GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: GOP activist calls on Congress to defend competitive sourcing

• 1053
  

  Mr. Norquist falls painfully short of the facts when he claims "inefficient government monopolies that continue to waste tax dollars while failing to provide even a reasonable level of service". At least in the case of the FAA, and in particular, during the 25 year existence of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, this has been the safest place in the world to fly. And he wants to trade that for the "promise" of cost savings? I think not; and neither do our wise representatives in the Senate, who, in nonpartisan form, voted for the continuation of that safety record over the vagaries of "competitive outsourcing". Some things are more important than the lowest bidder.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 14, 2003 10:41 PM
• 1026
  

  The other comments to this story are 100% correct! How do I know? Quite a few years ago, long before outsourcing was thought up, the soil survey program in my state decided to try contracting the mapping of a county out to the private sector. What resulted was an extremely poor quality yet very costly product. Federally employeed soils scientist had to be sent back into the county to completely remap that county.

  Now, with outsourcing threatening ALL federally-employed soil scientist, who's going to be left to go back in and fix everything when the contractors fail, screw up, or produce an unacceptably poor quality product? Just look at the TSP system. Millions of dollars WASTED on TWO contractors and we STILL don't have a usable system. This is the future folks. One failed contract after another pilfering millions from the taxpayers with nothing to show for it. Knowledge of reports like this makes me wonder about Grover. Either he hasn't done his homework or he has an interest somewhere that will benefit from outsourcing, because the American people sure won't.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 9, 2003 9:02 AM
• 1023
  

  "Opening federal jobs to private sector competition is "as important as passing needed tax relief for the American people," said Norquist". Norquist does not know what he is talking about! Putting government jobs in contractor hands does not reduce the cost significantly but does reduce the benefits to the taxpayer. Leave the jobs with government or get rid of the function altogether! That would be important as passing needed tax relief! Stop A-76 because it is based on a ridiculous assumption that the government and the private sector are the same. If that is true, the government should not be doing the job at all. I also think that we should A-76 office functions and IT to India or China where it is much cheaper and that contractors will do eventually, when they figure out how to do it. The objerction to the buy American part of acquisition that everyone is opposing represents a step in this direction. We probably should outsource the majority of the federal government to China because it is cheaper and we could actually increase services while reducg costs.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 9, 2003 7:45 AM
• 1010
  

  Grover is a right-wing radical that has been putting out this sort of junk for years. He has been telling these lies so long he actually believes them. The only people who want to hear from him are the right-wing radicals in the House and Senate. There are plenty of them so he will get a sympathetic ear. Keep this guy at arms length, and he will go back to his hole until the next knee jerk idea comes to him or his friends in Congress.

  What a jerk.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2003 12:54 PM
• 1003
  

  Mr. Norquist speaks as the typical person that does not know what they are talking about. Even now the contractor that took my job is looking for an increase because they can not do the job we did for the price quoted. Contractors do not save money, they do not perform as well and they do less at higher cost, how do I know? I see it on a daily basis. Ask the troops in Irag that did not get the supplies they needed when they needed them, such as rations, of course that has been hushed up my the administration, just one short clip in the media.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2003 8:10 AM
• 998
  

  Who the heck is Grover and why does he rate a story here? If he really was for smaller government he would be questioning the size of the defense budget and the need to go to Iraq.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 7, 2003 4:33 PM
• 996
  

  For years we have watched civil servant positions convert to contract. In many cases, the contractor promptly escalates their prices a year or 2 into the contract so we are paying more than the government cost but are stuck in a 5 year contract. We have successfully proved in several instances that the contract costs more than the government in-house estimate and have brought functions back in-house. The A76 process should be about not only up-front savings but should also examine the cost of RIF that results from awarding contracts as a result of A76 study process. The more senior (and expensive) employees displace less senior (and less expensive) employees and cause greater cost to the agency and the taxpayer than if the contract had not been awarded!!

  Another big problem with A76 is the cost comparison, which includes adding fringe benefits and overhead costs to the government estimate. Actual fringe benefits in my agency are much lower because of use of part-time employees and of course the overhead piece of the equation is not a cost incurred by the agency. Therefore when the contract is less than the government estimate (inflated by higher fringe benefits and overhead) but more than my true in-house costs, the taxpayer burden is actually higher!!!!

  My agency has slashed costs over the last 3 years to save taxpayer dollars. One benefit has been we are better postured to compete against outsourcing - yet the rules of A76 have stacked the deck against a fair competition!!!

  Thank you for your article, which served as a reminder that I need to write my congressmen!!!

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 7, 2003 8:58 AM
• 992
  

  Mr. Norquist is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately it is not my opinion, nor that of 850,000 federal employees.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 3, 2003 9:38 PM