GovernmentExecutive.com

A handful of lawmakers are embracing the status quo in an attempt to shield federal agencies, such as the National Park Service, from restructuring the way they provide commercial services.

This opposition comes as President Bush moves forward with his competitive sourcing initiative. Competitive sourcing, part of the president's management agenda, represents not only an opportunity to improve the way federal agencies operate, but a way to save taxpayer dollars.

According to an inventory first conducted by the Clinton administration pursuant to the 1998 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act, 850,000 positions in the federal government were categorized as commercial in nature. These are jobs performing engineering services, writing software, making maps, hanging drywall, mowing lawns and other services ranging from high tech to routine. These are the same jobs offered by private firms and small businesses found in the Yellow Pages in any town in America.

Under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, competitive sourcing allows federal agencies to consider whether the private sector could be used to create efficiency. This does not preclude federal employees from restructuring their departments and competing to keep the work in-house. As it is now, many federal employees who work in commercial functions are stuck in inefficient bureaucracies performing activities that are not inherently governmental.

For example, the government is considering competitive sourcing to help improve the services available at our national parks. The effort underway at the Park Service to use competitive sourcing as a tool for improving fiscal and operational efficiency comes at a time when the agency is facing a tremendous funding shortfall for maintenance at almost every park. Nationwide, this maintenance backlog is estimated at nearly $5 billion.

The Park Service faces many challenges while making America's treasures available for millions of visitors each year; however, funds are limited for maintenance, security, safety and a variety of other activities. In the past, the Park Service has been instructed by Congress to reduce the in-house performance of its commercial activities, but these efforts have not evolved. It is important that we now allow the Park Service to evaluate its workforce and how best to use its funding.

As the author of the FAIR Act, I strongly support improving effectiveness and efficiency in government. At the same time, I realize that we need to go about it in the right way. We need to have a clear process with a reasonable timeline and federal employees need to be kept informed. It also is important that any public-private competition involves a level playing field - private sector contractors and the government should be judged on the same requirements.

At a July 24 hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, I heard from witnesses who explained how the competitive sourcing process works and who corrected misinformation pertaining to the Park Service's competitive sourcing plan. Several witnesses testified that the government, on average, saves nearly 30 percent regardless of whether in-house employees or a private contractor win the competition. Although there are some upfront costs associated with conducting these public-private competitions, the long-term savings dwarf these expenses.

Every president for the last 50 years, Republican and Democrat alike, has endorsed the elimination of commercial functions in the federal workforce, but their plans were not vigorously implemented or enforced. Thus, nearly half the civilian federal workforce is doing work that could be done by the private sector.

We should keep in mind that President Bush's competitive sourcing plan is far different than the Clinton administration's reinventing government initiative. President Clinton's plan established an arbitrary quota for eliminating 252,000 federal jobs - without any form of competition. By comparison, President Bush has set no such requirement for outsourcing, but has urged federal agencies to review their commercial functions and open them up for competition.

Over the past two and a half years, the Interior Department has noted that of the 1,600 full-time employees it has analyzed for competitive sourcing, not one federal employee has been involuntarily dismissed from his or her job. As the case of the Interior Department reveals, agencies try to reassign federal employees to higher priority, inherently governmental positions within their agencies. Some employees transfer to jobs in other federal departments, others take early retirement, or they go to work for a winning contractor.

The taxpayer is the ultimate loser when competitive sourcing is stymied. Inefficient monopolies that waste taxpayer dollars divert much-needed federal resources from our government's most pressing programs. Through reasonable competitive sourcing, I believe federal agencies like the Park Service can increase services to the public, while maintaining the valued resources we all enjoy.

Let's give good old-fashioned competition a chance.

COMMENTS

• Since you're from Wyoming, Senator, you don't have the excuse the locals do about not knowing the north end of the horse from the south end. There's nothing fair about your so-called competition. It's really all about money. Those who have it and those who want more of it. Oh, and isn't it amazing how many contractors are former high ranking militay officers with insider information. But I'm sure none of you would know anything about that. So let's cut to the chase shall we? Get out of Washington for a while. Leave behind the inbred cesspool of supposed intelligence. Get a breath of fresh air and actually talk to real federal employees around the country for a change. You'll be amazed at what they could tell you if you have the courage to listen. Who am I to dare criticize you? Don't worry. I'm just an overpaid, underworked, nobody-of-consequence according to you and the rest of Washington. I'm a voter who happens to be a federal employee and a Vietnam veteran. By Washington math, one and one and one still equals zero. Art Doss Posted August 11, 2003 9:09 AM
• Senator Thomas looks at this issue through rose colored glasses. A quick look at NASA's review of the failure of a safe return of Columbia strongly points to a severe lack of in-house expertise of capabilies to review engineering factors, safety and contractural oversight by the governement. These once governemnt positions have been "de-scoped and outsourced positions" over the past approximate 6 years. Contractors and federal employees most assuredly work towards a bottom line for funding and containing costs in engineering and other areas. What's the difference between the two? Commercial companies make and take profits (and taxpayers' dollars), therefore decisions are at times shaded to the bottomline and not what is soundly reviewed and correct. If a government activity more/most efficiently operates, this "profit" is taken back by "the government" and when the inevitable cuts come they cut into bone where there is no fat left. What to do then? The rush to shed government engineering and program oversight talent should not and cannot be taken lightly. Those that decide what is commercial or inherently government often decide in a vacuum and are driven by number reduction alone or geographical locations. Many businesses/jobs in US engineering and IT continue to be "outsourced" overseas in this "global economy". I don't believe many US workers will move overseas. This pool of talent should be considered a source for national security. With the on-going demise of the professional and US manufacturing industries, just where will this white and blue collar workforce land ? Probably into the ever increasing US service sector (can you say do you want that supersized ?) That success of that sector is predicated on a increasing economy not a stagnant or deflated one. While no one is owed a job.....even incumbent Senators might be outsourced come election time, even though somehow magically the chips are stacked in their favor, such as free TV time, PACs, political junckets, hob-knobing with industry insiders and lunches and dinners with lobyists. I don't believe I've ever met a POOR and OUT OF WORK Senator. Those two terms are mutually exclusive from one another from where I sit. Paul Feeney Posted August 1, 2003 9:23 AM
• I would ask Senator Thomas and the other proponents of outsourcing, and that is what it is, what kind of loyalty would they expect to get? Will there be pride in the work? No! The fastest and cheapest way to meet the terms of the contract is all contractors are interested in. The workers throughout the government are dedicated and talented. The problem is that arbitrary personnel ceilings and the redirection of funds to create budget shortages for agencies causing staffing shortages, under-utilizing talent, detailing workers to various departments, destroying morale, and other efforts designed to hinder the capabilities of the Federal workforce in an attempt to justify contracting is not only inaccurate, it is not an honest presentation of what is going on the government operations. A76 Outsourcing tells those workers it doesn’t matter how well you perform because you don’t matter. Having health insurance for your family and other quality of life issues are not important. What is important is for anti-worker lobby groups to find ways to present outsourcing as a success. The budget for Federal operations is divided up in so many areas that telling selected details of the budget and omitting others is an effective way of portraying savings. Anyone who follows A76 can tell you that there is no complete or accurate cost accounting. Often, savings can’t be identified and projected goals and benchmarks are not achieved; yet contractor lobby groups and supporters continue to boast of savings while ignoring the fact that the expense of the competitions is absolutely enormous. The good news to the taxpayers is that the Federal workers are not discouraged. We will win the completion! Taxpayers are getting one side of the story. If they want another view they should let unions show how successful we can be. Talk to the workers and you will get it right from the people who care. Mike Rosso Posted July 27, 2003 7:51 PM