GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: OMB vows to fight efforts to derail competitive sourcing

• 1015
  

  You know, all of this talk of 'principle' from the mouths of political appointees would be amusingly ironic if it weren't such a cynical & blatant attack on the federal workforce. The only principle at issue for these appointees is accomplishing the agenda of an administration that specifically seeks to gut any & all unions and government employees in general of their rights. And why do they seek to do this? Because they owe allegiance to the likes of Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, advocates of outsourcing damn-near everything the Fed does. But, what goes unsaid in this whole debate about outsourcing, is the fact that the Federal govt, in general, and DoD, in particular, hasn't a clue as to how much they spend every year on outsourcing: they also don't know how many contractors are working for them & they sure as heck don't want anyone else finding out the true cost of this shadow workforce. The Army TRIED to do a study on this, sort of a cost/benefit analysis, to get a handle on how much they were spending & on what, and the Bush people shut it down. Look around DoD: everywhere programs are being implemented to benefit contractors, whether it's a 767 lease deal to bail-out Boeing (put in place by Darleen Druyun who, w/in a week of retiring was working for guess who?) or an arbitray percentage of the workforce to declare as eligible for outsourcing.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2003 3:57 PM
• 1001
  

  The idea that private contractors will do a more efficient job than full time career government workers is ludicrous. Private contractors will be beholden to whoever was in office that allowed them to win the bid. I work as an inspector in the FSIS. If FSIS jobs are outsourced the very companies that we inspect will control all the outsourcing for their industry and hence inspections of food products will be a farce.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2003 3:00 AM
• 916
  

  "Principle"! Coming from this administration, this is either amazing arrogance or ignorance at best. The A-76 process is seriously flawed and is a continuation of politicians' harangue concerning the incompetence and expense of the federal civil service. These are the same politicians that developed the system, the legislation that undermines good management of the workforce and use it to escape to when the administration or their tenure ends. These are also the people that gave us the savings and loan debacle, ENRON, WORLDCOM, etc., etc. This isn't about principle, it is about dismantling the federal workforce so that contractors and politicians can control the process of government.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 26, 2003 8:02 AM
• 905
  

  Ms. Styles is a typical bureaucrat. She states she will "fight congressional attempts to block the administration's competitive sourcing initiative. And we're going to fight them hard because this is a matter of principle."

  American citizens have elected congressional representatives to Congress and the Senate. As American citizens and federal employees they have the right to ask their representatives to do what ever is possible to save their jobs. Even if it means a Congressional Bill!

  Most government employees know out sourcing (contracting) does not work! Government contractors continue to receive contracts for government jobs, only to ask and receive additional funds than originally requested. Result, billions of taxpayer dollars are loss to contracts!

  Inherently governmental no longer carries the weight it use to. Now, with the stroke of a pen, jobs which are directly related to national securtiy become commerical in nature and allow them to be bid to any government contractor..

  Ms. Styles when you say it is a matter of principle, think about the 850,000 federal employees (voters) who now have to look over their shoulder wondering if next year their lives and their families lives will be turned upside down by the so called "competive sourcing intiative."

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 25, 2003 1:12 PM
• 896
  

  Statements such as "We're going to have legislative battles on this," and "we're going to fight them hard because this is a matter of principle" just make my blood boil. Matter of principle, what happened to providing the best services to the tax-paying public at the lowest cost? I've worked on both sides, contractor and GS, and I know for a fact that outsourcing does not always, rarely if truth be known, get you a comparable service or product nor does it get you that service or product for less. Having been a COR for several contracts I've seen the cost of outsourcing. The general public is being duped into believing that the Government is spending less of their money since the Government payroll numbers go down. Just isn't so! If someone is required on a Monday to clean the bathrooms in a National Park, someone will be required to do that same job on Tuesday. If that job is outsourced, no their paycheck may not come directly from the US Government. Instead the US Government provides the money for that paycheck by paying an invoice from their employer and then the 'contractor employer' pays them directly. Doesn't take a genius to figure out just the cost of the added overhead for that process. And, we won't even get into a discussion of the differences of private sector salaries vice Government GS ones. Most of us who went from contractor to GS didn't do it for the money as on the average we make far less than our counterparts on the outside. Maybe the folks who clean bathrooms come cheaper, but I'm not even convinced of that. The current 'administration's competitive sourcing initiative' and all that have proceeded it are purely political ploys. No one has yet done the meaningful long-term accounting or study to prove that, beyond reducing the government direct payroll, that there are long term benefits to be gained. AND, so far no one who has suggested outsourcing has a job that is subject to the process.

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 25, 2003 10:10 AM
• 888
  

  This looks to me like once again OMB is failing to look at all aspects of the contracting out - like is it truly costing an agency more money to contract out?? Are office worker type contractors going to fight forest fires like the Civil Servants do? This is truly scary to me that we have such a high level office and it's staff who are marching forward to accomplish a task without doing all of their homework. Maybe OMB is where all of those dead beat Government workers we keep hearing about are located?

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 25, 2003 8:11 AM
• 882
  

  The last time I looked, Congress made and passed laws, and the President approved them. There have been executive orders, which are a different story. If all we are talking about are janitors' jobs, then there wouldn't be such a squabble about competitive sourcing. In some agencies we are talking about jobs that have been exempted (by law) being competed. And I'm not sure that is such a good idea. Now OMB is proclaiming everything commercial, when before there were certain guidelines and standards. Where did all of that structure go? If OMB resists ALL exemptions, then the tax payer is really in trouble. They will be paying not only for the federal government to perform its mission, but for contractors to perform the competition, and for federal employees (who are needed to insure the accuracy and integrity of the competition process)to work many hours of overtime to accomplish this task. In a year or two things in the federal government should become very interesting for all of us. With four years until retirement, I can see myself doubling my wages with overtime. It won't help my retirement, but at least I will have some money in my pocket.

  Commercial Activities Program Manager DA

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 25, 2003 6:00 AM