I'm not sure this says what you think it says. I'm not sure any of it says what's being argued it says.

You found a GSA-approved vendor that does training. The second link shows that that bulk of their money comes from the FAA; the spreadsheet actually shows that they refunded $5k to the TSA in 2014. Prior to the FAA, their biggest client was the Army ($14m, nearly 10x more than the TSA has ever paid them). Either way, it's a long damn way from where "the money" came from, which, from this article and a little math, is:

$878m / 6 years / 3,000 people = $49k year per person per year.

Seems like "the money" is basically putting three thousand people on staff for six years to perform racial profiling.

'cuz that's what's happening here: SPOT is a euphemism for racial profiling. Nobody wants to acknowledge that racial profiling is a bloody effective method for preventing domestic acts by international terrorists because it's a heinous and intrustive trampling of civil rights. But Ben Gurion, which is held up as a model for airport security, functions almost entirely by racial profiling. The ONE success the Border Patrol has had in stopping terrorism? Racial profiling.

After the ferry docked in Port Angeles at 6 pm, Ressam intended to be the last car to leave the ferry. Although there had not been any intelligence reports suggesting threats, U.S. Customs inspector Diana Dean decided to have a secondary Customs search conducted of Ressam's car, saying later that Ressam was acting "hinky" and asked him to get out of the car.

So really - this is the ACLU saying "racial profiling is bad" and the TSA saying "we don't care what you call it, it's how we do" and people focusing on "junk science" (a phrase I haven't found anywhere but the linked article, which uses it in the title, not the text) because it's safer and easier than focusing on the fact that the TSA wants to be able to hassle you because you look like a terrorist.