technical assistance ($52,504,882), facilities operations support services ($17,811,003), logistics support services ($17,755,972), and ADP systems analysis services ($15,815,710). The top five recipients of this contractor spending during that period were:

1. The Parsons Corporation                                       $22,775,020   

2. Al-Raha Group for Technical Services                   $22,414,680   

3. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.                        $22,169,755   

4. Northrop Grumman Corporation                           $17,363,214   

5. BAE Systems PLC                                                 $15,669,536   

Contractors that perform work for the working group range from private defense companies to universities to government laboratories. Contracts can vary in cost from $20,000 to $10 million, although most fall in the six-figure range. In some cases, a project approved by the TSWG for a relatively modest sum can lead to much bigger money once it is purchased by other agencies.

One example is the Chemical Biological Response Aide, or CoBRA, a rugged laptop with wireless communication, a digital camera and a scanner that can be used to collect and disseminate information at disaster scenes. One convenient feature is that it can be decontaminated by running it through a dishwasher. The TSWG subsidized development of the CoBRA with a $600,000 grant in 1998, and the manufacturer, Defense Group Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia, later signed a $14 million contract to supply them to FBI bomb squads.

Companies can also earn multi-year contracts that add up to substantial earnings. Since 2002 iRobot Corp. has received more than $8 million in development contracts from TSWG to develop a number of next-generation robot technologies. In July 2012, the firm was awarded an additional $1.6 million in funding to develop, train, and field test the iRobot Warrior. In the case of Technology Service Corporation, the company was awarded a single $10 million contract to provide a Secure Perimeter Awareness Network that will allow airport security personnel to better monitor for unauthorized intruders.

Other examples of TSWG contracts are:

• GE Ion Track, $731,000, to develop cartridges that can extract and concentrate chemical warfare agents and other classes of toxic substances from bulk water samples.
• Sentigen Holding Corporation, $1,645,209, to develop advanced biotechnology tools for the development of a free-standing sensor for the detection of explosives.
• Vanguard Protective Technologies, $190,000, to develop a breach control barrier system to preclude intruders from entering into restricted areas.
• Dynamics Technology, Inc, $3,773,015, for development, design, building, test and evaluation of an Associated Particle Imaging System to remotely detect explosives concealed in cars and trucks.
• Atlas Researches, Ltd. (Israel), $744,528, for the development of a polygraphy chair and associated software.
• Mississippi State University, $539,855, to develop a Long Wavelength Infrared Spectral Imaging System.
• Quantum Magnetics, $1.8 million, to develop an Incident Command and Control System that will solve the problem of locating, tracking, monitoring, and communicating with emergency responders in structures.
• International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), $775,922, to develop next generation fire fighting protective equipment that will include chemical and biological agent protection.
• SAIC, $800,989, to develop an Advanced Radioisotope Identifier System (ARIS), a compact, hand-held detection and analysis instrument for use by border security, HAZMAT, law enforcement, bomb squads, and other emergency response personnel to identify hazardous radiological materials.
• SAIC, $2,360,194, to develop a prototype dual high-energy X-ray transmission imaging system capable of detecting high atomic number materials, such as uranium or lead, concealed in fully loaded containers, freight vehicles, and tanker trucks.
• University of Minnesota, $520,992, to test particulate material collected on air filters from existing air filter systems and evaluate different methods of analyzing the material collected.
• Esensors, Inc., $610,000, to develop a battery-operated environmental monitoring system with eight interchangeable sensors that will allow the real-time monitoring of chemical concentrations and physical parameters during building decontamination efforts and also the monitoring of air quality under multiple conditions.
• Massachusetts General Hospital, $2,071,678, to produce a low cost, highly specific, integrated detection system for monitoring indoor facilities for the presence of biological toxins.
• Avir LLC, $1.1 million, for the development of a warning mechanism to protect building heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems from toxic industrial chemicals.
• Clean Earth Technologies, LLC, $795,947, to produce rugged, easy-to-use protocol booklets that will address the decontamination of a variety of urban settings including man-made and natural exterior areas.
• Safe Environment Engineering, Lp, $725,000, to solve the difficult problem of locating, tracking, monitoring, and communicating with emergency responders in structures.
• Techno-Sciences, Inc., $308,574, to help develop an Emergency Responder Tracking and Monitoring System.
• ChemImage, $682,976, to develop an imager that will be used for non-destructive analysis and identification of evidence in counterterrorism investigations including documents, ink, fibers, hair, cloth, stains, drugs, explosives, fingerprints, thin layer chromatography plates and surfaces contaminated with chemical or biological agents.
• AristaTek, $205,000, to develop a user-friendly emergency response tool that provides guidance and recommendations for the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering chemically contaminated environments.
• Nanosphere, Inc., $2,500,000, to develop field-deployable detection technology for the identification of biological toxins.
• Isotron Corporation, $350,000, for the development of a material to rapidly and efficiently remove radioactive surface contaminants to quickly mitigate the effects of a radiological release and to facilitate subsequent restoration and decontamination efforts.
• West Virginia University, $370,000, for the development of a forensic method to determine the specimen age of deposited biological evidence.
• North Carolina State University, $830,000, to develop fire fighting gear that protects against chemical and biological agents, improves flexibility and durability, increases the service life of the gear and reduces the weight, heat stress, and costs associated with currently available protective gear.
• Pulmatrix, $1.8 million, for early stage iCALM development as a countermeasure agent to prevent the spread of respiratory infection among human and livestock populations.
• Argonne National Laboratory, $690,000, for the development of a process to remove radioactive isotopes from porous building materials in the aftermath of a terrorist attack with a radiological dispersion device, also known as a “dirty bomb.”
• Air Force Research Lab, $600,000, to develop new technology that will allow investigators to analyze cockpit voice-recorders more rapidly, extract more data and better synchronize information when resolving difficult investigations of transportation incidents. 
• Adayana, $20 million, to provide training research and development support.
• System Planning Corporation, $6.2 million, for support services for Critical Incident Response Technology Seminars (CIRTS).

Should facial recognition technology be used in public places?

The Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) has been a big part of the Pentagon’s Combating Terrorism Technology Support Program. Part of this work has involved research, development and prototyping of ways to detect, identify and spy on terrorists. Specifically, this has meant the development of biometric facial recognition equipment, which would allow the government and law enforcement to spot specific individuals within a crowd of people.

But the use of facial recognition technology, such as at Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa, Florida, has spurred public debate about its effectiveness, as well as broader policy and philosophical concerns.

Biometrics Expert Delivers Lecture on Facial Recognition (RAND)

Privacy Fears As Facial-Recognition Technology Becomes Increasingly Advanced, Available And Affordable (Washington Times)

Pro

Supporters of facial recognition technology include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other U.S. law enforcement agencies. They want the capability to track suspects, quickly single out dangerous people in a crowd or match low-resolution security-camera images against a vast database to look for matches.

The National Sheriffs’ Association has favored the technology for operating prisons. They say this capability prevents the accidental release of prisoners who slip out of jails by exchanging identities with other inmates. The state of Georgia has used facial-recognition technology for eight years, supporters point out.

Supporters also want to keep regulation of the technology to a minimum in order to prevent the stifling of new advances.

Facial Recognition Technology: A Boon To Law Enforcement, A Blow To Privacy Advocates (by G.W. Schulz, California Watch)

Facing Facts (Federal Trade Commission)

Con

Opponents include civil libertarians who say society is not yet ready for such a technology. They fear it is advancing too quickly and becoming available before policymakers can develop appropriate regulations for the technology’s use.

Also, critics say the FBI might abuse facial recognition technology and infringe upon Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“In our country, government shouldn’t be looking over your shoulder unless it has a reason,” said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech, privacy and technology project. “They should not be collecting data on innocent subjects.”

Why Facebook's Facial Recognition is Creepy (by Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, PCWorld)

Facial Recognition and Privacy (by Harley Geiger, Center for Democracy & Technology)

Facial Recognition Technology And Your Rights (Liberty News)