Provision to lift VA competitive sourcing ban survives

By Amelia Gruber agruber@govexec.com September 16, 2005

An initial attempt at stripping a Senate health care bill of language that would allow the Veterans Affairs Department to resume competitive sourcing studies failed narrowly on Thursday.

During a markup of the 2005 Veterans Health Care Act (S. 1182), the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee by a 7-7 vote rejected a union-backed amendment that would have eliminated the provision from the bill. The vote fell mainly along party lines, with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., providing the only Republican support.

The health care bill will now make its way to the Senate floor. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, chairman of the committee, said in a statement that he hopes to "move forward quickly and get [the legislation] passed by the Senate before the end of this year."

VA could save as much as $1.3 billion over five years by conducting public-private job competitions, Craig stated. The department has been unable to run contests since April 2003, when the VA general counsel found that a 1981 statute bars the Veterans Health Administration from comparing the cost of outsourcing to that of keeping work in-house unless Congress provides funding.

Department officials are pursuing business process reengineering, where managers look for ways to make the current workforce more efficient, as an alternative to competitive sourcing. Such studies cost less than public-private competitions and do not put VA employees out of work, said Marilyn Park, a lobbyist for the American Federation of Government Employees.

The money that VA would spend hiring consultants to help with competitive sourcing studies should be going toward health care and other veterans services, Park said.

"Recent damage caused by Hurricane Katrina to VA facilities, combined with severe budget shortfalls on top of rising health care costs, make it more and more difficult for the VA to provide veterans with access to medical care," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. Murray said she would vote against the entire health care bill if it contained language allowing competitive sourcing to resume at VA.

But in a statement supporting the language, Chris Jahn, president of the Contract Services Association, an industry group, argued that public-private job competitions would save VA money that could then be "used to provide better care for our veterans."

Craig made a similar case. "In this time of tight budgets, we need to harness the phenomenal efficiencies of the free market and get better health care results at the same time," he stated.

Park said she was heartened to see that some of the committee's Republicans voting in favor of the bill still expressed concerns about competitive sourcing costs. AFGE is working to make senators aware of "what [the language] will mean for taxpayers and veterans in terms of both health care and jobs" in case the bill comes up for a vote later this fall, she said.

There is not yet a companion bill in the House.

VIEW ALL COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

  • VA listed 202,301 employees as performing commercial activities in 2004 (see VA web site) - commercial activities that have NEVER been subjected to competition. Per OMB, the average savings rate over the past 20 years of A-76 is $20,000 per FTE studied. This puts the savings well over the $1.3 billion mark noted - annually - more like $4 billion - annually - plus related improvements in facilities access and quality. As best I can tell, it is the posiiton of the AFGE and certain senators, that the VA does not need this money for new equipment, technology or improved services/accesss. What? or is it because the AFGE is more interested in the number of employees and their dues revenues? or is it because of the election support offerred or threatened or is it because the Veterans advocacy groups can only justify themselves by increasing federal budgets? We are not talking about privatization or a BRAC here - so why the resistance to full and open competition for a contract with the VA to provide specified services with direct VA oversight? There must be a good reason and I would like to hear it. Are we really concerned about the cost of conducting the competitions with a likely ROI that high? What company - what hospital in the world would pass up such an opportunity - and that is if the Federal employees win the competitions!!! Nope, something is really wrong here and it should be investigated. But, hey, like the guy said, if the veterans and their families are happy with the way it is - let it be. If the veterans themselves cannot see the potential of competition, then give them more government,leave the federal employees alone and let's all be happy for our veterans. GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2005 12:46 PM
  • Sounds like an excellent back-door method to get rid of jobs that disabled vets could fill. I haven't read of anyone mentioning this. Just another example of ways to fill the pockets of those who will eventually prove to be incapable of doing these functions and the vets will suffer because of it. Charlie Posted September 17, 2005 9:25 PM
VIEW ALL COMMENTS

GovExec Live!
Contemplating Retirement? Will it mean sandy beaches or a new job in the private sector? As the baby boom generation begins to approach retirement age, bringing with them a potentially soaring turnover rate, Life After Government is on the minds of many.

From 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. EST on Wed., Sept. 21, GovExec.com reporter Karen Rutzick, author of a five-part series "Life After Government" running Sept. 19-23, will take your questions and comments regarding when to retire, what to do after retirement, financial concerns and the big picture for federal retirement trends. You can submit your questions early or during the live online discussion.