GovernmentExecutive.com

More than 100 administrative workers at the Office of Personnel Management failed in an attempt to defend their jobs against contractors, agency officials announced Wednesday.

OPM awarded Transtecs Corp., a small business based in Wichita, Kan., a 52-month, $16.8 million contract to handle clerical work previously performed by 163 full-time employees, said Clarence Crawford, the agency's associate director for management and chief financial officer. OPM expects to reap $15 million in savings over the life of the contract.

The decision casts a shadow on OPM employees' otherwise flawless job competition record. The personnel agency has boasted green lights - the highest possible score - on the competitive sourcing section of the White House's quarterly management score card for nearly a year, and has earned those marks without an in-house team ever losing a job contest.

OPM started the administrative support competition in 2003, Crawford said. Asked why the jobs seemed good candidates for a competitive sourcing study, he noted that the agency classified them as commercial in nature on Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act lists. OPM has been relatively aggressive about holding job contests and is running low on commercial positions available for contests, he noted.

The competition entailed 163 full-time positions, but roughly 40 of those employees already have decided to leave, said Doris Hausser, senior policy adviser to the director. OPM is working on "soft landing" packages, including early retirement and buyout offers, to assist the remaining clerical workers and the 50 or so additional employees who could be left without a job after the reduction in force is over, she said.

John Zottoli, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 32, the union branch representing OPM employees, noted that in some cases the administrative workers whose positions are being eliminated might end up bumping out members of the in-house teams that prevailed in past job competitions. "That seems very unfair," he said, adding that he hopes such a situation will be avoided.

There are about 100 employees in line to lose jobs over the outsourcing decision, Zottoli estimated. "I would like to see OPM place every one of those 100 people," he said. Agency officials could create positions for the affected employees or hire them into existing vacancies, he noted, adding that this could require restructuring some work to open jobs at suitable grade levels.

Acting OPM Director Dan Blair has announced a hiring freeze for in-agency, clerical and technical positions at the GS-7 level and below "in an effort to match qualified displaced employees with other, unfilled jobs." The agency is committed to ensuring that "as few employees as possible will actually be separated involuntarily," he wrote in an e-mail message informing workers of the contest's outcome.

Transtecs also is hoping to hire some of OPM's clerical workers and in theory could provide jobs for up to 90 people, Hausser said. Company officials would like to hold a job fair as early as next week, she said. The contractor is required to open positions to affected employees before outsiders and must provide salary and benefits packages meeting Labor Department standards. Company officials will likely want to offer attractive benefits to entice the OPM employees, Hausser noted.

The transfer of work will take place in two stages to spread associated costs over a longer time period, Hausser said. Transtecs employees will take over in Washington, D.C. and at three affected field offices (in Dallas, Philadelphia and San Francisco) by June, she said. In Boyers, Pa., where about half of the 163 positions studied reside, the transition would take place by November.

COMMENTS

• Two years ago our command lost the A-76 to Transtec Corp. The old adage "you get what you pay for" couldn't be more true. They started off understaffed, unqualified and of course underbid. They had to revise the original bid and provide additional funds to hire additional admin staff. What use to take 2 days to order something as simple as office supplies now takes 4 different approvals, weeks at a time and still you never see your supplies. Just to get your travel voucher processed takes an act of congress with this Corp. This doesn't even cover the turnover rate of how many clerical support staff we have had to retrain. It's a shame and sad waste of taxpayers money. After 19 years of civil service I'm actively seeking private sector employment. No end in sight with this nonsense!! Tracy Scott Posted March 27, 2005 11:03 AM
• The author of the article seems to have forgotten the infamous USIS being created from an impending outsourcing. Hmmmm use taxpayer money to set up a company that will compete against the government and either way the employees will have jobs (either as government workers, or as even higher paid contractors). OPM is out of control. GovExec.com reader Posted March 9, 2005 2:33 PM
• A couple of observations from past engagements: There is usually a bias on the part of gov't supervisors that high pay-grade automatically equals "inherently governmental" protection. While generally true that supervisors have more IG tasks, pay grade doesn't make a position IG. One organization I worked with selected candidates for A-76 by stating all positions under GS 12 were going to be studied, all above weren't. I tried to talk them into looking at the whole org, but they would have none of it. Net result - they lost. Then all those supervisors found out they WERE dispensible since the staff they previously supervised was no longer there and that made them no longer needed... Second, the reason that many claim an "entitlement" philosophy is easily seen in GovExec letters. Personally I think it is the vocal minority, but who are the ones that write and speak up? "You can't change the pay system to 'pay for performance' because..." or "Our step pay raises and grade increases will be destroyed by..." Some good reasons, some just sound whiny. But it is just like one of the blogs (right or left leaning) - you get the same thing over and over and over. Fed'l Gov't Consultant Posted March 9, 2005 7:26 AM