TOPICS
TOPICS
Acquisition reform group warns government not to rush insourcing
As the administration moves forward with contracting reviews and begins efforts to bring back in-house several job functions, at least one acquisition reform group is urging caution.
In a new report, the Federal Acquisition Innovation and Reform Institute, or FAIR, said agencies must be careful about insourcing to ensure the government doesn't lose the skills and core competencies contractors currently bring to the table.
"We support the position of insourcing, but we're proposing that we not simplify it," said FAIR President Raj Sharma. "We want to make sure that all agencies across the board, and management, understand that this is a long-term process. The last thing anyone would want is for us to rush through this process ... and have even more program failures than we had before. That is something we cannot afford."
President Obama has vowed to review federal contracting practices, clarify the definition of "inherently governmental" and strengthen the federal workforce. In a March 4 memo, Obama directed the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance on outsourcing. But the FAIR report notes that changing the status quo will not be easy.
Contractors now are performing tasks that require specialized skills, as well as mission critical functions and daily program management and support roles, the report stated. At the Defense Department alone, the number of contractors has jumped from 21 percent of the Pentagon's workforce to 39 percent during the last eight years.
The goal of insourcing efforts, FAIR advised, should be to ensure the federal government possesses the organic capabilities necessary to meet its many missions. In addition to more carefully defining the term "inherently governmental" and keeping those job functions in-house, agencies should work to identify and build core competencies, the report stated. FAIR cited systems engineers at Defense as an example of a core competency, pointing out that a lack of federal systems engineers to oversee and assess contractors' work could lead to high-profile failures and waste, fraud and abuse.
When identifying those important skills, Sharma said the goal is not to restrict a wide swath of jobs from being outsourced, but to delicately determine the right balance of government workers and contractors, so federal employees can oversee and interpret the work of contractors. As difficult as agencies have found it to settle on a feasible definition of "inherently governmental," identifying and retaining core competencies is likely to be even more challenging, Sharma said, because it will occur on an agency-by-agency, program-by-program basis.
Insourcing discussions also involve workforce concerns that threaten to complicate an already Byzantine process. According to FAIR, the federal government must modernize its recruitment, compensation and professional development policies and processes to be competitive with the private sector. If government cannot vie with industry, it will be unable to fill insourced positions with skilled, experienced federal workers.
"That's one of the other dangers, if we make this a pure numbers issue and don't compare apples to apples when we're insourcing, we may end up losing capabilities in the process -- and the capabilities we so badly need right now," Sharma said.
FAIR warned that retention efforts must go hand-in-hand with recruitment, which is likely to be easier during the recession than it will be in a stronger economy.
"While it may be feasible to hire thousands of people during the current economic downturn, it will be difficult to retain this talent unless systemic human capital issues are addressed," the report stated.
The goal of the administration, Congress and agencies, Sharma said, should be to proceed through a deliberate, systematic approach based on thorough analysis, not "innuendo and rhetoric."
COMMENTS
- I having trouble reconciling the long forecast, but as yet unseen, "mass exodus" of government employees with the Administration's drive to "insource". Maybe one can have it both ways... Dennis Szymanski Posted June 16, 2009 1:38 PM
- In the rush to downsize government the skills of employees were ignored. More importantly it was argued that skills would disappear even faster in governement if you outsource the jobs, that contract costs that look good now will increases, and the obvious profit margine of private contracts are not necessary with government employees. But since it was more important to make government more like business we shifted work to the free market. We saved no real work form government employees who now had toothless oversight under the last administration and had to train the contractors to do the job. Once the contractors finally, get trained, the prices jump and the cost effectivness disappears. In the mean time the government dosn't hire new employees, the work force ages and retires and were left with the more expensive Contractors. The perfect scam to the taxpayers, profits for the business that picked up the work, and the government not only looks like it can't do the work but taxpayers foot the bill then and now for bad past policy. This delay just confirms what was argued when contracting out more was discussed - we would be forced to pay more once you eliminate the skills in government. Taxpayers foot the bill for reduced service and higher costs. Hasn't anyone figured out that some things should be done by the US Government, the government is not a business that sees only profit from our citizens, and Taxes should pay for workers that put their Country before corporate contracted profit. I know my opinon means little, it meant nothing before, I just get to watch the problems grow. Perry Casper Posted June 16, 2009 11:39 AM
- Great "Mr Navy". My contractors spend precious time asking the gov for approvals and direction. They sit on the phone or sitting around chatting. Then its not what they want. It will be fun to see if they can do anything themselves. They do have meetings with 26 people to discuss a two bit topic. The result is they will have follow up meetings, sub committees etc to come up with when to hold the next golf tourney. No value to the taxpayer. Alex badme Posted June 16, 2009 10:59 AM
