Defense opposes union-backed changes to job competition process

The Defense Department opposes a provision in the Senate-passed Defense Appropriations bill that could make it easier for Defense's civilian workforce to win public-private job competitions.

Almost two months after the Bush administration issued new rules for allowing private firms to bid on federal jobs, the provision, sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., would change some of these rules as they apply to Defense. Kennedy successfully attached the measure to the Defense Appropriations bill, which was approved by the Senate late last week. The measure drew support from the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union.

Kennedy's provision would give teams of employees at Defense a cost advantage in most competitive sourcing studies, and allow them to restructure to be more competitive. Defense officials believe these measures would tie the hands of Defense managers who are running competitive sourcing studies.

"We are opposed to it because it limits the flexibility that the new [Office of Management and Budget] Circular A-76 provides," said Joe Sikes, director of Defense's office of competitive sourcing and privatization. "Generally speaking, it just puts constraints on our competitive sourcing program."

The provision would give civil servants a 10 percent cost advantage in job competitions involving 10 or more federal employees. The Bush administration limited this advantage to "standard" competitions, which generally involve 65 or more employees, in its revision of circular A-76.

The 10 percent cost advantage actually goes to whatever entity is currently performing the work-be it federal or contractor-because the process of changing service providers creates costs for the government. In practice, the advantage almost always goes to teams of federal employees, since agencies rarely subject contractor-held jobs to public-private competition. Administration officials have said the cost advantage restricts agency flexibility to stage smaller competitive sourcing studies, which can use a variety of "streamlined" methods under the new circular.

With the cost advantage in place, in-house teams at the Defense Department won 49 of 50-or 98 percent-of all streamlined competitions held between 1997 and 2001. But Defense officials have said the advantage was not the deciding factor in most of these competitions. If the advantage is reinstated, it could make competitive sourcing less cost effective for Defense, according to an official with the American Council of Engineering Companies, an industry group that opposes Kennedy's provision.

"Restoring the 10 percent cost differential for streamlined competitions would restrict Defense's ability to achieve the maximum savings that result from public-private competitions," said Camille Fleenor, director of federal procurement policy with the council.

In another break with administration's policy, the legislation would require Defense to let employee teams restructure themselves into "most efficient organizations" in all competitions involving 10 or more workers. The new circular makes such restructuring optional if a competition includes less than 65 civil servants.

Defense generally has not created most efficient organizations-which can take months to develop-for smaller competitions. But doing so would save taxpayer money, according to John Threlkeld, a lobbyist with AFGE.

"Allowing Defense civilian employees opportunities to submit their best bids through most efficient organization plans ensures healthy competitions, which benefit taxpayers and warfighters," he said.

The provision also would prohibit contractors from offering "less beneficial" health benefits to their employees as a tactic to underbid employee teams. Sikes said this provision would be extremely difficult to implement, because it would force Defense to compare the benefits of different health care plans during the A-76 process. "It clearly complicates the process," he said.

But Threlkeld said Defense could perform the comparison. "The provision lays down an important principle while leaving Defense considerable discretion for implementation," he said.

Defense will make its views on these measures known during the House-Senate conference on the Defense spending bill, according to Sikes. Kennedy's provision is not part of the House bill.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

    In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

  • Toward A More Innovative Government

    This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

  • From Volume to Value: UK’s NHS Digital Provides U.S. Healthcare Agencies A Roadmap For Value-Based Payment Models

    The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.

  • GBC Flash Poll: Is Your Agency Safe?

    Federal leaders weigh in on the state of information security


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.