New "competition corps" would make outsourcing easier, says report
The Office of Management and Budget should create a "competition corps" of managers versed in federal outsourcing rules to help agencies run hundreds of new public-private job competitions, according to a new report.
The notion of a "competition corps" is one of 37 ideas for fixing the public-private job competition process to come from the Reason Public Policy Institute and the Performance Institute, two think thanks that study government management and that jointly produced the report. They also support providing training for employees slated to go through a job competition, adding a competitive sourcing strategy to agencies' strategic plans, and holding the winners of job competitions to strict performance targets.
A "competition corps" would provide an experienced pool of managers that could help agencies manage job competitions called for by the Bush administration. Most civilian agencies have little experience with the job competition process outlined in OMB Circular A-76, a factor that has slowed compliance with the administration's competitive sourcing initiative. OMB has told agencies to compete or outsource 15 percent of their commercial jobs by October 2003, although it has acknowledged that some agencies may fall short of this target.
"A key reason why competitive sourcing initiatives have taken a long time and substantial cost to implement has been the lack of qualified, competent competitive sourcing managers within individual agencies," according to the report, "Designing a Performance-Based Competitive Sourcing Process for the Federal Government."
Some agencies have made procurement executives responsible for complying with the OMB plan, while others, such as the Interior Department, have created a special office to lead their competitive sourcing efforts. Agencies have been quick to tap officials in their organizations who have experience in outsourcing to work on the competitive sourcing initiative. The IRS, for example, picked Bert Concklin, an executive with its multi-billion dollar modernization project who has an extensive background in privatization issues, to lead its competitive sourcing office.
But below the headquarters level, employees with little background in the A-76 process are running many competitions, typically with support from contractors. A "competition corps" would create an experienced group of A-76 experts who could help with this process, the report said.
The report also urged OMB to recognize the difference between activities and avoid creating a "one-size-fits-all" competition process. For example, a competition involving food service jobs should be handled differently than a competition over information technology services, according to the report.
The winners of public-private competitions should also be forced to maintain detailed cost and performance data to make them more accountable to the government. "The losing bidder of a competition should have the right to review the performance and cost achievement of the winner over the life of the contract by examining agency data," the report said.
Accurate cost data is one of the most contentious issues in the job competition process. Contractors say the process fails to capture the overhead costs of the in-house bid, giving in-house employees an advantage. Federal employee unions argue the government often ends up losing money through outsourcing because contractors increase costs after they win A-76 competitions and start performing the work.
COMMENTS
- It is evident that the people writing the report are the people who have no real jobs. They try to come up with ways to look like they have actually done something. As a DOD employee, I for one have been involved in three CA Studies in the last twelve years, three Claimancy Consolidations, and one Regionalization, all of which use some portion of the A-76 process. What I have done is becoming more and more typical for not only managers, but the employees in general. Each time we managers have needed employee participation at some level. While not all employees get deeply involved, a small contingent do. So, I say to the geniuses at the Reason Public Policy Institute and the Performance Institute think tanks: Go get a job. We already have "competition corps" throughout the "Federal World." Louis W. Rogers Posted February 24, 2003 4:46 PM
- I read your article this morning with my breakfast and almost hurled! Pardon my sarcasm: This is just what we need. A bunch of hand-picked, middle management lackeys to run procurement operations to streamline government. NOT! In my opinion, the boys in Washington need to leave agencies alone. Everyone from the top down knows we need to produce as well as the private sector. Unfortunately, the law does not allow government to compete for profit. Ever ask yourself why? Because we are so cheap that we would drive small businesses out of the market. So then you must ask yourself why are we outsourcing when federal employees are already cheaper than the private sector. Makes you think, doesn't it? Well, back to my breakfast. Anonymous Posted February 24, 2003 4:45 PM
