TOPICS
TOPICS
Whine festival
Over the past few weeks, I've been reading the reactions of federal employees to the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative. I don't know whether the term "Dutch uncle" is politically correct any more, but I think for many feds it's Dutch uncle time on the issue of competing against contractors.
First of all, whining about it is a losing proposition. Whining will only win you the support of other whiners, and a gang of losers is, well, a gang of losers. Take a step back and recognize that your bleating serves to strengthen the negative stereotype of the coddled, employed-for-life federal worker. It's unbecoming, like the lament of a jilted lover. ("After giving you the best years of my life, you cast me out into the cold!") Please disabuse yourself of the notion that the government's primary purpose is to employ you.
Second, the ad hominem attacks on President Bush, especially those relating to perceived motivations for desiring privatization, ignore a trend that began during the Eisenhower administration and has gained momentum over the past 15 years. Remember the various agency-wide quality and process improvement efforts? The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act? The President's Quality Award? If agencies had followed just half the principles and concepts inherent in those endeavors, our current performance would be bulletproof, world-class and untouchable. Where were you when quality came-a-callin'?
If you think you're doing a good job, why do you fear a competitive study? If you're concerned about inappropriate or improperly weighted criteria for competitions, whining and Bush-bashing do not constitute a compelling argument in your favor.
If you're looking for someone to vilify, you'd be better served by shifting your emphasis to employee unions, upper management and Congress. Each serves a necessary purpose, but each also has helped get us into our sorry circumstances.
In their zeal to protect the inept or save a few jobs at the possible expense of many, unions deny agencies performance options. As a fed, I'd be worried if my union sacrificed my job security in order to save the job of some boob.
Top managers, on the other hand, often view merely maintaining the status quo - that is, not losing ground - as a victory. Note to upper management: Treading water is the fastest way to get from Point A to Point A. If you occupy a job that has been designated commercial in nature, and the managers in your organization are not currently engaged in actions to make your function competitive, perhaps this is the sort of job security matter your union or manager's association should be concerned about.
Congress is guilty of failing to incorporate performance factors into agencies' budgets. Budget considerations have always held greater sway than executive branch cajoling and moral suasion when it comes to government performance. If managers were pressed to deliver on performance criteria through budget pressure from Capitol Hill, they would perforce have license to do so.
In the meantime, many feds might want to rethink the approach of implying they're entitled to a lifetime job, spouting trite partisan viewpoints, and otherwise losing their balance while attempting to wrap themselves in the flag. To them, I say read the new OMB Circular A-76 to gain a better understanding of what you're opposing, find out what you can do to add value to your position and your function, and, most of all, get competitive!
COMMENTS
- Anyone familiar with the A-76 process knows that OMB keeps changing the rules in favor of contractors so what is this nonsense about establishing a level playing field? Federal employees do not stand a chance. Under streamlined A-76 procedures, federal employees lost the 10% advantage which historically had been the minimum conversion differential before in-house work could be contracted out. Under standard procedures, the agency tender (proposal) must be submitted along with private industry offers to be evaluated. In some cases, the agency tender will simply be rejected and the agency tender official will be hard pressed politically or otherwise to challenge it. Contractors are not under any such constraints. So much for a level playing field. If the federal employees win, all, repeat all, of the in-house information must be disclosed. However, if a private industry offeror wins, the offer is considered proprietary. So much for a level playing field. A large number of A-76 contracts are cost plus. Federal employees do not enjoy this type of arrangement. So much for a level playing field. Government Executive and other periodicals have avoided the subject of cost plus A-76 contracts like the bubonic plague. Once a contractor wins a competition and the federal employees are gone, it simply increases its contract price through periodic overruns. OMB will not resolve this issue. Who will? GAO appears disingenuous in its review of whether Unions/employees are "interested parties" under A-76. Congress has not revised CICA. So, who is GAO kidding? So much for a level playing field. What is puzzling is why AFGE, NTEU, NFFE, and the rest of the Unions do not research all of the existing A-76 contracts. Some contracts have doubled and tripled in price since the federal employees got the boot. The Unions could post the info on their web pages, release it to Members of Congress, and distribute it to various media outlets to expose the many contractor cost overruns. This would have a much greater impact on the general public than filing litigation over the definition of what is "inherently governmental". The growing federal deficit will mean more to US taxpayers as each day passes. GovExec.com reader Posted July 17, 2003 6:25 PM
- Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. Didn't anyone ever tell you that when you start a discussion by doing a character assasination on any potential opposition you give away how weak your own position really is? By your standards, guys like Washington and Jefferson were whiners and attracted a gang of losers. Good thing, huh? I've been with the government for 35 years. I'm an enlisted Army Vietnam vet. Before I became a GS-11 I'm proud to say six of those years were as a blue collar union steward. Unions, management and congress in general aren't the problem Eddie. High level, policy making, political apointees at the direction of inept, corrupt politicians is the problem. Didn't the marines ever teach you "Authority is a poor substitute for leadership"? Washington is simply holding up a sagging economy and creating potential political contributors by contracting out jobs. There's no real competition here. The process isn't remotely fair. It's all smoke and mirrors and you know it. Most savings are "hocus pocus" at best. However, there are lots of high ranking management and military officers making money as contractors so it can't be all bad now can it? I see and deal with it every day. Don't get me wrong Eddie. I'm not whining. Everyday in my own small way I try to do something about it. Today is your day. In the words of the late W.C. Fields, "Go away boy. Ya bother me." Art Doss Posted June 25, 2003 10:41 AM
- Mr. Chambers, take a look at this silly TSP boondoggle. 36 million dollars lost to another failed contract. They take the money and run, we are left holding the bag, and taking up the slack once again. J Hamilton Posted June 24, 2003 12:00 AM
Ed Chambers is a former Marine and 23-year veteran of government program analyst wars.
