GovernmentExecutive.com

A Senate Democrat wants to question David Safavian about his views on government contracting before allowing the full Senate to consider confirming him as the Office of Management and Budget's next federal procurement administrator.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., placed a hold on Safavian, nominated by President Bush in November 2003 to succeed Angela Styles as the head of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, in the hopes of arranging a meeting with him, said spokesman Tom Gavin Wednesday. Byrd, Gavin said, would like to discuss what he sees as the "shortsightedness" of the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative - a program aimed at allowing tens of thousands of contractors to compete for federal jobs.

Since the White House "adopted a policy promoting the contracting out of government services," the senator has tried to meet with each nominee for positions in this area, Gavin said. Byrd delayed Clay Johnson's nomination as OMB deputy director of management over similar concerns, but dropped his hold once he had aired his complaints.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved Safavian early this month, and the full Senate now must confirm him. Alternatively, the White House could consider making a recess appointment, which would not require Senate approval.

An administration official, who requested anonymity, declined to comment on the likelihood of a recess appointment. "We are working to get [Safavian] confirmed as soon as possible," the official said.

Ideally, Safavian would go through the regular confirmation process, said Cathy Garman, vice president for public policy at the Contract Services Association, an industry group based in Arlington, Va. But at the same time, the OFPP position, which has been vacant since Styles left about nine months ago, needs to be filled quickly, she said.

Without a leader, the office is essentially in a "holding pattern" and lacks a chief spokesman to testify on Capitol Hill and shape policies in areas ranging from acquisition workforce training to competitive sourcing, Garman noted. "All that just doesn't get addressed if you don't have somebody [in a leadership position] full time," she said, adding that her comments are not intended as a criticism of the current OFPP staff.

COMMENTS

• "Without a leader, the office is essentially in a ‘holding pattern’ and lacks a chief spokesman to testify on Capitol Hill and shape policies in areas ranging from acquisition workforce training to competitive sourcing, Garman noted. ‘All that just doesn't get addressed if you don't have somebody [in a leadership position] full time,’ she said, adding that her comments are not intended as a criticism of the current OFPP staff." This is absolute BS! We get some of our best policy out when operating under "acting" heads. The appointees are far too political to get anything meaningful through because they look at the potential impact on election and not on operations. Most people in this country do not know and do not care who is appointed to this position. I will bet that 99.99% of the population doesn't care who is there. However, the person there can generate significant problems--and will. tax payer Posted June 25, 2004 7:16 AM
• Senator Byrd is right. OFPP is a joke. The nominees for this position have largely been political entrepreneurs since the Clinton Administration. Angela Styles tried to be serious about procurement policy and look what happened to her! No seasoned and serious government contracts person will even consider taking the job, which is why they have to pick a lobbyist. GovExec.com reader Posted June 24, 2004 10:13 AM
• The position "needs to be filled quickly" but it's been vacant for 9 months? Seems to just be more of the same with the Dems blocking Bush nominations over a plethora of idealogical differences. Not that less government is a bad thing. One of the most effective periods of the Clinton administration was when the government was shut down. Less government is almost always a good thing. However, this is a very, very bad precedent - blocking nomination decisions without removal from consideration. Come on Democratic Party! Vote nominations in, or vote them down, but don't leave the court case backlogs growing, the procurement system wallowing without leadership, etc. If you don't like the Bush nominations, vote them out if you have the majority or deal with it if your voice is the minority. This tact that you are taking is hurting my country. GovExec.com reader Posted June 24, 2004 7:08 AM